Put it down to him being a one-note man, too old, past-it or convinced of his own rhetoric, but during his current electioneering PM Howard almost daily repeats the mantra of the financial health of Australians. Everyone is better off, etc. etc. and has been during his tenure in office.
Hold it! No less than 10% of the population isn't all that fortunate at all - as this op-ed piece "Our forgotten poor" in The Age written by Cath Smith, chief executive officer of the Victorian Council of Social Service. Anne Turley is chief executive officer of Melbourne Citymission, clearly points out and highlights:
"It's said that a "rising tide lifts all boats" — that the best policy to reduce poverty is to promote economic growth. If that's the case, where have we gone wrong?
Australia has recorded 15 years of almost unbroken economic growth. In fact, from 2001 to 2006, growth averaged 3 per cent a year — well above the average rate of economic growth in the OECD. Yet new figures released recently by the Australian Council of Social Service reveal that a staggering 11 per cent of Australians live below the poverty line set by the OECD. This equates to about 2.2 million Australians (including 412,000 children).
Disturbingly, the data shows that over time the divide between the "haves" and "have nots" has become a gulf. In 2003-04, there were 9.8 per cent of Australians living below the poverty line. Ironically, for a country that prides itself on a "fair go", our nation is becoming more unequal as each year passes.
Sadly, this latest data comes as no surprise to the Victorian Council of Social Service, Melbourne Citymission or other community service organisations across the country. Research published this year as part of the Australia Fair campaign found one in 10 Australians struggle to make ends meet.
Across Australia, demand for housing services has become particularly acute. While much of the debate in this election has been about access to greenfield sites on the fringes of Australia's capital cities, simply releasing more land won't address the critical issue of homelessness — the rate of which has almost doubled across Australia over the past 20 years.
Nor will releasing more land increase the availability of beds in refuges and transitional housing.
In one recent two-week period, Melbourne Citymission had 360 young people seeking crisis accommodation, many of whom were escaping family violence or sexual abuse. Only 30 beds were available across Victoria. This is not unique to Victoria. Every day, community agencies across each state and territory come up against similar shortages."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Israel taught US "torture techniques"
"Should the United States, seeking to recalibrate the balance between security and liberty in the "war on terror," emulate Israel in its treatment of Palestinian detainees?"
It's a pertinent question given Gitmo and the discussion underway in America about the facility and the so-called military tribunals there.
The questioner is Lisa Hajjar, associate professor and chair of the Law and Society Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of "Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza" (University of California Press, 2005), writing in CounterPunch.
"Long before the first suicide bombing by Palestinians in 1994, Israel had resorted to extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, deportations, curfews and other forms of collective punishment barred by international law.
Imprisonment has been one of the key strategies of Israeli control of the Palestinian population, and since 1967 more than half a million Palestinians were prosecuted through military courts that fall far short of international standards of due process.
Most convictions are based on coerced confessions, and for decades Israeli interrogation tactics have entailed the use of torture and ill-treatment. Tens of thousands more Palestinians were never prosecuted, but were instead held in administrative detention for months or years.
Israel had the ignominious distinction of being the first state to publicly and officially "legalize" torture. Adopting the recommendation of an Israeli commission of inquiry, in 1987 the government endorsed the euphemistically termed "moderate physical pressure," and tens of thousands of Palestinians suffered the consequences."
In 1999 the Israeli High Court prohibited the routine use of "moderate physical pressure." But the ruling left open a window for torture under "exceptional circumstances."
It's a pertinent question given Gitmo and the discussion underway in America about the facility and the so-called military tribunals there.
The questioner is Lisa Hajjar, associate professor and chair of the Law and Society Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of "Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank and Gaza" (University of California Press, 2005), writing in CounterPunch.
"Long before the first suicide bombing by Palestinians in 1994, Israel had resorted to extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, deportations, curfews and other forms of collective punishment barred by international law.
Imprisonment has been one of the key strategies of Israeli control of the Palestinian population, and since 1967 more than half a million Palestinians were prosecuted through military courts that fall far short of international standards of due process.
Most convictions are based on coerced confessions, and for decades Israeli interrogation tactics have entailed the use of torture and ill-treatment. Tens of thousands more Palestinians were never prosecuted, but were instead held in administrative detention for months or years.
Israel had the ignominious distinction of being the first state to publicly and officially "legalize" torture. Adopting the recommendation of an Israeli commission of inquiry, in 1987 the government endorsed the euphemistically termed "moderate physical pressure," and tens of thousands of Palestinians suffered the consequences."
In 1999 the Israeli High Court prohibited the routine use of "moderate physical pressure." But the ruling left open a window for torture under "exceptional circumstances."
Fisk: The Saudis lecture us on terrorism?
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, makes more than some valid points about the visit of the Saudi's King Abdullah to Great Britain:
"In what world do these people live? True, there'll be no public executions outside Buckingham Palace when His Royal Highness rides in stately formation down The Mall. We gave up capital punishment about half a century ago. There won't even be a backhander – or will there? – which is the Saudi way of doing business. But for King Abdullah to tell the world, as he did in a BBC interview yesterday, that Britain is not doing enough to counter "terrorism", and that most countries are not taking it as seriously as his country is, is really pushing it. Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?
The sheer implausibility of the claim that Saudi intelligence could have prevented the ondon bombings if only the British Government had taken it seriously, seems to have passed the Saudi monarch by. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he told the BBC. This claim is frankly incredible.
The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy. Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive? Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, was telling us again yesterday that we should work more closely with the Saudis, because we "share values" with them. And what values precisely would they be, I might ask?"
"In what world do these people live? True, there'll be no public executions outside Buckingham Palace when His Royal Highness rides in stately formation down The Mall. We gave up capital punishment about half a century ago. There won't even be a backhander – or will there? – which is the Saudi way of doing business. But for King Abdullah to tell the world, as he did in a BBC interview yesterday, that Britain is not doing enough to counter "terrorism", and that most countries are not taking it as seriously as his country is, is really pushing it. Weren't most of the 11 September 2001 hijackers from – er – Saudi Arabia? Is this the land that is really going to teach us lessons?
The sheer implausibility of the claim that Saudi intelligence could have prevented the ondon bombings if only the British Government had taken it seriously, seems to have passed the Saudi monarch by. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain but unfortunately no action was taken. And it may have been able to maybe avert the tragedy," he told the BBC. This claim is frankly incredible.
The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy. Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive? Kim Howells, the Foreign Office minister, was telling us again yesterday that we should work more closely with the Saudis, because we "share values" with them. And what values precisely would they be, I might ask?"
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Yes, it's apartheid in Israel, says Tutu
It will be recalled that former president Jimmy Carter was heavily criticised for equating some of Israel's actions being akin to the apartheid policies in South Africa.
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has once again weighed into the debate, as reported on CommonDreams:
"South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu compared conditions in Palestine to those of South Africa under apartheid, and called on Israelis to try and change them, while speaking in Boston Saturday at historic Old South Church.”We hope the occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel will end,” Tutu said.
“There is a cry of anguish from the depth of my heart, to my spiritual relatives. Please, please hear the call, the noble call of our scripture,” Tutu said of Israelis.
“Don’t be found fighting against this god, your god, our god, who hears the cry of the oppressed,” Tutu said.
Tutu spoke with political activist and lecturer Noam Chomsky and others to a largely religious audience about “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel,” a conference sponsored by Friends of Sabeel North America, a Christian Palestinian group.
Israeli policy toward Palestine is an inflammatory topic in the U.S. and is not commonly discussed in large, public forums."
And:
"Tutu drew parallels between the apartheid of South Africa and occupied Palestine of today, including demolitions of Palestinian homes by the Israeli government and the inability of Palestinians to travel freely within and out of Palestine.
“I experienced a déjà vu when I encountered a security checkpoint that Palestinians must negotiate every day and be demeaned, all their lives,” Tutu said.
Tutu said that Palestinian homes are being bulldozed, and new, illegal homes for Israeli’s built in their place.
“When I hear, ‘that used to be my home,’ it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights,” Tutu said."
Nobel Peace Prize winner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has once again weighed into the debate, as reported on CommonDreams:
"South African Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu compared conditions in Palestine to those of South Africa under apartheid, and called on Israelis to try and change them, while speaking in Boston Saturday at historic Old South Church.”We hope the occupation of the Palestinian territory by Israel will end,” Tutu said.
“There is a cry of anguish from the depth of my heart, to my spiritual relatives. Please, please hear the call, the noble call of our scripture,” Tutu said of Israelis.
“Don’t be found fighting against this god, your god, our god, who hears the cry of the oppressed,” Tutu said.
Tutu spoke with political activist and lecturer Noam Chomsky and others to a largely religious audience about “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel,” a conference sponsored by Friends of Sabeel North America, a Christian Palestinian group.
Israeli policy toward Palestine is an inflammatory topic in the U.S. and is not commonly discussed in large, public forums."
And:
"Tutu drew parallels between the apartheid of South Africa and occupied Palestine of today, including demolitions of Palestinian homes by the Israeli government and the inability of Palestinians to travel freely within and out of Palestine.
“I experienced a déjà vu when I encountered a security checkpoint that Palestinians must negotiate every day and be demeaned, all their lives,” Tutu said.
Tutu said that Palestinian homes are being bulldozed, and new, illegal homes for Israeli’s built in their place.
“When I hear, ‘that used to be my home,’ it is painfully similar to the treatment in South Africa when coloureds had no rights,” Tutu said."
Monday, October 29, 2007
Guantanamo Military Lawyer Breaks Ranks to Condemn "Unconscionable" Detention
truthout.com republishes a piece from The Independent on what must be seen as another nail in the coffin in the integrity and lawfulness of Guantanamo Bay. Where this will all go is an "interesting" question, especially as the imprisonment of David Hicks comes to an end at the end of the year. This is a story with a lot still in it:
"An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack - and another Supreme Court ruling against it - that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.
"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."
"An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack - and another Supreme Court ruling against it - that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels.
"It's a kangaroo court system and completely corrupt," said Michael Ratner, the president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which is co-ordinating investigations and appeals lawsuits against the government by some 1,000 lawyers. "Stalin had show trials, but at Guantanamo they are not even show trials because it all takes place in secret."
Straitjacket Bush
It is hard to believe that a mainstream newspaper such as the LA Times has an op-ed piece by Rosa Brooks "Straitjacket Bush". It says something about a feeling abroad in America.
"Forget impeachment.
Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.
Because they've clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it's a great time to start another war.
That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions." On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat."
Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action."
"Forget impeachment.
Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.
Because they've clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it's a great time to start another war.
That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions." On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the emerging Iranian threat."
Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe (for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action."
And this is a friend to be feted?
In his Labour Party conference speech last month, the Prime Minister declared that he would oppose dictatorship everywhere: "The message should go out to anyone facing persecution from Burma to Zimbabwe ... human rights are universal." He has refused to even attend the same summit as the Zimbabwean dictator, Robert Mugabe, on the grounds that "there is no freedom in Zimbabwe, and there is widespread torture and mass intimidation of the political opposition."
Simple! The British PM won't mix it with dictators. Right? No! As The Independent reports "A royal guest to be proud of?":
"This week, Gordon Brown and David Cameron will welcome the leader of one of the world's most vicious dictatorships to Britain. Both men will embrace King Abdullah al-Saud, who heads a regime in which, according to Amnesty International, "Fear and secrecy permeate every aspect of life. Every day the most fundamental human rights of people in Saudi Arabia are being violated."
And:
"Yet both political leaders [PM Brown & Opposition Leader Cameron] refuse to make a commitment to even mention human rights to the king. Instead, he will ride in a golden carriage with the Queen, and be guest of honour at a Buckingham Palace banquet. It is the start of a three-day state visit, funded by the British taxpayer. The decision to lavish large sums and the rare prestige of a state visit on King Abdullah has attracted severe criticism in Westminster. The Liberal Democrats' acting leader, Vincent Cable, has refused to attend the banquet. The Labour MP John McDonnell said: "We are feting this man because Saudi Arabia controls 25 per cent of the world's oil, and because we sell him billions of pounds' worth of weapons. It is an insult to everything Britain stands for to put these geopolitical concerns ahead of the rights of women, trade unionists and all Saudi people."
