Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2006 March
2006 February
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
My Links
Home
Sea-Eat
HaitiChildren.com
Adopt A Minefield
Info for Americans living abroad
Jewish Voice For Peace
Gush-Shalom
All Is One
The Hunger Site
Global Exchange
Peace Star Project
Iraq Occupation Watch
Peace Mid-East Dialogue Group
B'TSELEM
Parents Circle - Families Forum
Women's World
P10K
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| What's right with Kerry |
| 03.01.04 (8:45 am) [edit] |
by David Corn
In the heat of battle, with his campaign crumbling, Howard Dean lashed out at John Kerry. First, he called the leader in the Democratic presidential race a "Republican." Then he said, "When Senator Kerry's record is examined by the public at a more leisurely time...he's going to turn out to be just like George Bush."
Just like George Bush? It is true that Kerry, another Yalie and Skull and Bones alum, has voted in favor of NAFTA and other corporate-friendly trade pacts, that he once raised questions about affirmative action (while still supporting it), that he has, like almost every Democratic senator, accepted contributions from special-interest lobbyists (while being one of the few to eschew political action committee donations), that he voted to grant Bush the authority to invade Iraq. But this hardly makes him Bush lite. There is, as evidence, his nineteen-year Senate record, during which he has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights and environmental policies, opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, led the effort against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, pushed for higher fuel economy standards, advocated boosting the minimum wage and pressed for global warming remedies. But what distinguishes Kerry's career are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate. One rap on Kerry is that he is overly cautious and conventional. He's no firebrand on the stump, nor does he come across as the most passionate and exciting force for change. But his history in Washington includes episodes in which he demonstrated a willingness to confront hard issues, to challenge power, to pursue values rather than political advantage, to take risks for the public interest.
Kerry arrived in the Senate in 1985. This Vietnam War hero turned antiwar leader had been lieutenant governor of Massachusetts. But he entered the body more as the prosecutor he had been in the late 1970s after graduating from Boston College law school. In early 1986 Kerry's office was contacted by a Vietnam vet who alleged that the support network for the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras (who were fighting against the socialist Sandinistas in power) was linked to drug traffickers. Kerry doubted that the Reagan Administration, obsessed with supporting the contras, would investigate such charges. He pushed for a Senate inquiry and a year later, as chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee, obtained approval to conduct a probe.
It was not an easy ride. Reagan Justice Department officials sought to discredit and stymie his investigation. Republicans dismissed it. One anti-Kerry effort used falsified affidavits to make it seem his staff had bribed witnesses. The Democratic staff of the Senate Iran/contra committee--which showed little interest in the contra drug connection--often refused to cooperate. "They were fighting us tooth and nail," recalls Jack Blum, one of Kerry's investigators. "We had the White House and the CIA against us on one side and our colleagues in the Senate on the other. But Kerry told us, 'Keep going.' He didn't let this stuff faze him."
Kerry's inquiry widened to look at Cuba, Haiti, the Bahamas, Honduras and Panama. In 1989 he released a report that slammed the Reagan Administration for neglecting or undermining anti-drug efforts in order to pursue other foreign policy objectives. It noted that the government in the 1970s and '80s had "turned a blind eye" to the corruption and drug dealing of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, who had done various favors for Washington (including assisting the contras). The report concluded that "individuals who provided support for the contras were involved in drug trafficking...and elements of the contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers." And, it added, US government agencies--meaning the CIA and the State Department--had known this.
This was a rather explosive finding, but the Kerry report did not provoke much uproar in the media, and the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill did little to support Kerry and keep the matter alive. His critics derided him as a conspiracy buff. Yet a decade later the CIA inspector general released a pair of reports that acknowledged that the agency had worked with suspected drug smugglers to support the contras. Kerry had been right.
Continue reading http://www.thenation.com/doc.... The Nation
|
|
|
| |
| Haiti: The Ghosts of War |
| 03.01.04 (8:17 am) [edit] |
Pro-government vigilantes loot and murder, as rebels with a dark past storm toward the capital. Can Haiti be saved?
By Joseph Contreras
NewsweekMarch 8 issue - Even before the rebels reached Haiti's capital, corpses began turning up. Photographers found two men's bodies on Friday morning near John Brown Avenue, the main thoroughfare between Port-au-Prince and the upmarket suburb of Petion-Ville. One victim was in handcuffs. Both had died from shotgun blasts to the head. Near an inner-city market was the body of a man who had been castrated and slashed to death with a machete. A young boy's corpse lay just outside the city's seaport, not seeming to trouble the thugs who loitered nearby, waiting to pounce on unwary looters trying to haul away anything portable.
Continue reading http://msnbc.msn.com/id/44098... Newsweek
|
|
|
| |
| Must Read - Why Susie Krabacher bought orphanage |
| 03.01.04 (7:54 am) [edit] |
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti -- Last week, as gunmen murdered people on the streets and foreigners scrambled to get out of the country, Susie Scott Krabacher flew in from Aspen, Colo.
Negotiating barricades of burning tires in her platform boots and ankle-length white skirt, she headed straight for a summit meeting with powerful gang leaders in the meanest slum in the poorest country in the Americas.
Sitting in the cavernous gloom of a church, Mrs. Krabacher, 40 years old and Playboy's Miss May of 1983, worked her charm on a taciturn, heavyset gang leader known only by his first name, Amaral. Peering into his eyes, and lightly touching his knee, Mrs. Krabacher told Amaral that she has great plans for his sector of this squalid slum called Cite Soleil -- a basketball court, a free clinic and a better school -- but only if Haiti's political chaos subsides.
"We are worried what will happen if this country goes crazy," Mrs. Krabacher told Amaral.
Haiti went crazy long before President Jean-Bertrand Aristide resigned and fled into exile yesterday. Describing herself as the "Playboy Playmate Mother Teresa of Haiti," Mrs. Krabacher has plunged into the chaos to become an important provider of medical care and education. In the past decade, she has taken charge of the abandoned children's unit of Haiti's main hospital and set up a system of six schools and three orphanages. She provides education for nearly 2,000 kids, and care for 150 orphans, about 60 of whom are severely handicapped or terminally ill.
Last week, as armed rebels marched toward the capital vowing to overthrow President Aristide, Mrs. Krabacher's route to Cite Soleil was littered with the carcasses of stripped and burned automobiles. Merchant women squatted selling sticks of sugar cane, ends sharpened to points, next to paper bags of charcoal. A cloud of foul smoke rose from mounds of smoldering garbage. Pigs rooted through piles of trash and waded through open sewers filled with slime the bright green color of antifreeze. The body of a man recently killed was sprawled in the road. Next to the corpse, hard men glared at passersby.
One night last week, a dozen gunmen tried to break into one of the nearby schools Mrs. Krabacher runs. The next day, a mob looted a warehouse where Mrs. Krabacher keeps supplies, stealing $7,000 of donated rice, beans, wheelchairs and milk. "I didn't need to see this," she said sadly outside the wrecked warehouse. Undaunted, the day after the looting, Mrs. Krabacher scoured the waterfront to buy looted rice for the children in her orphanage, ultimately scoring 11 bags weighing 120 pounds each.
At the hospital children's unit she runs, pillows and medicines are regularly stolen. Thieves even got the unit's first oven and refrigerator, and broke up a cabinet for the wood. Last week, an employee fired for stealing from one of the orphanages paid a gang leader to show up with half a dozen armed men threatening to kill everybody inside if the employee wasn't reinstated. "You need strength and faith to do this in Haiti," said Stanley Joseph, Mrs. Krabacher's right-hand man. "The country is made to stop you."
To forestall such troubles, Mrs. Krabacher is careful to meet with local gang leaders such as Amaral. Last week, Amaral, who won't give his last name, promised to support her projects in exchange for a promise of medical help for a friend of his who obligingly lifted his T-shirt at Amaral's command to reveal big scars on his belly from bullet wounds. "Do you mind if we pick him up and take him to a doctor outside?" Mrs. Krabacher asked. "No one will want to come and examine him here."
Mrs. Krabacher reached Cite Soleil by a circuitous route. At 18, she was living in Hugh Hefner's Playboy mansion in Beverly Hills. Among her beaus, she says, were crooner Julio Iglesias and rocker Rod Stewart. She moved to Aspen five years later and lives there still with her husband, corporate and real-estate lawyer Joseph Krabacher, 50. For a time, she was a partner in a sushi bar and an antique store.
Ten years ago, after seeing a television documentary, she set out to help orphans in Mongolia. But a friend convinced her that the needs were greater in nearby Haiti. She flew to Port-au-Prince instead. At the airport, she recalls, she asked a taxi driver to take her to where "the poor people are." He dropped her at this seaside shantytown and quickly drove away.
Perched on high heels, she walked into the fetid slum of tiny airless tin shacks. A family of 17 took her in for the night.
"It changed my life. It rocked my world," she says. "I knew why I had been born that day." She says she has always been a Christian but that she completely committed herself to Christ when she started working in Haiti.
She says that as a young girl growing up in a small Alabama town, she was sexually abused. "In each of the kids, when they first come to me, I see the exact look I had in my own eyes when I would crawl up and look in the mirror of the vanity in the bathroom," she says. "I looked so old and raggedy, and nobody ever helped me."
Within three days of arriving in Haiti the first time, she had negotiated for a piece of land and started the construction of a health-care center and food kitchen. Built in 1994 at a cost of $13,000, the building, which stands a few yards down a narrow alleyway from the tin shack where she first stayed in Cite Soleil, now doubles as a school, the first of six she has founded in Haiti. Last week, it was jammed with smiling kids in clean blue uniforms.
Soon after, Mrs. Krabacher started visiting the abandoned children's unit at Port-au-Prince's main hospital, a warren of colonial buildings built by the American Red Cross in 1922. In 1995, she negotiated an agreement to run the unit for the hospital. As part of the deal, the hospital insisted that she place the children who survived somewhere else.
Mrs. Krabacher, who had already sold her interest in her Aspen sushi bar to fund her project, took on a second mortgage on her Aspen house, paying $110,000 to buy a property she converted into an orphanage.
Two years later, she paid $250,000 to buy an abandoned orphanage and school. At that site, she now runs a school, an orphanage for disabled and terminally ill children and a second orphanage for normal children. Many of the children from the abandoned children's unit she still runs at the hospital end up at the orphanage and school.
For her efforts, Mrs. Krabacher has been named an honorary Haitian citizen. American Airlines, which once lent one of its jets to fly some 39,000 pounds of rice, beans and milk to Haiti for her foundation, flies her free of charge. Mrs. Krabacher is also well known in Washington among lawmakers involved with Haiti. Burton Wides, senior counsel to Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat and senior member of the Black Caucus, says his boss "is terribly impressed by her dedication, forcefulness and willingness to do everything needed to help save these kids."
Last week, going from cot to cot, Mrs. Krabacher hugged and held the dozen children in the unit. Some were matchstick thin. Others had the swollen heads typical of hydrocephalus.
Mrs. Krabacher spends about three weeks in Haiti every two months. Last year, her husband kicked in about $110,000 for the foundation's total budget of $340,000, and she raised the rest. "Neither of us wanted kids," she says. "Now we have 2,000, and no stretch marks to show for it."
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004030104000 013&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004030104000 013&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... Dow Jones
|
|
|
| |
| EU trade sanctions on US to begin Monday |
| 03.01.04 (7:40 am) [edit] |
By Eva Cahen
CNSNews.com Correspondent
February 27, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The European Union will impose millions of dollars in trade sanctions against the United States beginning on Monday and will increase these every month to reach $4 billion if Congress does not repeal a tax law that has been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization.
The sanctions will affect products such as agriculture, textiles, electronics, jewelry, paper and steel - goods that the E.U. says are competitive with European products - and will be phased in gradually with an additional customs duty of 5 percent. The duty will then increase monthly by 1 percent until it reaches a ceiling of 17 percent.
Pascal Lamy, the European Union trade commissioner announced the retaliation on Thursday, and European Union officials confirmed that the sanctions will be enforced beginning on Monday.
The history of the dispute goes back to 1997 when the E.U. filed a complaint about the Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) law that benefits many large U.S. exporters like Microsoft.
After years of rulings and appeals, the WTO ruled that the tax breaks add up to illegal subsidies of exports and authorized the sanctions, which the E.U. voted last year to begin by March 1 if the law was not repealed.
"We have been urging the E.U. not to do this and we regret that they're planning on moving forward with these sanctions," said a U.S. official.
A bill to repeal the measure in the Senate could reach the floor next week, and another bill is also being worked on in Congress.
"There is a consensus in Congress and in the administration that the U.S. does need to come into compliance," said the official.
The sanctions are not related to a U.S. ban imposed on some French meat products this week due to unsatisfactory sanitary conditions, nor to a European Union ban on poultry products after an outbreak of flu among chickens in Texas.
This will be the first time the E.U. will impose retaliatory sanctions on the U.S. The sanctions, which will begin at $40 million, are the largest penalty ever authorized by the WTO.
Initially, the effects of the extra customs duty will be felt by some of the more price-sensitive industries such as agriculture and manufacturing but if the sanctions remain in place until they reach 17 percent or the full $4 billion, they could hurt all the exporters concerned.
European Union officials said their goal remains the withdrawal of the U.S. subsidy and they will not back down from the sanctions until the tax law is repealed.
"We would have preferred that the Europeans demonstrate additional patience on this," said the U.S. official, "especially since we do believe that Congress is moving forward and has every intent to bring the U.S. into compliance."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=" title="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=" target="_blank"http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewF...\ForeignBureaus\archive\2 00402\FOR20040227d.html CNS
|
|
|
| |
| Japan marks US nuke test in Pacific |
| 03.01.04 (7:24 am) [edit] |
By MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Writer
TOKYO - On the night of March 1, 1954, the No. 5 Fukuryu-maru was trolling for tuna off the Bikini atoll in the Pacific.
Suddenly, fisherman Matashichi Oishi saw the sky flash orange and felt a rumbling shake the trawler. As he and 22 other crew members rushed to the deck, tiny white flakes began to fall on them like snow.
The crew thought an underwater volcano had erupted. But what they saw that night was something far more destructive: an American hydrogen bomb.
The No. 5 Fukuryu-maru, or Lucky Dragon, was about 100 miles off Bikini island in the central Pacific when the United States tested a bomb there, engulfing the fishermen with high levels of radiation.
The bombing 50 years ago Monday inspired outraged protest in Japan, gave impetus to the country's anti-nuclear movement and strongly reinforced the image of Japan — the site of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks — as a unique witness to the atomic age.
"We were the victims of the nuclear arms race," said Oishi, 70, who runs a laundry in Tokyo and recently published a book on the bombing. "The Bikini incident is not a problem of the past. It's an issue of nuclear weapons that affects all of us today."
For the fishermen exposed, the effects of the bomb were devastating.
By the time the trawler returned home two weeks later, some crew members had lost hair, developed skin burns or had discolored faces. They suffered from diarrhea and jaundice. Their white blood counts dropped dangerously low. The boat's radio telegraph operator, Aikichi Kuboyama, died in September 1954.
Survivors have suffered from liver and blood disorders. In addition to Kuboyama, 11 crew members have died in the half-century since the exposure, at least six of them from liver cancer. Oishi has had surgery for liver cancer.
Fears at the time were high that such exposure was much more widespread. Between 1946 and 1958, the United States conducted 66 nuclear tests at Bikini as part of "Operation Crossroads." The atoll is part of the Marshall Islands, 2,400 miles southwest of Hawaii.
Experts say nearly 900 other Japanese fishing boats were also believed to have been in the affected area. Japanese officials were aware of the testing program, but Oishi says fishermen were not well-informed about the timing of the tests or what areas were dangerous.
No follow up studies have been conducted on those other boats and nobody knows how many fishermen might have been affected, says Kazuya Yasuda, curator of Tokyo's No. 5 Fukuryu-maru Exhibition Hall, where the boat is now on display.
The exhibit, which includes a crew diary and artifacts such as the "ash of death" in a glass bottle, was renovated ahead of the 50th anniversary of the Bikini bombing. A film about the bombing is being shown.
"We are here to let people think about the risk of nuclear weapons today and think about peace," Yasuda said, walking past elementary school children on a field trip studying the displays.
In 1955, the U.S. government paid $2 million in compensation to Japan, one-third of what the Japanese government had requested.
The package included condolence money for Kuboyama, medical costs for the rest of the crew and damages to Japan's fishing industry, according to Foreign Ministry documents. In 1983, the U.S. government paid the Marshall Islands $183.7 million in compensation.
The payments settled the issue between the governments, but not for the victims.
Oishi, like the other crew members, received about $5,600 in compensation. But the Japanese government has not recognized the 23 as victims of a nuclear bomb, excluding them from relief funds set up for survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The crew also faced a stigma common in Japan for victims and the physically ill. Oishi fled the prying eyes of his neighbors in his hometown of Yaizu, 100 miles southwest of Tokyo, and went to the capital after his initial symptoms subsided.
But the effects of the bombing kept coming back. Oishi's first baby had birth defects and died. His daughter suffered three broken marriage engagements after prospective husbands learned Oishi had been exposed to radiation.
"For years, I only wanted to hide my past. But after seeing my colleagues die like social outcasts, I felt it wasn't right. I thought it was so unfair," Oishi said. "So I came out of the closet. I couldn't let our past be forgotten like nothing happened."
Since he broke his silence on the bombing in the early 1980s, Oishi has been speaking about his experience at schools, town halls and museums.
"As a survivor of the nuclear test, I have to let people know the threat of nuclear weapons," he said. "I'll keep telling my story as long as I live."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=8&u=/ap/200 40229/ap_on_re_as/japan_r emembering_bikini" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=5 35&ncid=535&e=8&u=/ap/200 40229/ap_on_re_as/japan_r emembering_bikini" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... Yahoo
|
|
|
| |
| Belgium ready for Dutroux trial |
| 03.01.04 (7:12 am) [edit] |
Dutroux's trial has been delayed for eight years
Belgian police are mounting a huge security operation as one of the country's most notorious men finally goes on trial in the town of Arlon.
Alleged child-killer Marc Dutroux is accused of kidnapping and abusing six girls aged from eight to 19 in the 1990s and of murdering four of them.
The trial has been delayed for eight years as police investigated claims of a wider paedophile ring.
Perceived police incompetence triggered huge demonstrations in Belgium.
It should be a normal trial, but everybody knows this won't be the case.
Three hundred police officers will guard Arlon's Palace of Justice on the first day of a trial expected to last three months and cost $5.8 million.
They will hope to avoid the humiliation of 1998 when Dutroux succeeded in escaping for three hours after overpowering an officer who was guarding him.
Conspiracy theory
Dutroux will stand trial with his estranged wife, Michelle Martin, 44, businessman Michel Nihoul, 62, and Michel Lelievre, 32, a drug addict alleged to have helped Dutroux kidnap several young girls.
"It should be a normal trial, but everybody knows this won't be the case. You cannot compare it to any other," Justice Minister Laurette Onkelinx told the Associated Press.
All four defendants were arrested in August 1996 by police investigating the abductions of two girls, Sabine Dardenne (then aged 12) and Laetitia Delhez (14).
Both girls were discovered alive two days later in the cellar of a property belonging to Dutroux in the southern town of Charleroi.
Investigators then unearthed the bodies of four other girls who had been missing for more than a year, from the gardens of other Dutroux properties.
They also dug up the body of Bernard Weinstein, an accomplice whom Dutroux has admitted murdering.
Thousands march
Dutroux has accused the Belgian police and justice system of refusing to investigate leads he provided, which he says would prove that he was just part of a wider paedophile conspiracy.
But Belgian officials say that the long delay bringing the case to court partly results from the need to investigate these alleged networks, which they say do not exist.
Back in 1996, hundreds of thousands took to the streets in the White March, one of the biggest protests Brussels has ever seen.
The government - shaken by the immense scale of public anger at perceived police incompetence - promised changes to the constitution to reduce political interference in the judicial process.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3520819.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3520819.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eu... BBC
Shocked? Read more: http://www.crimelibrary.com/s... Crime Library
|
|
|
| |
| United Nations: Much maligned, but much needed |
| 02.29.04 (9:39 pm) [edit] |
Jonathan Power IHT
LONDON The United Nations is everybody's whipping boy, but it is revealing how in a crisis - and Iraq is but the latest example - the big powers can run to it and find a solution short of war or revolution.
.
When the antagonists have talked or fought themselves into a corner they often tend to crawl back to the body that they were not long ago denouncing, to find an exit from the horrors that confront them. But then a few years later they seem to have forgotten the experience.
.
The present desperate return of the United States to the United Nations brings to mind the events of the 1954 crisis over the capture of 17 U.S. airmen by China. American public opinion became extremely agitated. There was even some talk about the use of nuclear weapons.
.
Belatedly, the United Nations was asked to intervene and the UN secretary general, Dag Hammarskjold, went to Beijing to talk to Prime Minister Chou Enlai. It took six months of negotiating, but the men were released. President Dwight Eisenhower had a whole chapter in his book on the incident but the central role of the UN secretary general was almost totally ignored.
.
Similarly, in Robert Kennedy's book on the Cuban missile crisis there is only a passing reference to the letter that the then UN secretary general, U Thant, sent to the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, in October 1962. Yet it was U Thant's letter that elicited a crucial response from the Soviet leader, indicating there was room for compromise.
.
In Suez in 1956, Lebanon in 1958, the Congo in 1969 and in the 1973 Middle East war, it was the United Nations that provided an escape hatch for the big powers when they put themselves on a cold war collision course.
.
In the wake of the Yom Kippur war of 1973, although both the United States and the Soviet Union had agreed in principle to a cease-fire, there was no way of implementing it. The situation looked exceedingly dangerous. Egypt was calling for Soviet help. President Richard Nixon put the United States on a nuclear alert. It was fast footwork at the United Nations, principally by a group of Third World countries, that helped break the impasse. They pushed for a UN force to go in. It started to arrive on the following day, which would seem hardly possible by the standards of the slow-moving bureaucracy of today.
.
Critics deride the Third World majority in the UN General Assembly, but even if it does combine to vote through any number of meaningless or impossible resolutions, it often seems to rise to the occasion on the most serious matters.
.
It was during the charged Security Council debate that preceded the American decision to invade Iraq that the African members, who by the luck of the rotation held 20 percent of the vote, pondered both sides of the argument dispassionately before coming down against a war, seemingly at great cost to their immediate economic interests. And yet today the Americans can't seem to have enough of two Africans at the United Nations - Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, a Ghanaian, and his special envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian.
.
We are also able to witness right now the secretary general bringing to a conclusion the painful 30-year separation of the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus. UN troops have guarded the peace line separating the two halves since 1974, unnoticed by much of the world, but not by the inhabitants of Cyprus. Who says the United Nations does not have staying power?
.
If the United Nations has been a force, a peacemaker and an interlocutor, today it must also seriously contemplate the need to become a colonizer.
.
Perhaps in Iraq, given the number of highly educated people, it need only be a helpmate, once the planned elections are concluded. But in Haiti, Somalia, the Congo and Sierra Leone, where the system of government has all but disappeared, the United Nations should consider taking the reins of power.
.
In all these countries, torrid personal ambition and gross administrative incompetence, combined with the ruthless application of the most sordid and undisciplined forms of violence, have destroyed any semblance of normal life or ordinary discourse. They all stand in danger of becoming shelterers of tomorrow's terrorist networks.
.
We will probably have to wait for a change at the helm in the United States for this to happen. But as Iraq shows, American opinion, along with that of its main allies in Iraq, is coming to appreciate the United Nations. Let us hope that this time Washington learns from the experience.
http://www.iht.com/articles/131197.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/131197.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/1... IHT
|
|
|
| |
| Paris intellectuals on ramparts |
| 02.29.04 (6:08 pm) [edit] |
Alan Riding/NYT Saturday, February 28, 2004
PARIS It was an affair that could not last. One year after France's leftist intelligentsia and conservative government joined forces to oppose war in Iraq, the love fest has ended in fresh talk of war. The intellectuals have now accused the government of waging "war on intelligence" - brain power, that is, not spying. The government, in turn, views an angry petition signed by about 40,000 members of the educated elite as itself a declaration of war.
Behind the squabble is money, of course. The protesters say President Jacques Chirac's government has been trimming cultural, educational and scientific budgets to the detriment of the country's "intelligence." But politics is involved, too. With the government enjoying a solid majority in Parliament and the Socialist opposition in disarray, the intellectuals are using the prelude to regional elections March 21 and 28 to fill the vacuum of debate.
In truth, French intellectuals have lost much of the influence they enjoyed in the days of Jean-Paul Sartre and André Malraux, although two left-of- center Paris dailies, Le Monde and Libération, still pay heed. Government leaders have also historically courted them, and Chirac and his prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin, are no exception. Both regularly go out of their way to ratify the privileged place of culture in French society.
This time, the government has been caught off guard. A protest movement that sabotaged scores of arts festivals in France last summer has bubbled on through the winter, with the government refusing to restore cuts in unemployment benefits for self-employed actors and technicians. Until recently, the dispute seemed contained. Now it has become the spearhead of a much broader movement embracing teachers, scientists, psychiatrists, archaeologists, doctors, even lawyers.
All that they have in common, it seems, is a gripe against the government, usually over budget cuts, in some cases over recent changes in the law. Lawyers argue that increased police powers threaten human rights; psychotherapists are unhappy over a new bill requiring them to be qualified formally; archaeologists say the government has weakened their authority to supervise construction projects; scientists complain that 550 postgraduate research jobs have been cut.
Now, thanks to the Appeal Against the War on Intelligence, started last week by Les Inrockuptibles, a rock and general interest magazine modeled after Rolling Stone, these diverse sectors have closed ranks. Thus the petition's signatories include not only familiar faces like the philosopher Jacques Derrida, the movie directors Bertrand Tavernier and Claude Lanz-mann, the theater directors Patrice Chereau and Ariane Mnouchkine, and the former culture minister Jack Lang, but also thousands of unknown intellectuals and professionals.
"All these sectors of learning, research, thought, social ties, producers of knowledge and public debate are today the target of massive attacks, evidence of a new government anti-intellectualism," noted the petition, which was widely circulated by e-mail. One effect, it said, was a "brain drain" of French scientists. And, it added: "This war on intelligence is without precedent in the recent history of the nation."
The culture minister, Jean-Jacques Aillagon, has been caught in the crossfire. Last Saturday, while attending the awards ceremony for the Césars, the French Oscars, the actress and director Agnès Jaoui ("The Taste of Others") led a verbal attack on Aillagon, accusing him of sponsoring "absurd laws to eliminate the cultural exception," as the French describe government support for and protection of their culture.
Aillagon sat through the bombardment in uncomfortable silence, but he responded a few days later in an article that Le Monde published on its front page.
"What overwhelming conceit, this pretension to claim a monopoly over the defense of intelligence," he wrote of the petition's signatories. "The worst thing that intellectuals in this country can do is to enclose themselves in an immobilism and protectionism that will end up swallowing them."
Patrick Devedjian, a junior government minister, was even more outspoken. "In this country, the intellectuals have a habit of signing petitions while in the United States they have Nobel Prizes," he said in a radio interview. "Being an intellectual should not be considered a protected species. Being an intellectual includes demands, and results are often expected."
Devedjian's remarks were considered inflammatory enough to merit opposition protests in Parliament; some of those deputies had signed the petition.
In the middle of this week, Raffarin stepped in soothe tempers. Responding to a front-page article in Le Monde headlined, "Between Raffarin and culture, the divorce is consummated," he said he would have increased cultural subsidies if he had inherited a stronger economy from the Socialists two years ago. But he promised to work for solutions "because I know full well that the future of France does not pass through banalization and standardization, but through creation and innovation."
He then added a postscript: "In your commentaries about Mr. Aillagon's presence at the Césars ceremony, you omitted one word: courage."
Where this will lead is unclear, although the two rounds of regional elections here should help define the relative strengths of government and opposition. After that, if the past is any guide, the government and its vocal new foes will probably sit down and negotiate a truce. Despite the harsh words, they will continue to need each other.
http://www.iht.com/articles/131770.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/131770.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/1... IHT
|
|
|
| |
| Former diplomat critical of Bush |
| 02.29.04 (1:01 pm) [edit] |
By Cary McMullen
LAKELAND -- The Bush administration has repudiated historic American principles in its use, and threatened use, of military power around the world, said a former U.S. diplomat Friday.
The result is that America has become more isolated and alienated from other nations, said Dr. James T. Laney, U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 1993 to 1997.
Laney criticized government policies in Iraq and North Korea during the Warren W. Willis Lecture in Religion at Florida Southern College.
Laney is also the former president of Emory University in Atlanta and a former professor of ethics and United Methodist missionary to South Korea. He began the lecture by outlining the principles laid down by the founders of America regarding the exercise of political and military power and said the invasion of Iraq marked a fundamental shift away from those principles.
"For the first time in American history, we are using the military as a primary instrument of foreign policy. Until now, the military was used for defense. What is the result? First, an ominous aggregation of power. We are in a situation where it is considered unpatriotic to question the war in Iraq. . . . This stultifies debate," he said.
In contrast to the political and military alliances that America embraced in the two world wars, the Cold War and Persian Gulf war, the Bush administration has been determined to pursue its policies alone, Laney said.
"The U.S. has shed its self-imposed restraints and will deal with the world on our own terms. We are on a crusade to eliminate threats, but we have not solved the problems that led to those threats and so have become occupiers. . . . There is great anger at the U.S. today. Just two years ago (after Sept. 11, 2001), the whole world stood with us. Today we're virtually alone," he said.
Laney was especially critical of administration policies toward North Korea. Shortly after he became ambassador in the early 1990s, a confrontation with North Korea over its attempts to manufacture nuclear weapons escalated to the brink of all-out war, he told the audience of about 100. Laney asked former President Jimmy Carter to go to North Korea and subsequent negotiations resulted in the North Korean government agreeing in 1994 to freeze its nuclear program, he said.
The deal was known as the "agreed framework."
Negotiations for a more comprehensive easing of tensions were ongoing until the end of President Bill Clinton's term in early 2001.
Those negotiations were halted in March of that year when then newly elected President George W. Bush announced that he would take a harder line on North Korea, citing fears that the U.S. could not verify if the North was living up to its agreements.
Laney said the decision was likely pushed by Bush's advisers, particularly Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. And it led, Laney said, to claims by North Korea that it is reviving its nuclear weapons program, which it declared publicly in October 2002.
The "agreed framework" formally fell apart two weeks later.
"Bush's advisers had no use for North Korea. They said, `We're not going to deal with them.' . . . The new policy did not take into account (North Korea) reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods into plutonium," he said.
The danger is not that North Korea will use nuclear weapons against South Korea or the United States, but that it will sell them to terrorist organizations because the nation is "desperately poor," he said.
The United States, North Korea, South Korea and China were part of talks involving six nations that conclude today, aimed at resolving the crisis. No agreement was reached, but delegates will meet again next month. Laney said he is "modestly hopeful" that an agreement can be reached, but cautioned that it depends on a willingness on the part of the Bush administration.
"The government has so engaged itself in taking out Saddam Hussein -- who was supposed to have atomic bombs and didn't -- the North Koreans were almost laughing at us. They said, `We've got the real threat, and don't mess with us.'
"This is one crisis that won't wait," Laney said. "I hope I've conveyed a sense of real urgency, real threat and danger, but maybe also an opportunity. For the first time ever, we've got six nations sitting down together. That could be the basis for an ongoing regional forum . . . that has the possibility of taking the sting out of other problems in East Asia."
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040228 /NEWS/402280384/1004" title="http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040228 /NEWS/402280384/1004" target="_blank"http://www.theledger.com/apps... The Ledger
|
|
|
| |
| West Bank Mayor protest Arafat's failure |
| 02.29.04 (10:51 am) [edit] |
ALI DARAGHMEH
NABLUS, West Bank - The mayor of the West Bank's largest city said he is quitting to protest Yasser Arafat's failure to rein in armed gangs, dealing a blow to the Palestinian leader at a time of growing dissatisfaction with his rule.
Arafat's ruling Fatah movement was to make a final decision Saturday about when to hold long overdue internal elections.
Arafat, who has kept a tight grip on power and resisted reform, promised disgruntled activists Friday that the vote would be held within a year, but many doubted he would keep his word.
Fatah's leadership is dominated by movement stalwarts Arafat brought with him from exile in 1994, and younger activists from the West Bank and Gaza Strip complain they are being excluded from power.
At Saturday's meeting, Fatah leaders also were expected to address the role of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, which consist of hundreds of gunmen organized in small and relatively autonomous gangs, some with ties to Fatah, but others funded by Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas.
The gunmen have carried out scores of attacks on Israelis in more than three years of fighting, including two recent Jerusalem bus bombings that killed 18 Israelis and a foreign worker.
Israel Army Radio reported Saturday that Al Aqsa claimed responsibility for a roadside ambush the night before in which an Israeli couple was killed in their car. The attack took place on a highway in southern Israel, near the West Bank.
Amin Maqbol, a Fatah official, said the movement wants Al Aqsa gunmen halt attacks on Israeli civilians and to stop accepting money from Hezbollah.
"As long as they are members of Fatah, they have to implement its decisions," Maqbol said. "Fatah took a decision on not targeting civilians."
However, this would not mean an end to violence. Fatah says attacks on Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are legitimate resistance to Israeli occupation.
Also, it appears unlikely the Al Aqsa gunmen would follow Fatah decisions. In recent months, Fatah leaders have tried with cash and persuasion to bring the gunmen in line, to no avail.
In Nablus, the West Bank's largest city with about 180,000 residents, Al Aqsa gunmen have been terrorizing residents, often settling personal feuds with violence.
Mayor Ghassan Shakaa, a longtime Arafat ally, said Friday he is resigning in protest over the descent into lawlessness.
"I have submitted my resignation to President Arafat because I see my city collapsing and I don't want to stand idly by and watch this collapse," Shakaa told The Associated Press.
"My resignation is a warning bell to the Palestinian Authority and the residents of Nablus, because both of them are doing nothing for this city," he said.
Palestinian police forces have been hobbled during more than three years of fighting with Israel. With the officers having no real authority, gangs wage deadly gunbattles, members of rival clans fight out deadly feuds and militants have kidnapped and beaten government officials.
In November, Palestinian gunmen shot and killed Shakaa's brother. The mayor, who had been locked in a power struggle with armed gangs, named suspects, but security forces have been unwilling to arrest them.
He said Friday that his brother's slaying and the failure to apprehend the killers were not the reasons behind his resignation.
Still, he said, the security forces under the control of Arafat's Palestinian Authority could do more to bring order to the city.
"It can enforce the law," he said. "But it is not enforcing the law. And our people can do a lot, but they are doing nothing except spreading disorder."
Shakaa said he would stay on as head of the city until May 1 because he is involved in several development projects he wants to finish, including the construction of a shopping mall.
In violence Friday, a Palestinian suicide bomber riding a bicycle blew himself up near the Jewish settlement of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, causing some damage to cars, but no injuries to others. The bomber was sent by the Islamic Jihad group.
Earlier, Israeli police stormed a disputed Jerusalem holy site to disperse dozens of Palestinian stone-throwers among crowds of Muslim worshippers. No one was hurt.
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/ne ws/8060569.htm" title="http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/ne ws/8060569.htm" target="_blank"http://www.montereyherald.com... Monterey Herald
|
|
|
| |
| Contractors are Cashing in on the War on Terror |
| 02.29.04 (9:58 am) [edit] |
Is What's Good for Boeing and Halliburton Good For America?
As a network of citizen's groups rallies today at scores of sites in the United States and around the world to denounce what organizers characterize as "war profiteering" by major contractors like Halliburton, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin, the New York-based World Policy Institute is releasing a new analysis that documents a rapid increase in military contracts flowing to these firms as a result of the U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"With the Pentagon budget at $400 billion per year and counting, plus a new Department of Homeland Security with a $40 billion per year budget, plus wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have cost $180 billion to date, these are lucrative times to be a military contractor," says Michelle Ciarrocca, a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute and co-author of a new analysis on the Pentagon's top 10 contractors.
The Pentagon's "Big Three" contractors -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman -- alone split over $50 billion in prime contracts among them in FY 2003, notes Ciarrocca. "To put this in some perspective, Lockheed Martin's Pentagon awards, at $21.9 billion, are greater in value than the entire budget for the federal government's largest single welfare program - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) - which is meant to keep several million single parents and dependent children out of poverty,"Ciarrocca comments.
Continue reading at http://www.corpwatch.org/bull... CorpWatch
|
|
|
| |
| US and Israel, the Bonnie and Clyde gang of the Middle East |
| 02.29.04 (1:05 am) [edit] |
Running rampant across the Middle East are the governments of George Bush and Ariel Sharon with Tony Blair's Government as their hapless 'get-away man'. Even though robbing banks seems to be the latest specialty of Israel, the motto of threesome shouldn't be 'we rob banks' rather it should be 'we rob resources'.
Just like the trio that made up the Bonnie and Clyde gang, they use hit and run techniques to garner the resources of the middle east at the point of a gun. Instead of outrunning the law by racing across the county line they have another technique, outright denial. When the victims of their crimes file complaints with the International Court of Justice or the United Nations the trio simply thumb their noses and claim that the court has no jurisdiction or dismiss the claims before the United Nations as being 'politically motivated'.
The latest adventure of the gang member Israel includes a brazen 'triple bank job' in Ramallah that would make the even the most notorious gangster proud. The started by 'arresting' computer experts from two of the banks according to a http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...,1280,-3790958,00.html report from the Guardian. Let me hazard a guess as to the charge, 'withholding information that Israel needs?' I would think a more appropriate description would be that that Israel 'kidnapped' the experts. The next day, the gang sealed off the downtown area of Ramallah and entered Cairo Amman Bank and two branches of the Arab Bank accompanied by the computer experts.
Once inside the banks, the gang covered up or disabled the cameras and herded up the customers and bank officials at gun point.
According to an http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin... article from the SFGate.com:
During the raids, dozens of Palestinians in the streets threw stones at soldiers, who responded with tear gas, metal-core rubber bullets and live rounds, hospital officials said. Forty-two people were injured and three were in critical condition, doctors said.
The gang netted between $6.5 and $9 million dollars during the daring raid and it was reported to be corresponding to the amount of money found in the targeted accounts that were allegedly funding Palestinian terrorists. I wonder if the teller asked them for their mother's maiden name before authorizing the withdrawal?
Jordan was not pleased by Israel's actions according to a http://195.224.230.11/english... report from Middle East online:
AMMAN - An Israeli raid on Palestinian branches of Jordanian banks and the seizure of millions of dollars broke the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, Jordanian central bank governor Omaya Tuqan was quoted Friday as saying.
"The Israeli raid against the branches of the Arab Bank and the Cairo-Amman Bank constitutes a violation of the Israeli-Jordanian agreement which specifies that there should be no harm done to Jordanian interests," the governor told the Jordanian daily Al Rai.
Wednesday's raid in the West Bank city of Ramallah, which also targeted the International Palestinian Bank, was "unjustified legally," he added.
The outrage of the United States may be heard in a http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs... response from the State Department:
According to both Palestinians and Israelis, the operation was not coordinated in any way by Palestinian financial authorities who are responsible for the supervision of Palestinian banks. We have in the past, and continue to urge the Israeli Government to work closely with the Palestinian financial authorities to address the issues of transparency and of making sure that money doesn't reach any terrorist groups through these banks.
The actions -- some of these actions that were taken risk destabilizing the Palestinian banking sector, and so we'd prefer to see Israeli coordination with Palestinian financial authorities in order to stem the flow of funds to terrorist groups.
And when the State Department was http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs... asked if anyone ever verified Israel's allegation:
QUESTION: When they do something like this and they say that they're, you know, seeking to confiscate funds, do you follow up and ask them for evidence of how they, of how they came to this? Or if they just say that they're confiscating funds, then you just think that they obviously have a --
MR. BOUCHER: The whole issue of financial accountability, of transparency, has been one that the United States has worked on for more than a year, and one where considerable progress has been made, where sufficient progress was made so the Israelis were comfortable turning over tax revenues, for example. And we have seen a very productive relationship between the United States and the Israelis and the Palestinians introducing -- in introducing more financial accounting mechanisms, more transparency. And that's been a positive thing, both for the Israelis, but especially for Palestinians, who see where their money goes and who see that it's being handled appropriately for the people who live in these territories.
So we think that's been a very positive place, and that's the kind of progress we want to see continue. We are certainly in touch with the Israeli authorities when they do these kinds of steps, but we're in touch with them over the bigger issues as well, and how to continue to make progress on the issues. And we do follow up on specifics to make sure that we understand what information they might have and that we know that they can and will look at all possible ways of dealing with it, short of taking actions such as this.
QUESTION: What does it mean when you say, "We're in touch when they take these kinds of steps"?
MR. BOUCHER: That our Embassy in Tel Aviv has spoken with Israeli officials about these raids and what lay behind them.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, when you said that some of these actions that were taken risked destabilizing the Palestinian banks, the actions of this latest raid or just in general?
MR. BOUCHER: Actions of this type, including this raid, yeah.
So let's see if we can summarize their statements, when Israel takes actions that "risk destabilizing the Palestinian banking sector", the State Department "prefer[s] to see Israeli coordination with Palestinian financial authorities" and of course they are "certainly in touch with the Israeli authorities when they do these kinds of steps".
http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=647" title="http://www.foreignaidwatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=647" target="_blank"http://www.foreignaidwatch.or... US Foreign Aid Watch
|
|
|
| |
| In deadly policy reversal, US will use landmines |
| 02.29.04 (12:36 am) [edit] |
The Bush administration in reversing a ten year policy to eliminate all anti-personnel landmines has isolated the US in the global effort to ban mines, Human Rights Watch said today. It's not just a gigantic step backward, it's a complete aboutface.
In 1994, the US was the first nation to call for the "eventual elimination' of all antipersonal landmines.
Bush's new policy means that US forces are free to use
smart mines anywhere in the world, indefinitely.
The most objectionable part of this policy change is not to give up smart mines that have self destruct mechanisms designed to blow the mines up after a period of time.
Having watched countless documentaries on the horrors these weapons inflict, moslty on children I cannot imagine why this policy reversal especially since the US has not used anti-personal mines since the 1991 Gulf war. There were no reasons given for this reversal in the article. If anyone knows please pass the information on to me.
http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/80330/1/ " title="http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/80330/1/ " target="_blank"http://www.oneworld.net/artic... One World
|
|
|
| |
| China: Internet filtering stepped up yet again |
| 02.28.04 (3:33 pm) [edit] |
Reporters Without Borders today condemned the latest Chinese effort to gag the Internet by means of directives to portals that have discussion groups. As a result of the directives, many news groups have closed since 23 February and filtering of online messages has been stepped up. Verisign's decision to assign China a DNS root server is also worrying for the Web's future.
"Discussion forums are used by millions of Chinese and, although closely monitored, they at least offered an outlet for popular discontent and criticism, but we fear these latest measures will just make Internet users censor themselves even more," Reporters Without Borders said.
The organisation added that, after these latest directives, Verisign's decision to involve China in the management of global Internet traffic appeared extremely dangerous.
