The political economy of networks

AN « EXCESS »  OF DEMOCRACY  (2/3)

Networked forms of the 1960s/70s were distinctive because essential to their origin, character and sustainability were values of solidarity, equality and democracy. Consciousness of these origins could help us now, when networked organizations are everywhere, to distinguish between the instrumental use of the concept of network in essentially undemocratic organizations (i.e. within states and corporations) and, on the other hand, as a way of connecting distributed activities based on shared values of social justice and democratically agreed norms.

© Infonomx

The latter possibility is radically enhanced through the new information and communications technology in its non-proprietorial forms. The new possibilities of systems coordinating a multiplicity of autonomous organizations with shared values, through democratically agreed norms or protocol, can help upscale economic organizations based on non-capitalist – collaborative, P2P (peer to peer organizations such as The Pirate Bay) co-operative or other social and democratic – forms of ownership, production, distribution and finance.

What enables us to make this apparently surprising dive from the forms of organization shaped by the consciousness-raising groups of the women’s movement (or indeed other civil society initiatives of the same period, such as the factory shop stewards’ committees combining against multi-plant, multinational corporations and developing alternative plans for socially useful production is the importance they give to practical, experiential knowledge and the need to share and socialize it.

The political economy of knowledge

The reason why this is important for the development of a political economy beyond capitalism is that behind the imposed choice between capitalist market and the state is the polarization between scientific, social and economic knowledge on the one hand and practical knowledge on the other. While the former was regarded as the heart of economic planning and centralized through the state, defenders of the free market sustained the latter as being held individually by the entrepreneur, capable of coordination only through the arbitrary workings of the market, based on private ownership. The relevant step forward of the women’s and other movements of the 1960s/70s was to make the sharing and socializing of experiential knowledge – in combination with scientific forms – fundamental to their focused, but always experimental, organizations. And to do so through consciously coordinated (networked) and self-reflexive relations between autonomous (distributed) initiatives.

Translating this into economics in the age of information and communications technology – a project requiring much further work – points to the possibility of forms of co-ordination that can include and help to regulate a non-capitalist market. A regulated, socialized market, that is, in which the drive to accumulate and make money out of money is effectively inhibited. It also provides a base for democratizing and, where appropriate, decentralizing the state, within the context of democratically agreed social goals (such as concerning equality and ecology).

It is over these issues concerning the sharing of knowledge and information and the implications for the relationship between autonomy and social co-ordination that the ideas coming from the Occupy movement can creatively converge with those of earlier movements. It is interesting in this context to read the economics working group of Occupy London describing in the Financial Times how Frederick von Hayek, the Austrian economist and theorist of free-market capitalism, with his ideas on the significance of distributed knowledge, is the talk of Occupy London. No doubt this was partly a rhetorical device for the FT audience. But the challenge of answering Hayek and his justification of the free market on the basis of a theory of distributed practical and/or experiential knowledge does provide a useful way of clarifying for ourselves the importance of the networked social justice initiatives of today and the anti-authoritarian social movements of the past for an alternative political economy. (http://www.tni.org/archives/books_arguments)
There is a point at which Hayek’s critique of the ‘all knowing state’ at first glance converges with the critique of the social democratic state made by the libertarian-social movement left in the 1960s/70s. Both challenge the notion of scientific knowledge as the only basis for economic organization and both emphasize the importance of practical and experiential knowledge and its ‘distributed’ character. But when it comes to understanding the nature of this practical knowledge and hence its relation to forms of economic organization, these perspectives diverge radically.

Whereas Hayek theorizes this practical knowledge as inherently individual and hence points to the arbitrary, unplanned and unplannable workings of the market and the price mechanism, the radicals of the 1960s/70s took, as we have just explained, a very different view. For them, the sharing of knowledge embedded in experience and collaboration to create a common understanding and self-consciousness of their subordination and of how to resist, was fundamental to the process of becoming a movement. In contrast to the individualism of Hayek, their ways of organizing assumed that practical knowledge could be socialized and shared. This led to ways of organizing that emphasized communication and shared values as a basis for co-ordination and a common direction. It provided the basis for purposeful and therefore more or less plannable action – action that was always experimental, never all-knowing; the product of distributed intelligence that could be consciously shared.

At the risk of being somewhat schematic, it could be argued that the movements of the 1960s/70s applied these ideas especially to develop an unfinished vision of democratizing the state. This took place both through attempts to create democratic, participatory ways of administering public institutions (universities and schools, for example) and through the development of non-state sources of democratic power (women’s centers, police monitoring projects and so on). It involved working ‘with/in and against’ the state, such as in the early 1980s when Madrid was handled by Enrique Tierno Galvan and the Greater London Council was led by Ken Livingstone.

Today’s movements are effectively focusing their energies especially on challenging the oligarchic market, and the injustice of corporate, financial power. Here the development of networked forms are increasingly linked to distributed economic initiatives – co-ops, credit unions, open software networks, collaborative cultural projects and so on. In this way, today’s movements are beginning to develop in practice a vision of socializing production and finance and creating an alternative kind of market, complementary to the earlier unfinished vision of democratic public power.

What they have in common, more in practice than in theory, is an assertion of organized democratic civil society as an economic actor, both in the provision of public goods and in the sphere of market exchange.

From social rebellion to transformation

AN « EXCESS »  OF DEMOCRACY  (1/3)

As we become increasingly dominated by the pursuit of economic growth, what campaigners can learn us from #occupy as well as previous radical movements in our attempt to forge a new kind of political economy based on a framework of equality, mutuality and respect for nature.

The philosophy and experience of radical movements in the 1960s and 70s are complementary to the ideas of the direct action movements today. It is here to examine the possibility of forging a new kind of political economy by assimilating the best of both of them.

The Occupy movement’s ability to create platforms out of our closed political system to force open a debate on inequality, the taboo at the core of the financial crisis, is impressive. It is a new source of political creativity from which we all have much to learn.

One cannot fail to be impressed by the similarities between the late 1960s and 1970s and the current movement. There are both within the same strong feeling of power “from below” that comes from the dependence of the powerful on those they dominate or exploit. There’s the creative combination of personal and collective change, and proper rapport between resistance and experiments in creating alternatives here and now. There’s the repulse of hierarchies and the creation of organizations that are today described as ‘horizontal’ or ‘networked’ – and that now with the new technology tools for networking (Twitter, Facebook …) have both more potential –but it should also lend to greater distortion…

Here come back the same old problems: informal and unaccountable leaderships, tensions between inclusion and effectiveness. The Tyranny of Structurelessness, a strong assay of American feminist Jo Freeman inspired by her experiences in the 1970s in favor of the liberation of women and addressing, in particular, those unforeseen difficulties from the perspective of the movement women’s liberation, may be well read.

But that was 40 years ago – even before the widespread use of faxes, not to mention personal computers and mobile phones. Reflecting on these marginalized earlier movements possibly take forward the debates opened by Occupy and the Indignados.

From social rebellion to capitalist transformation

The fate of the energies and aspirations of that rebellious decade is a long and complex cluster of stories. Considering their relevance today, I want only to point to a historical process that was not generally anticipated at the time and still is not fully understood today. This was the ability of capitalism, which sought a way out of its stagnation and crisis, to feed opportunistically on the chaotic creativity and experimental culture-restless of the movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

For example, in the 80s while attacking unions, corporate management was also dismantling the military-style hierarchies characteristic of many leading companies and decentralizing the production process. A new generation of managers, especially in the innovative industries, assumed that more tacit knowledge by workers would infer a valuable source of increased productivity and higher profits – as long as workers have little or no power on their real redistribution.

Another prime example is how, in the endless pursuit of new markets, marketing experts were able to identify and anticipate business opportunities in the broad perspective and wants of a growing number of women with own income.

The key underlying feature of these and similar trends is that much of the innovative nature of capitalism’s renewal in the 1980s and 1990s – strengthened by the credit expansion– came from external sources to both the society and the state. In fact, frequently its origins lay in the resistance and the search for alternatives to both.

In other words, capital proved very much more agile in responding and appropriating the new energies and aspirations stimulated by the critical movements of the 1960s and 1970s than did the parties of the left – for which these movements could have been a force for democratic renewal.

Counter-movement

Now, with the credit that supported the social turmoil of this particular period of capitalism having become toxic, the search for alternatives is back again. Even the Financial Times, much to our astonishment, insisted in a series of articles on the crisis of capitalism to conclude that “at the heart of the problem is widening inequality”.

Are we witnessing in the combination – not necessarily convergence – of unease within at least the cultural elites, the growth of sustained popular resistance and public unhappiness, the emergence of what Karl Polanyi called a ‘counter-movement’ to the socially destructive consequences of rampant capitalism? And to what extent might the ideas of the movements of the 1960s and 1970s influence the character of that counter-movement?

A fundamental break

To answer this we need briefly to remind ourselves of the essential nature of the original social critique driven up by the 1960s/70s movements and in particular the nature of its potential break with the institutions of the post-war order: their paternalism, their exclusions, their narrow definition of democracy and the assumption that production and technology were neutral values.

Essential to the character of this assessment was its aspiration, more in practice than in theory, to overcome the deleterious dichotomies of the Cold War between the individual and the collective/social; freedom and solidarity/equality; ‘free’ market versus ‘command’ state – dichotomies that were refrozen through neoliberalism and the conditions in which the Berlin Wall fell.

The ideas and practices of the feminist’s movement are particularly explanatory. This movement arose partly from the gender-blind inconsistencies and from unfulfilled promises of radical movements of the time. It deepened and extended their transformation, adding ideas emerging from women’s specific experiences of breaking out of their subordination.

Especially important here was an emphasis on the individual as social and the collective as based on relationship between individuals: a social individualism and a relational view of society and social change. After all, the momentum of the women’s liberation movement was encouraged both by women’s desire to develop as individuals and their determination to end the social relationships that blocked these possibilities of progress. This required social solidarity: an organized movement.

The nature of its organization was shaped by a constant attempt to create organizational forms that combined freedom and autonomy – what every man struggles for– with solidarity, mutuality and values of equality. The result – cutting a complex and tense story short – was ways of relating that allowed autonomy, coordination and mutual support, without having to go through a single center. It’s what might be called an early solution, pre-ICT (*), a form of network organization.

The corporate capture of governments

The G20 — the most powerful summit of world governments — meets tomorrow to discuss the global economic crisis, and who is sponsoring the meeting? Banks and corporations.

No wonder the site of the meeting — the French city of Cannes — is completely locked down to any ordinary citizens, while banks and large corporate CEOs have all access passes to tell our governments what to do.

Corporations and banks have captured our governments, winning vast bailouts after helping to create the crisis. Now they are buying their way into the very meeting that could decide the world’s financial future.

The line between corporate power and responsible government has steadily blurred, undermining our democracies and our economy. Politicians take money from corporations for their campaigns, make policies that reward them when in office, and then take high-paid jobs with them after they leave. It’s venality, plain and simple.

Now Société Générale, a French bank that received a public bailout and has a vested interest in Europe’s financial policy, is an official sponsor of the summit. This bank and 20 other corporations have paid large sums of money in sponsorship for a seat at the table of our governments.

The only way to get policies that protect jobs, tackle speculators and guarantee a fair future for us all is to kick back against the lobbies and prise our leaders away from corporate interests.  The global economic crisis resulted in large part from reckless banks that were no longer regulated effectively by governments because of the control banks stress over our leaders. This corporate capture of government is the major threat today, both to democracy, and to an efficient and fair economy.

Northern Africa: A Choice between Reform and Stability

An Egyptian army band plays music in Cairo's Tahrir Square during celebrations marking one week after Egypt's long-time president Hosni Mubarak was forced out of office

In the wake of uprisings in North Africa, West may be forced to make a choice between much-needed reform or stable dictatorships. NATO will need to reconsider its newest partnerships, beyond the interest of its allies, and start guaranteeing actual security.

Doused in paint thinner, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself alight in Tunisia on Dec. 17, sparking a string of protests throughout northern Africa. The 20-year old college graduate, angry after the government confiscated his source of income- a fruit cart- and beat him, has been credited as the beginning of a series of uprisings in North Africa.

Protests have now spread to Egypt, Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as Morocco and Algeria. Citizens have taken to the streets in protest of high food prices, and even higher unemployment rates, and general discontent with, in many cases, decades of inefficient dictatorial regimes.

With protests mounting from country to country, igniting passion for reform in nations’ citizens, the uprisings of North Africa may be the 21st century’s Berlin Wall. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recognizes the potential effect the uprisings could have on the world order, but says, “The outcome of this turmoil remains unclear.”

Resource-rich North Africa has become a strategic battlefield among the US, Europe, China and Russia. The US and Europe seemed to prevail under two NATO initiatives: the Mediterranean Dialogue and a military alliance with the 53 countries of the African Union (AU).

Member nations of the AU and the Mediterranean Dialogue are believed to benefit from the initiatives under the broad public goals of countering security threats against Africa and using NATO as a model for the African Standby Force. But NATO members will receive more concrete benefits, such as limiting Russian and Chinese expansion and blocking arms suppliers of non-NATO members.

The interests of NATO fake ahead, devoid of serious regard to its public objectives. Rasmussen has outlined his concerns with the uprisings in terms of its impact upon the Middle East peace process and a possible increase of illegal immigration to Europe, validating NATO-centric concerns to the world under a “we don’t interfere in domestic politics” stance. Forget about partnerships, dialogues, and goals.

This lack of response from NATO is only amplified by a muted response from the US, with Europe following suit. Though Obama exercised caution in denouncing violence against peaceful protesters in Libya out of fear that the Gadhafi regime would target American nationals in Libya, Washington was also slow to react to protests in Egypt earlier in February.

Only after receiving strong criticism in the media did Obama denounce Mubarak, a long-time ally to the US, calling for transition “now.” Washington has supported up dictatorial regimes, such as that of Mubarak, for decades, benefiting from such stable relationships with dictators. In Egypt, which has been known to hold and torture terrorist suspects for the US, there has been a “protect us in our war and we will forgive your human rights abuses” policy. It seems US policy is in support of stable dictators, rather than fledgling democracies. Why would the US and NATO, which so avidly promote democracy, not have supported it in North Africa?

“The US and allies pull out no stops to prevent democracy because of major energy resources,” says Noam Chomsky, a well-respected American intellectual. In fact, as the protests spread to Libya, the major concern in the US was rising gas prices, not Gadhafi dropping bombs on his own citizens and executing Libyan soldiers who refused to kill their compatriots. Oil prices, which could reach $220 per barrel if Libya and Algeria, both dealing with internal protests, were to cut off oil supplies, could slow down economic recovery.

Both NATO and the US have screened selfish intentions behind national sovereignty, but after decades of support for allied dictators and more recent initiatives for a firm grasp on African affairs, perhaps it is not an honest stance to take. And if the US and NATO do not take a stance, we should hope they set aside potential gains and focus on allowing the internal movements of Africa choose the next step.

Recently, NATO has urged all parties to stop violence and ensure peaceful transition to democracy. A little less recently, Mubarak urged protestors for ‘orderly transitions’ that only served to postpone change. While we can hope and urge for peaceful transitions, we must remember that NATO should not be just a collection of military power, but also a political entity with a widely stated goal to “promote democratic values to build trust and prevent conflict in the long-run. To prevent conflict in the long run, might it be in the best interests of North Africa to allow reform?

West cannot both call for stability and advocate reform. It will need to reconsider its newest partnerships, beyond the interest of its allies, and start guaranteeing actual security.

Libyan costly battles

The battle in the Libyan desert lacks of cinematographic epics.