Simple! The British PM won't mix it with dictators. Right? No! As The Independent reports "A royal guest to be proud of?":
"This week, Gordon Brown and David Cameron will welcome the leader of one of the world's most vicious dictatorships to Britain. Both men will embrace King Abdullah al-Saud, who heads a regime in which, according to Amnesty International, "Fear and secrecy permeate every aspect of life. Every day the most fundamental human rights of people in Saudi Arabia are being violated."
And:
"Yet both political leaders [PM Brown & Opposition Leader Cameron] refuse to make a commitment to even mention human rights to the king. Instead, he will ride in a golden carriage with the Queen, and be guest of honour at a Buckingham Palace banquet. It is the start of a three-day state visit, funded by the British taxpayer. The decision to lavish large sums and the rare prestige of a state visit on King Abdullah has attracted severe criticism in Westminster. The Liberal Democrats' acting leader, Vincent Cable, has refused to attend the banquet. The Labour MP John McDonnell said: "We are feting this man because Saudi Arabia controls 25 per cent of the world's oil, and because we sell him billions of pounds' worth of weapons. It is an insult to everything Britain stands for to put these geopolitical concerns ahead of the rights of women, trade unionists and all Saudi people."
Tony Blair: "Yes" Man personified
It will come as no surprise to many to learn that Tony Blair, former British PM - more show-pony and media-tart - did absolutely nothing to stand up to George Bush in relation to the then looming invasion of Iraq.
How do we know? From no lesser authority than his political biographer quoting former US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British insiders. The Independent reports:
"Tony Blair failed to stand up to George Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the former US secretary of state Colin Powell has claimed.
The damaging disclosure by an influential participant in the build-up to the war will undermine claims by Mr Blair's allies that he acted as a restraining influence on the president.
The observation is made in Blair Unbound, a new book about the former prime minister by the political biographer Anthony Seldon. Mr Powell recalled how he and Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, attempted to find ways of restraining the two leaders."
And:
"In extracts from the book in The Mail on Sunday, Dr Seldon also disclosed that two of Mr Blair's most senior Downing Street advisers, Sir David Manning and Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.
According to the book, Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush in 2002 to spell out his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.
But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and in effect told the president: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington was horrified, asking Sir David: "Why in God's name has he said that again?
"'Well, we tried to stop him ... but we didn't prevail', came the weary response."
How do we know? From no lesser authority than his political biographer quoting former US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British insiders. The Independent reports:
"Tony Blair failed to stand up to George Bush over the invasion of Iraq, the former US secretary of state Colin Powell has claimed.
The damaging disclosure by an influential participant in the build-up to the war will undermine claims by Mr Blair's allies that he acted as a restraining influence on the president.
The observation is made in Blair Unbound, a new book about the former prime minister by the political biographer Anthony Seldon. Mr Powell recalled how he and Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, attempted to find ways of restraining the two leaders."
And:
"In extracts from the book in The Mail on Sunday, Dr Seldon also disclosed that two of Mr Blair's most senior Downing Street advisers, Sir David Manning and Baroness Sally Morgan, argued against the war.
According to the book, Mr Blair resolved to write to Mr Bush in 2002 to spell out his fears that the momentum for war was growing too fast in America.
But he "faltered and pulled his punches" and in effect told the president: "You know, George, whatever you decide to do, I'll be with you."
Sir Christopher Meyer, Britain's former ambassador to Washington was horrified, asking Sir David: "Why in God's name has he said that again?
"'Well, we tried to stop him ... but we didn't prevail', came the weary response."
Iran: An Informed and Timely Warning
Australia's ABC News reports on the facts - aside from misplaced rhetoric emanating, especially, from the White House - on Iran's nuclear capacity and the caution which ought to be exhibited before thinking of attacking the country.
"UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed El Baradei said he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.
"We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told CNN.
"Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons... they are at least a few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.
"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."
And no less importantly
"Mr El Baradei also accused Israeli of taking "the law into their own hands" with a mysterious raid on Syria last month, and demanded more information about what was hit.
Neither Israel nor the United States has furnished "any evidence at all" to prove that the Syrian site bombed in early September was a secret nuclear facility, he said.
"That to me is very distressful because we have a system: if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.
"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."
Let it not be said that we haven't been warned!
"UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed El Baradei said he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.
"We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told CNN.
"Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons... they are at least a few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.
"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire."
And no less importantly
"Mr El Baradei also accused Israeli of taking "the law into their own hands" with a mysterious raid on Syria last month, and demanded more information about what was hit.
Neither Israel nor the United States has furnished "any evidence at all" to prove that the Syrian site bombed in early September was a secret nuclear facility, he said.
"That to me is very distressful because we have a system: if countries have information that the country is working on a nuclear-related program, they should come to us. We have the authority to go out and investigate," he said.
"But to bomb first and then ask questions later, I think it undermines the system and it doesn't lead to any solution to any suspicion, because we are the eyes and ears of the international community."
Let it not be said that we haven't been warned!
How to cut down those Arab births in Israel!!!
From afar it is interesting to observe the pre-election posturing of the candidates and wanna-be's vying for the office of US President next year. One of those candidates is Rudy Guiliani who captured so much publicity and prominence as mayor of New York when 9/11 happened.
Guiliani's views, mostly far right, have attracted attention of late. More troubling still are the coterie of advisors he has around him - and the views they espouse.
Mother Jones reports on one of those Guiliani advisors and some of his more than startling views on how to curb births of Arabs in Israel:
"Lately Philip Weiss, proprietor of the blog Mondoweiss, has been reading up on the work of Peter Berkowitz, a George Mason law professor who moonlights as Rudy Giuliani's "Senior Statecraft, Human Rights and Freedom Advisor" (pretty good gig, if you can get it). Today Weiss dug up a 2004 Weekly Standard article in which Berkowitz offers an analysis of Israeli demographic policies hinging on one overwhelming concern: How do we get Arabs in Israel to stop breeding so damn much? Berkowitz begins by acknowledging that the very term "demographic problem...conjures up illiberal images of a government classifying people by ethnicity, race, or religion." OK, duly noted. And then, natch, Berkowitz goes on to make some chillingly illiberal policy prescriptions. Weiss sums up:
"[Berkowitz] said that Arab birth rates are a "threat" to Israel's "political sovereignty and territorial integrity" and came out for a policy aimed at curbing subsidies to large families, thereby limiting Arab birth rates in the Jewish state. It's hard not to describe this attitude as racist. Does Rudy Giuliani endorse such family-planning policies?"
Yup, that would be yet another question for an enterprising campaign reporter to ask Giuliani on the trail. I nominate someone from the New York Times, which, as far as I can tell, has completely ignored the Giuliani advisers story. For now, see this American Prospect rundown and this Talking Points Memo video on the subject."
Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph in the UK reports on the advice to Guiliani from a leading Republican neo-conservative advisor:
"A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful."
Guiliani's views, mostly far right, have attracted attention of late. More troubling still are the coterie of advisors he has around him - and the views they espouse.
Mother Jones reports on one of those Guiliani advisors and some of his more than startling views on how to curb births of Arabs in Israel:
"Lately Philip Weiss, proprietor of the blog Mondoweiss, has been reading up on the work of Peter Berkowitz, a George Mason law professor who moonlights as Rudy Giuliani's "Senior Statecraft, Human Rights and Freedom Advisor" (pretty good gig, if you can get it). Today Weiss dug up a 2004 Weekly Standard article in which Berkowitz offers an analysis of Israeli demographic policies hinging on one overwhelming concern: How do we get Arabs in Israel to stop breeding so damn much? Berkowitz begins by acknowledging that the very term "demographic problem...conjures up illiberal images of a government classifying people by ethnicity, race, or religion." OK, duly noted. And then, natch, Berkowitz goes on to make some chillingly illiberal policy prescriptions. Weiss sums up:
"[Berkowitz] said that Arab birth rates are a "threat" to Israel's "political sovereignty and territorial integrity" and came out for a policy aimed at curbing subsidies to large families, thereby limiting Arab birth rates in the Jewish state. It's hard not to describe this attitude as racist. Does Rudy Giuliani endorse such family-planning policies?"
Yup, that would be yet another question for an enterprising campaign reporter to ask Giuliani on the trail. I nominate someone from the New York Times, which, as far as I can tell, has completely ignored the Giuliani advisers story. For now, see this American Prospect rundown and this Talking Points Memo video on the subject."
Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph in the UK reports on the advice to Guiliani from a leading Republican neo-conservative advisor:
"A senior foreign policy adviser to the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has urged that Iran be bombed using cruise missiles and "bunker busters" to set back Teheran’s nuclear programme by at least five years.
The tough message at a time of crisis between the United States and Iraq was delivered by Norman Podhoretz, one of the founders of neoconservatism, who has also imparted his stark advice personally to a receptive President George W. Bush.
"None of the alternatives to military action - negotiations, sanctions, provoking an internal insurrection - can possibly work," said Mr Podhoretz.
"They’re all ways of evading the terrible choice we have to make which is to either let them get the bomb or to bomb them."
In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr Podhoretz said he was certain that bombing raids could be successful."
25 Primates face oblivion
This report "The edge of oblivion: conservationists name 25 primates about to disappear" from The Guardian ought to be of grave concern to anyone who values the worth of our nature, conversation and our forebears:
"Sri Lanka's Horton Plains slender loris has been seen just four times since 1937. Miss Waldron's red colobus monkey was not found in an exhaustive six-year study ending in 1999 and there have been no definite sightings since. Vietnam's golden-headed langur and the Hainan gibbon in China both number in the dozens.
These are the primate species on the edge of oblivion and, according to a report commissioned by three leading conservation charities, scores of others of our closest relatives are poised to suffer the same fate. It names the top 25 species most in need of help but concludes that 114 primate species are also close to extinction.
The 25 species most at risk include two of our closest great ape cousins, the Cross River gorilla of Cameroon and Nigeria and the orang-utan from Sumatra. Miss Waldron's colobus also makes it on to the list, although more by hope than expectation. Conservationists declared it officially extinct in 2000, but a photograph taken since then of a similar-looking creature has been tentatively identified by scientists.
The document was compiled by 60 leading primatologists from the world conservation union, the International Primatological Society and Conservation International. The list includes 11 species from Asia, seven from Africa, four from Madagascar and three from South America.
"You could fit all the surviving members of these 25 species in a single football stadium; that's how few of them remain on Earth today," said Russell Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International.
"The situation is worst in Asia, where tropical forest destruction and the hunting and trading of monkeys puts many species at terrible risk. Even newly discovered species are severely threatened from loss of habitat and could soon disappear."
"Sri Lanka's Horton Plains slender loris has been seen just four times since 1937. Miss Waldron's red colobus monkey was not found in an exhaustive six-year study ending in 1999 and there have been no definite sightings since. Vietnam's golden-headed langur and the Hainan gibbon in China both number in the dozens.
These are the primate species on the edge of oblivion and, according to a report commissioned by three leading conservation charities, scores of others of our closest relatives are poised to suffer the same fate. It names the top 25 species most in need of help but concludes that 114 primate species are also close to extinction.
The 25 species most at risk include two of our closest great ape cousins, the Cross River gorilla of Cameroon and Nigeria and the orang-utan from Sumatra. Miss Waldron's colobus also makes it on to the list, although more by hope than expectation. Conservationists declared it officially extinct in 2000, but a photograph taken since then of a similar-looking creature has been tentatively identified by scientists.
The document was compiled by 60 leading primatologists from the world conservation union, the International Primatological Society and Conservation International. The list includes 11 species from Asia, seven from Africa, four from Madagascar and three from South America.
"You could fit all the surviving members of these 25 species in a single football stadium; that's how few of them remain on Earth today," said Russell Mittermeier, the president of Conservation International.
"The situation is worst in Asia, where tropical forest destruction and the hunting and trading of monkeys puts many species at terrible risk. Even newly discovered species are severely threatened from loss of habitat and could soon disappear."
Murdoch's Cuckoo's Nest
Rupert Murdoch, dubbed Sun King, and the owner of most media outlets worldwide, sees himself as some sort of political pundit. Trouble is that his views are largely to the right - far right in some instances.
Murdoch recently acquired the Wall Street Journal as part of his newspaper stable. Mike Whitney, writing in Information Clearing House, "Rupert's Cuckoo's Nest: The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed Page" analyses the newspaper and comes up with perhaps not all that surprising results:
"The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is the ideological headwaters for far-right fanaticism in the US. It is less of a forum for open debate than it is a breeding ground for noxious ideas that undermine democratic institutions. Every day, there’s a whole new slate of extremist opinion pieces defending one absurdity or another. Typically, the articles focus on the two issues of primary importance to all conservatives; war and taxes. It’s astonishing how many variations there are on the same hackneyed theme.