The council of state's information bureau, which regulates online activity, explained the new directives to those in charge of China's main Internet portals : Sohu.com, Netease.com and Sina.com.
Changes were quickly apparent in the forums on these portals, Reporters Without Borders has learned. Some discussion groups with a slightly political content or ones dealing with social issues were closed or redirected to entertainment forums (culture, people and so on). This was the case with the Sohu.com news group Xin Kong (Starry sky), which was closed and replaced by a forum not considered subversive.
It also seems that debates of a political nature have virtually disappeared from forums as a result of stricter filtering criteria used by the Ban Zhu (discussion group moderators). At the same time, there has been a surge of posts by Internet users complaining about censoring of their messages, which they are unable to post online.
Online discussion groups were massively used to voice dissenting views about events in the news in 2003. They were also the main source of information during the SARS crisis, as the authorities declared the subject off-limits for the traditional media. More recently, Internet users became impassioned about the "BMW affair," in which a well-to-do women deliberately ran over a peasant woman on 12 October 2003 and injured 12 other persons.
The very light sentence imposed on the driver - presumably due to political intervention - spawned a major national protest movement. Tens of thousands of messages were posted in discussion forums decrying the unfairness of the sentence and judicial corruption. It appears to have been the scale of these protests that pushed the authorities into increasing their control of discussion forums.
In May 2003, Reporters Without Borders issued a detailed report on the system used to monitor Internet forums in China. The full report, entitled "Living dangerously on the Net," is available at http://www.rsf.org/article.ph... "Living dangerously on the Net"
Verisign is the US company that manages DNS (domain name servers) such as .com ou .net throughout the world. By assigning China a DNS server, Verisign will turn it into one of the main hubs of Internet traffic. However, the Chinese authorities regularly use DNS hijacking, a technique that makes a site completely inaccessible by redirecting its domain name (such as rsf.org) to a false IP address, resulting in an error message such as "site unavailable."
According to Dynamic Internet Technology (DIT), a US-based company that specialises in Internet filtering issues in China, Verisign's decision could make DNS hijacking easier and result in an increase in Internet censorship in China.
For more information, go to www.internet.rsf.org
|
|
|
| |
| US angers allies with new Middle East plan |
| 02.28.04 (1:59 pm) [edit] |
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
28 February 2004
An American plan for the West to promote greater democracy and economic and cultural reform in the Middle East has created new strains between Washington and traditional allies in Europe and the Arab world.
A US working paper for June's G8 summit of the leading industrial powers in Georgia sets out President Bush's "Greater Middle East (GME) Initiative", which sees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as a springboard for launching change throughout the region. It is being seen in some European and Arab capitals, however, as another attempt by the US to impose its will on the Middle East.
The document, published by an Arabic-language paper in London, calls on the G8 countries - the US, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada, the UK and Russia - to "forge a long-term partnership with reform leaders in the GME . . . to promote political, economic and social reform in the region".
The scheme has, however, been floated without consultation with Arab leaders. It provides no extra financial help beyond the meagre $120m (£64m) already provided in the existing Middle East Partnership Initiative.
Above all, it threatens to reopen old wounds over Iraq between the US and its allies that both sides have been trying to heal, as exemplified by yesterday's White House meeting between Mr Bush and Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor and a unrelenting opponent of the Iraq war.
"This has to be handled extremely carefully," one G8 diplomat said. "The US mustn't upset the Europeans, and the plan can't be seen as something imposed by the US, or as a case of the West patronising the Arab world."
But, judging by the reaction in the Middle East, that is exactly the view being taken. The Bush administration was behaving "as if the region and its states do not exist, as if they had no sovereignty over their land", President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, one of Washington's Arab allies, said this week.
The US blueprint aims to address the three "deficits" identified in the now celebrated 2002 and 2003 Arab Human Development reports issued by the United Nations: of freedom, knowledge, and economic development. If these are not tackled "we will witness an increase in extremism, terrorism and international crime", the US paper says.
It proposes stronger backing for non-government groups working for freer elections, and for education initiatives targeted at women. It also urges freedom of the press and an end to restrictions and harassment of those working to promote human rights and civil society.
|
|
|
| |
| UN spying and evasions of American journalism |
| 02.28.04 (11:14 am) [edit] |
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet
February 27, 2004
Tony Blair and George W. Bush want the issue of spying at the United Nations to go away. That's one of the reasons the Blair government ended its prosecution of whistleblower Katharine Gun on Wednesday (Feb. 25). But within 24 hours, the scandal of U.N. spying exploded further when one of Blair's former cabinet ministers said that British spies closely monitored conversations of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq last year.
The new allegations, which have the ring of truth, are now coming from ex-secretary of international development Clare Short. "I have seen transcripts of Kofi Annan's conversations," she said in an interview with BBC Radio. "In fact I have had conversations with Kofi in the run-up to war thinking 'Oh dear, there will be a transcript of this and people will see what he and I are saying.'" Short added that British intelligence had been explicitly directed to spy on Annan and other top U.N. officials.
Few can doubt that some major British news outlets will thoroughly dig below the surface of Short's charges. But on the other side of the Atlantic, the journalistic evasion on the subject of U.N. spying has been so extreme that we can have no confidence in the mainstream media's inclination to adequately cover this new bombshell.
For 51 weeks – from the day that the Observer newspaper in London broke the news about spying at the United Nations until the moment that British prosecutors dropped charges against Gun on Wednesday – major news outlets in the United States almost completely ignored the story.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17977" title="http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17977" target="_blank"http://www.alternet.org/story... Continue reading at Alternet
|
|
|
| |
| Bush accused of supporting Haitian rebels |
| 02.28.04 (10:36 am) [edit] |
By Isabelle D. Lindenmayer
Published 2/27/2004 6:47 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- Haitian activists Friday accused the Bush administration of covertly supporting opposition forces to oust President Aristide from power.
"The Bush administration is again engaged in regime change by armed aggression," former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark said. "This time, the armed aggression is against the administration of the democratically elected president of Haiti."
Activists at a Friday press briefing outlined what they believe to be a well-crafted plan by the Bush administration to overthrow Aristide. Former Haitian military members, drug dealers and militants were armed and trained in the Dominican Republic thanks to military support from the United States. They have now crossed the border into Haiti, activists said.
The rebel insurrection that erupted three weeks ago has left roughly 80 people dead, nearly half of whom were police officers.
U.S.-supported coups in Latin America and Africa during the Cold War were referenced by many as models for what they perceive to be the Bush administration's current strategy in Haiti.
"Policy is being engineered, just like when the U.S. wanted to overthrow the Sandinista government," said Ben Dupuy, secretary-general of the National Popular Party of Haiti. Covert CIA operations in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic and the Congo were also mentioned by activists, who repeatedly called for the United States to cease any involvement in the Caribbean nation.
The crisis in Haiti has been looming since flawed legislative elections were held in 2000 during which Aristide's party claimed victory with an overwhelming majority of votes. In response, international donors froze millions of dollars in aid, cutting off a vital lifeline for one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere.
In addition, Aristide, who became Haiti's first freely elected leader in 1990, has been accused of not doing enough to alleviate poverty, condoning corruption, and using violence to quell political opposition.
Activists blamed the American government for the failure of Aristide's social programs.
"The U.S. brought this about by keeping an embargo on the country since 1994. How could Aristide have succeeded?" former attorney general Clark asked. "His goal has always been to move the people of Haiti from a state of poverty to a state of dignity."
Participants pointed to differing ideologies on democracy as the motivating force behind the Bush administration's alleged support of opposition forces.
"The U.S. talks about democracy, but it's their democracy, not the people's democracy," Dupuy said.
Using Venezuela as an example, Dupuy and Clark accused the administration of not supporting governments that replace any group of ruling elites. "Any government that has the support of the majority of its people will have a problem with the United States," Dupuy said.
Regarding evidence linking the U.S. government with opposition forces, Kim Ives, an activist and journalist working in Haiti, said that he had proof of collaboration between Special Forces in Haiti and the Dominican military. He said the Pentagon has sent military aid to the Dominican Republic, including 20,000 M-16 rifles.
"It's not unlikely that some of those M-16s are some of the hardware we see in the hands of the rebels today," Ives said.
"It is clear that the rebel forces crossed the Dominican border heavily armed with equipment that even the former Haitian military did not have, which could not have been done without the knowledge of the Dominican army," another participant said. "We also know that the Dominican government would not have allowed this to happen unless it had clearance from the United States government."
As Aristide supporters presented their case for covert U.S. support of insurgent groups, the Haitian president's fate was being discussed in Paris at a meeting between Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, and a representative of the Haitian government.
France is pressuring Aristide to step down and cede to a transitional government.
Strengthening the French government's position and further distancing the White House from the Haitian leader, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Thursday that Aristide should make a "careful examination" of whether he should step down.
So far, the Bush administration remains committed to a political solution, and would be supportive of an international security force going into Haiti only after a political agreement has been reached, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday.
Participants at the National Press Club briefing had harsh words for both the French and U.S. governments regarding the resignation of the embattled leader. "We call on the Bush administration and the French government to cease their efforts to overthrow a democratically elected government and to allow democracy and freedom to continue," said Ray Laforest, director of Haitian Constituency U.S.A.
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who said he was a personal friend of Aristide, spoke on behalf of the Haitian government adding, "I protest the actions of the United States government -- especially Secretary Powell."
Some Aristide loyalists do, however, see a role for the United States in the days to come. "People must compel the organizations that are relevant to immediately demand that the rebels stop and be held accountable, and that they stay out of Port-au-Prince. The United States government must say that out loud," Clark said.
Roger Ervin, a consultant to the Haitian government, pointed to three actions the U.S. should take to address the crisis in the Caribbean nation: join those in the international community who want to send a security presence to restore order before a peace agreement, publicly choose a side, and send humanitarian assistance.
"A wink and a nod from the U.S. is not going to get us anywhere," Ervin said.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040227-0556 19-8595r" title="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040227-0556 19-8595r" target="_blank"http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?S... UPI
|
|
|
| |
| War still casts its shadow over Europe |
| 02.28.04 (9:41 am) [edit] |
By Francis Harris
(Filed: 28/02/2004)
Silent reminders of an unfought war, the gun-slits in the fortifications of Zacler stare from the slopes of Crow mountain to the lands where Hitler's troops once massed to invade Czechoslovakia.
For more than half a century the huge, unfinished network of bunkers and underground tunnels withstood the snowy winters, unseen except by the occasional cross-country skier or walker.
Now, however, there is activity everywhere as groups of enthusiasts, many of them young, repair and repaint the hundreds of forts that populate the valleys facing Germany and Austria.
In Fortress Stachelberg, Pavel Holcknecht, 27, strides through three-quarters of a mile of dank, poorly-lit tunnels indicating where the 1,000-strong garrison lived and worked. He and a dozen friends have been restoring the structure for the past decade, sinking £100,000 into the project.
More than 5,000 people visit the fortress annually and tens of thousands more visit other restored forts dotted across the country. Most are Czechs and most still question President Eduard Benes's decision to surrender the German-speaking Sudeten borderlands once Britain and France backed the Nazi demands in the Munich agreement of October 1938.
"Many of them just swear. They're angry that we didn't use these places, that they were built in vain," said Mr Holcknecht.
After the war the area was restored to Czechoslovakia and the Czechs took their revenge by expelling 3,500,000 ethnic Germans from the Sudetenland to Germany and Austria.
There is no anti-German message in the fort's reconstruction, says Mr Holcknecht, but he admits to worrying that after the Czech Republic's entry to the European Union on May 1, with seven other east-central European states, the Germans will return to the region to buy land and property.
"I was against EU entry and I'm not ashamed to say so. They're already purchasing property here," he added.
Every weekend Mr Holcknecht heads into the mountains to spend time at the fort, every weekday he commutes to the nearby offices of the German electronics giant Siemens, where he works. He sees no irony in this, nor in the fact that he bears a German name, "I'm not looking for ironies, I'm just happy to have a job," he said.
Since the fall of communism 15 years ago, many tens of thousands of Czechs have taken work with German firms, widely regarded as good employers. The country's biggest exporter is Skoda Auto, a division of Volkswagen. Many banks are German-owned, Germans own the biggest newspapers and Germans constitute the biggest group of tourists.
Yet it is easy to find evidence of German unpopularity. In a recent survey by TNS Factum and Cook Communications, Czech women were asked who they would least like to date among men of the 15 current EU members. Almost 50 per cent nominated Germans.
That is partly explained by widespread complaints of German condescension, but it is also because the 1938-48 period remains an explosive subject. Despite years of high-level reconciliation agreements between the two governments, all attempts to bury the Sudeten issue have failed.
This week, the Czech parliament passed an act composed of a single sentence thanking President Benes, the author of the decrees expelling the Germans, for his "outstanding service to the state". For Germans the message was clear. Berthold Kohler, the editor of the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said: "Many of our readers will ask why the Czechs had to do this. It's a provocative gesture, it's unnecessary."
Since the fall of communism in 1989 these arguments, and the related demands by expelled Sudeten Germans for the restitution of property, have meant little to the rest of Europe.
But when the Czechs enter the EU the combustibility of old arguments will have wider implications.
Germans such as Mr Kohler believe that Tony Blair was invited to the Berlin summit with Gerhard Schroder and Jacques Chirac earlier this month in part because the Paris-German alliance will not have the strength to power European integration in a union of 25 states.
That in itself is a stunning signal of German failure with states that should have been grateful for Berlin's stout backing over EU expansion. Instead, France and Germany have to seek British influence with the new democracies.
According to Ivan Jancarek, the head of the Czech foreign ministry's EU department, the Germans have only themselves to blame: "British diplomacy is very effective, the UK is very interested in the views of the new members. On the other hand, the Germans made a big mistake by concentrating on Poland alone. They neglected the other states."
What was left of Germany's strategy backfired spectacularly last year when Poland, supposedly the cornerstone of Berlin's diplomatic campaign, stubbornly blocked the German-backed EU constitution.
No one in central Europe suggests that the new states are motivated by a desire for historical revenge - Mr Jancarek points out that when Czech and German officials meet, they talk of the future not the past.
Yet the ghosts of the Nazi era continue to rise. On the first working day after the new entrants join the EU it is widely anticipated that a series of writs will be issued against the Czechs by Sudeten Germans at the European Court.
"We want to continue those positive things linking the two nations, but issues like the Benes Decrees and property restitution cannot be ignored," says Peter Barton, the head of the Sudeten German office in Prague.
It is a sign of the high feeling that the small, two-room bureau has no identifying plate on the outside door and that it regularly receives hate mail.
For men such as Tomas Kafka, the Czech head of the joint reconciliation fund, the constant argument is depressing stuff: "It doesn't help if people see themselves as victims. The risk is that one day it will become a competition to see who suffered more."
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/2 8/wzac28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 28/ixworld.html" title="http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/2 8/wzac28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/ 28/ixworld.html" target="_blank"http://portal.telegraph.co.uk... Telegraph
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry outlines anti-terrorism plan; Bush steps up criticism |
| 02.27.04 (8:11 pm) [edit] |
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Democrat John Kerry on Friday outlined his plan to combat terrorism that relies on stronger intelligence-gathering, law enforcement and international alliances, rebutting increasing criticism of his national security credentials from President Bush's campaign.
"I am convinced that we can prove to the American people that we know how to make them safer and more secure with a stronger, more comprehensive and more effective strategy for winning the war on terror than the Bush administration has ever envisioned," Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at the University of California at Los Angeles.
Kerry said Bush has "no comprehensive strategy for victory in the war on terror."
"We cannot win the war on terror through military power alone," said the four-term Massachusetts lawmaker, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry also accused the president and "his armchair hawks" of weakening the U.S. military by failing to provide proper equipment. He lambasted Bush for "stonewalling" the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The Bush campaign has criticized Kerry in recent days for voting against some increases in defence spending and military weapons programs during his 19-year congressional career. Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said Kerry's policies would weaken the country's ability to win the war on terror.
"If John Kerry's wrong ideas had been implemented during the last 30 years, the world today would be more dangerous and the United States would be less secure," Racicot said.
Kerry said he would protect chemical and nuclear facilities, increase security at ports and airports, restore federal funding for 100,000 police officers and add 100,000 firefighters across the country.
Kerry referred to reports that Pakistani forces may be moving in to capture al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, in remote areas along the Afghanistan border, but criticized Bush for failing to capture him earlier.
"We've heard this news before," Kerry said. "We had him in our grasp more than two years ago at Tora Bora, but George Bush held U.S. forces back and instead called on Afghan warlords with no loyalty to our cause to finish the job. We all hope the outcome will be different this time."
Kerry's speech came a day after a Democratic debate in which he sparred with rival John Edwards over trade, the death penalty and who has the best chance of defeating Bush in November. But days before a 10-state showdown, the two found common ground in opposing gay marriages along with Bush's request to make them unconstitutional.
Edwards hoped Thursday night's debate would help emphasize differences in an attempt to galvanize support and narrow the large gap with the front-running Kerry.
Both took nearly identical positions on the gay-marriage issue - voicing personal opposition but saying it should be left to the states to decide rather than be banned by a constitutional amendment, as Bush called for this week.
Both Kerry and Edwards were campaigning Friday in some of the 10 states with Democratic contests on what is known as Super Tuesday. After his speech, Kerry was heading to Oakland, Calif. Edwards was travelling to St. Paul, Minn., to meet voters.
Together, next week's primaries and caucuses, stretching from New England to California, offer 1,151 delegates - more than half of the 2,162 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.
Kerry went into the debate with 686 delegates in The Associated Press count, compared with 206 for Edwards, and set his sights on securing the nomination Tuesday. Edwards hopes for a comeback to keep his campaign alive.
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=world_home&arti cleID=1539047" title="http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=world_home&arti cleID=1539047" target="_blank"http://www.mytelus.com/news/a... My Telus
|
|
|
| |
| International Justice |
| 02.27.04 (8:00 pm) [edit] |
Published: February 27, 2004
The resignation of Richard May, the chief judge in Slobodan Milosevic's trial, has added a serious complication to proceedings that, after two years and 300 witnesses, are a long way from finished. One of three judges at the special tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Judge May, of Britain, retired for health reasons just as the prosecution rested its case a full year later than expected. The delay was caused by the volume of the accusations, and Mr. Milosevic's defiant tactics and repeated illnesses. Even if the judge had not stepped down, Mr. Milosevic was expected to use his defense for maximum theatrics and propaganda. Now Mr. Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president, has grounds to demand an entirely new trial, or even a mistrial.
How this plays out is critical, not only in the interest of bringing him to justice, but also for any future prosecution of dictators — like Saddam Hussein — by international courts. One function of the tribunal is to serve notice on all mass murderers that they will not escape justice, even if their own people are unable or unwilling to serve it.
That is why it is imperative to examine why this trial has run into such problems, and why international justice has proved so elusive. The courts for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have been ad hoc affairs, set up to judge specific atrocities. Stalin, Idi Amin and Pol Pot died without answering for their crimes. Mr. Milosevic has played heavily on such moral ambiguity, denouncing the Hague proceedings as a victor's trial.
The problem is compounded by the hostility of the Bush administration to the new International Criminal Court, set up to step in as a last resort if a country fails to try its own major miscreants.
Another problem revealed by the Milosevic trial is the discrepancy between the horror of mass murder and the dispassionate proceedings of a courtroom. When there are thousands upon thousands of tortured corpses, it seems almost obscene for a dictator to be in the dock in a business suit, wrangling over technicalities. To be sure, there is merit in setting the calm majesty of the law against the violent tawdriness of evil. But when mocked or exploited, as it has been by Mr. Milosevic, the law can seem helpless and inadequate.
Serious as they are, these problems must not become an argument against international justice. With Mr. Hussein awaiting trial, and Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Charles Taylor of Liberia still out there, the world must believe that global justice is at least possible, if not likely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/27 FRI3.html?th" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/opinion/27 FRI3.html?th" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... NY Times
|
|
|
| |
| Europe's debt to Rumsfeld |
| 02.27.04 (5:22 pm) [edit] |
Mark Leonard International Herald Tribune
February 27, 2004
LONDON
A year ago, Europe’s major powers were experiencing their worst falling-out in living memory. Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair cold-shouldered each other at an emergency EU summit meeting, at the end of a week in which Chirac had announced that he wouldn’t support a second United Nations resolution under any circumstances. The most pro-European British prime minister and the most pro-American French president in history had somehow managed to be more disunited on a major foreign policy issue than at any time since World War II.
Timothy Garton Ash, a leading commentator on Europe, suggested that Blair, Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany hire a mountain chalet in Switzerland to clear the air. Now they have taken up his suggestion, albeit in the more oxygenated climes of Berlin — and Spain and ltaly, whose alliance with Britain last year seemed like the makings of a new EU management team, once again find themselves in the wings. How did we get from the dark days of last February to spring sunshine in Berlin?
The truth is that the dispute over Iraq, despite the noisy domestics, has actually been good for Europe and has considerably strengthened Britain’s hand. Though the Continent was divided on tactics for handling the United States, all countries shared three fundamental goals: to preserve the trans-Atlantic alliance, to restore the authority of the United Nations and to prevent pre-emption from being established as a norm. Through an unplanned good cop/bad cop routine, Europe has somehow met all these objectives.
The trans-Atlantic relationship seemed as if it was on the cusp of being discarded 12 months ago. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld grouped Germany with ‘‘problem states’’ like Iran and Libya; Germany’s justice minister compared Bush to Hitler; and Chirac became an unlikely folk-hero for opposing the United States. Robert Kagan’s fashionable thesis that Europe and the United States were two tectonic plates inevitably moving apart seemed irrefutable.
In retrospect, however, Blair’s involvement in the war did at least place a limit on how far America’s anti-European bile could go. As long as Bush needed Blair alongside him, there was at least an incentive for America not to be too destructive toward Britain’s key allies.
The United Nations was sidelined and mocked during the 1990s — powerless in the face of civilian massacres in Rwanda and Somalia, ignored over Kosovo and starved of dues by big donors. But during the run-up to war, it became the crucible in which the arguments were aired and decisions on the basis for war were made. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, dramatic presentations at the United Nations dominated the media, and international public opinion rallied to its cause.
Now there are signs that the United Nations is beginning to restore its sheen even in the United States, where UN-bashing had become a staple of mainstream politics. Senator John Kerry has made much of bringing the United Nations in to give credibility to the beleaguered Iraqi Governing Council — not something that would have seemed like a vote-winner 12 months ago.
Most important, the doctrine of pre-emption seems to have disappeared into the desert sands. At their most hubristic, the neoconservatives argued that the United States could take advantage of its victory in Iraq by unleashing a ‘‘democratic domino effect’’ in Iran and Syria. A year later, no one is listening. The political and economic costs of invading Iraq rule make another intervention impossible for several years. France and Germany have made any future action harder by refusing to pick up the tab this time around.
A year ago I thought Blair had turned his political ambitions in Europe to dust by supporting Bush’s war. I was wrong. The irony is that, by a circuitous route, the Iraq war has helped him seal the diplomatic alliance that had eluded Britain since World War II: turning the French-German axis into a French-German-British triangle.
When Labor came to power in Britain in 1997, Blair tried to enlist Schröder and Prime Minister Lionel Jospin of France in his ‘‘third way,’’ with limited success. Jospin treated Blair’s new creed as a curious Anglo-Saxon eccentricity, and carried on introducing red-meat Socialist measures like the 35-hour working week. Schröder flirted with ‘‘Die Neue Mitte’’ — the New Center — as a political slogan, but soon returned to a far more traditional social democrat mold.
The French-German alliance re-emerged as an exclusive partnership, and Britain built ad-hoc alliances to work around it — signing bilateral deals and pushing through measures on economic reform with quiet diplomacy. Then, when splits in Europe over the Iraq war were at their height, eight countries — including Britain, Spain and Italy — made the case for war in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
To Schröder and Chirac, this seemed like a challenge for the leadership of the EU. The letter’s signatories included Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland, showing France and Germany that they could be easily outflanked by an alliance between Europe’s more pro-American medium-size countries and the EU accession countries. The only way of stopping this was to grant Blair’s wish and invite him into a new troika.
The new spirit of cooperation is untested, but the early signs have been positive. The British, French and German foreign ministers managed to score a diplomatic coup when they persuaded Iran to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for civil nuclear assistance. The European Security Strategy unveiled last year was a far more hawkish document than the usual bland fare.
By the end of the year a European Defense Agency will give Europe the chance to mount its own military operations. If this happens, then a new name may have to be added to the pantheon of Europe’s founding fathers: Donald Rumsfeld.
Mark Leonard is director of the Foreign Policy Center, London, and author of ‘‘Global Europe: Making the European Security Strategy Work.’’
http://www.iht.com/articles/131683.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/131683.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/1... IHT
|
|
|
| |
| Human rights caught between groups on collision course |
| 02.27.04 (3:24 pm) [edit] |
Haiti is headed towards violence and abuses on an unprecedented scale, Amnesty International said today.
Rebel leaders have announced their intention to attack the capital, Port-au-Prince, this weekend and government supporters are reportedly engaged in looting and thefts in advance of the rebel assault.
The organization urgently called on both sides to step back from their current paths, which have already led to numerous human rights abuses by both rebel forces and government supporters, and which have set them on a collision course in which more such abuses are inevitable.
At the same time, Amnesty International is deeply concerned by yesterday's statement by US President George Bush indicating that he has instructed the US Coast Guard to intercept and turn back any potential Haitian asylum seekers and warning Haitians not to try to reach the USA.
"The US has an obligation under international law to ensure that Haitians are able to exercise their right to seek and enjoy asylum," the organization said.
"Under international law the US is obliged not to reject asylum-seekers at its frontiers. Any move to intercept them and forcibly return them to a country where they would face grave abuses of their human rights would breach the most fundamental principle of international refugee law, the principle of non-refoulement."
Bush's statement came as the UN Security Council planned for a meeting today to address the crisis in Haiti. Countries such as France and the Bahamas have called for an international peacekeeping force to help ensure order in Haiti. It is unclear whether they would want deployment of such a force to be contingent on all sides first reaching some kind of political settlement.
"Any political settlement amongst the various Haitian actors must be grounded in the rule of law, and ultimately in the Haitian Constitution, for there to be a lasting solution to the current crisis, " Amnesty International concluded.
Background Information
Rebel leaders include notorious figures such as Louis Jodel Chamblain and Jean Tatoune, convicted of gross human rights violations committed a decade ago. Their forces are reported to include a number of former soldiers implicated in human rights abuses in the Central Plateau region of Haiti over the last year.
After taking control of the country's second city, Cap Haïtien, over the weekend, rebel forces reportedly rounded up suspected government supporters. The fate of many of those taken into rebel custody remains unknown, leading to fears of potential human rights abuses ranging from unlawful detention to arbitrary or summary executions.
For their part, government supporters, including the police force and unofficial armed gangs in Port-au-Prince and elsewhere have been accused of increasing numbers of abuses against perceived opposition supporters and members of the general public as tensions rise.
On Tuesday, leaders of opposition political parties rejected a settlement proposed by the international community to help resolve the political stand-off. The government had agreed to the settlement.
http://www.amnesty.org/" title="http://www.amnesty.org/" target="_blank"http://www.amnesty.org/ Amnesty International
|
|
|
| |
| Corruption probe into French union fund |
| 02.27.04 (3:15 pm) [edit] |
Financial Times 27 Feb 2004
By Robert Graham in Paris
The richest fund for social and cultural activities run by France's trades unions and belonging to Electricité de France and Gaz de France, the giant electricity and gas utilities, is under investigation for alleged corrupt activities.
The investigation by Paris judicial authorities follows complaints of misuse of funds handled by this institution, the bastion of the CGT, the largest of the country's three main trades union confederations.
The move comes at a time when the centre-right government of Jean-Pierre Raffarin is anxious to break the CGT's stranglehold on the evolution of these two giant utilities as France needs to adapt to EU energy liberalisation directives.
The biggest break on changing these utilities current statutes to pave the way for partial privatisation is the resistance to change from the CGT, the controlling trades union in these bodies.
However, political analysts believe any step by the government to use the investigation against the CGT could harden union attitudes against any change to the EdF and Gaz de France statutes.
Partial privatisation has been constantly postponed since Mr Raffarin's government took office in June 2002 and is now scheduled for 2005 at the earliest.
The fund under investigation has an annual budget of around EUR400m (£266.5m). This is largely financed by an obligatory contribution of 1 per cent of annual electricity and gas sales.
In tandem with this investigation, the public accounts commission is looking at the activities of the fund which employs 3,700 full-time union members and an even larger number of part-time staff.
The main purpose of the fund was to help present and former employees and provide facilities such as holiday camps. But over the years it has built up an extensive property folio, become responsible for the running of the EdF and Gaz de France canteens, while also being a big sponsor of national and local cultural events.
The investigation stems from a complaint from a former EdF employee, who alleged the fund was directly and indirectly financing activities that had no connection with its proper role.
The allegations include the creation of fake jobs, over-invoicing on service contracts and illicit involvement in external catering activity.
© Financial Times 2004
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040227001457" title="http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040227001457" target="_blank"http://search.ft.com/search/a...
|
|
|
| |
| Clashes erupt at Jerulalem Shrine |
| 02.27.04 (1:36 pm) [edit] |
By Gwen Ackerman
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police in riot gear have stormed the square outside the al-Aqsa mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, after Palestinians stoned worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall below.
The clashes at the shrine, often a flashpoint, followed a week of Palestinian protests in the West Bank against a barrier that Israel is building in and around occupied territory, which is now under World Court review.
Police spokesman Gil Kleiman said officers had tossed stun grenades after Muslim worshippers "started rioting" at the end of Friday prayers near the holy site that Muslims call al-Haram al-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) and Jews revere as the Temple Mount.
"Hundreds of Muslims threw rocks and rioted," he said. "Police entered the Temple Mount."
An ambulance driver said four Palestinian demonstrators had been injured but none seriously, and police said three officers were lightly hurt.
Police said stones had crashed onto the section of the Western Wall plaza where women pray, but no worshippers were injured. Witnesses said a policeman and a Palestinian had been slightly injured.
A Palestinian uprising erupted in 2000 after Ariel Sharon, Israel's opposition leader at the time and now prime minister, visited the compound, which is at the heart of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Temple Mount is Judaism's holiest site.
Israel seized East Jerusalem, including the ancient walled Old City -- where the compound is located -- in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed it in a move not recognised internationally. The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as capital of the state they hope to establish.
Middle East tensions worsened this week as the World Court in The Hague held hearings into the legality of Israel's West Bank barrier. Israeli forces killed two Palestinians in a crowd protesting near the barrier on Thursday.
EGYPTIAN SECURITY ROLE?
Also on Friday, security sources said Israel had held talks with Egypt about ceding security control to Cairo over a corridor on the Egypt-Gaza border as part of a plan to evacuate Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.
The Israeli sources said Egypt might be interested in assuming a security role out of concern that the militant Palestinian Islamic group Hamas would step in to fill the vacuum of an Israeli pullout from the fenced-in Gaza Strip.
Israeli intelligence chiefs met Egyptian officials in Cairo earlier this month to discuss Egypt taking responsibility over the several hundred-metre-wide corridor in southern Gaza, the sources said.
Israeli media quoted Egyptian officials, during a meeting with Israeli opposition Labour leader Shimon Peres on Thursday, expressing willingness to "replace Israeli on the Gaza border". There was no immediate comment from the Egyptian government.
Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said Israel had no business asking Egypt to get involved, calling it an issue that should only be discussed by Cairo and a Palestinian state.
The area known as the Philadelphia Road, which runs along the outskirts of the teeming Rafah refugee camp, has been a scene of frequent of clashes between Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen during a more than three-year-old uprising.
Tanks and soldiers have regularly raided Rafah to destroy tunnels used to smuggle arms from across the border from Egypt by Hamas and other militant groups spearheading a suicide bombing campaign against Israelis.
Sharon recently unveiled plans to uproot most settlements in Gaza if a stalled U.S.-backed "road map" to peace collapses. But he has given no timetable for such a move.
Also on Friday, militants fired an anti-tank missile that hit a house in a Jewish settlement near Khan Younis, just north of Rafah, the Israeli army said. Part of the house collapsed but there were no casualties since it was empty at the time.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040227/325/en4z7.html" title="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040227/325/en4z7.html" target="_blank"http://uk.news.yahoo.com/0402... Yahoo
|
|
|
| |
| Europe agrees to new labels for GM commodities over US objections |
| 02.27.04 (12:15 pm) [edit] |
By SEAN YOONG
Associated Press Writer
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) Europe and developing countries claimed a partial victory over the United States on Friday when a conference of 80 nations agreed to new rules for the labeling of genetically modified commodity shipments despite U.S. objections.
The United States expressed frustration, saying other countries rushed into decisions that might disrupt international trade.
``Our biggest disappointment is that countries are moving down a path away from practical steps very quickly in a direction that could have consequences,'' said Deborah Malac, chief of the U.S. State Department's Biotechnology Trade Policy Division.
Government officials wrapped up the conference on biotech safety with what they hoped would be a major step toward enforcing global trade rules for biologically altered foods by late 2005.
The European-led bloc successfully lobbied for more detailed information to be contained in identification papers that accompany bio-engineered shipments a move the United States, the world's largest exporter of biologically altered food, argued was unnecessary.
Countries also agreed to set up an expert group to negotiate an international liability regime that lets people seek compensation from biotech exporters if transgenic organisms contaminate their environment or harm their health.
The measures form the basis for implementing the U.N. Cartagena Protocol, which aims to protect biological diversity by ensuring exporters give enough information about gene-altered products so that countries can choose whether to reject them.
Washington was allowed to voice its opinions but not participate in making decisions because it has not signed the protocol, which 86 countries and the European Union have ratified.
Most governments are expected to set up new facilities to evaluate genetically altered shipments and specialized customs offices to enforce the protocol's requirements by September 2005.
The United States tussled repeatedly with Europe, Africa and many developing nations about key implementation issues throughout five days of talks in Kuala Lumpur. It was the first time countries formally discussed the protocol since it came into force last September.
Progress was glacial, but delegates managed to hammer out crucial compromises by Friday morning, especially in the most contentious issue of how much details should be included on labels and identification papers for transgenic shipments.
Officials agreed that documents should contain the scientific name and characteristics of genetically modified ingredients.
The U.S. delegation, which argued that specific labeling is unnecessary and would hinder trade, complained about the outcome.
``We came here in a cooperative spirit to find a rational way forward,'' Malac said. ``We believe we are still very much at risk of running into countries implementing laws and regulations that might create a lot of unpredictability.''
But Christoph Bail, head of Global Biodiversity in the European Environment Commission, said the European Union was satisfied, especially by winning commitment from countries that they will try to comply with protocol obligations.
``We are pleased, we have achieved our objectives,'' Bail said. ``The message that has been sent to the U.S. is that we are firm to make this protocol work. The message is, please do not try to undermine the protocol.''
Environmentalists criticized the compromise for not making other details compulsory as well, such as how the products had been altered.
``These requirements are not sufficient to protect the environment and the food chain from contamination,'' said Greenpeace spokeswoman Doreen Stabinsky. ``But they are an important first step that governments should implement immediately.''
http://cbsnewyork.com/international/Biosafe tyConference-ai/resources _news_html" title="http://cbsnewyork.com/international/Biosafe tyConference-ai/resources _news_html" target="_blank"http://cbsnewyork.com/interna... CBS New York
|
|
|
| |
| As US waits, France seizes edge on Haiti |
| 02.27.04 (12:08 pm) [edit] |
PARIS — While Washington delays action, France has seized the initiative in efforts to restore order in Haiti by leading calls for international peacekeepers to be sent there right away. The ex-colonial power says it does not want to tread on the United States’ toes in its backyard. Some analysts in Paris suggest its involvement in resolving Haiti’s political crisis could even do President George W Bush a big favour. “Washington has other priorities — Iraq or Afghanistan,” said Jean-Jacques Kourliandsky, of the Paris-based Institute of International and Strategic Relations of Bush’s rejection so far of calls for immediate intervention.
“This could be a way of helping relations between Paris and Washington...I think that is the aim of French diplomacy here,” he said of ties damaged in the bitter diplomatic row triggered by France’s opposition to the Iraq war. Bush last week rejected Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s plea for help to quell an armed three-week rebellion, saying a political settlement must come first. Emphasising the role of neighbouring countries in resolving the crisis, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin nonetheless renewed invitations to government and opposition officials to come from Haiti to Paris to discuss the crisis today.
The statement took Washington by surprise. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he had heard nothing of a force going in immediately in his contacts with Villepin. “The French are seeking to encourage the Americans to go the next step,” said Regis Debray, head of a government-appointed group on relations between France and Haiti. “But I do not see any friction between the two. There could and should be coordination in the region...There is no question of challenging the United States in a region so near to them and where they have so many interests,” he added.
Meanwhile, armed supporters of President Jean Bertrand Aristide threw up roadblocks and looted the Haitian capital on Wednesday in anticipation of a threatened rebel attack as France became the first country to call on Aristide to stand down. The UN Security Council and the permanent council of the Organisation of American States were to hold urgent meetings on Haiti yesterday. Hundreds of Haitians and foreigners braved masked, anger-prone gang members to mob the Port-au-Prince airport hoping to leave. At least two airlines cancelled flights due to deteriorating security and waning hopes for a peaceful solution.
Gunfire and looting were reported in the capital as Aristide’s political foes demanded the president’s departure as a precondition for any settlement. The United States and other governments struggled to keep mediation plans alive, but France called on Aristide to step down so international peacekeeping force could be deployed. US President George W Bush said a security force could only be sent after a settlement is reached, and warned potential Haitian refugees against taking to sea.
But Haitians were already fleeing: the US Coast Guard said it intercepted a vessel from Gonaive, northern Haiti, in waters off Florida carrying 28 people, including seven crewmen and 21 Haitian refugees. Miami television Channel 7 reported the boat was commandeered by armed Haitians that included policemen and lower-level government workers. Mexico’s ambassador, along with 30 Mexican nationals and 16 Canadians took off late on Wednesday in a plane landing in Mexico City, Mexican officials said. Mexico has offered Canada, Brazil and Venezuela to fly their citizens out of Haiti.
in a plane landing in Mexico City, Mexican officials said. Mexico has offered Canada, — AFP/Reuters
http://www.omanobserver.com" title="http://www.omanobserver.com" target="_blank"http://www.omanobserver.com Oman Observer
|
|
|
| |
| Arguments for Ralph Nader not to run for President |
| 02.26.04 (11:28 pm) [edit] |
Is it un-democratic to argue against Ralph Nader's entry into the presidential race? No, in fact, considering the outcome of election 2000 it is wise.
Nader's anti-politic stance for his own idealistic views cannot help but be detrimental to the left in the upcoming election. His objectives are not attainable.
He most certainly has the right to run but is it in the best interest of America for him to run?
Nader's ethics and hard work over the years are to be commended and I'm sure many of us would certainly prefer him to Bush and many even to Kerry or Edwards but as there is no hope for him to win he impairs the democratic process. Nader will again be the 'spoiler' just as he no doubt was in the 2000 presidential election. Gore lost to Bush by only 537 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida.
The American political system is set up in a way that third or fourth parties are inevitably excluded. The next President will be Republican or Democrat not Green, Independant, or Socialist. This is one of many things wrong with the system, but that's another story.
Nader is right as he points this out and argues the equity in bringing issues to light that Democrats and Republicans would prefer to keep out of the debate.
But, this is not the time. The democratic party is not known for it's political solidarity and unseating George Bush will be impossible outside of every elibible voter getting behind the democratic candidate whoever he may be.
Ralph Nader should be working for the common good in this election year by supporting the democratic candidate that has a chance of defeating George Bush.
Drop out Mr. Nader before it's too late.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush not welcome in Ireland |
| 02.26.04 (6:34 pm) [edit] |
"It is quite presumptuous, indeed arrogant, of the Taoiseach to expect people to set aside all their concerns about U.S. foreign policy, particularly the conduct of the war in Iraq, and not to protest during the planned visit of President Bush to this country in June.
"People have a right to peacefully protest and more than 100,000 of our citizens exercised this right to demonstrate their opposition to the war in Iraq when they marched though the streets of our towns and cities 12 months ago.
"The Taoiseach may indeed regard the visit as 'an honour for the Irish people', but many people will also regard it as an occasion that merits a restatement of the opposition of huge numbers of the Irish people to the current direction of U.S. foreign policy. Certainly I plan to participate in any lawful and peaceful protests that may be held.
"We now know that the basis on which the United States pursued the war against Iraq was entirely phoney. The United Nations and the international community were misled. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no imminent threat to the region or to the rest of the world. The war against Iraq was illegal under international law and the United States has created a very dangerous precedent by being the first democratic country in recent times to assert the right to launch a pre-emptive strike against another country..
"President Bush's trip to Ireland is not an official visit. It is a working summit between the EU and the United States and it should be treated accordingly. It should be limited to the working agenda and this country should certainly not be used to provide photo-opportunities for George Bush in the run up to the U.S. Presidential elections.
"It is little less than immoral to ask the Irish public to affect an amnesia on the recent war, a war that is taking Iraqi and civilian lives and the lives of young U.S. soldiers every day. Neither should we forget the Irish Government's shameful complicity in this illegal invasion and occupation."
http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=articl e&sid=3690" title="http://www.politics.ie/modules.php?name=News&file=articl e&sid=3690" target="_blank"http://www.politics.ie/module... Politics.ie
|
|
|
| |
| NY Times Endorses John Kerry |
| 02.26.04 (12:55 pm) [edit] |
A Primary Endorsement
Published: February 26, 2004
The search for a Democratic presidential nominee has been defined by an Anyone-but-Bush sentiment, an obsession with choosing the man who will run the best campaign. But in the end, the party needs to pick the person who is most qualified to be president. That's why this page endorses Senator John Kerry in Tuesday's primary.
Senator John Edwards, Mr. Kerry's only serious competitor, has been terrific on the campaign trail. He has a great speech and enormous discipline, and he makes a direct and genuinely emotional connection with people of all backgrounds. It's easy to envision him as the nominee four or eight years down the line, or on the ticket for vice president this fall. But Mr. Edwards has spent only a few years in public life. When he departs from his stump speech and discusses domestic issues or — particularly — foreign affairs, his lack of experience shows.
It's true that Mr. Edwards has as much or more experience than George Bush did when he entered the White House in 2001. But that was a different era. Now Americans understand better that they live in perilous times, and they aren't likely to feel comfortable switching leaders this fall if the challenger seems to require a lot of on-the-job training. Mr. Bush himself was not well served by the thinness of his résumé when Sept. 11 occurred.
Mr. Kerry, one of the Senate's experts in foreign affairs, exudes maturity and depth. He can discuss virtually any issue of security or international affairs with authority. What his critics see as an inability to take strong, clear positions seems to us to reflect his appreciation that life is not simple. He understands the nuances and shades of gray in both foreign and domestic policy. While he still has trouble turning out snappy sound bites, we don't detect any difficulty in laying down a clear bottom line. His campaigning skills are perhaps not as strong as his intellectual ones, but they are pretty good and getting better. Early in the race he alienated some audiences with brittle, patronizing lectures. But he has improved tremendously over the last few months. His answers are focused and to the point, and his speeches far more compelling.