Neither “Rommel” Muammar el-Qaddafi withdraws as in Germanic retreat with his Jamahiriya’s Afrika Korps nor does Montgomery-champion-of-freedom conclude crushing the bad guys. But one thing’s for sure, we see how accurately are destroyed from the air some armored tanks that seem relics of the Second World War. We also perceive groups of insurgents, up the road, down the road, burning wheel on civilian vehicles with batteries of rockets that on no occasion will reach any target.

Clumsy images, testimonial prints, broadcasted and televised where the self-proclaimed members of the Libyan Free Army proclaim: « God’s with us. » Allah’s intervention must be prodigious, because only in this way insurgents have not been literally wiped out by the Muammar el-Qaddafi’s worshippers. But we do not see either pictures of massacres – unless the good old Tarantino is unable to record them.

It is a war of mirages, where the only unnatural gadget is the overwhelming war machine deployed by NATO, U.S., UK and France at the forefront. France which does not miss an opportunity, that’s why it is the third world’s biggest arms exporter. In fact, France sold military equipment to Libya up to yesterday. That may be, but our Odyssey Dawn is limited in terms of GDP. Nothing to do with the fireworks deployment that the American Tomahawk missiles display – hundreds of which have been released at a rate of 600,000 euros each. France is further unpretentious. Our tiny little Raffale fighters consume nearby 40,000 insignificant euros in fuel per flight hour. Best not to shoot or we sink our GDP.

Economic anemia and financial crisis (I)

First released in ‘Segunda Naturaleza‘ on 28 March 2009. Updated March 16, 2011

Prior to the financial crisis and as a prelude to the one we behold, we are witnessing a gradual but determined economic anemia. Since 2006.

The history of capitalism is marked by crisis. Definitely, since the 70′s we are witnessing a dip every 5 or 6 years. Systematically. Yet, the current one we endure, we ignore its internal mechanics: this is neither a cyclical crisis we ensue periodically nor a predictable structural collapse – so not analyzable in conventional terms.

Since capitalism exists per se in the dawn of the nineteenth century, the housing issue became a matter of essential focus. The issue is whether or not granting a mortgage to someone who has no assets, but offers reasonable assurance to invest the equivalent of 5 – 7 years earnings, which is the average housing cost. The loan is granted through a mortgage atop the object by itself, provided that the financial institution truthfully assesses the applicant’s income – say provided holder’s solvency. The financial institution does not usually covers further than 70 to 80% overall. The mechanism relies therefore on the holder’s complementary efforts.

However, in practice, since the late 90′s, the tendency in the United States has been encouraging a majority of citizens to become capitalist (whether they were solvents or not) and beginning with the house. The Bush administration pushed this ahead, banks operated with lax « after all, they said, why not lending to anyone. » Often, the assessment on the client’s financial coverage capacity depended if his face fitted, when not in practice, he was supposedly solvent. The bank saved itself because its solvency position no longer depended on the borrower’s sole creditworthy but especially on the intrinsic value of the property: so, if the holder failed to pay, the bank expropriated (sometimes people speak wrongly of seizure) and sold the house to redeem the debt. This system generalized up to December 2008. U.S. banks and European to a lesser extent, granted credit indiscriminately, especially low-income families and active minorities (Hispanics and African Americans), bestowing 100, 110 and even 120% of the property value with the reason that there is always some home remodeling to perform or new furniture to buy when you get settled in a new place. And in order to get a more tempting technique when possible, financial engineering used to propose a financial gimmick: namely, there was no capital refund thru the first 2 or 3 years, other than interests. The uncut gadget was escorted by variable interest rates, i.e. fluctuating, under the pretext that with time, « you’ll see your earnings will go up. » This is what has come to be called the doctrine of constant expansion.

Throughout the summer of 2007 roughly 1,700,000 American families loosed their homes, seized, evicted and their children threw out the street, frequently evicted from the school system. In fact expropriation measures were targeted at around 4,000,000 households, but the authorities responsible for executing the judgments of eviction – judges and police –refused regularly to enforce such unpopular measures. This impelled serious cash flow problems for a lot of credit institutions –to say bankruptcy as they were holding massive amounts of toxic loans (150 to 300,000 million dollars). The multiplier effect soon arose and the entire U.S. banking system realized it was holding failed, flawed, toxic mortgages: the so called subprime lending involved an extra interest rate, a bonus on the event of the loan holder was insolvent.

Yet we cannot talk of robbery; let us rather point to a cynical « brutalization » of the banking system inasmuch as the system decided not to deal with individuals (families, children and their risks), but with objects (the value of their risks). In an ethical and regular system, their loss statements should have been assessed, compulsory provision of funds required and finally the security authorities (central bank and stock exchange authorities) would have taken the necessary steps. Not so. Most financial institutions disguised toxic  loans with others who were not, creating packages, the perverted packages. These, in turn, were subject to new transactions targeted to other entities (which obviously did not warn the gambit). With it, banks got rid of noxious loans on their balance sheets while new (surreptitious) assets appeared healthy. This technique, called « securitization of credit », is perfectly legal but it has been denatured in those circumstances. In theory it happens to convert assets (loans, for example) in securities or bank values. In practice, the conversion was made ​​based on personal loans, thus giving rise to corrupted assets because the failed effects remained hidden behind the creditworthy assets. The hoax is unquestionable as long as the U.S. banks have accepted the situation and many Western banks assumed the subprimes without question. Since then the new titles became « marketable securities » throughout the world, ie they were admissible to official stock exchange quoting and were therefore transferable in the stock market. Titles invaded Western markets and, little by little, the deposit banks collapsed: some were aware of it and others suspected insolvent loans in their portfolio, but they were incapable to determine how many and how important they were. The perversion led to extreme fraud:  there were cases where the mortgage ownership on a home was split throughout several titles so as to detach and include them throughout different packages. Who bids higher?

Very few banks were clever enough to assess their risk or that of their neighbor whom, so far, traded cash daily. Mistrust among banks generalized and interbank credit was finished off.

As for Q4 2008, the real (productive) economy suffered strongly the bias effect of the increasing blockade of credit lines to businesses and small firms. From then on, banks do not guarantee their fundamental duty, i.e. the necessary cash « irrigation » in order to keep in force the levels of trade.

Next post: The imbalances in the spotlight

Libya, the international community and the responsibility to protect

The situation in Libya requires the international community to get involved early. In such cases, the problem of sovereignty must give way to the responsibility to protect. The international community cannot accept that the government of Muammar el-Qaddafi keeps on insisting that these are facts that relate only to Libyan domestic policy, then to be managed in terms of domestic policy.

The international community’s response must be fast, firm and effective. The history of Rwanda in 1994, Srebrenica and Darfur does not allow us to be very optimistic about the effectiveness of the international community when responding to emergency situations. But we must try it. A special meeting on Libya took place at the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday February 25. The next day, the Security Council of United Nations met in New York in this regard. This last resort has ultimately a role and in particular the International Criminal Court – once the ICC is entitled to act at the request of the executive organ of the UN.

The fact that the Security Council of United Nations recognizes that the Libyan issue is of its concern, portends a significant point. At most if the Council just requested the ICC to take hand in the matter. Libya is not a State Party to the Rome Statute (1). Conversely, the Security Council can always promote preliminary investigations: in the case of Darfur, the Council established an investigation committee headed by Italian jurist Antonio Cassese (2). The work of the commission allowed the ICC to be aware and to have jurisdiction on the atrocities committed in the Darfur region.

Such a committee would be useful in elucidating the events in Libya and would be a quick reaction faster to materialize in situ. Its presence and implementation would largely stem the state of violence and abuses that run on the ground at the moment. There are precedents.

So, can the UN act effectively? What can be done?

Both much and little. Because the United Nations are States. The ones that might be fully involved and committed. There has been progress lately, yet the UN machine still remains slow-moving today. The Security Council meets permanently and the Human Rights Council can be in session urgently. Obviously a watchdog having a streamlined executive resolving power would be more effective, but the reality of the current international relations does not allow a real quick response in dealing with such concerns.

Since Monday 28 February, the Human Rights Council shall be meeting for 3 weeks. Surely Libya shall be at the center of the debate. Last Friday, during the Council special session, while the Libyan seat remained empty in the morning, the second secretary at the Libyan embassy in the UN announced in the afternoon, amidst loud applause, that from that moment the Libyan delegation in Geneva represented « the free people of Libya. »

________

(1)  The treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Adopted in Rome on July 17, 1998, and that 139 countries have now ratified.

(2) Antonio Cassese was the first President of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia. He is Professor of International Law at the University of Florence and Editor in Chief of the Journal of International Criminal Justice

Related Posts:

· The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in the spotlight

Way forward for the Palestinian recognition is underway

After direct peace talks with Israel failed last autumn, Palestinian leaders have stepped up their drive to gain global recognition for a Palestinian state. Israel has warned the move could hamper further peace efforts.

 

Map showing states having recognized or have special diplomatic arrangements with Palestine. ©Wikipedia

Since Brazil in December officially recognized a Palestine as a sovereign, independent state within its borders prior to 1967 a whole wave of other Latin American nations have followed. In recent weeks Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador have done the same. Chile and Peru also recognized a Palestinian state, but declined to mention particular borders in their recognition.

South American and Arab states are due to discuss these developments at a summit in Lima this weekend.
Ireland last month upgraded the status of the Palestinian delegation to that of a mission, thereby elevating the head of the mission to the rank of ambassador. A spokeswoman for the Irish foreign ministry said, the country was following the example of France, Spain and Portugal.

Israeli irritation

Israel has criticized the recent wave of recognitions. It called Latin American countries’ recognition of a Palestinian state “highly damaging interference” by countries that were never part of the Middle East peace process.
Ireland’s decision drew an angry response from Israel, which condemned Dublin for a “long-standing biased policy on the Middle East”. “This will only strengthen the Palestinians’ rejection of any return to direct dialogue and peace negotiations,” Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.
Currently, more than 100 countries, mostly in Africa and Asia, have recognized a Palestinian state. Palestinian authorities are hoping for a diplomatic domino effect to back their claim for a state in all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel disputes the Palestinian claim on all the West Bank and East Jerusalem, land it captured from Jordan in a 1967 war and has extensively settled.

Revolts put focus on Arab civil society

Youth revolts in Tunisia and Egypt could spread throughout the Maghreb and the Arab World as the discontented masses take to the streets.

Street clamor is not exactly the same in Egypt as in Tunisia

In Tunisia, a popular insurrection knocked down a dictator for the first time in Arab history. In the meantime, the largest protests in decades have broken out in Egypt. Could Morocco and Algeria be next?

Tunisia’s revolution generated tremors not just in Egypt. Throughout the Maghreb, authoritarian regimes like those in Morocco and Algeria have a difficult time addressing the frustration and despair of their young populations. Could the revolutionary example set in Tunisia take root among its neighbors?

The revolution arose on mid December when a desperate, unemployed computer scientist named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in the small town of Sidi Bouzid. Bouazizi’s death symbolized the despair of a generation, triggering a series of general protests that ultimately swept longtime dictator President Ben Ali from power.

“We have 13 percent unemployment but the figures in the interior of the country are significantly higher, sometimes upwards of 70 percent,” said Adelwahab El Hani, a Tunisian human rights lawyer from Sidi Bouzid. “80,000 Tunisians have just finished up with their studies and they need jobs. That’s an enormous challenge for the government.”

Extreme imbalances and poor human rights records
One Tunisian student said it was like the top cover had shot off of a pressure cooker. He wasn’t just alluding to his homeland, but to the entire Maghreb. In Morocco, half the population is under 25 years old and 40 percent of them do not have a steady job. Young graduates are especially hard hit. The grumbling from the streets has become audible. Sure, there are limited political freedoms, woman’s rights, a parliament and a government – but no genuine open democracy. The military and secret police are omnipresent. The social imbalances are extreme.

“Motives for these kinds of revolts are all over the Maghreb,” said Francis Ghiles, from the Center for International Studies in Barcelona. “The elites in Morocco live the high life, but that doesn’t guarantee social stability. The pie can’t just belong to the rich. When there’s no redistribution of wealth, when the upper class parades around arrogantly, then there will be revolt someday.”

In Algeria it has already reached that point. This massive land is a social barrel of gunpowder. In January there were wounded during protests against high grocery prices. In many Algerian cities, the young expressed their rage in a flurry of stones, tear gas grenades and Molotov cocktails.

Algeria’s government promised to take decisive action, but the country is politically stagnant. Longtime President Abdelaziz Bouteflika is supported by a corrupt clique of military officers and secret police. Three-fourths of Algerians are under 30. Most of them do not have jobs, lodging or perspective. All this despite the fact that the state strongboxes are full with money from oil and gas exports.

Algeria “has accumulated 150 billion euros in foreign exchange,” Ghiles said. “The problem is not a lack of money, but a clientele economy. It’s a casino. There’s no order, no plan, no perspective. And on top of that the government is autistic. Those in power just don’t listen, they don’t see the problems of their people, or they simply just don’t want to see.”

But now they have to see. A growing number of desperate, well-educated young people are extinguishing themselves in gasoline and lighting themselves on fire: In Egypt, in Yemen, in Mauretania and also in Algeria. Just like Mohamed Bouazizi in Tunisia, whose final act of self-determination set a whole country in flames.

Domino effect
Ghiles believes that the so called “Jasmine Revolution” in Tunisia is a historic event that has shaken the entire Maghreb. However, he does not believe that it will set off a domino effect which collapses other authoritarian regimes throughout the region. The Moroccan King Mohammed VI has a broad power base and his role as the highest religious leader of the Moroccan people lends him additional legitimacy.

In Algeria the middle class, which played a critical role in Tunisia, has largely disappeared. There has been social turmoil for years, but the regime has never been seriously threatened. The military and secret police are so tightly connected with the halls of power and the oil and natural gas industries that they have too much to lose in a revolution.

In glaring contrast to Tunisia, the Algerian army would gun down demonstrators. And nobody wants a new civil war in Algeria – the last one cost 200,000 lives. Even if the states of the Maghreb do not fall like dominoes, Tunisia serves as a warning. When these kinds of events repeat themselves, like recently in Algeria or a few years ago in Morocco, or even in Tunisia or Egypt, then governments have to draw some conclusions. If they don’t do that, then the pressure cook will explode – just somewhat later.
________
Francis Ghiles, The Maghreb refuses to share, Le Monde Diplomatique, Feb. 2010; El Coste del No-Maghreb, IEMed and ToledoPax, Madrid, May 2006 and Barcelona, Nov. 2007.

Development, Democracy and Human Security

An approach to the concerns on democracy promotion.

There is a great debate about the principles that should guide promotion of democracy abroad.  There are sensitivities involved in promoting democracy and we should be mindful of how its democracy assistance is perceived in recipient countries.  Others should raise the importance of democratic assistance to Western interests and values.

Many analysts see democracy promotion as a key foreign policy responsibility and suggest that Western states should focus on a holistic approach with a specific focus on developing civil society and establishing long-term goals. Western countries need to be accountable for their actions abroad. They can best promote democracy by leading by example.

Other analysts note that Western countries should only engage in democracy promotion activities when invited by other states, arguing that democracy must take root from within.  Still others felt that democracy promotion was best left to NGOs with indirect support from Western governments.

Significant elements of democratic governance

There is a wide variety of elements of democratic governance.  Some think that developed countries should focus on civic education of children (particularly girls) and youth while others think the establishment of democratic institutions and rule of law are of greater importance.

