Month: November 2009

Europe’s governments value the opinion of their peers more than that of ?their citizens. That isn’t democracy

By Christopher Bickerton

A substantial majority of Irish people voted yes to the Lisbon treaty on 2 October. Leaders and officials across Europe were relieved and hoped that this would mean that the treaty would finally come into force. Since then, people say that the European Union must stop looking inwards and turn outwards, to what the EU can do in the world. The Economist wrote that “it is time for the world’s biggest economy to rise from its slumber and play a global role” (1). Charles Grant argued in the Financial Times that an advantage of having Tony Blair as the new president of the European Council would be that “he might inspire the EU to shift its focus from sterile institutional debates towards global challenges such as climate change, energy security, nuclear proliferation and the Middle East” (2).

That the EU’s attempt to bring itself closer to its citizens can be dismissed as sterile shows the contempt many commentators have for the democratic process. How can we know what goals the EU should pursue if there’s no proper mechanism for translating people’s views into policy? To say that we should look outwards rather than inwards is to say that we know what people want better than they know themselves. This patronising attitude is difficult to square with the democratic principle that governments represent the people, but it is central to explaining much of what has gone wrong in Europe over the last decade.

With the second referendum in Ireland, it is thought that the economy pushed people into the Yes camp. A European Commission poll found that a quarter of those surveyed switched their vote from a No in 2008 to a Yes in 2009 because they thought the Lisbon treaty would help the Irish economy (3).

The economy was a major factor in the campaign, although it was used cynically by both sides. The Yes side spoke of what the Lisbon treaty could address, as if it had been explicitly written to deal with the economic crisis. In fact, it is, as Wolfgang Münchau put it, “a pre-crisis treaty for a post-crisis world” (4). The No side was also cynical in invoking the treaty’s impact on jobs, producing the best billboard of the campaign: the one that said, alongside a large photo of the Irish prime minister, Brian Cowen: “The only job Lisbon will save is his.”

‘Trust us’

Le Monde Diplomatique for more

By M K Bhadrakumar

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is virtually peerless. Only a handful of foreign ministers can match him in professionalism honed over decades in international diplomacy. He seldom leaves the ring empty-handed.

However, one such rare occasion came when he boarded his aircraft with his entourage last week and warily began the 6,000-kilometer journey home from Bangalore, the capital of the southern state of Karnataka, where he had attended a meeting of the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral format.

Moscow has tried its level best over recent months to draw India and China closer together on a common regional initiative on Afghanistan. The RIC meeting in Bangalore took place against the backdrop of the eight-year war in the Hindu Kush radiating negative energy all across neighboring regions – the Caucasus and Central Asia, China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan province and Pakistan’s tribal areas. However, Russian diplomats watched helplessly as eddies in Sino-Indian ties began polluting their efforts to bring Moscow and Delhi closer in Bangalore on the core issues of regional security. They finally called it a day.

Russia puts on a brave face

The Russians, whose pet project is the RIC, must have felt exasperated with their “time-tested” Indian friends. But they wouldn’t have been surprised. They could have anticipated that the disequilibrium within the RIC format would impact the Bangalore meeting. Russia and China are intensifying their cooperation; India has largely neglected its ties with Russia in the post-Cold War years, although most recently it has signaled renewed interest in reviving the atrophied relationship; India and China, on the other hand, have drawn closer incrementally over the past decade, but only to pull apart dramatically in the recent period.

Moscow usually generates a lot of hype when a RIC meeting approaches. This time, it adopted a low-key approach. An article in the influential Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper by Vladimir Skosyrev, a leading commentator, underlined that bilateral Sino-Indian problems – border disputes and the activities of the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, in India – were negatively impacting the work of the RIC.

Asia Times for more

Police and protestor, Madrid demonstration, Spain, 22 May 2006.
© Eduardo León

Spanish authorities need to reform the current system of investigating allegations of torture and other ill-treatment from security forces, Amnesty International said on Tuesday in a new report published as the UN prepares to examine Spain’s record on the issue.