If Mr. Kerry wins the nomination, the Bush administration will undoubtedly attempt to paint Mr. Kerry as a typical Massachusetts liberal, but his thinking defies such easy categorization. His positions come from mainstream American thought, centrism of the old school. He has always worried over budget deficits. His record on the environment is extremely strong. He is a gun owner and hunter who supports effective gun control laws, a combat veteran who, having seen a great deal of death, opposes capital punishment. A sense of balance comes through when he is talking. Unfortunately, so far in this campaign Mr. Kerry has shown little interest in being daring, expressing a thought that is unexpected or quirky on even minor issues. We wish we could see a little of the political courage of the Vietnam hero who came back to lead the fight against the war.
While Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards have both demonstrated the physical and mental endurance that now seems a requisite for presidential candidates, Mr. Kerry has been the real comeback star this year. His early campaign was disastrous, and his slip from favorite to also-ran was so dramatic as to be embarrassing. But he pulled his organization together and handily won the early primaries. This was not the first time in his political career — or his life — that he has shown the toughness to keep going when things turn sour. That's a quality critical to a presidential nominee — and to a president.
The primary contest has now come down to two competing arguments. Mr. Kerry's supporters say Mr. Edwards suffers from a gravitas gap. Mr. Edwards's partisans say Mr. Kerry is on the wrong end of a charm chasm. The senator from Massachusetts seems to us to have warmed up a good deal since the campaign began. He can take the edge off his patrician aura, at least in part, by retelling the story of his Vietnam exploits and bringing back loyal blue-collar friends from the service to attest to his virtues as a leader.
Almost everyone who has been watching the Democratic campaign would love to merge Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards into one composite super-candidate, with Mr. Kerry's depth and Mr. Edwards's personal touch with the voters. In the television era, likability is extremely important. But this is a serious business, and Mr. Kerry, the more experienced and knowledgeable candidate, gets our endorsement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26 THU1.html?th" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26 THU1.html?th" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... NT Times
|
|
|
| |
| EU and US near to Galileo deal |
| 02.26.04 (12:37 pm) [edit] |
Disputes between the EU and US over Galileo have been ongoing for the past four years (Photo: European Commission)
The EU and US have reached agreement on most aspects of co-operation between Europe’s planned Galileo satellite navigation system and the US Global Positioning System (GPS).
After a two day meeting in Brussels, agreement was reached to adopt a common signal for certain services and to preserve national security capabilities.
The 3.6 billion euro Galileo project is expected to start operating in 2008 alongside the US GPS system.
The US had expressed concerns that the radio frequency preferred by the EU would interfere with military signals.
Moreover, Galileo’s economic viability was questioned as GPS is freely available.
However, China already announced that it would invest over 200 million euro in the EU’s satellite navigation system, while Brazil, Israel, India and Russia also appear to be interested to invest.
"The delegations will continue to work diligently to resolve the few remaining outstanding issues which concern primarily some legal and procedural aspects", a joint statement between the European Commission and the US reads.
Written by Sharon Spiteri
http://www.euobserver.com/" title="http://www.euobserver.com/" target="_blank"http://www.euobserver.com/ EU Observer
|
|
|
| |
| Enlargement to help EU catch US on productivity |
| 02.26.04 (12:26 pm) [edit] |
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The entry of ten new EU states in May will boost EU productivity to levels only just below that of the US, according to a new report by an influential US business group.
The study, published yesterday by the New-York based Conference Board, shows that EU productivity growth at 0.8 percent lags far behind the US at 2.6 percent.
However, the ten new member states have far higher productivity growth levels - with an impressive average of 4.2 percent over the last eight years.
Productivity growth is a key measure of economic success and a boost in productivity from new member states will go a long way to help the EU fulfil its goal to be "the most competitive, knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010" (the so-called Lisbon Agenda).
Long road to Lisbon
One of the co-authors of the report, productivity expert Bart van Ark, said, "Productivity growth in the enlarged European Union will be just slightly below U.S. growth rates", adding that "Cost savings on labour and continued restructuring, especially throughout manufacturing" will be the main cause of the gains.
Despite the generally upbeat report - which provides a welcome boost to the beleaguered Lisbon process - the EU has a long way to go, warn the authors.
The US continues to outstrip the EU in terms of research and investment in new technologies, which always keeps them one step ahead of the Union.
Robert McGuckin, Director of Economic Research at The Conference Board, said, "The U.S. has outpaced Europe in productivity growth by profitably exploiting new information and communication technologies".
"The lack of a fully integrated EU market also makes it more difficult to take advantage of new market opportunities", added Mr McGuckin.
Concerted push needed
The publication of the report coincided with yesterday's long debate in the European Parliament concerning the Lisbon process and the state of the economy.
The Lisbon aims topped the agenda at the recent summit of the big three and will be the main item for discussion at the forthcoming summit of EU leaders in March.
Many MEPs expressed a sense of frustration that although there is much rhetoric over this vital topic, there is little action - especially from the Member States, which need to implement fundamental economic reforms.
Referring to the 2010 time limit for the EU to catch up with the US, the leader of the Liberal Group in the European Parliament, Graham Watson, said, "we cannot afford to be standing here five years from now wondering how we let Europe get left behind".
"Europe is stuck in second gear. As America accelerates, and a resurgent Asia pulls into the passing lane, Europe is trailing behind", added Mr Watson.
Written by Richard Carter
|
|
|
| |
| US in bed with another dictator? |
| 02.26.04 (11:26 am) [edit] |
In honor of Rumsfeld's visit Uzbek dictator Islam Karimov, made a 'symbolic' gesture. He released 'one' political dissident. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
A report issued in Nov. 2003 stated no progress had been made in EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and development) benchmarks.
The most important being those concerning democratization and human rights.
Uzbekistan has proven over twelve years of independence to be one of the most repressive countries in the Central Asia region. Now a key ally in the U.S. led "war against terrorism," Uzbekistan has made some attempts to convince the international community that it is improving its human rights record. However, the situation remains grave, with systematic torture of detainees, persecution of Muslims who practice Islam outside of state controlled structures, and harassment of human rights defenders and opposition members.
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/ 31/uzbeki7024.htm" title="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/12/ 31/uzbeki7024.htm" target="_blank"http://hrw.org/english/docs/2...
The EBRD has said it will evaluate Uzbekistan's progress on meeting the benchmarks in a year. There is much at stake for the country and it will be interesting to see if Karimov and the US are truly interested in democracy
and human rights. There are 22 projects worth a total of $1.4 billion with EBRD backing. American aid to Uzbekistan in 2003 amounted to just over $420 million.
Some steps made in privatization and co-operating with the US in the 'war on terror' is no excuse for overlooking the most important issue..human rights.
"Rumsfeld held closed-door meetings with Karimov and the Uzbek foreign and defense ministers. At a news conference that followed, Rumsfeld was repeatedly asked about human rights, but he focused on Uzbekistan's cooperation with the fight against the al Qaeda network and other terrorist groups."
US support of dictatorships has a way of blowing up in their faces.
|
|
|
| |
| Rumsfeld advisor quits over vocal war advocacy |
| 02.26.04 (9:31 am) [edit] |
KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE
WASHINGTON - Richard Perle, one of the most outspoken advocates for invading Iraq, has quietly resigned from the Defense Policy Board, an influential bipartisan Pentagon advisory group.
Perle informed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that he was quitting the board in a letter dated Feb. 18, although a week later a Pentagon list of board members still included him. A copy of the letter was obtained by Knight Ridder.
Perle's resignation comes as President Bush, who had hoped to ride popular support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to a second term, finds his administration facing a growing number of congressional, legal and internal investigations into dubious prewar intelligence on Iraq and lucrative contracts for Iraqi reconstruction.
In his letter, Perle said he was resigning after 17 years on the board so that the Bush administration and the Department of Defense would no longer be associated with his outspoken views on Iraq and other matters.
"We are now approaching a long presidential election campaign, in the course of which issues on which I have strong views will be widely discussed and debated," Perle wrote. "I would not wish those views to be attributed to you or the president at any time, and especially not during a presidential campaign."
Perle didn't return a telephone call seeking comment on his resignation, and a Pentagon spokesman would confirm only that he had resigned.
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nat ion/8042306.htm" title="http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nat ion/8042306.htm" target="_blank"http://www.tallahassee.com/ml... Tallahassee Democrat
|
|
|
| |
| Greenspan pushes social security cuts |
| 02.26.04 (9:06 am) [edit] |
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Feb. 26 — Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, stepping into the politically charged debate over Social Security, said Wednesday the country can't afford the retirement benefits promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them.
He said that unless Congress acts, soaring budget deficits from out-of-control entitlement programs could lead to a "very debilitating" rise in interest rates in coming years.
Democratic presidential candidates denounced his proposals, and President Bush and other Republicans sought to distance themselves from the Republican Greenspan.
The central bank chairman also repeated his view that Bush's tax cuts should be made permanent to bolster economic growth. He said the estimated $1 trillion cost should be paid for, preferably, with spending cuts so the deficit would not be worsened.
As for specifics on trimming Social Security, Greenspan told the House Budget Committee that one possibility would be to switch to an alternative measure of inflation for annual cost-of-living adjustments. Instead of relying on the Consumer Price Index, he suggested switching to a new chain-weighted CPI that gives lower inflation readings and thus would mean smaller payment increases.
Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, also suggested tying the retirement age for full benefits to longer lifespans with the age continuing to rise. The 65-year age for retiring at full benefits started increasing last year and now stands at 65 years and four months. It will increase to 67 over the next two decades and then stop rising.
Greenspan said his comments simply voiced views he has held since he chaired a blue-ribbon commission two decades ago. But the remarks set off a political storm.
Democratic front-runner Sen. John Kerry said the way to address the deficit was to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and "the wrong way to cut the deficit is to cut Social Security benefits. If I'm president, we're simply not going to do it."
Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., called it "an outrage' for Greenspan to call for cuts in Social Security while at the same time endorsing making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, went even further and called for Greenspan to resign as Fed chairman, saying his comments were "a disgrace."
Bush said Social Security benefits "should not be changed for people at or near retirement."
Underscoring the view that Congress is not about to touch Greenspan's suggestions, especially in an election year, Rep. Clay Shaw, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee in charge of Social Security, said Greenspan was wrong to call for benefit cuts. "My message to seniors and those nearing retirement: You will receive nothing less than 100 percent of what you've been promised. Your benefits are safe and secure," Shaw said.
William D. Novelli, head of AARP, which represents retirees, said Greenspan's proposals to trim benefits for future retirees "would be unfair to boomers and younger workers, pulling the rug out from under their retirement security."
But the Alliance for Worker Retirement Security, a coalition of 40 employer groups, praised Greenspan for sounding the alarm. "Social Security's pending crisis can no longer be pushed off to future generations," said Derrick Max, the group's executive director.
In his testimony before the Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the 77 million members of the baby boom generation start becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.
He said projections show the country will go from having just over three workers supporting each retiree to 2.25 workers for every retiree by 2025.
"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."
He said taking action now would mean that people still working would have time to adjust their retirement savings plans to deal with smaller Social Security benefits.
Greenspan said at some point the country needed to face the fact that the government has promised more in entitlement benefits than it can afford to pay. He said the problem was even worse for Medicare because it was impossible to estimate what types of costly medical advances will be available in coming years.
He did not mention that Congress late last year, at Bush's urging, adopted a new prescription drug benefit as part of a Medicare overhaul now estimated to cost $540 billion over the next decade.
"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."
While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four decades, Greenspan warned that financial markets will begin pushing long-term rates higher if investors do not see progress in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once baby boomers begin retiring.
As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts or spending increases to be paid for either by spending cuts in other areas or increases in other taxes. Bush has called for the rules to cover only spending increases, not tax cuts.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040 226_49.html" title="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/ap20040 226_49.html" target="_blank"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Bu...
|
|
|
| |
| WeCount.org launches campaign uniting voters to defeat Bush |
| 02.26.04 (8:33 am) [edit] |
(AScribe Newswire) -- WeCount.org today announced the launch of its Coalition for America 2004 campaign uniting voters across the political spectrum to support a single candidate to defeat George W. Bush in November and set the nation on a new path.
Working online and on the ground, WeCount.org's Coalition for America 2004 campaign expects to attract Democrats, Greens, Republicans not supporting Bush and independents who are frustrated by the fractured vote seen in previous elections and recognize that a united front will maximize the chances of an electoral victory. The cornerstone of the campaign is a petition found at www.wecount.org calling upon political leaders to build a coalition through public negotiations resulting in the support of single candidate in November's election.
Coalition for America 2004 is WeCount.org's first campaign promoting coalition building as a means to support policy change and influence the outcome of an election. The campaign draws from Franklin D. Roosevelt's success in defeating conservative Herbert Hoover in 1932 with the New Deal Coalition which united labor unions, liberals, African Americans, and moderate southerners and remained a hallmark of Democratic strength until the early 1960s.
Last week, the campaign began collecting signatures with its first signers passing the petition on to friends, family and associates by e-mail. WeCount.org has set a goal to reach one million signatures by May 31. The petition and signatures will then be presented to party leaders, candidates and influential independents who will be urged to form a coalition with agreements reached through public negotiations moderated by a neutral third party. The coalition will select and endorse a single presidential candidate who will in turn be supported by their constituents.
WeCount.org is a not-for-profit political action committee (Sec. 527) founded in 2003 to promote policy changes in national government by establishing a continuing forum for coalition building, research, advocacy, and voter mobilization. We support policies that will improve environmental protection, foreign relations without the use of war, public education, access to healthcare, and fiscal responsibility in both government and the marketplace. WeCount.org is not affiliated with any political party. Our goal is to empower the voices of ordinary Americans in the political process throughout the United States.
https://www.wecount.org/index.cfm WeCount
|
|
|
| |
| Protecting marriage not government issue |
| 02.25.04 (1:01 pm) [edit] |
The institution was born from religion and should stay that way.
February 25, 2004
Bless his heart, President Bush contends that gay marriage is so dangerous to America that it merits a constitutional prohibition.
Actually, an existing constitutional amendment handles this issue quite nicely. It’s the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” In other words, government should butt out of the church’s business.
Gay marriage is a religious issue. On one side are people — many of them devout churchgoers — who believe that marriage within the same sex is an abomination. On the other side are people — many of them just as devoutly religious — who believe that it is not government’s role to tell a person whom he or she can wed.
In the middle are the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t crazy about gay marriage, let alone civil unions, but who believe that a person’s character and commitment are more important than her or his sexual orientation.
Contrary to Bush’s assertion Tuesday, most people don’t find the debate about gay marriage “confusing.” It is awkward, certainly unsettling to the status quo — but it also reflects progress in our society.
We’ve come a long way from the days of multiple wives and parent-arranged marriages. However, in the process, we also have damaged marriage in ways that no constitutional amendment can solve. We have placed sexual titillation, personal freedom and workaholism on the altar where self-discipline and personal commitment once stood.
The danger to marriage comes not from gay people who enter loving, committed, lifelong unions. It arises in part from men and women who treat marriage like their car: something to change when interest in the old model wears off or when the ongoing maintenance feels too burdensome.
A constitutional amendment won’t teach people the necessity of pre-marital counseling. It won’t stop people from committing adultery or becoming addicted to online relationships. It won’t demand that once people have children, they have a moral duty to raise them.
For politicians wanting to protect marriage, the answer lies in returning to our cultural roots in a more profound way than Bush imagines: recognizing that marriage was born as a religious institution and should remain one. Right now, government regulates marriages, from licensing the potential spouses to regulating the clergy, judges and others who perform the weddings.
The folks pushing civil unions for gay people are onto something. As civil institutions, state governments should have full authority to regulate civil unions for single, consenting adults, irrespective of their sexual orientation. As for marriage, reserve it for religious institutions to preside over — setting their own criteria, preserving the sanctity of the ceremonies and doing everything they can to help couples prepare for and maintain a marriage.
The national, multimillion-dollar fight about “gay marriage” is enriching lawyers, lobbyists and interest groups on all sides. Bush is using it as a wedge issue to attract voters in the 2004 presidential campaign. But the tumultuous debate does nothing to truly protect and preserve marriage.
http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=75905" title="http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=75905" target="_blank"http://news.statesmanjournal.... Statesman Journal
|
|
|
| |
| What a joke.. US Suspends French Meat Imports |
| 02.25.04 (11:49 am) [edit] |
Feb. 24 — PARIS (Reuters) - The French Farm Ministry said on Tuesday U.S. authorities had informed it of their decision to suspend imports of French meat products on health safety grounds.
"Following a veterinary inspection conducted in France by the U.S. Ministry of Agriculture between January 15 and February 5, 2004, the United States has informed the (French) farm ministry of its decision to suspend imports of French meat products," it said in a statement.
It added the suspension covered products such as charcuterie and foie gras and followed an inspection of the 11 French firms licensed to export meat products to the United States and of the veterinary services which supervise them.
"The U.S. farm ministry highlighted non-conformities in their health safety system," it said.
It said the decision to suspend imports was taken despite a last-minute trip by Farm Minister Herve Gaymard to Washington on Monday to present the steps taken by French companies to comply with specific U.S. standards.
"France agrees neither with the statements made by the U.S. authorities nor the conclusions they thought they needed to draw from them," it added.
The move coincides with other developments that will not help the large but sometimes tense trading relationship between the United States and the European Union.
Earlier on Tuesday the European Commission decided to slap a one-month ban on imports of chicks and eggs from the United States after the discovery of bird flu in Texas.
Separately, the Geneva-based World Trade Organization (WTO) gave the European Union on Tuesday the go-ahead to levy sanctions on U.S. companies in a long-running row over an illegal anti-dumping law, trade sources said.
The EU, which was backed in its complaint by Japan, India and Mexico, had asked for the right to retaliate after the United States failed to repeal legislation which the WTO had already ruled violated free trade rules.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters200402 24_452.html" title="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters200402 24_452.html" target="_blank"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US... ABC
It would be interesting to know the actual findings of the Dept. of Agriculture that brought on this move.
It's certainly not due to bird flu. Now this would be a
legitimate reason to impose restrictions...like madcows in Canada. Hmm could this be more temper tantrums from the pro-Bush, America love it or leave it junta against France?
France, a country smaller than the state of Texas, is
sure a burr under Bush's saddle. We must be doing
something right. George Bush will stop at nothing
in exacting his revenge even attempting to destroy
the economy of another country is not beneath him.
|
|
|
| |
| Lochinver peace rally told Iraq war was 'illegal' |
| 02.25.04 (10:37 am) [edit] |
Leading anti-war campaigner Bruce Kent has called for a criminal investigation into Britain's role in the war in Iraq and a restructuring of the United Nations.
Speaking in Lochinver at the weekend, Mr Kent said the UN as presently constituted was undemocratic because of dominance by the world's five strongest nations.
"It's all to protect US interests and investments and even Pentagon documents show that, " said Mr Kent, a high-profile figure in CND for many years who now speaks for Abolition of War.
"We need a UN where we have some democratic input, where we don't have the thing run by the five most militarist powers in the world, " he told an audience of about 100 peace campaigners in Lochinver Village Hall on Saturday.
Mr Kent is critical of Britain's involvement in the recent war in Iraq.
"What happened was a criminal act, " he claimed. "Allegations of criminality have been made and they should be followed up. I'm pursuing Mr Blair as best I can."
The Assynt event was organised by the Scottish Coalition For Justice Not War and was chaired by Councillor Jean Urquhart (Lochbroom). Scores of people signed the "Lochinver Declaration for Peace", pledging to work towards the abolition of war as a means of solving conflict.
Mr Kent called on the anti-war movement to unite under the slogan "Another World Is Possible". At the moment it was divided, he said, with one section preoccupied with Third World poverty, another with green issues and yet another - "the peace lot" - dealing with anti-militarism.
He said they would be lobbying the Westminster parliament on March 16 and pressing the case for more democratic input to the UN.
"Whatever one thinks of the UN, it's the only game in town, " said Mr Kent.
"War is not compulsory, we don't need to have war. My view of world politicians is that they follow, not lead.
"We need a UN where smaller countries have a say, where the courts of the UN are obligatory and not optional.
You can't have an international system where the law only applies to some countries. Reform of the UN, and democratisation of the UN, are absolutely essential."
Referring to the war in Iraq, he said:
"I'm pursuing that with the international criminal court and the new prosecutor, because Britain has signed and ratified the convention for the court that was set up.
"Both war crimes and acts against humanity are governed by the jurisdiction of the court. In my judgement, and in that of many better informed people, depleted uranium and cluster bombs are both within the umbrella of war crimes.
"So we're asking the prosecutor to investigate the behaviour of the government of this country. It doesn't affect the US, because they refuse to sign and ratify it. Whether it's criminal, or whether it's political resignation, something ought to happen to Mr Blair."
There are now 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, said Mr Kent, most of which are bigger than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
"They're possessed by nine countries, some of them very volatile countries, " he added.
"Heaven knows when fissile material will get into the hands of terrorists and we're now beginning to learn how many accidents there were with nuclear weapons, and how many miscalculations. So we've been very lucky, perhaps providential, in the last fifty years."
Mr Kent was accompanied by Gulf Wa r veteran Tony Flint, from London, who says his precarious state of health is due to the effects of depleted uranium and the cocktail of vaccines and tablets he had to take before going into battle.
"I'm an average sick Gulf vet, " said Mr Flint, who claimed more service personnel had died from the effects of depleted uranium and vaccines than in the war itself.
"We know we're dying. We also want to know the true casualty figures.
Because of the half-life of depleted uranium, people will be dying from its effects for the next four and a half billion years."
The other speaker on Saturday was Scottish Green Party MSP for the Highlands and Islands, Dr Eleanor Scott, co-convener of Holyrood's crossparty CND group. She urged: "Do something positive for peace, rather than being anti-war."
Dr Scott later responded angrily to the news that the Highland Council are proposing to charge the Highland Coalition for Justice not War and its parent body, the Scottish Coalition, £400 for demonstrating in Inverness on February 28 at the Scottish Labour Party Conference, which prime minister Tony Blair is due to visit.
"I find it incredible that Highland Council could even contemplate levying this punitive charge on freedom of expression, " she said. There have been demonstrations in Inverness in the recent past, anti-war and anti-GM, and all have passed off peacefully without the need for road closures and certainly without the organisers being faced with this ridiculous charge.
"I call on Highland Council to reconsider urgently, or the Highlands will find itself with the reputation of being a place where free speech is something you have to pay for."
Demonstrators, including a busload from Assynt, are planning to assemble in the Bught Park, Inverness, at 1pm on Saturday February 28 for a march around Inverness, passing the conference centre at Eden Court Theatre, and returning to the Bught for a rally..
http://www.northern-times.co.uk/news.asp?storyvar=2786" title="http://www.northern-times.co.uk/news.asp?storyvar=2786" target="_blank"http://www.northern-times.co.... Northern Times
|
|
|
| |
| Modern-day slavery in Florida exposed |
| 02.25.04 (9:41 am) [edit] |
By Jackie Hallifax
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Human trafficking - modern-day slavery - is "alive and well ... right here in our own back yard," the chief of a human rights center said Tuesday as it released a report on people forced to work as prostitutes, pickers and maids across Florida.
Traffickers bring thousands of people into the United States each year and Florida is thought to be one of the top three destinations, along with New York and Texas, according to the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights at Florida State University.
Although there have been several high-profile prosecutions of human trafficking in Florida, many people don't realize the extent or even existence of the problem, according to the center's report.
But no one knows how many people in Florida are under the control of traffickers, said Terry Coonan, executive director of the center.
In South Florida, federal prosecutions have indicated hundreds of farmworkers were victims of human trafficking and a forced-prostitution ring identified as many as 40 young women and girls brought from Mexico. The center also cited a case of "domestic servitude" in southwest Florida.
But the problem is not limited to those areas or those industries, according to Robin Thompson, director of the research project.
"All you have to do is look where cheap labor is required and where there is a potential for labor exploitation, which pretty much can put you anywhere in our state," Thompson said.
The center organized a "working group" of advocates and law enforcement to study the issue. The project was funded by a federal grant under a 2000 law designed to increase protections for victims of human trafficking.
Lt. Bill Rule, with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, works with victims and served on the center's working group. He called human trafficking "one of the most lucrative businesses" that criminals might undertake.
Unlike drug trafficking, where the product is gone once it's sold, human traffickers "use the person over and over and over again."
Graciela Marquina, a graduate student in social work at Florida State, worked on the project and interviewed some of the victims of the prostitution ring.
The young women and girls, duped into believing they were coming to Florida to work as waitresses or nannies, were beaten, raped and threatened. They were closely guarded and frequently moved from one Florida city to another, working as prostitutes six days a week and 12 hours a day.
"Their faces are like yours and mine," Marquina said. "Their children are like our own children. You would never believe that such a horrible experience happened to these women."
The center's report emphasized that not all victims of human trafficking are illegal immigrants. Many victims enter the United States legally but because of their poverty or inability to speak English are exploited by traffickers.
And some victims are Americans, Thompson said.
"You don't have to come from another country," she said, pointing to the homeless, addicted and runaways as potential victims for traffickers.
All indications are that human trafficking is on the rise in recent years, thanks to the loosening of national borders, Coonan said.
"The greater the awareness, the more likely these cases will be reported and prosecuted," Coonan told reporters. "This is almost an invisible crime because the victims are kept out of the public eye. We need to crack this code of silence."
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nat ion/8033204.htm" title="http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/nat ion/8033204.htm" target="_blank"http://www.tallahassee.com/ml... Tallahassee Democrat
|
|
|
| |
| Coke's Killers |
| 02.25.04 (9:30 am) [edit] |
By Mischa Gaus | 2.24.04
Coca-Cola representatives told a fact-finding delegation that its employees may have collaborated with paramilitaries in the deaths and torture of Colombian union members.
Despite the possible collaboration, Coca-Cola officials in Colombia have not undertaken any internal or external investigation into the assaults against its employees.
The company’s Colombian representatives insist any contact with paramilitaries, widely blamed for killing seven Coke unionists and thousands of others in recent decades, was unauthorized, according to a report released by Hiram Monserrate. This New York councilmember led a January delegation of U.S. unionists and students to Colombia.
In a written response to the delegation, Coca-Cola says it “does not anticipate supporting in any way any form of ‘independent fact-finding delegation to Colombia,’” and that allegations leveled against the company only would be reviewed locally. A company spokeswoman in Atlanta says she is unaware of any admission of complicity in the unionists’ killings and calls the allegations false.
Workers who say they were tortured at the hands of paramilitaries operating at the company’s behest sued Coke and its Colombian subsidiary in 2001 in a Florida federal court, although Coke was released from the suit last March. Monserrate’s report says company officials implied defamation and slander lawsuits filed in Colombia against workers who joined the U.S. suit were a “direct reprisal.” Some of those reprisal lawsuits were recently thrown out but others continue.
Colombia, whose civil war kills 3,500 each year, is the world’s most dangerous place for union members. It accounts for three of five people killed worldwide for union activity—about 3,600 in the last two decades. Paramilitaries are responsible for the vast majority of these killings, according to union researchers, although no killer of a union member has been convicted since 1995.
Monserrate’s report includes union assertions of uncounted death threats, forced displacement of membership, incarceration of workers on false charges, raiding of union offices and homes of union members, and the kidnapping of unionists in order to force them to renounce their right to associate. “It’s a systemic campaign of terror,” says delegation member Lenore Palladino.
Coca-Cola’s strategy has been to distance itself from its Colombian bottling subsidiary, although it recently acquired the company and holds bottling agreements with it, says Terry Collingsworth, executive director of the International Labor Rights Fund. “Clearly, Atlanta has the power to tell their bottlers, ‘you can’t do this.’ They just refuse to.”
http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=628_0_2_0_C" title="http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=628_0_2_0_C" target="_blank"http://inthesetimes.com/comme... In These Times
|
|
|
| |
| Bush welfare agenda - married to a myth |
| 02.25.04 (8:46 am) [edit] |
By Diana Spatz
OAKLAND, CALIF. – Like most mothers who have ever received public assistance, I was led to the welfare rolls by domestic violence. At the time, I was a single, pregnant mother cleaning houses for $4.75 an hour. I was homeless after fleeing an abusive relationship. Welfare enabled me to provide food and shelter for my newborn daughter and myself - and leave my batterer for good. And I'm not alone in this experience. Research shows that up to 83 percent of welfare mothers in my home state of California have experienced domestic violence.
So as a single mother who survived domestic violence, and as someone who now works daily with single mothers, I'm deeply concerned about President Bush's "Healthy Marriage Plan," which would spend $1.5 billion in federal and state funds to marry poor mothers off the welfare rolls.
Clearly, marriage is not a solution for mothers who face domestic violence, as I once did.
The president's proposal is deeply flawed in other ways, as well. It will increase weekly work requirements for parents on welfare - requiring them to do 40 hours of "work activities" each week in exchange for their welfare benefits. Yet, at the same time, Mr. Bush's proposed budget for 2005 slashes child-care funding for 300,000 low-income kids. Given the high unemployment rate, his proposal is likely to force states to create massive "workfare" programs to meet increased work participation rates - at a cost of $11 billion to the states.
But my deepest concern with the proposal is that it ignores hard truths: For many low-income parents in my state, neither marriage nor work is enough to get their families off welfare, let alone out of poverty.
In 2003, more than 130,000 parents in California reached their five-year lifetime limit on welfare, and were cut off public assistance for the rest of their lives - even though up to 92 percent of them were working and playing by the rules. Clearly, work requirements haven't helped their families get off welfare. Nor is a marriage license a ticket off welfare, even for mothers who have not been abused. The fact is, the majority of California parents who reached their lifetime limit on welfare last year were already in two-parent families.
Marriage can't solve poverty as long as one parent is relegated to a low-wage, dead-end job while the other stays home and takes care of the children at no cost to the state - as is the experience of two-parent welfare families in California.
But perhaps that is precisely the point.
Promoting marriage may sound reasonable, but the reality is that welfare reform was never really about helping poor families. After all, reducing poverty was not one of the goals of the 1996 welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton, but reducing welfare case loads and and promoting low-wage work and marriage were.
So what is President Bush's agenda for this second round of welfare reform? To take the American family and social policy back to a time when women were supposed to get married, but not educated - a time to which few of us, on or off welfare, want to return. If the president really cared about poor children and families, he'd spend that $1.5 billion to provide shelter, counseling, and services for mothers and children fleeing domestic violence; he'd require every state to allow education and training as a welfare-to-work activity; and he'd guarantee affordable, quality childcare to every parent who moves from welfare to work. But under welfare reform as we know it, single mothers are offered cash bonuses to get married, and forced to quit school or be cut off the welfare rolls.
When I consider the president's proposal for welfare reauthorization, I feel fortunate that when I was a battered, homeless single mother on welfare, it was before welfare reform.
Unlike most parents on public assistance today, welfare helped me go to school, earn my college degree, and get a job that pays me enough to support my family. Today, I pay more than $14,000 in taxes annually - almost double what I used to make working in a low-wage, dead-end job. And I've paid back - several times over - the investment that welfare made in my family.
If I had waited for a man to marry me off welfare, not only would I still be a single mother, but my family would still be poor. My education, not marriage, got my family out of poverty.
• Diana Spatz is executive director of LIFETIME: Low-Income Families' Empowerment through Education, and a recipient of the Ford Foundation Leadership for a Changing World Award.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p09s02-coop .html" title="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p09s02-coop .html" target="_blank"http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... CS Monitor
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli women keep eyes on army |
| 02.24.04 (5:43 pm) [edit] |
By Ben Lynfield
JUBARA, WEST BANK - Even before Israel's controversial separation barrier came under heightened international scrutiny this week, Adi Dagan was on the lookout at one of its gates in the West Bank, scribbling incessantly.
Armed with her notebook, mobile phone, and compassion, Ms. Dagan is among 300 Israeli women volunteers whose self-appointed task is to monitor the Israeli army, which operates about 65 manned and hundreds of unmanned checkpoints in the West Bank.
The group, Machsom Watch, or Women for Human Rights, scrutinizes soldiers' behavior at the checkpoints that constitute the main interface between the army and the roughly two million Palestinians who live there.
"I try to make sure the soldiers see I am writing," says Dagan,who holds a masters degree in history from the Hebrew University. "It is kind of a pressure on them to behave." She and others head to the checkpoints, or to gates in the barrier, at least once a week.
Israel says the barrier is essential to thwart the suicide bombers who have repeatedly attacked its towns. It says the gates are designed so that Palestinians can reach farmland and schools on the other side. But in Jubara, Dagan says "the gate is not opened regularly. Usually soldiers come to open it around 12:30 and are gone by 1:00, but sometimes they don't show up at all."
UNICEF has put up awnings on either side of the gate for children who have to wait in the rain.
On Jewish holidays, which are regular schooldays for the Palestinians, the gate is locked, say schoolchildren.
"It's a new system and we are trying to get it to work and to do as much as possible to allow people to move back and forth," says an army spokesman, Capt. Jacob Dallal.
The International Court of Justice is holding four days of hearings in The Hague this week on the barrier.
When Machsom Watch volunteers find schoolchildren waiting, they call a local army officer and he dispatches soldiers to open the gate, says Dagan. But officers responsible for other checkpoints are often unhelpful, she says
"You put an 18-year-old soldier at a checkpoint and he decides whether people get to work, to hospital, or to see their relatives," Dagan adds." It's a lot of power and many times bad use is made of this power to humiliate people, harass people, or act violently."
Machsom Watch advocates the end of checkpoints and, in the meantime, easing the plight of Palestinians. The group has come a long way since it started with three Jerusalem women at a checkpoint to Bethlehem in January 2001. Its daily field reports are posted on the Internet. A group of Knesset legislators recently took up the cause, paying their own visits to checkpoints.
Fending off criticism, the army has often said that all checkpoints are in place to thwart attacks on Israeli targets, not wear down Palestinians.
Most of the checkpoints separate one Palestinian area from another, with only a few controlling access to sovereign Israeli territory.
An army spokesman says that checkpoints between Palestinian areas are needed to disrupt the logistics of suicide bombings.
He says that in any given operation, an explosive vest could come from one area of the West Bank, the bomber from another, and the operation could be staged from yet a third location.
However, in October, the army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon raised eyebrows by saying that the tight checkpoint regime was harming innocent civilians and generating resentment that backfires against Israel.
Machsom Watch's appeal, its volunteers say, stems from the feeling of actually doing something, rather than merely holding up protest signs. "You can definitely say that as an Israeli I have pangs of guilt about what is being done in my name," says television producer Daphna Weiss. "At the checkpoints I have a chance to do something practical."
Others experience a sense of empowerment. "When you think about it, we women are able to monitor the checkpoints because we are psychologically less threatening to the soldiers than males would be," says Michal Bar-Or, a young volunteer. "But in fact we turn our perceived weakness into strength. We have the power to observe the soldiers, to criticize them, and to be the voice of conscience."
Dagan recalls as the most harrowing moment of her work witnessing soldiers at Qalandiya Checkpoint near Jerusalem opening fire at Palestinian children who were throwing stones at the fence of an airport that has been closed during the intifada.
"During previous times, I had seen them shooting in the air, but that day they were shooting towards the children," she says. Dagan and a colleague called a local army commander, who, she said, responded that the troops were only firing in the air. A 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Omar Matar, died of gunshot wounds to the head and neck.
"It was terrible, totally traumatic," Dagan said. "I couldn't believe my eyes, I couldn't believe soldiers were shooting at small children. After that, it was very difficult for me to return to Qalandiya Checkpoint. Every time I saw the soldiers, I was scared it would happen again. The whole place became so terrifying for me, but I kept on going there."
Results of an investigation into the shooting "are being reviewed in order to decide what legal steps will be taken," an army spokesman said.
When she heads back to Tel Aviv, Dagan feels "sad, depressed, usually frustrated and angry. Mostly, I feel sad."
"The pictures still run in my mind," Dagan says. "It's like I'm still at the checkpoint even afterwards."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p06s02-wome .html" title="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p06s02-wome .html" target="_blank"http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... CSM
|
|
|
| |
| Bush's Unmilitary Military Record |
| 02.24.04 (5:17 pm) [edit] |
By Mick Youther
Questions about George W. Bush’s military service have come up again, but this time the mainstream media is actually investigating it. They are a little late, though—about four years, two wars, 500+ American soldiers and thousands of civilians dead—late.
The Whitehouse’s initial responses to the charge that our “War President” was AWOL during part of his military obligation gave the impression that something was being covered up. Now they have supposedly released all of Bush’s military records, but that remains to be seen. Even the undisputed details of Bush’s military service portray the same favoritism and preferential treatment that has helped George W. Bush slide through life without ever getting a clue of what things are like for “the little people”.
• “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”-- Colin Powell’s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148
• “...[T]he implication is that Bush's misconduct in regards to ‘his failure to accomplish annual medical examination’ was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections with total disregard for the needs of the military as well as Bush's solemn oath.”-- Robert A. Rogers (USAF-Ret), Progressive Trail, 1/24/04
• “I can just tell you, from my perspective, I never asked for, I don't believe I received special treatment.”-- George W. Bush, AP, 9/27/99 (When you’ve received special treatment your whole life, it just doesn’t seem special anymore.)
• “Major General Daniel James was head of the Texas National Guard at the time of the alleged scrubbing of George W. Bush's National Guard records. He was appointed by George W. Bush to be commander of the nation's Air National Guard—and was confirmed by the Senate last week.”-- BuzzFlash Note, 5/28/02
• “It upsets me when someone says ‘Vote for me, I was in the military,’ when in fact he got into the military in order to avoid serving in the military, to avoid service that might have taken him into the war. And then he didn't even show up for duty.”-- Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Medal of Honor winner, quoted in the Boston Globe, 11/1/00
• “McClellan accused those who continue to question the president's National Guard service of ‘gutter politics’ and ‘trolling for trash’ in a political campaign season. Asked if the same was true in 1992 when Bush's father criticized Governor Bill Clinton for not releasing his military records, stoking the controversy around Clinton's active avoidance of the Vietnam War draft by calling him ‘Slick Willie,’ McClellan replied, ‘I think that you expect the garbage can to be thrown at you in the 11th hour of a campaign, but not nine months before Election Day.”-- Boston Globe, 2/12/2004
• “Why did Bill Clinton's "draft dodging" merit 13,641 major news stories, while GW Bush's desertion merit only 49?”-- AWOL.com
• “I did my duty. I was honorably discharged.”-- George W. Bush, at a news conference in New Mexico, 5/31/00
• “John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.”-- The New Republic, 2/12/04
• “I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say that each of us needs to be responsible for what we do.”-- George W. Bush in the first Presidential debate, October 3, 2000
This morning (2/18/03) I heard some of conservative Neal Boortz’s radio program. He was dissecting John Kerry’s service in Viet Nam. His attitude was that Kerry’s wounds weren’t really bad enough, and Kerry should have stayed in Viet Nam and continued to fight—rather than following Navy regulations and getting to go home after being wounded three times. Then we have Ann Coulter, ridiculing Max Cleland’s loss of an arm and both legs in Viet Nam because it was the result of an accident, rather than enemy action.
They know they can’t make Bush look bigger, so they’re determined to make everyone else look smaller.
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=658&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=970f8a0210b13a 92b8df33c5cb592ab6" title="http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=658&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=970f8a0210b13a 92b8df33c5cb592ab6" target="_blank"http://www.interventionmag.co... Intervention Magazine
|
|
|
| |
| Anger against Bush growing louder |
| 02.24.04 (3:37 pm) [edit] |
Feb. 22, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- In Arizona, Judy Donovan says she feels desperate for a new president. In Tennessee, Robert Wilson says he finds the president revolting. In Washington state, Maria Yurasek says she'd vote for a dog if it could beat President Bush.
A subtext to this year's presidential campaign is the intense anger that many Democrats are directing toward Bush, an attitude that has been growing in recent months.
``I've never seen anything like it,'' says Ted Jelen, a political science professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. ``There are people who just really, really hate this person.''
Fully a quarter of Americans -- mostly Democrats -- tell pollsters they have a very unfavorable opinion of the president, more than double the number from last April. When only Democrats are polled, more than half report they feel that way.
Further, in exit polls conducted during Democratic primaries, a sizable chunk of voters have been describing themselves as not just dissatisfied with Bush but outright angry -- 51 percent in Delaware, 46 percent in Arizona and New Hampshire, 44 percent in Virginia and Wisconsin.
``They really have a head of steam up against Bush,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. He said the level of political polarization surrounding Bush, the division between Republicans who favor him and Democrats who don't, exceeds even that for President Clinton in September 1998 during the impeachment battle.
Plenty of presidents have generated intense feelings, of course, but Democrats -- and even some Republicans -- think the phenomenon is outsized this year.
``I've never seen a Democratic Party more unified and more focused, and the anger helps do just that,'' said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. ``The intensity level is just so high. They're using four-letter words to describe him.''
In a recent focus group that Luntz conducted for MSNBC, technicians had to adjust the volume levels because the Bush-haters were ``so gosh-darn loud'' they were drowning out the president's supporters, who were more numerous, Luntz said. ``It was a real problem.''
Bush was asked about the anger in a recent interview on NBC and said he found it perplexing and disappointing. ``When you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And heck, I don't know why people do it,'' he said.
His campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, dismisses the anger as something stoked by Democratic presidential candidates and confined to core party activists. He said it also reflects Democratic frustration at Bush's success in pushing through his agenda.
John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University, said resentment of Bush is particularly strong among liberals who already hold three things against him: ``First, he's a conservative. Second, he's a Christian. And third, he's a Texan. When you add all of those things up, that invokes pretty much every symbol of the cultural wars.''
``It's particularly galling when somebody who mangles his syntax and doesn't pronounce words extremely well and is from Texas beats you,'' McAdams added.
Some of the anger at Bush stretches back to his 2000 election, when the president lost the popular vote but took the majority of electoral votes after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida.
``It's the long view of Bush in the minds of Democrats,'' said pollster Kohut. ``He came into office in a way that they felt was unfair. They gave him the benefit of the doubt and rallied to him after the 9-11 attacks for some time, and then he disappointed them in the way he dealt with Iraq'' and by pursuing a more conservative course than they expected.
A Bush opponent can vote against the president only once in November, no matter how intense the anger. So does it matter how much voters dislike him, if these are people who would have voted against him anyway?
Political analysts say the intensity of the anti-Bush sentiment could translate into higher turnout by mobilizing the Democratic base. The possible pitfall for Democrats, however, is that strident anti-Bush rhetoric could turn off swing and independent voters who like Bush personally but might be convinced through reasoned argument that his policies are wrongheaded.
``Anger is not necessarily a productive emotion when it comes to politics,'' Luntz said. ``The anger against Bill Clinton was so fierce and over the top that it helped him in 1996 and then again during the impeachment in 1998. People got more angry at those yelling at the president than at the president himself. You could easily see the same thing happening here.''