Conservatives are naturally distrustful of ideas, so they’ve created a platform where they can couch their reactionary views in academic-sounding jargon without any real attempt at upgrading social policy. There appears to be an endless reservoir of Reagan-era “supply side” zealots and think-tank windbags who are more than eager to promote the topic-du jour, whatever that may be. By using right wing celebrities as their standard-bearers, the WSJ is able to elevate the most mundane, nonsensical arguments to a level of respectability. And that’s the objective---to make hard-nosed, narrow-minded chauvinism look like enlightened policy.
Typically, the editorials take aim at any regulation which restricts industry or any law which protects the citizen. Articles are chosen on the basis of how they appeal to a small group of corporate mandarins whose views about “how the world should be organized” are nearly identical. In other words, it is an “echo chamber” for the investor class. That’s why liberals should pay attention. The men who currently run the world are not shy about revealing what they have in mind for the rest of us. Isn’t it worth the price of a subscription to find out what that is?
In the last few days the WSJ has run articles defending Exxon against the$2.5 billion punitive damages that were ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for its massive oil spill in Alaska nearly 2 decades ago. They’ve run another tiresome apology for Judge Robert Bork, the alleged victim of a left-wing witch hunt. They’ve provided a lawyerly defense of the Marines who went on the “killing spree” in Haditha; another promotion for the extortionist World Bank, an emotional plea to “Save the Bush Tax Cuts”, and, of course, an over-the-top 1500 word thesis on why “Victory Is Within Reach In Iraq” by neocon nutcase Michael Ledeen.
On Monday, October 22, the WSJ ran an article by David Rivkin, “Getting Serious about Torture”, which essentially defends the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of terror suspects by pointing out the relative nature of these terms. (Isn’t it odd that questions related to torture never came up before Bush took office?)"
Murdoch recently acquired the Wall Street Journal as part of his newspaper stable. Mike Whitney, writing in Information Clearing House, "Rupert's Cuckoo's Nest: The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed Page" analyses the newspaper and comes up with perhaps not all that surprising results:
"The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page is the ideological headwaters for far-right fanaticism in the US. It is less of a forum for open debate than it is a breeding ground for noxious ideas that undermine democratic institutions. Every day, there’s a whole new slate of extremist opinion pieces defending one absurdity or another. Typically, the articles focus on the two issues of primary importance to all conservatives; war and taxes. It’s astonishing how many variations there are on the same hackneyed theme.
Conservatives are naturally distrustful of ideas, so they’ve created a platform where they can couch their reactionary views in academic-sounding jargon without any real attempt at upgrading social policy. There appears to be an endless reservoir of Reagan-era “supply side” zealots and think-tank windbags who are more than eager to promote the topic-du jour, whatever that may be. By using right wing celebrities as their standard-bearers, the WSJ is able to elevate the most mundane, nonsensical arguments to a level of respectability. And that’s the objective---to make hard-nosed, narrow-minded chauvinism look like enlightened policy.
Typically, the editorials take aim at any regulation which restricts industry or any law which protects the citizen. Articles are chosen on the basis of how they appeal to a small group of corporate mandarins whose views about “how the world should be organized” are nearly identical. In other words, it is an “echo chamber” for the investor class. That’s why liberals should pay attention. The men who currently run the world are not shy about revealing what they have in mind for the rest of us. Isn’t it worth the price of a subscription to find out what that is?
In the last few days the WSJ has run articles defending Exxon against the$2.5 billion punitive damages that were ordered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for its massive oil spill in Alaska nearly 2 decades ago. They’ve run another tiresome apology for Judge Robert Bork, the alleged victim of a left-wing witch hunt. They’ve provided a lawyerly defense of the Marines who went on the “killing spree” in Haditha; another promotion for the extortionist World Bank, an emotional plea to “Save the Bush Tax Cuts”, and, of course, an over-the-top 1500 word thesis on why “Victory Is Within Reach In Iraq” by neocon nutcase Michael Ledeen.
On Monday, October 22, the WSJ ran an article by David Rivkin, “Getting Serious about Torture”, which essentially defends the “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment of terror suspects by pointing out the relative nature of these terms. (Isn’t it odd that questions related to torture never came up before Bush took office?)"
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The Outsourced Brain
As you reflect on this piece - "The Outsourced Brain" - by columnist David Brooks in the NY TImes, it will doubtlessly resonate with you how life, in so many ways, has changed in this 21st century:
"The gurus seek bliss amidst mountaintop solitude and serenity in the meditative trance, but I, grasshopper, have achieved the oneness with the universe that is known as pure externalization.
I have melded my mind with the heavens, communed with the universal consciousness, and experienced the inner calm that externalization brings, and it all started because I bought a car with a G.P.S.
Like many men, I quickly established a romantic attachment to my G.P.S. I found comfort in her tranquil and slightly Anglophilic voice. I felt warm and safe following her thin blue line. More than once I experienced her mercy, for each of my transgressions would be greeted by nothing worse than a gentle, “Make a U-turn if possible.”
After a few weeks, it occurred to me that I could no longer get anywhere without her. Any trip slightly out of the ordinary had me typing the address into her system and then blissfully following her satellite-fed commands. I found that I was quickly shedding all vestiges of geographic knowledge.
It was unnerving at first, but then a relief. Since the dawn of humanity, people have had to worry about how to get from here to there. Precious brainpower has been used storing directions, and memorizing turns. I myself have been trapped at dinner parties at which conversation was devoted exclusively to the topic of commuter routes.
My G.P.S. goddess liberated me from this drudgery. She enabled me to externalize geographic information from my own brain to a satellite brain, and you know how it felt? It felt like nirvana.
Through that experience I discovered the Sacred Order of the External Mind. I realized I could outsource those mental tasks I didn’t want to perform. Life is a math problem, and I had a calculator.
Until that moment, I had thought that the magic of the information age was that it allowed us to know more, but then I realized the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less. It provides us with external cognitive servants — silicon memory systems, collaborative online filters, consumer preference algorithms and networked knowledge. We can burden these servants and liberate ourselves.
Musical taste? I have externalized it. Now I just log on to iTunes and it tells me what I like."
"The gurus seek bliss amidst mountaintop solitude and serenity in the meditative trance, but I, grasshopper, have achieved the oneness with the universe that is known as pure externalization.
I have melded my mind with the heavens, communed with the universal consciousness, and experienced the inner calm that externalization brings, and it all started because I bought a car with a G.P.S.
Like many men, I quickly established a romantic attachment to my G.P.S. I found comfort in her tranquil and slightly Anglophilic voice. I felt warm and safe following her thin blue line. More than once I experienced her mercy, for each of my transgressions would be greeted by nothing worse than a gentle, “Make a U-turn if possible.”
After a few weeks, it occurred to me that I could no longer get anywhere without her. Any trip slightly out of the ordinary had me typing the address into her system and then blissfully following her satellite-fed commands. I found that I was quickly shedding all vestiges of geographic knowledge.
It was unnerving at first, but then a relief. Since the dawn of humanity, people have had to worry about how to get from here to there. Precious brainpower has been used storing directions, and memorizing turns. I myself have been trapped at dinner parties at which conversation was devoted exclusively to the topic of commuter routes.
My G.P.S. goddess liberated me from this drudgery. She enabled me to externalize geographic information from my own brain to a satellite brain, and you know how it felt? It felt like nirvana.
Through that experience I discovered the Sacred Order of the External Mind. I realized I could outsource those mental tasks I didn’t want to perform. Life is a math problem, and I had a calculator.
Until that moment, I had thought that the magic of the information age was that it allowed us to know more, but then I realized the magic of the information age is that it allows us to know less. It provides us with external cognitive servants — silicon memory systems, collaborative online filters, consumer preference algorithms and networked knowledge. We can burden these servants and liberate ourselves.
Musical taste? I have externalized it. Now I just log on to iTunes and it tells me what I like."
Silence out of Burma
The news out of Burma seems to have stopped. The media appears to have moved on from the upheavals there a few weeks ago. That is not to say that things have turned positive in the country of a military dictatorship.
Addressing a London meeting, 'Freedom Writ Large', organised by PEN and the Writers Network of Burma, John Pilger pays tribute to Aung San Suu Kyi and the writers of Burma, 'the bravest of the brave', and describes the hypocrisy of Western leaders who claim to back their struggle for freedom.
"The news is no more from Burma. The young monks are quiet in their cells, or they are dead. But words have escaped: the defiant, beautiful poetry of Aung Than and Zeya Aung; and we know of the unbroken will of the journalist U Win Tin, who makes ink out of brick powder on the walls of his prison cell and writes with a pen made from a bamboo mat – at the age of 77. These are the bravest of the brave.
What honour they bring to humanity with their struggle; and what shame they bring to those whose hypocrisy and silence helps to feed the monster that rules Burma.
When I began to write this, I had planned to quote a moving passage from my last interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, but I decided not to - because of something Suu Kyi said to me when I last spoke to her. “Be careful of media fashion,” she said. “The media like this sentimental version of life that reduces everything down to personality. Too often this can be a distraction.”
I thought about that, and how typically self effacing it was, and how right she was. For the greatest distraction is the hypocrisy of those political figures in the democratic West, who claim to support the Burmese liberation struggle. Laura Bush and Condaleeza Rice come to mind. “The United States,” said Rice, “is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma.” What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma’s offshore oil fields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice President Cheney was Chief Executive."
What honour they bring to humanity with their struggle; and what shame they bring to those whose hypocrisy and silence helps to feed the monster that rules Burma.
When I began to write this, I had planned to quote a moving passage from my last interview with Aung San Suu Kyi, but I decided not to - because of something Suu Kyi said to me when I last spoke to her. “Be careful of media fashion,” she said. “The media like this sentimental version of life that reduces everything down to personality. Too often this can be a distraction.”
I thought about that, and how typically self effacing it was, and how right she was. For the greatest distraction is the hypocrisy of those political figures in the democratic West, who claim to support the Burmese liberation struggle. Laura Bush and Condaleeza Rice come to mind. “The United States,” said Rice, “is determined to keep an international focus on the travesty that is taking place in Burma.” What she is less keen to keep a focus on is that the huge American company, Chevron, on whose board of directors she sat, is part of a consortium with the junta and the French company, Total, that operates in Burma’s offshore oil fields. The gas from these fields is exported through a pipeline that was built with forced labour and whose construction involved Halliburton, of which Vice President Cheney was Chief Executive."
Iran: War or Not?
Der Spiegel [reproduced on AlterNet] says that Dick Cheney is actively promoting an attack on Iran using Israel in the process:
"US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.
In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?"
On the other hand, the LA Times reports that Europeans are reluctant to engage in a war with Iran - for they have vested interests not to do so:
"With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?
European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned.
"It will make things much more difficult," said Alex Bigham of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, echoing the uneasy sentiment across the continent about the go-it-alone U.S. stand. "Obviously this is about Bush trying to be tough and ratchet up the pressure on Iran, but also it's kind of trying to lock in his successor. Because it's one thing to put an organization on the terrorist list, and quite another matter to take it off."
The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism.
The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran."
And importantly:
"Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations.
Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program."
"US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.
In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?"
On the other hand, the LA Times reports that Europeans are reluctant to engage in a war with Iran - for they have vested interests not to do so:
"With tough new U.S. sanctions against Iran now in place, the next step falls to European nations: Will they agree on biting measures of their own, the only way to make the unilateral U.S. action truly effective?
European officials expressed worry Friday that the Bush administration's designation of Iranian agencies and firms as supporters of terrorism and purveyors of weapons threatens efforts to bring Iran back into the fold of diplomacy. That could erect a formidable barricade against relations with Tehran for years to come, some analysts warned.
"It will make things much more difficult," said Alex Bigham of the London-based Foreign Policy Center, echoing the uneasy sentiment across the continent about the go-it-alone U.S. stand. "Obviously this is about Bush trying to be tough and ratchet up the pressure on Iran, but also it's kind of trying to lock in his successor. Because it's one thing to put an organization on the terrorist list, and quite another matter to take it off."