Spain: Adding insult to injury – police impunity two years on reveals that victims alleging torture and other ill-treatment whose cases Amnesty International first reported on in 2007 have failed to receive justice due to lack of political will on the part of the Spanish authorities to confront torture and other ill-treatment by security forces.

“The structural failings affecting all aspects of the prevention, investigation and punishment of torture and other ill-treatment that Amnesty International identified in 2007 are still present, and still obstructing justice,” said Rachel Taylor, Amnesty International’s Spain expert.

Complainants told Amnesty International that they had been threatened with a gun or knife, whipped on the soles of their feet, and received death threats from police officers.

Since November 2007 only two open investigations into allegations of torture and other ill-treatment from the 11 reported by Amnesty International have resulted in a conviction.

Of the remaining nine cases, six were closed without ever reaching trial and two are still under investigation, one of which has now been open for more than seven years.

In the last case, it was found at trial that torture had taken place but the accused officers were all acquitted on the grounds that it was not possible to identify which of them had personally participated in the assault.

One of the cases which failed to reach trial stage in Spain has been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of violation of a right to fair trial, as well as violation of the prohibition of torture and non-discrimination. Two other closed cases are those of Sandra Guzman and Jordi Vilaseca.

Sandra Guzman registered a complaint in December 2006 at the Basque Department of the Interior after she witnessed a police officer partially strip search, hit and kick several men of North African origin in Bilbao. Her complaint was closed six months later supposedly because it had been impossible to locate the men who had allegedly been assaulted by the police officers.

Jordi Vilaseca was arrested on 1 April 2003 by autonomous regional police officers in Catalonia while driving home from work. After ill-treatment during his three days in detention, he lost consciousness and was hospitalised. When he regained consciousness, he was unable to speak, walk or control his bowels. Jordi Vilaseca made a complaint against the police for torture. In May 2005 the case was closed on the grounds of lack of evidence and because the prosecutor said there were contradictory versions of events from the complainant and the accused. After several appeals, the Constitutional Court rejected the case in January 2009. No further appeal is possible.

“The Spanish authorities must stop shirking their obligation to conduct thorough, impartial and effective investigations into all allegations of torture or other ill-treatment by police officers. At the same time they should focus on prevention of such acts, which is always better than cure” Rachel Taylor said.

Amnesty International for more

By Kiran Chapagain

Brad Adams is the Asia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), a New York-based global human rights watchdog. He was in Kathmandu last week to release a human rights report entitled Still Waiting for Justice: No End to Impunity in Nepal, a follow up report on the status of impunity in Nepal. He has been following Nepal’s human rights issues since 2002.

The report, a joint work of HRW and Kathmandu-based Advocacy Forum, has pointed out Nepal’s failure to address human rights issues of the conflict period. In this context, myrepublica’s Kiran Chapagain talked to Adams Friday to know his views on the reasons behind the lack of progress in addressing impunity, international efforts to press the Nepal Army (NA) and the Maoists to cooperate in investigation of the conflict-time rights cases and the role of the international community in addressing impunity in Nepal.

Excerpts:

myrepublica: The report paints a bleak progress about Nepal’s efforts in addressing impunity in Nepal. What are the reasons for that?

Brad Adams: There are a number of reasons. First, the army protects its soldiers while the Maoists protect their fighters. They believe nobody in their ranks should be arrested.
Second, institutions like courts, police and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in Nepal are weak. Police investigations are very weak. They do not have proper equipment, training and commitment. They do not wake up in the morning thinking “I am going to solve the crime”. They think of other things. The courts are also very weak though there are good lawyers and judges in this country. Similarly, other institutions like the NHRC are not playing their role. It should be strong enough in challenging the army and the Maoists.

The report has accused the army of not cooperating in investigating and prosecuting human rights abusers. Why do you think the army is not cooperating?