There is a great debate on what should come first: democracy or development – yet, no consensus is formed. Views diverge on whether economic development is sufficient to bring democracy to other countries.  Many specialists suggest that a market economy is not a precondition or impetus for democratization. Some others focus on the need for an empowered civil society, human rights and free media as essential elements of democratic governance.

How developed countries can promote Democracy

Following along from the discussion of guiding principles above, one should agree that democracy is best cultivated using a bottom-up approach:  hence, the important distinction between democracy promotion and imposition.

In this light, West can promote democracy through its participation in international or regional forums (i.e. by sharing best practices).  In that way, EU missions abroad could support democracy promotion by engaging citizens who had previously lived in the EU.

Developed countries could assist with enhancing the elements of democratic governance.  For example, contributing to dynamism of civil society, supporting the logistics of a free media, encouraging forums of assembly, giving support to international exposure of grassroots democratic struggles, promoting human rights and generally providing consultation and support for countries who request it.

Barriers such as conflict and state fragility, poverty and authoritarian regimes are often interlinked.  Western countries can work to increase transparency and accountability through their efforts to strengthen corporate social responsibility, meet an Official Development Assistance (ODA) level of 0.7% of GDP and restrict financial support to countries with authoritarian regimes (Note that some countries just focus their resources on one region of the world.)

Other analysts mention that it could best assist democracy by focusing at home and implementing, for example, a proportional representation electoral system.

This graphic is world imports in 2002, Colors reflect the level of democracy (blue) or autocracy (tan) in each of these countries (based on the POLITY IV indicators).

What is most notable about this cartogram is the disappearance of the African continent: Africa is almost invisible in terms of global trade patterns, a continuing point of contention in (barely) ongoing global trade negotiations.

© Department of Political Science, Duke University

Main obstacles to democracy promotion

The state, whether authoritarian or exaggeratedly bureaucratic, is the main obstacle to democracy promotion.  In these situations, it is highly recommended to support the community-based democratic initiatives and a strong focus on the mobilization of civil society and a strong middle class.

Lessons learned from South Africa

In this regard, it is interesting to note the South African experience. According to the South African Institute for Security Studies, four critical elements are particularly important to strengthening democracy:

1. Fairness of elections and electoral processes;
2. Freedom to form and participate in an opposition party;
3. Adherence to limits on time served in office as outlined by constitutions; and,
4. Independence of the judiciary.

Another remarkable action is the relative success of US NGO involvement in the colour revolutions (1) that occurred in three countries of the former Soviet Union.  But note that although this method was an example of productive outside intervention, it may not be appropriate in other areas of the world.

Sources:

· David Held, Models of Democracy, Polity and Stanford University Press, 1987.
· New Institute for Multiparty Democracy (IMD).
· openDemocracy.
· Rights & Democracy.
· Samantha Power, Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Take a view on her very interesting approach at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUOO5cCNVg.
· Wikipedia.

_____________________

(1) Participants in the colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance to protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian, and to advocate democracy. These movements all adopted a specific colour or flower as their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organizing creative non-violent resistance. So far these movements have been successful in Serbia (especially the Bulldozer Revolution of 2000), in Georgia’s Rose Revolution (2003), in Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004), and (though more violent than the previous ones) in Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution (2005). Each time massive street protests followed disputed elections and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.

Glory Days of Counter Terror Industry

New York City, September 2001

>> Haga clic aquí para la versión en castellano

On 14-15 April 2010, London’s Kensington Olympia will play host to a Counter Terror Expo, one of the most relevant international exhibition and conference of its kind to take place in the UK.

Happening sponsored by the French arms company Thales, the Expo will be carried through Clarion Events which is also responsible for organizing the Defense Systems and Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition held every two years in London’s Docklands, where some 1,000 arms companies congregate to get rid of lethal arms, bombs and other weapons to buyers from all over the world.

The culture of fear and distrust that has grown up around this century’s terror culture and its associated wars has created vast new markets for anything that can be branded with the words ‘security’ or ‘defense’.

Officially supported by a plethora of military, police and private security associations, the Counter Terror Expo will showcase over 250 security, surveillance and specialist logistics companies such as BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin; state agencies including NATO and the defense ministries from many countries — and anyone else claiming to provide protection against terrorism for both the armed forces and civilian populations.

Joining the fray are a number of corporations involved in creating identity verification technologies. The biometrics and database management companies whose invasive products, based on the recognition of physiological characteristics, are finding voice as futuristic ’solutions’ in, what is deemed, an ’increasingly dangerous world’.

Surveillance systems will be a major focus of the expo, with companies promoting biometric and data gathering/mining technologies — technologies promoting “freedom” through ever greater control and documentation of our daily lives.

May God have mercy on our souls !

Obama saves more for better care

Obama’s reform: An expense or an investment?
For conservatives (Republicans but also some thirty Democrat representatives) this is an expense, a redistribution gadget: those who are able to earn money are bled for the benefit of those who are not able to bring in. For liberals we are facing an investment: spending for the poor health, any American – even rich ones – will gain. Besides, this reform is similar to the French universal health coverage-CMU (which impressed Hillary Clinton): taking care of the poor, first you avoid the risk of contamination from the poor to the rich, and then you consolidate an employable and compliant workforce. In the US, the health reform will cost 940 billion dollars over ten years and some 32 million Americans would benefit of it. The aim is to cover active and young, 95% of the population under 65 years. So it costs money.

And it saves money… the hardest to understand. Explanation in 5 points.

The reform creates a more competitive market for insurance and it will be overall cheaper for Americans. So far the insurers provide the richest people who have no health problems. But they do not cover sick. Reform is more than a humanitarian measure; it puts pressure on the cost of health insurance as insured contributors will make the practice to compare proposals.

President Obama’s reform establishes a commission to control health spending, composed of independent experts approved by the Senate. They observe spending excesses in that event.

The most unpopular, but the clearest, the tax on Cadillac insurance (1). Today, employers pay 70% of their better paid employees’ insurance plans and do not pay taxes on it: 250 billion dollars annually for top executives and other senior officers who waste health outrageously. There will be taxed up a certain ceiling: a right way to limit rising of unnecessary health spending.

Turn doctors into caregivers, instead of health merchants. Today, Americans buy health like cars, except they do not want a third car they won’t buy. In health matters, the more doctors push Americans to consume, the more they consume. Obama strikes first at hospitals that offer Therapy Packs with the result one easily anticipates at the end. For the most part, the reform consists in discard the most expensive system in the world, the same who cares the least.

Summarizing the preceding: reforming the philosophy of health, and there, even Republicans agree. Today US system limits health care expenses taking no care of people. Now, the less we care of people, the more health expenses explode. With president Obama’s system, elected people’s representatives will be compelled to focus on health spending, even though they let them go off course drift in the past. Final outcome is $ 138 billion saving cost of Federal deficit in the next ten years and 1,200 billion over the next decade. Obama reform is both an investment and a sharp cutback scheme.

___________

(1) Sometimes referred to as a “Cadillac” or “gold-plated” insurance plan, a high-cost policy is usually defined by the total cost of premiums, rather than what the insurance plan covers or how much the patient has to pay for a doctor or hospital visit.
People who have Cadillac plans often have low deductibles and excellent benefits that cover even the most expensive treatments, but this is not always the case. Premium costs can be high for reasons other than generous benefits, including the age, gender and health status of the customer. In an employer-based plan, premiums are based on the pooled risk of employees and may be higher if many of the employees are sick, older, female or live in a region with expensive health costs. Additional information in ebri.org.

Should we be afraid of China?

>> Haga click aquí para la versión en Castellano

China Town by Bala ©

Inexorably, despite global protests, China goes on with colonization of Tibet. Inexorably China enters the African continent as well by cooperating with countries such as Zimbabwe or Sudan, which West considers beyond the pale. China, which economic dynamism is impressive, helped derail the climate summit in Copenhagen. Because of its energy needs China proved a reliable ally for Iran, despite its aggressive and repressive threat of programmed access to nuclear weapons. Deaf to international pressure, the Chinese government has put to death Amal Shaikh, a British citizen convicted of drug trafficking and suffering from severe mental disorders. Confronted with the former British colonial power, PRC has made it a matter of sovereignty. On Christmas Day, the intellectual dissident Liu Xiaobo was sentenced to eleven years in prison for circulating a petition favorable to democracy. We could go on but we better stop the list here and ask the question: is China dangerous?
China is stronger, more powerful and influential and for that reason the peculiarity of its governance is becoming more visible to our eyes. But China has never been so dangerous for the Chinese than during the Great Leap and in the Cultural Revolution – that is when we were not familiar enough with PRC. Paradoxically, and despite the excesses warned above, there is an even worse and extremely painful point which affects the provocative way China treats the issues on human rights: there are no softer and more peaceful dissident than Liu Xiaobo in his efforts to improve human rights status; just as the Gao Xiaosheng’s evaporation last year. Gao Xiaosheng is a pro human rights lawyer who took on defending victims of earthquake in Xishuang: The Chinese Foreign Affairs spokeswoman, interviewed by foreign journalists on the question where was Gao Xiaosheng last year, replied simply: « He is where he should be » – which represents a denial of rights, even by Chinese standards. These types of harm have always existed but today their impact is amplified.

In addition, there was always a militant Chinese presence in Africa, competing with Taiwan and the USSR, but the means and economic issues are now at a completely different scale, even worse. Think of the Chinese diaspora of more than one million people living in Africa – and not only in Zimbabwe or Sudan. The Chinese method of governance calls ours into question because it is awfully efficient and we Westerners are demoralized by the Chinese resourceful success. The effect of democracy devitalization that follows is even more dangerous because it removes from the Chinese scenario the perspective of improvement on freedoms situation in the short term. There is furthermore its projection capability abroad and the fact that China gives a global dimension to its economic interests – interests that affect the West: oil, Iran, tolerance to nuclear North Korea.
To what extent is China potentially aggressive? By reason of its nationalism exacerbation and the non-compliance to international standards? Think about the repeated humiliations to European leaders – the latest was Gordon Brown’s concern for the execution of British citizen, mentally handicapped, Shaikh Amal.

China has become the world’s largest exporter, the main workshop, the major laboratory, the key farm and the World’s Bank. It takes place in the concert of nations without respecting the rules of the game. So, must we be afraid of China? Is it not an unfair and premature conclusion?

The example of its development is totally new: An asymmetric society whose Leninist system of governance coexists with wilderness capitalism. The emergence of an illiberal capitalism – a non-democratic capitalism – disturbs economists as it worries political experts. Some, resigned, wonder if China has not found even the right formula. Hence, here arises the idea of devitalization of our democratic model, a society that has lost faith in itself challenged by the arrogant success of the unpredictable neophyte.

The issue that harass minds is: an unscrupulous country takes advantage of its special economic status without respect for human rights, while it freezes on a nationalist project that weights international system – not yet a rogue state but deaf to international pressure. And beyond that, is its development socially sustainable and to what extent China is potentially aggressive taking into account the mass effect of its demographic power?

Unrepentant Blair

Protestors called Blair a 'liar' and a 'war criminal'

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been appearing before an inquiry looking into Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War. Blair said he did not wait for UN backing, because he believed it would never be given.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he wanted the backing of the United Nations in the Iraq war, but believed that he would never get it. Giving evidence to a UK public inquiry into the decision to go to war, he said he thought that it would be pointless to continue debating the war with fellow United Nations Security Council members.

The inquiry is examining the legitimacy of the war as well as when the decision on providing military support for the 2003 US-led invasion was made. Blair, now an international envoy to the Middle East, said he doubted at the time that it would be possible to secure a UN “second resolution” that would add legitimacy to the war under international law.

“It was very, very clear to me that the French, the Germans and the Russians had decided they weren’t going to be in favor of this (…) There was a straightforward division, frankly, and I don’t think it would have mattered how much time we had taken; they weren’t going to agree that force should be used.”

Blair denied the accusation that he made a secret agreement with his US counterpart George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq. The former Labour Party leader was asked whether he had pledged to support the war during a visit to the then president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. Blair said he had told Bush, “we are going to be with you in confronting and dealing with this threat,” but that no promises were made.

9/11 attacks changed judgement

The September 11 attacks changed the “calculus of risk” and meant it was no longer possible to contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein through sanctions, Blair also said. Britain committed 45,000 troops to the war. It was the most controversial episode of Blair’s 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his party and accusations he had deceived the public about the justification for invasion.

Under close questioning, Blair said the September 11 Qaeda attacks on the United States – and the threat of weapons of mass destruction – were the main factors in Britain’s decision to invade Iraq.

“We were advised that these people would use chemical or biological weapons or a nuclear device if they could get hold of them; that completely changed our assessment of where the risks for security lay.”

Unrepentant Blair defends war in Iraq without UN backing

No regrets over decision

At the end of the session, Blair said that he did not regret the war despite the fact that weapons of mass destruction were not found.

“If I’m asked if I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better with Saddam and his two sons out of power, then I believe indeed we are.”

The British inquiry has already heard from senior civil servants who said intelligence in the days before the March 20, 2003 invasion indicated that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had already been dismantled.

Protesters outside of the building where the inquiry was being held chanted “Tony Blair, war criminal!” as he entered through a back door amid high security.

Observers say that Blair’s appearance may not only affect his personal political legacy but also damage the Labour government of his successor Gordon Brown, who was chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the Iraq invasion.

France is Living a Conservative Revolution

Conservative Morals in the country of human rights
Paid holidays, May 68, abortion rights, PACS (1) … social progress in France was plentiful in the 20th century and this country has long been a leader in Europe. Today this no longer seems to be the case. In its place, family, work, authority and pride of being French values are currently intensifying. So therefore, some point the finger at a come back to traditional fractures, particularly since the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy. What is it really? Does France going through a conservative revolution? Overview on topics discussed in public opinion.

When gay marriage?
Ten years after coming into force of PACS, marriage gateway to homosexual couples is still in discussion in public opinion — while five European countries have already approved it (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and Sweden). Mayor of Montpellier Mrs. Hélène Mandroux, launched a formal appeal in favor of gay marriage for the sake of “equal rights”. She has received support from several mayors, such as Pierre Cohen (Toulouse), Bertrand Delanoë (Paris) or Martine Aubry (Lille). Cécile Duflot on behalf of the Greens and Marie-George Buffet on behalf of the Communist Party have also rallied to the cause.

Adoption, always restrained.
If nine European countries now allow it, France still refuses to allow adoption by homosexual couples. Law is very restrictive: in order to adopt you must be either married or unmarried heterosexual and in fact the preferred profile is a couple married under 40, childless, and with a comfortable financial position. The Court of Besancon has ordered, however, the General Council of Jura region to issue an approval for adoption to Mrs Emmanuelle B., a homosexual teacher who fought for this for over ten years. France has in fact been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 for sex discrimination. Do we head towards an adoption gap to homosexuals? Nothing is less certain, government has just  reaffirm its opposition to any change in the law.

A very restrictive law on assisted reproduction.
Medically assisted procreation (PMA), relating to all the techniques (artificial insemination, fertilization in vitro…) designed to help unfertile couples to conceive outside the natural union and obtain a successful pregnancy, is extremely restrained in France. It is reserved to heterosexual couples only, married or not. France is one of the most restrictive in this area: Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom allow it for homosexual couples and single women; these countries also provide PMA forensics, i.e. after the death of the companion who has previously done frozen semen and given his consent. Is this a sign of real ethical concerns or a certain conservatism of morals?