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/22/ anger/index.html" title="http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/22/ anger/index.html" target="_blank"http://www.salon.com/news/wir... Salon
|
|
|
| |
| Television reports overlook voter interests |
| 02.24.04 (3:28 pm) [edit] |
Also: As front runner shifts, so does focus of negative coverage
NEW YORK - February 23, 2004. The latest report from MediaTenor, an independent, non-partisan institute examining world-wide media, shows that despite a recent poll indicating voters are most interested in presidential candidate statements on the economy,less than 5% of broadcast news election coverage for the first half of February focused on the issue. Key voter concerns such as healthcare, education and domestic defense received also little to no coverage, while the war in Iraq dominated the political news.
Policy coverage at the big three networks has declined since a spike in the first week of February coinciding with critical jockeying for position amongst the Democratic candidates. CBS, however, bucked the trend with a sudden significant increase in attention to policy issues over the last week.
In the ongoing coverage of the Democratic presidential primary season, major network coverage continues to be reactive, with the percentage of negative statements on candidates having a direct relationship to their position in the race. Kerry, who received significant positive coverage as he emerged to take the Democratic lead, now leads in negative coverage, as Edwards receives a surge in positive attention as his campaign picks up steam.Dean received a final spike of highly opinionated media coverage with his departure from the race.
Media Tenor's other key findings in this report include:
a.. President Bush continues to receive strong criticism,
particularly from NBC and CBS. Foreign policy and his military service are his weakest areas.
b.. Edwards continues to receive extremely positive coverage, especially as regards "personality factors,"an area that has been a challenge for Kerry.
c.. Less than 20% of the coverage on any Democratic candidate has centered on policy issues, compared to over twice that for Bush.
Complete copies of this report can be obtained from Media Tenor's website at http://www.mediatenor.com/US-...
|
|
|
| |
| Haliburton faces criminal investigation |
| 02.24.04 (2:50 pm) [edit] |
Feb. 24, 2004, 3:12AM
Halliburton faces criminal investigation
Pentagon probing alleged overcharges for Iraq fuel
By DAVID IVANOVICH and MICHAEL HEDGES
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has launched a criminal investigation into possible fraud connected with Halliburton Co.'s assignment to truck fuel into Iraq.
The Defense Criminal Investigative Service agreed to examine Halliburton subsidiary KBR and its relationship with a Kuwaiti subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co., at the urging of Pentagon auditors who had identified possible "irregularities" related to the gasoline purchases.
Auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency had alleged that KBR, formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root, might have overcharged the government as much as $61 million for trucking fuel from Kuwait into Iraq.
The auditors referred the matter to the Pentagon's Inspector General office, which turned the probe over to its criminal investigative arm, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
On Monday night, a Pentagon spokesman revealed that the Defense Criminal Investigative Service "is investigating allegations of fraud on part of KBR, including the potential overpricing of fuel delivered to Baghdad by a KBR subcontractor."
A Pentagon official said the Inspector General's office had the criminal referral reviewed by the Pentagon's comptroller's office before sending it to the criminal investigative agency.
By sending the case along to the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the Inspector General is essentially saying that serious, potentially criminal issues have been uncovered, an official said.
Previously, a source had said Pentagon officials were interested in examining the behavior of government employees, not Halliburton workers, in connection to the Kuwaiti fuel supply issue. But on Monday, the Pentagon made clear the fraud allegations under investigations related to KBR.
Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, said late Monday the company had not been notified of this new development.
"If it is true, this is a normal, routine step in any kind of high-profile inquiry," Hall said.
"It is important to understand," she said, "that this is a method of further studying the issue and not a condemnation of KBR processes. It is also important to understand the difference between fact and allegations. It is not fact that KBR has overcharged."
Pentagon auditors had focused on Halliburton's efforts to solicit bids in Kuwait to transport fuel to Baghdad. Their interest was piqued because the prices Halliburton charged for that work were substantially higher than the cost of trucking in fuel from Turkey.
Working as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' prime contractor in Iraq, Halliburton was ordered to find a fuel supplier in Kuwait. Halliburton received bids from three companies, but only one -- Altanmia -- was deemed suitable.
After Altanmia was selected, other trucking companies and oil distributors made proposals to bring in fuel on more favorable terms, but the Kuwait Petroleum Corp. refused to allow them to participate, the Corps of Engineers has said.
Contracting officials at the Corps of Engineers have long defended Halliburton's work in Iraq, but the auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency asked the Inspector General's office to intervene.
Hall noted that the Corps of Engineers approved the fuel purchases for Kuwait, even though they were at a higher price than Turkey.
"It's unfair to accuse Halliburton of paying too much for Kuwaiti fuel when we were told to buy the fuel and given approval to purchase it from a specific supplier," she said.
The Defense Criminal Investigative Service was set up in 1981 as the Inspector General's investigative arm, with broad authority to explore potential criminal activity throughout the Pentagon and with civilian workers and contractors doing business with the Defense Department.
The service's agents are civilian federal officers who carry guns, make arrests and perform other duties typical of federal law enforcement.
The fraud allegations are just the latest in a series of accusations leveled against Halliburton and its contracts to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure and supply U.S. troops in the region.
Halliburton officials have attributed much of the criticism to politics.
Vice President Dick Cheney served as its chief executive officer for five years, prompting allegations of cronyism.
Democrats -- particularly Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. -- have been the firm's most vocal critics.
In response to the fraud probe, Waxman said Monday: "This recognizes what Congressman Dingell and I have been saying for months: Halliburton and its subcontractors Altanmia have been vastly overcharging the taxpayers for fuel imports. This needs to be thoroughly investigated."
This latest black eye comes as Halliburton is rolling out a new round of TV ads aimed at countering all the negative press.
The latest 30-second spot, designed to put a "human face" on Halliburton, opens with an actor intoning, "When I joined Halliburton I knew I was going to work on some big things."
The ad quickly cuts to real-life scenes of firefighters battling flames at an Iraqi oil installation, company employees delivering supplies to U.S. troops during a sandstorm and Iraqi schoolchildren singing and clapping.
Actors then reappear to portray Halliburton employees serving up chow to smiling U.S. troops, and the narrator says: "But the biggest thing: serving our troops good ol' American food, so they'd feel just a little closer to home. Yeah."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2416847" title="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2416847" target="_blank"http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... Houston Chronicle
|
|
|
| |
| There is 'good news for Europe' |
| 02.24.04 (11:17 am) [edit] |
Barbara Wall IHT
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Europe has been a challenging place to invest recently because of the negative effects of a strong euro, but Rod Marsden, manager of JO Hambro's Continental European equity fund, believes that the region's fortunes will pick up sharply in 2004. He explained why to Barbara Wall.
Economic growth rates are still patchy across Europe, and the strong euro has produced a difficult trading environment. What does the region have to offer investors?
Europe's fortunes are clearly tied up with economic developments in the United States. I think the U.S. authorities have done enough to ensure decent levels of growth for the next couple of years, which is good news for Europe. The capital investment cycle appears to be picking up, so we should see a sharp recovery in industrial earnings during the second half of 2004 and into 2005.
Corporate Europe has undergone an impressive restructuring program - the extent of which has surprised many observers. This factor, combined with a pickup in the capital investment cycle, should help improve the cash-flow position of many companies. This is a good environment for dividend growth and share buybacks. We can also expect to see an increase in mergers and acquisitions.
How would you characterize your investment philosophy?
The fund is positioned for above-average returns with low volatility. We believe that this is best achieved by taking a pragmatic approach to investment. We tend not to favor any one investment style or sector, so the fund is fairly impervious to the whims of fashion.
I think it is important to put in place simple risk controls. The portfolio typically holds around 80 stocks, with at least two-thirds being invested in companies with a market capitalization of over E1 billion. No more than 3.5 percent of the portfolio is invested in any one company.
We do not overweight any sector by more than 75 percent of the benchmark, the FTSE Eurotop 300. I believe there has to be a cutoff point; otherwise you risk falling in love with a sector and losing the sell discipline.
Which sectors are you overweight?
We have added further exposure to the telecommunications sector due to a still favorable mix of valuations and cash-flow characteristics. We like industrial stocks for the same reasons. A favorite stock is Continental, one of the world's biggest tire manufacturers. The managers are being creative in their efforts to improve earnings growth. Its main strategy is to become a complete systems supplier to the automotive industry. The company has recently diversified into safety products, such as winter tires and antiroll devices.
We also like Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, a German maker of printing machines with a market cap of E2 billion. Management has been active in restructuring and streamlining production. Measures to improve efficiency are beginning to take effect, and the company looks poised to show much improved earnings growth over the next few years.
Although the fund benefited from its exposure to a number of oil-shipping and service stocks in the fourth quarter, we have become a little more pessimistic because of disappointing news flow at company level. If the reserve profile of the major oil companies turns out to be worse than the market expects, then they will have to spend more on building up reserves. This is likely to negatively impact margins. Alternatively, this is good news for the small oil-services companies such as Frontline, a Norwegian fleet operator.
Will 2004 be the year for large-cap stocks?
I think we will get superior performance from stable blue chips this year, but there is always room in a portfolio for financially sound mid- and small-cap stocks. One of our picks would be Jungheinrich, a German forklift truck manufacturer with a market cap of E400 million. This is another good example of a quality industrial name that is on a low valuation relative to its peers. The company has broadened its product range and streamlined operations by moving production out from countries in Western Europe to Eastern Europe.
What level of returns can investors expect from European markets in 2004?
Last year's outperformance has discounted a lot of the recovery, but European stock markets still have a long way to go before they reach pre-bear-market levels. We think a portfolio return of 15 percent is achievable, but markets will be volatile. In any recovery period - especially after the markets have had a good run - there will be periods of great doubt.
http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint .tmplh&ArticleId=130888" title="http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint .tmplh&ArticleId=130888" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/ge... IHT
|
|
|
| |
| France bans insecticide after bee deaths |
| 02.24.04 (11:03 am) [edit] |
Fipronil is the chemical in Frontline flea spray I use on my cats. It's very strong..takes your breath away to use it and some of my cats have slobbered at the mouth during the spraying. I of course, was not worried since my vet recommended the product.
It will be interesting to see how the ban will effect this very popular product. I won't be using it again on my kitties. Dianne
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
By Associated Press
PARIS — France on Monday suspended sales of an insecticide that allegedly was killing bees. Agriculture Minister Herve Gaymard said farmers who use insecticides containing the chemical Fipronil would be able to exhaust supplies on hand through the spring, but sales were ended Tuesday. Gaymard said a government report found no risk to consumers.
The case emerged in 2001 when keepers noticed their bees were dying off in unusually high numbers. A beekeepers association criticized the government for not investigating their claims earlier. The sales suspension came as a judge in southwest France started legal action against a subsidiary of German chemical giant Bayer AG, saying it sold its Regent TS insecticide containing Fipronil without proper approval.
The top executive of Bayer CropScience France, Franck Garnier, was placed under investigation — one step short of being officially charged — for marketing the product, company lawyer Olivier Baratelli said.
The judge told reporters he was shocked by the disregard for bees, which play a big role in pollinating plants as well as producing honey. Baratelli said the company had always received what it believed were the proper authorization to sell the insecticide. Judge Jean Guary of the southwestern Haute-Garonne region also insisted the company was responsible for destroying private property — bees — and alleged that the insecticide harmed animals and the environment.
While a study by France's food safety agency in 2002 discovered a link between use of the insecticide and an increase in bee deaths, France's ecology minister acknowledged that research was not conclusive.
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-24/s_134 04.asp" title="http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-24/s_134 04.asp" target="_blank"http://www.enn.com/news/2004-... ENN
|
|
|
| |
| A guide to healthcare in France |
| 02.24.04 (10:50 am) [edit] |
The French healthcare system is of the highest quality and offers a wide choice of practitioners and facilities. This is a guide to how it works.
Everyone has access to public healthcare in France, one of the best in the world
France has a huge choice of general practitioners and specialists, part of its mammoth social security system which, although heavily indebted, is one of the finest anywhere.
French employees see about 20 percent of their gross salary deducted to pay the social security system, called la sécurité sociale. A large part of this goes into public healthcare which everyone in France has access to.
If you subscribe to the French social security system, whether employee or self-employed, most of your general healthcare needs are partially reimbursed, but at different rates. It is common in France to subscribe to a mutuelle, which is a medical insurance company established for the purpose of covering most medical costs that the state does not.
Medicines and drugs in France are refunded from between 35 percent to 65 percent
There are dozens of mutuelles, which are often specific to types of profession, and if you work for a large company or institution you will be able to gain advice on which is most suitable for you from your HR department.
The sécurité sociale refunds 70 percent of medical fees. So, in the case of a visit to a local practitioner, called un medecin généraliste, 70 percent of the doctor's consultation fee, which is about EUR 20, is refunded. Most mutuelles will reimburse the remaining 30 percent, just as they also cover the remainder on most common health needs, obviously including emergency hospital treatment.
Medecines and drugs are refunded by the sécurité sociale on varying scales, from 35 percent to 65 percent. Mutuelles offer partial or total refunds, depending upon your specific contract.
Patients have a wide and free choice of specialists and doctors in France
Anyone in France can consult any doctor or specialist, regardless of whether the patient is affiliated to the French social security system and/or has private medical insurance. The fee is the same for everyone, the only difference being by how much the costs are covered.
If you have a medical problem which may need specialist treatment, it is generally necessary to be referred for this by the medecin généraliste to be eligible for a refunding of costs, for example with physiotherapy, laboratory examinations or X-rays.
There is no social security coverage for consultations with psychologists and psychoanalysts, osteopaths and chiropractors.
There are over 3,000 hospitals in France, to which everyone has emergency access
You can however directly consult a large number of specialists whose fees are refunded, including gynaecologists, dermatologists, ophthalmologists and psychiatrists and, as anywhere, dentists. In every city and large town, you will find a wide choice among these professions, and you are free to choose and change specialist just as with your general practitioner.
There are over 3,000 hospitals in France, generally of the highest quality. Everyone has access to emergency hospital treatment, regardless of their health insurance coverage, and for those who subscribe to the French securité sociale it is entirely reimbursed. In the case of minor injuries, you can also choose which hospital accident and emergency service you consult.
Fees (end-2003): EUR 20 for consultation with a general practitioner, EUR 30 or more for consultation with a specialist.
February 2004
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&stor y_id=4923" title="http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&stor y_id=4923" target="_blank"http://www.expatica.com/sourc... Expatica France
|
|
|
| |
| Chirac drops further in polls |
| 02.24.04 (10:43 am) [edit] |
PARIS, Feb 21 (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac's popularity has slipped over the past month, in the wake of the recent graft conviction of his right-hand man and former prime minister Alain Juppe, according to a new poll Saturday.
Only 47 percent of French adults questioned said they thought he was doing a good job, down from 53 percent last month, according to the poll by the IFOP Institute for the daily Journal du Dimanche.
Those who disapprove of his stewardship were up six points to 51 percent, while those who were very satisfied were down four points to four percent and those rather satisfied down two points to 43 percent.
A survey released Monday by the Louis Harris firm for the Liberation newspaper and conducted February 13-14 also found that Chirac's standing was down six points, to 47 percent.
Another poll, released by the Ipsos institute last week, showed a similar slide, of seven points to 51 percent.
Political analysts say Chirac appears to have been hurt by the January 30 conviction against Juppe for illegally financing Chirac's party in the late 1980s to mid-1990s.
Chirac was deeply implicated in the scandal, which goes back to the time when he was mayor of Paris, but he has so dodged legal scrutiny by claiming presidential immunity.
The various polls also show some slippage, albeit more limited, for Chirac's current prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
© AFP
|
|
|
| |
| Bush 'wanted war in 2002' |
| 02.24.04 (10:40 am) [edit] |
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday February 24, 2004
The Guardian
George Bush set the US on the path to war in Iraq with a formal order signed in February 2002, more than a year before the invasion, according to a book published yesterday.
The revelation casts doubt on the public insistence by US and British officials throughout 2002 that no decision had been taken to go to war, pending negotiations at the United Nations.
Rumsfeld's War is by Rowan Scarborough, the Pentagon correspondent for the conservative Washington Times newspaper, which is known for its contacts in the defence department's civilian leadership.
"On February 16 2002, Bush signed a secret national security council directive establishing the goals and objectives for going to war with Iraq, according to classified documents I obtained," Mr Scarborough wrote, in an account of the "global war on terrorism" as seen from the office of Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary.
The next month, he writes, the head of central command, General Tommy Franks, conducted a "major Iraq war exercise code-named "Prominent Hammer", and in April he briefed the joint chiefs of staff on the invasion plan.
"Franks's plan called for 200,000 to 250,000 troops and a two-front land war... striking from Kuwait and from Turkey," the book says.
The national security council refused to comment on the book's claims about the February directive. "I don't do book reviews," a White House official said.
Ivo Daalder, an official in Bill Clinton's national security council, said a national security presidential directive was "the most formal way that decisions by the president and others are communicated to the rest of the government."
Rumsfeld's War reproduces excerpts from a secret Defence Intelligence Agency briefing document in July 1999 about future threats to the US.
It portrays Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a threat only if sanctions were lifted. But the administration decided that neither inspections nor sanctions were working, partly as a result of later discredited reports that Saddam had stockpiled WMDs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/int...,3604,1154473,00.html Guardian
|
|
|
| |
| Thanks Rocky! |
| 02.24.04 (9:31 am) [edit] |
Just want to give kudos to Rocky. I have been unable to access tblog for 3 days and it was very frustrating. I notified Rocky and he got to work on the problem.
Great support here at tblog.
|
|
|
| |
| Bush administration warned over climate change |
| 02.20.04 (9:19 pm) [edit] |
The UK’s chief scientific adviser Sir David King issued a frank warning to the Bush Adminstration on Friday, of the dangers of global warming and the need for co-operative international action. Speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual conference in Seattle, Sir David indicated that the US has not taken its share of responsibility in the fight against climate change.
The statement echoed comments published in journal Science in January, in which Sir David called the threat of global warming greater than international terrorism.
"There is a major credibility gap between President Bush's rhetoric about 'clear skies' and his continued support for billions of dollars of giveaways in the energy and transportation legislation that will dramatically exacerbate climate change,” said Friends of the Earth US Chief Brent Blackwelder. “The Bush administration's credibility gap has the proportions of the Grand Canyon."
FoE International’s Vice-Chairman Tony Juniper added; "The climate change alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. It's about time George Bush woke up to the terrible threat of global warming and took serious action to reduce US emissions of carbon dioxide.”
http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=1712" title="http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=1712" target="_blank"http://www.greenconsumerguide... Green Consumer Guide
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry hailed as ally of wider world on environment |
| 02.20.04 (12:42 pm) [edit] |
NORWAY: February 20, 2004
OSLO - Environmentalists fete John Kerry as a possible savior in a stalled battle against global warming if the Democratic front-runner topples President Bush in the November election.
"Kerry has probably been the greatest champion of climate change issues with (Joe) Lieberman in the U.S. Senate," said Jennifer Morgan, director of the WWF environmental group's climate change program.
European governments, among the strongest backers of the U.N.'s stalled 1997 Kyoto protocol meant to limit global warming, would welcome a shift toward Kerry's environmental policies after years of transatlantic feuds with Bush.
"Clearly we would like the new administration, whether Republican or Democrat, to come closer to European policies on the environment in particular," said Diego de Ojeda, a spokesman for the European Union's executive Commission in Brussels.
"It's better late than never," he said.
Bush stunned the world in 2001 by pulling the United States - the globe's biggest polluter - out of Kyoto, arguing the plan was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations.
Massachusetts senator Kerry, who has won 15 of 17 Democratic primary contests so far, has berated Bush for ditching Kyoto rather than seeking to renegotiate.
Kerry now talks of taking part "in the development of an international climate change strategy to address global warming" - music to the ears of many Kyoto backers who view climate change as the biggest long-term threat to life on earth.
Kerry has also campaigned for green issues like better fuel efficiency in cars or against plans for Arctic oil drilling. By contrast, Bush did not use the word "environment" in his 2004 State of the Union address.
NO MAGIC WAND
But a Kerry presidency would be no magic environmental wand.
Kerry judged in 1997 that Kyoto would be unacceptable to the U.S. Senate and now reckons it is too late for Washington to sign up for the first round of cuts under Kyoto, in 2008-12. The protocol aims to curb emissions of gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) spewed by factories and cars and blamed by scientists for blanketing the planet and driving up temperatures, bringing more droughts, floods or typhoons.
Even so, some experts say the rise of a credible Democratic challenger to Bush could nudge an undecided Russia toward ratifying Kyoto, which will collapse without Moscow's backing.
"The fact that the United States has decided to stay out has been cited by analysts as an important factor in the reticence by Russia," de Ojeda said. "If the U.S. administration changed its position it might have a positive effect."
Kyoto has been ratified by countries producing 44 percent of industrialized nations' emissions but will only enter into force if it reaches 55 percent. Without the U.S. stake of 36 percent, Russia has a casting vote with 17 percent.
"Russia looks very attentively at the opinion of the U.S. administration, saying if the U.S. won't do anything then we won't either," said Alexander Nikitin, a Russian environmentalist. "A change in the U.S. position could well cause a change in Russia's as well."
Steve Sawyer, climate policy director at Greenpeace, praised Kerry for policies stretching back to opposing oil drilling off New England in the 1980s. "It's probably true that it's too late for the United States" to sign up for Kyoto, he said.
A surge in U.S. emissions since 1990 means that an abrupt shift from fossil fuels to meet Kyoto targets would threaten U.S. industries from coal fields in Montana to automakers in Detroit.
Story by Alister Doyle
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23892/story.htm" title="http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/23892/story.htm" target="_blank"http://www.planetark.com/dail... Planet Ark
|
|
|
| |
| New vaccine can stop lung cancer |
| 02.20.04 (10:26 am) [edit] |
By RENEE C. LEE
Associated Press Writer
DALLAS — An experimental vaccine wiped out lung cancer in some patients and slowed its spread in others in a small but promising study, researchers say.
Three patients injected with the vaccine, GVAX, had no recurrence of lung cancer for more than three years afterward, according to the study of 43 people with the most common form of the disease, non-small cell lung cancer.
The findings were published in Wednesday's Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The research was funded in part by Cell Genesys, a pharmaceutical company that hopes to produce the vaccine.
The vaccine, developed by researchers at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, is years away from reaching the market, if ever. The researchers hope to apply for Food and Drug Administration approval in three years.
"The results are very promising for patients with non-small (cell) lung cancer, which is frequently resistant to chemotherapy," said Dr. John Nemunaitis, a Baylor oncologist who led the study.
Non-small cell lung cancer is the nation's leading cause of cancer death, killing more than 150,000 people each year. The disease is related to smoking and is often difficult to treat. Treatment usually involves removal of the tumor, chemotherapy or both.
Vaccine studies are a burgeoning area of cancer research. Unlike traditional vaccines, which generally aim to prevent disease, some experimental cancer vaccines are designed to treat or cure existing disease.
This study is the first to show complete and long-lasting regression of lung cancer by stimulating the immune system to attack cancer cells, Nemunaitis said. A similar approach has shown promise against skin and renal cell cancer.
In the study, each patient was injected in the arm and leg with a vaccine that included cells from his or her tumors. A gene called CM-CSF was placed into the cancer cells to change the surface of the cells to help the body identify them as cancerous. The body's immune cells soon began to recognize, attack and destroy the cancer cells in the lungs.
Forty-three lung cancer patients — 10 in the early stage and 33 in the advanced stage — were injected with the vaccine every two weeks for three months. Researchers followed them for three years.
The cancer disappeared in three of the advanced-stage patients. Two of those patients previously had chemotherapy, which failed. In the rest of the advanced-stage patients, the disease remained stable and did not spread for almost five months to more than two years.
For patients in the early stage, the vaccine did not make much difference against the cancer.
"The most exciting thing is in those who responded to the vaccine, it was complete," Nemunaitis said. "It's given us a lot of encouragement."
For patients with advanced-stage lung cancer, chemotherapy works no more than 3 percent of the time, and survival is usually eight to nine months. Those whose cancer went into remission with the vaccine were alive at least three years later. And the vaccine has no side effects, Nemunaitis said.
Dr. Anwar Khurshid, an oncologist at the Arlington Cancer Center, said the findings will "open a lot of avenues."
"I think you'll cure some patients but not everyone. That's what has been proven in other cases," he said. "You need to vaccine earlier or combine with something else to cure more people."
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/02/20/n ews/nation/frinat05.txt" title="http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2004/02/20/n ews/nation/frinat05.txt" target="_blank"http://www.gazettetimes.com/a... Gazette Times
|
|
|
| |
| Inequitable resources, benefits put world at risk |
| 02.20.04 (10:17 am) [edit] |
By Jimmy Carter
The most serious and universal problem facing the world today is the growing chasm between the richest and poorest people on earth. Yet our political candidates and current leaders are failing to address this as both a moral concern and a national security priority. The war on terror cannot be won unless we devote more effort to equitably sharing resources and meeting social and economic needs worldwide.
Today, citizens of the 10 wealthiest countries are at least 75 times richer than those who live in the 10 poorest ones, and the chasm is widening. This extreme poverty is linked intricately to a wider web of problems, including terrorism, economic instability and disease.
The problems of extreme poverty can seem incredibly remote, even unreal. We are a nation of unprecedented bounty and a society bombarded by media images of health, affluence and success, where the average household earns well above $100 a day. In contrast, 1.3 billion people, more than one-fifth of humanity, will try to survive this day on less than $1.
Rosalynn and I were just in Mali on business for the Carter Center's project to assist Malians with development planning. Mali is one of the 10 poorest nations in the world, with 91% of its citizens living on less than $2 per day. The illiteracy rate is 59%, and the infant mortality rate is 126 per 1,000.
A nation of farmers, Mali cannot get ahead because exorbitant cotton subsidies for mega-farms in the U.S. cost Mali far more than all its aid from rich nations. Malians produced more cotton last year than any other African country, and it is their No. 1 export, but they had to sell it at little or no profit to compete with the heavily subsidized U.S. crop. In a global economy, U.S. policies reverberate widely.
Hope despite poverty
People who live in grave poverty are just as intelligent, creative and hardworking as you or I. They love their children just as much, and they have the same hopes that those children will live healthy, productive, meaningful lives. In my travels to 120 countries, I have been constantly inspired by their courage and faith, their judgment and wisdom and their accomplishments when given a chance to use their innate abilities.
But the world's wealthy nations have demonstrated a tragic lack of concern for those enduring lives of extreme poverty. For example, although the USA ranks first in gross domestic product, it ranks last among the world's 22 richest nations in the percentage of GDP it provides in financial assistance to developing nations.
The increases in AIDS funding and the new Millennium Challenge Account included in President Bush's 2005 budget request are steps in the right direction, but do not go nearly far enough — and come at the expense of other vital humanitarian and development programs. Our contribution must increase greatly if we are to face the challenge of global poverty with any real hope of success.
Private aid, also
Part of the answer also lies in a growing number of private efforts. For example, Better Safer World, a non-governmental coalition formed in the aftermath of 9/11, is working to educate Americans on the root causes of poverty. The nine-member coalition, which includes CARE, Oxfam America and World Vision, has called for the U.S. to commit at least 1% of its annual budget to global humanitarian and development assistance and to grant debt relief to poor nations, which would free large sums for humanitarian purposes.
These are important steps, but the battle against extreme poverty — and, by extension, against terrorism, economic instability and disease — can be waged successfully only with strong leadership from our government and our next president. The people are leading the way: A recent poll in Iowa found that a majority of those certain to vote in the 2004 general election want the U.S. to commit more economic and humanitarian aid to the war on global poverty.
I hope the candidates, including President Bush, begin to address fully not only the unacceptable inequalities in education, health care and opportunity here at home, but also the need to alleviate the even more gross disparities and suffering beyond our borders. World peace hangs in the balance.
Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter is chair of The Carter Center, a not-for-profit organization advancing peace and health worldwide.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editoria ls/2004-02-15-carter_x.htm" title="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editoria ls/2004-02-15-carter_x.htm" target="_blank"http://www.usatoday.com/news/... USA Today
|
|
|
| |
| Something to brighten the day |
| 02.20.04 (10:05 am) [edit] |
A friend brightened my morning with this link and I thought I would pass it on. I was thrilled and further amazed at the wonder of nature and photography.
http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/verle33/HummingBirdNe st/" title="http://community-2.webtv.net/hotmail.com/verle33/HummingBirdNe st/" target="_blank"http://community-2.webtv.net/... Hummingbird Nest
|
|
|
| |
| It all comes down to trust |
| 02.20.04 (9:23 am) [edit] |
By Gloria Borger
When John Mccain launched his maverick bid for the White House last time around, it wasn't by chance that he called his campaign bus "The Straight Talk Express." Nor was it any accident that John Kerry, as he campaigned in Iowa and New Hampshire this year, called his buggy "The Real Deal Express." Sure, Kerry was copying McCain, but with good reason: In the post-Watergate, post-Bill Clinton world, the threshold leadership issue comes down to one thing: trust. If you don't earn it, fuggedaboutit. The presidency, that is.
Which is why the Democrats are so cheery these days. When George W. Bush became president, he was trusted by more voters than was Al Gore. A remarkable 77 percent of Americans trusted him even months after September 11; a whopping 90 percent approved of the job he was doing. He was considered decisive, a straight shooter, an authentic leader--traits that translated into his strong numbers. But recent polls show that a majority of Americans now have "doubts and reservations" about his trustworthiness. No leader--much less one in a time of war--can survive such an evaluation. When trust evaporates, nothing works.
Given recent news, the public's unease isn't surprising: no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Questions about the quality of prewar intelligence. A price tag $134 billion more than anticipated for the Medicare prescription drug bill. A half-trillion-dollar deficit. A lackluster State of the Union speech that caused a decline in the president's popularity. A federal probe into whether someone inside the White House outed a CIA operative.
Democrats, like former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta, call it "the perfect storm." They then happily add another ill wind--questions about whether Bush actually completed his military service in the National Guard--and whoosh: The president is on the defensive, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press to try to reclaim his credibility.
For its part, the White House points to a recent poll showing the president's favorability rating at a very high 69 percent. And when voters are asked who "stands up for what he believes in," the president beats Kerry 53 to 34 percent. But the White House knows the numbers are fungible. So it denounces the AWOL story as what one top adviser described to me as a "cynical attempt to smear someone's record." What's more, he adds, "Americans don't like the cynical manipulation this represents." Maybe not. Then again, what about Campaign 2000, when Republicans chipped away at Gore's credibility? The charges stuck when the Bushies fingered Gore as a serial exaggerator, pointing to claims like one that he invented the Internet. Which is why the White House has decided to fast-forward its campaign schedule. Out of the Rose Garden and into the thorny campaign.
The real issue. Make no mistake: When Terry McAuliffe accuses Bush of going AWOL or Democrats charge that he misled the nation on weapons in Iraq, it's not really about the military service or CIA quality control. It's about whether Bush is a truth-teller. "Trust is a gut thing," says Podesta, and the Democrats are aiming right at the gut. Just as the Bush campaign aimed at Gore four years ago. The AWOL story is a classic case in point. "We know that people don't want to litigate what you did in the war," allows one Democratic operative. "They want to know if you lied about what you did in the war."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040223/o pinion/23glo.htm" title="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040223/o pinion/23glo.htm" target="_blank"http://www.usnews.com/usnews/... US News
|
|
|
| |
| Scientists say Bush ignores experts |
| 02.20.04 (8:36 am) [edit] |
By EMILY JOHNS
McClatchy Newspapers Friday, February 20, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials ignored expert assessments from three national laboratories in concluding Iraq was seeking to acquire aluminum tubes to make nuclear weapons, a group of scientists charged Wednesday.
The administration also has dropped highly qualified, independent scientists from scientific advisory committees on issues such as child lead poisoning, environmental health and drug abuse, replacing them with figures tied to regulated industries, the Union of Concerned Scientists said Wednesday.
Sixty scientists signed the statement, including 20 Nobel laureates, accusing the administration of suppressing, distorting and undermining the integrity of scientific analyses in policymaking. The group, organized by the scientific watchdog group, laid out its allegations in a 37-page report.
Dr. John Marburger III, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, called the report "disappointing" and likened it to "a conspiracy theory report."
"The president is actually quite supportive of science," he said.
On subjects ranging from Global Warming to the Endangered Species Act, the scientists accused the administration of disbanding panels that don't agree with its policies, putting unqualified people on scientific advisory panels and censoring or misrepresenting the findings of agency scientists.
The group said the White House ignored assessments on Iraq's nuclear program from experts at the Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge national laboratories.
It asked for a congressional inquiry and urged President Bush to sign an executive order ending the distortion of scientific knowledge.
"To just trivialize (the science community's) input is really dangerous," said Margaret Davis, a University of Minnesota professor emeritus of ecology, evolution and behavior.
Other signers included Russell Train, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon and Ford administrations, and Neal Lane, a former head of the National Science Foundation.
Past administrations have engaged in similar scientific manipulations, "but this has never been done so systematically or on so wide a front," said Kurt Gottfried, a physics professor at Cornell University and chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists' board.
White House official Marburger said the scientists had unfairly connected the dots from unrelated examples.
"Each one of these incidents has its own story," he said.
"I just don't think that these incidents or issues add up to a strong support for the accusation that this administration is deliberately acting to undermine the processes of science."
He said that it might "ruffle some feathers" when the White House rejects an agency's scientific findings. But, he said, "I see a lot of stuff coming from the agencies that frankly I don't think meets the standards that I expect or that the president expects in a report."
Davis said she signed the statement because the administration has dismissed a mainstream scientific consensus that global warming is dangerous.
"To dismiss (global warming) because there's one or two scientists who don't think it is so convincing is ridiculous," Davis said.
The scientists said their complaints are not partisan, contending that Republicans and Democrats have traditionally been able to find common ground in science.
"Under both Nixon and Ford I do not recall ever receiving a suggestion, let alone an order, from the White House telling me how I should make a regulatory decision," said former Republican appointee Train. "How times have changed."
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.)
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/02/20/n ews/national/3bdd8c0ff732 096287256e4000021eb4.txt" title="http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/02/20/n ews/national/3bdd8c0ff732 096287256e4000021eb4.txt" target="_blank"http://www.casperstartribune.... Casper Star Tribune
|
|
|
| |
| Experts remarks fuel Bush criticism |
| 02.20.04 (8:31 am) [edit] |
Administration backs off upbeat jobs report.
Published Thursday, February 19, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush touts his economic stewardship as a top re-election asset, yet offhand remarks and mixed signals by leading members of his economic team are proving politically embarrassing and handing fresh ammunition to Democrats.
The White House found itself in the awkward position yesterday of backing away from its earlier prediction that the economy would add 2.6 million new jobs this year.
White House officials already were reeling from the assertion of Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, that "outsourcing" American jobs overseas was good for the U.S. economy in the long run. Mankiw later apologized and said he had been misunderstood.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan blamed the optimistic jobs projection on bureaucratic "number crunchers."
McClellan’s explanation came after Secretary of the Treasury John Snow and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans declined to endorse the projection while on a bus trip in the Pacific Northwest to plug the president’s economic program.
"My crystal ball is not any clearer than anybody else’s," Evans said yesterday when asked about the projection.
Marc Racicot, national chairman of the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign, said today he thinks the story has been "elevated beyond what it is."
"It’s been mischaracterized," he said on NBC’s "Today" show. "This is an economic model. ... Take a look: 112,000 new jobs produced in January." Racicot called the report’s references to job-creation "a theoretical discussion by economists. What the report actually produces is every degree of evidence to suggest that this economy is poised for recovery."
The flap comes as Bush is fending off attacks from Democrats over the 2.2 million payroll jobs lost on his watch, the worst job-creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover.
"I think there’s a combination of a little bit of tone-deafness on the part of some of the economic appointees, coupled with a little economic deafness on the part of others in the administration," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard and Poor’s in New York.
"Even if it’s better for the country in the long run, you’ve got to do something for the people who get run over by the truck on the way," Wyss said.
Bush fired his first treasury secretary, Paul O’Neill, in December 2002 after O’Neill questioned the need for a fresh round of tax cuts.
Lawrence Lindsey was forced out at the same time as director of the president’s National Economic Council after suggesting that a war with Iraq could cost $100 billion to $200 billion - which turned out to be close to the mark.
Bush is trying to show that the economy is rebounding and that dramatic job gains are on the way. Yet there have been no clear signs of strong job production, and Bush’s economic performance is under daily attack by Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, both senators.
Kerry, the front-runner to challenge Bush in the fall, called the president’s economic policies "insane."
"What planet do they live on?" Edwards said after Mankiw told reporters that "outsourcing" U.S. jobs to India and elsewhere "is probably a plus for the economy in the long run" because it reduces costs for U.S. consumers and companies.
No matter that many mainstream economists agree with Mankiw - or that he has apologized for seeming to be insensitive to workers who have lost their jobs.
"Economists and non-economists speak very different languages," Mankiw, a Harvard economist, told the National Economist Club this week. His remarks caused a firestorm that included a rare rebuke from the top House Republican, Speaker Dennis Hastert. Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle predicted Mankiw would follow O’Neill and Lindsey out the door, although White House officials say the president stands by him. Six Democratic senators also sent Bush a letter lambasting the administration for both episodes.
Bush has tried to calm the dispute by telling audiences, "There are people looking for work because jobs have gone overseas."
Yesterday, he steered away from specific job projections, saying he was pleased that 366,000 new jobs have been added since August. "I think the economy’s growing and I think it’s going to get stronger," he said.
But critics suggest a general lack of appreciation by the administration that the current economic recovery is one of the weakest in history for job growth.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Feb/20040219News 026.asp" title="http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Feb/20040219News 026.asp" target="_blank"http://www.columbiatribune.co... Columbia Tribune
|
|
|
| |
| N.H.'s Republicans have again rejected a President Bush |
| 02.20.04 (7:36 am) [edit] |
By David Gosselin
Usually New Hampshire's premier presidential primary receives not only international attention, but some in-depth analysis. This year the media dropped the ball on the Republican side in that regard.
In the marketplace for presidential candidates, the day after New Hampshire voted was the day to sell Bush and buy any credible challenger.
New Hampshire voted long before the current tempest about the president's National Guard service. This contest, which was the first real "poll" since the 2000 general elections, came not on an emotional swing, but from over three years of taking the measure of George W. Bush.
Looking back to the 1992 New Hampshire contest with the first George Bush, we saw that 47 percent of Republicans who voted that year cast their ballots against the incumbent president of their own party, in a resounding vote of no confidence.
That soon to be ex-president's son had an equally dismal performance last month. Republicans in this year's New Hampshire primary chose another way of protest. They stayed home.
When the 2004 votes were counted in New Hampshire, President Bush received less than 22 percent of the Republican vote.
Mr. Bush received substantially less votes than he did in his unsuccessful New Hampshire campaign against Sen. John McCain and even less votes than Ronald Reagan received, also running unopposed, in the primary 20 years earlier in 1984.
In both the 2004 and 1992 primary, there is a compelling story on how both Bushes lost New Hampshire, which maybe someday will make a great book.
Nonetheless, with multiple good reasons, voters in mass have once again come to distrust an incumbent President Bush. This sentiment is very deep and ingrained in the electorate across the county. This is evidently not understood by a majority of the nation's punditry class because so little has been written about it so far.
But this distrust among the voters has only grown stronger and expanded as the New Hampshire vote and national polls show.
I see no prospect for a reversal of this judgment among voters regardless who the Democrats choose as a candidate for President.
David Gosselin is a former New Hampshire Republican state chairman. His web address is www.gogosselin.com
|
|
|
| |
| Swiss study predicts scorching European summers |
| 02.20.04 (6:36 am) [edit] |
Thursday, February 19, 2004
By Reuters
WASHINGTON — The heat wave that killed more than 10,000 people across Europe last summer is only a taste of things to come as the planet becomes steadily warmer, a Swiss expert predicted this week.
Climate models predict that temperatures above 30 degrees C (86 degrees F) will become a regular feature of summer in southern and eastern Europe by the end of this century, the researcher said.
Writing in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Martin Beniston of the University of Fribourg said not only will summers be as hot as in 2003, but the accompanying drought, crop failure, and deaths can be expected as well.
"The record heat wave that affected many parts of Europe during the course of summer 2003 has been seen by many as a 'shape of things to come,' reflecting the extremes of temperature that summers are projected to occur in the later decades of the 21st century," Beniston wrote. "Model results suggest that under enhanced atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, summer temperatures are likely to increase by over 4 degrees C (8 degrees F) on average, with a corresponding increase in the frequency of severe heat waves."
Most climate scientists agree that the world is steadily warming and human industrial activity is mostly to blame. So-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are creating a layer that holds in hot air, causing the atmosphere to steadily grow warmer.
This past summer gave an unpleasant foretaste, Beniston said. In Switzerland, "2003 is likely to have been the warmest summer since 1540," he wrote. According to the World Health Organization, 11,435 people died from heat-related illness in France in the first two weeks of August alone as temperatures soared.
Beniston used a well-known climate model to predict what temperatures will do at the end of the century. In general, overall temperatures are expected to increase by 4 degrees C (8 degrees F) "from the Atlantic across Central Europe to the Black Sea."
"Stronger increases (6 degrees C or 10 degrees F) occur over the Iberian Peninsula and the southwestern parts of France, in part because of a probable reduction of soil moisture related to a simultaneous increase in summer drought," Beniston added.
This would mean an extra 60 days or more above 30 degrees (86 degrees), with some days being considerably warmer, Beniston predicted.
http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-19/s_132 71.asp" title="http://www.enn.com/news/2004-02-19/s_132 71.asp" target="_blank"http://www.enn.com/news/2004-... ENN
|
|
|
| |
| Whose Family Values? |
| 02.19.04 (7:30 pm) [edit] |
George Lakoff, professor of linguistics at UC Berkeley and senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute, is author of Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
What's in a word? Plenty, if the word is "marriage."
Marriage is central to our culture. Marriage legally confers over 600 benefits, but that is only its material aspect. Marriage is an institution, the public expression of lifelong commitment based on love. It is the culmination of a period of seeking a mate, and, for many, the realization of a major goal, often with a build-up of dreams, dates, gossip, anxiety, engagement, shower, wedding plans, rituals, invitations, bridal gown, bridesmaids, families coming together, vows and a honeymoon. Marriage is the beginning of family life, commonly with the expectation of children and grandchildren, family gatherings, in-laws, little league games, graduations and all the rest.
Marriage is also understood in terms of dozens of deep and abiding metaphors: a journey through life together, a partnership, a union, a bond, a single object of complementary parts, a haven, a means for growth, a sacrament, a home. Marriage confers a social status—a married couple with new social roles. And for a great many people, marriage legitimizes sex. In short, marriage is a big deal.
Like most important concepts, marriage comes with a variety of prototypical cases: The ideal marriage is happy, lasting, prosperous, with children, a nice home and friendships with other married couples. The typical marriage has its ups and downs, its joys and difficulties, typical problems with children and in-laws. The nightmare marriage ends in divorce, due perhaps to incompatibility, abuse or betrayal. It is a rich concept with a cultural stereotype: it is between a man and a woman.
