| Al Jazeera, Oct 21, 2008 | |||
India and Pakistan are set to open a historic trade link across divided Kashmir for the first time in six decades. The route is set to open on Tuesday, and represents an attempt to solve the dispute over the region by creating “soft borders” allowing the free movement of goods and people. Lorries will roll on both sides of the 170km Himalayan mountain highway which was the region’s vital and only surface link with the rest of the world before the partition of subcontinent in 1947. For the time being, trade will take place just once a week, with a limited list of goods allowed. Recent months have seen some of the biggest anti-Indian protests in Kashmir for years and the opening of the trade route goes towards meeting one of the demands of the groups behind those protests. Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chief of Kashmir’s All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a separatist alliance, said: “The trade between two Kashmirs is a good beginning. Our ultimate aim is the line of control between two parts is removed.” Seven protesters were shot dead by Indian security forces in August when they marched to the border demanding the opening of the road to the Pakistani side. At least 42 people have been killed by government forces and at least 1,000 wounded in the protests that followed. Bureaucratic challenge But analysts fear the history of war and mistrust between the two neighbours could lead to similar delays for cross-border trade. A bus service between divided Kashmir, launched with much fanfare in 2005, has struggled to cope with the resulting bureaucracy. Tuesday’s move will be the first time vehicles are allowed to cross the ceasefire line and the newly constructed Aman Setu or Peace Bridge since the 1948 war. N N Vohra, Kashmir’s governor, said the opening of a trade route would be an “important milestone” in India-Pakistan relations. India has moved slowly on opening up the borders, believing that the move could aid separatist attacks on Indian forces from bases in Pakistan. The South Asian neighbours both claim Kashmir in full but rule it in parts. They have fought two wars over the region and were on the verge of a third in 2002 before pulling back. The opening is the latest in tentative peace moves that have done little to resolve the central territorial issue. |
Trade link to cross divided Kashmir
October 21, 2008
Palestinian group says Israelis killed 68 children in Gaza in year
October 21, 2008A prominent Palestinian human rights group says it has found evidence that 68 children were killed in the Gaza Strip in the 12 months to June this year as a result of “disproportionate and excessive lethal force” by the Israeli military.
The deaths are documented, with witness testimony, in a report published today by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. Many of the deaths resulted from an Israeli military incursion into Jabaliya, in eastern Gaza, in late February and early March, in which more than 100 Palestinians, at least half of them civilians, died in what Israel said was an operation to stop rockets being fired into southern Israeli towns.
Others were killed in smaller strikes before a ceasefire was reached in June between Gaza’s Hamas administration and Israel. Despite occasional breaches, the truce still holds. In the year to June, another 12 children were killed by Israeli troops in the West Bank.
The rights group said many of the deaths passed without investigation, and those internal Israeli military inquiries that were held did not meet international standards of independence and transparency.
Since the start of the second intifada in late 2000, around 4,800 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military, including nearly 900 children. More than 1,000 Israelis have been killed, including around 120 children.
The centre cited as one example an incident in April near the village of Juhor al-Dik, when a Reuters cameraman was killed by Israeli tank fire. The same tank shells killed two children: Ahmed Aaref Farajallah, 14, and Ghassan Abu Otaiwi, 17. The Israeli military said it investigated the incident and concluded that the tank crew reached a “reasonable conclusion” that the Palestinians gathered on the road were “hostile”, and said the decision to fire was “sound”.
The Israeli military did not respond to the criticisms last night, because of a Jewish religious holiday. However, it has in the past repeatedly defended its military actions in Gaza, saying it does not intentionally target civilians, and noting that Palestinian militants frequently fire from civilian areas.
The centre said the killing of unarmed civilians represented grave human rights violations, and called on Israel to establish an independent commission to investigate the deaths. It condemned Palestinian militant groups that recruited children to fight and said militants should not fire missiles from in or around residential areas.
America’s National Strategy of Global Intervention
October 20, 2008By William Pfaff | Information Clearing House, Oct 18, 2008
Paris, October 15, 2008 – Last June the U.S. Department of Defense unexpectedly issued a new version of its National Defense Strategy. It was unexpected because there will be a new administration in Washington in January which might be expected to issue a statement of its own ideas about military strategy.
Some in Washington speculated that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, only recently named to that office, a man who gets along with Democrats as well as Republications, might be bidding to keep his job under a new administration.