The U.S. on Thursday imposed sweeping sanctions targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it labeled a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, and more than 20 individuals and companies associated with the powerful military organization. The Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force unit was declared a supporter of terrorism.
The measures not only prohibit U.S. business contacts but also threaten access to American markets for foreign companies that do business with designated companies in Iran."
And importantly:
"Europe is Iran's biggest trading partner, and even the tough new U.S. sanctions will not bite unless European businesses scale back their multibillion-dollar trade and investments in Iran. Several European banks have curbed their ties with Tehran. But European oil and engineering firms continue to do a robust trade, underwriting much of Iran's new oil and gas expansion and industrial operations.
Still, a consensus is emerging that the European Union will have to adopt its own unilateral sanctions, possibly within the next few weeks, to complement the U.S. action. Europe's support is needed, particularly in the face of Russian and Chinese reluctance, if the administration hopes to force Iran to back down on its controversial uranium enrichment program."
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Rumsfeld cops a Writ - in Paris
We know that neither Presidemt Bush nor the US Congress will take any action against former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld for his various illegal activities, both national and international, but when visiting Paris yesterday he copped a writ there - as the raw story reports:
"Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's jaunt to France was interrupted today by an unscheduled itinerary item -- he was slapped with a criminal complaint charging him with torture.
Rumsfeld, in Paris for a discussion sponsored by the magazine Foreign Policy, was tracked down by representatives of a coalition of international human rights groups, who informed the architect of the US invasion of Iraq that they had submitted a torture suit against him in French court.
The filed documents allege that during his tenure, the former defense secretary "ordered and authorized" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The head of one of the groups responsible for bringing the charges, the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, told RAW STORY today by phone that the suit was a long time coming.
"We've been working on cornering Rumsfeld and getting him indicted somewhere going on three years now," said the Center's president, Michael Ratner. "Four days ago, we got confidential information he was going to be in France."
Joined by activists, attorneys for the human rights groups caught up with Rumsfeld on his way to a breakfast meeting. "He was walking down the street with just one person," said Ratner.
"Around 20 campaigners gave Rumsfeld a rowdy welcome...yelling 'murderer,' waving a banner and trying to push into the building," reports AFP.
Ratner, who wasn't personally at the scene, says his sources told him that the former defense secretary made some pre-scheduled remarks at the meeting before ducking through a door leading to the US Embassy.
According to Ratner, France has a legal responsibility under international law to prosecute Rumsfeld for torture abuses.
"If a torturer comes into your territory," he said, "there's an obligation to either prosecute the person or return him to a place where he will be prosecuted."
The rights groups notably cite three memorandums signed by the defense secretary between October 2002 and April 2003 "legimitizing the use of torture" including the "hooding" of detainees, sleep deprivation and the use of dogs.
Although his group has been a part of previous attempts to bring charges against Rumsfeld, including two former tries in Germany, Ratner believes French court has the highest chance of success.
"There are Guantananamo detainees who were tortured that are living in France," he said. "It gives French courts another reason to prosecute."
Ratner says Europe is "getting very hot for Rumsfeld," and suggests a French court could at least issue its version of a subpoena.
"We hope that this case will move forward," he said, "especially as the US says it can continue to torture people."
Other groups involved in the complaint include the International Federation of Human Rights, the French League for Human Rights and Germany's European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights."
- More details about the lawsuit are available at the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
"Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's jaunt to France was interrupted today by an unscheduled itinerary item -- he was slapped with a criminal complaint charging him with torture.
Rumsfeld, in Paris for a discussion sponsored by the magazine Foreign Policy, was tracked down by representatives of a coalition of international human rights groups, who informed the architect of the US invasion of Iraq that they had submitted a torture suit against him in French court.
The filed documents allege that during his tenure, the former defense secretary "ordered and authorized" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The head of one of the groups responsible for bringing the charges, the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights, told RAW STORY today by phone that the suit was a long time coming.
"We've been working on cornering Rumsfeld and getting him indicted somewhere going on three years now," said the Center's president, Michael Ratner. "Four days ago, we got confidential information he was going to be in France."
Joined by activists, attorneys for the human rights groups caught up with Rumsfeld on his way to a breakfast meeting. "He was walking down the street with just one person," said Ratner.
"Around 20 campaigners gave Rumsfeld a rowdy welcome...yelling 'murderer,' waving a banner and trying to push into the building," reports AFP.
Ratner, who wasn't personally at the scene, says his sources told him that the former defense secretary made some pre-scheduled remarks at the meeting before ducking through a door leading to the US Embassy.
According to Ratner, France has a legal responsibility under international law to prosecute Rumsfeld for torture abuses.
"If a torturer comes into your territory," he said, "there's an obligation to either prosecute the person or return him to a place where he will be prosecuted."
The rights groups notably cite three memorandums signed by the defense secretary between October 2002 and April 2003 "legimitizing the use of torture" including the "hooding" of detainees, sleep deprivation and the use of dogs.
Although his group has been a part of previous attempts to bring charges against Rumsfeld, including two former tries in Germany, Ratner believes French court has the highest chance of success.
"There are Guantananamo detainees who were tortured that are living in France," he said. "It gives French courts another reason to prosecute."
Ratner says Europe is "getting very hot for Rumsfeld," and suggests a French court could at least issue its version of a subpoena.
"We hope that this case will move forward," he said, "especially as the US says it can continue to torture people."
Other groups involved in the complaint include the International Federation of Human Rights, the French League for Human Rights and Germany's European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights."
- More details about the lawsuit are available at the website of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
John Howard and the Right twitchy
Never lost for the appropriate barb or acerbic comment, Mike Carlton's column in the SMH follows up on John Howard in that TV debate last Sunday night with Kevin Rudd and the week that has been:
"The Prime Minister's curious facial twitch during the not-so-great debate on Sunday evening set the radio talkback phone lines ringing on Monday. Some people called it a spasm. Others thought he'd been about to drop from a heart attack.
If you missed it, you can catch a replay on YouTube. Type in "John Howard spasm" and up it comes. His face contorts in a weird grimace, eyelids batting, lips chomping furiously. His hands grip the lectern for support. One contributor has unkindly added some rap music.
To me, it looked as if he'd swallowed a blowfly, although it might have been a nervous reaction to a prickly question he was being asked about al-Qaeda and Iraq. Or perhaps it was the sudden realisation that the Channel Nine Worm, manipulated by the treacherous Ray Martin's hand-picked studio audience of trade union thugs, was almost certainly nose-diving towards the carpet in lounge rooms around the nation. It was not a good look.
Wednesday should have been better. In Adelaide, Howard paraded before the audience he loves above all, a platoon of deferential military brass in khaki and slouch hats. They were there to hear an announcement on defence spending, normally a picnic for this Prime Minister, but now the mojo wasn't working. "And we are committed through to 1916," he assured the puzzled diggers.
This is something Kevin Rudd cannot match: the Liberals are offering the defence force a chance to re-do the Battle of Fromelles for, hopefully, a better result than last time. Fix bayonets and follow Johnny over the top for a crack at the Kaiser. No me-too from the Ruddster on that.
With another disastrous opinion poll last Monday and the near certainty of an interest rate rise next month, the sixth since the last election, the Government's campaign is not so much stalemate on the Somme, though. It is more the fall of Saigon.
Another few weeks like this for the Coalition parties and there will be piles of documents burning in the courtyard, looters breaking into the liquor cabinets, complete strangers copulating on office desks, a baying herd stampeding for the helicopters on the roof."
"The Prime Minister's curious facial twitch during the not-so-great debate on Sunday evening set the radio talkback phone lines ringing on Monday. Some people called it a spasm. Others thought he'd been about to drop from a heart attack.
If you missed it, you can catch a replay on YouTube. Type in "John Howard spasm" and up it comes. His face contorts in a weird grimace, eyelids batting, lips chomping furiously. His hands grip the lectern for support. One contributor has unkindly added some rap music.
To me, it looked as if he'd swallowed a blowfly, although it might have been a nervous reaction to a prickly question he was being asked about al-Qaeda and Iraq. Or perhaps it was the sudden realisation that the Channel Nine Worm, manipulated by the treacherous Ray Martin's hand-picked studio audience of trade union thugs, was almost certainly nose-diving towards the carpet in lounge rooms around the nation. It was not a good look.
Wednesday should have been better. In Adelaide, Howard paraded before the audience he loves above all, a platoon of deferential military brass in khaki and slouch hats. They were there to hear an announcement on defence spending, normally a picnic for this Prime Minister, but now the mojo wasn't working. "And we are committed through to 1916," he assured the puzzled diggers.
This is something Kevin Rudd cannot match: the Liberals are offering the defence force a chance to re-do the Battle of Fromelles for, hopefully, a better result than last time. Fix bayonets and follow Johnny over the top for a crack at the Kaiser. No me-too from the Ruddster on that.
With another disastrous opinion poll last Monday and the near certainty of an interest rate rise next month, the sixth since the last election, the Government's campaign is not so much stalemate on the Somme, though. It is more the fall of Saigon.
Another few weeks like this for the Coalition parties and there will be piles of documents burning in the courtyard, looters breaking into the liquor cabinets, complete strangers copulating on office desks, a baying herd stampeding for the helicopters on the roof."
Riches beyond all that oil and sand
Saudi Arabia is known for all its oil, sand and restrictions on its women. That may become a thing of the past as the oil-rich kingdom seeks to zoom into the 21st century - with the resources to do so.
The NY Times reports on what is underway in the rather elusive kingdom of the Royal sheiks:
"On a marshy peninsula 50 miles from this Red Sea port, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is staking $12.5 billion on a gargantuan bid to catch up with the West in science and technology.
King Abdullah has broken taboos, declaring that the Arabs have fallen critically behind much of the modern world in intellectual achievement.
Between an oil refinery and the sea, the monarch is building from scratch a graduate research institution that will have one of the 10 largest endowments in the world, worth more than $10 billion.
Its planners say men and women will study side by side in an enclave walled off from the rest of Saudi society, the country’s notorious religious police will be barred and all religious and ethnic groups will be welcome in a push for academic freedom and international collaboration sure to test the kingdom’s cultural and religious limits.
This undertaking is directly at odds with the kingdom’s religious establishment, which severely limits women’s rights and rejects coeducation and robust liberal inquiry as unthinkable."
The NY Times reports on what is underway in the rather elusive kingdom of the Royal sheiks:
"On a marshy peninsula 50 miles from this Red Sea port, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is staking $12.5 billion on a gargantuan bid to catch up with the West in science and technology.
King Abdullah has broken taboos, declaring that the Arabs have fallen critically behind much of the modern world in intellectual achievement.
Between an oil refinery and the sea, the monarch is building from scratch a graduate research institution that will have one of the 10 largest endowments in the world, worth more than $10 billion.
Its planners say men and women will study side by side in an enclave walled off from the rest of Saudi society, the country’s notorious religious police will be barred and all religious and ethnic groups will be welcome in a push for academic freedom and international collaboration sure to test the kingdom’s cultural and religious limits.
This undertaking is directly at odds with the kingdom’s religious establishment, which severely limits women’s rights and rejects coeducation and robust liberal inquiry as unthinkable."
Turkey. Iran, George Bush, Oil and John Howard
You might well ask what the connection between Turkey, Iran, George Bush, oil and John Howard is. Easy, actually. In a globalised economy and ready repercussions of political events, overnight in New York the price for oil went to US$92.22 a barrel - and is said to be destined to go to US$100. Why?
The threat of Turkey invading northern Iraq to curb those pesky Kurds there and George Bush talking of World War III in relation to Iran has made markets nervous. For John Howard a rising oil price with attendant increases in petrol prices and that feeding into inflation - and then the probability of the Reserve Bank raising interest rates on 7 November - translates into a potentially greater loss for the Howard Government in the election on 24 November.
Bottom line PM Howard can probably thank his good friend George Bush and having been a willing partner in the Coalition of the Willing as the repercussions spelling his death knell. And, of course, we can't forget Howard's other friend, Rupert Murdoch, who predicted that one positive outcome of the Iraq War would be oil at US$20 a barrel.
The threat of Turkey invading northern Iraq to curb those pesky Kurds there and George Bush talking of World War III in relation to Iran has made markets nervous. For John Howard a rising oil price with attendant increases in petrol prices and that feeding into inflation - and then the probability of the Reserve Bank raising interest rates on 7 November - translates into a potentially greater loss for the Howard Government in the election on 24 November.