Protecting The Patriarch
Because marriage is central to family life, it has a political dimension. As I discuss in my book Moral Politics, conservative and progressive politics are organized around two very different models of married life: a strict father family and a nurturing parent family.
The strict father is moral authority and master of the household, dominating both the mother and children and imposing needed discipline. Contemporary conservative politics turns these family values into political values: hierarchical authority, individual discipline, military might. Marriage in the strict father family must be heterosexual marriage: the father is manly, strong, decisive, dominating—a role model for sons and a model for daughters of a man to look up to.
The nurturing parent model has two equal parents, whose job is to nurture their children and teach their children to nurture others. Nurturance has two dimensions: empathy and responsibility, for oneself and others. Responsibility requires strength and competence. The strong nurturing parent is protective and caring, builds trust and connection, promotes family happiness and fulfillment, fairness, freedom, openness, cooperation, community development. These are the values of a strong progressive politics. Though the stereotype again is heterosexual, there is nothing in the nurturing family model to rule out same-sex marriage.
In a society divided down the middle by these two family models and their politics, we can see why the issue of same-sex marriage is so volatile. What is at stake is more than the material benefits of marriage and the use of the word. At stake is one's identity and most central values. This is not just about same-sex couples. It is about which values will dominate in our society.
When conservatives speak of the "defense of marriage," liberals are baffled. After all, no individual's marriage is being threatened. It's just that more marriages are being allowed. But conservatives see the strict father family, and with it, their political values as under attack. They are right. This is a serious matter for their politics and moral values as a whole. Even civil unions are threatening, since they create families that cannot be traditional strict father families.
Progressives are of two minds. Pragmatic liberals see the issue as one of benefits—inheritance, health care, adoption, etc. If that's all that is involved, civil unions should be sufficient—and they certainly are an advance. Civil unions would provide equal material protection under the law. Why not leave civil unions to the state and marriage to the churches, as in Vermont?
Idealistic progressives see beyond the material benefits, important as they are. Most gay activists want more than civil unions. They want full-blown marriage, with all its cultural meanings—a public commitment based on love, all the metaphors, all the rituals, joys, heartaches, family experiences—and a sense of normality, on a par with all other people. The issue is one of personal freedom: the state should not dictate who should marry whom. It is also a matter of fairness and human dignity. Equality under the law includes social and cultural, as well as material benefits. The slogan here is "freedom to marry."
Language is important. The radical right uses "gay marriage." Polls show most Americans overwhelmingly against anti-gay discrimination, but equally against "gay marriage." One reason, I believe, is that "marriage" evokes the idea of sex and most Americans do not favor gay sex. Another is that the stereotype of marriage is heterosexual. "Gay" for the right connotes a wild, deviant, sexually irresponsible lifestyle. That's why the right prefers "gay marriage" to "same-sex marriage."
But "gay marriage" is a double-edged sword. President Bush chose not to use the words "gay marriage" in his State of the Union address. I suspect that the omission occurred for a good reason. His position is that "marriage" is defined as between a man and a woman, and so the term "gay marriage" should be an oxymoron, as meaningless as "gay apple" or "gay telephone." The more "gay marriage" is used, the more normal the idea of same-sex marriage becomes, and the clearer it becomes that "marriage" is not defined to exclude the very possibility. This is exactly why some gay activists want to use "same-sex marriage" or even "gay marriage.
The Democratic presidential nominees are trying to sidestep the issue. Kerry and Dean claim marriage is a matter for the church, while the proper role for the state is civil unions and a guarantee of material benefits. This argument makes little sense to me. The ability of ministers, priests, and rabbis to perform marriage ceremonies is granted by governments, not by religions. And civil marriage is normal and widespread. Besides, it will only satisfy the pragmatic liberals. Idealistic conservatives will see civil unions as tantamount to marriage, and idealistic progressives will see them as falling far short of equal protection. It may work in Vermont and perhaps in Massachusetts, but it remains to be seen whether such an attempt to get around the issue will play in most of the country.
And what of the constitutional amendment to define marriage legally as between a man and a woman? Conservatives will be for it, and many others with a heterosexual stereotype of marriage may support it. But it's unlikely to get enough progressive support to pass. The real question is, will the very proposal of such an amendment help George Bush keep the White House?
It's hard to tell right now.
Hate Is Not A Family Value
But the progressives who are not running for office can do a lot. Progressives need to reclaim the moral high ground—of the grand American tradition of freedom, fairness, human dignity and full equality under the law. If they are pragmatic liberals, they can talk this way about the civil unions and material benefits. If they are idealistic progressives, they can use the same language to talk about the social and cultural, as well as the material benefits of marriage. Either way, our job as ordinary citizens is to reframe the debate, in everything we say and write, in terms of our moral principles.
The rest of us have to put our ideas out there so that candidates can readily refer to them. For example, when there is a discussion in your office, church or other group, there is a simple response to someone who says, "I don't think gays should be able to marry, do you?" The response is, "I believe in equal rights, period. I don't think the state should be in the business of telling people who they can or can't marry." The media does not have to accept the right wing's frames. What can a reporter ask besides "Do you support gay marriage?" Try this: "In San Francisco, there has been a lot discussion of the freedom to marry, as a matter of equal rights under the law. How do you feel about this?"
Reframing is everybody's job.
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9984" title="http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9984" target="_blank"http://tompaine.com/feature2.... Tom Paine
|
|
|
| |
| European and Israeli Jews: A reconciliation |
| 02.19.04 (5:39 pm) [edit] |
A reconciliation between distant cousins
Diana Pinto IHT
PARIS A group of European and Israeli Jews - university professors, journalists and writers - met recently in a private Normandy château, far from the limelight. Their purpose was to reconcile their universal values and their Jewish commitments; in short, their multiple loyalties.
Europe's "new anti-Semitism" or "Israel-bashing" were only peripherally on the agenda. No anguished Jewish community representatives, no tough officials from major international Jewish organization, and no furious Israeli officials were present.
The 20 Europeans who participated included the philosopher André Glucksmann and the international affairs analyst Dominique Moïsi from France; the anthropologist Jonathan Webber and the literary critic Jacqueline Rose from Britain; the writer Konstanty Gebert from Poland; the columnist Göran Rosenberg from Sweden; the scholar Micha Brumlik from Germany, and the novelist Doron Rabinovici from Austria, as well as Jews from Italy, Switzerland, Hungary and Croatia. The five Israelis included the scholars Fania Oz-Salzberger and Dafna Golan and the journalist Gideon Levy.
Fully aware of the new dangers that were besieging the Jewish - and Western - world and caring deeply about Israel's future, they refused to succumb to the current Jewish spiral of anguished accusations and historical and political pessimism. In their eyes, the Jewish world as well as the state of Israel were capable of determining their own fate, and not victims at the mercy of forces bent on their destruction.
The Europeans shared with their Israeli colleagues a commitment to democratic pluralism, human rights, the imperatives of social and political justice and the ideal of reconciliation. They all supported a state of Israel anchored in these principles, a state that would respect the rights of all of its minorities.
Above all, and notwithstanding the dangers emanating from a Muslim world torn asunder by extremism and intolerance, the participants sought to bring once more to the fore a Jewish identity capable of interesting itself in the fate of "others."
Chechens, the Roma, or Gypsies, and Europe's Muslims were discussed, but the spotlight was on the Palestinians. Israel's policy of occupation was condemned not only for the suffering it inflicted on the Palestinians but also for the political and psychological ravages to Israeli society as a whole, not to mention its consequences on the Jews of the diaspora.
Even though no Israeli Arabs or Palestinians were present, the round table had reconciliation as its ultimate goal. What was begun in Normandy was, above all, the reconciliation of European Jews and Israelis, which Zionism had separated. For decades, the only "good" diaspora Jews, in Israeli eyes, were those who either settled in Israel or supported the Jewish state without reservation, morally and financially. In either case, Europe's Jews did not count for much compared to their far more numerous and better organized American cousins. Now Israelis who were anguished by their country's political direction were asking for support from Europe's more critical and independent Jews.
In the course of the meeting, the participants discovered each other and liberated each other from the weight of stereotypes. The Israelis realized that Europe's Jews were active contributors to the political and intellectual life of their countries, and that Israel often constituted a problem for the political and moral coherence of these Jewish citizens of Europe.
The British and French Jews appreciated the vitality of their German and Polish peers, committed to their Jewish and national identities in two countries where the Holocaust was deemed to have destroyed all significant Jewish life.
Italian Jews were able to prove their attachment to democratic values by refusing to fall into the "Berlusconi trap" - that is, supporting a far from reputable political leader simply because he proclaimed himself a "friend of Israel."
Jews from former Communist countries could now bring their Jewish and universal voices into the European Union.
What lay ahead after this initial Jewish-Israeli reconciliation was another historical reconciliation - with Europe. The Jewish world cannot find lasting "normality" without a reconciliation with a continent that can no longer be perceived solely as the continent of historical anti-Semitism and as the continent that spawned the Holocaust.
Europe not only spawned our loftiest Western values and was the setting for Judaism's own millennial development, but it is in the process of implementing a complex pluralism - one that lies also at the heart of Israel's challenge.
For such a reconciliation to occur, Europe must understand that Israel is the child of its own 19th century nationalisms and not an "alien" country.
Profoundly moved by the American cemetery at Omaha Beach, some of the Israeli participants also chose to visit a small German cemetery near the château. Walking along the rows of tombstones, and realizing that the vast majority of the German soldiers buried there were barely 20 years old in 1944, these members of Israel's civil society understood Europe's complexity and the triumph that an increasingly united and peaceful Europe constituted for the world and for themselves, even as they dreamed of their future.
The writer, a historian, is completing a book, "The Wager: Reconciling Europe and the Jewish World in the 21st Century."
http://www.iht.com/articles/130351.html" title="http://www.iht.com/articles/130351.html" target="_blank"http://www.iht.com/articles/1... IHT
|
|
|
| |
| Russian Eyes on Europe - What They See |
| 02.19.04 (5:05 pm) [edit] |
Russian specialists have long kept an eye on the push for a unified Europe and have generally been critical. As legal scholar Vladimir Sivitsky said at the Rosbalt meeting: 'Europe takes a considerable risk in pushing for a unified, constitution-bound landmass.' European public opinion can fluctuate widely. The idea of a 'united states of Europe' was very popular in the 1920s and 1930s, he said. Yet everyone knows how that turned out. Nothing more is needed to stir the opponents of a united Europe to protest than any sort of the most unavoidable economic disarray, Sivitsky said. The not untroubled introduction of the euro, he pointed out, was a matter of mere convenience, but the introduction of a constitution is a question of national self-identity.
Then, Sivitsky said, we must ask what it is that the united governments of Europe are after? 'They say it's a matter of convenience-a single economic entity, free movement throughout the zone, but there are no problems on those scores in any case,' he said. 'Does it then follow that the European Union seeks to be a counterweight? A counterweight to whom? The answer is obvious. Whether Russia is preparing to enter the EU or not, one can expect a great political game.' In the short-term, Sivitsky said, Europe should be thinking in regional terms, with the constitutional question put off for 50 to 60 years-and then, naturally, with no veto rights or right of secession.
Andrey Medushevsky, a professor of applied political science at the Higher School of Economics, spoke of the many stumbling blocks on the constitutional path. The draft constitution, 17 months in the making, has been rejected, and the divergences of opinion of EU member- and candidate-member countries is quite clear. The draft, he said, failed to offer answers to a series of fundamental questions-for example, the nature of sovereignty that would exist under the constitution and whether the EU would be ruled as a unitary, federal or confederate state. On those answers hinge the question of a national veto, since a veto is possible in an assemblage of states and impossible in a state of the usual European type.
'A unified Europe wants to make a European of Germans, Frenchmen and Englishmen,' Medushevsky said. 'But there is some concern that the rights of minorities might thereby be jeopardized.' Many other analysts, he said, also wonder about the problem of donor countries and regions that get aid, while Europe's 'left' talks about an erosion of democracy, asking if European unification won't infringe on the individual rights that are the foundation of Europe's system of justice. There are more questions than answers, Medushevsky said.
Yet he insisted on what he called 'a position of Euro-optimism.' He said: 'The EU, clearly, is an entity meant to oppose the United States. Russia must stand somewhat aside from this in a position of friendly neutrality and not offer judgments of the unification process at this time.' In a word, he said, we are for the time being simply observers, for nothing indicates that Russia will be taken into the united family of European peoples any time soon. If indeed anything comes of this family.
What did the polling by the Petersburg sociologists of FOS and ASI find?
The polling was done between January 12 and 25, 2004, by telephone between Saint Petersburg and the 10 largest cities of Europe-Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Brussels (Belgium), Vienna (Austria), Berlin (Germany), Warsaw (Poland), Dublin (Ireland), London (Britain), Madrid (Spain), Paris (France) and Rome (Italy). The respondents were polled in their own languages. One hundred and twenty persons were surveyed in each capital. Although the samples were not representative, the researchers believe that the results on so clear a matter as the development of the EU to which there have been such distinct reactions should be indicative.
The choice of cities, according to ASI's chief researcher, Roman Mogilevsky, reflects the fact that residents of capital cities are better informed and more politically aware than their counterparts in provincial cities and farm areas. The cities chosen include all the key countries of the EU as well as one candidate-country (Poland, which took a very hard line on several crucial questions during the consideration of the draft constitution at the recent meeting in Brussels).
At the same time, the researchers used the same survey in five Russian cities, making possible some interesting comparisons. In answer to the question of whether they were satisfied with their lives in 2003, 77% of the Europeans polled and 52% of the Russians answered 'yes' or 'generally yes.' Answering 'no' or 'generally no' were 42% of the Russians and only 19% of the Europeans. Six percent of the Russians and 4% of the Europeans said they were unable to answer the question.
However, in looking to the future and stating whether their lives would be better or worse in 2004, our citizens and the Europeans gave practically the same answers. Half of the Russians and 49% of the Europeans expect improvements. In both samples, 31% said they expected no change. Eight percent of the Russians, and 13% of the Europeans (or 150% more) said they expected a worsening in the quality of their lives.
Mogilevsky explained that 'the symmetry in the answers . . . question shows that people generally are realistic but live in hope.'
As for other results, the polling found that only slightly more than one-third of the Europeans consider themselves citizens of a united Europe (36%), while 55% continue to insist that they are citizens of their countries. At this time, 9% of the Europeans fluctuate on this point. It is indicative that the percentage of those who consider themselves 'citizens of Europe' was higher in the countries of Southern Europe (Italy, Spain-43.8%) and those who consider themselves citizens of their own countries was higher in the North (Ireland, Britain-67.8%).
Awareness of the preparation and review of the draft unified EU constitution was indicated by 70% of the Europeans surveyed. Twenty percent were unaware, and 10% 'had heard something.' At the same time, 51% of those polled were in favor of such a document and 16% opposed. Significantly greater support for the idea of a constitution was found in Ireland and Britain (73.3%). In Central and Southern Europe, supporters of the constitutional idea made up less than half of those polled.
One of the most controversial questions in the discussion of a future charter for the EU is the question of national vetoes. In favor were 51% of those polled, with 27% opposed and 22% undecided. The greatest support-almost 60%--for a national veto came from residents of Central Europe.
Another major 'sticking point' is the possibility of making the number of votes that a nation has in the European Commission proportional to the population of the country. There was no consensus on this, with 39% of the Europeans favoring equality for all countries and 48% favoring proportional representation.
The question of adding new countries to the EU, on the other hand, did not elicit a sharp split in opinion. In favor were 75% of those polled, with 16% opposed. Possible EU entry for Russia was favored by slightly fewer of the Europeans (68%). Virtually the same (17%) percentage turned up negative on Russian entry as on entries in general. Interestingly, Russians divided on Russian entry in the EU quite similarly: 60% in favor, 11% against and 29% uncertain.
On a related matter, 70% of the Europeans believe that Russians should be allowed to pursue any activity in their country that others are allowed to pursue, 14% would permit Russians to pursue 'only certain kinds of work' and 10% would bar Russians altogether from work in EU countries. Overall, everything points to the adherence of citizens of the European capitals to the idea of Russian integration in the EU and support for initiatives seeking wider contacts between Russians and citizens of a united Europe.
What practical use can the statistically average Russian draw from these findings? For it is clear that Russian entry into the EU is not a question for the near-term and similarly clear that Russia has no influence over the process of the EU and its constitution. What most concerns Moscow, in the words of Andrey Skachkov, an adviser in the Second Europe Department of the Foreign Ministry, is the problem of protecting the human rights of the Russian-speaking population of EU candidate-countries, specifically Latvia and Estonia, or, in other words, the question of the expansion of the EU. Russia will, of course, work with whatever European Union it finds.
Yana Amelina, Rosbalt, Moscow
Translated by Howard Goldfinger
http://www.rosbaltnews.com/" title="http://www.rosbaltnews.com/" target="_blank"http://www.rosbaltnews.com/ Rosbalt News
|
|
|
| |
| Patriotism sparks hatred for many Iraqis |
| 02.19.04 (3:02 pm) [edit] |
To understand why American soldiers are despised by many Iraqis and are still killed nearly a year after the war, we must reverse the situation and suppose that Iraq had invaded the United States, had quickly won the war and had thrown out the Bush administration, even trying to capture and kill the leaders. Further assume that they had substituted autocracy for democracy as the political basis of the United States.
Would Americans have accepted it? I think not.
Much as I and other Democrats might like to see George Bush out of the White House, we would rebel at his being captured and placed on trial by the enemy. We would be blowing up Iraq soldiers whenever we could. Never would we accept the invaders.
Saddam Hussein would have been insane to believe that while America's political parties often disagree strongly with each other over policy, either of the leading parties would ever side with the enemy against their fellow Americans. And when George Bush believed, as he did, that with Saddam Hussein gone the majority of Iraqis would rise in support of the Americans, Bush, too, was irrational.
The vast majority of Poles, Checkoslovakians, Dutch, Norwegians and French never accepted German occupation in World War II. Or, compare Saddam Hussein to Hitler.
Hitler was a cruel dictator, yet the majority of Germans praised their fuhrer and fought valiantly against nations that invaded Germany to dispose of the monster. Such is the way of patriotism.
The more we learn of George Bush, such as the new revelations from Paul O'Neill, once a member of his Cabinet, the more I wonder how the man ever came to be elected to our highest office. Obviously, the Iraq war was a mistake, but Bush will not take blame for it. Instead he has accused the CIA of giving him false information (which the CIA has violently denied), and now, following O'Neill's accusation that Bush intended to invade Iraq from the day he took office, the White House says it was only following guidelines set down by the Bill Clinton administration. In other words, it was Clinton who is responsible for the war.
George Bush may be commander in chief of America's armed forces, but he obviously never understood the basics of the office. When a mistake is made in the military, the highest officer involved in that mistake takes the blame; he does not pass it on to a subordinate. That is traditional.
During World War II, I flew a PBY across the Gulf of Mexico from NAS Pensacola to NAS Corpus Christi, missing my destination by more than a hundred miles and coming ashore in Mexico. I didn't blame my navigator nor my co-pilot, nor any of the crew; I took the blame myself.
That is true throughout the services, true everywhere except at the very top. There -- in the Bush Administration, anyway -- the buck doesn't stop with the president. He passes it on as quickly as he would a hot potato.
http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20040219 /opinion/441061.html" title="http://www.thespectrum.com/news/stories/20040219 /opinion/441061.html" target="_blank"http://www.thespectrum.com/ne... The Spectrum
|
|
|
| |
| Blacks line up behind 'electable' Kerry |
| 02.18.04 (9:31 pm) [edit] |
Blacks Line Up Behind `Electable' Kerry Because `We've Got to Get Rid of Bush'
BY Jonathan Tilove
c.2004 Newhouse News Service
The Democratic primaries have been notably unriven by issues of race or divisions along racial lines. Driven by a desire to find the strongest candidate to defeat President Bush and unmoved by the protest candidacy of the Rev. Al Sharpton, black voters have been, to an even greater extent than white voters, coalescing around Sen. John F. Kerry, a candidate without a history of strong connections in the African-American community, as their party's likely nominee.
"Good things are happening for the Democrats," said Jeremy Mayer, a political scientist at George Mason University who believes the unity and lack of obvious controversy on issues of race bodes well for the party's prospects in the fall. "Black Democrats, like many other Democrats, have just decided, `We must beat Bush,"' said Mayer, the author of "Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000."
But while it seems a fait accompli that Kerry or any Democrat would trounce Bush with African-American voters -- among Republican presidential candidates, only Barry Goldwater in 1964 did less well with blacks than Bush in 2000 -- it remains to be seen whether black voters in the fall will turn out in the large numbers Democrats depend on, for a candidate who right now is a mostly unknown quantity.
"I'm feeling very good about the upcoming election," said Myrtle Coulon Rains, an officer in the local Democratic club in Belle Glade, Fla., one of the poorest black communities in the United States.
Belle Glade is on the edge of Lake Okeechobee in western Palm Beach County. Its fertile muck is part of the region known as the Glades, home to much of America's sugar and vegetable production.
In 2000, the world turned on what happened here. With near unanimity, black voters in these parts cast their ballots for Vice President Al Gore. But there were more than enough black votes not cast or not counted in the Glades to have made Gore president. "It was very close," said Rains. "It could have been won here in the Glades area."
It could be close again.
"We're tired of Bush," said Rains. "We've got to get rid of Bush. That is the song." And "turnout is the key."
Even an activist like Rains did not yet have more than a shrugging sense of Kerry except for the feeling that he looks more like a president than Bush does.
"How well do we know him?" asks political scientist Ronald Walters, the director of the African American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland. Walters, who writes a column for black newspapers across the country, fears the rush to consensus smothered what could have been useful efforts by black leaders and voters to press issues of concern and exact a price for their support.
Instead, late last year when it looked like former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was on his way to the nomination, he scored some impressive endorsements, beginning with U.S. Reps. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois and Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus. But when, after victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, Kerry supplanted Dean as the presumptive nominee, largely on the strength of his aura as the most electable candidate, black voters began clambering aboard his bandwagon.
Kerry narrowly lost the black vote to North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in Edwards' native state of South Carolina, but has been winning it ever since. According to exit polls from the Feb. 10 Virginia primary, Kerry swept virtually every demographic category across lines of gender, race, ideology, income and education, but scored biggest victory among black voters -- winning 61 percent compared with 46 percent of the white vote. Edwards took 20 percent of the black vote, Sharpton 9 percent.
Sharpton's anemic showing there and elsewhere was striking. He was the only black candidate on the ballot. He had displayed his sharp wit to good effect in the many televised debates. Despite his controversial history, he was generally treated respectfully by the other candidates and the press.
"Sharpton is really the one taking a beating for all this coalescing around Kerry," said Walters.
But Sharpton also proved unable to create anything like the excitement or organization that developed around the Rev. Jesse Jackson's campaigns in 1984 and 1988. His reputation was further tarnished recently when The Village Voice revealed the degree to which his campaign was being orchestrated by Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative with a reputation for Machiavellian intrigues.
"I think Sharpton's candidacy has almost been a joke," said Robert T. Smith, a political scientist at San Francisco State University and the author of "The Encyclopedia of African-American Politics."
To Mayer, Sharpton's failure relieved the eventual nominee of the tricky task of having to either make concessions to a polarizing figure disliked by most white voters, or disrespect a figure popular with African-Americans.
The peril for Kerry, though, is that he is winning the black vote without having to develop the direct connection he will need to win it big in November.
"I have little rumblings of what I remember as the Dukakis feeling in the pit of my stomach," said the Rev. Joseph Darby, pastor of Morris Brown AME Church in Charleston, S.C., where most of the candidates -- but not Kerry -- took to the pulpit during the course of the campaign.
But David Bositis, an authority on black politics at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, said that if Kerry is no Bill Clinton, he is also no Michael Dukakis, who left black voters cold as the Democratic nominee against the first George Bush in 1988. "You can tell when someone is playing a winning hand," Bositis said of Kerry. "He's going to be more than acceptable."
Back in Belle Glade, Mayor Steve Wilson said black voters like a little "emotionalism" in their candidate.
And Cynthia Laramore, a longtime local activist on environmental and education issues, said animus toward Bush isn't enough. Passions, she said, "are not as high as I'd like them to be."
In fact, after his last patron leaves, Ulysses Blakely, a barber on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Belle Glade, allows that he plans to vote Republican for the first time in his life. Bush is a leader, and more true to the Bible, said Blakely, who when he is through says he is grateful for the opportunity to get that out. "That felt great," said Blakely, for whom Kerry, at this point, is pretty much a cipher.
But U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, who represents the Glades in Congress and picked beans on the muck when he was young, who once taught a white politician how to say "Negro" ("knee-grow") without it sounding like a slur, said perception of Kerry would change as he and others take the candidate in hand.
"Once Kerry's sat with the likes of some of the ministers and leaders that he'll be coming in contact with, you'll think he's a Baptist minister at Mount Olive," said Hastings. At the very least, "I think he'll learn to clap in time."
http://www.newhouse.com/archive/tilove021804.html" title="http://www.newhouse.com/archive/tilove021804.html" target="_blank"http://www.newhouse.com/archi... Newhouse News
|
|
|
| |
| Squeezing the poor for votes |
| 02.18.04 (3:31 pm) [edit] |
Published: February 18, 2004
Destructive fine print is showing through the budgetary bandwagon President Bush has designed for his re-election drive. It turns out that hundreds of thousands of poor and low-income families will lose child care and housing assistance if the administration's ballyhooed spending cuts take effect. In trying to campaign as a late-blooming fiscal disciplinarian, the president is making a show of marking 128 programs — count 'em, G.O.P. budget hawks, 128 — for elimination or cutbacks in many vital social service areas. As if they are at the heart of the administration's rolling deficits, which threaten the nation's economic future.
The savings from the draconian budget theatrics would total no more than $4.9 billion. This is less than 1 percent of the record $521 billion deficit Mr. Bush helped create with tax cuts weighted toward the affluent (whose top 1 percent will net a $45 billion boon in this year alone). The real costs of such shabby budget politics would affect programs like housing vouchers. These would be cut $1.7 billion below what's needed to maintain the two million people getting help. Depending on localities' responses, this cut could mean the denial of vouchers to 250,000 of the impoverished, elderly and disabled.
Likewise, after all the bipartisan dedication to steering people from welfare to workfare, the White House would demonstrate election-year toughness by cutting child care aid for the working poor, who need it most. The proposed cuts would mean a minimal drop of 200,000, and probably 365,000, in the number of children receiving child care aid in the next five years. In cutting these indispensable programs, Mr. Bush is trying to tell voters that down is up — that the deficit problem is rooted on the ledger's spending side, not the revenue side, which he has systematically choked by trillions across the decade. Government data actually indicates that spending as a share of the economy has not rocketed and remains relatively low, while the Bush tax cuts increasingly drive the grim deficit outlook.
Congress should be the first to recognize and dismiss the president's budget as an arrant campaign pamphlet. It would leave profligate Republicans picking on the poor in a desperate attempt to stand for fiscal responsibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/18 WED2.html?th" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/18 WED2.html?th" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... NY Times
|
|
|
| |
| Not qualified, not truthful, not wise |
| 02.18.04 (3:05 pm) [edit] |
George Bush, make-believe President
Sydney H. Schanberg
President Bush's war in Iraq, oddly, has begun to remind me of the floating craps game in Guys and Dolls. In the classic musical, the "guys" have to keep moving the venue from one hiding place to another—to avoid getting caught playing an illegal gambling game. The president, with much bigger stakes, keeps moving his rationale for the war (as he rolls the dice)—to avoid getting caught playing with the truth.
His problem is that he has been caught.
All the recent revelations about the recklessness of his war policy, the delusory nature of his economic plan, the heretofore masked role of Vice President Dick Cheney as the unaccountable power directing the throne, have revealed Bush as he is—a limited man missing many qualifications for the job. This pulling back of the curtain, all at once, has made clear that while George W. Bush may be a religiously sincere man who actually believes he's trying to do good, he is, in the same incarnation, a make-believe president who has made a mess of almost everything and put the country at risk in many ways, including the risk of economic disorder.
In some of his latest appearances, the revealed Bush, in word and demeanor, has appeared wan and defensive, even hunched—and yet he does not come clean. He cannot seem to take the final step and apologize to a nation that has already lost more than 500 sons and daughters to his Iraq war; each week, another nine or 10 fall. Apologies, ever rare in public life, are even rarer in election years.
Virtually none of the "facts" this president gave after 9-11 to win public and congressional support for an urgent preemptive invasion of Iraq have turned out to be true. No stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction" have been found in the nine months since victory was declared. No functional production facilities for chemical or biological weapons have been unearthed. Iraq's nuclear bomb program—which the White House told us was being ramped up again—did not exist. On the eve of war last March 17, with the decision made and our troops and planes poised for the command to go, George Bush spoke to the nation on television from the Oval Office. He spelled out one more time his core justification for starting a war without being attacked by the other side. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments," he said, "leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
He said "no doubt." But a wiser commander in chief would have had tugs of uncertainty at a moment like that. Intelligence is iffy. The CIA analysts always use caveats when they issue findings. Satellite photos, for example, can seem to show absolutes—and then turn out to be inaccurate. Bush and his White House chorus had no place in their calculus for caveats or reservations of any kind. They had "no doubt."
Well, their certitude is now shown to have been essentially a stew of hyperbole, concoction, and in some cases the knowing use of forged documents from foreign sources (namely a dossier claiming to show that Iraq sought to buy enriched uranium from Niger—which Bush alluded to in his 2003 State of the Union address as evidence of the Iraqi threat).
The White House also had no doubt that the military occupation of Iraq was going to be a relatively smooth one, with administration officials predicting a countrywide embrace of the American troops as liberators, followed by a steady march toward a secular, constitutional democracy. Perhaps the Bush hawks thought it would be unseemly to mention that the three main blocs in Iraq—the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds—had been killing each other for generations. The ethnic and religious bloodletting has already started again. A more well-balanced president might have prepared us.
This affable Texas carouser who, with his wife's firm intervention, turned around his tosspot life and found born-again direction through evangelical Christianity seems addled and stunned that slings and arrows are presently flying at him from all directions. Even his conservative Republican base is saying he has put the nation's economy in jeopardy with reckless spending and record deficits.
Last week, NBC's Tim Russert, interviewing Bush in the Oval Office for Meet the Press, took note of polls showing that an unusual number of Americans are "angry or dissatisfied with you" and asked, "Why do you think you are perceived as such a divider?"
Bush: "Gosh, I don't know, because I'm working hard to unite the country. . . . I don't speak ill of anybody in the process here . . . I don't attack."
Russert tried again, bringing up the president's unpopularity in Europe and asking why he was disliked there.
Bush: "Heck, I don't know. Ronald Reagan was unpopular in Europe . . . I'm keeping pretty good company. I think that people, when you do hard things, when you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. . . . I'll tell you, though, I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate. I won't change my philosophy or my point of view."
The campaign skills that got him elected in 2000—slogans and backslaps and bouquets of promises thrown out with winning bonhomie—may not be enough to win him a second term in November. Lots of Americans are rankled, not just the Democrats. People are not better off than they were four years ago. And they've been lied to by a clique who apparently believe that military action is a first resort, not a last one—and, concomitantly, that since our armed power outstrips that of any other nation-state or coalition, we must, to keep our nation secure and mighty, seize this moment to move forward boldly and tame the world, wherever we have enemies or unstable conditions that affect us. This is a doctrine of preemptive war, pure and simple. All of it defies world history and our own nation's experience.
Bush's extremist domestic and foreign policies have both seen their shiny outer wrappings torn to shreds, suddenly exposing their hocus-pocus innards.
Here we have, as one example, an education policy (No Child Left Behind) that lays out all the testing and learning requirements but only a trickle of the federal funds needed to pay for the training and teaching. So local taxes have had to be raised. One might call this a trickle-down tax policy. One might also call it trumpery.
Bush's big-picture tax policy, already in full swing, has made large reductions in the federal income tax. Sound great? Yeah, but it's less filling for the working classes. Most of the cuts go to the richest of Americans. Bush's theory is that these are the nation's entrepreneurs who will use the bulk of their windfall to create new jobs. But we've lost jobs instead—more than 2 million of them since George Bush took office. He doesn't seem to have noticed. At first, with his tax cuts, he sent every taxpayer a check for a few hundred dollars—an advance, so to speak, on the treasure to come; he told us to go out and shop, to spend the money that will prime the economic pump. It didn't.
The same kind of scary collapse, as we have seen, has happened with Bush's foreign policies, which seem born of a military-industrial vision of American empire. Just what General Dwight Eisenhower warned us against after he had led the Allies to victory over the Nazis in World War II and been voted into the White House.
Here is yet another example of the ever shifting certainties of the Bush era—one that is still taking lives. Do you remember, back in 2002, when the president's White House minions began planting stories about how the CIA and State Department and Pentagon were deliberately understating the size of Saddam Hussein's terror arsenal and thus trying to diminish the gravity of the Iraqi threat? Now, two years later, as if they had somehow undergone a memory erasure, Bush and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the White House gang accuse the CIA of having done just the opposite—of having exaggerated Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological capabilities.
He was misled by our intelligence community, the president now announces, in this latest revised edition of his policies. But never mind, he says, I forgive the CIA. And anyway, he says without blinking, even though our search teams have been unable to find the arsenal of mass destruction "I expected to find," the preemptive war was the "right thing" to do. "Hussein was dangerous," he said last week on television, "and I'm not going to leave him in power and trust a madman." Though Iraq may not have had the weapons or production lines, Bush said he had to act regardless, because Hussein had the intent and "the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network." The desire and the "capacity" (read: scientists)—but not the urgent threat.
This is an entirely new doctrine of war for the United States. In a Cincinnati speech five months before the start of the Iraq war, Bush described it thusly, explaining why the U.S. had to act "now" against Hussein: "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
But we knew then that the Iraqis no longer had a credible nuclear program, and we know now that they also didn't have the weapons about which President Bush said there was "no doubt."
It wasn't Iraq that was peddling nuclear technology to rogue nations and terrorists. It was Pakistan, our "ally" in the war against terror. Clear evidence shows that Washington knew this several years ago. Yes, President Bush knew it when he took the oath of office in January 2001. And he never told us, not even after 9-11.
In 1961, John F. Kennedy—after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by American-trained Cuban exiles—didn't point fingers at the CIA or anyone else. Instead, he told the National Security Council that "we're not going to have any search for scapegoats . . . the final responsibilities of any failure is mine, and mine alone."
George Walker Bush, who said he was going to "restore honor and dignity to the White House," could learn something from that history. Truth is better than fiction when you're sending your youth into battle.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0407/schanberg .php" title="http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0407/schanberg .php" target="_blank"http://www.villagevoice.com/i...
Village Voice
|
|
|
| |
| Cheney's electoral stock starts to sink |
| 02.18.04 (2:28 pm) [edit] |
Julian Borger
Guardian Weekly
George Bush likes to introduce Dick Cheney as "the best vice-president ever" and then, in a belated nod to the fact that his father once filled the post under Ronald Reagan, the president usually adds, "Mother might have a second opinion."
The burly, taciturn man at the president's side has always been a reassuring presence for American conservatives. He is without question the most powerful vice-president in US history. His staff dwarfs those of his predecessors. In the White House he has an influential - some believe decisive - say on the strategic issues of the day, from the US's long-term energy needs to going to war in Iraq.
Until now the only question mark over Cheney's job has been his health. Now aged 63, he has had four heart attacks and since 2001 has worn an implanted electronic device that keeps his troubled heart pumping normally.
These days, however, his heart is the least of his worries. Over the past two months, so much ground has fallen away beneath his feet that some Republicans are quietly musing whether his cardiac record might provide a useful cover for his eventual withdrawal from the Bush ticket.
The soft-spoken man from Wyoming has become a political liability on the same grounds that he once seemed such an asset. His commanding role in foreign policy has left his fingerprints all over the hyping of intelligence about Iraq weapons. Before the war he browbeat CIA analysts into coming up with more alarmist assessments, and it has emerged that his chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, tried until the last minute to persuade Colin Powell, the secretary of state, to make even more sensational accusations against Saddam Hussein in his address to the UN security council a year ago.
Meanwhile Cheney's five years as chief executive of the Halliburton oil services company now look less like useful experience and more like a scandal waiting to happen. As it becomes clear that Iraq is now the setting for an orgy of corporate self-enrichment, Halliburton has replaced Enron in the public imagination as the prime symbol of corporate greed and malfeasance.
In the press the tide is turning. The current edition of the National Journal, the ultimate Washington insider's magazine, has his picture on its cover and the title: "Just the Ticket: Does having Dick Cheney as his running mate help or hurt George W Bush in 2004?" The article weighs the claims of other Republican princes, such as Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, or Bill Frist, the party leader in the Senate.
A Time/CNN poll this month found that only 43% of Americans thought he should be on the Republican ticket. A recent Fox survey found his popularity trailing 10 percentage points behind Bush. According to a former official who follows political strategy in the White House, Karl Rove, the president's election guru, has conducted polls of his own, with even worse results. But poor ratings alone will not force the vice-president out. The Republicans' ideological right wing sees him as a superstar, and for that reason Cheney is one of the party's top fundraisers.
Moreover dropping him would not make dynastic sense for the Bush family, which is widely believed to be grooming the president's younger brother, Jeb, governor of Florida, to stand in 2008. Appointing a new vice-president would create a rival heir apparent.
The consensus in Washington is that Cheney is likely to stay as Bush's running mate, barring any dramatic new development. However, that proviso is an important one. There are explosive possibilities laid out like landmines along Cheney's path to election day on November 2.
First, Halliburton is being investigated in France and the US for paying bribes to win contracts in Nigeria while Cheney was at the helm from 1995 to 2000. The matter falls under French jurisdiction because at the time a Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown and Root, was vying for a Nigerian contract in a consortium with a French company. The investigating French magistrate is looking at what role, if any, Cheney played. He is also reported to be comparing notes with a parallel US justice department investigation.
Elsewhere in Washington, a grand jury is hearing evidence on a White House leak last July of the identity of a CIA undercover agent, Valerie Plame. Early suspicion fell on Rove, but it now seems he may have simply pushed the story along, describing Plame as "fair game" because her husband, Joseph Wilson, had questioned the authenticity of some of the pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's nuclear capability. The FBI has focused much of its questioning on senior officials in the vice-president's office, namely Libby and his deputy, John Hannah. The FBI has subpoenaed the telephone records and diaries from the vice-president's office.
Charging anyone directly with the leak will be hard because US law requires the perpetrator to have known he was committing a crime. But a source familiar with the inquiry said its chief investigator is focusing on the possibility of perjury, by comparing sworn evidence with phone logs.
If the trail from these inquiries leads anywhere close to the vice-president's door, all bets are off. Bush is a man who prides himself on returning the loyalty of his staff. But loyalty only goes so far. Just ask Paul O'Neill.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0 " title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0 " target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/gua...,12674,1150707,00.html Guardian
|
|
|
| |
| Forming Conclusions |
| 02.18.04 (11:29 am) [edit] |
I hope no one would disagree that truth is important. Sad to say, it's a hard commodity to come by. Due to the internet it's quite easy to find the information needed to form a conclusion. Of course, one's conclusion depends on one's belief, culture or perhaps one's willingness to accept the facts on issues regardless of which side they represent. It's too tempting to represent truth only as you see it sometimes even after careful consideration.
If I were part of the religious right I would have no problems finding and posting more material than you would have time to read in a day. The same can be said of the liberal left or whatever part of the pie you may belong to.
The Israeli/Palestinian issue is not going to be solved on this blog. It's rife with lies, inuendo, racial hatred and stubborness etc. Both sides have valid complaints but neither side will respond to the other in a meaningful way. It's a constant battle of wills and more than disheartening to watch, especially when so many on both sides are dying.
As there are many articles being posted on tblog, from what I see, as a conservative/religious viewpoint I will provide links to other views in this post. Many of the articles are lengthy and I do not want to post them in their entirety. I hope they serve to broaden perspective.
The viewpoints represented are not always, necessarily those of this blog owner.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=98&contenti d=1044" title="http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=98&contenti d=1044" target="_blank"http://www.conspiracyplanet.c... Dennis Prager: Manipulating the Jews, by Henry Makow
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S 00140.htm" title="http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0402/S 00140.htm" target="_blank"http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/... Israel's Mass Robbery of Palestine, by Genevieve Cora Fraser
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=58052" title="http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=58052" target="_blank"http://www.israelnn.com/news.... Chief Rabbis: No One Has the Right to Touch the Land of Israel
http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2004-01.html#10" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2004-01.html#10" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/VP... Sharon's Wall a Threat to All Religious Groups
http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-10.html#299" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-10.html#299" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/VP... Bible and Sword: US Christian Zionists Discover Israel
http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-10.html#275" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-10.html#275" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/VP... Israel's Attack is a Lethal Step Towards War in Middle East
http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-09.html#226" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-09.html#226" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/VP... The Israelisation of America
http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-07.html#184" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/VP-2003-07.html#184" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/VP... French and Jewish Extremist Unite On Net Against Arabs
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4959.htm" title="http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4959.htm" target="_blank"http://www.informationclearin... Christian Zionist, Israel and 'The Second Coming' - 5 part series by Donald Wagner
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/34945 29.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/34945 29.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi... Viewpoint: Palestinian Suicide Attacks by Jenny Tonge MP
|
|
|
| |
| Prosecutor in terror case controversy sues Ashcroft |
| 02.18.04 (9:45 am) [edit] |
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington.
Justice officials said Tuesday they had not seen the suit and had no comment.
The suit is the latest twist in the Bush administration's first major post-Sept. 11 terrorism prosecution, which is now in danger of unraveling over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Convertino came under internal investigation last fall after providing information to a Senate committee about his concerns about the war on terror. His testimony came just months after he helped convict some members of an alleged terrorism cell in Detroit.
The government now admits it failed to turn over evidence during the trial that might have assisted the defense, including an allegation from an imprisoned drug gang leader who claimed the government's key witness made up his story.
Convertino is seeking damages under the First Amendment and Privacy Act, alleging he has been subjected to an internal investigation as retaliation for his cooperation with the Senate and that information from the internal probe was wrongly leaked to news media.
The lawsuit states Convertino first complained to his superiors more than a year ago about Justice's interference in the Detroit terrorism trial, saying Washington supervisors "had continuously placed perception over reality to the serious detriment of the war on terror."
The lawsuit includes excerpts of an e-mail from another prosecutor in the case that Convertino says "identified some of the gross mismanagement which was negatively impacting the ability of the United States to obtain convictions in a major terrorist case."
The e-mail from the other prosecutor shows he complained at the time that efforts by Justice's terrorism unit in Washington to "insinuate themselves into this trial are, nothing more than a self-serving effort to justify the existence" of the unit.
"They have rendered no assistance and, are in my judgment, adversely impacting on both trial prep and trial strategy," the e-mail cited in the lawsuit states.
Convertino also accused Justice officials of intentionally divulging the name of one of his confidential terrorism informants (CI) to retaliate against him.
The leak put the informant at grave risk, forced him to flee the United States and "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the CI about current and future terrorist activities," the suit alleges.