The new statement lacks the Bush administration’s unilateralism and triumphalism (as if there were anything left to be triumphal about), but it foresees a “Long War” of “promoting freedom, justice and human dignity by working to end tyranny, promote effective democracies and extend prosperity; and confronting the challenges of our time by leading a growing community of democracies.”
All that is straight Bush doctrine, drawn from his second inaugural address and Condoleezza Rice’s policy statement last summer predicting decades of a “new American realism” of “nation-building” to conquer “extremism.” By now the “Long War,” realistic or not, will have become orthodoxy for most of the Washington defense and strategic studies community.
The noteworthy thing about this National Defense Strategy statement is that it says nothing directly about American national defense. It is a strategy for intervening in other countries, and preventing others from blocking or resisting American interventions.
It states the responsibilities of America’s armed forces (summarizing the document’s introduction) as follows:
§ Conduct a global struggle against a violent extremist ideology that seeks to overturn the international system.
§ Deal with the threats of rogue-nation quests for nuclear weapons.
§ Confront the rising military power of other states.
These duties “[will require] the orchestration of national and international power over years or decades to come” to accomplish the following:
§ Long-term innovative approaches to counter al-Qaeda’s rejection of state sovereignty, violation of borders, and attempts to deny self-determination and human dignity.
§ Deal “with the inability of many states to police themselves effectively or work with their neighbors to ensure regional security.” Armed sub-national groups must be dealt with, “including but not limited to those inspired by violent extremism” which if left unchecked will threaten the stability and legitimacy of key states, and allow instability to spread “and threaten regions of interest to the United States, its allies and friends.”
§ Form local partnerships and creative approaches to deny extremists the opportunity to gain footholds in “ungoverned, under-governed, misgoverned, and contested areas” affecting local stability and regional stability.
§ Counter Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology and enrichment capabilities, and deal with the ability of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to threaten international order, sponsor terrorism, and disrupt fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
§ Meet possible challenges from (a) “more powerful states [that] might actively seek to counter the United States in some or all domains of traditional warfare or to gain an advantage in developing capabilities that offset our own,” as well as (b) nations that might “choose niche areas of military capability and competition in which they believe they can develop a strategic or operational advantage [even though] some of these potential competitors [may also be partners of the U.S. in] diplomatic, commercial or security efforts…”
§ For the foreseeable future, “hedge against China’s growing military modernization and the impact of its strategic choices on international security….The objective of this effort is to mitigate near-term challenges while preserving and enhancing U.S. national advantages over time.”
§ Recognize that Russia’s [pre-Georgian crisis] “retreat from openness and democracy,” “bullying of its neighbors,” and “more active military stance… and signaled increase in reliance on nuclear weapons as a foundation for its security …[are warnings of] a Russia exploring renewed influence” and a greater international role.
§ Prevent prospective adversaries, especially non-state actors and their state sponsors, from adopting “anti-access technology and weaponry [that can] restrict our future freedom of action,” and also from “making adversary use of traditional means of influence” such as by “manipulating global opinion using mass communications venues and exploiting international commitments and legal avenues.”
§ The global “commons [space, international waters, aerospace and cyberspace] must be secured and with them access to world markets and resources,” using military capabilities and alliances and coalitions, participating in international security and economic institutions, and employing “diplomacy and soft power to shape the behavior of individual states and the international system, using force when necessary.”
The principal preoccupation of the document is to protect American forces operating in foreign countries: to block measures by foreign states to “deny” American efforts to intervene in their countries, or to develop measures and technology to resist American intervention (or to send Americans to international criminal courts).
As for the United States itself, the document quotes the constitutional obligation of the government “to provide for the common defense,” but says that today, after more than 230 years, the U.S. “shoulders additional responsibilities on behalf of the world,…a beacon of light for those in dark places.” Yet the fear of those dark places that permeates the document compels the recommendation that American troops remain at home, where they will be safe from enemies and untrustworthy allies, and defend their own country.
William Pfaff is the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history, including books on utopian thought, romanticism and violence, nationalism, and the impact of the West on the non-Western world. His newspaper column, featured in The International Herald Tribune for more than a quarter-century, and his globally syndicated articles, have given him the widest international influence of any American commentator.
© Copyright 2008 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.