Surrogate mothers have no legal existence in France.
Surrogate motherhood is still banned in France. As a result, every year between 300 and 400 infertile couples go abroad, in countries where it is permitted to apply for a surrogate angel. But children born of this practice have no civil status in France … The Mennesson couple, whose twin girls were carried by a Californian woman in 2000 and who still do not have a civil status in France, are moving their fight from the field of media to the political field. Attitudes begin to evolve already: according to a recent survey, 65% of French would think positively on it; and the Senate had even suggested it in a report issued in 2008. Will surrogates then soon be recognized in France? Wait and see… revision of the laws of bioethics in 2010 for an early response.

Legalization of cannabis far from the agenda.
Daniel Vaillant, socialist MP and former Minister of Interior, has just reopened the controversy on the legalization of cannabis — saying he supports it. He suggests a control of production and import to reduce consumption, as currently done with alcohol. President Sarkozy’s UMP ruling party, immediately retorted saying the proposal was “totally unacceptable”. Currently the French law is one of the strictest in Europe since it not only proscribes production and selling of cannabis. It also punishes personal consumption even for soft drugs. If legalization issue is regularly on public debate, it seems that we are still far from a legal endorsement.

Elected representatives, fully representative of the people?
MP Representatives and senators elected by the people are representatives thereof… Do they? In fact, they are sometimes far from resembling the citizens who elected them… Thus, if French population counts on 52% women, the National Assembly (House of Representatives) only trusts 18.2% of them – putting France on the 62nd in the world rankings, just after Venezuela and Nicaragua; almost the same percentage of women in Parliament than Sudan (18.1%), while women’s status is extremely different!

And France does not differ either on the social origin background of MPs … While employees and workers represent more than half the working population, only 1% of representatives come from their ranks.

Women and the glass ceiling (2)
In general, women are underrepresented in all the dominant positions both in companies as in public life (they occupy only 15 % of senior management positions in the civil service). It is customary to say that they are trapped under a glass ceiling that prevents them from reaching the summit. They are also victims of various inequalities at work: all work time together, they earn average 27% less than men. And they suffer extra part-time occupation, more than their male colleagues: 8.6% compared to 2.4% of men.

Immigrants and discrimination.
French of foreign extraction keep on facing discrimination in hiring. Thus, on average and equal skills, a French applicant with a French name (and surname) has 1.5 to 3 times more interview proposals than a French-Moroccan.
Unemployment affects much more foreign than French: on average, over one-fifth of the active EU non-nationals were unemployed in 2007, compared to 8 % for the workforce as a whole and to 7.5 % of French.
High Authority against Discrimination and for Equality (HALDE), annually receives thousands of complaints about it.

____________
(1) The Pacte Civil de Solidarité (PACS) is a legal alternative to marriage, a civil union which gives ‘pacser’ couples many of the same legal rights of a traditionally married couple.
(2) i.e. gender gap

Obama’s War

The worst war is the one being fought into our brains.

West is repeating mistakes of the past in Afghanistan

As soon as its terms are acknowledged you can give it for lost. And you have to write it in full: in Europe, the war in Afghanistan is being considered ever-increasing lost.

It is about the culture war (1) wherein violent actions have a dual persuasive function: intimidate the whole population and transfer responsibility — i.e. guiltiness — to those who act in disagreement with radical Islam, thereby becoming potential targets. The result is that they lead to restraint freedom of expression and censorship. This war has many accomplices, because not only radical Muslims ask for a special status for their religion. Ireland enforced this Jan 1^st an anti-blasphemy act which punishes by fine up to € 25,000 those who commit blasphemy publicly. A soldier of this war is the Somali who the Year’s Day attempted assassination — ax and knife in hand — against Kurt Westergard, the Danish cartoonist who published a Muhammad caricature in the Jylland Posten in 2005 — who, since then, is under police protection. Pope, Tony Blair and even George Bush agreed criticizing the cartoons — despite freedom of expression is far better protected in West than in Middle East.

The next battle to fight, waged in view of everybody in the street and in institutions, is not far behind. As the former fight, its identification mark suggests that you are losing it as soon as you accept its existence. The dream of invulnerability can lead to the greatest aberrations. What a hard life will have those who use air transportation! But it happens likewise in trains, buses, subways and even private cars. There is however an inversion of terms in this case. In Europe, for now more familiarized with risk society, the reaction is moderate. In the US, however, where the legend of invulnerability has thrived, even Obama has been incapable to reverse the effects of war on the rule of law and freedoms. The soldier of this war is a Nigerian who tried to blow up the Northwest flight on its arrival to Detroit — from Amsterdam — on Christmas Day. And because of it Guantanamo will remain open. And as a result, imprisoned people without trial will keep on running, as well as secret warrants, eavesdropping without judicial control and everything Bush did at wholesale scale, but now acomplished in retail and with greater care and prevention.

The Culture War of values as shown on a graffiti

Where we are losing the second war at most — the war on values — is inside the third war; the war of real fighters with true clashes, and belligerent general staffs… basically, Obama’s real war. It is a regrettable and revolting war, as any war, but it is more certain and effective. It is waged in secret, without bluster, quietly — although the effects emerge with no little alarm from time to time. Such as, in the recent suicide attack on the CIA base in Afghanistan — a historic setback for the United States who believed getting bin Laden within reach through a double agent when in fact they lost six US agents and one  Jordan’s allied. This action of Al Qaeda is in response to a cyber war through drones, which maintains the CIA in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has killed at least two dozen of prominent terrorist leaders.

Obama has intensified this kind of war, to the point that some experts say it will replace the current massive presence of troops in the conflict zone that spreads out from Pakistan to Somalia. The CIA has accomplished more than 50 attacks from Predator and Reaper drones all through Obama’ first year at the White House – figures that double those of 2008 with Bush on the stage and surpass the whole activity of the Bush 8 year Presidency. Formally it is about a targeted assassinations program that Bush authorized after another Republican president, Gerald Ford, banished it in 1976. Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions and law professor at the New York University, believes that such actions may be legal in terms of “just war” when there are no other means to stop or prevent the enemy to go on with its activity and when every precaution is taken to avoid civilian casualties. But this does not appear to be the case because there is no official information and no possibility of judicial or parliamentary control over such actions.

Bush made a package with all those wars, which he called Global War on Terror — some mistook with a war against the Arabs or against Islam. “Invoices” for those errors, increasingly higher, are still coming now. Obama qualifies and distinguishes amongst them: but this does not make him immune to criticism from the right, for his supposed excessive restraint and, from the left, because of his continuity with Bush’s illegal war.

_____________

(1) Have a look on the clash of ideas over here: The Cultural War

In Iran Power and Opposition Turn More Radical

Iranian officials on Sunday faced a difficult dilemma. If, as announced, they strictly repressed the protests, the risk of dead should further aggravate the fissures that post-election crisis has opened in the Iranian society. If they did not act, the opposition would benefit from the cycle of religious ceremonies — as happened in the months prior to the revolution that ousted the Shah thirty years ago. What is clear is that they could not keep people out into the streets the most important day of their calendar, Ashura , which commemorates the founding myth of Shiite Islam: the death of Hussein, grandson of Muhammad.

Police reportedly detained hundreds of opposition supporters

Often transmitted by mobile on the Internet, the images have turned around the world. Sunday December 27, images showed the violent repression and the determination of the demonstrators in Iran who have transformed the traditional religious commemoration in a day of clashes of rare magnitude.

A targeted killing, a sort of warning to the leader of the protest.

In Tehran there were more demonstrators than penitents. Six months after the opposition accused President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of stealing elections, this pulse tests the upset degree of a good part of the Iranian political system that has led to a political and economic impasse — and in its relations with the world, as well.

And not just in Tehran. Protests in the main cities make clear that the malaise is not limited to urban elites of the capital — the “four rich kids” M Ahmadinejad talked about. The crisis has revealed divisions even among the ruling elites. Former Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami have shown their support for the opposition. Also leading clerics like Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, whose death a week ago, at age 87, has given fresh momentum to protests by adding young urban activists, older people and further religious men to his followers.

Yesterday, we witnessed tens of thousands of demonstrators in the streets of Tehran and most major cities of Iran: Shiraz, Isfahan, Qazvin, Tabriz and even Qom — the holy city. The videos show live bloody clashes between the multitude and the security forces and militiamen Bassij, sometimes assisted by helicopters, motorcycles and cars on fire. All evoke the dead. The first deceased since the massive protests that had followed the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad June 12, which had resulted in sixty victims and 4,000 arrests, according to the opposition. This time, police admitted five “accidental” deaths and hundreds of “hooligans” arrested. Demonstrators carry this record to 15 dead. The victims included Ali Moussavi, the nephew of Mir Hossein Moussavi. The former prime minister — and unsuccessful candidate of the reformers in the presidential election in June — denounced a “massive fraud” and launched protests. Six months after the election, and despite of severe repression, the movement goes on. Reformers’ websites as Jaras related — mentioning among others filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf – that Ali Moussavi was killed deliberately, his body being transported and kept in the morgue whereas the family asked to remain discreet.

In Isfahan, the brother of former reformist Interior Minister, Abdullah Nouri, was allegedly beaten in front of his children by militiamen who had publicly threatened him before.

Other prominent government critics were taken to jail. This is the case of Ibrahim Yazdi, the old leader of the Liberation Movement of Iran (a nationalist party tolerated intermittently), arrested at home bed at 3 AM. Or Mehdi Arabshahi, the secretary of the largest student organization, Tahkim varDate (Consolidation of Unity), arrested in Tehran. Just as three other closest associates of Mr. Moussavi.

Curfew was introduced in Najafabad, the hometown of the great dissident Ayatollah Montazeri, the figurehead of the religious dispute, with burial under surveillance has led protests against the regime last week.

Meanwhile, the castling of the fundamentalists’ bunker who control the power centers is helping to radicalize protesters.

Prevent too great a radicalization.

Faced with what may seem like a further escalation of repression, voices were raised to prevent too great a radicalization of the protest movement. Ezatollah Sahabi, the leader of a nationalist group of religious appeals to “moderate” not to play in the hands of government: “Be careful not to rush into violence. They are ready — he writes in essence — to kill one million people if necessary.”

Supporters of Mousavi protested the disputed election result in Tehran for nearly two months

However, in the opinion of many analysts and witnesses demonstrators turn radical. Their slogans were aimed very hard not this time at Ahmadinejad, but at the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The guide was also compared to the Caliph Yazid , responsible for the death of Imam Hussein at the battle of Karbala, which commemorates the mourning of Ashura. What is more, without really being armed, many demonstrators have erected barricades in some streets of Tehran, throwing stones at police or fire Bassidji motorcycles — forefront outfielders of repression during the riots in the street.

It appears that the hardline Basij militias were afraid this time. The roles were reversed:  turmoil seemed turn them mad with rage. The power has, indeed, made mistakes, in the opinion of Iranian analysts. The first was probably, not having respected the grief at the death of Ayatollah Montazeri. His supporters have been harassed, those who paid tribute prevented sometimes do. In this, the authority has lost its religious and popular credibility.

The second mistake was to prevent former reformist President Mohammad Khatami to deliver a speech on Saturday. Khatami was chosen to speak at Jamaran, northern Tehran, where Ayatollah Khomeini had lived. A highly symbolic place in these troubled times where government and opposition are fighting the legacy of the founder of the Islamic Republic. But the police did not comply. People come to hear the speeches, were forcibly confined in the mosque, others asked to disperse. This symbolic battle has also been lost by the regime. Some protesters shouted “Khomeini, if you lived, you’d be with us! “…”

Should we expect a further strengthening of repression? The event-repression cycle seems to be now engaged. Ahmadinejad’s government is going to play tight in the coming weeks if it does not want to contribute growing the protest.

Government refusal to engage dialogue with the opposition — as been suggested by some moderate conservatives — has destroyed all the bridges for reconciliation. Demonstrators are no longer calling for repeating elections (the celebrated “where’s my vote?), but the end of the Islamic system. Further problems in perspective…

Sources: NY Times/El Pais/Le Monde/AFP

>>Related Posts: The Political Importance of the Power of Images to Reveal Government Abuse

Is Obama’s Smart Diplomacy Substandard?

In Afghanistan, the military solution is like a bottomless pit: just look at the affirmative accents of former president Bush and right now president Obama (“We must finish the job”). What does the US public opinion ponder while Obama is willing to strengthen the conventional forces ?

Yet after his first year, and after his speech of Dec 1st, let us consider President Obama’s general guidelines.

The fall of the Berlin Wall has highlighted the decisive character of the Afghan adventure among the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Red Army was well and truly stuck on this theater of operations – deemed dangerous. Could it also become fatal to Obama’s America?

Barak Obama tried one week ago to convince the US opinion, more and more reluctant to increase to 100 000 the number of U.S. soldiers engaged in war against the Taliban. Therefore the use of force is preferred, with a deadline.

Will this voluntarism shut up the critics who, since taking office, accuse Obama of being a “weak president”, a new Jimmy Carter, who will eventually be run by those he tries to coax? These critics point out that the “smart diplomacy” of the new Democratic administration has, so far, no notorious  success, meanwhile his hand extended policy toward the traditional adversaries of America remains desperately unrequited. Neither Iran nor North Korea have been sensitive to calls for restraint. In the Middle East, American diplomacy seems without real outlets on a situation which deteriorates every day. And coming back from China – his main partner now – the president returned empty-handed: no revaluation of the yuan, inflexibility on climate policy, and  human rights totally muted.

Of course, it is too early to decide on a foreign policy that is yet preparing the ground for milestones…

The latest false move from Obama, a step towards the militarization of US foreign policy.

It was surprising – and not only in US – to survey television reports whereas in his recent visit to several Asian countries, President Obama prompted a solemn bow before the Emperor of Japan. It is hard to believe that Obama – or anyone from his entourage –could ever consider the Emperor as Heaven Sent when he is just a simple constitutional symbol of the Japanese nation. I do not remember Obama giving such unnecessary signs of respect to other dignitaries – who are also symbols of their respective sovereignties.

For some critics of Obama’s policy in Afghanistan, the speech meaning through the president finally defined his strategy to follow on that troubled country, was another sign of unjustified respect and reverence, but this time to the US military institution and its senior executives. Not only because he chose to do so before the select audience of the Military Academy at West Point instead of the Oval Office. The worst and most ominous precedent of this fact is that also on the same stage, and before a similar audience, his predecessor in the White House presented seven years ago the disastrous strategy of “preventive war” that blazed a trail of blood and destruction across the world. Let us say, in defense of Bush and against Obama, that the first delivered his speech during the military graduation ceremony of the new officers, as it seems to be usual in West Point, while Obama has done so for no particular reason, which is still more shocking.

It is not about criticizing here, once again, the major strategic error which consists to expect winning a war and, secondly, to establish in advance the time frame in which the victorious troops return home. One cannot satisfy both the desires of the people, tired of an endless war that, the lower social strata are suffering especially, and some military commanders who want to achieve all the signs of victory and none of the defeat – as the shameful retreat from Saigon who still lives in the minds of many Americans. Therefore, the date of July 2011 as the scheduled move back is an empty gesture as the withdrawal of the occupation troops will take place just when possible. Just as the closure of Guantanamo, announced later this year and unenforceable to date.

The outcome is that over the next six months 30,000 new US troops will arrive in Afghanistan, i.e. in less than two years the US military contingent will triple, reaching about 100,000. If we add up the 38,000 NATO (to increase by about 7,000), the military deployment in Afghanistan will exceed that of the USSR in the eighties, which contributed to the final disintegration of the Soviet superpower. Will Obama get what the former Soviet Kremlin could not achieve?

But there is another problem. In the aforementioned speech Obama literally said:

“As commander-in-chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.”