I think there are many reasons. One reason is that if individual soldiers are arrested, put on trial and found guilty, the question that will arise is: Who gave them the orders in the first place? So, the blame would shift to those in the upper ranks in the army. Is it possible that all these killings happened without any order being given?

Second, I think the army believes at the leadership level that they were right and the Maoists were wrong. They believe that they were fighting for a noble cause to save the country, save the monarchy against communism and whatever they did was necessary for the good of the country. They still seem to believe that.

Third, the army, actually the one is senior positions, believes they are above the law. They do not think that the law should cover them.

My Republica for more

Announcement

November 14-15, 2009
Honoring Hari Sharma at 75

Dear Friends,

The “Life in Struggle Celebration” to honor Hari Sharma on his 75th birthday will take place on November 15 at the Grand Taj Banquet Hall, 8388-128 St, Surrey, BC and will start at 5.30 pm. The ticket for the event, including dinner and entertainment, is $30.00, and there will be a cash bar. A book, “Celebrating Life in Struggle: A Tribute to Hari Sharma, “scheduled to be published in November, will be presented to Hari at the party. It will be available to all the guests and is included in the cost of the ticket.

If you have not obtained your ticket already, we urge you to do so now. The caterer has to be given a precise figure of those attending the event.

Tickets can be obtained from Café Kathmandu (2779 Commercial Drive, Vancouver). Or, phone Harinder Mahil (604 761 9235) or Bhanu Poudyal (604 376 7329).

We also remind you that there is a conference on November 14 (10 AM to 4 PM) at which some of the articles included in the book mentioned above in the section, ‘Perspectives on Imperialism, Socialism and People’s Struggles Today’ will be presented and discussed. Venue: Newton Community Recreation Centre, 7120 – 136B Street, Surrey, BC. Lunch provided.

Hari Sharma @75 Organizing Committee:
Abi Ghimire, Amarjit Chahal, Bhanu Poudyal, Charan Gill, Chinmoy Banerjee, Harinder Mahil, Raj Chouhan, Sarabjit Hundal, Satinder Sidhu, Shinder Brar

Doubts have arisen over whether the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), scheduled to be held in Copenhagen in December, will reach agreement on a post-Kyoto Protocol framework to curb global warming.

The uncertainty stems from the UNFCCC secretariat’s recent observation to the effect that the COP15 must strive to reach a political accord on the basic outline of the new framework. It said that would pave the way for the framework itself to be adopted next year.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Considering the time it will take for all parties to ratify the new framework, reaching an agreement by the end of this year is crucial if it is to take effect in 2013. But meeting this deadline may no longer be attainable under the current schedule of negotiations.

The main hurdle lies in hard-to-reconcile conflicts of interest between developed countries and developing or newly emerging economies.

Developed nations have been urging China and other emerging powers to make efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions, only to be told that they themselves ought to be setting an example to the rest of the world by drastically slashing their own emissions.

Another problem is that U.S. President Barack Obama is having a hard time exerting his leadership on the issue. Faced with opposition in Congress, there is no chance for his anti-climate change bill to become law before the end of this year. This has effectively sidelined Obama from any position of influence in international negotiations.

Given the situation, it will be difficult to get a post-Kyoto Protocol framework drawn up before the COP15. This understanding must have been what made the UNFCCC secretariat go for the pragmatic approach of making sure the Copenhagen meeting will at least reach a political agreement wherever possible, so that there will be no lengthy period of international inaction after the Copenhagen meeting.

This, however, does not diminish the importance of the COP15 in any way. The direction of future negotiations will be determined by the substance of the basic political accord. The key player nations must bear this in mind and remain firmly committed to ironing out their differences.

But there are many challenges. The developed nations must clearly indicate their own emissions reduction targets and try to get developing and emerging economies to commit to reduction efforts. It will also be necessary to offer funding and technological assistance to the developing world. In short, as much as possible should be accomplished in Copenhagen so as to reduce the amount of “unfinished homework” for next year.