Nader and McKinney: “Wasting” a Vote for Lincoln’s “Radical” Ideal
October 20, 2008Robert Weitzel, Oct 19, 2008
I had just pressed the “donate now” button on votenader.org when my email pinged. It was a rambling missive from Neil, a self-described “Grumpy Old Son Of A Beach” who’d read an article I’d written for the American Atheist magazine. Neil argued that atheists should vote against “Oduma” and for the McCain/Palin ticket. I’ll spare you the details . . . just imagine Hannity and O’Reilly and Limbaugh joined at their bums flapping their gums.
I wrote a short reply thanking him for sharing his views and telling him I plan to vote for Nader. Ralph did, after all, send me a signed copy of his book, “in pursuit of justice: collected writings 2000-2003” for my several donations—and all I really wanted was a yard sign.
Faster than I thought an electron could make the round trip, Neil was pinging again: “Well Bob, I’m sorry to read that. I guess you really have NO ‘F’ing clue as to what is at stake when you are going to waste your vote on someone who will not even make a dent.”
He added a postscript: “P.S. The Iraq war is FULLY Justified [sic] and I have a minimum of 18 FACTS which prove it.” Neil did not provide the “FACTS,” which is a real shame since my mood has plunged lower than the Dow as the economic meltdown continues to add “miles” to my career path. I could have used a chuckle.
However, the issue Neil raises about wasting a vote is nothing to chuckle about. It is as serious as Mutley, my neighbor’s Pit Bull.
Mutley, you should know, has been voted time and again the greatest threat to the physical and psychological wellbeing of the neighborhood children. Unfortunately, Mutley’s human friend is a brute named Cliff who can beat the crap out of the rest of us guys on the block. Talk about wasted votes. Our only hope is that either a guy tougher than Cliff who hates dogs moves in or Mutley—and/or Cliff— DIE.
If you’re fortunate enough not to have Mutley and Cliff in your neighborhood, the best example I can give of wasted votes is to continually vote for either the Democratic or Republican parties that are continually getting us into foreign policy debacles such as the Vietnam and Iraq wars, and whose hubris or stupidity or greed or [your best guess] or all of the above has led the country and the world into the current economic meltdown.
While a Democratic president lied to escalate the war in Vietnam, a Republican president lied to take America to war in Iraq. With a few notable exceptions, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle fell into formation with their American flag lapel pins unfurled and goose-stepped down Pennsylvania Avenue in time with President Bush’s war drums.
In 2006 the midterm vote gave Democrats a clear mandate to end the war and hold the Bush administration accountable. Predictably, Democratic pols stuck their mugs in front of the cameras and talked tough for a few days and then did nothing—politics as usual . . . wasted votes as usual.
In 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act was intended to prevent the kind of banking shenanigans that have helped to plunge the world into worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. But legislation written by Republicans Phil Gramm and James Leach and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
To address the current economic crisis, the best a bipartisan effort can come up with is a $700 billion-plus bailout for their Wall Street cronies and ex-colleagues, which also includes over a billion dollars stuffed into the pork barrel for themselves but no provisions to help millions of homeowners renegotiate their mortgages, allowing them to remain in their homes and afford their monthly payments.
There is nothing like Glass-Steagall in this golden rescue plan, nothing to prevent Everyman (a.k.a. NASCAR dads and mall maven moms) from losing another trillion in the value of their 401Ks, nothing to prevent the privatized profits and socialized risks of corporate socialism from becoming institutionalized . . . nothing in this plan but politics as usual.
Neil is ranting about third party voters who “have NO ‘F’ing clue” when they waste their votes “on someone who will not even make a dent.” And yet the corporate-controlled political system in our country is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans who time and again waste their votes on two parties with track records for little more than self-preservation, corrupt-crony politics and for not making a “dent” . . . unless, of course, it’s to total the entire country.
The campaigns of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are not the acts of spoilers or vanity candidates. They are the acts of third party candidates struggling for the magical 15 percent that will allow them to challenge the hegemony of the Democratic and Republican parties in televised debates viewed by over 70 million voters. They are the acts of American citizens who believe it is a constitution rather than a corporate charter that is the governing document of our Republic.
Nader and McKinney are not naïve enough to think they’ll need to keep millions of donors’ dollars in reserve for their inaugural balls. They are campaigning for something more important than the presidency. They are campaigning to bring about systemic changes in the “politics as usual” in America. They are campaigning to redeem Abraham Lincoln’s “radical” ideal of an American “government of the people, by the people, and for [ALL] the people.”