What is and on what terms you define a “responsible transition”? When will the armed and security forces of Afghanistan be operative as to replace foreign troops of occupation? That’s not up to the White House nor NATO. Uncertainty is the same as before the speech delivery because the objectives of this war are still not clearly defined.

“I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Obama said. “This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”

President Barak Obama chose not to recall that his predecessor in the White House was the true catalyst for the spread of terrorism in these and other countries, with his aberrant “preventive war on terror”.

Even if it seems simplistic, it looks as if Obama gets rid of the straight weight on Afghanistan, putting it on the shoulders of the Pentagon and NATO, to pursue other more immediate and politically profitable concerns. A step forward in the usual militarization of US foreign policy, that Obama does not seem determined to change.

South is the First Victim of Global Warming

Several surveys confirm that poor countries will be the first victims of climate change, even if, being low emitters of greenhouse gases, they are less responsible.

A report published early September 2009 by Maplecroft –  a British cabinet expertise on global risks – shows that the most vulnerable countries to global warming are Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Twenty-two of the 28 countries exposed to “extreme risk” are located in sub-Saharan Africa.

In the meantime, the Asian Development Bank presented in Manila the results of a conclusive report: melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the food security and water availability of 1.6 billion inhabitants of South Asia. In New York, Rob Vos, director of the UN  Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), ruled that ” If we do not reduce significantly GHG emissions, the damage to the [economies of] poor countries as a percentage of GDP[ gross domestic product] will be up more than ten times greater than in the United States and most other developed countries ” [1] . Mr. Vos commented on the report by his department. According to the conclusions, investments should be done every year in climate change mitigation and adaptation to its effects by 1 % of world’s GDP, i.e. more than 500 billion dollars.

A few months earlier, in May 2009, the United Nations had issued a report about the international strategy on risk reduction -launched in 2000. The document operates the first synthesis of knowledge about natural disasters that have occurred between 1975 and 2008. Even if he admits the document is not exhaustive, the text nevertheless represents a unique body of knowledge.

Between 1975 and 2008, 8.866 disasters have killed 2.284.000. Regarding flooding, the risk of death increased by 13% between 1990 and 2007. The picture is not, if we dare say, equally catastrophic. The absolute number of human or economic losses increases throughout the period, but it remains proportionately stable because of demographic and global GDP growth.

But according to UN experts, the situation would deteriorate because of climate change and ecosystems degradation. The latter is a factor too often ignored. Albeit not apple to apples, ecosystems manage to cushion the impact of natural disasters. Regarding climate change, it will increase the risk of disasters. The vulnerability of populations is one of the other factors that accentuate the risks. Action by Governments (earthquake standards, etc.) becomes crucial: Japan and the Philippines suffer roughly the same number of typhoons, but they cause 17 times more deaths in the Philippines than in Japan.

Have a look on Mr. Rob Vos’ press conference here enclosed:

[1] 2009 World Economic and Social Survey: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet.

Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (3)

The city and its operation

Previous articles outlined the way to configure cities in order they become sustainable or not. Sustainability depends on the city functionality itself as well – the aim of this third article.

Adam Smith in his invisible hand hypothesis stated that market optimizes the distribution, enabling better allocation of resources without public intervention. It can also operate by creating unwanted situations to market players (cases of monopoly, cartels, lack of coordination, etc.) and then worsening the social scene.

For instance, the decision to travel by private car instead of using public transport can outcome the worst case scenario. In this direction, several investigations have revealed that it would take less to London bus users – as in any other city – than motorists to move from one place to another if there were less cars. Hence the idea of Mayor Livingston of an expensive access to London downtown by private car in order to provide greater flexibility to surface and underground public transport.

Urban planning is therefore absolutely essential for coexistence and progress. Consequently, European citizens from the early nineteenth century claimed to eliminate obstacles (walls down!). They claimed broaden their cities, which became progressively constrained by sea, hills, and old walls – now absolutely unnecessary, with severe communication problems, crowding and hygiene.

In this context, it was clear to Ildefonso Cerdà when designing the Eixample (urban expansion) of Barcelona that the city should be open, cosmopolitan, outside connected by well done road and rail networks… But above all, it had to be habitable for citizens. The city would grow in small islands: city blocks chamfered, with large inner garden patios, thus uniting the best of countryside life with the advantages of the city. Even then, many Barcelonans turned these courtyards into dedicated warehouses, small factories, and even buildings.

The Cerdà’s pioneering urban planning (1860) through areas, gardens and building expansions – quite different from the internal reform of Haussmann (1852) in Paris – is our daily bread. Managements of urban municipalities generally deal with this responsibility. They have to operate with long-term vision – avoiding short-termism that under-sizes capabilities and services with serious further quicken consequences. In this direction, planning must address a number of priority issues on water, air, noise, energy, waste, health, housing, and transportation.

Cleaner Water
Human intervention in water availability has quantity and quality implications as water used in cities floods back to environment, thus closing a cycle already enforced. Thus, sewage without any treatment, returning to their natural environment, creates serious pollution of rivers and aquifers. To avoid such an issue, the European Water Charter (1968) marked a series of objectives that have been largely completed in the EU-15 – while it remains outstanding work in some of the new 27 Member States of the Union.

In addition, water consumption has to be rationalized: in most large cities, a cubic meter of clean water is less expensive than a Coke at a bar, then increasing produced waste. Consequently, it is essential to charge water waste, starting with a low prices block about 60 liters a day – subsequently changing basic allowance – and then becoming gradually more expensive.

Air
The topic is most evident in cities where sustainability is not shining for its excellence. The most valuable asset – what we breathe 24 hours a day – is consumed in very inadequate conditions. The air of London in the mid 1950s, with frequent smog waves, became suffocating. Following these situations a clean air policy arose, with the first laws, specifically British, in 1955. European Countries came after with further regulation mechanisms.

In summary, the most essential is to ensure clean air, with sensors networking and a very long series of measures that would not exceed the allowable cap, forcing the phasing out of most harmful emission sources.

Noise
Everyone agrees – starting with psychologists and psychiatrists – that noise is one of the environmental factors that affect most the quality of life. From small discomforts, more or less anecdotal, to levels of irreversible disorders in the human mind.

Definition of noise is well known:

“The sound, or set of sounds that are perceived by human beings, and that alter the acoustical medium within they normally move.”

…with the additional peculiarity that everything depends on the inevitability of impact also. Regarding the latter, a noise is obliged to be heeded, and even foreseeable at the time – as when a summer storm occurs, or when the passage of a train at a fixed time takes place, or when children voices arise from the playground in the courtyard of a school near you – and then the sound waves seem justified, and the trouble is diluted. Not at all when the roar of an uncontrolled neighbor turntable in its 50 watts comes to you, or when it deals with crying on Friday night in usually quiet streets, on these occasions everything just become the most detestable.

Among the most aggressive acoustic dealings, the continuous traffic of suburban highway (along with hundreds of miles of noise barriers) should be condemned – and what about major arteries within metropolitan area, and even in the formerly quiet streets in ancient downtowns?  In these ways, some motorists “do their best” traveling at full speed – as if they were in Silverstone. And it is certainly no less remarkable ambulances, day or night roistering circulating, carrying patients or not, whose sirens wailing penetrate your eardrums at completely unnecessary noise levels.

But most of all, among the most inconvenient and unnecessary noises, the urban cleaning must be pointed: the unpleasant scavenging machines in the vicinity of 100 dB, apart the absurd beep when they reverse or their stressful light pollution – equipments that go together with by “air gun carriers’”, top-mask and earplugs outfitted, raising dust clouds in the din with a volume of noise just about unbelievable – especially when you compare with the very human scavengers who still survive. All these issues must be fought, and there are many resources to do so, starting with the municipalities – now the main causing actors of noise.

Otherwise, cities as microcosm would become unsustainable.

Related posts:

>>Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (1) – An Overview on Urban Developmental Evidences
>>Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (2) – Prospects, Proposals and Local Agenda-21

The debate on French national identity: an off-topic nationalist manipulation

>> Cliquez ici pour la version française

Who does not perceive that the French government, especially the president and his namesake minister on ‘organized evictions’, is engaged in a great manipulation!

Pétain and Hitler meet at Montoire

First recovering (recovering trends and recuperating far-right voters, this is not brand new), then diverting classic emotions through woolly smoker screen approaches, in the absence of the real deal with economic and social problems (crisis, employment deficit, housing, etc..), instead of facing — together with national representants — local and international challenges of all kinds.

No surprise, of course, we never expected anything from them. Not to speak of those — the government and other relatives — who condone the worst. But the opposition Socialists? Opposed so little that they endorse this false debate, a shameful nationalist manoeuvre, symptom of an opportunist and reactionary policy, rather than strengthen Europe and think and act more internationally yet. French leaders not only go on sinking at high speed into the economic wall but they mostly precipitate the disastrous consequences by a nationalist suicidal policy –worthy of their own incompetence. Promising tomorrows, even if we yet know the song.

By dint of whipping the undocumented, this eternally frustrated France is questioning itself whether it is in order too, and probing if it is able therefore to exhibit the evidence of its identity. M. Sarkozy, have you ever heard of egotism, this narcissistic tendency to be analyzed and to talk about oneself? (Unless you think you are God’s gift to mankind…)

Being myself son and grand-son of Spaniards, I can say that this debate makes me want to vomit because with such approaches, this dear country sinks deeper into the darkest mess conservatism.

Terrorism and Justice

The Need to Compensate Victims of Terrorism

OOOOOO

>> Haga click aquí para la versión en Castellano

Victims of terrorist acts, such as the DC-10 UTA [1], or Baghdad or Kabul have several nationalities: Congolese, Algerians, Spanish, Chad, French, Iraqis, Americans, Afghans… Some have been compensated, others not; some were able to file a claim for civil damages in a criminal proceeding, while others will never have such a chance. It is this disparity between the nationalities that criticizes professor Ghislaine Doucet [2], a specialist in international humanitarian law. Solutions do exist:

The first alternative would be to set up  an international global fund to compensate victims, just like the Fond de Garantie (Guarantee Fund) existing in France. I firmly believe that there are ways for such a fund, so as not to leave the victims in distress. Because too many victims of terrorism, since they are seriously injured, physically as morally, can not find a job – for those who have one – and they are therefore in utter destitution. And then the second option is a universal criminal justice response, because all victims of terrorism have no chance to face the perpetrators of the crimes they have suffered or that their relatives have suffered.

Access to justice is key element but when national justice systems are unable or unwilling to judge the International Criminal Court could take over. However, it has been decided at the ICC’s foundation that it would have jurisdiction to try war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but not terrorism. However, a crime of terrorism may, in some cases be considered a crime against humanity. Mariana Pena [3], specialist and IFHR/FIDH Liaison Officer with the ICC in The Hague:

These conditions should not be widespread or systematic [...] But an attack should have been instigated against the civilian population – with or without knowledge of the attack, which is often the case when a terrorist hit occurs.

And then the question of defining terrorism has long been an obstacle to further discussions on reparation and justice. According Ghislaine Doucet obstacles to the definition is a false debate [2]:

Terrorism on the international level is clearly defined. In times of armed conflict, acts of terrorism are explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. Beyond the act of terrorism, such as hostage taking, are prohibited. Attacks against civilians are prohibited. So these are prohibited acts and then punishable. Conversely, in peacetime, we have thirteen international instruments [4] which prohibit the use of terrorism. And that furthermore require states that are parties to these instruments to punish these acts. [...]

So if you are able to classify internationally, such as acts of terrorism and therefore these acts were punishable under criminal law, why the phenomenon of terrorism is not defined?

It is however clearly defined because otherwise we would not have all these international instruments. [...] All acts of terrorism in their different facets are almost covered by these international instruments. The crux of the problem is not so much defining but to determine its scope (that is, competency areas). [2]

And that’s what the UN faces for years, seeking to establish an international convention banning terrorism. Some wish that the actions undertaken by the armed forces of a State do not fall within the definition of terrorism. Others would exclude acts of resistance on behalf of the right of peoples to self-determination. These are questions that also face the victims of terrorism and their relatives.

~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~   ~

[1] 19 September 1989 a UTA DC10-30 aircraft,crashed near N’Djamena, Chad, as a result of an explosion in flight due to a bomb. All 156 passengers and 15 crew were killed.

[2] Terrorisme, victimes et responsabilité pénale internationale. (Terrorism, Victims and International Criminal Responsibility). Paris, Calmann-Lévy, 2003

[3] IFHR (International Federation of Human Rights) special representative at the ICC, The Hague

[4] UN Treaties and Protocols

Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (2)

Prospects, Proposals and Local Agenda-21

The first part of the analysis did consider the cities’ future –an analysis on ancient and current cities in a world becoming increasingly overpopulated.

This time we look after the portfolio of proposals on sustainable ages about the so-called Local Agenda 21. I would stress the importance of the issue, its impact on the social debate: while the 19th century witnessed social debate focused on class struggle, the latter part of the 20th century has been polarized on the ecological risks –which are no longer tied to a specific place of origin but their nature, pose a threat to all forms of life on the planet. That was precisely the widespread thesis at Stockholm-72 by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos in their book ”Only One Earth”. With themes already raised earlier, in 1972, by Philippe Saint Marc in his unforgettable book “Socialisation de la nature” (Socialization of Nature, now exhausted, even in French).

In other words, the ecological risks are above classes, to the point that, even sarcastic tone has been said that “poverty is hierarchic, while smog is democratic”. The ultimate consequence lays on the social dynamics of ecological threats that has overcome the traditional debates on income or social position – fighting the global warming, the Kyoto Protocol and the future Copenhagen Protocol.

In 1993 the Expert Group on the Urban Environment and the European Commission launched the first phase of the Sustainable Cities Project for the period 1993-1996, in order to (1) contribute to further reflection on sustainability, (2) encourage a wide exchange experiences and (3) circulate best practices of local sustainability. In the long term, the idea of making recommendations on local and regional issues of Member States and the European Union itself. This, in line with what was requested in 1991 at a resolution of the Council of Ministers of the EC.

Once constituted, the EGUE worked over three years in developing a European Sustainable Cities Report, with the help of Euronet, who played the role of scientific and technical secretariat. The EGUE was organized in a number of specialized committees on:

• Social integration
• Mobility and urban access
• Planning and public spaces
• Dissemination (i.e. Distribution of projects between the public)
• Sustainable Social Systems
• Leisure, tourism and environment quality
• Technical management of cities
• Holistic urban management
• Urban Regeneration (Rehabilitation of neighborhoods and housing)

With so many nuances in plain view, the Report group focused on the relationship between institutional and environmental aspects in order to estimate the chances of local governments. Somewhat transcendent, against the attitude of state or semi-federal lands, as German Länder, Spanish Autonomous Communities and most of regional governments that hold so much power and sometimes behave as new centralist outbreaks. These bodies take up often resources more than anything needed by cities for multitasking – that anyone but they must assume, mostly in extremis.

The above circumstances require a thorough review of public policies to make them less authoritarian, rational and supportive, bearing that as a result of the ecosystems theory, the city is a complex whole, characterized by continuous change and development processes. In this approach, aspects such as energy consumption, waste generation, traffic and public transport are relevant.

But the EU obviously was not the only to deal with the issue and some experiences deserve to be stressed by far. Beginning with 1987, when eleven European cities (that number has grown to fifty so far) founded the Healthy Cities Programme for the World Health Organization OMS/WHO, intended for improving health conditions and interactive environment.

Furthermore in 1990, the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements – Habitat (UNCHS), started its own program of sustainable cities, aiming to provide developing countries with better systems for planning and environmental management.

