U.S. drone strikes violate Pakistan's sovereignty: U.N.

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States has violated Pakistan's sovereignty and shatteredtribal structures with unmanned drone strikes in its counterterrorism operations near the Afghan border, a U.N. human rights investigator said in a statement on Friday.

U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, visited Pakistan for three days this week as part of his investigation into the civilian impact of the use of drones and other forms of targeted killings.

"As a matter of international law, the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan is ... being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State," Emmerson said in a statement issued by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

"It involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty," he said.

Emmerson said in January he would investigate 25 drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia,Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. He is expected to present his final report to the U.N. General Assembly in October.

Washington had little to say about Emmerson's statement.

"We've seen his press release. I'm obviously not going to speak about classified information here," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said. "We have a strong ongoing counterterrorism dialogue with Pakistan and that will continue."

Spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House would withhold judgment until it sees Emmerson's full report.

"We have a solid working relationship with them (Pakistan) on a range of issues, including a close cooperative security relationship, and we're in touch with them on a regular basis on those issues."

'END MILITARY INTERFERENCE'

Emmerson said the Pashtun tribes of northwestern Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, Pakistan's largely lawless region bordering Afghanistan, have been decimated by the counterterrorism operations.

"These proud and independent people have been self-governing for generations, and have a rich tribal history that has been too little understood in the West," he said. "Their tribal structures have been broken down by the military campaign in FATA and by the use of drones in particular."

The tribal areas have never been fully integrated into Pakistan's administrative, economic or judicial system. They are dominated by ethnic Pashtun tribes, some of which have sheltered and supported militants over decades of conflict in neighboring Afghanistan.

Clearing out militant border sanctuaries is seen by Washington as crucial to bringing stability to Afghanistan, particularly as the U.S.-led combat mission ends in 2014.

Most, but not all, attacks with unmanned aerial vehicles have been by the United States. Britain and Israel have also used them, and dozens of other countries are believed to possess the technology.

"It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states," Emmerson said.

The U.N. Human Rights Council asked Emmerson to start an investigation of the drone attacks following requests by countries including Pakistan, Russia and China.

Criticism of drone strikes centers on the number of civilians killed and the fact that they are launched across sovereign states' borders so frequently, far more than conventional attacks by piloted aircraft.

Retired U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, who devised the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy inAfghanistan, warned in January against overusing drones, which have provoked angry demonstrations in Pakistan.

Civilian casualties from drone strikes have angered local populations and created tension between the United States and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Washington has sought to portray civilian casualties as minimal, but groups collecting data on these attacks say they have killed hundreds of civilians.

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria and Roberta Rampton in Washington; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

US clergy victims make demands of new pope

Plaintiff Michael Duran, left, who received nearly $1 million in a sex abuse settlement with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, speaks during a news conference on Thursday, March 14, 2013 in Los Angeles. Duran was molested by ex-priest Michael Baker, who is now in jail after pleading guilty to a dozen sex charges. The U.S. church's challenges include recovering from the clergy sexual abuse scandal, which has resulted in the bankruptcies of prominent archdioceses and cost the Church in America an estimated $3 billion in legal settlements. Duran's wife, Margarita, center, and his attorney John Manly look on. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Michael Duran, a plaintiff in a sex abuse settlement with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, holds up pictures of himself when he was a child during a news conference to announce details of a nearly $10 million settlement of their lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles Thursday, March 14, 2013. Duran was molested by ex-priest Michael Baker, who is now in jail after pleading guilty pleaded to a dozen sex charges. The U.S. church's challenges include recovering from the clergy sexual abuse scandal, which has resulted in the bankruptcies of prominent archdioceses and cost the Church in America an estimated $3 billion in legal settlements. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Most Roman Catholics are rejoicing at the election of Pope Francis, but alleged victims of clergy abuse in the U.S. are demanding swift and bold actions from the new Jesuit pontiff: Defrock all molester priests and the cardinals who covered up for them, formally apologize, and release all confidential church files.

Adding to their distrust are several multimillion dollar settlements the Jesuits paid out in recent years, including $166 million to more than 450 Native Alaskan and Native American abuse victims in 2011 for molestation at Jesuit-run schools across the Pacific Northwest. The settlement bankrupted the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus. The order also paid $14 million to settle nine California cases.

"I would like to see this pope stand up and say to those cardinals, 'You need to square this away and change everything that was covered up,' " said Ken Smolka, a 70-year-old retired actor who claimed in a lawsuit he was abused as a teen by a Jesuit priest. "You need to get them on their knees, and let them spend the rest of their lives on their knees praying for the victims."