If the “Grumpy Old Son Of A Beach” is right and voters continue wasting their votes on two corporate-vetted political parties “who will not even make a dent,” in the domestic woes of “soccer moms” and “Joe the plumber” and whose foreign policy in the “war on terror” is dictated by the American representatives of a miniscule country on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, they should not be at all surprised to look out their window one morning to see Cliff taking Mutley for a stroll . . . and piles of dog pooh on their lawn.
_______
The Failed Presidency of George W. Bush: A Dismal Legacy
October 20, 2008|
by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay
|
|||||
 |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
[PART I]
Whoever is elected president in the coming November 4 American election will inherit a most miserable situation on nearly all fronts. This is because George W. Bush has been one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had, if not the worst. It is widely recognized that he was a below average politician who led his country on the wrong track, both domestically and internationally. Today, only a meager 9 percent of Americans dare to say that their country is moving in the right direction. As a matter of fact, a very large majority of Americans— both Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and of rural areas, high school graduates and college-educated— all say that the United States has been headed in the wrong direction under George W. Bush’s stewardship. Bush’s approval rating reflects the lack of confidence that Americans have in him and his administration. In fact, George W. Bush has recorded the lowest approval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll. And, around the world, the United States has never had a leader who commands so little respect and confidence. Most people in the U.S. and abroad will find satisfaction in seeing his term come to an end.
This is a terrible indictment of the Bush Administration that has presided over America’s destinies for the last eight years. What is more disconcerting, this all came after George W. Bush won the presidential election in 2000, with fewer popular votes than Democratic candidate Al Gore, after a one-judge-majority decision of the Supreme Court, in effect, gave him the presidency. Therefore, this is an administration that had no widespread democratic mandate to do what it has done. And it has done a lot of things wrong. In fact, many people think this has been a morally bankrupt administration. International disaster: An Illegal and Immoral War of Aggression At the center of this fiasco, is the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration and its neocon cohort rushed to exploit the 9/11 terrorist attacks and used this as a pretext to implement a preconceived pro-Israel and pro-oil plan in the Middle East. This led them to adopt a simplistic response to Islamist terrorism, barging into complex Middle East societies on elephant feet. But in the process, they have only succeeded in making matters worse and in encouraging more hatred against the U.S. and more terrorism. Indeed, George W. Bush will be remembered above all as the man who launched an illegal and immoral war of aggression against another sovereign nation, on false pretenses and forged documents, destroying in so doing the entire country of Iraq, and damaging perhaps irreparably the U.S. reputation in the world. As Scott McClellan, Bush’s former Press Secretary during seven long years, stated, Bush and his advisers [in launching the Iraq War] “confused the propaganda campaign with the high level of candour and honesty so fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during a time of war”. Bush’s deception and lies about Iraq in order to initiate a war of aggression, an aggression that is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the U.S., are well documented. Thus, historians will have no difficulty in establishing the fact that the United States, under Bush, acted as a lawless international aggressor. In initiating a war of aggression, Bush did violate the United Nations Charter, which “prohibits the use of military force” against any nation without the specific approval of the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council never approved the American-led military invasion of Iraq. Therefore, Bush and his crew had no international legal basis to invade Iraq. And they cannot pretend that Congress gave them such an authorization, since it is well known in law that no domestic law can override a signed international treaty in good standing. In a domestic parallel, George W. Bush and his administration have set up what is probably the most widespread war profiteering system in modern history, through which billions and billions of dollars were misappropriated and wasted. At the same time as they were adopting a permanent war posture abroad, they were irresponsibly calling at home for a 674 billion dollar tax cut for their rich supporters and pushing up the deficits, of which a large proportion was financed by borrowing abroad. Illegality and Immorality On the legal front, this is an administration that has shamed the United States with its illegal actions, with its deliberate and dishonest lies, with its war crimes, its disregard for international treaties, and with its overt disregard of constitutional government. On the question of lawlessness, the list of missteps the Bush-Cheney administration took outside of the law is too long for a short article as this one. But there are numerous documents to be consulted and it is possible to attempt a short summary. From the very beginning, the Bush-Cheney administration has dismissed international law and disregarded domestic law. They began by either repudiating or refusing to honor the United States’ international commitments and obligations, thus showing indifference, if not outright hostility, toward international law. They opted out of five important