Also in 1990, representatives from more than 200 local authorities around the world founded the International Council of Initiatives on Local Environment (ICLEI), promoting sustainable future, while counting with the sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The ICLEI, which is based on the UN HQ in New York, is a local network for exchanging experiences, disseminating best examples of environmental do. ICLEI also promotes the Model Communities Program of Local Agenda 21 – a matter under discussion shortly below.

In August 1991, 130 cities have signed the Toronto Declaration on World Cities and Environment committed to develop sustainable development plans –incidentally, Canada, with Toronto and Montreal, is one of the most active countries on the issue at hand.

Meanwhile, in May 1992, 45 cities participate in the World Urban Forum – relied to the United Nations Conference on Environment, signed the Commitment of Curitiba (Brazil) in defense of sustainable urban development. A document outlining the guidelines for action to follow when developing plans for sustainable development, always in collaboration with authorities and citizens.

Likewise, the scheme of Urban Management UNDP (United Nations Development based in Nairobi) and the World Bank (1993) should be mentioned.

To complete the list of proposals made on sustainable cities, a mention is necessary conc. the Urban Program OECD (1994), aimed to improve knowledge on ecosystems in urban areas, evaluate examples of good work, and measure the effectiveness of local authorities policies and other public institutions, private or volunteer at various levels of government. Within the Urban Program, the Ecological Cities Project deserves specific mention in this analysis (will shape a further article).

In the same line of initiatives for sustainable cities, the EU Member States committed themselves at the Lisbon European Council in June 1992 to develop national plans of implementation of Local Agenda 21. An action plan born in the United Nations Conference on Environment held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (Earth Summit) and later developed at European level in the Aalborg Charter where the fundamental notes of the process of Local Agenda 21 were adopted:

• Sustainability, as an idea of preservation of natural capital. This requires that the consumption of natural resources, water and renewable energy does not exceed the capacity of natural systems to replenish them – and the speed at which we consume nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rate of replacement by sustainable renewable resources. Environmental sustainability also means that the rate of emitted pollutants does not go beyond the regeneration capacity of air, water and soil on which they work. Environmental sustainability also means the maintenance of biodiversity, public health and air quality, water and soil at levels sufficient to sustain human life and welfare, as well as the flora and fauna.
• Working within ecosystems, with regards to their capacity, and always linking the systems created by humans with natural ecosystems, and taking them as management models.
• Citizen participation. Sustainable development means making important decisions between conflicting objectives and major changes in the way of life of communities and therefore can not be imposed from above.

The collaboration of citizens is a direct consequence of the principles of partnership and shared responsibility in terms of:

• Acceptance and social support to the Plan.
• Assumption of commitments and responsibilities on the part of society.
• Acceptance of certain actions and proceedings which entail some sacrifice in the population, it was an overall context would be difficult to raise and take politically.

Anyhow, the impact of Local Agenda 21 has not reached its potential, which is enormous. In a way, because the municipalities fear citizens who might assume progressive grasp on cities – that is, jeopardizing hierarchies.

Censorship on the Internet

Be irrepressible, an Amnesty International campaign.

(Versión en Castellano)

Chat rooms monitored. Blogs deleted. Websites blocked. Search engines restricted. People imprisoned for simply posting and sharing information.

The Internet is a new frontier in the struggle for human rights. Governments – with the help of some of the biggest IT companies in the world – are cracking down on freedom of expression …

The web is a great tool for sharing ideas and freedom of expression. However, efforts to try and control the Internet are growing. Internet repression is reported in countries like China, Vietnam, Tunisia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. People are persecuted and imprisoned simply for criticising their government, calling for democracy and greater press freedom, or exposing human rights abuses, online.

But Internet repression is not just about governments. IT companies have helped build the systems that enable surveillance and censorship to take place. Yahoo! have supplied email users’ private data to the Chinese authorities, helping to facilitate cases of wrongful imprisonment. Microsoft and Google have both complied with government demands to actively censor Chinese users of their services.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. It is one of the most precious of all rights. We should fight to protect it.

.

Database of censored material

Amnesty International is working with the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) to help raise awareness of internet censorship around the world.

The ONI is a collaboration among the Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto, the Advanced Network Research Group at Cambridge University, the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School UK, and the Oxford Internet Institute, plus partner non- governmental organizations worldwide.

The aim of the ONI is to document empirically patterns of Internet content filtering and surveillance worldwide behind national firewalls over an extended period of time. The ONI employs a unique methodology that combines in-field investigations by partners and associates within the countries under investigation and a suite of technical interrogation tools that probe the Internet directly for forensic evidence of content filtering and surveillance technologies.

Its 11 country reports have documented the scope, scale and sophistication of numerous filtering regimes worldwide, and have helped verify the use of US commercial filtering technologies, such as Smartfilter and Websense that are used in some ways to underpin these regimes. The ONI’s flash map of global filtering shows the results of these investigations.

The work of ONI is supported by the Information Program of the Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. ONI’s mapping work is supported by the International Development Research Centre (Canada).

The examples of censored material used for Irrepressible.info have been drawn from websites that have been blocked in one of the following countries – China, Iran, Myanmar, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Syria and Vietnam, and are based on latest testing results available from each country.

Sustainable Cities for Freedom and Environment (1)

An Overview on Urban Developmental Evidences

Matters of environment and nature conservation are to be considered when planning and developing construction projects.

The policy approach on sustainable cities is essential because in the process of urban development there can be no operations as often happened in the past, improvised, or at the mercy of powerful real estate groups, without taking into account the most basic in terms of sustainability. Then there is the new context, revealing that in 2008 more than half of the 6,700 million human beings, in a trend of (still) population growth living in cities, so that the quality of life for most inhabitants of the earth depends on whether or not those cities are sustainable. Moreover, in 2050 there will be 9,000 million inhabitants in the planet – 70 percent of them will be urban.

There is no civilization without cities, because since humans became sedentary in the Neolithic, human settlements began to better provide satisfaction to the needs of their communities. And over time, these early settlements became towns, centers of attraction and stimulus for social mobilization as well as for commercial exchange of ideas, and personal relationships. Ultimately, as stated by Marsilio Ficino in the fifteenth century, the city is not made only of stone but also and above all, human beings organized to co-exist indefinitely.

In this direction, the city is “the place of a particular human group,” according to historian Marc Bloch. As the philosopher Claude Lefort, in an essay on urban civilization in Europe, explained well how, at the end of the Middle Ages – then next to coming into the Renaissance – European cities formed broad areas of trade and freedom.

On that path slowly and around the birth of the market, an emerging social class, the bourgeoisie was creating a new order in Europe that would eventually undermine the feudal power: serfs emancipating from the masters found protection in urban habitat increasingly free. The expression of this change is summarized by Max Weber, “town air makes free.”

That freedom of the city, as Lefort writes, means the dissolution of personal dependence ties of feudalism, and the possibility, therefore, to change one’s condition: promoting work, the capacity of initiative, education and other opportunities. This direction (urban development as a critical element of progress in Europe) explains the significant leap forward, which the Renaissance involved for a great number of issues.

The improvement of former European cities did contrast with what happened elsewhere, e.g. Chinese cities, which became the nucleus of the bureaucracy and the mandarin feudal organization, which of course did not prevent the Celestial Empire becoming the greatest world power for centuries – something often ignored by the prevailing Euro centrism. But the gaps above mentioned prevented China from setting up a large middle class and therefore they avoided the necessary industrial revolution to operate there in the eighteenth century.

From an everyday approach, the city can be qualified as a place to live, grow, work, study and live together in society; thus – according to Roberto Camagni – becoming significant sets, autonomous socio-economic entities. In this regard, management and improvement of quality of life for residents requires a specific spatial planning; on vital issues such as infrastructure, urban planning, public transport, landfill management, solid waste collection and energy management , CO2 emissions, and always transcendental subject of the marginalization of certain social groups.

Prevention through environmental impact assessment (EIA)

In the direction above pointed, the sprawl of cities tends to set conurbations (Giddens dixit) or megalopolis, as happened in the United States firstly with San-San (San Francisco / San Diego), Chipitts (Chicago / Pittsburgh) or BosWash ( Boston / Washington). On the other hand, the provision of advanced services, the concentration of scientific and technical qualifications, and expertise of the workforce and the existence of large consumer markets as well, have a decisive influence on the emergence of new international centers (international hubs) that operate on a continental scale and in some cases even worldwide. Providing distinction between knowledge hubs (knowledgehubs), capital cities (established capitals), or new capitals (re-invented capitals).

From the viewpoint of conceptual development, urban sustainability is based on the definition, widely accepted that it was first built in the Brundtland Report, World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987:

Sustainable development is one that meets current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own problems.

Another complementary definition, offered by the IUCN – World Conservation Union (Environment Program of United Nations and World Wide Fund for Nature, 1991) pointed that:

Sustainable development means improving the quality of life with respect to the limits of ecosystems.

More specifically, sustainability involves a number of essential criteria:

• There is no infinite growth with finite resources: it is necessary to acknowledge limits to the expansion in material terms, in order to prevent the destruction of ecosystems and the overall deterioration of the biosphere.

• In production, you have to incorporate such damages to the biosphere as costs, treating, at business and government as particularly sensitive part of the profit and loss account, or budgets, respectively.

• It requires the systematic use of environmental impact assessment (EIA), for reasons that can be summarized by “prevention is better than cure”.

• It is important that government admin and private organizations have their respective environmental budgets, where evaluate annually the ecological balance – to assess whether or not they are generating natural capital reductions.

• The development model must be ecological, permeating all sectoral intervals as patterns of respect for nature.

Biblio:

Marc Bloch, La Société féodale (Feudal Society), Albin Michel, Paris, 1998.

Claude Lefort, L’Invention démocratique (The Democratic Invention), Paris, Fayard, 1981.

Claude Lefort, Europe as an urban civilization, Revue ‘Esprit’, Paris, 2004

Max Weber, General Economic History, Cosimo, New York, 1986

Roberto Camagni, Economia Urbana, Barcelona, 2005

French Police to Turn into an Occupation Army

Does the French police behave like an occupation army in the suburbs?

In 2005, just after the urban riots while he was head of the Ethics and Human Rights in Geneva police, a Swiss policeman spent several weeks in a police station located in the ‘93’, the Seine-Saint-Denis county (northern suburbs of Paris, «the most violent county» in France in words of Le Temps, from Geneva; not too far from truth). He looked over the French police and came to the conclusion that it was «an army of occupation. »

Yves Patrick Delachaux, turned into a novelist and screenwriter today, just wrote «Grave Panique» (Severe Panic) to put in picture his experience. The title was found one night when a patrol cop from the anti-criminal brigade was about to run over an old lady while he was driving too quickly and he exclaimed: «Je l’ai grave paniquée la mémé» («I’ve seriously terrified the granny. »)

His book speaks volumes about the state of strain existing between young people and police in the French suburbs, says Sylvain Besson, Le Temps correspondent in Paris. As well as the – now admitted without having to spell things out – complete failure of the policy implemented by Nicolas Sarkozy since his arrival at the Ministry of Interior (Home Office) in 2002.

On the ground, the healing is still far. Two days after his meeting on the theme «learning to live together» between youth and police, the Interior Minister, Brice Hortefeux, filed a complaint for defamation against two young people who accused police of having hit a pizza deliveryman last August 9, in Bagnolet, in the neighborhoods of Paris. Aged 18, he died trying to escape a police check control when he drove a cross motorcycle – prohibited on public roads. In the suburbs, the dialogue of the deaf between youth and police continue to kill.

Yves Patrick Delachaux understood the problem at the first glance at the police station:

«A square blockhouse, everything is barricaded, wired. It is an occupation army. [...] An atmosphere of barracks, toil, suffering, says the Swiss policeman. We feel that it weighs on their shoulders.»

Policemen hide their function. No sooner have they arrived, than they just call for transfer elsewhere, and they never dwell in Seine-Saint-Denis itself. Delachaux declares that policemen reported him that saying hello to a group of young people means « go in search of clash», in the words of French policemen:

« The Swiss request to see the 4000 City of La Courneuve, become legendary since Nicolas Sarkozy proclaimed he wanted to flush out and get rid of all the trash in the suburbs with a Kärcher [1]. On the way ahead, the tension goes up: it is said to be aware of objects launched from the rooftops, to be ready to call for help … Coming out of their car, policemen deploy themselves in skirmish, ‘as in Afghanistan’. »

When meeting a group of young people of African origin, the atmosphere is icy. Not a word, just dreadful looks. At back of the pack, Yves Patrick Delachaux launches a loud «hello» to the teenagers, which does not receive any reply. Back in the car, the blame rains from policemen: «Never redo it. You’re going to confrontation! »

The culprits in this system are not the policemen themselves, but «the immense organizational immaturity» of a structure where «all the weight and responsibility are placed on 22 years old guys», entangled in a policy of figures imposed by the government (The more they arrest, the better for the government).

The sad thing about this is that this doesn’t happen in France only (a country that proudly proclaims itself «homeland of human rights»). The welcome of customs police in many US airports is really humiliating – I would almost say violent. Not to mention the treatment given to Mexican «wetbacks». Or the discretionary raids by the Spanish police in Basque households.

[Read the full article on LeTemps.ch] in French only.

Related Posts:

Amnesty International reports the impunity of the French police
The road to nowhere

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[1] Kärcher is a well-known German cleaning machine using high pressure water. A Kärcher cleaner is therefore supposed to be powerful for removing dirt. This is quite the reason of the controversy, as Mr. Sarkozy compared some young people to dirt.

Obama Drives a Valuable Shift in the US Defense Policy

No need to search for obscure reasons or ulterior motive when scrutinizing the change in direction introduced by President Obama in the US defense policy after President’s refusal to install the so-called missile shield. The expected partial deployment on European territory was one of the pillars of Bush’s failed strategy against international terrorism.

Obama’s resolution involved several decisions of domestic and foreign policy, all high draft. On the one hand, the strong US defense industry will not feel aggrieved, since this is not about trying to cut off a program that would produce significant benefits, but to transform the land-based missile defense system installed on other naval platforms. The technical explanations do little to the case except to deny the accusation that the US and its allies could be defenseless against a suspected terrorist attack with missiles.

The adopted solution presupposes a more thorough risk assessment, dismissing the idea that Iran is able to hold mid-term long-range missiles and reduce the anticipated missile threat from shorter range. The fact that the current US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was also in charge during the Bush administration, supports and implement this change in strategy, is a smart move by Obama. The US President skillfully – and to the surprise of many who did not understand his decision– maintained R. Gates at the same position –the very same that had fully supported the failed military strategy of the former president.

Russia expressed rapidly and unambiguously its favorable opinion about this amendment and countries most directly concerned which are Poland and Czech Republic shall cover up that Europe defense is a common issue that affects all countries rather than a result of bilateral agreements of some of them with the American superpower – in order they appease their peculiar and atavistic fears towards Russia, however reasonable their historical reasons may seem.

Nor should it surprise that the new Secretary General of NATO – an alliance that since the Soviet Union collapsed is looking for a suitable place in the global system of supranational military organizations – is enthusiastically pointing to a new strategy that does not see an almost mandatory enemy in Russia but an appropriate and necessary ally, by which NATO can continue to keep alive, despite all previsions – a treaty that was precisely born to fight today’s new ally.

Subsequently, Mr. Rasmussen, in his first public comments of some significance since in August he took over from NATO, suggested combining missile defense systems of US, NATO and Russia into a single one. However, when asked about specifics of the plan he did not know how to respond and referred to further clarification of the military leaders –quite understandable since the NATO HQ itself was surprised by the swift and unexpected decision by the US president.