The prosecutor is being represented by the National Whistleblower Center, which has represented FBI agents and other whistleblowers in recent cases involving terrorism. Its chief lawyer successfully helped Linda Tripp win damages under the Privacy Act for the leak of information from her Pentagon personnel file after the Monica Lewinsky affair.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004- 02-17-ashcroft-sued_x.htm" title="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004- 02-17-ashcroft-sued_x.htm" target="_blank"http://www.usatoday.com/news/... USA Today
|
|
|
| |
| EU commissioner looks at how to reinforce eDemocracy |
| 02.18.04 (9:30 am) [edit] |
Date: Feb 18, 2004 - 06:45 AM
Speaking at eDemocracy Seminar in Brussels on 12th February, the European Commission Commissioner Erkki Liikanen, responsible for Enterprise and the Information Society made a presentation on the subject of "Reinforcing eDemocracy", useful reading for anyone in e-Government whether in central or local government.
This is the text of his speech:
"The objective of this seminar is to take stock of eDemocracy experiments, to exchange views on results achieved and challenges, and to learn for future research in a dialogue of researchers, policy makers and practictioners. The seminar is a follow-up of last year's eGovernment Communication.
Experience
Information and communication technology and especially the Internet are a great tool to make governments more open and transparent. It empowers citizens. eGovernment can make governments more relevant to citizens by increasing participation and involvement in decision-making.
It can help restore ownership: the government is of the people. It also increases accountability. ICT makes it possible to follow all administrative steps in formulating and enacting law.
Prof. Manuel Castells said it this way: "the Internet can be used by citizens to watch their governments - rather than by governments to watch their citizens".
As a member of the European Commission, I have the opportunity to see the impact ICT is having on our democratic processes and how citizens and business have directly impacted decision-making.
During last year's development of the new legislation for chemicals we implemented an internet enabled consultation period. By the time the consultation closed on 10 July 2003, we had received 6500 contributions by mail, fax and via our Interactive Policy Making web tool.
All responses were published on a Commission website. So each citizen knows which organisation, company or individual has pushed for which amendments. This was a high point in our Internet enabled government within the Commission to date.
The responses were analyzed over the summer time. Thanks to the consultation we discovered that the legislation had a flaw indeed, one that would have increased costs by several billions of Euros, in particular for smaller companies. The online consultation supported the inclusion of public and industry's opinion on the final form of the legislation.
This way of open consultation over the Internet of a draft law has an analogy with open source software development. The open source community is based on open online critical scrutiny and dialogue to find flaws in a piece of software - they call it bugs. By analogy we have last year been debugging the chemicals legislation.
For the Commission services involved, it was a hard task to analyse the contributions. The sheer volume, variety of opinions and time constraints were a real challenge. We thus also have some first hand experience with the challenges of openness, transparency, personalisation, inclusion, and efficiency.
In another example, the Greek Presidency of the Council of Ministers ran during the first half of 2003 the successful eVote website, where a public debate was held and opinions are being polled on all kind of matters, from Iraq to drugs policy to the future of the EU. They had over 150,000 submissions in multiple languages.
In both examples transparency and openness were increased. Online transparency and openness increase accountability and thereby strengthen the essential norms and values underpinning democracy.
Mobilization/NGOs
As also observed by Prof Castells, the initial use of ICT in the field of democracy has been driven in many instances by non-governmental organisations. NGOs allow the consolidating of disparate groups across wide distances. Through ICT, citizens or groups with limited resources, can mobilise thousands of like-minded individuals behind a cause.
Impacting the democratic processes was sometimes thought to require significant financial resources, political clout and in-depth knowledge of process and procedures. Innovative use of collaborative ICT has been one the most effective tools to lower the entry barriers to influencing politics and empowering the citizen.
The proliferation of NGOs and their effective use of ICT has had an egalitarian influence on politics and permitted issue-specific and non-partisan engagement. They contributed to restoring ownership of the political process to the people. This raised awareness of the possibilities of ICT in all democracies.
Voting/Polling and Models of Democratic Participation
In Europe, we have several models of democratic participation, including representative and delegate democracy.
In representative democracy, delegates are usually elected on a broad agenda, often working in coalitions. The may pose direct questions to the populous via referenda.
In delegate democracy, politicians are elected for a specific of time period based on an explicit programme, during which there would seldom be additional polling.
Each approach is based on tradition. Each model and combination has different requirements for voting and polling, and each has its specific costs.
For reference, the annual cost of maintaining a traditional electoral register across a country of around 50 million people is about euro 75 million, while the actual running costs can vary from euro 20 and 185 million. Each vote costs a minimum of 75 cents.
Generally, electoral commissions are challenged to improve efficiency, productivity and the quality of their services.
However, to date electronic, mobile and internet voting solutions remain expensive compared to traditional methods. This is mostly due to immature technology and one-off infrastructure set-up costs.
Nevertheless, as we develop better technological solutions, eVoting may become financially more attractive than traditional methods. This would allow referenda to be more widely used than at present. But we will be faced with many constitutional challenges.
Role of Politicians
A "culture of consultation" in ministries and committees needs new skills and roles for civil servants, new technologies and new ways of organizing the processes of rule-making in public administrations.
It has been argued by Prof Snellen(3) and others that ICT creates new responsibilities and roles for civil servants. They need to ensure high-quality information and analysis within properly organised novel forms of democratic involvement and in a new relationship to politicians.
The management of multiple and conflicting democratic "expressions of will" in ever larger numbers is complex and demands innovative solutions. Currently, bombarding a minister with email is more likely to crash a server than change proposed legislation. This has to change.
We need to develop context-aware summarising tools to mine huge volumes of contradictory data in natural language. Otherwise increased democratic expression will have little impact, undermining the democratic contract. Automatic analysis of the data would allow more accurate assessment of opinions and likely prompt less generic responses.
Knowledge management and workflow systems that allow the monitoring of all steps - from first reading to assent - will benefit all.
The workload of politicians and administrators becomes both more organised and more transparent. It makes visible where and when decisions are prepared, deliberated and by whom.
Consider how Europe's lead in GSM and 3G technology could be combined with workflow tools to provide issue-alerts to interested parties and live web-casting of hearings and committees to PCs or PDAs. This is the area of research yet uncharted.
Advancing eDemocracy and eGovernment
All European countries have been developing eGovernment plans and strategies over the past years. Much progress has been made. Several Member States are in the world top league.
Last year's eGovernment Communication called for political commitment and set out a roadmap to accelerate eGovernment implementation and innovation.
The EU has so far supported some 20 innovative eDemocracy projects in the Information Society Technologies programme with over 30 million Euro on voting and participation solutions.
During the next two days you will have a chance to hear about a few of these TrueVote, CyberVote, Webocracy, ePoll and ePower, involving partners from eleven countries.
Overcoming "the democratic deficit" requires practical groundwork, starting small with innovations, learning from experience, sharing of best practice and finding scalable solutions. We need better benchmarks to keep checking the pulse of progress and prepare solid research agendas for the future. Today is a starting point.
Conclusion
In conclusion, "eDemocracy" is about reinforcing consultation and democracy. The aims remain the same, only the methods for achieving the aims are altered and enhanced.
Introducing ICT to strengthen our democracies will only be successful if we also overcome resistance to new forms of administrative organisation, and improve skills in institutions and administrations.
ICT can facilitate the exchange of ideas and increase participation in the decision-making process. Policy formulation requires better understanding complex and charged issues, for which ICT offers a new means. Those who previously felt disenfranchised by remote and complex systems now have a means to directly influence the decision-making.
This afternoon and tomorrow, many views and visions will be presented, some of which highly contrasting. This is excellent for the advancement of eGovernment in Europe. Best practices will also be shown that demonstrate that ICT is a powerful means to sustain a vibrant modern democracy in the 21st century.
http://www.publictechnology.net/print.php?sid=622" title="http://www.publictechnology.net/print.php?sid=622" target="_blank"http://www.publictechnology.n... Public Technology
|
|
|
| |
| Palestinian malnutrition at African levels |
| 02.18.04 (9:14 am) [edit] |
Palestinian malnutrition at African levels under Israeli curbs, say
MPs
By Ben Russell
The Independent 5 February 2004
MALNUTRITION RATES in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank are as bad as those in sub-Saharan Africa, MPs said yesterday. They warned that the Israeli security fence around the occupied territories was "destroying the Palestinian economy and creating
widespread poverty".
The all-party Commons International Development Committee called for European Union trade sanctions to be imposed on Israel until it allowed the free export of goods from the West Bank and Gaza.
The committee's report also condemned suicide bombings as "morally abhorrent" and "a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause".
MPs called on the Palestinian Authority to be more vocal in its condemnation of attacks. "Israel's security measures are preventing Palestinians from accessing services as well as inhibiting humanitarian and development work," the MPs said. "They are destroying the Palestinian economy and creating widespread poverty."
The MPs, who carried out a fact-finding trip to Israel as part of their six-month inquiry, criticised corruption and mismanagement by the Palestinian Authority, but also condemned the actions of the Israeli government.
They said they understood why the Israeli government had decided to build its 425-mile security fence, but added that it had displaced Palestinian homes, destroyed farms and severely disrupted trade.
Tony Baldry, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said: "Our report is a balanced assessment of the humanitarian situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. It shows that Israel's security policy is having a marked impact on everyday life.
"Key measures, such as the construction of a security barrier, may bring the mirage of immediate security to Israelis, but the level of despair felt by ordinary Palestinians at being denied an ordinary life can only increase the supply of suicide bombers. Nor is it
likely to elicit any concessions from the Palestinian leaders."
MPs said that the Israeli government and many ordinary Israelis regarded all Palestinians as potential suicide bombers, but said that "it is tragically the case that for a number of Palestinians, the harder the Israeli Defence Force bears down on them the more they feel obliged to resist by force of arms".
The MPs said that the barrier "destroyed the viability of a
Palestinian state" and risked having an irreversible effect on the Palestinian people.
They said: "Rates of malnutrition in Gaza and parts of the West Bank are as bad as anything one would find in sub-Saharan Africa. The Palestinian economy has all but collapsed. Unemployment rates are in the region of 60 to 70 per cent. "The EU should not shy away from
using economic pressure to gain political leverage with Israel."
The report said that Palestinian farmers had land confiscated, crops damaged and were "plagued" by problems in getting goods to market.
MPs condemned the Israeli government for preventing the free export of goods from the West Bank and Gaza, and urged the EU to suspend Israel's preferential tariff rates until they allow Palestinians free access to European markets. They said: "It is hard to avoid the
conclusion that there is a deliberate Israeli strategy of putting the lives of ordinary Palestinians under stress as part of a strategy to bring the population under heel.
The report said movement restrictions on the Palestinians were justified by Israel as security measures, but warned that "in reality they have been a mechanism to put pressure on the Palestinians by crippling the economy".
http://daretothink.free.fr/ViewPoint.html" title="http://daretothink.free.fr/ViewPoint.html" target="_blank"http://daretothink.free.fr/Vi... Dare To Think
|
|
|
| |
| Not quite a dream team |
| 02.18.04 (8:30 am) [edit] |
Laura Flanders
John Kerry's primary victories are mounting and "anyone-but-Bush" voters are hankering for a show-down with the Resident. The Massachusetts Senator's "bring it on" victory speeches get big-d Democrats fired up, but when it comes to foreign policy, Kerry is hardly the anti-Bush many are longing for.
As the jockeying begins among those who fancy a government job should Kerry beat Bush in November, it's never too early to give the hopefuls currently advising the candidate a serious look.
Consider Kerry's foreign policy advisors. Ask the candidate's supporters, and the advisor they mention first is Joe Wilson, the Clinton-era National Security Council member who investigated claims that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy weapons-grade uranium from Niger. Wilson won battle stars from progressives for going public with his findings, which contradicted the Bush administration's claims. Wilson's wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, was outed by a White House source or sources as a consequence.
Wilson may be a white hat, but it's hard to say the same about Richard Morningstar, Rand Beers and William Perry, three other members of Kerry's foreign policy team.
Morningstar, a former advisor to President Clinton on Caspian energy, was instrumental in pushing for the controversial Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline. The plan has strong support on both sides of the political aisle.
A consortium of oil companies are deeply invested, including Britain's BP, and the U.S. firms Unocal and Amerada Hess. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration did all it could to clear the way for BTC, including extending U.S. Export-Import Bank financing, and recruiting Dick Cheney, James Baker and others to lobby local governments. James Baker's law firm, Baker Botts, represents BP. Dick Cheney's Halliburton, an oil-industry supplier, won the contract to build refineries for several Caspian states. As a member of its Board of Directors, Condoleezza Rice helped negotiate Chevron's deal to drill the Caspian's purportedly richest field, the Tengiz.
In 2003, Morningstar explained to the Harvard University Caspian Studies program that the pipeline, which would run through Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, is expected to be used by Caspian Sea states to bring their oil west to market. As Morningstar explained to the Harvard project's members, it advances various regional policy goals, among them, promoting energy security and ensuring that neither Russia nor Iran can develop a monopoly over pipelines from the Caspian. (Harvard's Caspian Studies program is sponsored by, among others, Chevron, Unocal and Amerada Hess.)
With Turkey's agreement, work on the BTC pipeline began in September '02. The World Bank agreed last November to provide $250 million in financing, but human rights groups and environmentalists are still hoping it can be stopped. Last year, Amnesty International released a report noting that the project would violate the human rights of thousands of people and cause severe environmental damage. Amnesty International alleges that the pipeline's backers' agreement with the Turkish government strips local people and workers of their civil rights.
A Kerry administration with Morningstar as national security advisor could be expected to keep the BTC on track. Nothing much would change in the worlds of agribusiness and trade either. In 1999, as U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Morningstar issued a scathing attack on EU policy barring genetically modified foods. "Politics and demagoguery have completely taken over the regulatory process," he said. Bush's Agriculture Secretary, Ann Veneman, uses virtually the same exact words.
Another of Kerry's foreign policy advisors is Rand Beers. Sean Donahue of the Massachusetts Anti-Corporate Clearinghouse wrote a revealing account of Beers'career for the Counterpunch Web site last month.
Suffice to say that Beers was the public face of Clinton's deadly crop-fumigation program in Colombia. He once said under oath that Columbian terrorists had received training in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. (A claim he later had to withdraw.) "If John Kerry lets Rand Beers continue to guide his foreign policy, a Kerry administration will be no better for rural Colombians than a Bush administration," wrote Donahue. Voters who want Sen. Kerry to offer a humane alternative to Bush should demand that the senator pledge now not to make Beers secretary of state.
Rounding out Kerry's team is William Perry. As Clinton-era secretary of defense, Perry spearheaded a post-cold war plan to restructure the defense industry, but the Perry plan wasn't quite the "peace dividend" Americans had in mind. Perry pushed a government program that paid military contractors to consolidate, arguing that only vast conglomerates would have what it takes to compete in the 21st Century. The Pentagon provided partial underwriting for defense industry mergers. In what critic Bernie Sanders, I-VT, dubbed "payoffs for layoffs," Perry's Pentagon picked up the costs of moving equipment, dismantling factories and providing golden parachutes for top executives. Foreign Policy in Focus reports that Perry had to get a conflict of interest waiver before he could greenlight the merger-subsidy program. He worked as a paid consultant for Martin Marietta immediately before joining the Clinton administration.
Today, Lockheed Martin, which was created in a merger announced just months after the start of Perry's policy, is the nation's top weapons maker. Its component parts include Martin Marietta, Loral Defense and General Dynamics. The mergers shrank company payrolls, but hugely expanded their political influence. When he retired in '98 Perry joined the board of one of the biggest—the Seattle-based Boeing Corporation. For those who are interested, Perry also joined the Carlyle group, the Saudi-based firm whose partners include no end of world leaders, including former British Prime Minster John Major, former secretary of state James Baker and the first President Bush.
Anyone but Bush maybe, but many voters might also want to see in government anyone but Morningstar, Perry and Beers.
http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9966" title="http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9966" target="_blank"http://tompaine.com/feature2.... Tom Paine
|
|
|
| |
| US congressman warns EU defense plans may undermine Nato |
| 02.18.04 (8:27 am) [edit] |
Copyright © 2004, Dow Jones Newswires
BRUSSELS (AP)--The U.S. head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Parliamentary Assembly warned the European Union Tuesday that a go-it-alone defense policy risked undermining U.S. support for the trans-Atlantic alliance.
U.S. Rep. Doug Bereuter, a Nebraska Republican, cautioned European lawmakers against a proposal to write a mutual defense clause into the E.U.'s draft constitution similar to that in NATO's founding treaty.
"It goes to the fundamental role of NATO to provide for collective or mutual defense," Bereuter said. "If this clause remains, it will undoubtedly result in declining political and financial support for NATO."
In earlier comments to reporters, the veteran congressman said relations with European allies were much improved since a year ago, when tensions ran high over the Iraq war.
He said there was a "consensus emerging" among the 19 NATO allies of the need to help stabilize postwar Iraq, where the U.S. administration has proposed the alliance take over command of a multinational division currently led by Poland and, perhaps a southern sector run by the U.K.
However Bereuter said there was deep concern in the U.S. over the E.U.'s defense plans, despite an agreement in December under which France and Germany scaled back demands for a separate E.U. military headquarters
In his remarks to the parliament, Bereuter said there was a lack of clarity surrounding the December agreement, which will place an E.U. planning cell at NATO's main military headquarters in southern Belgium.
He also called on the E.U. to keep the U.S., Canada and other non-E.U. NATO members informed of its military ambitions.
"If it expects cooperation from its friends and allies it would be sensible to hold proper consultation," Bereuter told the annual meeting between the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee and NATO's assembly.
The top European officer at NATO's supreme headquarters offered reassurance, pointing out that cooperation between the alliance and the E.U. had worked well in last year's European peacekeeping mission to Macedonia.
German Adm. Rainer Feist said such procedures should also guide a smooth handover in Bosnia where the E.U. is due to takeover from NATO at the end of this year.
"The arrangements...have been a resounding success," Feist said, adding his support to the plan to have a full-time E.U. planning cell at NATO headquarters.
Feist is second-in-command to U.S. Gen. James L. Jones, NATO supreme commander in Europe.
NATO agreed in December to reduce its peacekeeping force in Bosnia by almost half to 7,000 by March. Feist, who is expected to take command of the mission when NATO hands it over the E.U., said he hoped the Europeans would keep troop numbers at the same level.
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004021717110 000&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004021717110 000&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... Dow Jones
|
|
|
| |
| Ducking the law |
| 02.17.04 (10:57 pm) [edit] |
Ducking The Law
28 U.S. Code 455:"Any justice, judge or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned... He shall disqualify himself in the following circumstances: Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party..."
Last month the Supreme Court announced it would hear a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney's secret energy commission. After the announcement, Justice Antonin Scalia and the Vice President spent a weekend together hunting ducks on the property of a Republican donor and oil-industry executive.
Citing federal law (above), the nation's leading editorial boards are urging Scalia to remove himself from Cheney’s case.
So far, Scalia has ignored their suggestion, quipping that the only problem with his trip was that the hunting was "lousy."
Americans have always had faith in the integrity of judges. But Scalia is rattling that faith.
His stubbornness is now the Court's problem. Its reputation is at stake.
Some of the editorial boards urging Scalia to step aside:
Please note, some online newspapers require registration before articles can be viewed
The New York Times
The Washington Post
The Los Angeles Times
The Dallas Morning News
The Detroit Free Press
The Denver Post
Newsday
The Tampa Tribune
The Columbus Dispatch
The San Jose Mercury News
The Times Union (Albany, NY)
The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY)
The Reno Gazette-Journal
The St. Petersburg Times
http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad2.cfm/ID/9866" title="http://www.tompaine.com/op_ads/opad2.cfm/ID/9866" target="_blank"http://www.tompaine.com/op_ad... Tom Paine
|
|
|
| |
| Bertie's 'No Borders Europe' is a Farce |
| 02.17.04 (10:40 pm) [edit] |
by Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Tuesday, Feb 17 2004, 6:37pm
Protect Irish Emigration but Keep the 'Illegal' Immigrants Out?
In the largest raid on illegal immigrants in the history of the Republic of Ireland, Gardai swept up 65 people from Counties Dublin, Wicklow, Meath and Westmeath and escorted them by a chartered aircraft to Romania and Moldova. The deported included small children that may have been born in Ireland.
Rosanna Flynn of Residents Against Racism remarked "We are having great difficulty in getting any information about who these people were. We know that some of them had children, whether there were Irish born children we do not know. We just don't know."
According to Joe Costello, TD (Labour) three of the families may not have been served with deportation orders previously. "That would be a breach of the procedures, they would have had 15 days to respond on humanitarian grounds." Costello added, "It's going to be very hard to deal with that now because they are outside the Country and are now banned from returning to Ireland"
Commenting further at the Friday the 13th Residents Against Racism protest in front of Dáil Éireann, Costello said "The way [Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell (Progressive Democrat)] acted is unacceptable, it's just unacceptable. This is effectively a mass deportation. Gardai came along - stood over people while they packed their bags and then took them away - a clandestine dawn raid on people's homes and lives."
Ciaran Cuffe, TD (Green) put the morning raids in a broader European context. Many of the deportees were from Romania, an accession country due to join the European Union in 2007. "Today, you saw pictures of Silvio Berlusconi embraced by Bertie Ahern, that's a fair reflection of the kind of agenda that has been pursured by the Irish Presidency." Rather than welcoming future EU citizens, "It looks as though McDowell is more interested in running a charter airline to get people out of Ireland than in putting human rights on to the agenda." Cuffe also tabled questions in the Dail this week requesting information about the deported children in an effort to espablish whether or not they were Irish-born. Finian McGrath, TD (Independent) notes the irony that Ireland needs migrant workers more than ever just as it is deporting them: "People have always moved away from areas where there was less economic growth to areas where there is more wealth and more resources ... there are many hospitals tonight in Dublin that would not be able to operate without the support of immigrant workers."
"Its sad." said Costello, "Its almost like going back to the time of Jim Larkin. So many of these workers have no right to join a trade union, virtually no rights at all ... Ireland is a country that brought in 50,000 migrants to work last year - we want to get cheap labor but we want it under such restrictive conditions that they effectively have no rights. They are bonded servants of the employers."
Also at the protest to express her support for the deported was Mary Kelly, known for putting an axe into a US Navy plane parked at Shannon a year ago. Kelly linked the issues of war and civil liberties: "It is sad but understandable why so few non-EU nationals came to this protest. It is fear. The Irish State currently has Eoin Rice in Limerick Prison for speaking his mind. There is fear in the anti-war community, too. The Irish State's racist policies and support for war have affected the civil liberties of us all."
In the weeks ahead, Rosanna Flynn of Residents Against Racism expects more mass-deportations and hopes to see renewed street activism to bring attention to this issue. "They now say that this will be the first of many such operations. We have to make our voices heard and really take to the streets and get more people out. I dont think Irish people want this to happen. This is like having a secret police force in Ireland - shades of the KGB."
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63474" title="http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=63474" target="_blank"http://www.indymedia.ie/newsw... Indymedia
|
|
|
| |
| America decides 2004 |
| 02.17.04 (9:58 pm) [edit] |
Kerry known for soliciting many views,
but who has his ear on Jewish issues?
By Ron Kampeas
WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 (JTA) — Now that he’s running for president, Sen. John Kerry’s openness to a broad range of Jewish opinion is making some in the pro-Israel community nervous — and others hopeful.
The very quality that attracted Jewish voters to him as a longtime Massachusetts senator is now earning the candidate closer scrutiny across the Jewish spectrum.
Kerry’s Jewish supporters accurately cite his solid voting record in the Senate and his frequent readiness to meet leaders of Washington’s main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
They also say he emulates President Clinton’s activist philosophy when it comes to Middle East peacemaking, an approach that won broad Jewish support during the Clinton presidency.
Detractors inevitably — and just as accurately — mention Kerry’s closeness to critics of U.S. foreign policy who say U.S. Middle East policy is a dog wagged by Israel’s tail. They include the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson.
The variegated palette of advice Kerry has drawn upon over the years — and the fact that he ultimately keeps his own counsel — has made pinning down the candidate’s positions that much harder.
It’s one thing to see all sides of a question when you’re one voice out of 100 in the Senate, some pro-Israel officials in Washington say. When you’re the Democratic front runner, it’s another.
Now, as Kerry’s views, both foreign and domestic, are put under the microscope, the question abounds, as one pro-Israel official put it: “Where is he getting his advice?”
On the one hand, Kerry’s campaign has recruited Wilson, who has likened the legality of Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait in 1990 to that of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Wilson also has said that close U.S.-Israel ties hinder U.S. engagement in the Arab world.
On the other hand, Kerry’s top foreign policy adviser is Rand Beers, a former top Bush counterterrorism adviser who made headlines last year when he quit because he said the war in Iraq was doing major harm to the war on terrorism.
Beers’ views on Israel are unknown, but he has said he believes the Saudis should do much more about support in Saudi Arabia for terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
And Kerry’s closest adviser, according to a profile published over the weekend in The New York Times, is his younger brother Cameron, who converted to Judaism two decades ago when he married Kathy Weinman. Weinman’s family is active in the Detroit area Jewish community and remains active in the Boston Jewish community.
Both Kerry brothers said they were surprised and pleased to learn last year of their own Jewish connections — through their paternal grandparents.
“The pattern of how he does things is to get as many opinions as he can,” says Candy Glazier, a Kerry supporter from Longmeadow, Mass., who also is on AIPAC’s executive committee.
“He’ll listen to every side of the story, and he’ll make the final decision.”
Seeking such diversity of opinion is in stark contrast to President Bush, who is much more likely to make foreign-policy decisions by relying on his advisers. These advisers include security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney — all of whom are seen as solidly in the pro-Israel camp.
Israel advocates across the political spectrum are quick to say that Kerry’s voting record is “stellar.”
On the domestic issues Jews care about, Kerry’s record is unchallenged. He actually may be one of the few leading legislators who excites Orthodox and Reform Jews alike.
“He’s very good at navigating the waters of the diversity of the Jewish community — the Orthodox, the Reform, the Jewish defense organizations,” said Nancy Kaufman, director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in Boston.
On his Boston staff, Kerry employs Joan Wasser, a graduate of the city’s Jewish day school system who is well respected among Jews and who runs Jewish community outreach for Kerry. Her formal responsibilities are policy advice on education and senior issues, both areas of pronounced concern to the Jewish community.
Kerry’s record on church-state issues lands him solidly on the liberal side of the Jewish community. He opposes government aid to religious schools and for faith-based charities.
But his status as a powerful Democrat who has taken on teachers’ unions as overly powerful endears him to Orthodox Jews who advocate for greater parental voice in the schools.
Most outstanding for all sides has been Kerry’s lead role in trying to push through Congress the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which encourages employer flexibility in areas of religious observance. For Jews, this translates into easing Sabbath and holiday observance, and promoting acceptance of religious attire, such as yarmulkes, in the workplace.
“He has shown great sensitivity toward religion and religious minorities and religious observance,” said Abba Cohen, who heads the Washington office of Agudath Israel of America, an organization that awarded Kerry its Religious Freedom Award in 2000.
Cohen said he was especially impressed that Kerry took on the workplace freedom initiative himself, not at anyone’s behest.
The senator was outraged after reading in a local newspaper that two devout Roman Catholic women were forced to work on Christmas.
“It’s definitely worthwhile saying he introduced the legislation on his own,” Cohen said.
Yet it is that notion — on his own — that is now unnerving some pro-Israel activists who wonder how Kerry comes to his policy decisions.
For example, Kerry’s vision of how to jump-start the dormant Israeli-Palestinian peace process has taken some in the pro-Israel community off guard. Particularly, Kerry cites negotiations in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001 as a starting point for returning to the table.
“That’s not where we want to be,” said one Jewish organizational official in Washington.
Taba represented the last-ditch effort by the Clinton administration and Israel’s Ehud Barak government to salvage the peace process after the launching of the Palestinian intifada.
The outline for a deal envisioned there, which would have set Israel back to its pre-1967 borders, alarmed many. It was vague about the right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, and critics said that it gave away too much to the Palestinians as a starting point for negotiation, rather than its culmination.
Another concern for pro-Israel activists is that in private Kerry is reported to have expressed dislike for Ariel Sharon, Israel’s two-term prime minister.
Some worry that Kerry might be taking advice from Yossi Beilin, the left-wing Israeli politician whose informal peace proposal, the “Geneva accord,” mirrored the Taba talks.
People close to Beilin say the Geneva negotiators have met with Kerry no more than any other leading U.S. legislators — and they note that Kerry did not sign onto a non-binding “sense of the Senate” resolution this session that cites the Geneva proposal as positive.
Still, supporters of the Geneva initiative give Kerry high marks and note with approval the closeness to his campaign of Alan Solomont, a top Boston Jewish philanthropist who raises funds for Kerry and who is prominent in the Israel Policy Forum, which backs greater U.S. engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
“An engaged president and an engaged United States is what would provide the greatest amount of security to Israel,” said Ken Sweder, a past president of the Boston JCRC, who accompanied Kerry on a visit to Israel in 1986
For his part, it is likely that Kerry — who demonstrates an impressive command of foreign-policy issues — arrived at Taba as a launching point on his own.
That tendency to go it alone worries some admirers who wonder if Kerry will heed their advice as president.
“He has made statements that have been disturbing and indicate a lack of real understanding of some of the issues relating to Israel,” said Cohen of Agudath Israel. Nonetheless, he calls Kerry’s record of support for Israel “exemplary.”
Kerry’s suggestion that he would consider former President Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker as Middle East envoys has especially worried some in the pro-Israel community. Both Carter and Baker are unpopular among many pro-Israel activists. A top Jewish Kerry supporter, New York Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, told the Forward recently that Kerry has backed down from his intentions on appointing the pair envoys.
That has not stopped anonymous opponents from circulating e-mails citing the Baker and Carter references as a reason not to support Kerry.
Kerry’s supporters say the candidate will survive such attacks as it becomes clear that while he listens to a broad range of opinion, in the end he relies mostly on pro-Israel opinion, diverse as it is, in his assessments of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
“I’m one of the people who call on his office,” said Glazier, of AIPAC, “and he’ll come and meet with us personally. Most people will send their foreign policy adviser, but John takes quite a lot of time to take questions.”
http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13779&in tcategoryid=3" title="http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?intarticleid=13779&in tcategoryid=3" target="_blank"http://www.jta.org/page_view_... JTA
|
|
|
| |
| Lost freedoms of Israel |
| 02.17.04 (9:24 pm) [edit] |
The policies of Ariel Sharon’s government, especially its security wall, are meeting resistance within Israel, partly because the liberties of Israelis are being threatened, amid signs of a democracy in crisis.
By MERON RAPOPORT *
DAN SHILON, a famous Jewish Israeli television presenter, was fired by the Israeli Broadcasting Authority because he did not pass a microphone fast enough to a close friend of prime minister Ariel Sharon. Viki Knafo, a Jewish Israeli single mother with two children, lost a third of her income because the government changed the rules (1). Muhammad Bakri, an Arab Israeli filmmaker, was banned from screening his documentary Jenin-Jenin in Israel because the attorney general thought it might hurt the feelings of soldiers who fought there. Gil Na’amati, a Jewish Israeli from a kibbutz who had just finished his military service, was badly wounded by an Israeli sniper when he demonstrated against the building of the security fence in the West Bank. Nasser Abu al-Qian, an Arab Israeli from the Bedouin village of Atir, was shot in the head by a policeman because he was too slow in pulling down his car window.
None of them knew each other or had common interests: Viki Knafo didn’t want to see Jenin-Jenin and Nasser Abu al-Qian had never heard of Dan Shilon. They all lived separate lives in separate places in Israel’s ever more cloistered society. But social scientists, law professors and civil rights activists say they are all victims of the fact that Israel - often called the only democracy in the Middle East - is becoming less democratic. That change affects not only 3.5 million Palestinians who live in the occupied territories but Israel’s citizens inside the 1967 Green Line borders.
The background is the violence of the intifada which, over three years, has killed 900 Israelis and 2,500 Palestinians. But civil rights not directly connected to the conflict have been affected. "The Israeli public has succumbed to the rightwing view that this is a war," says Professor Yaron Haezrahi of the political science department of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, a leading figure in human rights studies. "The violence around the Palestinians is damaging our concept of human rights. People are asked to give up many of their rights and the security apparatus has become a new priesthood. At the university security guards now decide which student is allowed to go to the library."
The shooting of Na’amati in December shook Israelis but got little attention abroad. He was demonstrating with an Israeli group, Anarchists against the Wall, in Mascha, a Palestinian village south of Kalkilia, about 8km from the Green Line. They were protesting against the security fence that has cut Mascha from its agricultural land. Fifty Israelis, including Na’amati, and 200 local Palestinians marched towards a gate in the fence that Palestinian farmers are supposed to use to reach their land, but is usually closed. As they approached it, Israelis and Palestinians separated into two groups. "It was agreed the Israelis should reach the fence itself", says Eli Cohen, an Israeli filmmaker whose famous work, Two Steps Away from Saida, was commissioned by the army; he is shooting a documentary about the wall. "Everybody assumed the soldiers would show restraint to Israeli demonstrators and wouldn’t shoot." They were wrong. A few moments after Israeli demonstrators started to shake the gate, a group of soldiers, 20m away on the Israeli side of the fence, shot over their heads. "We started to shout don’t shoot, we’re Israelis, we’re brothers," said Cohen. "It’s hard to believe that the soldiers didn’t understand the people were shouting in Hebrew with an Israeli accent." But the shooting continued.
Tal Cohen, an Israeli photographer from the daily Yediot Aharonot, who was standing near to the soldiers, warned one that the demonstrators were Israelis. Yet that soldier asked his commander for authorisation to shoot and it was given. A sniper took aim and shot Na’amati twice in the leg, hitting a main artery. He lost a lot of blood but the soldiers refused to open the gate. He had to be taken to an Israeli hospital by long, rough back roads. By the time he arrived he was near death.
Later it turned out that the commander of the army unit was from Elkana, a Jewish settlement a few hundred metres away; he was from a religious family and studied in a yeshiva (religious school) linked to the rightwing National Religious party. An internal army inquiry found that the soldiers had acted according to the regulations and had been sure they were facing Palestinian demonstrators threatening to cross the fence and attack them.
Na’amati’s father, Uri, a veteran Labour party activist and head of a local council in the Negev, said you would have to be drunk to believe the army version. Eli Cohen says: "I’m afraid of my conclusions. All my life I’ve believed that this is my army and that it is protecting me." Yet he was unconvinced. "The soldiers were very calm; there wasn’t any build-up of tension. It was a cold-blooded decision, as if they were saying to the demonstrators: ’You’re helping the other side and you think you’ll go unpunished? You’ll have to pay for what you’ve done’."
Dr Haezrahi is blunter: "This was the first time that the army opened fire on the left wing. The refusniks are blamed for using the army for political purposes. Here, the right wing was hiding behind army uniforms. Even the newspapers wouldn’t say that the soldiers were rightwingers who shot at leftwing demonstrators, although it was reminiscent of the way the Phalangists behaved" (2). Dana Alexander, head of the legal department of the Human Rights Association, says: "The affair is a step further than anything we’ve seen before, but it didn’t come as a shock to me. It’s a natural progression from the violent attitude towards leftwing demonstrators and the de-legitimising of the left and Arab politicians inside Israel."
In April 2002 a small group of Arab Israelis in the mixed city of Lod went to demonstrate, peacefully, against the military reoccupation of all West Bank cities. Alexander explains that such a protest does not require a permit under Israeli law, but 11 protesters were arrested and jailed. They had to stay in prison until their trial on charges of illegal organisation and incitement. After it was revealed in court that the charges of incitement were based on an incorrect translation of a placard the protesters waved, they were quietly sent home.
Other cases ended with the killing of innocent Arab people. The Mossawa Centre, based in Haifa, works for the protection of the rights of Israel’s Arab citizens. It has documented at least 15 cases in which police or border police have killed Arab Israelis in the past three years, besides the killing of 13 in the demonstrations of October 2000 at the outbreak of the second intifada, when "the government and the Shabak [General Security Service or Shin Bet, responsible for internal security] took a decision at the highest level to drive the Arabs home because they saw the uprising as a war on the whole of Eretz Israel," says Jafar Farah, the centre’s managing director. "Now we have moved to a climate of transfer (3), with calls of death to the Arabs, and that influences the police."
Farah admits, as do Alexander, Haezrahi and others, that this climate is the result of the present state of war between Israelis and Palestinians and above all suicide attacks on civilians inside Israel. But most of the cases on the Mossawa list have nothing to do with suicide bombers or even security issues. None of the 15 Arabs killed by the police was involved in terrorist activities and only a few were suspected criminals. Most were innocent people with no connection to crime or terrorism. No Jewish Israeli citizen, even those who were criminals or suspected criminals, was killed by police during that period.
The Or Committee, set up by the Knesset to investigate the killing of Arab Israelis during the October 2000 demonstrations, ruled that the police fired live ammunition at Arab demonstrators without justification and against regulations. Yet in September 2003, only 10 days after the publication of the findings, the police fired at Arab Israelis in Kfar Kasem, near Petah Tikva, as they tried to arrest them: 11 were wounded. They were all innocent, since none was charged or prosecuted.
In August 2003 there was another case of police violence. Nasser Abu al-Qian, 23, was driving a van on the road to Beersheba. He stopped at a traffic light. The border police suspected him of transporting illegal Palestinian workers. He was slow to respond so a policeman broke his window with a pistol and shot him in the head. At first the police claimed that he was trying to escape. But evidence, including that of Jewish drivers, disproved this and the policeman was charged with manslaughter. Farah says that no charges were made after 14 other killings. Perhaps because there were no Jewish witnesses?
There is pressure from above. A parliamentary committee decided to bar two Arab members of Knesset (MK), Azmi Bishara and Ahmed Tibi, and one Arab party, Balad (Bishara’s party), from running in the general elections of January 2003. The Supreme Court annulled the decision. Bishara, the first MK to face trial because of a statement (4), had his parliamentary immunity restored. But most of the nine Arab MKs have been the subject of police enquiries; none produced any evidence to proceed further. Mossawa has reported 25 cases in which Arab MKs were beaten by regular or border police over the past three years. Arab MKs are now accused of inciting rebellion against the state, though some Israelis admit that the accusation is a deliberate attempt to delegitimise Arab political leadership. Alexander says "There were similar attempts in the past, but they did not reach such a high level or get such wide support in the Knesset."
In August 2003 the "demographic danger" argument most recently raised by finance minister Binyamin Netanyahu, led to a discriminatory law: the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law.
The Knesset is now reviewing a proposed law to force NGOs to submit donations from abroad to scrutiny by a governmental authority, which would have the right to ban funds for organisations that "seek to change a position or public opinion in Israeli society". If passed, it will affect the Arab NGOs that receive most of their money from the European Union or European states.
Another blow to civil liberties is a government plan, approved in April 2003, to evacuate 70,000 Bedouins from where they have lived for the past 50 years and force them into townships. Farah says: "They won’t succeed in deporting all Bedouins from unrecognised villages, but many will be deported. It’s the first time a well- defined plan has been approved." Haezrahi, Alexander and Farah agree that all these acts are part of the climate of transfer, as mentioned by minister for internal security, Tzahi Hanegbi, to the daily paper Ma’ariv in August 2003 during a visit to Beersheba: "The city has fallen into the hands of gangs of Bedouin criminals. I tell you: rise up in the thousands, take clubs in your hands and drive Bedouin criminals out."
Unfortunately the Israeli media has joined this "war against terrorism", which has turned into a war on Arab Israelis. Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer from the Hebrew University, outgoing president of the Council of Journalists, the highest voluntary institution in the media, says: "The government has managed to impose its views on most of the media. Official versions are being adopted. It’s become impossible to distinguish between an official spokesman and a journalist." But he and other media people believe it is not just a question of self-censorship, common in times of war: there is government pressure on the media and a gradual erosion of freedom of expression. "In the past year, government intervention became blatant," says a senior journalist at the Israeli Broadcasting Authority, which controls the First Channel on TV and Kol Israel, the most popular radio station. "There were pressures before, but not like this. You see the news and you think you see what the editor or presenter wanted you to see. That is untrue. The chairman of the authority is an active Likud member and sends notes saying who should be interviewed and who not. The managing director is worse. Before the last elections, he refused to allow an interview with Amram Mitzna, head of the biggest opposition party and candidate for the premiership. There was bitter discussion before he finally permitted the interview." Uri Dan, a close friend of Sharon, has been given a two-hour radio programme in which praises he Sharon and attacks his opponents. Now he is on the panel of a prestigious Friday night television newsmagazine.
Dan Shilon, a founding father of Israeli television, used to be the programme’s presenter. One day he found out from the newspapers that he had lost his job: he had not passed the microphone to Uri Dan fast enough, despite urgent calls from the control room. Dr Kremnitzer says: "The government has taken over the Broadcasting Authority. We are going back to the days of Ben Gurion, when the authority was not an independent body protected by a special law, but a department inside the prime minister’s office."
The problem goes beyond the authority. When the actor Muhammad Bakri made his documentary about the fighting in Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, the Viewing Commission for Films and Plays, a censorship committee, banned it. The attorney general defended the strange decision. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of its screening. The attorney general appealed to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile the film, seen at festivals worldwide, has still not been shown in Israel.
Dr Kremnitzer is certain that none of this would have happened three years ago. He refers to the decision by the National Press Office to issue press cards only to journalists that the Shabak have declared "clean". The decision was revoked only after unusual pressure by foreign and Israeli press. In a recent survey by the Israeli Democracy Institute, Israel has dropped to 31 out of 36 democratic states surveyed. "We have the lowest grade for free press," says Dr Kremnitzer. "If we drop a bit further, we will be graded as a semi-democratic state."
The road to a semi-democratic state does not stop at leftwing demonstrators or Israel’s Arab citizens, MKs, or the media. It reaches the basis of society. In the past year Netanyahu has led a fierce campaign against social benefits and labour unions, using the language of the intifada. He made a famous gaffe during negotiations with unions, saying "We will not surrender to enemies," using the Hebrew word oy’vim (enemies) instead of ovdim (workers). "And it was a discourse between enemies," says Yuval Elbashan, a lawyer and director of the legal clinic at the Hebrew University. "Netanyahu made a slip of the tongue, but it wasn’t accidental." He adds there is a move to get rid of labour courts, the last stronghold of trade unions. A special committee was set up to review the future of the courts, and Elbashan is sure that they will be dismantled: "When you don’t have a legal system, society falls apart."
Netanyahu has now made a unique deal with the police. The finance ministry will give extra funding to the police, who in return will set up a special unit to track down people who get social benefits by fraud. The money the state saves through this will stay within the police. Dr Haezrahi says: "This is the cruellest finance ministry in Israel’s history. In a cold way it is planning to destroy all our social institutions. The security issue has prevailed over everything. Terrorism has affected the human rights movement and opened the way to damaging other civil rights."