international treaties and commitments: the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty and the International Criminal Court. In so doing, the United States, under the Bush-Cheney administration, has betrayed its international commitments and has moved away from being a moral state, and more and more toward the status of an international rogue state. This was all confirmed when the Bush-Cheney administration adopted, in September 2002, the Bush Doctrine of preventive war, an internationally illegal and immoral program. Indeed, under existing international law, no country may attack another under false pretenses, nor use military force unilaterally. This was followed by the even more dangerous and hairy Cheney Doctrine (or the One Percent Doctrine) which is anti-human rights, anti-rule of law and anti-Constitution, because it posits that if there is even a 1% chance American interests are in jeopardy somewhere in the world, unilateral American military interventions are justified, and this without conclusive evidence or extensive analysis. Such hubristic and shoot-from-the-hip foreign policies are a true recipe for international anarchy and thus render a great disservice to humanity. Domestically, President George W. Bush has introduced the unconstitutional practice of adding signing statements to new laws, stating that he has the right, as President, to violate any section of a law, should he deem it in the national interest to do so. For example, on January 28, 2008, Bush signed into law the repeal of the “Insurrection Act Rider” in the 2006 defense appropriations bill. That rider had given the President sweeping power to use military troops in ways contrary to the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus Act and authorized the president to have troops patrol American streets in response to disasters, epidemics, and any “condition” he might cite. But in signing this repeal, Bush attached a signing statement that he did not feel bound by the repeal, thus opening the possibility he could ignore the law any time he saw fit to do so. Disrespect for Liberty and the U.S. Constitution As if this were not enough, there was the attempt by the Bush-Cheney regime to suspend and even permanently abolish the more than eight centuries old right of Habeas Corpus. And when the Supreme Court, in a far-reaching decision on June 12, 2008, rebuked the B-C administration’s argument that it had a right to establish concentration camps on U.S.-run properties around the world and hold prisoners indefinitely with no legal recourse, especially at the Guantánamo Bay detention center, President George W. Bush had the gall to criticize the Supreme Court’s decision while on a trip to Europe. Then Bush embarked upon a program of domestic spying on Americans never before seen in a democracy. He, indeed, removed most of the safeguards that had been erected to protect citizens from illegal and warrantless spying activities by government, thus making a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the Bush-Cheney administration did not respect key parts of the U.S. Constitution, especially the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It must said, however, that some Bush Democrats, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Democratic House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D – MD) have also willfully and enthusiastically collaborated with George W. Bush in enlarging the government’s spying powers over citizens. On his own, however, George W. Bush did his utmost to make permanent the President’s War Powers, thus making sure that the United States could remain on a permanent war path and be in a position to suspend at will basic constitutional rights. On top of everything, George W. Bush will be remembered as a politician who authorized torture and indefinite detention of prisoners. Indeed, after Bush willfully suspended the rights accorded prisoners of war by the Geneva Conventions, he was, in fact, officially turning the United States into an immoral nation that openly and unashamedly resorts to torture, thus violating basic rules of morality, international law and a host of international treaties adhered to by the United States. In fact, the Geneva Conventions in its article 3 does not only prohibit torture, but also any cruel, inhuman, degrading, and humiliating treatment of a detainee “in all circumstances.” However, it is not only on the issue of torture that the United States under Bush has become an international pariah. The Bush-Cheney administration has also operated concentration camps in many countries, holding captive tens of thousands of detainees and hiding them from the Red Cross, the body empowered to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions. The Bush-Cheney administration has placed itself outside the civilized world and was nearly alone, last May (2008), in trying to undermine a treaty banning cluster bombs, a type of bombs which have killed so many civilians, when 111 countries signed a treaty outlawing these inhuman weapons. On this occasion, the United States, under Bush-Cheney, sided with a handful of weapons makers and users, none of them known as great defenders of human rights and democracy: Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan. The Bush-Cheney administration has truly been a shamelessly immoral administration. (PART II on Global Research next week) Rodrigue Tremblay is professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal and can be reached at: rodrigue.tremblay@ yahoo.com. He is the author of the book ‘The New American Empire’. Visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog. Author’s Website: www.thenewamericanempire.com/ Check Dr. Tremblay’s coming book “The Code for Global Ethics” at: www.TheCodeForGlobalEthics.com/ |
|||||
Email this article to a friend
Print this articleIsrael ‘weighing Saudi peace deal’
October 20, 2008| Al Jazeera, Oct 20, 2008 | |||