Bottom line PM Howard can probably thank his good friend George Bush and having been a willing partner in the Coalition of the Willing as the repercussions spelling his death knell. And, of course, we can't forget Howard's other friend, Rupert Murdoch, who predicted that one positive outcome of the Iraq War would be oil at US$20 a barrel.
Friday, October 26, 2007
It's a sick world
The topics of climate change, Al Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and extremes in weather patterns around the world - witness the devastating fires in California - are very much the topic de jour at the moment.
Today comes publication of the UN's Global Environment Outlook. It's not a pretty picture or prognosis for our planet.
Crikey has Frank Jotzo, environmental economist, The Australian National University, put the Report into context:
"Climate change is not news to the scientific community, and it's certainly not news to the UN, which published its fourth Global Environment Outlook report overnight.
What has focussed public attention, and has policymakers scrambling for solutions, is climate events consistent with what is expected under climate change: Europe’s heatwave, America’s hurricanes and fires, Australia’s drought.
Today’s UN Global Environment Outlook report drives home some of the key facts:
11 of the 12 last years were the warmest since 1850;
Global average temperatures are three quarters of a degree higher than over the past century, and further rise is already locked in;
2 degrees is widely seen as a threshold beyond which there is an unacceptable risk of major and irreversible changes in the earth system;
More, and more intense heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts are expected, along with sea level rise and greater spread of tropical disease;
The Earth’s surface is warming. This is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;
The per capita availability of freshwater is declining globally, and contaminated water remains the greatest single environmental cause of human sickness and death;
Aquatic ecosystems continue to be heavily exploited, putting at risk sustainability of food supplies and biodiversity;
The great majority of well-studied species are declining in distribution, abundance or both.
What to do? Put simply, adapt to impacts that are already inevitable, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to perhaps half by the middle of the century. For policy makers, the message is relatively easy to digest. What remains scarce is the political will to make it a reality.
For national leaders, adaptation means better housing, more water storage, improved flood protection, shifts in agriculture and higher food prices, more preventative health. Not such a big issue for us rich people – but a real problem for poor countries and poor people everywhere, who ironically contribute least to climate change. And adaptation cannot save species under climate threat, or natural icons like the Barrier Reef.
Reducing emissions is the really tough thing. Not that it’s impossible or even prohibitively expensive, though you wouldn't know it if political debate in Australia was your only source of information on the matter. Technologies to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gases exist, along with ample opportunities to save energy. The cost of cutting global greenhouse gas emissions is estimated in the order of 1% or 2% of GDP – compared to underlying GDP growth of easily 200% or more by 2050.
The trouble is lack of cooperation between nations. One country acting alone makes little difference, everyone has an incentive to free-ride, and there is little consensus on equity. India argues that its per capita emissions are ten times lower than in rich countries, China demands headroom to build up its economy the carbon intensive way the industrialised world has, and rich countries point out that most emissions growth these days comes from the poorer cousins.
A growing sense of urgency could help on the rocky road toward a new climate treaty, with negotiations due to start in Bali in December. But it is difficult to see a quick turnaround in global greenhouse emissions. Emissions growth has accelerated in recent years, exceeding even the most pessimistic scenarios developed in the late 1990s. If there's one thing to take from this report, it's that we’re in for a lot worse before (hopefully) things gets better.
Today comes publication of the UN's Global Environment Outlook. It's not a pretty picture or prognosis for our planet.
Crikey has Frank Jotzo, environmental economist, The Australian National University, put the Report into context:
"Climate change is not news to the scientific community, and it's certainly not news to the UN, which published its fourth Global Environment Outlook report overnight.
What has focussed public attention, and has policymakers scrambling for solutions, is climate events consistent with what is expected under climate change: Europe’s heatwave, America’s hurricanes and fires, Australia’s drought.
Today’s UN Global Environment Outlook report drives home some of the key facts:
11 of the 12 last years were the warmest since 1850;
Global average temperatures are three quarters of a degree higher than over the past century, and further rise is already locked in;
2 degrees is widely seen as a threshold beyond which there is an unacceptable risk of major and irreversible changes in the earth system;
More, and more intense heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts are expected, along with sea level rise and greater spread of tropical disease;
The Earth’s surface is warming. This is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level;
The per capita availability of freshwater is declining globally, and contaminated water remains the greatest single environmental cause of human sickness and death;
Aquatic ecosystems continue to be heavily exploited, putting at risk sustainability of food supplies and biodiversity;
The great majority of well-studied species are declining in distribution, abundance or both.
What to do? Put simply, adapt to impacts that are already inevitable, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to perhaps half by the middle of the century. For policy makers, the message is relatively easy to digest. What remains scarce is the political will to make it a reality.
For national leaders, adaptation means better housing, more water storage, improved flood protection, shifts in agriculture and higher food prices, more preventative health. Not such a big issue for us rich people – but a real problem for poor countries and poor people everywhere, who ironically contribute least to climate change. And adaptation cannot save species under climate threat, or natural icons like the Barrier Reef.
Reducing emissions is the really tough thing. Not that it’s impossible or even prohibitively expensive, though you wouldn't know it if political debate in Australia was your only source of information on the matter. Technologies to curb CO2 and other greenhouse gases exist, along with ample opportunities to save energy. The cost of cutting global greenhouse gas emissions is estimated in the order of 1% or 2% of GDP – compared to underlying GDP growth of easily 200% or more by 2050.
The trouble is lack of cooperation between nations. One country acting alone makes little difference, everyone has an incentive to free-ride, and there is little consensus on equity. India argues that its per capita emissions are ten times lower than in rich countries, China demands headroom to build up its economy the carbon intensive way the industrialised world has, and rich countries point out that most emissions growth these days comes from the poorer cousins.
A growing sense of urgency could help on the rocky road toward a new climate treaty, with negotiations due to start in Bali in December. But it is difficult to see a quick turnaround in global greenhouse emissions. Emissions growth has accelerated in recent years, exceeding even the most pessimistic scenarios developed in the late 1990s. If there's one thing to take from this report, it's that we’re in for a lot worse before (hopefully) things gets better.
Israel: Flouts International Law - yet again!
The world sits by and watches as Israel, yet again, flouts international law. Not a murmur of condemnation. Just a tutting tutting! The time has surely come when the world must say to Israel - enough is enough! To say that Israel is becoming a renegade State, openly cocking its nose at international law and convention, is probably now an under-statement.
Israel's latest action is that it will collectively punish the people of Gaza by either restricting, or cutting off altogether, electricity and water, to the already devastated territory.
BBC News reports:
"Israel's defence minister has approved sanctions against Gaza, including cuts in the supply of electricity and fuel to try to halt rocket attacks.
Ehud Barak authorised the cuts, which are expected to follow immediately after rocket attacks are launched.
Palestinian leaders say the measure amounts to collective punishment.
Israel supplies 60% of the electricity for Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants - but last month Israel declared Gaza a "hostile entity".
By formally declaring Gaza "hostile", Israel argues it is no longer bound by international law governing the administration of occupied territory to supply utilities to the civilian population.
But the position accepted by the international community is that Israel remains legally responsible for the coastal strip, despite withdrawing two years ago, because it still controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters.
Israel imposed an economic embargo on Gaza after the Islamist militant group, Hamas, seized control from the rival Fatah group in June. It is also limiting the movement of people in and out of the territory.
But the top United Nations humanitarian official has now urged Israel to lift its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip."
Israel's latest action is that it will collectively punish the people of Gaza by either restricting, or cutting off altogether, electricity and water, to the already devastated territory.
BBC News reports:
"Israel's defence minister has approved sanctions against Gaza, including cuts in the supply of electricity and fuel to try to halt rocket attacks.
Ehud Barak authorised the cuts, which are expected to follow immediately after rocket attacks are launched.
Palestinian leaders say the measure amounts to collective punishment.
Israel supplies 60% of the electricity for Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants - but last month Israel declared Gaza a "hostile entity".
By formally declaring Gaza "hostile", Israel argues it is no longer bound by international law governing the administration of occupied territory to supply utilities to the civilian population.
But the position accepted by the international community is that Israel remains legally responsible for the coastal strip, despite withdrawing two years ago, because it still controls Gaza's borders, airspace and territorial waters.
Israel imposed an economic embargo on Gaza after the Islamist militant group, Hamas, seized control from the rival Fatah group in June. It is also limiting the movement of people in and out of the territory.
But the top United Nations humanitarian official has now urged Israel to lift its economic blockade of the Gaza Strip."
Moving ever closer to a War
The signs are ominous. For reasons not entirely clear, other than the Bush Administration's misguided view of the world, and the Middle East in particular, a war with or some sort of attack on Iran now seems almost inevitable. Yet more destruction and death and injury! - and implications all to easy to see.
Newsweek's piece, "The Road to War" on where things are at:
"Last weekend I met a happy hard-liner, a senior White House official, at a Washington party. His good mood, it turns out, had a lot to do with the new, uncompromising stance laid out by his boss, George W. Bush, against Iran. Until recently administration hawks had been somewhat worried about where their president was headed. Since the beginning of his second term, in their view, Bush had gone suspiciously soft on the question of how to stop Iran's nuclear program. He had acceded to Condoleezza Rice's demands that the United States back the multilateral diplomatic approach favored by the Europeans. But in the last two weeks the administration has been on a unilateralist tear against Iran once again, issuing hawkish rhetoric that far outpaces anything heard in European capitals. On Thursday the White House announced a broad array of sanctions that affect almost the entire Iranian government. Tehran, meanwhile, has hardened its own position considerably.
The end result of all this may be war, whether anyone really wants it or not."
Newsweek's piece, "The Road to War" on where things are at:
"Last weekend I met a happy hard-liner, a senior White House official, at a Washington party. His good mood, it turns out, had a lot to do with the new, uncompromising stance laid out by his boss, George W. Bush, against Iran. Until recently administration hawks had been somewhat worried about where their president was headed. Since the beginning of his second term, in their view, Bush had gone suspiciously soft on the question of how to stop Iran's nuclear program. He had acceded to Condoleezza Rice's demands that the United States back the multilateral diplomatic approach favored by the Europeans. But in the last two weeks the administration has been on a unilateralist tear against Iran once again, issuing hawkish rhetoric that far outpaces anything heard in European capitals. On Thursday the White House announced a broad array of sanctions that affect almost the entire Iranian government. Tehran, meanwhile, has hardened its own position considerably.
The end result of all this may be war, whether anyone really wants it or not."
David Hicks "affair" resurfaces
It was bound to happen! The totally unsatisfactory and disgraceful situation relating to David Hicks has resurfaced - clearly something John Howard and Alexander Downer would have wished to avoid, especially in the middle of an election-campaign.
As Richard Ackland writes in his op-ed piece in the SMH:
"Try as they might to bury one of the nastiest instances of political meddling in the course of justice, sooner or later the David Hicks case was bound to resurface as an unwanted pong for a desperate government.
The New York attorney and Columbia law lecturer Scott Horton, who has written tirelessly on Hicks's case for Harper's Magazine, reports that a military officer told him that the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, "interfered directly to get Hicks's plea bargain deal".
And:
"In fact, the corruption infecting what is supposed to be an independent military justice system has become so apparent that it was a factor in the US Supreme Court changing its mind in June and deciding to have a broad review of the legal rights of detainees. This is scheduled for the current sittings of the court.
We have also seen the dismissal of two military commission cases after the military judges pointed to a flaw in the Military Commissions Act. The effect of that legal shortcoming means David Hicks pleaded guilty to an offence that did not exist at the time he committed it, before a commission whose legal status was a nullity, and whose regulations for its proper functioning hadn't been issued."
As Richard Ackland writes in his op-ed piece in the SMH:
"Try as they might to bury one of the nastiest instances of political meddling in the course of justice, sooner or later the David Hicks case was bound to resurface as an unwanted pong for a desperate government.
The New York attorney and Columbia law lecturer Scott Horton, who has written tirelessly on Hicks's case for Harper's Magazine, reports that a military officer told him that the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, "interfered directly to get Hicks's plea bargain deal".
And:
"In fact, the corruption infecting what is supposed to be an independent military justice system has become so apparent that it was a factor in the US Supreme Court changing its mind in June and deciding to have a broad review of the legal rights of detainees. This is scheduled for the current sittings of the court.