Obama, therefore, takes firmly the helm of US foreign policy. He will face a tough offensive from his political rivals. Senator McCain already warned the decision as a “serious error” that “potentially undermines US leadership as perceived in Eastern Europe”. The most obsessive US right wing – the very same which identifies traits of socialism and even communism in Obama’s plan to extend health coverage to every citizen – will go on with its campaign of denigration, with the helpful support from the most extreme republicans.

Obama definitely buries the former US policy, which divided Europe with the invasion of Iraq – one might remember the shameful pamphlet to support Bush policy, signed by many conservative European leaders, including Berlusconi, Aznar and Barroso, together with the joint efforts of three Eastern European countries, significantly Poland and the Czech Republic. The ensuing releasing in the Wall Street Journal allowed the most US reactionary forces to contempt the “old Europe” (led by France and Germany), who opposed the war, while praising the “new Europe” – the latter, whilst supporting Bush’s illegal adventure, showed a mixture of servility and excitement to establish a special relationship with the American superpower, that is trying to came closer to develop relationships with influential people (UK), in sum expecting benefits, as Jeb Bush, the dreadful brother of the former US president, who ruled his fiefdom in Florida, decreed when visiting Madrid: “This relationship between the United States and Spain will provide benefits that cannot be imagined today.”

The way Obama has to pass through is easier said than done and he will need all his personality resources to face opposition from the social sectors – within and outside the US –who worshiped Bush and still share his reactionary ideology and highlight his disastrous decisions.

The Way Forward at Copenhagen

Countdown to Copenhagen: The global conference on climate change will take place from December 7 to 18 in Denmark. At 100 days of its conclusion, pessimism prevails.

Ban Ki-moon at the ice floe in Svalbard Islands, Norway

Countdown appears critical now: the days between now and December 18, the day of the possible conclusion of a global agreement to fight against global warming. Delegates from 192 countries will meet in Copenhagen under the auspices of the UN. Will they find the resources to overcome their differences? While part of the future of the twenty-first century will be played in the Danish capital, pessimism prevails for now, here’s why.

The ice warming is more important than predicted. According to a WWF report, released September 2, the Arctic is warming twice faster than the Earth as a whole, which could lead to a rise in sea levels of 1.20 m by 2100, more than was expected so far by scientists. And the WWF prevents that “the flooding of coastal areas due to melting ice will affect more than one quarter of the world population.” With the risk that the flow of climate refugees will become an unmanageable threat for the planet.

The Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launches a cry of alarm. Faced with the increasing dangers, the Secretary General of UN, Ban Ki-moon has decided to shake the conscience by going in early September to the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard, 1 200 km far from the North Pole. « The Arctic is like a canary in a coal mine: is an alarm for the global climate. I will say in Copenhagen to world leaders they must act before it’s too late », he said on site. And, back from Svalbard, he added, gravely: « The world is rushing toward the abyss. »

Negotiators are worried. Thus, Pierre Radanne, energy consultant and one of the negotiators in Copenhagen said in Terra Eco « By three months to the summit we’re at a deadlock. » This remark is confirmed by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): «While early this year the G8 leaders had agreed on the objective of maintaining the warming to 2°C, there is no sign of progress or significant progress in the negotiations towards Copenhagen. »

Mobilizing the civil society. In the blogosphere some interesting initiatives as Mediators at COP15 – finding new ways, propose suitable action plans. In France, 11 NGOs (such as Greenpeace, WWF and CRS) have decided to intensify their action. Their petition “We do not negotiate with the climate, we act“, has surpassed the 145 000 signatures. The Way Forward at Copenhagen.

Related Posts:

Climate Change: Preparing a New Protocol (I)
Climate Change: Expectations for the New Protocol (II)
Climate Change: Upcoming meetings (III)

ICTY tryes to silence a troublesome whistleblower: Florence Hartmann guilty of contempt

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted Hartmann of contempt to the court Monday for disclosing confidential information in a genocide case. She was sentenced to pay a fine of 7,000 Euros.

Florence Hartmann prosecuted to have disclosed the existence of confidential decisions made by the Court of Appeals in the Milosevic case.

Florence Hartmann accused the court of ‘trying to silence the truth’.

Florence Hartmann was found guilty of breaching the court’s rules when she disclosed the contents of two appeals chamber decisions from the Slobodan Milošević case in a 2007 book as well as an article she wrote in 2008.  She has been fined 7,000 euros.

Hartmann was spokesperson for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s (ICTY) Prosecutor Carla del Ponte between 2000 and 2006.

The court dismissed her argument that the information she realeased had already been put in the public domain by the tribunal.

The court said the fact that Hartmann spent six years in the capacity of the spokesperson of the Prosecutor meant that she was well aware of what the confidentiality of a decision entailed.

The Chamber further argued that Hartmann’s conduct could deter sovereign states from cooperating with the Tribunal in providing evidence in the future.

“This…impacts upon the Tribunal’s ability to exercise its jurisdiction to prosecute and punish serious violations of humanitarian law as prescribed by its mandate,” Judge Bakone Justice Moloto, presiding, said.

“Public confidence in the effectiveness of protective measures, orders and decisions is vital to the success of the work of the Tribunal.”

The French journalist was the first former employee to stand trial for contempt before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague.

Her case was filed under the same number as that of Slobodan Milosevic. But Hartmann refused to sit on the same chair as the tribunals regular suspects since her case was not about war crimes.

Hartmann had publicly accused the UN war crimes tribunal of “trying to silence the truth”.

The tribunal argued that she “knew that the information was confidential at the time disclosure was made, that the decisions from which the information was drawn were ordered to be filed confidentially, and that by her disclosure she was revealing confidential information to the public.”

Hartmann covered the 1990s Balkan wars as a correspondent for the French newspaper Le Monde. She thereafter became spokeswoman for the former chief war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte from 2000 to 2006. She then published a book, “Peace and Punishment: The Secret Wars of Politics and International Justice”.

In 2008, Hartmann wrote an article entitled “Vital Genocide Documents Concealed” that was published by the Bosnian Institute.

In her publications Hartmann wrote that the Hague prosecution was allegedly unhappy with the tribunal’s decision to accept Serbia’s request to have some portions of the state archive documents considered in closed sessions. The judges in the Milosevic case allowed Serbia to censor parts of evidence that was made public. She believes that it was precisely those pieces of evidence that were key in determining Serbia’s responsibility for the genocide in Bosnia.

Hartmann argued that it was thanks to the Tribunal’s collusion with Serbia in the suppression of this crucial piece of evidence, that Bosnia was not able to draw upon the latter in its case against Serbia for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), leading to Serbia’s acquittal.

Far from punishing the perpetrators of genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunal has helped to shield them, Hartmann said. She accused judges of the Appeals Chamber, headed by former Tribunal President Fausto Pocar, of being “accomplices in manipulation organized by the authorities in Belgrade, so that the International Court of Justice, which heard the Bosnian genocide lawsuit, would be made to make the same mistakes the Hague Tribunal made”.

Her book has received broad coverage, and it kicked off a storm in the Balkans even before translations became available in early November 2007, with local politicians using it to attack the ICTY’s legitimacy. A month after the publication, she received a letter from the tribunal reminding her of her administrative and legal obligations to respect its confidentiality rules.

Related Posts: Tables Turned: Former ICTY Spokeswoman now before The Hague Court

International lawyers support the Garzon’s cause against Franco’s regime

The Spanish Supreme Court summons the judge in a lawsuit for ‘deliberate neglect of duty’.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), based in Geneva and made up of 59 presidents and former presidents of supreme courts, judges and lawyers from countries represented at the United Nations, expressed on Tuesday 8 Sept. its concern about the investigation handled against Judge Baltasar Garzón in the Spanish Supreme Court. The ICJ qualified the inquiry as “unjustified interference” in Garzón’s professional competences.

Judge Baltasar Garzón

The ICJ statement of support to Garzón occurs before its imminent issue to subpoena to the Supreme Court on the way to declare as defendant in a lawsuit from the far conservative association called “Manos Limpias” (Clean Hands) for his investigation on crimes against humanity committed during the Spanish Civil War. Manos Limpias filed a criminal complaint against Garzón for knowingly overreaching his jurisdiction (prevarication).

Garzón is under investigation before the Criminal Chamber of the High Court for an alleged crime of judicial misconduct in public office (=deliberate neglect of duty) –to be precise, to take decisions knowing full well that they are unjust. The lawsuit, filed by the obscure far-right union Manos Limpias , which later joined by extreme rightist Libertad e Identidad (Freedom and Identity), was declared admissible on 26 May by the President of the Criminal Division, Juan Saavedra, and four other judges.

The subpoena to testify by Baltasar Garzón – the most prominent Spanish judge abroad – in a criminal case pending against him by the Supreme Court was pending before the summer. The instructor of the high court, Luciano Varela, called Garzón yesterday to appear in court. Judge Baltasar Garzón defended for nearly two and half hour his jurisdiction to investigate the graves of Franco’s regime before the Supreme Court instructor Luciano Varela.  According to sources in the indictment, Garzón firmly denied having committed any trespass and refused to answer the battery of 150 questions introduced by the private prosecutor Jaime Alonso. Judge Garzón responded no more than issues raised by the instructor Luis Navajas and his own defense. None of the prosecutors asked for precautionary measures against the judge.

Meanwhile, the case opened to Garzón has caused concern in international legal forums…

“International Standards on the Independence of the Judiciary prohibit criminal responsibility of judges for controversial decisions and even unjust or incorrect in any case, should be addressed through disciplinary mechanisms established to that effect,”

…said Roicin Pillay, Senior Counsel for Europe of the International Commission of Jurists.

According to the commissioner of the ICJ, criminal investigations against judges “for acts framed within their professional duties are unjustifiable and inappropriate interference in the independence of judicial proceedings and are contrary to Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the principles 4, 17 and 18 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary “.

The ICJ considers that this attempt to interfere in the judicial process is of “particular concern” since it involves an investigation into crimes against humanity, that “Spain has the international duty to investigate and prosecute.” According to a statement by the ICJ, these crimes have no prescription.

“The investigation of Judge Garzon for crimes against humanity does not correspond to professional negligence that would justify a disciplinary action, much less a criminal prosecution,” said Roicin Pillay.

The ICJ has reported this case to the UN Rapporteur on the independence of judges and magistrates “and hoped that the proceedings against Judge Garzon be dismissed as soon as possible.”

What is the ICJ commission

• The International Commission of Jurists was founded in 1950 and is headquartered in Geneva (Switzerland). It consists of 59 commissioners from the majority of countries represented at the UN. It is composed of lawyers, attorneys and members of courts of justice, among others, presidents or former presidents of the Supreme Courts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and South Africa.

• The current President is Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

This new regrettable sequel blurs Spanish justice once again. Because the Judge Garzón’s supposed “abuse of power” that sustains this lawsuit, concerns the investigation for the crimes against humanity committed by the regime of General Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Judge Baltasar Garzón had no statutory power to investigate this matter, the indictment said, and therefore committed a criminal offense. As said Emilio Silva, president of an association of civil war victims and their families, this is “justice upside down”: what should be punished is the performance of conservative judges who DO NOT want to investigate crimes under Franco. And that occurs in a country whose courts do have authority to open proceedings against Pinochet’s abuses or other crimes against humanity committed anywhere in the world.

Judge for yourself.

In France, debt and loans, as usual

In late June 2009, before the French Parliament convened in Congress at Versailles, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced the launch of a government bond issue aimed at individuals and not just at banks. It was “intended for finance investment for future”.

President Sarkozy's take office in May 2007

Here are my personal views on borrowing through French records.

Revenue, resources and bond issues

Initially, it sounds appropriate to consider the key differences between “revenue” and “resources” for a private company or a State, as well:

• The “revenue” is the annual turnover achieved by a company or the overall taxes collected by a state, from which “expenses” or “charges” are deduced to calculate the yearly profits or the balance due, if that event.

• The “resources” are made up of new loans and profits (if positive); they ensure financing the company or State needs, i.e. the refund of loan encountered, investments… and the potential deficit.

This recall of vocabulary may well figure out some evidence often mishandled by a regularly empty and specious political rhetoric:

1. A sound financial management should start from the deficit. Deficit comes from too low revenue or too high expenses, in order to deduct the amount of resources to find with the view to finance this deficit and to meet other needs. Doing otherwise, ie fixing the deficit depending on resources that could be gathered, is a rash fool policy!
2. If the financial markets have enough capacity to lend resources to the company or the State, there is no need to have a bond debt directly from individuals –which is always done in costlier conditions: individuals expect an interest rate higher than which is offered by banks (or they look ahead for a tax benefit). Alternatively, placing the bond debt with hundreds of thousands of people is inevitably more expensive than with a few dozen banks.

It may be decided –for purely reasons of corporate communication or political view– to borrow a modest annual funding requirement from individuals, although it is far more expensive. For instance, Electricité de France-EDF –a public energy supply company– borrowed €2 billion from the French individuals on a yearly overall bond debt of € 10bn roughly. And the State, through the voice of the president himself, plans to borrow round about € 10bn from individuals on an annual basis program loan of € 150bn…140 of which are made by markets, which could easily go up to 150.

Time is gone since the financial markets did not have enough capacity to accommodate the needs of some important EDF or public bonds in the 1980s: the Lepercq’s loans during the post-war years, the Pinay’s in 1958 or Giscard’s in 1965 then in 1973 could still appear justified. On the contrary, the Balladur bond debt in 1993 was no longer acceptable and that of Sarkozy in 2009 will not either: their sole function is political, in spite of the extra financial cost.

Claiming that such borrowing “brings new revenue to invest” [1] is a nonsense: we merely substitute an expensive outline of financing by another costlier. If by this we mean that the state will increase its capital spending proportionately to the amount of resources provided by this particular loan, we have to admit that the State has decided to increase the budget deficit as much –which points to an inveterate laxity again.

Finally, the insistence that the resources of this bond debt will only finance “productive” expenses is simply childish: the remaining loans will finance more widely the unproductive expenses –as it is true how money is “fungible.” Both in private companies as in the state budget, the pre-allocation of resources is a figment of mind.

Rigor, laissez-faire and Euro

After recovering from the late 1990s, which enabled France to qualify for the Euro, the period 2002-2008 has witnessed a creeping deterioration of the fiscal deficit and external accounts, which in total is equivalent to that of early years of François Mitterrand in 1981-1982. Although any turnaround plan equivalent to that of 1983 has come back on course, while public debt has doubled since then and despite the defiant words required in this regard on the campaign trail …

The truth of the matter is that, first, the external obligations linked to the risk of French franc crisis disappeared with the creation of the Euro. Conversely, the French government refused the forced substitution of “Maastricht criteria” (the deficit accounts should not exceed 3% of GDP) as evidenced by the constant postponement of the date of return to balance (in 2010, then 2012, then 2015…) –more often than not since the election of President Sarkozy in 2007…

In 1983, by denouncing the policy of restraint, the Communists and some Socialists in the movement of Jean-Pierre Chevènement, elaborated a scholarly quibbling about the difference between the “chosen” (or “virtuous”) deficit, which “prepares the future” by the investment, and “suffered” deficit that would increase the debt [1].

The same retractions are now ran again in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s preach and his finance minister Christine Lagarde, in an attempt to evade European strain of returning to financial balance by making a scholarly distinction between structural, crisis and activity support deficits.