Asahi for more

US Congress Endorses Israeli War Crimes

By Nima Shirazi

On the afternoon of November 3, 2009, the United States House of Representatives voted in favor of House Resolution 867 (H.Res.867), an AIPAC-backed bill that urges both President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to “oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the “Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict,” referred to commonly as the “Goldstone Report.” With this vote, the US Congress has not only enshrined its opposition to investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity found to be committed during last winter’s Israeli massacre of over 1,400 Palestinians in the closed-off Gaza Strip, but has also affirmed its outrageous and unconscionable commitment to Israel’s continuous unfettered aggression and singular unaccountability to international law, rules of military engagement, human rights, and basic morality.

In their successful effort to (yet again) shield the State of Israel from any and all scrutiny or criticism over its illegal use of collective punishment and excessive force against an imprisoned, impoverished, and defenseless civilian population, Congressional supporters of H.Res.867 sought to discredit the UN’s 575-page report of meticulously-documented human rights violations. After visiting Gaza, conducting 188 individual interviews of victims and witnesses, studying more than 300 reports, submissions and other documentation including medical reports and forensic analysis of weapons and ammunition remnants collected in Gaza, amounting to more than 10,000 pages, and reviewing over 30 videos and 1,200 photographs, the Mission, led by South African Justice Richard Goldstone, concluded that “violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and possible war crimes and crimes against humanity” were committed by both parties (Israel and Hamas) during the Israeli assault on Gaza (A/HRC/12/48 p.423).

Goldstone’s impeccable and unimpeachable credentials cannot be overstated. As a member of the South African Standing Commission of Inquiry Regarding Public Violence and Intimidation, Goldstone was responsible for uncovering and publicizing allegations of the extensive violence committed by Apartheid South African security forces, paving the way for subsequent investigations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after South African democratization. He served as a judge for the Constitutional Court of South Africa, chairman of the Independent International Commission on Kosovo, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and was a member of the International Panel of the Commission of Enquiry into the Activities of Nazism in Argentina (CEANA), tasked to identify and prosecute Nazi war criminals who had emigrated to Argentina. In 2004/5, he was a member of the Volker Committee investigation into the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food program.

Wide Asleep in America for more

Back from the third round of MEIFF, Hani Mustafa follows a string of concern with the past in several of the Arab films screened there

Regional film events provide a rare opportunity to assess a large number of films from a particular part of the world at a particular point in time, and where possible register a single characteristic running through a large number of them. At the Middle East International Film Festival, which closed last Saturday, one idea informing the Arab films on the programme was concern with time: its passage, and the effect of its unfolding on people (or characters). Several films concerned themselves with history, whether to review a particular episode from the past or to engage with the beauty of times past. Such over-the-board interest in time might drive the critic to a rushed judgement to the effect that Arab cinema is digging up old glories or indulging in nostalgia for its own sake. Yet a fair number of the films on the MEIFF programme effectively eschewed such shallow nostalgia, opting for a serious probing of the past to make contact with their roots or to present an informed and profound view of the present.

One such film, which dealt with history deeply and with technical prowess, was The Time that Remains by the Palestinian filmmaker Elia Suleiman, who managed to skilfully interweave the personal and the political — a formula he employed in his previous films, whether features or shorts. Suleiman’s cultural specificity — his status as an Arab Israeli — gives his films a contradictory flavour, a kind of dialectic present in all his works starting with his first short The Gulf War… What Next? Screened at the Ismailia Documentary and Short Film Festival in 1993, it presented a clear view of one Arab Israeli in exile, and his contradictory feelings on hearing (false) news that Saddam would be targeting Tel Aviv with Scud missiles. On the one hand, as a dispossessed Arab, he is excited; on the other, he is deeply concerned for his mother, who lives in Nazareth (a few kilometres away from Tel Aviv).