Israel’s defence minister has said the country’s leaders are considering a dormant Saudi plan offering comprehensive peace with the Arab world. Ehud Barak said it was time to pursue an overall peace deal because there was very little progress in individual negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians. The peace plan – first mooted by Saudi Arabia in 2002 – offers Israel recognition by its Arab neighbours in return for its withdrawal from lands in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights captured during the 1967 Middle East war. Barak said he had discussed the plan with Tzipi Livni, the leader of Israel’s Kadima party trying to form a coalition government, and that they were considering a response. “There is definitely room to introduce a comprehensive Israeli plan to counter the Saudi plan that would be the basis for a discussion on overall regional peace,” he told Israel’s Army Radio. Barak’s announcement came as Livni sought a two-week extension to form political alliances in a new government, having failed to attract the ultra-orthodox Shas party to join Kadima and Barak’s Labour party in the administration. Coalition deadline Livni was elected leader of Kadima last month, taking over from Ehud Olmert who resigned as prime minister in the wake of a corruption scandal but remains in office in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed. Livni has already won an initial agreement from Barak, the leader of the Labour party, to join a coalition under her leadership. But her efforts to attract Shas, which is making a number of demands, have so far proved fruitless. Al Jazeera’s Sherine Tadros, reporting from Jerusalem, said the Shas party had a strong bargaining position. The Shas party knows that Livni really needs it in order to become prime minister and form a strong government acceptable to the Israeli public, our correspondent said. The religious Shas party, which has long billed itself as a party that represents Israel’s poor, has been demanding increased government spending of about $270m on social welfare as a price for joining a Livni-led coalition. Scramble for numbers “She could go to the Knesset [to ratify a government] with the seats she already has, but she believes she can do it in the end,” Gil Messing, a Livni spokesman, said. Without Shas, she could form a minority government relying on precarious support from outside the coalition of left-wing and Arab parties wary of a national election that opinion polls show Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud would win. Shas’s membership would boost that number to 60, a wafer-thin coalition but enough to stop the opposition from toppling her government in no-confidence votes. Winning the support of smaller factions, such as the Pensioners party, with seven Knesset members, and the left-wing Meretz, with five, would give Livni a stronger mandate to pursue policies that include peacemaking with the Palestinians. Meanwhile, some 80 truckloads of food and medical supplies were delayed from reaching the Gaza Strip after dozens of Israelis blocked a crossing on Sunday, demanding their government seal an agreement with Hamas to release Gilad Shalit. Hamas is demanding the release of 1,400 prisoners in exchange for Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian fighters more than two years ago. |
SPAIN: Only Banks Get Aid, Anti-Poverty Protesters Complain
October 20, 2008By José Antonio Gurriarán | Inter-Press Service
MADRID, Oct 17 (IPS) – “We think it’s disgraceful that billions of dollars are available to bail out banks, and there is no money to eradicate poverty in the world,” said Marina Navarro, the spokeswoman for some 1,000 social organisations in Spain taking part in demonstrations against poverty between Friday and Sunday.
“We can understand the need for certain measures to address the economic crisis triggered by financial institutions in the United States, but we are completely opposed to that happening at the cost of an increase in hunger, poverty and inequality around the world,” the representative of the Spanish Alliance Against Poverty told IPS in Madrid.
The Alliance Against Poverty, made up of civil society organisations, trade unions, community associations, religious institutions and other groups, held demonstrations Friday to mark the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty and will continue mobilising over the weekend in response to the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (GCAP), whose campaign slogan this year is “Stand Up and Take Action”.
From Oct. 17-19, millions of people around the world will literally stand up in protests and other events to demand that their governments make the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) top priority in budget allocation.
Taking 1990 levels as a baseline, the MDGs include a 50 percent reduction in extreme poverty and hunger; universal primary education; promotion of gender equality; reduction of child mortality by two-thirds; cutbacks in maternal mortality by three-quarters; combating the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; ensuring environmental sustainability; and developing a North-South global partnership for development.
“Far from meeting the MDGs, the number of poor people around the world has grown by 50 million, bringing the total to over 900 million,” said Navarro, referring to the first of the eight goals assumed by the international community in 2000, which have a 2015 deadline.
“I know it is a very harsh term, but I can’t find a better one: isn’t it disgraceful that it cost 700 billion dollars to bail out the banks in the United States, five times more than what the United Nations approved for reaching the MDGs?” asked Navarro.
In practically every large city and provincial capital in Spain, people have been mobilising over the last few days and will continue to do so through the weekend as part of the Alliance Against Poverty campaign, whose main aim is to call for compliance with the first MDG, against extreme poverty and hunger.