We have also seen the dismissal of two military commission cases after the military judges pointed to a flaw in the Military Commissions Act. The effect of that legal shortcoming means David Hicks pleaded guilty to an offence that did not exist at the time he committed it, before a commission whose legal status was a nullity, and whose regulations for its proper functioning hadn't been issued."
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Alan Johnston: His Kidnap Ordeal
Anyone who listed to BBC Radio or watch TV news - with items "taken" from or provided by the BBC - would have been familiar with Alan Johnston, reporting from Gaza. In fact, Johnston was the only Western journalist actually stationed in the turbulent Gaza strip.
Then, as we also know, Johnston was kidnapped. Happily, and fortunately, 114 days later he was released by his captors.
As the BBC reports - "As he neared the end of a posting in Gaza, the BBC's Alan Johnston was seized at gunpoint by militants".
Today, on BBC News, Johnson tells the full story of his 114 days as a hostage.
Then, as we also know, Johnston was kidnapped. Happily, and fortunately, 114 days later he was released by his captors.
As the BBC reports - "As he neared the end of a posting in Gaza, the BBC's Alan Johnston was seized at gunpoint by militants".
Today, on BBC News, Johnson tells the full story of his 114 days as a hostage.
Diggers for the West Bank: Lord Downer of Baghdad suggests
It is hard to believe that anyone can take anything that Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says seriously. Yesterday, courting voters in the seat of Wentworth, Downer was totally of the rails - some would say misguided - in seeking support in the upcoming election of the Jewish vote in Malcolm Turnbull's seat.
As The Australian reports:
"Australia could send troops to the Middle East as part of an international buffer force to facilitate an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and prevent a takeover by terrorist-linked organisations, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said last night.
In a speech to Jewish leaders in Sydney, Mr Downer expressed doubts that Palestinians as a whole would support a peace settlement between Israel and West Bank leaders.
He said the concern was that the Hamas organisation would, because of its backing by Iran, never truly accept Israel's right to exist.
"If the Israeli defence forces withdrew from the West Bank, Hamas will just take over," Mr Downer said.
"In the end, there has to be some international force to prop up a Palestinian State.
"If the international community was looking for troops tosupport a peace agreement which provided for the security of Israel and a Palestinian state, we would be prepared to send some troops to help," he said.
Mr Downer also attacked the UN, and more particularly the non-aligned bloc of countries that makes up a large part of its membership, for taking an irrational anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist line.
Mr Downer gave his speech to a gathering of the top echelon of Sydney's Jewish community, including 20 rabbis. He was invited by Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is trying to woo the large Jewish community in his marginal seat of Wentworth in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs."
Just think about it! Here is a Foreign Minister who doesn't even mention the rights of the Palestinian people, the breaches by Israel of numerous UN resolutions or even the now 40 year occupation. Utterly appalling - all in the name of garnering votes for an unworthy candidate, Turnbull, who seeks be more Jewish or pro-Israel than his Jewish Labour Party opponent.
Doubtlessly, those who heard Downer speak came away with a warm glow. One might rightly say that they are ostriches who sooner rather than later will need to confront some unwelcome realities in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.
As The Australian reports:
"Australia could send troops to the Middle East as part of an international buffer force to facilitate an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and prevent a takeover by terrorist-linked organisations, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said last night.
In a speech to Jewish leaders in Sydney, Mr Downer expressed doubts that Palestinians as a whole would support a peace settlement between Israel and West Bank leaders.
He said the concern was that the Hamas organisation would, because of its backing by Iran, never truly accept Israel's right to exist.
"If the Israeli defence forces withdrew from the West Bank, Hamas will just take over," Mr Downer said.
"In the end, there has to be some international force to prop up a Palestinian State.
"If the international community was looking for troops tosupport a peace agreement which provided for the security of Israel and a Palestinian state, we would be prepared to send some troops to help," he said.
Mr Downer also attacked the UN, and more particularly the non-aligned bloc of countries that makes up a large part of its membership, for taking an irrational anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist line.
Mr Downer gave his speech to a gathering of the top echelon of Sydney's Jewish community, including 20 rabbis. He was invited by Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is trying to woo the large Jewish community in his marginal seat of Wentworth in Sydney's Eastern Suburbs."
Just think about it! Here is a Foreign Minister who doesn't even mention the rights of the Palestinian people, the breaches by Israel of numerous UN resolutions or even the now 40 year occupation. Utterly appalling - all in the name of garnering votes for an unworthy candidate, Turnbull, who seeks be more Jewish or pro-Israel than his Jewish Labour Party opponent.
Doubtlessly, those who heard Downer speak came away with a warm glow. One might rightly say that they are ostriches who sooner rather than later will need to confront some unwelcome realities in the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Courageous Female Iraqi Journalists
Being a male reporter in Iraq is bad enough......but a woman?
The NY Times reports on an award given to 6 very, very brave female Uraqi journalists:
"Six women who risked their lives reporting in Iraq, a Mexican reporter who faced death threats for her reporting on pedophiles, and an Ethiopian journalist who was charged with treason received awards for courage Tuesday from the International Women's Media Foundation.
ABC News' Bob Woodruff, who was nearly killed in a January 2006 bombing in Iraq, presented the award to the Iraqi women for their work in the McClatchy news organization's Baghdad bureau. The recipients were Sahar Issa, Huda Ahmed, Shatha al Awsy, Alaa Majeed, ZainebObeid and Ban Adil Sarhan.
Eighty percent of reporters killed in Iraq are Iraqis, Woodruff said, adding that the women slept with bulletproof vests and helmets by their beds.
Issa accepted the courage award on behalf of the women, saying Iraqi journalists must lead double lives, not telling friends or relatives what they do because of the dangers, and knowing that ''every interview we conduct may be our last.''
''So why continue?'' she asked. ''It's because I'm tired of being branded a terrorist, tired that a human life lost in my country is no loss at all. This is not the future I envision for my children. They are not terrorists, and their lives are not valueless.''
The NY Times reports on an award given to 6 very, very brave female Uraqi journalists:
"Six women who risked their lives reporting in Iraq, a Mexican reporter who faced death threats for her reporting on pedophiles, and an Ethiopian journalist who was charged with treason received awards for courage Tuesday from the International Women's Media Foundation.
ABC News' Bob Woodruff, who was nearly killed in a January 2006 bombing in Iraq, presented the award to the Iraqi women for their work in the McClatchy news organization's Baghdad bureau. The recipients were Sahar Issa, Huda Ahmed, Shatha al Awsy, Alaa Majeed, ZainebObeid and Ban Adil Sarhan.
Eighty percent of reporters killed in Iraq are Iraqis, Woodruff said, adding that the women slept with bulletproof vests and helmets by their beds.
Issa accepted the courage award on behalf of the women, saying Iraqi journalists must lead double lives, not telling friends or relatives what they do because of the dangers, and knowing that ''every interview we conduct may be our last.''
''So why continue?'' she asked. ''It's because I'm tired of being branded a terrorist, tired that a human life lost in my country is no loss at all. This is not the future I envision for my children. They are not terrorists, and their lives are not valueless.''
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Method as Madness
It isn't too difficult to have a go at VP Dick Cheney - almost evil-incarnate in his ways. The man seems to know no bounds.
NY Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, hasn't had any difficulty in concluding that there might be some sort of method in Cheney's behaviour - that is, madness - learnt from his days in the Nixon White House:
"Dick Cheney’s craziness used to influence foreign policy.
Now it is foreign policy.
He may have lost his buddy in belligerence, Rummy. He may have tapped out the military in Iraq. He may not be able to persuade Congress so easily anymore — except for Hillary — to issue warlike resolutions. He can’t cow Condi into supporting his bullying as he once did, and Bob Gates is doing his best to instill some common sense.
Besides, Cheney is running out of time to wreak global havoc; he’s working for a president who is spending his waning days on the job trying to prevent children from getting health insurance.
But the vice president may have hit on a devious tactic used by his old boss Richard Nixon.
President Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use madness as a method. In 1969, Nixon told Kissinger to caution the Soviet ambassador that Nixon was “out of control” on Indochina, and could do something drastic."
NY Times columnist, Maureen Dowd, hasn't had any difficulty in concluding that there might be some sort of method in Cheney's behaviour - that is, madness - learnt from his days in the Nixon White House:
"Dick Cheney’s craziness used to influence foreign policy.
Now it is foreign policy.
He may have lost his buddy in belligerence, Rummy. He may have tapped out the military in Iraq. He may not be able to persuade Congress so easily anymore — except for Hillary — to issue warlike resolutions. He can’t cow Condi into supporting his bullying as he once did, and Bob Gates is doing his best to instill some common sense.
Besides, Cheney is running out of time to wreak global havoc; he’s working for a president who is spending his waning days on the job trying to prevent children from getting health insurance.
But the vice president may have hit on a devious tactic used by his old boss Richard Nixon.
President Nixon and Henry Kissinger liked to use madness as a method. In 1969, Nixon told Kissinger to caution the Soviet ambassador that Nixon was “out of control” on Indochina, and could do something drastic."
Ouch! The Cost of War
Think of the mayhem and where things are at in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars - and then the cost, both human and monetarily, in the process.
The Independent puts the whole monetary cost into context:
"President George Bush will have spent more than $1 trillion on military adventures by the time he leaves office at the end of next year, more than the entire amount spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
There are also disturbing signs that Mr Bush is preparing an attack on Iran during his remaining months in office. He has demanded $46bn (£22.5bn) emergency funds from Congress by Christmas and included with it a single sentence requesting money to upgrade the B-2 "stealth" bomber.
By wrapping his request in the flag of patriotism, the President has made it very difficult even for an anti-war Congress to refuse the money. He was accompanied by the family of a dead US marine when he made the request for funds on Monday.
The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has attacked the President's priorities saying: "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year."
"The President is happy to put the military spending on the national credit card," said Steve Kosiak, a vice-president of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent, military policy research institute, who said that the $1trn figure will soon be passed."
The Independent puts the whole monetary cost into context:
"President George Bush will have spent more than $1 trillion on military adventures by the time he leaves office at the end of next year, more than the entire amount spent on the Korean and Vietnam wars combined.
There are also disturbing signs that Mr Bush is preparing an attack on Iran during his remaining months in office. He has demanded $46bn (£22.5bn) emergency funds from Congress by Christmas and included with it a single sentence requesting money to upgrade the B-2 "stealth" bomber.
By wrapping his request in the flag of patriotism, the President has made it very difficult even for an anti-war Congress to refuse the money. He was accompanied by the family of a dead US marine when he made the request for funds on Monday.
The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has attacked the President's priorities saying: "For the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq, we could provide health care coverage to 10 million children for an entire year."
"The President is happy to put the military spending on the national credit card," said Steve Kosiak, a vice-president of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent, military policy research institute, who said that the $1trn figure will soon be passed."
Immunity and impunity to brutality
The occupation of Palestine by Israel continues unabated - with no prospect to it coming to an end. As part of the now 40 year occupation there have countless reports of deaths and physical brutality meted out to the Palestinians. Needless to say the Israeli military are the focus of their actions.
Now, a storm has erupted in Israel about a report in Haaretz detailing the brutality of Israeli soldiers and their approach to their duties. As The Guardian reports:
"A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer."
And, more than frighteningly:
"Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'"
Now, a storm has erupted in Israel about a report in Haaretz detailing the brutality of Israeli soldiers and their approach to their duties. As The Guardian reports:
"A study by an Israeli psychologist into the violent behaviour of the country's soldiers is provoking bitter controversy and has awakened urgent questions about the way the army conducts itself in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.
Nufar Yishai-Karin, a clinical psychologist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, interviewed 21 Israeli soldiers and heard confessions of frequent brutal assaults against Palestinians, aggravated by poor training and discipline. In her recently published report, co-authored by Professor Yoel Elizur, Yishai-Karin details a series of violent incidents, including the beating of a four-year-old boy by an officer."
And, more than frighteningly:
"Another explained: 'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'"
From Lucky to Mean Country.....
"I have always regarded my country as a generous nation, but what do the data tell us? We rank very well (third) when it comes to overall wealth, life expectancy and education. But when it comes to reducing poverty, we are a lowly 14th out of 18 OECD countries on the UN Human Poverty Index.
In the decade to 2004, poverty in Australia increased significantly, no matter how you measure it, and Australia is fourth from the bottom on the social housing league table.
Even though the Federal Government has doubled the overseas aid budget, we are still 19th out of 22 OECD countries.