The Palestinian cause is routinely depicted in a clichéd and direct way by the vast majority of Palestinian directors and thereby makes for weak films. Yet as Suleiman demonstrated in Divine Intervention (which received the Grand Jury Award in Cannes 2002), it is possible to deal with the Palestinian cause in a human and artistic way — an approach he also took in The Time that Remains, which featured in the official competition of the Cannes Film Festival this year and received the Best Middle East Film Award at MEIFF.

Al-Ahram for more

By Oscar Ugarteche

Twenty months after signing the founding charter of the Bank of the South in Buenos Aires, South American presidents signed the Articles of Agreement of BANCOSUR in Porlamar, Margarita Island, on Monday, 28 September 2009. The agreement contains rules that were negotiated by committees at the level of ministries of economy and finance, and include capital investments, a voting mechanism, recruitment of staff, case law, tax and legal considerations of officials and the functionality of the bank. In other words, exactly what it is for.

It is worth noting that the Bank of the South is owned by the ten member countries of UNASUR. Negotiations for its creation first began in 2006 between Venezuela and Argentina. In May 2007 Ecuador and Brazil joined in, and later on the rest of the countries also agreed to join. Unlike the Andean Development Corporation (CAF) which has 18 member countries, some from outside the continent and others from Central America, BANCOSUR is South American in essence. In this sense, Chile’s position as an observer, although frequent in relation to Latin American integration since its withdrawal from the Andean Pact in 1977, is a disadvantage compared to its small share of US$ 21 million in the CAF. Although the amount is mostly symbolic, it is a sign of presence. So far there has been no such sign regarding this bank. Chile’s position brings to mind the British foreign policy regarding European integration, which remained as an observer during the decades of formation of the European Economic Community, and even after the European unification, the British government maintains an independent migration policy and the pound remains in force. The British would not allow continental Europe to dictate their monetary or immigration policy.

Colombia for its part has played an ambivalent role. In 2006 was against the idea, but in the second half of 2007 said it was in favour, and then the day before the formal signature of the Articles of Agreement it withdrew, causing confusion in the charter, as it lists eight signatures but in fact there are only seven. Peru is the only South American country that is impervious to the idea, though possibly with the next government it will join in. The reason is understandable given the importance of Venezuela in the bank and the close relationship of Peruvian president Alan García with the now ousted Venezuela’s Democratic Action Party and more specifically with former president Carlos Andrés Pérez, a personal friend of the Peruvian president. In other words, the absence of Peru reflects the absence of institutional operation of the country’s foreign policy. Peru is not an active player in UNASUR as shown by the absence of president García in Isla Margarita on the weekend of September 26 and earlier in Santiago de Chile.

Peru and Colombia are in line with Washington and the policy of bilateral agreements launched by former U.S. president, George W. Bush. Both countries seem to disregard Latin American integration in their foreign policy and to join Washington’s principle of ‘divide and rule’, on the understanding that the country who wins with integration is the one whose government they do not sympathize with. They fulfill the same role with UNASUR and BANCOSUR that they performed before in the peak of the external debt crisis, with the debtors’ club of 1984, which ceased to meet in May of that year because these two countries provided a bridge for Washington’s negotiations in the opposite direction, says Ambassador Carlos Alzamora Traverso, then Permanent Secretary of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic System (SELA) in one of his renowned books.

Secretary of State says Hilary Clinton: “A central purpose of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review that I announced last week is to explore how to effectively design, fund, and implement development and foreign assistance as part of a broader foreign policy. Let’s face it. We have devoted a smaller percentage of our government budget to development than almost any other advanced country. And too little of what we have spent has contributed to genuine and lasting progress. Too much of the money has never reached its intended target, but stayed here in America to pay salaries or fund overhead in contracts. I am committed to more partnerships with NGOs, but I want more of our tax dollars to be used effectively and to deliver tangible results.”(1)

With the renewed attention in Latin America, for example, Washington supported the coup in Honduras and took a position against the deposed legitimate president, operates the seven military bases, launches the fourth fleet and supports the kidnapping of suspects from one country to another, specifically in reference to professor Beltrán from Colombia, who was kidnapped in Mexico and later appeared in a Bogota prison. Unfortunately they want to pay more attention to the region, as in the 70s.