In January the Civil Rights Association had a small victory against Netanyahu when it appealed to the Supreme Court against a 30% cut in allowances for permanently unemployed people, including many single mothers. It claimed such a drastic cut could infringe the basic right to a decent life. During the hearing it was clear that the finance ministry had not evaluated the minimum needs to live in dignity. The court told the government to do its homework, prompting a virulent attack by the Knesset. Undaunted, Professor Aharon Zamir, a former Supreme Court judge and a level-headed member of the legal system, says: "The finance ministry has disregarded and disobeyed the law." Is there now a war between the Supreme Court and the Knesset?- the sign of a democracy in crisis?
http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/06israel" title="http://mondediplo.com/2004/02/06israel" target="_blank"http://mondediplo.com/2004/02... Le Monde
|
|
|
| |
| The Paradox of Democracy |
| 02.17.04 (5:48 pm) [edit] |
February 17, 2004
George Packer -- that rare species: a sensible socialist --gives us this thoughtful assessment of the marketplace of ideas in foreign policy. He describes Senator Joe Biden's efforts to address problems he sees in the execution of the War on Terror. Biden is not looking to erode the military underpinning of our response to Islamofascism, and in that he is refreshing. To wit, Packer's piece begins with the Senator experiencing an awakening that should move any altruistic hawk:
"In December, 2001, after the fall of the Taliban, President Bush asked Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who was then the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to draft a legislative proposal for winning the minds of young people around the Muslim world. The following month, Biden went to Kabul, where he toured a new school -- one that was bitterly cold, with plastic sheeting over the windows and a naked bulb hanging from the ceiling. When the visit was over and Biden started to leave, a young girl stood ramrod straight at her desk and said, 'You cannot leave. You cannot leave.'
'I promise I'll come back,' Biden told her.
'You cannot leave,' the girl insisted. 'They will not deny me learning to read. I will read, and I will be a doctor like my mother. I will. America must stay.'
As Biden put it in a recent interview, the Afghan girl was telling him, 'Don't f*** with me, Jack. You got me in here. You said you were going to help me. You better not leave me now.'"
I'd wager this is a guy who gets it.
There are a number of passages I could excerpt from Packer's article, but most of all I was stricken by this:
In the days that followed the September 11th attacks, we saw the early stages of something like a national self-mobilization. The long lines of would-be blood donors, the volunteers converging on lower Manhattan from around the country, the fumbling public efforts at understanding Islam: the response took on very personal tones. People spoke as if they wanted to change their lives. An unemployed young video producer waiting to give blood in Brooklyn said to me, 'I volunteered so I could be part of something. All over the world, people do something for an ideal. I've been at no point in my life when I could say something I've done has affected mankind.' A generation legendary for its self-centeredness seemed to grasp that here was a historic chance to aim for something greater.
It has been much remarked that President Bush did nothing to tap this palpable desire among ordinary people to join a larger effort. Americans were told to go shopping and watch out for suspicious activity. Nothing would ever be the same, and everything was just the same. 'How urgent can this be if I tell you this is a great crisis and, at the time we're marching to war, I give the single largest tax cut in the history of the United States of America?' Biden said. The tax cuts haven't just left the country fiscally unsound during wartime; their inequity has been terrible for morale. But the President's failure to call for shared, equal sacrifice followed directly on the governing spirit of the modern Republican Party. After years of a sustained assault on the idea of collective action, there was no ideological foundation left on which Bush could stand up and ask what Americans can do for their country. We haven't been asked to study Arabic, to join the foreign service or international aid groups, to form a national civil reserve for emergencies -- or even to pay off the cost of the war in our own time. The war's burdens are borne solely by a few hundred thousand volunteer soldiers.
Perhaps this was a shrewd political intuition on Bush's part -- a recognition that Americans, for all their passion after September 11th, would inevitably slouch back to their sofas. It's fair to ask, though, how a body politic as out of shape as ours is likely to make it over the long, hard slog of wartime; how convincingly we can export liberal democratic values when our own version shows so many signs of atrophy; how much solidarity we can expect to muster for Afghanis and Iraqis when we're asked to feel so little for one another.
'Why does not democracy believe in itself with passion?' Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., asked in 'The Vital Center,' his 1949 book about totalitarianism and America's anxious postwar mood. 'Why is freedom not a fighting faith?'"
Indeed, in the Cold War context from which we can learn much about our struggle against Islamofascism -- that next, epic iteration in the anti-liberal oeuvre -- President Kennedy observed:
It is one of the great ironies of our time that the techniques of a harsh and repressive system should be able to instill discipline and ardor in its servants -- while the blessings of liberty have too often stood for privilege, materialism, and a life of ease."
The paradox of democracy is that its greatest moral virtue -- its principled elevation of the individual -- can be its worst practical weakness.
There are a number of implications here, not the least of which are those that inform the prognosis of Iraq -- but that's for another time. President Bush's recent appearance on Meet the Press, tepidly received by conservatives, revealed a striking inappreciation of his domestic shortcomings. And this isn't being shored up by inspiring initiatives. Take the SOTU: Steroids? Money for abstinence programs? And of course there is the powerful WMD red herring. Andrew Sullivan, for one, is losing faith, and I've got to say, in spite of the Herculean effort required to squander the advantage conferred on an incumbency by two successful wars, Bush may just do it.
If this should come to pass, it will be due less to domestic problems than to a lack of civic appreciation of the importance of the War on Terror. I am talking about a higher form of civics, the best kind, that which is felt en bloc by a society in a struggle to survive. That my framing the issue this way will appear hyperbolic to some readers makes my point. Would it have seemed so during the weeks after 9/11? We live in a time when foreign policy is ascendent, but it's as if we're tired of shouldering this perspective.
The Democratic alternative is an atavism. Devolving to multilateralism, coddling a corrupt and inutile UN, and worst of all, pandering to thugs, absolutely spells disaster. Conservatives are as right about 9/11 as liberals were about the Civil Rights movement. For Republicans, it would be sad to lose this election so needlessly -- the political version of Bill Buckner's 1986 Rain Man moment against the Mets. For all of us, though, it would be a tragedy to lose the War on Terror because we lost our civic common sense.
Let's remember what this election is really about.
|
|
|
| |
| Rifts widen in Bush's foreign policy team |
| 02.17.04 (3:11 pm) [edit] |
Backers of Powell's multilateralism clash with go-it-alone conservatives over the administration's direction.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – When it comes to Iraq, the Bush administration's foreign policy team is speaking with one voice: All the players are saying that despite faulty prewar intelligence, the president's decision to go to war was right.
But behind the unanimity is dissonance in tones and forcefulness that suggests the deeper differences that have been part of the Bush foreign policy since the beginning. The failure to see eye to eye extends to the so-called Bush doctrine of preemptive war - one of the administration's defining policies - and reaches to the president's top foreign-policy players.
The continuing differences have only added to President Bush's woes as the White House has grappled with questions of whether what the administration knew about Iraq justified a war. But the bigger issue, some experts say, is what the differences suggest about the administration's ability to confront continuing problems, like North Korea and Iran, especially as Bush enters a battle for reelection.
With key members of the Bush foreign policy team expected to leave their posts at the end of the term - including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell - some are trying to set the record straight on the role they've played. They are also, clearly, trying to shape the direction things might go in a second term.
"Perhaps a second term would resolve things, but right now there continues to be a very fundamental disagreement," says Karl Inderfurth, a Clinton administration State Department official now at George Washington University. The highly visible rift is between elements "led by the vice-president, the secretary of defense, and his deputy, who hold to a notion of America's unique right to unfettered action, and others, allied with Secretary Powell, who continue to argue for an emphasis on what he has called a 'strategy of partnership' with the international community."
Mr. Inderfurth says that two recent comments typify the internal differences. At a closely watched security conference in Munich last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a spirited defense of the administration's national security strategy that "the higher the risk and the danger, the lower the threshold for action."
Also in recent days, Mr. Powell - who revealed in a Washington Post interview that he might have recommended differently on going to war with Iraq if he knew a year ago what's known now - has preferred to stress that Bush is not looking to respond to threats with force "if there are other ways to solve the problem."
"Here you have the two most prominent cabinet officials," says Inderfurth, "one hyping preemptive action and the other playing it down."
Some observers say the differences, played out in public, hurt the president - especially with Americans paying more attention to foreign-policy questions because of the 100,000 US soldiers in Iraq.
"Presidents always look bad when their main advisers are squabbling publicly over what the White House should be doing or has done," says James Lindsay, a foreign-policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "It hurts the president especially in this case because he's been under such criticism from Democrats for not coming clean on the intelligence aspects of the Iraq war."
Mac Destler, an expert in US foreign policy at the University of Maryland, recalls that Ronald Reagan, as a candidate against an incumbent president, criticized Jimmy Carter for a foreign policy team that failed to speak with one voice. "The problem for a president is that if [the division] reaches critical mass," he says, "it can end up diluting what should be a political advantage for the incumbent."
But Danielle Pletka, a foreign policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, says the Bush team has been "remarkably unified" on the issue of going to war with Iraq. She suspects that "people are so habituated to hearing about the deep divisions in the administration over foreign policy matters that they are looking for them." That doesn't mean they don't exist - they do on some issues, she says, like North Korea and Iran - just not over the justification of war with Iraq.
How Bush's foreign policy might shift if he is reelected will hinge on key appointments. Powell, who customarily answers questions about his tenure by saying he serves at the pleasure of the president, is not expected to return for a second term.
Many observers say some of Powell's recent actions, like his qualifying his enthusiasm for war and reemphasis on multilateral action, reflect a man trying to set the record straight on his legacy. "He's on his way out, so he's paying a little more attention to his place in history in these final months," says one insider at the State Department. "He's the good soldier as everybody says, but he also knows there are already books being written about him. He wants it remembered that he's the one who convinced the president to go to the UN before going to war, things like that."
Closer to the president, Ms. Rice has said this will be her last year in the White House - though that careful language does not rule out taking the top slot either at State or at the Pentagon. How Bush would fill those positions would reveal the way he wants America to be viewed by the world. Noting that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - dubbed the architect of the Iraq war - would love to take over at State, former Reagan administration official Lawrence Korb says "that certainly sends a very different signal than if you pick a Senator [Richard] Lugar or [Chuck] Hagel," two moderate Republicans.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0217/p02s02-usfp .html" title="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0217/p02s02-usfp .html" target="_blank"http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... CSM
|
|
|
| |
| 100 rural areas in Europe to get subsidised broadband |
| 02.17.04 (2:45 pm) [edit] |
By Tim Richardson
Posted: 17/02/2004 at 12:10 GMT
One hundred rural communities in Europe are to get broadband for free as part of a project part-funded by the European Commission (EC).
European satellite outfit EADS Astrium is leading the TWISTER (which stands for Terrestrial Wireless Infrastructure integrated with Satellite Telecommunications for E-Rural) project.
TWISTER is part of the Commission's efforts to bridge the digital divide in Europe. It has a total budget of €8.5m, of which €5m is funded by the EC.
So far, 30 - 40 areas have been earmarked for broadband. The service is delivered through two-way satellite access for the backhaul, while those within each community are connected by Wi-Fi.
Other communities should be identified within the next three months with all 100 connected by the end of the year.
TWISTER kicked off at the beginning of the month and expects to install wireless broadband services in a number of European countries including Spain, France, Sweden, Poland, Greece and Malta.
Philippe Bodart, chief exec of satellite outfit Aramiska, one of twelve companies in the TWISTER consortium, told The Register that sites in the UK and Ireland have yet to be identified.
However, those rural communities taking part in the project can expect to receive free broadband for 18 months or so. After that, the consortium hopes that the services can be run on a commercial basis, delivering broadband at prices in sync with ADSL-based services.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35609.html" title="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/35609.html" target="_blank"http://www.theregister.co.uk/... The Register
|
|
|
| |
| Europe wary of foreign entities, angry with U.S. military action |
| 02.17.04 (2:41 pm) [edit] |
BY TOM HUNDLEY
Chicago Tribune
LONDON - (KRT) - While President Bush was having lunch with Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing St. late last year, I was having tea with Karen Cox in a little snack shop off Trafalgar Square.
Cox, a 39-year-old secretary, was on her way to an anti-war demonstration that would ultimately draw 100,000 participants. She carried two signs. One said "Stop Bush." The other demanded "Justice for the Palestinians."
But she didn't want me to get the wrong impression: "Really, we don't want to upset the general American public. They are our friends, and we remember that they were very helpful to England in getting rid of the Nazis, but we don't think that any war is justified without U.N. approval."
A few weeks later, at a restaurant in Budapest, Hungary, I had a similar conversation with the couple at the next table. He was Dutch. She was Finnish.
"You're American," he said, lighting up a cigar.
I nodded.
"Americans are nice," she said. "It's your leaders who aren't."
The Bush administration's approach to the rest of the world continues to rub the rest of the world the wrong way. It goes beyond "freedom fries" and "cheese-eating surrender monkeys." On a grass-roots, guy-on-the-barstool-next- to-you level, people are nervous about our government.
A majority of Europeans sincerely believe we are a threat to world peace.
With the exception of perhaps Colin Powell, the men and women of the Bush administration have become the symbolic faces of what Europeans dislike about America: The preachy swagger, the "moral clarity" that allows a complex world to be divided into darkness and light.
Living in Britain, where Blair is ridiculed for being Bush's "poodle," you sense that European anti-Americanism is a deeper problem, a long-term trend that won't be rescued by a more Euro-friendly administration.
For the foreseeable future, America is going to be resented for its wealth and power, for the vast reach of its popular culture and for its relentless ability to intrude into the everyday corners of virtually everyone on the planet.
The immediate casualties of the trans-Atlantic rift are institutions such as NATO, the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, institutions that should be the bedrock of the "new world order" proclaimed by the first President Bush.
Instead, NATO has become nearly irrelevant, and it's not because the French can't figure out whose side they are on in the Iraq war or because the Belgians wanted to issue an arrest warrant for Gen. Tommy Franks. NATO worked for 50 years because the United States and its allies agreed on the fundamental premise that the Soviet Union was a menace to all.
Now the alliance, expanded to 19 members, with seven more due to come in this year, is in disagreement: The U.S. claims the right to pre-emptive or preventive war anytime, anywhere; the 18 others say no nation has this right.
Europeans complain that the U.S. has a twitchy trigger finger. But the flip side is Europe's almost pathological aversion to the use of force, even when it is plainly justified. The Balkans come to mind.
This year will be an especially challenging one for Europe. Imagine the United States trying to absorb something the size and shape of Mexico - shaky economy and all - as the 51st state, while at the same time drafting a new constitution and trying to get all 51 states to ratify it.
This is pretty much what is supposed to happen in 2004 when the European Union takes in 10 new members, most of them poor countries from the former Soviet bloc, and also tries to get everyone to agree on a new federal European constitution.
The first stab at a new constitution ended in confusion and disappointment late last year when it became clear that the United States isn't the only country that has difficulties with France. Poland and Spain refused to budge on the question of apportioning voting strength, challenging France's notion that some members of the EU, namely France and Germany, are more equal than others.
As the political architects of the "New Europe" try to find formulas that will satisfy rich nations and poor, large nations and small, they must also find ways to defuse the demographic time bomb that threatens to blow apart its pension system and cradle-to-grave social security net. Europe has an aging population and a negative birthrate.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Africans and Asians are clamoring at the EU's gates.
Immigration is the No. 1 political hot button across Western Europe. And since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, the immigration issue has become closely intertwined with the war on terrorism and the rising tensions between the Islamic world and the West. With each new terrorist alert, Europeans are reminded that the Sept. 11 plot was hatched and carried out by a group of young, educated Arab men living in Hamburg, Germany. Hundreds of thousands more, living in places like Paris, London and Vienna, fit their profile.
The war on terrorism has bred distinctly different perceptions on either side of the Atlantic.
The Bush administration says it is sending U.S. soldiers to fight "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan so that we won't end up having to fight them on the streets of New York or Peoria. But the reality is that the U.S. is separated from the Muslim world by a vast ocean and relatively secure borders.
For European nations, geographic and demographic reality means that they have to share living space with a hostile Muslim world. For Europe, the war on terrorism is less about Iraq and Afghanistan and much more about how to cope with large and increasingly alienated immigrant communities.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/new s/world/7966809.htm" title="http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/new s/world/7966809.htm" target="_blank"http://www.sanluisobispo.com/... San Luis Obispo
|
|
|
| |
| Barrier to peace |
| 02.17.04 (2:32 pm) [edit] |
PARIS, Feb 17, SPA -- A security barrier that Israel is
erecting to prevent any infiltration to its territory
from Palestinian areas, is detrimental to the peace process, France's foreign minister said Tuesday.
France and other nations have criticized the barrier as a
defacto seizure of Palestinian land because it cuts into
the West Bank.
De Villepin said that, at the very least, the barrier
should be re-routed to follow "international requirements," an apparent reference to the so-called Green Line _ the border that existed between Israel and the West Bank before the 1967 war.
"Everyone understands the necessity to every country, to
Israel, of making its need for security understood. It is
the first duty of a country," de Villepin said on France
Inter radio. "Everyone knows that in this respect, Israel
has been hit terribly hard these last few years."
In other remarks, de Villepin spoke positively of Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon's decision to remove most Jewish
settlements from Gaza. The French diplomat suggested
stationing peacekeepers or some other neutral force in the heavily populated Palestinian strip between Israel and Egypt.
De Villepin's comments come on the second day of Israeli President Moshe Katsav's four-day visit to France.
http://www.spa.gov.sa/html/archive_e.asp?srcfile=616545&NDay=1 7/02/2004&wcatg=0" title="http://www.spa.gov.sa/html/archive_e.asp?srcfile=616545&NDay=1 7/02/2004&wcatg=0" target="_blank"http://www.spa.gov.sa/html/ar... SPA
|
|
|
| |
| Haiti rebillion forces France to consider troops |
| 02.17.04 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
BY AGENCIES IN PARIS
France is considering sending peacekeeping troops to Haiti as violence on the Caribbean island continues to spread.
Dominique De Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, said that troops are in position to rapidly deploy to Haiti and a large number of other countries were also ready to act.
He added: "We are in touch with all our partners within the framework of the United Nations, who have sent a humanitarian mission to see what can be done.
"We have important assets close to Haiti... we have skills in the field of humanitarian interventions," he said.
"That is what we want to make available when the time comes."
Francophone Haiti is a former French colony and is in the midst of a 11-day rebellion against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
The President refused yesterday to discuss strategies for halting the revolt or say whether he was asking for military assistance.
"A group of terrorists are breaking democratic order," Mr Aristide said.
"We have the responsibility to use the law and dialogue to take a peaceful way to quell the uprising that has blocked food, fuel and medical shipments to northern Haiti."
But Mr Aristide has asked for "technical assistance" from the Organisation of American States. "It may be that the police cannot cope with this kind of attack."
Neighboring Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti and fears an exodus of refugees, appealed for urgent international intervention.
Frank Guerrero Prats, the secretary of foreign relations, called Monday for the international community to "act with urgency to combat a worsening situation that could be detrimental for the entire region".
The Dominican authorities yesterday suspended an open-air border market frequented by hundreds of Haitians and Dominicans because of tensions over the mysterious killings of two Dominican soldiers a week ago.
Former soldiers took Haiti’s rebellion to the key central city of Hinche yesterday, torching the police station and freeing prisoners.
Rebels now control most roads leading in and out of the Artibonite, Haiti’s breadbasket and home to almost 1 million people, and have cut off northern Haiti by chasing police from a dozen towns.
Witnesses said that about 50 rebels descended on the station in Hinche yesterday and killed three officers before the police fled the city of 50,000.
Hinche is about 70 miles northeast of Port-au-Prince, the capital.
They said the rebels were led by Louis-Jodel Chamblain, a former soldier who led the feared paramilitary group FRAPH, the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti, which killed and maimed hundreds of Aristide supporters under military dictatorship between 1991 and 1994.
It is believed there are no more than 100 rebels in Gonaives, where the rebellion to oust Mr Aristide started on February 5. But they repelled a police attack to retake the city last week in fighting that killed 30 people, mostly officers, according to the Haitian Red Cross.
At least 56 people have died as the revolt has spread from Gonaives, about 70 miles northwest of Port-au-Prince.
Reprisal killings and torching of homes continue in both rebel-held and police-held areas. On Sunday night, Mr Aristide loyalists reportedly killed two anti-government supporters in the port town of St. Marc.
Mr Aristide, a slum priest who preached revolution to Haiti's poor, swept the 1990 elections to become the country's first freely-elected leader. He was ousted in a coup in 1991, restored when the United States sent 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994.
He disbanded the army in 1995. In its place is a 5,000-member police force trained to deal with riots, not combat. In outlying posts, it is outnumbered and outgunned by the rebels.
Discontent has grown in Haiti, a nation of eight million people, since Mr Aristide’s party swept flawed legislative elections in 2000 and international donors froze millions of dollars.
Mr Aristide is accused of using the police and armed militants to stifle dissent and allowing corrupt officials to enrich themselves while Haitians suffer deepening poverty.
Opposition politicians refuse to participate in new elections unless Mr Aristide steps down, and the rebels say they will lay down their weapons only when he is ousted.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0" title="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0" target="_blank"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...,,1-1004981,00.html Times Online
|
|
|
| |
| EU 'big three' to map military plans |
| 02.17.04 (8:41 am) [edit] |
BRUSSELS, Feb 16 (AFP) - Britain, France and Germany head into summit talks this week on the back of unprecedented cooperation on the military front which is finally putting flesh on the bones of the EU's common defence policy.
Their burgeoning military alliance is expected to be one of the themes addressed by Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder when they meet in Berlin on Wednesday.
The three countries - the largest and most powerful in the European Union - have been trying to rebuild their ties after falling out spectacularly over the US-led war in Iraq last year.
Their rapprochement bore fruit at a Blair-Chirac summit in November where the British prime minister and French president announced plans to create rapid reaction forces deployable at short notice to hotspots, notably in Africa.
Germany has now come on board the Franco-British initiative, diplomats said last week, to create battle groups of about 1,500 troops which could be dispatched rapidly to flash-point areas on behalf of the EU.
The troop contingents, in particular ready to take on missions in support of the United Nations, would be deployable within 15 days and able to remain on the ground for a month, diplomats said.
The initiative is based directly on experience of the EU's first-ever military mission outside Europe, in the Democratic Republic of Congo last summer, when a French-led force helped quell fighting in the Bunia region.
In December the EU adopted plans for an independent military planning cell proposed by Britain, France and Germany which would seek to enhance the bloc's defence capability.
The unit will be based with the EU's existing military staff in Brussels, where NATO also has its headquarters.
Blair has been at pains to reassure Washington that the EU initiatives will not rival NATO, the US-led military alliance that forms the bedrock of Europe's defence.
But Chirac and the German chancellor are known to favour beefing up the EU's own ability to act in the military field. The bloc, however, does not yet have the means to match their ambitions.
The EU originally wanted to create a rapid-reaction force of 60,000, but this has been scaled back because military capabilities do not stretch to the soldiers and equipment needed.
Nevertheless with the backing of its three most powerful nations, the EU is now in a much better position to advance its fledgling common defence policy, which is widely seen as a non-starter without British involvement.
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&stor y_id=4702" title="http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&stor y_id=4702" target="_blank"http://www.expatica.com/sourc... Expatica
|
|
|
| |
| Palestinians shut down crossing point |
| 02.17.04 (8:35 am) [edit] |
The Associated Press
EREZ, Gaza Strip Feb. 17 — About 1,500 angry Palestinians shut down the crossing point Gaza residents use to get to jobs in Israel early Tuesday to protest new security restrictions and the death of a fellow worker they blame on Israel.
Security at the Erez crossing, the main entryway to Israel for the 19,000 workers with permits, has been greatly heightened since a Palestinian suicide bomber blew herself up there Jan. 14, killing four Israelis.
Now, workers must wait in long, painfully slow lines for hours, hold their permits over their heads with one hand and lift up their shirts with the other to show they are not wearing bomb vests.
Many complain that so few of them make it across the border now everyday that they are risk of losing their jobs, an especially frightening prospect in the economically devastated coastal strip.
The protest was prompted by the death Monday of a 41-year-old Palestinian worker trying to cross. The Israeli army said he had a heart attack while waiting on line. Initially, Palestinian hospital officials said he had suffocated to death amid the cramped conditions at the crossing point, but later refused to confirm the information.
Hours before dawn Tuesday, hundreds of Palestinians gathered in front of the crossing, blocking the road with concrete blocks to enforce a daylong strike against working in Israel.
"Erez is the checkpoint of death," they chanted. "I am a worker and I have the right to live."
Waleed Bakr, a 37-year-old mechanic who works in a garage in the Israeli town of Rehovot, said he comes to Erez at midnight everyday, three hours before it opens, to get a good spot in line in hopes he will be able to cross.
If he makes it across, an increasingly rare occurrence, it is usually not until 5 or 6 a.m. Before the new procedures, he showed up at the crossing at 3 a.m. and was over an hour later.
"We are suffering," he said.
Many workers fear their employers will fire them because they rarely show up at work.
Omar Qad, 50, said his bosses at a marble factory in Jaffa are angry that he is only able to make it into Israel for one day a week because of the restrictions.
"I've been working in that place for 20 years," he said. "If I get fired, my life will be ruined."
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040217 _68.html" title="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040217 _68.html" target="_blank"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Wo... ABC
|
|
|
| |
| Egyptian editor: Arabs should've ousted Saddam |
| 02.17.04 (8:11 am) [edit] |
Posted: February 17, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
The editor of an Egyptian journal says Arabs should have been the ones to bring down the tyrannical regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"We should feel humiliated that Saddam's fall came at the hands of the U.S. and Britain," said Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, the editor-in-chief of the Egyptian quarterly Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya magazine and board member and adviser to the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
The English-language article praised Saddam's capture and denounced Arabs and Muslims who lament it and propagate conspiracy theories, said the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute.
"The discovery of Saddam Hussein, the arrogant, cruel, and luxury-loving leader, hiding in an underground hole – bringing to mind the tale of the Thieves of Baghdad – and his surrender to his captors in a docile and cowardly fashion, was indeed something of a farce," the Egyptian editor wrote. "But, the 'Mother of all Farces,' to borrow Saddam's famous idiom, is that Arabs and Muslims fail to grasp the true implications of the rise, and fall, of Saddam Hussein."
Describing Saddam as "a true example of the despotic leader" defined by Arab intellectual Abdel-Rahman Al-Kawakbi, Harb said Saddam feared the repercussions of being captured by his own people.
"There is no doubt Saddam knew what his fate would be if captured by the Iraqis; he would have been killed and mutilated as other previous Iraqi leaders, less brutal than him, were," Harb wrote. "In this instance, Saddam might have preferred suicide – not out of honor, but in fear of torture and violent death. It is most likely that Saddam surrendered in this docile manner because he knew his captors were Americans … ."
Harb said Saddam disregarded the pleas of Arab leaders, including Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The editor criticized the "ridiculous interpretations" of Saddam's capture circulating among Arabs and Muslims,
The first, he said, is the notion that the manner of the capture was a deliberate and unprecedented insult to all Arabs and Muslims.
"This point of view implies that Saddam is in some form a symbol of Arabs and Muslims, a 'legitimate' leader, whose actions were a true reflection of the aims and aspirations of Iraq and the Arab world," Harb wrote.
But Saddam never had any legitimacy, he said, arguing his decisions were "in flat contradiction to Iraqi, Arab and Islamic interests."
"What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world – especially in Iraq – which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to become vice president in 1968, and then, through an unparalleled bloody and conspiratorial path, to assume the presidency in 1979."
Arabs also should feel humiliated, Harb wrote, that Saddam was able to remain in power for so long after transforming a country relatively rich in natural, human and financial resources into the "poorest, most debt-ridden country in the Arab world, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced."
Harb also lamented the humiliation of Arab intellectuals' support for Saddam
But most humiliating of all, he said, was that his fall came at the hands of the U.S. and Britain, which did so to protect their own interests.
"The Arabs should have been the ones to bring down Saddam, in defense of their own dignity and their own true interests," he said.
The Egyptian journalist also dismissed a "widespread" interpretation of Saddam's capture as a "grand conspiracy, skillfully executed not only against Saddam but against all Arabs and Muslims."
"Those who espouse this point of view put all the blame on evil, conspiring, external forces, who lure Arab and Islamic leaders and societies into making the wrong choices and steer them away from making the right ones," he said.
Harb said if Saddam's fall becomes a catalyst for speeding up democratic reform in the region, "it is not helpful to raise the specter of U.S. intervention."
"Reform is not a U.S. or British issue," he said. "It is first and foremost a domestic concern, espoused by the elite and society at large, not only at present, but also in the past."
He contended, however, that since "the operations of the U.S. in Iraq resulted in the destruction of the state and the political system, the U.S. is obliged to repair the damage it created before leaving – at least to some minimal level."
Harb concluded: "In sum, it would indeed be a great and unfortunate farce if Arabs and Muslims were to focus on lamentations and the search for conspiracies, and neglect to finally and conclusively acknowledge the consequences of dictatorship, despotism and the absence of liberties and democracy."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37149" title="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37149" target="_blank"http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... WND
|
|
|
| |
| Bush team shelves ban of MTBE gasoline additive |
| 02.16.04 (11:13 pm) [edit] |
16 Feb 2004 17:44 GMT
Copyright © 2004, Dow Jones Newswires
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans.
The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in the early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration decided not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the clean-air additive MTBE.
The proposed regulation said the environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air.
The Bush administration decided to leave the issue to Congress, where it has been bogged down over a proposal to shield the industry from some lawsuits. That initiative is being led by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas).
The Associated Press obtained a draft of the proposed regulation that former President Clinton's EPA sent to the White House on its last full day in office in January 2001.
It said: "The use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline presents an unreasonable risk to the environment."
The EPA document went on to say that "low levels of MTBE can render drinking water supplies unpotable due to its offensive taste and odor," and the additive should be phased out over four years.
"Unlike other components of gasoline, MTBE dissolves and spreads readily in the ground water ... resists biodegradation and is more difficult and costly to remove."
People say MTBE-contaminated water tastes like turpentine.
In Santa Monica, Calif., the oil industry will pay hundreds of millions of dollars because the additive contaminated the city's water supply.
"We're the poster child for MTBE, and it could take decades to clean this up," said Joseph Lawrence, the assistant city attorney.
In 2000, the MTBE industry's lobbying group told the Clinton administration that limiting MTBE's use by regulation "would inflict grave economic harm on member companies."
Three MTBE producers account for half the additive's daily output.
The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Republican Party and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000, twice what they gave Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to Republicans.
The producers are Texas-based Lyondell Chemical Co. (LYO) and Valero Energy Corp. (VLO) and the Huntsman companies of Salt Lake City.
"This is a classic case of the Bush administration helping its campaign contributor friends at the expense of public health," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, a Washington-based environmental group.
Huntsman spokesman Don Olsen, echoing comments by other MTBE producers, said, "We were not a huge campaign contributor and this has absolutely nothing to do with campaign donations. It has to do with good public policy."
The industry says it has become a victim in a Washington power struggle.
"Because of MTBE there has been a marked improvement in air quality and reduction in toxins in the air," Mr. Olsen said. "Because of leaking underground storage tanks in some relatively few instances, MTBE found its way into places it shouldn't be. But that has nothing to do with the product, which has done exactly what it was designed to do."
Valero Energy spokeswoman Mary Rose Brown said, "It would have been impossible to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Air Act without MTBE."
A daily Washington newsletter disclosed the existence of the draft rule shortly after Mr. Bush's inauguration; outside the industry, few people noticed.
At the direction of White House chief of staff Andrew Card and Mitch Daniels, then the White House's budget director, all government agencies withdrew their pre-Inauguration Day draft regulations.
The EPA withdrew agency rules, including the MTBE one, in mid-February 2001, White House budget office spokesman Chad Kolton said.
In subsequent months, agencies rewrote many Clinton-era regulatory proposals and went public with them. The proposed MTBE regulation, however, never surfaced.
"As legislation looked more promising in 2002 and 2003, we focused our energies on supporting language in the Senate's energy bill," said Jeffrey Holmstead, the EPA's assistant administrator for air quality, in a statement Friday.
"We have not ruled out the possibility of seeking a solution" by regulation, Mr. Holmstead said.
The EPA favors a phaseout of MTBE through legislation. But the legislation has stalled and it no longer calls for a ban in four years.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, issued a statement Sunday calling the MTBE matter a case of the Bush administration "yet again putting special interests over America's interest." He pledged to "take on the big oil and gas companies and fight for clean water and a clean environment."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), said, "If the White House had not rejected this regulation, MTBE would be virtually eliminated by now and our groundwater would be protected." Mr. Waxman is the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.
On their own, 17 states banned the additive and dozens of communities are suing the oil industry.
"Nobody's talking about the trial lawyers campaign contributions to their supporters in Congress and it's the trial lawyers who are the force behind these unjustified lawsuits," said Ms. Brown of Valero Energy.
To regulate MTBE, the EPA would have to use the Toxic Substances Control Act, which the agency considers cumbersome and unwieldy.
MTBE-industry representative Scott Segal said, "It took EPA a decade to develop enough data to justify issuing a regulation for asbestos" under the law. "Even then, the courts still blocked it."
Bob Perciasepe, an EPA official during the Clinton administration, said a regulatory approach would have provided "a pressure point" to pass legislation.
Georgetown University law professor Lisa Heinzerling said regulating MTBE would be difficult, but "if we can't use the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate MTBE, which has contaminated water supplies all over the country, then what can you use it for?"
http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004021617440 004&Take=1" title="http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2004021617440 004&Take=1" target="_blank"http://framehosting.dowjonesn... Dow Jones
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry steals US Democrats caucus in Paris |
| 02.16.04 (11:00 pm) [edit] |
PARIS, Feb 7 (AFP) - US Democratic Party supporters living in Paris were jubilant on Saturday after they attracted a record turn-out for a candidate selection meeting, which resulted in the Massachusetts senator John Kerry getting the lion's share of votes.
"It was wild," said Connie Borde, who chairs the Paris branch of Democrats Abroad, the day after a caucus meeting which attracted some than 800 people rather than the 300 initially expected.
Kerry obtained 310 votes out of 517 cast during Friday's meeting, which was held in the American Church in Paris after a hall that had been booked nearby turned out to be far too small for all the attendees.
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who was an early favourite to win the Democratic nomination but who has lost ground in recent days, came in a distant second with 87 votes and former General Wesley Clark was third with 59, said Anne Lechartier, the local group's secretary.
The Paris caucus was one of the first in a series of worldwide meetings of Democrats Abroad, events which will play a modest but significant role in deciding which Democratic hopeful is selected to oppose President George W. Bush in the election next November.
The total number of US citizens living outside their home country is estimated at some six million.
Connie Borde was in no doubt as to what motivated most of the Americans who flocked to Friday's meeting.
"People hate Bush," she told AFP.
© AFP
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq: Attacks growing bolder, better organized |
| 02.16.04 (10:49 pm) [edit] |
By Valentinas Mite
The most audacious assault yet on local security forces in Iraq took place on 14 February. In a highly organized attack conducted in broad daylight, assailants killed more than 20 people and freed prisoners during a raid on a police station in the Sunni Triangle town of Al-Fallujah, west of Baghdad. Al-Qaeda and Hussein loyalists are both being blamed for the raid, but ultimately it remains unclear who is behind the recent wave of deadly attacks on security forces.
Prague, 16 February 2004 (RFE/RL) – The raid on the Al-Fallujah police station was the most sophisticated attack on Iraqi security forces since the announcement of the end of “major combat” operations in May.
Police at the station were caught unaware and underequipped when a group of nearly 50 men wearing masks stormed the building, freeing a number of prisoners, shooting mortar rounds and spraying the rooms with automatic-rifle fire.
The attack left more than 20 policemen dead. Ibrahim Muhammad, who was injured in the raid, says the attack caught him and his fellow officers completely by surprise.
There are nearly 200 mosques in Al-Fallujah and surrounding villages, and since the beginning of the U.S. campaign residents have resented the presence of foreign soldiers in what they call the "holy city of mosques.""At 8:30 a.m. (0530 GMT), as we were about to go on patrol to set up checkpoints, we suddenly felt shooting from in front [of the building] and behind, so we dispersed and took positions near the fence."
The assailants later went from room to room, lobbing hand grenades. Five of the gunmen were reportedly killed or injured, but the rest escaped unharmed and unidentified. The coordination and efficiency of the deadly raid has prompted several theories about who was behind the attack. Al-Qaeda has been named as a possible culprit, as have the Lebanese Islamic militant group Hezbollah and the Kurdish Ansar Al-Islam.
L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, told the American ABC television network he believed the attackers had come from outside Iraq. At least one of the attackers killed in the raid was a Lebanese-born Iraqi citizen.
The U.S. military says the tactics used in the Al-Fallujah attack do not resemble those of Al-Qaeda or other known terrorist groups. A U.S. military official, speaking to the AFP news agency on condition of anonymity, said a group skilled in “small-unit tactics” conducted the raid.
These “would not be the same tactics that Al-Qaeda would employ," the official said. "These are military tactics. It points to former military members."
There is no shortage of such people in Al-Fallujah. The town, located at the heart of the Sunni Triangle, is home to many former Ba'ath Party officials and military officers loyal to the Hussein regime. AFP cites the U.S. military official as saying, "We keep bumping into former generals and colonels in Fallujah. We see them every day."
But could local Hussein loyalists have organized the raid? Yahia Said of the London School of Economics and Political Science says yes -- but not without the support of a large part of the local population.
"My instinct on these events, on activities like that in Fallujah in particular, is that these are a combination of Saddam Hussein remnants -- or, if you like, more precisely, disgruntled local Fallujah citizens, unhappy with the [U.S.-led] occupation, being organized by some remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime."
Al-Fallujah has long been at the heart of the anti-American resistance. The enmity started as early as late April, when jittery U.S. soldiers shot dead 15 Iraqis protesting the U.S. presence at a local school. The town is a center of both deep tribal alliances and Sunni religious life. There are nearly 200 mosques in Al-Fallujah and surrounding villages, and since the beginning of the U.S. campaign residents have resented the presence of foreign soldiers in what they call the "holy city of mosques."
But U.S. forces left Al-Fallujah after striking an agreement with local authorities. And this attack targeted not foreign soldiers, but local residents. Said says the raid may spur a cycle of revenge killings, which in turn could weaken local support for the anti-American resistance.
"This time, of course, if the killing of Iraqis continues, it may actually dampen support -- or, if you like, tacit nonopposition -- by the citizens of Al-Fallujah to the resistance. So, it may actually work against them."
Reports from Fallujah seemed to support the prediction. Only hours after the raid, armed men, reportedly seeking revenge, gathered outside the hospital where the injured assailants were being kept.
RFE/RL correspondent Sami Alkhoja says in Baghdad rumors are circulating that Americans were responsible for orchestrating the raid. Many Iraqis believe the Americans hope to scuttle the upcoming elections and assure that the U.S.-led coalition does not hand over power to local authorities anytime soon. Alkhoja says the absence of U.S. forces in Fallujah has only heightened suspicions among those Iraqis who say the U.S. was responsible for last week's attacks in Iskandariya and Baghdad as well.
"We have exactly the same thing in Fallujah happening," he said. "There were about 40 fighters, let's say, attacking this police station. [It] took them lots of time to do [the job] -- release the prisoners. And there were no signs of Americans."
Such theories will only heighten many Iraqis' desire for elections to be held soon. But Yahia Said says to the contrary, the week's string of attacks are only likely to convince Western observers that the situation is too chaotic to proceed with the vote.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/ 2/30036D10-83DA-40CA-8959 -4F38F2833597.html" title="http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/ 2/30036D10-83DA-40CA-8959 -4F38F2833597.html" target="_blank"http://www.rferl.org/features... Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
|
|
|
| |
| UN: Cuban dissidents held in alarming conditions |
| 02.16.04 (8:56 pm) [edit] |
Feb. 16 — By Richard Waddington
GENEVA (Reuters) - A U.N. human rights envoy said Monday dozens of Cuban dissidents were being held in alarming conditions following their imprisonment in a crackdown early last year.
French magistrate Christine Chanet, appointed by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to probe alleged Cuban abuses, also said her appeals to President Fidel Castro to pardon the dissidents had gone unanswered.
"The personal representative of the High Commissioner has received particularly alarming information about the conditions of detention of these people," Chanet said in her first report on the situation in the Caribbean island state.
According to the reports, prisoners were being frequently transferred from one prison to another, often far from their families, which made visits difficult, Chanet said.
They were being placed in "trying" physical and psychological conditions, whether it be in isolation cells or crammed together with "common criminals," she added.
Cuba triggered a storm of international protest last April when it sentenced some 75 dissidents, some of them over 60 years old, to between six and 28 years in jail on charges of conspiring with the United States to overthrow the Communist-run government.
But Chanet, named to her job in January last year but who has not yet received permission to visit Cuba, also hit out at the United States for its 40-year economic blockade.
"One cannot ignore the disastrous and persistent effects of the embargo...economically and socially, as well as with regard to civil and political rights," Chanet wrote.
The report, which will be presented to the annual session of the Geneva-based U.N. Commission on Human Rights next month, called on Castro's government to grant fundamental freedoms such as that of expression and assembly, and the right to leave the country.
The U.N. commission last year urged Cuba to accept a visit from the envoy in a motion brought by four Latin American countries -- Peru, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Uruguay.
But Cuba accused them of being "disgusting lackeys" and said the commission would do better to focus its attention on conditions in Guantanamo, the U.S. naval base on the island where suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners are held.
|
|
|
| |
| Fear for family fuels immigrant dilemma |
| 02.16.04 (8:09 pm) [edit] |
WASHINGTON - Dolores, a child-care worker, is an illegal immigrant who has long feared being deported and having to leave her children behind. President Bush's immigration proposal is aimed at helping people like her, but it hasn't eased Dolores' fears.
Under the Bush plan, Dolores and millions of others like her could temporarily work legally in this country for a period of time. But once that time is up, she'd have to leave. And that, Dolores says, would break up her family.
"For 17 years, I've wanted to be able to walk on the streets without fear," said Dolores, a mother of three who asked that her last name not be used.
Bush has proposed allowing immigrants already working illegally in the country to get short-term legal status while participating in a worker program. The program also would be open to people from overseas.
Once their jobs end, temporary workers would have to leave the country to apply for legal permanent residence. Those who entered illegally may not be able to return for years.
That leaves Congress with questions as it considers the Bush plan. What will it do about undocumented immigrants like Dolores, whose children are U.S. citizens? Or whose spouses are legal permanent residents? Should the temporary workers still be forced to leave?
"Do we have the appetite for asking parents of U.S. citizens to leave?" asked Muzaffar Chishti, director of New York University Law School's Migration Policy Institute office. "Are we morally prepared to, in effect, also deport a large number of U.S. citizens? That's sort of the moral dilemma here."
The former Immigration and Naturalization Service, whose duties were transferred last year to three agencies in the Homeland Security Department, calculated the undocumented population to be about 7 million last year. There are an estimated 3 million children who are U.S. citizens and have undocumented parents, said Michael Fix, director of immigration studies at the liberal-leaning Urban Institute.