Pope Francis, who has already set the tone for a new era of humility and compassion, is likely to be sensitive to the plight of clergy abuse victims and aware of the need to work with the worldwide church to prevent more abuse, said Christopher Ruddy, an associate professor at Catholic University of America. Meting out punishment to individual cardinals, however, is much less likely, Ruddy said.

"My sense is that if a bishop really wanted to dig in his heels, it would be very difficult to get him to resign. We have this idea that the pope says something, and everybody just leaps. It doesn't really work that way," Ruddy said. "The bishops themselves have certain rights under church law and they have authority, so that's a hard thing to talk about."

The new pontiff, who comes from Latin America where the clergy abuse scandal has been more muted, will likely lean on the American cardinals for advice when it comes to handling the crisis — particularly Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, who was instrumental in setting up a meeting between alleged victims and Pope Benedict XVI in 2008.

O'Malley himself voiced confidence in Pope Francis' willingness to address the clergy abuse crisis at a news conference in Rome.

"This is a man who has a great sense of mission, and he values transparency," O'Malley said Thursday. "He will further the process of healing."

Alleged victims said that while that is their hope, they will nonetheless scrutinize the new pontiff and his actions.

Elsie Boudreau, a Yup'ik Eskimo, was abused for nine years by a Jesuit priest in a tiny village in northern Alaska.

She settled her case in 2005 and now works as a social worker helping 300 other sex abuse victims in Alaska. She has since learned that Vatican officials had been aware of her alleged abuser since before she was born, she said.

"If Pope Francis were to defrock him and all the other perpetrator priests and all those who covered up the crimes and send a clear message to everybody else in the church I would be like, 'Hmm, OK, there could be a change,'" said Boudreau, 45, who now lives in Anchorage. "But I don't believe that will ever happen. There's no track record."

Other alleged victims called on Pope Francis to order the release of all confidential records on pedophile priests to cleanse the church and make amends.

Some of those files have been made public through litigation and released under court order, including in Los Angeles where a judge ordered more than 10,000 pages of priest personnel files be made public in January after a five-year legal battle over privacy rights.

In many other dioceses, however, alleged victims still don't know everything the church knew about their abusers.

"The pope has an opportunity to bring about true justice, change, and transformation in a church torn from scandal and the rape of children," said Billy Kirchen, who is one of 550 plaintiffs fighting to see files from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. "Real change has to come from the pope."

Other abuse victims said they were disgusted that cardinals who covered up abuse helped elect the next pope.

Michael Duran, a 40-year-old special education teacher from Los Angeles, said Pope Francis' elevation is tainted because of their presence. Duran and three others settled with the Los Angeles archdiocese earlier this week for nearly $10 million over childhood abuse by the Rev. Michael Baker.

Recently released confidential files show Baker met privately with Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony in 1986 and confessed to molesting children, but he was put back in the ministry for 14 years, where he abused again. Authorities believe Baker, who was convicted in 2007 and paroled in 2011, may have molested more than 20 children in his 26-year career.

If Pope Francis did take action against any U.S. cardinals, it would be a departure from the way his predecessors addressed the clergy abuse crisis.

In 2001, Pope John Paul II issued a decree saying all clergy abuse cases needed to be funneled through the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith — then headed by the future Pope Benedict XVI.

In 2002, in his strongest comments about the unfolding scandal, Pope John Paul II denounced U.S. bishops for the American clergy abuse crisis after summoning them to Rome for a special meeting. He said there was "no place in the priesthood ... for those who would harm the young."

In 2003 and 2004, he approved changes to canon law to allow the Vatican to quickly defrock abusive priests without cumbersome internal trials.

Given the progressive decline in his health, however, it is widely presumed that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — the future Pope Benedict XVI — was the architect of those measures in his role as head of the Vatican department that handled petitions to defrock abusive clergy.

Earlier this year, the Vatican's new sex crimes prosecutor, quoting Benedict, said the church must recognize the "grave errors in judgment that were often committed by the church's leadership." He added that bishops must report abusive priests to police where the law requires it. The comments came days after the release of the Los Angeles confidential files.

Now, with a new pope, victims in the U.S. hope more change is coming.

"If it's not this pope who will do it, maybe it will be another one," said Molly Harding, of Spokane, Wash., who waited 40 years to come forward about her abuse at a San Gabriel, Calif., school.

______

Associated Press writers contributing to this report include Nicole Winfield in Rome; Mike Warren in Buenos Aires; Donna Blankinship in Seattle; Matt Volz in Helena, Mont.; Jay Lindsay in Boston; Dinesh Ramde in Milwaukee, Wis.; and AP photographer Damian Dovarganes in Los Angeles.