The situation at home is equally deplorable. The latest OECD Education at a Glance report shows declining levels of investment in public education, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's data shows the Government's declining levels of investment in our hospitals. And then both public systems get clobbered by our leaders for underperforming.
Have a good look at the countries that have the lowest poverty scores, countries that spread their wealth, such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Canada. Then have a look at the recent UNICEF report entitled An overview of child wellbeing in 21 OECD rich countries. It reviewed 40 indicators of child wellbeing that in one way or another reflect the way we treat our young people."
In the midst of an election campaign underway with dollars by the fistful being thrown at electors, Rob Moodie, professor of global health at the University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute, questions what has happened to Australia as a caring nation.
Read the professor's piece, in full, from The Age, here.
Coincidentally, ACOSS has just released a report "Australia Fair" which sheds light on the real position of Australians:
"New figures released by Australia Fair show that the number of Australians in poverty increased from 9.8% to 11.1% of the population between 2003-04 and 2005-06. This is based on the standard measure used extensively in OECD countries, 50% of median income."
In the decade to 2004, poverty in Australia increased significantly, no matter how you measure it, and Australia is fourth from the bottom on the social housing league table.
Even though the Federal Government has doubled the overseas aid budget, we are still 19th out of 22 OECD countries.
The situation at home is equally deplorable. The latest OECD Education at a Glance report shows declining levels of investment in public education, and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's data shows the Government's declining levels of investment in our hospitals. And then both public systems get clobbered by our leaders for underperforming.
Have a good look at the countries that have the lowest poverty scores, countries that spread their wealth, such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland and Canada. Then have a look at the recent UNICEF report entitled An overview of child wellbeing in 21 OECD rich countries. It reviewed 40 indicators of child wellbeing that in one way or another reflect the way we treat our young people."
In the midst of an election campaign underway with dollars by the fistful being thrown at electors, Rob Moodie, professor of global health at the University of Melbourne's Nossal Institute, questions what has happened to Australia as a caring nation.
Read the professor's piece, in full, from The Age, here.
Coincidentally, ACOSS has just released a report "Australia Fair" which sheds light on the real position of Australians:
"New figures released by Australia Fair show that the number of Australians in poverty increased from 9.8% to 11.1% of the population between 2003-04 and 2005-06. This is based on the standard measure used extensively in OECD countries, 50% of median income."
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Riverbend writes from Syria
Readers of MPS will recall the young female blogger who writes under the name Riverbend - and in her last post, before yesterday's most recent one, just prior to her and her family relocating from Baghdad to Syria. This young blogger has been one of the few direct "reporters" of the situation on the ground in Baghdad and its effect, in the most practical terms, on the people of Iraq.
Now relocated to Syria, this young blogger now reports on life there:
"Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.
The mountain distracts me, as it does many Iraqis- especially those from Baghdad. Northern Iraq is full of mountains, but the rest of Iraq is quite flat. At night, Qasiyoun blends into the black sky and the only indication of its presence is a multitude of little, glimmering spots of light- houses and restaurants built right up there on the mountain. Every time I take a picture, I try to work Qasiyoun into it- I try to position the person so that Qasiyoun is in the background.
The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.
It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today. I believe it. Walking down the streets of Damascus, you can hear the Iraqi accent everywhere. There are areas like Geramana and Qudsiya that are packed full of Iraqi refugees. Syrians are few and far between in these areas. Even the public schools in the areas are full of Iraqi children. A cousin of mine is now attending a school in Qudsiya and his class is composed of 26 Iraqi children, and 5 Syrian children. It’s beyond belief sometimes. Most of the families have nothing to live on beyond their savings which are quickly being depleted with rent and the costs of living."
Read the full report here.
Now relocated to Syria, this young blogger now reports on life there:
"Syria is a beautiful country- at least I think it is. I say “I think” because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. In so many ways, Damascus is like Baghdad before the war- bustling streets, occasional traffic jams, markets seemingly always full of shoppers… And in so many ways it’s different. The buildings are higher, the streets are generally narrower and there’s a mountain, Qasiyoun, that looms in the distance.
The mountain distracts me, as it does many Iraqis- especially those from Baghdad. Northern Iraq is full of mountains, but the rest of Iraq is quite flat. At night, Qasiyoun blends into the black sky and the only indication of its presence is a multitude of little, glimmering spots of light- houses and restaurants built right up there on the mountain. Every time I take a picture, I try to work Qasiyoun into it- I try to position the person so that Qasiyoun is in the background.
The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things- like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again- with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me.
It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today. I believe it. Walking down the streets of Damascus, you can hear the Iraqi accent everywhere. There are areas like Geramana and Qudsiya that are packed full of Iraqi refugees. Syrians are few and far between in these areas. Even the public schools in the areas are full of Iraqi children. A cousin of mine is now attending a school in Qudsiya and his class is composed of 26 Iraqi children, and 5 Syrian children. It’s beyond belief sometimes. Most of the families have nothing to live on beyond their savings which are quickly being depleted with rent and the costs of living."
Read the full report here.
Sabre-rattling on Iran: Cheney at it again!
All the signs out of Washington are ominous. The US seems intent on taking on Iran in some way or other to prevent it on its path to develop nuclear power. Not surprisingly, at the forefront of sabre-rattling is VP Dick Cheney - one of the active cheer-leaders for getting the US into the now ill-fated Iraq War.
Where Cheney sits with respect to Iran is clearly spelt out in this report from the Washington Post:
"The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Cheney said yesterday.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech at a Washington think tank's conference, meeting at the Lansdowne Resort in Leesburg.
He said that Tehran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon are obvious, and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."
If Iran continues on its course, Cheney said, the United States and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." He made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words, delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Weinberg Founders Conference, seemed to continue an escalation of U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning Wednesday that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."
Where Cheney sits with respect to Iran is clearly spelt out in this report from the Washington Post:
"The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Cheney said yesterday.
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Cheney said in a speech at a Washington think tank's conference, meeting at the Lansdowne Resort in Leesburg.
He said that Tehran's efforts to pursue technology that would allow it to build a nuclear weapon are obvious, and that "the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time."
If Iran continues on its course, Cheney said, the United States and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences." He made no specific reference to military action.
"We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said.
Cheney's words, delivered at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Weinberg Founders Conference, seemed to continue an escalation of U.S. rhetoric against Iran over the past several days, including President Bush's warning Wednesday that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III."
USA Making Matters Worse
Yossi Alpher is the Israeli co-editor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and a former special adviser to PM Ehud Barak.
"About ten days ago, I made the rounds of the think tanks in Washington, DC, discussing current American/Middle East issues with colleagues. From scholars of the far right to the left, no one believed the Annapolis conference would succeed. The level of cynicism regarding the Bush administration's motives and capabilities in the Middle East was depressing. Between the lines was a consistent assessment that, in pressing the case for the conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was out of her depth.
These dim prospects for the Annapolis conference cannot be separated from earlier and more obvious failures of US policy in the greater Middle East, from Pakistan and Afghanistan via Iran and Iraq to Lebanon, all intertwined with the fiasco of President Bush's democratization program for the region. In Arab eyes the Annapolis conference--a last-ditch American attempt to deal with an issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that has been neglected for seven years--is intimately connected to these other problematic issue areas. The Annapolis project seeks to display an American commitment to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will ensure broader Arab backing for the US position in Iraq and regarding Iran. So far, the Saudis, Egyptians and others are not impressed.
None of this might matter if Washington had politically capable leaders in Jerusalem and Ramallah to work with. But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lacks authority--the latest news of a Fateh assassination plot against PM Ehud Olmert last June in Jericho simply drives home the point--and Olmert's coalition threatens to come apart the closer he comes to Annapolis. There is nothing new here: Abbas has constantly failed to translate his good intentions into a working government, while Olmert brings to Annapolis a dowry of failed strategic judgments, criminal investigations, Winograd commission condemnations and a coalition structured for survival, not peace.
Why don't Bush and Rice perceive this and save themselves the embarrassment? Presumably because their own understanding of Middle East dynamics since 9/11 is so poor. Their energies would be far better applied to backing, encouraging and directing Quartet envoy Tony Blair in his task of building those very Palestinian security, economic and governance institutions that have failed hitherto and whose efficient functioning is a necessary prerequisite to any successful effort at creating a viable Palestinian state. In the long term, that would enhance Arab and Israeli trust in their policies far more than the Annapolis conference, which should be postponed.
We Israelis and Palestinians, in our ongoing failure to end our conflict, should presumably avoid pointing the finger at Washington and blaming it for our troubles. Yet we have long since recognized that our conflict is bigger than the geographical confines of Eretz Yisrael/Palestine. The broader crises in the Middle East--Islamization, Iraq, Iran, the weakness of the Arab state system--have in recent years been exacerbated by American mismanagement. Now Bush and Rice are heading for yet another failure in the region. This one too will only compound existing problems."
"About ten days ago, I made the rounds of the think tanks in Washington, DC, discussing current American/Middle East issues with colleagues. From scholars of the far right to the left, no one believed the Annapolis conference would succeed. The level of cynicism regarding the Bush administration's motives and capabilities in the Middle East was depressing. Between the lines was a consistent assessment that, in pressing the case for the conference, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was out of her depth.
These dim prospects for the Annapolis conference cannot be separated from earlier and more obvious failures of US policy in the greater Middle East, from Pakistan and Afghanistan via Iran and Iraq to Lebanon, all intertwined with the fiasco of President Bush's democratization program for the region. In Arab eyes the Annapolis conference--a last-ditch American attempt to deal with an issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that has been neglected for seven years--is intimately connected to these other problematic issue areas. The Annapolis project seeks to display an American commitment to solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will ensure broader Arab backing for the US position in Iraq and regarding Iran. So far, the Saudis, Egyptians and others are not impressed.
None of this might matter if Washington had politically capable leaders in Jerusalem and Ramallah to work with. But Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lacks authority--the latest news of a Fateh assassination plot against PM Ehud Olmert last June in Jericho simply drives home the point--and Olmert's coalition threatens to come apart the closer he comes to Annapolis. There is nothing new here: Abbas has constantly failed to translate his good intentions into a working government, while Olmert brings to Annapolis a dowry of failed strategic judgments, criminal investigations, Winograd commission condemnations and a coalition structured for survival, not peace.
Why don't Bush and Rice perceive this and save themselves the embarrassment? Presumably because their own understanding of Middle East dynamics since 9/11 is so poor. Their energies would be far better applied to backing, encouraging and directing Quartet envoy Tony Blair in his task of building those very Palestinian security, economic and governance institutions that have failed hitherto and whose efficient functioning is a necessary prerequisite to any successful effort at creating a viable Palestinian state. In the long term, that would enhance Arab and Israeli trust in their policies far more than the Annapolis conference, which should be postponed.
We Israelis and Palestinians, in our ongoing failure to end our conflict, should presumably avoid pointing the finger at Washington and blaming it for our troubles. Yet we have long since recognized that our conflict is bigger than the geographical confines of Eretz Yisrael/Palestine. The broader crises in the Middle East--Islamization, Iraq, Iran, the weakness of the Arab state system--have in recent years been exacerbated by American mismanagement. Now Bush and Rice are heading for yet another failure in the region. This one too will only compound existing problems."
Monday, October 22, 2007
A timely call for tolerance
Little needs to be added to this self-explanatory report and piece from the Washington Post:
"The Dalai Lama and other spiritual leaders called Sunday for followers of the world's religions to work toward understanding each other rather than bickering over differences.
The panel, which included Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mohandas Gandhi, stressed affection for others, even if they have differing views on faith.
"Today, the world is getting smaller," the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet said in English. "We really need closer understanding of each other. It's essential."
The discussion was part of a weekend of events at Emory University with the Dalai Lama, who has accepted a distinguished professorship at the school. His visit will also include a free public talk at Centennial Olympic Park in downtown Atlanta on Monday and the first of many lectures to the Emory community.
Thousands filled Emory's gymnasium throughout the weekend to listen in on panel discussions and hear the exiled leader of Tibet -- for which he continues to seek autonomy from China -- talk about topics as diverse as neuroscience and Buddhist meditation.