Signature of the articles of agreement

ALAI for more

By William Minter and Anita Wheeler

Washington, DC — On the eve of the climate change summit in Copenhagen this December, momentum for action still falls far short of that needed to avert catastrophe. Africa will suffer consequences out of all proportion to its contribution to global warming, which is primarily caused by greenhouse gas emissions from wealthy countries.

But Africa can also make significant contributions to mitigating (i.e. limiting) climate change. Stopping tropical deforestation is one of the most cost-effective means to slow the growth of greenhouse gases. Ending gas flaring in Africa’s oil-producing countries could reduce carbon emissions and, as a bonus, also provide cleaner electricity.

Environmental activists in Africa people like Nnimo Bassey in Nigeria, Wangari Maathai in Kenya, and Marc Ona Essangui in Gabon are thus also on the frontlines against global warming. The damage from gas flaring and deforestation shows up both on the ground and in satellite photographs on the Internet. Reversing the damage will require both local and global action.

Africa‘s Stake in Climate Change Action

In Africa, as around the world, awareness is growing that climate change is not a remote threat but an immediate danger causing more frequent “extreme weather conditions” of drought and flooding. Ice is melting at the poles and on Mount Kilimanjaro. The waters of Lake Chad are disappearing. Drought cycles in East Africa are becoming more unpredictable.

Africa is particularly vulnerable to climate change, notes the International Panel on Climate Change. Factors such as dependence on rain-fed agriculture and the impact of warming on the spread of disease reinforce multiple preexisting stresses. Like AIDS, the threat is already here. The toll is rising. Even more damaging effects will play out over decades.

Yet global warming comes primarily from greenhouse gas emissions outside Africa. Much of Africa’s share, moreover, comes from extracting natural resources to be exported.

According to the latest estimates, the entire African continent was responsible for only 3.7% of the world’s annual CO2 emissions, compared to China with 21.5%, the United States with 20%, and the European Union with 14%. Comparing cumulative emissions, a better measure of environmental impact, Africa’s estimated 26.7 billion metric tons of emissions (1900-2004) were less than half the 55.1 billion tons from the United Kingdom, and only 8% of the 314.8 billion tons from the United States.

Africa, compared with selected countries	% of world’s cumulative CO2 emissions. 1900-2004	% of world’s CO2 emissions, 2006
Africa total	2.5%	3.7%
South Africa only	1.2%	1.5%
United States	29.5%	20.2%
China	8.4%	21.5%
Russia	8.4%	5.5%
Germany	6.9%	2.8%
United Kingdom	5.2%	2.0%
Japan	4.0%	4.6%
India	2.4%	5.3%
Canada	2.2%	1.9%
Mexico	1.1%	1.6%

African countries have prepared a common position for Copenhagen, stressing strong targets for emissions reduction by developed countries and global responsibility to aid Africa in reducing emissions and adapting to change. But attention at the conference will center elsewhere. The United States and China are the two largest contributors to global warming, followed by Europe and emerging powers such as India, Brazil, and Russia. Africa’s leverage in the negotiations is limited.

Whatever is decided in global talks, the crucial test will be what happens on the ground. When it comes to Africa’s natural resources, the prospects for change depend squarely on African governments, on foreign companies and their home-country governments, and on the pressures that can be mobilized by national and international civil society.

Two sectors well illustrate the point: oil production with its by-product of gas flaring, and deforestation, the result both of local land-use pressures and the export of tropical woods.

Gas Flaring

When crude oil is extracted, it comes with natural gas which must be separated. If this gas is not captured for fuel, or reinjected into the earth, it is vented into the air or burned. Venting and flaring produce methane and CO2, both greenhouse gases. Gas flaring is one of the two largest sources of CO2 emissions in sub-Saharan Africa, second only to coal-fired power generation in South Africa.

All Africa for more http://allafrica.com/stories/200911030971.html