Developing regions, especially parts of Asia, have achieved steady economic growth and have seen the overall poverty rate shrink from 80 to 20 percent in the last 25 years. In addition, the proportion of children under five suffering from malnutrition dropped from 33 percent in 1996 to 26 percent in 2006.
“That’s true, and it should be highlighted as extraordinary progress,” said Navarro. “The case of Mozambique is also exemplary — one of the countries in the world with the greatest economic difficulties, which managed to reduce poverty to 10 percent of the population, thanks to active social policies and to donor countries like Germany, Spain, Britain and the Netherlands.”
But, she added, “half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, and 1.4 billion people in poor regions around the world, still live on less than 1.25 dollars a day, according to the World Bank.”
In Spain’s large cities, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators are expected to stand up against poverty from Friday to Sunday.
In Friday’s enormous march in Madrid, signs carried by protesters also expressed concern about the unequal distribution of wealth, both between and within countries.
Another prominent activist who has been working hard over the last few days for the success of the campaign to sensitise Spanish society on the questions of poverty and hunger is Alliance Against Poverty spokesman David Ortiz, the only civil society representative to accompany Spain’s socialist Prime Minister José Luís Rodríguez Zapatero to the U.N. General Assembly in New York in late September.
“It is outrageous that as wealth grows around the world, so does inequality, and far from meeting the MDGs, we are getting farther and farther away from them in many cases,” Ortiz told IPS.
“In Latin America, the average income has gone up considerably in the last few years, but poverty has grown too, and there are intolerable problems of inequality that must be addressed,” he said.
“And in Africa, the number of people living in extreme poverty grows day by day, while a small elite becomes extremely wealthy. These are situations that are intolerable from a human standpoint,” he said.
The demonstrators taking part in the march in Madrid reminded the Zapatero administration of its pledge to increase official development aid to 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2012.
Ortiz said things have changed since the socialist party (PSOE) came to power in Spain in 2004, but argued that a much greater improvement is needed.
Under the previous government, of the centre-right Popular Party, “aid stood at 0.2 percent of GDP, and it has now grown to 0.4 percent and will apparently expand to 0.5 percent in the budget to be approved in the next few days,” he said.
“But we have to reach 0.7 percent of GDP as soon as possible, in Spain as well as in other countries, because the situation is critical, with millions of children and adults having their basic needs unmet or dying of hunger,” said Ortiz. (END/2008)
Tens of Thousands of Iraqis Mass for Anti-SOFA Protest
October 18, 2008At least 50,000 Iraqis joined a protest in the streets of Baghdad today, organized by followers of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, chanting anti-US and anti-occupation slogans and waving banners opposing the controversial Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which would keep US troops in Iraq through 2011.
Though Sadr was not personally present at the rally, he did address the crowd in a message directed at Iraqi lawmakers, read by Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi. In the statement he urged Iraq’s parliament to “champion the will of the people over that of the occupier” and oppose the pact. He also cautioned that passing the deal “will stigmatize Iraq and its government for years to come.”
Sadr is just one of many influential religious leaders, both Sunni and Shi’ite, speaking out against the SOFA. The high attendance for the rally underscores a growing popular hostility for the deal, which faces a long battle for approval in the Iraqi government.
Though it is unclear at this point whether the terms of the deal are finalized, officials reported this was the case earlier in the week though White House Press Secretary Dana Perino denied it yesterday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari says it would be “difficult to reopen the text” and that it was time for parliament to either ratify or reject the deal. He added that “the next few days are very crucial for Iraqi leaders to decide.”
Popular and religious opposition to the deal as well as a splintering coalition government will make it extremely difficult for Iraq’s parliament to pass the deal. And even though a simple majority is all that is required for passage, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reportedly intends to submit it for consideration only if he is confident it will receive a two-thirds majority, fearing criticism if the vote is close.
When Will India Quit Kashmir?
October 20, 2008Kashmir Watch, Oct 19, 2008
Dr Abdul Ruff Colachal
After protesters thronged to United Nations Military Observer Group office in Srinagar demanding the resolution of Kashmir dispute, as it is already known, the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is planning to visit India towards the end of this month or in early November. Another important move in this regard is that United Nations Secretary General has informed the Security Council of his intention to appoint Major General Kim Moon Hwa of the Republic of Korea as Chief Military Observer in the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). Major General Kim will replace Major General Dragutin Repinc of Croatia.