The Dalai Lama was presented Sunday with the Gandhi Foundation USA's "peace pilgrim" award by several members of the Gandhi family. The Tibetan leader said he has always considered himself a follower of Mohandas Gandhi, who led a nonviolent uprising that eventually resulted in India's independence"
"The Dalai Lama and other spiritual leaders called Sunday for followers of the world's religions to work toward understanding each other rather than bickering over differences.
The panel, which included Rajmohan Gandhi, the grandson of Mohandas Gandhi, stressed affection for others, even if they have differing views on faith.
"Today, the world is getting smaller," the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet said in English. "We really need closer understanding of each other. It's essential."
The discussion was part of a weekend of events at Emory University with the Dalai Lama, who has accepted a distinguished professorship at the school. His visit will also include a free public talk at Centennial Olympic Park in downtown Atlanta on Monday and the first of many lectures to the Emory community.
Thousands filled Emory's gymnasium throughout the weekend to listen in on panel discussions and hear the exiled leader of Tibet -- for which he continues to seek autonomy from China -- talk about topics as diverse as neuroscience and Buddhist meditation.
The Dalai Lama was presented Sunday with the Gandhi Foundation USA's "peace pilgrim" award by several members of the Gandhi family. The Tibetan leader said he has always considered himself a follower of Mohandas Gandhi, who led a nonviolent uprising that eventually resulted in India's independence"
Stalin, Mao.....and Ahmadinajad?
Fareed Zakaria is editor of Newsweek International. Zakaria came to the magazine from Foreign Affairs, the widely-circulated journal of international politics and economics, where he was managing editor. Prior to joining Foreign Affairs, Zakaria ran a major research project on American foreign policy at Harvard University, where he taught international relations and political philosophy. He has written for such publications as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The New Yorker, The New Republic, and the webzine Slate. He is the author of "From Wealth to Power: The Unusual Origins of America's World Role" (Princeton University Press), which has been translated into several languages, and co-editor of "The American Encounter: The United States and the Making of the Modern World" (Basic Books). His most recent book, The Future of Freedom, was published in the spring of 2003 and was a New York Times bestseller. It is being translated into 18 languages.
He writes in this week's Newsweek:
"At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.
The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)"
He writes in this week's Newsweek:
"At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.
The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.
Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?
When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)"
Latin American Women on the March
For far too long what is happening in South America is under the radar of the media. Only the odd provocative pronouncement of some political leader attracts an article in the press or an item on the TV news.
CommonDreams reproduces a piece from McClatchy Newspapers on the rise of women in South America - including the election of a woman as Chile's President last year and the almost certain imminent election of a woman as President of Argentina:
"Defying Latin America’s longtime reputation as a bastion of machismo, women in South America are winning political power at an unprecedented rate and taking top positions in higher education and even, albeit more slowly, in business.
The election last year of Michelle Bachelet to Chile’s presidency and the all-but-certain victory of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina’s presidential balloting next Sunday are the most visible examples of the trend.
South American women also are leading important social movements and are earning, studying and speaking out more than ever. For the first time, women are forcing their traditionally male-dominated societies to confront such issues as domestic violence and reproductive health.
“I think there’s been a general change,” said Elena Highton, who in 2004 became Argentina’s first female Supreme Court judge appointed by a democratically elected government. She promptly headed a commission on domestic violence.
“This is the time of the woman, and people want to try something new,” Highton said. “Women are seen as more believable, more honest, more direct. And in this world dominated by men, we’ve seen lots of failures.”
It’s a fundamental shift in a region long ruled almost exclusively by men, where the influence of women was relegated to the home or, in public life, to supporting roles for powerful spouses."
CommonDreams reproduces a piece from McClatchy Newspapers on the rise of women in South America - including the election of a woman as Chile's President last year and the almost certain imminent election of a woman as President of Argentina:
"Defying Latin America’s longtime reputation as a bastion of machismo, women in South America are winning political power at an unprecedented rate and taking top positions in higher education and even, albeit more slowly, in business.
The election last year of Michelle Bachelet to Chile’s presidency and the all-but-certain victory of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in Argentina’s presidential balloting next Sunday are the most visible examples of the trend.
South American women also are leading important social movements and are earning, studying and speaking out more than ever. For the first time, women are forcing their traditionally male-dominated societies to confront such issues as domestic violence and reproductive health.
“I think there’s been a general change,” said Elena Highton, who in 2004 became Argentina’s first female Supreme Court judge appointed by a democratically elected government. She promptly headed a commission on domestic violence.
“This is the time of the woman, and people want to try something new,” Highton said. “Women are seen as more believable, more honest, more direct. And in this world dominated by men, we’ve seen lots of failures.”
It’s a fundamental shift in a region long ruled almost exclusively by men, where the influence of women was relegated to the home or, in public life, to supporting roles for powerful spouses."
Who's afraid of Michael Moore?
Perhaps not surprisingly, veteran journalist John Pilger in his latest piece "Who's afraid of Michael Moore?" in the NewStatesman raises some critical and probing questions on a range of subjects, not the least how journalists probe and prod the powers-that-be.
The header to the piece encapsulates where Pilger is coming from. He "argues the spirit and humanity of Moore's film-making shaming the supine American media".
"In Sicko, Michael Moore's new film, a young Ronald Reagan is shown appealing to working-class Americans to reject "socialised medicine" as commie subversion. In the 1940s and 1950s, Reagan was employed by the American Medical Association and big business as the amiable mouthpiece of a neo-fascism bent on persuading ordinary Americans that their true interests, such as universal health care, were "anti-American".
Watching this, I found myself recalling the effusive fare wells to Reagan when he died three years ago. "Many people believe," said Gavin Esler on the BBC's Newsnight, "that he restored faith in American military action [and] was loved even by his political opponents." In the Daily Mail, Esler wrote that Reagan "embodied the best of the American spirit - the optimistic belief that problems can be solved, that tomorrow will be better than today, and that our children will be wealthier and happier than we are".
Such drivel about a man who, as president, was responsible for the 1980s bloodbath in central America, and the rise of the very terrorism that produced al-Qaeda, became the received spin. Reagan's walk-on part in Sicko is a rare glimpse of the truth of his betrayal of the blue-collar nation he claimed to represent. The treacheries of another president, Richard Nixon, and a would-be president, Hillary Clinton, are similarly exposed by Moore. Just when there seemed little else to say about the great Watergate crook, Moore extracts from the 1971 White House tapes a conversation between Nixon and John Erlichman, his aide who ended up in prison. A wealthy Republican Party backer, Edgar Kaiser, head of one of America's biggest health insurance companies, is at the White House with a plan for "a national health-care industry". Erlichman pitches it to Nixon, who is bored until the word "profit" is mentioned.
"All the incentives," says Erlichman, "run the right way: the less [medical] care they give them, the more money they make." To which Nixon replies without hesitation: "Fine!" The next cut shows the president announcing to the nation a task force that will deliver a system of "the finest health care". In truth, it is one of the worst and most corrupt in the world, as Sicko shows, denying common humanity to some 50 million Americans and, for many of them, the right to life.
The most haunting sequence is captured by a security camera in a Los Angeles street. A woman, still in her hospital gown, staggers through the traffic, where she has been dumped by the company (the one founded by Nixon's backer) that runs the hospital to which she was admitted. She is ill and terrified and has no health insurance. She still wears her admission bracelet, though the name of the hospital has been thoughtfully erased."
The header to the piece encapsulates where Pilger is coming from. He "argues the spirit and humanity of Moore's film-making shaming the supine American media".
"In Sicko, Michael Moore's new film, a young Ronald Reagan is shown appealing to working-class Americans to reject "socialised medicine" as commie subversion. In the 1940s and 1950s, Reagan was employed by the American Medical Association and big business as the amiable mouthpiece of a neo-fascism bent on persuading ordinary Americans that their true interests, such as universal health care, were "anti-American".
Watching this, I found myself recalling the effusive fare wells to Reagan when he died three years ago. "Many people believe," said Gavin Esler on the BBC's Newsnight, "that he restored faith in American military action [and] was loved even by his political opponents." In the Daily Mail, Esler wrote that Reagan "embodied the best of the American spirit - the optimistic belief that problems can be solved, that tomorrow will be better than today, and that our children will be wealthier and happier than we are".
Such drivel about a man who, as president, was responsible for the 1980s bloodbath in central America, and the rise of the very terrorism that produced al-Qaeda, became the received spin. Reagan's walk-on part in Sicko is a rare glimpse of the truth of his betrayal of the blue-collar nation he claimed to represent. The treacheries of another president, Richard Nixon, and a would-be president, Hillary Clinton, are similarly exposed by Moore. Just when there seemed little else to say about the great Watergate crook, Moore extracts from the 1971 White House tapes a conversation between Nixon and John Erlichman, his aide who ended up in prison. A wealthy Republican Party backer, Edgar Kaiser, head of one of America's biggest health insurance companies, is at the White House with a plan for "a national health-care industry". Erlichman pitches it to Nixon, who is bored until the word "profit" is mentioned.
"All the incentives," says Erlichman, "run the right way: the less [medical] care they give them, the more money they make." To which Nixon replies without hesitation: "Fine!" The next cut shows the president announcing to the nation a task force that will deliver a system of "the finest health care". In truth, it is one of the worst and most corrupt in the world, as Sicko shows, denying common humanity to some 50 million Americans and, for many of them, the right to life.
The most haunting sequence is captured by a security camera in a Los Angeles street. A woman, still in her hospital gown, staggers through the traffic, where she has been dumped by the company (the one founded by Nixon's backer) that runs the hospital to which she was admitted. She is ill and terrified and has no health insurance. She still wears her admission bracelet, though the name of the hospital has been thoughtfully erased."
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007
Reporters Without Borders reports:
Bloggers now threatened as much as journalists in traditional media.
"Eritrea has replaced North Korea in last place in an index measuring the level of press freedom in 169 countries throughout the world that is published today by Reporters Without Borders for the sixth year running.
“There is nothing surprising about this,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Even if we are not aware of all the press freedom violations in North Korea and Turkmenistan, which are second and third from last, Eritrea deserves to be at the bottom. The privately-owned press has been banished by the authoritarian President Issaias Afeworki and the few journalists who dare to criticise the regime are thrown in prison. We know that four of them have died in detention and we have every reason to fear that others will suffer the same fate.”
Outside Europe - in which the top 14 countries are located - no region of the world has been spared censorship or violence towards journalists.
Of the 20 countries at the bottom of the index, seven are Asian (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Vietnam, China, Burma, and North Korea), five are African (Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia and Eritrea), four are in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Palestinian Territories and Iran), three are former Soviet republics (Belarus, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) and one is in the Americas (Cuba).
“We are particularly disturbed by the situation in Burma (164th),” Reporters Without Borders said. “The military junta’s crackdown on demonstrations bodes ill for the future of basic freedoms in this country. Journalists continue to work under the yoke of harsh censorship from which nothing escapes, not even small ads. We also regret that China (163rd) stagnates near the bottom of the index. With less than a year to go to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the reforms and the releases of imprisoned journalists so often promised by the authorities seem to be a vain hope.”
Bloggers now threatened as much as journalists in traditional media.
"Eritrea has replaced North Korea in last place in an index measuring the level of press freedom in 169 countries throughout the world that is published today by Reporters Without Borders for the sixth year running.
“There is nothing surprising about this,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Even if we are not aware of all the press freedom violations in North Korea and Turkmenistan, which are second and third from last, Eritrea deserves to be at the bottom. The privately-owned press has been banished by the authoritarian President Issaias Afeworki and the few journalists who dare to criticise the regime are thrown in prison. We know that four of them have died in detention and we have every reason to fear that others will suffer the same fate.”
Outside Europe - in which the top 14 countries are located - no region of the world has been spared censorship or violence towards journalists.
Of the 20 countries at the bottom of the index, seven are Asian (Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Laos, Vietnam, China, Burma, and North Korea), five are African (Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Libya, Somalia and Eritrea), four are in the Middle East (Syria, Iraq, Palestinian Territories and Iran), three are former Soviet republics (Belarus, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) and one is in the Americas (Cuba).
“We are particularly disturbed by the situation in Burma (164th),” Reporters Without Borders said. “The military junta’s crackdown on demonstrations bodes ill for the future of basic freedoms in this country. Journalists continue to work under the yoke of harsh censorship from which nothing escapes, not even small ads. We also regret that China (163rd) stagnates near the bottom of the index. With less than a year to go to the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the reforms and the releases of imprisoned journalists so often promised by the authorities seem to be a vain hope.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)