The UN document on women that has terrified Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has teamed up with Iran, Russia, and the Vatican to oppose a UN draft proposal on reducing violence against women on moral grounds.

Yesterday Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement warning of apocalyptic consequences if a proposed document addressingviolence against women is adopted by the UN.

While the core of the group's objections derives from their interpretation of Islamic law, their complaints revealed what many in Egypt feel is a regressive long-term plan for women in Egyptian society. The Brothers, who propelled President Mohamed Morsi to power, warned that the UN is seeking to place the right to decide when to work or where to travel in the hands of women, rather than their husbands; that a married man who rapes his wife would face the same legal risks as if a stranger had raped the woman; or that a woman who had a son out of wedlock could make the same demands on the father as if she were married to him.

While no UN document would have any effect whatsoever on Egyptian society unless Egypt agreed with it, I was curious as to why the Muslim Brotherhood was so riled up. A proposal to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, part of the UN Women organization created in 2010, was presented in early March and has been the subject of negotiation since (so the draft I've found, grandly titled, "The elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls," may be substantially different now).

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about Egypt? Take this quiz.

It contains a lot of vague, aspirational language. For instance, the proposal calls on UN member states to "promote and protect the human rights of all women and girls, including their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality free of coercion, discrimination and violence, their right to the highest standard of health, including sexual and reproductive health, and their reproductive rights." And it also wants governments to "accelerate efforts to eliminate discrimination against women and girls and ensure women’s equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the right to education, health, social security, land, property, inheritance, employment, participation and decision-making in all spheres of life."

Founded in 2010 by a vote of the General Assembly, UN Women's task is to promote "gender equality and the empowerment of women." The first is something the Brotherhood is openly hostile too -- they reject the notion that men and women should be strictly equal. And they don't seem so hot on the "empowerment of women" since they have strongly patriarchal views that require wives to be subservient to husbands.

A lot of the UN ideas do directly conflict with the Muslim Brothers' religious views. Calling for women to have "equal enjoyment" of rights regarding property and inheritance, for instance, conflicts with the Brothers' interpretation of Islamic law, which requires women to inherit less than men. And the Brothers strongly believe that women should not be free to make decisions without interference from their adult male relatives or husbands.To be fair, the drafters of the UN document are trying to universalize their own cultural beliefs, what the Brothers termed an attempted "intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries."

But s the UN going to have any impact on the Brothers plans for Egyptian society (or an effect on places where the rights of women are far more restricted, like Saudi Arabia)? No. But the strength of the Brothers' reaction is a reminder that just because a country has free elections, or is trying to build a more democratic system, its leaders won't necessarily be interested in liberal values more broadly understood.

This is a latest salvo in a long-running culture war, one that Egypt's new leaders seem eager to enter. And they have friends. According to Reuters, Egypt has been joined by Russia, Iran and the Vaticanin making strenuous objections to the proposal, finding common cause against the draft's call for better treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and access to abortion.

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about Egypt? Take this quiz.

Netanyahu faces rocky future in new coalition

JERUSALEM (AP) — Forced to rely on the support of two fast-rising rivals in his new governing coalition, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now faces a reshaped and rocky landscape that could spell trouble ahead: An unwanted culture war with the country's ultra-Orthodox minority as well as pressure to make peace overtures to the Palestinians.

After weeks of difficult negotiations, Netanyahu, who barely hung onto his job, was forced to cede significant power to his new partners, liberal former TV anchorman Yair Lapid and his unlikely ally, pro-settlement hard-liner Naftali Bennett.

Both men make no secret that they want to be prime minister one day, and each can bring down the government at will.

This new constellation is expected to force the cautious Netanyahu, who presided over a broad and stable coalition during his previous four-year term, to confront some of the nation's most contentious issues.

Both Lapid and Bennett have vowed to end years of preferential treatment for the country's small but politically powerful ultra-Orthodox minority. Lapid and the junior partner in the coalition, formerForeign Minister Tzipi Livni, will also put heavy pressure on Netanyahu to take a softer line toward the Palestinians. With President Barack Obama visiting next week, Netanyahu could be forced sooner than later to make difficult decisions about the Palestinians.

"The next term will be one of the most challenging in the history of the state," Netanyahu said Thursday. "We are facing great security and diplomatic challenges."

The ultra-Orthodox minority makes up roughly 8 percent of the country's 8 million people. Because of Israel's coalition system, their political parties have traditionally wielded power far beyond their numbers by guaranteeing a string of prime ministers a parliamentary majority.