When Congress has tried to control immigration by denying social services, immigrants' U.S. citizen children have missed out on services they are entitled to, such as vaccinations, said Cecilia Munoz, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.
"Our laws and our policy debate tend not to recognize that immigrant communities do not live in isolation from the rest of America," she said. "It's very common for families to have some people who are citizens and some who are residents, and some who are here without papers."
Bush's proposal also would allow the undocumented immigrants in the temporary worker program to apply for legal permanent residence through an employer. But immigration experts say that can't happen unless Congress waives a law barring people in the country illegally from re-entering for three to 10 years. The wait for approval of legal permanent residence applications also would need to be reduced, they said.
Bush's proposal is similar to a bill put forward last year by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who said Congress may need to treat undocumented workers with families in the U.S. differently from temporary workers coming to the country for the first time.
"I don't believe there's the political will to deport 6 million people," said Cornyn, estimating the number of people who fall into that category.
http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/164203 p-143919c.html" title="http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/164203 p-143919c.html" target="_blank"http://www.nydailynews.com/bo... NY Daily
|
|
|
| |
| Europe waits to assess UK-French-German relationship |
| 02.16.04 (6:03 pm) [edit] |
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – As the three biggest states in the EU add the finishing touches to their agenda for Wednesday’s summit, the rest of the EU is waiting with some anticipation for what will emerge.
The leaders of France, Germany and the UK will gather in Berlin on Wednesday to discuss a wide range of issues including Europe’s flagging economy, EU enlargement and the failed talks on the Constitution.
And as they are to be accompanied by a swathe of ministers – foreign, finance, economic and social – they are having difficulty persuading the rest of the EU that this is a run of the mill gathering.
Most capitals are looking for signs that a ‘directoire’ is emerging to which the remaining 22 states of the enlarged EU will have to answer.
Among the most critical are those other large countries who are not privy to the three’s plans.
Spanish foreign minister Ana Palacio said recently, "Europe needs to speak with many voices and a directorate would lead to tensions".
Similarly, Italian foreign minister Franco Frattini has said, "the idea of a directorate worries us. It worries us, not just because we are a big country in Europe, but because we think that Europe should be a mechanism in which power is shared rather than concentrated".
Smaller countries are also looking on with a degree of annoyance. Portuguese Prime Minister José Manuel Durao Barroso said last week, "we do not accept that two or three countries should make the decisions and then serve us the meal".
"The three countries’ cooperation is taking them along the wrong path, if it is meant as an alternative to a Constitution. This is a bad sign", said Austrian Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner.
A core Europe?
However, one of the most important aspects of the meeting on Wednesday will be whether the alliance is permanent.
The determining factor will be whether the three will have enough to fill a common agenda, says Heather Grabbe, deputy director at the Centre for European Reform.
While they have some common ideas in foreign and defence policy – last year they formed an alliance to confront Iraq on its nuclear weapons and brokered a deal to bring forward EU defence policy – there are still many areas of division in justice and home affairs issues, economic issues and the single market.
Nevertheless, "the idea of a core Europe looks very tempting on the eve of enlargement", says Ms Grabbe adding that the meeting is an admission by the three countries that an "EU of 25 is going to be really quite hard to manage".
Retaliatory alliances
Depending on how concrete the relationship between France, Germany and the UK proves to be – it may also spawn retaliatory alliances.
It is conceivable that Spain, Italy and Poland – as the other big countries in the EU - also set up their own group, says Ms Grabbe or that in the future "several different groups form to try and block things they do not like".
Moreover, the concept of a core Europe is also likely to re-emerge whenever the EU finds itself having difficulty reaching a decision in an enlarged Europe.
For the moment, however, the rest of Europe is waiting to see if any concrete conclusions emerge from the meeting which will indicate how significant this relationship is likely to be in the future.
Written by Honor Mahony
http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=14510" title="http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=14510" target="_blank"http://www.euobserver.com/ind... EU Observer
|
|
|
| |
| AFGE Blasts Bush Administration |
| 02.16.04 (5:51 pm) [edit] |
AFGE Blasts Bush Administration for Awarding Government Contracts to Tax Cheats
To: National Desk
Contact: Enid Doggett, 202-639-6422 or John Irvine, 202-639-6405; both of the American Federation of Government Employees
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- John Gage, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), issued the following statement in response to a General Accounting Office report showing that over 27,000 defense contractors are evading taxes:
"Over 10 percent of defense contractors refuse to pay back taxes that they owe to the federal government but continue to win new contracts. It is appalling that federal law allows government agencies to send new business to tax cheats while dedicated tax-paying civilian employees are being laid off. This is just another example of the Administration putting cronyism before common sense.
"Even more distasteful is the fact that most of these cases involve payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are funds collected by businesses from employee salaries to be handed over to the federal government. Businesses never actually own these funds. If contractors cannot be trusted to even act as a go-between, why would we trust them to be stand-up business partners?
"The Bush Administration is in the midst of an all-out attack on the good citizens who make up the civil service. Despite the Administration's clamoring about saving taxpayer money, this shows that they don't care whether they save the government any money or not.
"We should remember that these contractors are not only companies that manufacture weapons systems. Some of these firms hold contracts with the government to perform work that goes to the heart of governmental administration, including payroll and internal accounting functions. These are the same companies that would have us believe that they should be given a chance to profit from administering Social Security and collecting taxes for the IRS. Many of these companies won their contracts on the basis of political connections--the same political connections that enable them to continue as corporate outlaws. Many private contractors overcharge, outsource good jobs overseas, and now we find that they don't pay the taxes that they owe."
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=143-02132004" title="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=143-02132004" target="_blank"http://releases.usnewswire.co... U.S.Newswire
|
|
|
| |
| Iraqi women could lose rights they've had for decades |
| 02.16.04 (3:26 pm) [edit] |
by Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle
February 2nd, 2004
Iraqi women are in danger of losing many of their rights to Islamic law, and the U.S. occupation authority is not doing enough to prevent it, Democratic lawmakers said Monday.
Though deposed President Saddam Hussein has been criticized on many grounds, women had some of the most liberal protections of any Muslim country under Iraqi legislation that prohibited marriage under the age of 18 and denied favoritism to men in inheritance, divorce and child custody.
The Iraqi Governing Council in December decided to abolish Saddam's code and allow each religious group to apply its tradition.
The decision has not been approved by U.S. occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer, who wields a veto. The 45 members of the House said Monday in a letter to President Bush that the administration must act now because it will be unable to reverse the council's action after the scheduled June 30 transfer of power to Iraqis.
"It would be a tragedy beyond words if Iraqi women lost the rights they had under Saddam Hussein, especially when the purpose of our mission in Iraq was to make life better for the Iraqi people," 44 Democrats and one independent wrote to Bush.
The letter echoes complaints that occupation authorities already have heard from Iraqi women. Bremer appointed only three women to the 25-member governing council, whose membership was determined by ethnicity or religious affiliation. In December, about a dozen women wrote Bremer saying the coalition "created these male-dominated councils" and is obligated to "redress this discrimination."
The U.S.-led authority has sought to raise women's consciousness, sponsoring programs to advise women how to set up small businesses and organizing discussion groups on women's issues.
Many women still complain the coalition has failed to promote women's rights as aggressively as its promises would suggest, and whatever gains they have made will diminish after the U.S.-led coalition transfers sovereignty to a new Iraqi government.
The lawmakers' letter to Bush also appeared aimed at countering an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on Sunday in which Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wrote about U.S. efforts for Iraqi women.
Wolfowitz wrote that the United States "is giving special emphasis to helping Iraqi women," having allocated $27 million for women's programs and trying to see to it that girls benefit from new education programs in Iraq.
Naming other nations that have struggled to become more democratic, Wolfowitz also said it is up to Iraqis to prove wrong those who say Arabs can't build democracy.
"In the end, it will be up to Iraqis to fashion a democracy that suits their circumstances," he said.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said that in the newspaper piece, Wolfowitz "gushed over efforts to assist women in Iraq, but failed to mention the pending reversal of women's rights laws on June 30."
"I would hope that Mr. Wolfowitz and this administration aren't viewing this situation through rose-colored glasses," she said in a press release issued with the letter to Bush.
"There is a women's rights crisis on the horizon in Iraq, and we must take action while we still have a say in the matter," Maloney said.
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2878" title="http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=2878" target="_blank"http://www.occupationwatch.or... Occupation Watch
|
|
|
| |
| Disappearing EU borders bring new concerns amid joy for free travel |
| 02.16.04 (2:19 pm) [edit] |
Roger Wilkison
Brussels
17 Nov 2003, 15:25 UTC
Next May, the map of Europe will change radically as the European Union expands eastward into former communist lands and the Mediterranean. The move will extend a zone of prosperity, and heal the Cold War divide. But as the union incorporates 10 new countries, it will also create new borders, and people living further east fear being stuck behind a new bureaucratic Iron Curtain.
European unity may still be a concept more of hope than of reality. But the freedom to wander around the continent is arguably the single most important change in European life in the last 50 years. It is this ability to travel freely that most distinguishes young Europeans' lives from those of their parents.
Most citizens of the European Union can now travel from country to country, without ever having to go through immigration controls or customs booths. And that privilege will soon be extended to the citizens of the bloc's new members.
Analyst Heather Grabbe of London's Center for European Reform says most citizens of the central and eastern European countries that will join the EU next year can already travel around the EU without a visa.
"What has not been removed are the actual border checks between the new member states and the old member states," she said. "So basically, you have to take your passport with you, and you have to wait in line at the border to have your passport and your car checked, before you're allowed to cross, for example, from Slovakia into Austria, or from Slovenia into Italy, or from the Czech Republic into Poland, and vice-versa, whereas you can travel from Germany into France and from Italy into Austria, without having any checks done at all."
Ms. Grabbe says citizens of the EU newcomer states will not be able to enjoy passport-free travel, like their western counterparts, before 2006 at the earliest. That is because their countries still have to meet the EU's criteria on border controls.
Still, EU enlargement has already meant and will continue to mean an extension of stability and economic growth to the new members.
Professor Jerome Sheridan, who heads the American University's Brussels Center, argues that the EU's eastward expansion acts as an incentive for countries further east or south to undertake the internal reforms they need to eventually join the union themselves.
"What happens as the EU enlarges is [that] other countries see this, and they want to be a part of it," said Professor Sheridan. "The greatest example of this that I can think of is, what is going on in Croatia and Serbia right now. … They chose to go back to the old ways of settling conflicts in Europe, that is, through war, while everybody else chose the path of joining the European Union. ... And the Croats and the Serbs have seen this, and now they're desperately trying to play catch-up, to become part of the club, as well."
As the EU's borders expand eastward, some countries gain and others lose out.
Poland has done its utmost to reach out to its eastern neighbor, Ukraine, and has privately advocated that the door to EU membership be kept open, until it is ready to join.
But Poland, as a newcomer to the EU, was obliged last month to impose visas on citizens of Ukraine, many of whom have relied on easy access to their more prosperous neighbor since the Soviet Union fell apart. As analyst Heather Grabbe points out, that is having a direct impact on people-to-people contacts across the borders.
"A lot of people just over the EU's new border depend on, trade with, and work in the new member states," said Ms. Grabbe. "There are several million people in western Ukraine whose livelihoods depend on that. And they are now cut off. It's much harder for them to cross the border. They have to go to towns, which may be a long way away to get a visa, and so on."
Economists say the new red-tape curtain will hurt struggling border-zone economies, by making it more difficult for small traders to peddle their wares across the frontier. Small-scale trade in everything from foodstuffs to appliances to gasoline along Poland's eastern borders is now worth $700 million a year. Since the imposition of the new controls, cross-border traffic has dropped considerably.
Poland's accession to the EU means that it and other newcomers will have to assume responsibility for sealing the bloc's still porous outer borders against smugglers of weapons, drugs and people. Officials in Slovakia and Slovenia say the flow into their countries of mainly Asian illegal immigrants has increased, as the date for their joining the EU approaches. Most of the illegal immigrants hope to reach more prosperous western European nations.
The EU and individual countries like Germany are providing money, equipment and technical know-how to help the newcomers upgrade their border controls. Poland, which has the longest eastern frontier, is required to have a border post every 25 kilometers - a total of 232 crossing points.
EU officials say there is no question of constructing a new Berlin Wall or an Israel-West Bank barrier along the bloc's eastern frontiers. Matthew Kirk, Britain's ambassador to Finland, says the borders should be tight, but also user-friendly.
"The challenge at the frontiers is constantly changing, and the criminals, the terrorists, the proliferators, the people-smugglers are constantly finding new ways through," he said. "The real difficulty of running a frontier is to stop the bad things from happening while, at the same time, allowing the goods and the people who need to cross the frontier to do so, as quickly and as easily as possible."
The European Commission, which runs the EU's day-to-day affairs, has proposed creating a border control agency to coordinate policies among the soon-to-be 25 member nations. But national governments are wary of relinquishing their control over immigration policy, because it is a hotly contested domestic issue in most countries.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=08F4CE21-651 0-4DC4-9976EA8E867B024B&T itle=Disappearing" title="http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=08F4CE21-651 0-4DC4-9976EA8E867B024B&T itle=Disappearing" target="_blank"http://www.voanews.com/articl...%20EU%20Borders%20Bring%2 0New%20Concerns%20Amid%20 Joy%20for%20Free%20Travel VOA
|
|
|
| |
| Eisenhower's Wisdom |
| 02.16.04 (1:43 pm) [edit] |
By Mick Youther
Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first President I remember. I saw him as a doddering old bald guy; who played golf a lot, and suffered a heart attack sometime during his presidency. I didn’t have any idea of what he had done in WWII, nor did I care. Presidents were not really a top priority for me at that time. Since then, I’ve learned there was a lot more to Eisenhower, and that he had some very important things to say to America—then and now.
• “We have arrived at that point, my friends, when war does not present the possibility of victory or defeat. War would present to us only the alternative in degrees of destruction.”-- 1954
• “We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. . . . Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.”-- Farewell address, 1/17/61
• “The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”
• “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.”-- Farewell address, 1/17/61
• “There is no way in which a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security, but it can bankrupt itself morally and economically in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone.”
• “If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads”-- as president of Colombia University, 12/8/49
• “May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
In 1955 Eisenhower had his opportunity to wage preemptive war against Communist China after China invaded some islands near Taiwan (Formosa). Congress gave Eisenhower approval to attack China at the time and place of his choosing. Instead of attacking, Eisenhower sent his ambassador, John Foster Dulles, to Europe to gain support for a war; but Churchill refused, and so did NATO. If we went it alone, Pentagon officials assured Eisenhower that we could destroy China’s military capability within three weeks.
So, what did Eisenhower do? Did he bribe together a “coalition of the willing”, start handing out no-bid contracts, and mobilize the military? No, Eisenhower called together his top advisors and told them to find a diplomatic solution—which they did. There was no war.
• “A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility. I don’t believe there is such a thing, and frankly I wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing.”-- Press conference in 1954
• “When it comes to the matter of war, there is only one place that I would go, and that is to the Congress of the United States.” --January 1956 [A few months later, he explained]”I am not going to order any troops into anything that can be interpreted as war, until Congress directs it.”
No law says our President has to have been in the military, but such service would certainly make a better President. It would give (him) the perspective that is so lacking in the current flock of Chicken Hawks that are misusing our troops in their ill-conceived plan for world domination.
• “Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.”-- From an address at Peoria, IL 9/25/56 (The same can be said for war.)
• “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”-- April 16, 1953
• “I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=647&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=c9d0d1654aff93 ca8bc511286e3c94a9" title="http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=647&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=c9d0d1654aff93 ca8bc511286e3c94a9" target="_blank"http://www.interventionmag.co... Intervention Magazine
|
|
|
| |
| Official makes Iraqi constitution threat |
| 02.16.04 (1:26 pm) [edit] |
Posted on Mon, Feb. 16, 2004
Jim Krane
KARBALA, Iraq - The top U.S. administrator in Iraq suggested on Monday that he would block any interim constitution that would make Islam the chief source of law, as some members of the Iraqi Governing Council have sought.
L. Paul Bremer said the current draft of the constitution would make Islam the state religion of Iraq and "a source of inspiration for the law" - as opposed to the main source.
Many Iraqi women have expressed fears that the rights they hold under Iraq's longtime secular system would be rolled back in the interim constitution being written by U.S.-picked Iraqi leaders and their advisers, many of them Americans. U.S. lawmakers have urged the White House to prevent Islamic restrictions on Iraqi women.
Asked what would happen if Iraqi leaders wanted to write into the constitution that Islamic sharia law is the principal basis of the law, Bremer suggested he would wield his veto. "Our position is clear. It can't be law until I sign it."
Bremer must sign into law all measures passed by the 25-member council, including the interim constitution. Iraq's powerful Shiite clergy, however, has demanded the document be approved by an elected legislature. Under U.S. plans, a permanent constitution would not be drawn up and voted on until 2005.
Bremer used the inauguration ceremony at a women's center in the southern city of Karbala to argue for more than "token" women's representation in the transitional government due to take power on June 30.
"I think it is very important that women be represented in all the political bodies," Bremer said.
"Women are the majority in this country, in this area probably a substantial majority," he said, referring to the Saddam Hussein's 1991 purges of Shiite Muslim men. Those killings left the holy city of Karbala and other Shiite cities dotted with mass graves and brimming with thousands of widows.
Bremer also acknowledged that U.S. influence on an Iraqi constitution would fade substantially after the June 30 handover. U.S. observers have predicted liberal reforms enshrined in the transitional law could well be rolled back in a future constitution.
"There will be a sovereign government here in June. The Iraqis then will then have responsibility for their own country," Bremer said. "There's a real hunger for democracy in this country. It may not look like American democracy, but there's a real hunger for it and we're encouraging that."
There are three women on the Governing Council.
Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, the current council president and a member of a committee drafting the interim constitution, has proposed making Islamic sharia law the "principal basis" of legislation.
The phrasing could have broad effects on secular Iraq. In particular, it would likely moot much of Iraq's 1959 Law of Personal Status, which grants uniform rights to husband and wife to divorce and inheritance, and governs related issues like child support.
Under most interpretations of Islamic law, women's rights to seek divorce are strictly limited and they only receive half the inheritance of men. Islamic law also allows for polygamy and often permits marriage of girls at a younger age than secular law.
In December, the council passed a decision abolishing the 1959 law and allowing each of the main religious groups to apply its own tradition - including Islamic law. Many Iraqi women expressed alarm at the decision, and Bremer has not signed it into law.
Earlier this month, 45 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed a letter to President Bush urging him to act now to preserve women's rights.
"It would be a tragedy beyond words if Iraqi women lost the rights they had under Saddam Hussein, especially when the purpose of our mission in Iraq was to make life better for the Iraqi people," the letter read.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/n ation/7965643.htm" title="http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/n ation/7965643.htm" target="_blank"http://www.twincities.com/mld... Pioneer Press
|
|
|
| |
| Australian riots injure 50 police officers |
| 02.16.04 (1:19 pm) [edit] |
Phil Mercer
Sydney
16 Feb 2004, 11:13 UTC
Fifty police officers have been injured in Australia in a riot sparked by the death of an aboriginal teenager. A railway station was torched and the police were attacked with petrol bombs, fireworks and rocks. Four people have been arrested.
Sunday's ugly fighting in Sydney, Australia's biggest city, is a major setback for race relations.
Dozens of police officers were injured, some suffering broken legs and arms during a nine-hour confrontation in the city's Redfern district. They were attacked with firebombs and paving slabs, and had burning rubbish bins thrown at them. Shops, trains and passing cars were also targeted. Redfern's railway station was set on fire.
Police reinforcements were called in from across Sydney to help contain about one hundred rioters.
The riot was touched off by area residents, angry over the death of 17-year-old Thomas Hickey, who died Sunday after being impaled on a metal fence when he fell off his bicycle. Many youths in the predominately aboriginal neighborhood blamed the police for the death.
The authorities have strongly denied claims that the police were chasing the aboriginal teenager when he fell from his bike.
Police commander Bob Waites says his officers were not to blame for the accident. "The reality of it is that the police were patrolling, the young lad went past them," he says. "They continued on in their patrol but he for some reason accelerated on his push-bike and lost control of his bike."
Redfern is a predominantly black neighborhood. Relations with the mainly white police force have been uneasy at the best of times.
One rioter, her face hidden by a mask, says there is a dangerous level of anger within the indigenous community. "If I have to lead my people and these kids toward death - to die for what they believe in - I will do it."
Opposition politicians say the unrest was the result of years of neglect by the state government. They claim the government has ignored the problems of unemployment and poor health care as well as alcohol and drug abuse among the aboriginal community.
There will be three investigations into Redfern's night of chaos, by the coroner, an independent public affairs watchdog and the police.
Australia's aborigines are the most disadvantaged group in the country.
They die on average 20 years younger than whites and are far more likely to be out of work, in jail or suffering preventable illnesses than anyone else.
The reasons are complex. They are - in part - historical and are often related to poverty and a widespread dependency of welfare payments.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DCFAF4AD-023 F-4C10-A35FCCBD2ED88C25&t itle=Australian" title="http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=DCFAF4AD-023 F-4C10-A35FCCBD2ED88C25&t itle=Australian" target="_blank"http://www.voanews.com/articl...%20Riots%20Injure%2050%20 Police%20Officers VOA
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq neighbors urge US pullout |
| 02.16.04 (8:27 am) [edit] |
Worsening security has put Iraq elections in doubt
Iraq and its neighbours have said the US-led occupation forces must withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible.
At an unprecedented regional summit in Kuwait, they also urged the UN to play a greater role in post-war Iraq.
Iraq also said it would press the US to hand Saddam Hussein over after the transfer of power and to change his prisoner of war status to face trial.
Meanwhile, top US administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer said Washington was open to new ideas on the transfer of power.
Leave it for the Iraqis themselves to decide their own political future
But speaking on American television, Mr Bremer stressed the US remained committed to 30 June as the target handover date.
The US plans to hold a series of regional caucuses to choose the new government have been denounced by the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shia majority, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who demands direct elections.
Mr Bremer said there were dozens of ideas around - including partial elections or a national conference - but gave no further details.
Instead, he said he would wait to hear the report of the UN envoy to Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, on his recent visit to assess the feasibility of elections.
Mr Brahimi is expected to give his recommendations to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in a week or so.
UN's 'central responsibilities'
The regional summit brought together Iraq and the six countries which border it, plus Egypt, for two days of talks in Kuwait.
The responsibility of security inside Iraq is the responsibility of the occupation, and not the responsibility of neighbouring countries
The group had met four times since US-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein last April, but this was the first time Iraq was invited.
The final communique called for the UN to assume "central responsibilities" in Iraq's transition.
The proposed UN role would include giving advice and expertise on formulating a new constitution, holding elections and completing the transfer of power.
The UN pulled out of Iraq last August after a bomb killed 22 people at its Baghdad HQ.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told his counterparts that the US-backed authorities in Baghdad wanted the UN to return to Iraq and resume its work.
Mr Zebari also said Iraq would ask the US to hand Saddam Hussein to the Iraqis.
"We will demand changing his (Saddam's) status and handing him over to Iraqi justice to put him on trial," Mr Zebari said.
After his capture in December, the US declared the former Iraqi president a POW, meaning he has certain specific rights under the Geneva Convention.
The move has triggered protests among many Iraqis who are demanding Saddam's immediate trial in Iraq, with a death sentence as the ultimate sanction.
Washington has said it wants an Iraqi court to try Saddam, who is currently being held in the US custody. POW status does not preclude prosecution.
Preventing infiltrators
The summit communique also said it was vital to eliminate "all terrorist and other armed groups from Iraqi territory that constitute a danger for the neighbouring states".
Mr Zebari said Iraq and several of its neighbours had agreed to control borders more effectively.
He had earlier urged neighbouring states to tighten their border controls, following the latest attack on Iraqi security targets.
The BBC's Jonny Diamond in Baghdad says some of the country's neighbours bridle at suggestions that they are allowing foreign fighters to cross their borders into Iraq.
On Saturday, at least 27 people died when gunmen attacked a police post in the Iraqi town of Falluja. Four attackers were among those killed.
The daylight raid in the flashpoint town was the third major attack on Iraqi defence forces this week, following bombings that left around 100 people dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/34903 31.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/34903 31.stm" target="_blank"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi... BBC
|
|
|
| |
| Press freedom under fire |
| 02.16.04 (7:47 am) [edit] |
Printed on Monday, February 16, 2004 @ 00:00:06 CST
By Heather Wokusch
YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – If the first casualty of war is truth, then the War on Terror has dealt a body blow to those trying to get at the bottom of the story: journalists.
The press watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) has noted a sharp jump in attacks on journalists internationally, and not just in high-profile cases such as the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.
In 2002, a full 1,420 journalists were kidnapped, beaten or detained across the globe, and RSF concludes, "The fight against terrorism launched by the United States and its allies after the 11 September attacks damaged freedom of the press. Many governments stepped up and justified their repression of opposition or independent voices using anti-terrorism as an excuse."
In particular, the U.S. military is under fire for its treatment of journalists in Iraq. An RSF report entitled "Two Murders and a Lie" details the April 8, 2003 attack by U.S. forces on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, which left two journalists dead and three injured.
Blaming Iraqi snipers for the Palestine Hotel attack, Pentagon officials said, "this desperate and dying regime will stop at nothing to cling to power." When evidence proved a U.S. tank was in fact responsible, officials claimed the shelling was in response to hostile fire from within the hotel. After that version of events was proven false too, the standard line became soldiers attacked the hotel thinking they "were under direct observation from an enemy hunter/killer team."
The bottom line is the Pentagon knew the hotel had been filled with reporters for three weeks, yet soldiers on the ground had been left uninformed. According to RSF, "the question is whether this information was withheld deliberately, because of misunderstanding or by criminal negligence."
While the Geneva Conventions clearly state that "journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians ... and protected as such," apparently not everyone agrees; in the view of retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor, "there's nothing sacrosanct about a hotel with a bunch of journalists in it."
Stateside, a similar attitude can be seen in the language used to describe visa requirements for foreign journalists. According to the U.S. Embassy, "You must apply for a United States visa if you ... Are a professional journalist planning to cover news or informational stories; Have been denied entry on a previous occasion or have been expelled from the USA during the last five years; Have a criminal record or suffer from a serious transmittable disease or mental disorder; Are a drug addict, drug trafficker, or were involved in Nazi persecutions, and if you were or still are a member of a subversive or terrorist organization." In other words, journalists, criminals and terrorists belong in the same category.
At least it's appearing that way to an increasing number of foreign journalists visiting the U.S. Just last month, Austrian lifestyle-magazine reporter Peter Krobath flew to Los Angeles to interview Ben Affleck about his latest film. Despite having media credentials and a press junket invitation, Krobath was detained at LAX and interrogated for five hours. He was then body-searched, handcuffed, placed in isolation and taken to a downtown prison where he spent the night in a cell with 45 others, including convicted criminals. Only after the Austrian consulate intervened was Krobath released from prison and placed on the first flight back to Vienna.
Krobath's crime? He didn't have a special visa for foreign journalists planning to cover news stories in the States. The catch? No embassies or consulates had been told about this new regulation, so foreign media groups couldn't prepare their staff members.
The War on Terror has no doubt taken its toll on press freedom, but it's hard to see how targeting visiting journalists will make the U.S. safer, promote the image of an open and free America, or make life easier for U.S. journalists abroad.
And it's unacceptable to whitewash a crime such as the Palestine Hotel shelling. The RSF has called for a reopening of the inquiry into the attack: "At the top level, the U.S. government must bear some responsibility .... its top leaders have regularly made statements about the status of war reporters in Iraq that have undermined all media security considerations and set the scene for the tragedy that occurred."
Freedom of the press is crucial to any democracy, and silencing the messenger is no alternative.
Heather Wokusch is a free-lance writer. She can be contacted via her web site: http://www.heatherwokusch.com...
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1776" title="http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1776" target="_blank"http://www.yellowtimes.org/ar... Yellow Times
|
|
|
| |
| Vive la France |
| 02.16.04 (7:31 am) [edit] |
The French National Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to back a ban on Islamic headscarves and other conspicuous religious signs in French public schools. The law is an unambiguous declaration that France is a secular state, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, and French schools should treat all children as equals and teach them all the same history and science.
Secularism is an important principle in any pluralistic society; the law must stand as a neutral arbiter to keep competing religions from "making God take sides," as Palestinian human rights activist Hanan Ashrawi said in her talk in Great Barrington this week. The denunciations of the new law by Muslim extremists from Iran to Malaysia serve only to underline the rightness and importance of the French decision.
The point of church-state separation in the United States is to keep the majority from imposing its views on an unwilling minority; in France, it is the minority which seeks cultural and religious separation from the larger society. The fact that the ban also extends to the yarmulke, or Jewish skullcap, and to crosses judged to be of excessive size, is a fig leaf to conceal its true intent -- to deal with the growth of an Islamic minority which poses serious cultural and political problems.
Five million Muslims live in France, fully 8 percent of the population. Most came from the former colonies in North Africa, Syria and Lebanon. Unlike immigrants to the United States, most of whom want to be Americans, they do not want be French. Nor, in fairness, have the French (or the Germans or the Dutch) made much of an effort to assimilate them. European Muslims, brought in to augment the labor force, came in at the bottom of the heap and stayed there.
Under Islamic law, women must cover their bodies and their heads. To Western eyes, this seems an obvious attempt to underline and reinforce the second-class status of women in Muslim society. Devout Muslims say requiring girls to uncover in school, and giving them sex education and the Western take on world history, is an assault on Islam by a society they regard as godless and profane. The head covering is thus a statement of defiance of the secular authority.
The stakes here are much higher than they look. Critics of the law say it is a belated measure that will only serve to antagonize Muslims and empower the reactionary right wing, which advocates the expulsion of the Arabs. To see what a country ruled by ethno-nationalist rightists looks like, look at Serbia in the 1990s. The liberal establishment in Europe is caught between Muslim tribalists who call it "the house of war," and have no interest in joining its civilization, and their own right wing with its racial and economic grievances against the immigrants. Both groups hate the Jews, and a precipitous rise in anti-Semitic violence is the reason half of French Jews say they are considering emigration.
In the wider context of the "War on Terrorism," which is really a war between the open societies of the West and the exponents of Islamic extremism, it's good to see France stand up for its principles. We only hope it is not too little, too late.
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0" title="http://www.berkshireeagle.com/Stories/0" target="_blank"http://www.berkshireeagle.com...,1413,101~6267~1950994,00 .html The Berkshire Eagle
|
|
|
| |
| Israeli president goes to Paris to discuss bilateral relations |
| 02.16.04 (7:16 am) [edit] |
PARIS, February 16 (Itar-Tass) -- Israel’s President Moshe Katsav does not regard France as an anti-Semitic country, but certain anti-Semitic actions in that country do cause his concern.
“Manifestations of anti-Semitism are present in other European countries, too, but their occurrence in France is of special concern to us, because that country in our opinion remains the most democratic one and most committed to universal values,” Katsav told the French magazine Le Nouvelle Observateur on the eve of his visit to France beginning on Monday.
“The one who is hurling stones at a synagogue today, will some day be hurling them at one’s own parliament. In this sense we see eye to eye with President Jacques Chirac and we welcome the French government’s condemnation of anti-Semitic actions,” Katsav said.
The theme of anti-Semitism will be among others the Israeli president will discuss with Jacques Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
The Israeli president’s state visit to France spells a “new course” in bilateral relations, Israeli presidential spokesman Adar Avissar told French reporters.
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=430801&PageNu m=0" title="http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=430801&PageNu m=0" target="_blank"http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/... Itar-Tass
|
|
|
| |
| "A veritable Wal-Mart" for nuclear weapons buyers |
| 02.16.04 (7:06 am) [edit] |
NEW YORK, Feb 15, 2004 /PRNewswire via COMTEX
Nuclear experts are aghast at the size of a global nuclear-weapons "black market" that extends from Switzerland to Japan to Dubai, reports Senior Editor Michael Hirsh and Special Correspondent Sarah Schafer in the February 23 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, February 16).
All of it leads back to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who fathered the underground network, passed on equipment and know-how to Iran and Libya, and made offers to Iraq and most recently Syria, officials say. Khan also helped advance North Korea's covert program.
Over 30 years, Khan put together what Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, called "a veritable Wal-Mart" for nuclear-weapons buyers, a not-so-secret netherworld where proliferation meshed with globalization.
One senior U.S. official told Newsweek that Khan's role in destabilizing the 21st century will "loom up there" with Hitler and Stalin's impact on the 20th.
Even so, most of the A.Q. Khan network's key operatives will likely escape punishment, officials concede.
Khan benefits from the delicate politics of the war on terror.
Pakistan, not Iraq, is probably the world's most dangerous breeding ground for both WMD and terror. But Pakistan is also a key U.S. ally. U.S. officials had to swallow hard while President Pervez Musharraf only mildly disciplined Khan, a national hero, dismissing him from his ceremonial role as adviser.
Newsweek has learned that it was the IAEA, rather than the Bush administration, that first put pressure on Pakistan to force Khan to publicly reveal his central role in the network.
A Malaysian government official absolves Kuala Lumpur's Scomi Precision Engineering plant, supposedly a supplier to Libya's nuclear-weapons program, saying "the parts produced...were of a generic nature." The middleman was Bukhari Sayed Abu Tahir, a Dubai businessman whom President Bush identified in a speech last week as the "chief financial officer and money launderer" of the A.Q. Khan network. Scomi officials admit they set up the plant specifically to fill his orders. But even Tahir, a Sri Lankan Muslim, has been absolved by his hosts. "The government feels he didn't do anything wrong," says the Malaysian official. "He was just accepting orders as a businessman."
(Read Newsweek's news releases at
www.Newsweek.MSNBC.com.Click "Pressroom.") SOURCE Newsweek
|
|
|
| |
| An open letter to Bush from a patriot |
| 02.16.04 (6:39 am) [edit] |
Another true patriot eager to join the American Holy War Against Terrorism, or AHWAT?
By Bruce E. Jones
Dear President George Walker Bush:
I am a Vietnam vet, perhaps too old to again be a fighter for freedom, but I want to enlist in the American Holy War Against Terrorism (AHWAT). Clearly, we have a whole bunch of serious work and fighting ahead of us, and I say, bring it on!
I think you and your associates have now settled on the justification for your unilateral invasion of Iraq as having been: 1) good for the Iraqi people, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy, and 2) good for the world, because it got rid of a madman who exploited and killed his own people and neighbors.
Right on! We got rid of that son of a *****, didn’t we? When the Kurds captured Saddam (and so generously stepped out of the limelight, I might add), I had a good night’s sleep after weeks of nightmares from watching embedded journalists reporting on their immediate surroundings and the sand being blown in their eyes. (What a nightmare I had! Smoke and mirrors kept spinning around my head -- or was I watching a White House press conference?)
Now let’s extend our pristine logic and move to the next plateau. The Ayatollah of Iran sucks, too, doesn’t he? He’s just like that old fart who grabbed all those American hostages back in Carter’s term. He oppresses his people, suppresses democracy, harbors terrorists, kills his neighbors, and does many other rude things. So now that we have the “Mission Completed” in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can shift our forces toward that side of the Axis of Evil.
Or should we go get neo-fascist, pretend-friend Pakistan, where we know terrorists are tolerated, where nuclear technology is being exported to bad guys, where people are not always nice. We can at least hold back from trashing Libya until our Intelligence services discover (yeah, right) that Khadafi is just pulling our chain. Anyway, he’s just a Colonel.
What about China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba? The Cold War isn’t really over, and they are still godless communists. Don’t your patrons, the Religious Right, demand that we do them too? Just because we tried unsuccessfully before shouldn’t stop us now. The lessons of history don’t seem to mean much to your Administration.
Of course, the good news is that we have troops in Korea, so we can begin that campaign right away. Clearly, ol’ Chairman Kim is a nuked-out madman who makes Saddam look like a scholar. Let’s get moving on that no-brainer, George.
By the way, how do the Israelis and the Palestinians fit into all this? Shouldn’t your “Roadmap for Peace” simply become a tactical map for occupation of this entire bunch of misfits so we can force them to get along with each other? There’s nothing like a bayonet to ensure peace.
I also am suspicious of Canada. Like all good Americans, I know absolutely nothing about Canadians, but I have to believe they are a clear and present, imminent, gathering, and, generally, real bad threat to the United States, because they all live right along that border, hanging out just above us! Anytime, those sneaky bastards can slip on in and do their will. We can design a new flag for 51 states, hey?
So, your new world view and foreign policy seems to boil down to, “We will kick the ass of any foreign folks who don’t play well with others, like we tell them to.” So let’s get going and turn the world into an American sand box. Right? It’s a small world, after all, especially if we occupy it. Damn it, they’re either for us or against us!
Sincerely,
Bruce E. Jones
(An American patriot who will wear his flag pin when the Bush Administration comes to an end.)
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=651&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=da3573124016d7 2fe1ee0a5e45924688" title="http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&name=News& file=article&sid=651&mode =thread&order=0&thold=0&P OSTNUKESID=da3573124016d7 2fe1ee0a5e45924688" target="_blank"http://www.interventionmag.co... Intervention Magazine
|
|
|
| |
| My War |
| 02.15.04 (9:14 pm) [edit] |
By LARRY DAVID
Published: February 15, 2004
I couldn't be happier that President Bush has stood up for having served in the National Guard, because I can finally put an end to all those who questioned my motives for enlisting in the Army Reserve at the height of the Vietnam War. I can't tell you how many people thought I had signed up just to avoid going to Vietnam. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, I was itching to go over there. I was just out of college and, let's face it, you can't buy that kind of adventure. More important, I wanted to do my part in saving that tiny country from the scourge of Communism. We had to draw the line somewhere, and if not me, then who?
But I also knew that our country was being torn asunder by opposition to the war. Who would be here to defend the homeland against civil unrest? Or what if some national emergency should arise? We needed well-trained men on the ready to deal with any situation. It began to dawn on me that perhaps my country needed me more at home than overseas. Sure, being a reservist wasn't as glamorous, but I was the one who had to look at myself in the mirror.
Even though the National Guard and Army Reserve see combat today, it rankles me that people assume it was some kind of waltz in the park back then. If only. Once a month, for an entire weekend — I'm talking eight hours Saturday and Sunday — we would meet in a dank, cold airplane hangar. The temperature in that hangar would sometimes get down to 40 degrees, and very often I had to put on long underwear, which was so restrictive I suffered from an acute vascular disorder for days afterward. Our captain was a strict disciplinarian who wouldn't think twice about not letting us wear sneakers or breaking up a poker game if he was in ill humor. Once, they took us into the woods and dropped us off with nothing but compasses and our wits. One wrong move and I could've wound up on Queens Boulevard. Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to find my way out of there and back to the hangar. Some of my buddies did not fare as well and had to call their parents to come and get them.
Then in the summer we would go away to camp for two weeks. It felt more like three. I wondered if I'd ever see my parakeet again. We slept on cots and ate in the International House of Pancakes. I learned the first night that IHOP's not the place to order fish. When the two weeks were up, I came home a changed man. I would often burst into tears for no apparent reason and suffered recurring nightmares about drowning in blueberry syrup. If I hadn't been so strapped for cash, I would've sought the aid of a psychiatrist.
In those days, reserve duty lasted for six years, which, I might add, was three times as long as service in the regular army, although to be perfectly honest, I was unable to fulfill my entire obligation because I was taking acting classes and they said I could skip my last year. I'll always be eternally grateful to the Pentagon for allowing me to pursue my dreams.
Still, after all this time, whenever I've mentioned my service in the Reserve during Vietnam, it's been met with sneers and derision. But now, thanks to President Bush, I can stand up proudly alongside him and all the other guys who guarded the home front. Finally, we no longer have to be embarrassed about our contribution during those very trying years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15 DAVI.html?th" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15 DAVI.html?th" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0... NY Times
|
|
|
| |
| French tighten law to ensure families keep eye on elderly |
| 02.15.04 (8:21 pm) [edit] |
By Kim Willsher in Paris
February 16, 2004
The French Government is to punish families who fail to keep in touch with elderly relatives after being shamed by statistics which reveal that the suicide rate among its pensioners is the highest in Europe.
In a country that prides itself on traditional Catholic family values, elderly people left to fend for themselves are committing suicide at a rate of 62 a week, according to recent figures.
Under French law, adult offspring are already required to provide for ageing parents who do not have the means to look after themselves.
Article 207 of the Civil Code states that children have a legal obligation to "honour and respect" their parents, as well as pay them an allowance and provide or fund a home for them. A judge may set the sum, with non-payers facing prison or a fine.
Now the Civil Code is to be tightened, making it a crime for descendants of people living alone to "fail to keep themselves regularly informed" of their state of health, and a crime not to intervene should they suddenly be taken ill.
The move comes just six months after 15,000 mostly elderly people died in last northern summer's heatwave, only for their bodies to lie unclaimed for weeks while their families enjoyed their annual holidays.
Describing the rash of deaths as a "catastrophe", members of the Senate - France's second house of parliament - said the death toll had been made worse by offspring who were "indifferent" to the fate of their elderly relatives.
They "went on holiday leaving an elderly mother or father without taking any precautions should they find themselves in difficulty", a French parliamentary report said.
It said existing laws had simply led to relatives' cheque books replacing their compassion. "In nearly all cases, this obligation, despite being theoretically very large, comes down to an obligation to pay."
The relationship between French citizens and their elderly parents is affected by the country's inheritance laws, under which parents are obliged to leave their estates to their children regardless of how badly they have been treated.
The senate report concluded: "We cannot completely stop the division of family solidarity caused by geographical distance - we're no longer in the days where three or four generations live under the same roof or in the same village. However, it is not acceptable that children exonerate themselves from all responsibility for their aged parents."
The latest figures reveal that 3232 people over the age of 65 kill themselves in France each year - about a third of the total number of suicides, estimated at between 10,000 and 12,000. Rene Arnaud-Castiglioni, head of a new psychiatric service for the elderly at a Marseilles hospital, blamed a society that "overvalued the image of youth" at the expense of the aged.
"An elderly person who is depressed doesn't worry anyone as long as they don't make a fuss," Dr Arnaud-Castiglioni said. "People say, 'Oh, they've led their lives; it's normal'."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/15/10 76779839182.html" title="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/15/10 76779839182.html" target="_blank"http://www.smh.com.au/article... smh.com
|
|
|
| |
| Elite Israeli troops reject Gaza violence |
| 02.15.04 (7:27 pm) [edit] |
Conal Urquhart in Rehovot, Israel
Sunday February 15, 2004
The Observer
The three men sitting in the corner of a busy cafe are unremarkable as they talk among themselves, sipping coffee and blending with the rest of the customers.
But they are members of a remarkable group, the Sayeret Matkal, Israel's equivalent of the SAS. And what makes them even more extraordinary in a society that holds its armed forces in such high esteem - in fact, what has earned them damnation from all over the country - is that they told their commanders that they refuse to serve in the Palestinian territories.
They and 10 others wrote to the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, saying they could no longer serve, 'out of a deep sense of foreboding for the future of Israel as a democratic, Zionist and Jewish state'. The letter stated that they would not take part in violating the rights of millions | |