The historic opening of Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakote roads for trade would be supplemented by some more bold initiatives to facilitate Kashmir resolution process, both on bilateral and internal fronts. Kashmir resolution process involves not only various shades of political opinion but all sections of the society. In a historic decision, the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries (KCCI), Chamber of Commerce and Industry Jammu (CCIJ) and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry (AJKCCI) on Oct 14 formed a 32-member joint chamber of commerce. But the cross-LoC trade cannot be an alternative to Kashmir solution.
The latest developments in the State offer Government of India an opportunity to reinforce its resolve of working through peaceful means and through public participation towards the resolution of the problem.
Freedom Leader Geelani
Calling for a complete shutdown on October 24, the United Nations Raising Day, the Hurriyat Conference (G) chairman, Syed Ali Shah Geelani on Saturday urged masses to send emails, letters, faxes, telegrams and SMS to the UN’s New York headquarters to press for granting Right to self determination (RSD) to people of Kashmir to determine their fate.
Indian Terrorism
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Patron Mufti Muhammad Sayeed claimed the State had started witnessing continuous changes of great importance and substance after the 2002 elections transforming its ground scenario positively and this had resulted in consistent increase of public participation in the democratic processes and his party contributed to it. Let that be. But he should enter now the freedom movement by actively involving himself with the freedom leaders fully committed to the cause of full and complete freedom from foreign occupation.
An international organization research on the Kashmir conflict, 7thspace.com, to assess experiences with violence and mental health status among the conflict-affected Kashmiri population, has reported that 85 per cent of Valley population have confrontation with the violence while 66 percent have witnessed torture. The survey reported that the civilian population in Kashmir is exposed to high levels of violence, as demonstrated by the high frequency of deliberate events as detention, hostage, and torture. Respondents reported frequent direct confrontations with violence since the start of conflict, including exposure to crossfire (85.7%), round up raids (82.7%), the witnessing of torture (66.9%), rape (13.3%), and self-experience of forced labor (33.7%), arrests/kidnapping (16.9%), torture (12.9%), and sexual violence (11.6%).The survey found high levels of psychological distress that impacts on daily life and places a burden on the health system. Ongoing feelings of personal vulnerability (not feeling safe) were associated with high levels of psychological distress. Over one-third of respondents were found to have symptoms of psychological distress, women scored significantly higher. A third of respondents had contemplated suicide.
India Destroys Medicinal Fauna of Kashmir
Kashmir is infested with Indian terror forces, agents and pro-India elements sabotaging the cause of freedom. India argues it has every right to heavily militarize Jammu Kashmir and kill the Kashmiri Muslims stock and barrel. Around 60,000 troops are posted in the Gurez which has a habitation of only 30,000 people. The ecology of Gurez is under threat as the army troopers deployed in the border area have been accused of vandalizing the environment by extracting valuable medicinal plants and minerals. Gurez has got vast resources of precious and costly medicinal plants and minerals, which were extracted legally by the locals till 1989 when armed rebellion broke out in Kashmir. After the turmoil, thousands of soldiers were deployed in Gurez and they continue to man each and every ridge.
The locals said that valuable medicinal plants like Kuth (Saussurea cosstus), Diosoriea (Dioscorea deltoidea), Mushki Bala( Veleriana wallichii) Guchies (Morchella esculenta), Black Zeera, Artimesia, Bellodona, Podophyllum (Banwangon) are found in abundance in Gurez. They said that had these natural resources been extracted by the state administration with the help of locals, the economy of the border area would have received a boost. They, however, alleged that the troopers are illegally extracting the natural resources, posing ecological and economic threat to the border area. “There are legal, scientific and technological methods to extract the medicinal plants from the forests. However, troops during illegal extraction are not following these methods and destroy the precious and costly medicinal plants for their monetary benefits,” they said. “We were exporting medicinal plants legally worth crores of rupees to other parts of India and world before start of militancy. After the deployment of army personnel in Gurez, peaks encumbered with medicinal plants and minerals are now on the verge of extinction.
Continued . . .
Share this:
Tags: BJP, Indian, Indian forces in Kashmir, Indian-controlled Kashmir, Kashmir dispute, medicinal plants, National Conference, right to self-determination, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, torture and violence in Kashmir, UN Secretary-Genral Ben Ki-moon
Posted in Commentary, Human rights, India, Islam and Muslims, Kashmir, Pakistan | Leave a Comment »