Ultra-Orthodox political parties have used their kingmaker status to secure vast budgets for their religious schools and seminaries and to win automatic exemptions from compulsory military service for tens of thousands of young men to pursue religious studies. Older men collect welfare stipends while continuing to study full time.

The system has led to high rates of unemployment in the ultra-Orthodox community, and has bred widespread resentment among the general public. Attempts by ultra-Orthodox activists to impose their customs on broader society, such as pushing for gender-segregated buses, have further angered the public.

Both Lapid and Bennett tapped into this resentment to make great gains in the Jan. 22 election, promising to bring a "sharing of the burden" of military service and paying taxes. Lapid's Yesh Atid Party, running in its first election, emerged as the second-largest faction in parliament, with 19 of 120 seats. Bennett's rejuvenated Jewish Home captured 12 seats.

Netanyahu's Likud-Yisrael Beitenu bloc won 31 seats. Although it's the largest single faction, it is well below its 42-seat level in the previous parliament and far short of the 61 seats needed for a majority. With Lapid, Bennett and Livni's dovish "Movement" on board, Netanyahu controls a 68-seat majority.

Tough negotiations lasted nearly six weeks before it was finalized Friday, just a day ahead of a deadline that could have triggered new elections.

"Indeed, the new government is not what its leader had hoped for. He did everything he could to flee it, as if from a place plagued by boils, locusts, lice and pestilence. These were not the partners he had hoped for: He did his utmost to keep them out of the coalition, and they taught him a thing or two," wrote Yossi Verter in the liberal Haaretz daily.

"He is the Old Guard, they are the new. He, poor guy, will soon be history," he wrote.

In a sign of how tense the talks were, the negotiating teams decided not to hold a formal ceremony to sign the agreements, Yuval Karni reported in the more mainstream Yediot Ahronot paper. It was decided that the agreements would be signed by fax, so that the representatives of the parties would not even see each other at a signing ceremony.

The weeks of negotiations illustrated Netanyahu's limited room for maneuvering, and the significant leverage his partners will wield.

Forming a joint front, Lapid and Bennett forced the prime minister to keep the ultra-Orthodox parties, his traditional ally, out of the coalition. It is only the second time in the past 35 years that they have been in the opposition.

Lapid, a critic of excessive government spending, also forced Netanyahu to scale back the size of the Cabinet. The move had the added effect of infuriating members of Netanyahu's Likud Party by reducing the number of available Cabinet posts.

In a statement Thursday, Yesh Atid said its first order of business would be to submit a bill on reforming the draft system. It also said it would require all schools to teach a "core curriculum" that includes math, science and English. Ultra-Orthodox schools have frequently neglected these areas. The statement also promised "extensive economic steps" to integrate the ultra-Orthodox into the work force.

Lapid's party will control the finance and education ministries, giving him significant influence over budget and school policies. But taking away benefits from the ultra-Orthodox will not be easy. Netanyahu will be reluctant to take on his traditional allies, knowing he could rely on them again in the future.

The ultra-Orthodox, who have been able to mobilize tens of thousands of people into the streets, are already promising to put up a fight. "Our first mission is to topple this government," Arieh Deri, leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, told Israel's Army Radio station.

Dealing with the Palestinian issue will be no easier. Netanyahu's own Likud Party is dominated by hard-liners who oppose significant concessions to the Palestinians, while Bennett, a former head of the West Bank settler movement, takes an even tougher line, calling on Israel to annex large chunks of West Bank territory that would have to be part of any future Palestinian state. He is sure to use his control over the Housing Ministry to try to build more settlement homes.

On the other hand, Lapid announced Thursday that the new coalition agreement promised a commitment to returning to the negotiating table with the Palestinians. Livni, who is to be Netanyahu's chief negotiator, ran for office on a platform devoted to reaching peace.

Netanyahu will be hard-pressed to balance these conflicting forces, yet there are some reasons for optimism.

After presiding over four years of deadlock and international isolation over the issue, Netanyahu has signaled he is eager to restart negotiations under his new government.

The Palestinians demand all of the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip — areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — for a future state. They have demanded a freeze in settlement construction and a commitment to make Israel's 1967 lines the basis for a future border.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the Palestinians would have "no problem" talking to Lapid or Livni.

"But if we want to negotiate with the Israelis, the government should accept the two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and implement its obligations like the settlement freeze" he said.

The arrival of Obama next Wednesday could raise pressure on Netanyahu to float some new ideas for restarting talks. Though Obama is not bringing any bold peace plan, he will be meeting separately with both sides in order to lay the groundwork for future talks.