These quibbles were no more selected in 1983 by the fiscal authorities (President François Mitterrand and his Finance Minister Jacques Delors) than they are today by European leaders, responsible for the accuracy of fiscal policies of each State acceding to the Euro. At the most, the neo-lax of 2009 will try to delay a little the maturity date of austerity policy –such as lax did in 1982 when they delayed it a year. Even though it is pleasant, in the meantime, to spot their discourse converging with those of former radicals as Marchais, Chevènement and so…

The financial reality will retrieve its rights within a year or two –let nature reclaim! Then the economic recovery will allow European authorities to require a reorganization of the French management of public finances. As a result, France would then be punished by an increase of 3 percentage points of VAT orthrough the social tax called CSG. As Germany did in 2005, when its situation deteriorated as that of France, a situation that led Chancellor Schroeder to take corrective measures (that French President Chirac had refused to endorse). Predictable in the short term, this increase would also bridge the gap of current € 30 billion in Social Security; whose mere existence, next to deficit of state budget, should be an intolerable scandal for those who have campaign saying that the debt was unsustainable, and its transfer to future generations unjustifiable.

The future government bond is a substitution “resource”, an undeniably ordinary one. As it does not represent a new “revenue”, which can only come from taxes that will inevitably join to cost savings in order to balance the public budget in the mid term.

French version over here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] Nicolas Sarkozy veut rassembler autour de l’emprunt, Le Monde, 23 June 2009

The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in the spotlight

During a session of the UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper [1] (which inspired this post) that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect“, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed force units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and keep observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

• The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).

• Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).

• Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 1

The Responsibility to Protect, Noam Chomsky and Friends part 2

.

[1] ‘Responsibility to Protect‘, by Noam Chomsky (talk delivered at UN General Assembly), 23 Jul 2009

<!–[if !mso]> <! st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } –>

Noam Chomsky on the Responsibility to Protect

At a session of UN General Assembly, held last July, Noam Chomsky presented an interesting paper that calls for consideration on humanitarian intervention, so called since the second half of 20th century and now considered under the general concept of “Responsibility to Protect”, which was the focus of that meeting.

This meeting was attended by nearly a hundred countries. Their armed forces units have a presence in countries as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Chad and Lebanon and maintain observers in UN missions. None of them deploy overseas for wartime missions but essentially to “protect” life and interests of other peoples.

For the eminent linguist, historical precedents for such missions generate a few distrust. He mentions some of the basic principles on international relations, assumed over the centuries, which could be summarized as follows:

• The strong do what they want and the weak suffer what they deserve (principle already formulated by Thucydides).

• Legislators pay more attention to the interests of the powerful than to the common people (suggested by Adam Smith).

• Many military interventions have been made under the principle of protecting the people, but have been characterized by their cruelty. Chomsky brings up three examples: the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1936 and the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. In all three cases, a bleeding rhetoric on the protection of the own people was invoked, that barely concealed the true motivation, that is a firm imperialist expansion.

Anyone acquainted with the history of colonization realizes that “evangelizing mission” of the Spanish conquerors in the American lands was intended to save the souls of the Indians although that involved the exploitation and exhaustion of people, the occupation of their homeland and embezzling their resources. Not worse than the French, British or Belgian “civilizing mission” with more often than not unmentionable objectives as well i.e. in Africa and India.

Another issue to bear in mind regarding the protection of peoples, is the reason that NATO wielded to fix on that Balkans should be protected, even bombing Serbia in 1999 with a total lack of consideration (remember, incidentally, that the bombing did not alleviate the plight of the Kosovar people but aggravated it) and, on the contrary, it was appropriate to ignore other people, Kurdish, that was suffering –within its own territory under the responsibility of NATO– a brutal persecution by Turkish forces, one of the main partners of the Alliance .

NATO “protective” interventions do not only care about the suffering peoples. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General announced in 2007 that Allied troops should protect the pipelines transporting oil and gas to western countries and other infrastructure elements of the energy system. For Chomsky, this “opens the door to employ the right of protection as a tool of imperial intervention, as suitable.”

Neither the UN is safe from Chomsky’s criticism: “No one thinks today to protect the Gaza people, which are also a United Nations responsibility (according to the Geneva Conventions), together with other people who lack basic human rights. Nothing serious is considered about the worst catastrophe in Africa, if not the world: the eastern Congo, where several multinationals have been accused of violating UN resolutions on the illegal trafficking of valuable minerals, by which a criminal conflict is funded.

The responsibility to protect does not seem to reach hungry people. They now number about one billion human beings, while the World Food Fund announces a reduction in aid, because rich countries give priority to save their banking systems and there are no funds enough as a result of the crisis, just originated by those same banks. All this shows the validity of the principle formulated by Thucydides.

Let’s not get carried away by the lucid pessimism of the relentless American critic. Keep in mind that this issue has been addressed in an international forum, the UN General Assembly, whose echoes can be extended worldwide. Conversely, a century ago, the Algeciras conference was held to share out Morocco between France and Spain –with the approval of the great European powers. 20 years earlier, these powers gathered in Berlin to share other vast African territories. There was no intention to protect the affected people, though the Moroccan division was entitled as “protectorate”. So it seems we’re making some progress on this issue.

Will the European Union come through crisis ?

Spain has passed from rating ‘AAA’ ‘to rating ‘AA’, after Standard & Poor’s, the 1st international rating agency (IRA), lowered its assessment of long-term debt; so she did with Greece, Ireland and Portugal. This is the first time that the S&P financial rating drops for Spain in 30 years.

What is under consideration?

From the French side, on the one hand, what is at issue is the structural weakness of these economies. Beyond a snide comparison with the food and the stars of the Michelin guide, this decision might have serious consequences for the countries concerned and for the future of the European Union. Because the differences between European states today are so important that each country acts without consulting others, and in addition, the principle of subsidiarity seems more often invoked than solidarity.
However, the shock wave of the financial crisis has reached the credit of the States themselves. To put it clearly, some countries cannot afford to borrow financing their reflation plan.
During the first half of 2009, in addition to the degradation in rating of several countries by the IRA, Ireland has appealed the intervention of the IMF, the Eastern countries have called for help to historical Member States, and the pound sterling fell on the foreign exchange market.

Alternatively, many well-informed specialists consider that the announced downturn due to the financial crisis is greatly exaggerated [1]. Most of banking operators have dealt with serenity and the European Commission forced restructuring of banks that received state aid to encourage further integration of the sector within the EU single market.

A Special Report on the Euro Area [2] published in The Economist pointed how the Euro has brought however, an irrelevant achievement.

“The ECB has fulfilled its remit to maintain the purchasing power of the Euro. Since the currency’s creation, the average inflation rate in the Euro area has been just over 2%. Fears that the Euro would be a “soft” currency have proved unfounded. It is unquestioningly accepted at home and widely used beyond the Euro area’s borders.”

Even if the Euro has not made possible significant gains in productivity or GDP, it has unquestionably engendered greater stability.

What can the Europe Union do to face this?

Despite the bad omens of some analysts, the current crisis shows how the Euro area is not at a critical stage of its existence yet.

Then again and despite of a single currency, there is no economic policy, no budget, no solidarity. Spanish government on top and, to a lesser extent French as well, believe that, to be able to attest its usefulness, the EU might directly help the most vulnerable States by financing reflation plans mutually beneficial.

Oddly, countries that are now complaining of the burden of the Euro are those that once mainly benefited from their membership to it. Thus:

“[The Spanish economy] grew at an average annual rate of 3.9% between 1999 and 2007, almost twice the Euro-zone average and much faster than in any of the currency area’s other big countries…Unemployment fell from close to 20% in the mid-1990s to just 7.9% in 2007.”

Too much at once, as the prosperity met with prices and unit wage costs getting higher, both of which are now particularly painful in the context of recession. Aided by a strong currency, its current account deficit has risen to 10% of GDP. Same for Greece, Italy, Ireland and Portugal. As the report [2] explains

“The main hazard for investors in high-inflation countries—that a steady loss of domestic purchasing power will drag the currency down—is eliminated in a fixed-exchange-rate zone.”

The consolidation of the Euro area needs to move up a gear in terms of political ambition and economic governance. Economic governance, the word is dropped, and it is on everyone’s lips.
Does the 10th anniversary of the European single currency will be marked by the bursting of the Euro area, as some economists fear?
What is involved in crisis management by Europe: politics or money? The lack of economic government, or the absence of a common currency?
In other words, will the EU survive to the crisis?

As indicated earlier, prestigious analysts point that the  consequences of the so-called recession are important, but that its context has been exaggerated too. [1].

Alternatively, for The Economist, leaving the Euro zone is inconceivable:

“The costs of backing out of the Euro are hard to calculate but would certainly be heavy. The mere whiff of devaluation would cause a bank run: people would scramble to deposit their euros with foreign banks to avoid forced conversion to the new, weaker currency. Bondholders would shun the debt of the departing country, and funding of budget deficits and maturing debt would be suspended.” [2]

Therefore, borrowing costs would increase considerably, which could induce a wage-price spiral. Inflation and currency stability would be precarious at best. Thus,  it is not surprising that in most European member states, citizens surveyed remain strongly in favor of the euro. Additionally, those who are about to join, remain more convinced to do so:

“As emerging economies they are prone to sudden shifts in foreign-investor sentiment, which makes for volatile currencies, so exchange-rate stability holds considerable appeal for them.” [2]

Romania and most Baltic countries have already ask the EU and the IMF for help to avoid a loss of investor confidence. Poland is also vulnerable to exchange rate because many of its loans are denominated in foreign currency, and it should join the Euro in 2012.

.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1]  ‘EU cross-border banking will survive crisis’, Paul Taylor, The Guardian, July 27 2009.

[2]  ‘Holding together’ – A special report on the Euro area. The Economist, June 11 2009.

.

Troubled Waters in the World of Human Rights Watch

 

Some like fishing in troubled waters.

It appears that Ms. Sarah Leah Whitson is the deputy director of Women’s Rights division at Human Rights Watch (as indicated in the English version of the HRW site) and the NGO responsible for the Middle East (as specified in the HRW web site in Spanish). Several journalists have reported a supposed lack of ethics by Sarah Leah Whitson during her fund-rising trip to Saudi Arabia last May. Action that these media use to cheerfully extrapolate to the HRW’s overall activity…

It is curious that, once again, these unconstructive criticisms have just come in recent dates from quite conservative forums as The Wall Street Journal or the Barcelona based La Vanguardia. It is less surprising on other media less conservative but much more implicated such as The Jerusalem Post.

What about the circumstances to keep equity.
On the one hand it is really shocking that an online support clearly linked to the Wahhabi monarchy as Arab News reflects a fund-raising dinner where HRW Global Action in the Middle East is celebrated. I quote it literally:

Human Rights Watch is gaining more recognition and support in Saudi Arabia and the Arab world. During their recent visit to the Kingdom, senior members of the organization were given a welcoming dinner in Riyadh hosted by prominent businessman and intellectual Emad bin Jameel Al-Hejailan [...] Other prominent members of Saudi society, human rights activists and dignitaries were invited to the dinner held to honor the guests.

Could anybody imagine the hilarious scene of an enjoyable party kindly assorted of “prominent members of Saudi society” and human rights activists where the latter receive the HR patent of nobility from the satraps?

It seems that when the NGO Monitor learned about this story at the end of May, they immediately contacted Ms. Whitson or other HRW officials looking for any comments or corrections on the fundraising event:

Neither responded. In any event, Ms. Whitson’s protests to the contrary hold little weight: The Arab News report makes clear that Whitson was seeking donations from the Saudi elite on the basis of HRW’s anti-Israel bonafides rather than on its work challenging the Saudi regime. However, if Ms. Whitson has documentary evidence that this is not the case (unlike HRW’s other reporting on the Middle East), then she should presente it.

It is disappointing that some journalists get on well with the biased Bernstein’s [1] opinions or the much caricatured views of NGO Monitor just quoting words as if they were facts. For the reason that it is certainly easier to a conservative newspaper such as the WSJ,  the ONG Monitor or La Vanguardia, to exploit the misfortune of the HRW’s naive action (otherwise much more independent than some other of higher reputation) instead of coming across more reliable sources. Someone has forgotten contrasting views here. HRW’s action is reprehensible indeed, but it is useless to generalize and cover of opprobrium an NGO whose work is praised by many. Bernstein’s opinion is rather ideological than factual: so it deserves to be compared at least to other points of view, also disagreeing with that organization but more self-controlled, moderate and responsible than the WSJ journalist’s.

The umpteenth David Bernstein’s caricature of Human Rights Watch points this time to a HRW official that had the temerity to criticize Israel in Saudi Arabia during a fundraising dinner:

A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?

No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW’s demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW’s battles with “pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations.” (Was Ms. Whitson required to wear a burkha, or are exceptions made for visiting anti-Israel “human rights” activists”? Driving a car, no doubt, was out of the question.)

Apparently, Ms. Whitson found no time to criticize Saudi Arabia’s abysmal human rights record. But never fear, HRW “recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.”

In the past, Bernstein has formerly portrayed HRW as “almost cartoonishly biased against Israel.”  The only thing cartoonish, however, is Bernstein’s barefaced distortion of Whitson’s work.  Have a look of her recent comments on Saudi Arabia, which take no more than 30 seconds to find on HRW’s website:

• Criticized Saudi Arabia’s failure to protect rights, including “giving women better access to work, education, health and justice, and easing restrictions on their travel.”

• Urged governments to criticize the lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

• Criticized Saudi Arabia’s use of the death penalty for non-serious crimes.

• Demanded that Saudi Arabia release political prisoners.

• Criticized Saudi Arabia for imposing draconian discipline against a lawyer who attempted to represent a rape victim.

• Asked Saudi courts to stop trials for “insulting” Islam.

One cannot assume what Bernstein says in his article is factual. Journalist Pilar Rahola in La Vanguardia, just do it. Echoing the aforementioned article, she sarcastically attacks Sarah Leah Whitson for not criticizing Saudi Arabia for X, Y, and Z during an event, an attack obviously intended to make her seem soft on the Saudis, without mentioning that Whitson has repeatedly criticized Saudi Arabia for X, Y, and Z in the recent past. Arguments spot in situ and ad hominen with a critical eye, not from the easy distance of a fashionable journalist’s office. Here is one of her most interesting releases:

• http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/08/saudi-arabia-women-s-rights-promises-broken for the English version.

• http://www.hrw.org/es/news/2009/06/12/onu-promete-arabia-saudita-terminar-con-el-control-de-los-hombres-sobre-las-mujeres for the Spanish version.

Some should note for future reference and occasions instead of playing into the hands of propaganda. And Mrs Whitson should clarify the objectives, circumstances and results of the Riyadh meeting in order to enlight her integrity but most of all,  HRW’s trustworthiness (HRW enlightening here.)

Incidentally, the photo above is from the very same HRW awareness campaign  -both in Israel and Lebanon-  for rights of domestic workers entitled Put Yourself in Her Shoe .  Isn’t brilliant ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[1] Not to be confused with Robert L. Bernstein, founder and former chair of Human Rights Watch !

The Political Importance of the Power of Images to Reveal Government Abuse

One of the places where the Iranian uprising against falsified election was given a narrow coverage was China. An attempt was made indeed in PRC to block online images of demonstrations meanwhile official media tried to ignore the clamor.

The reason was clear enough: any mass protest and its brutal suppression raises uncomfortable memories of Tian’anmen Square on the 20th anniversary of China’s nasty crackdown of student movement.
Now China faces itself violent troubles in its Xinjiang western region as Muslim Uighurs confront Han Chinese in what seems to be the worst nation’s ethnic conflict in years. As in Iran, the authorities are trying to repress the protest movement through a combination of technology and force: cutting off cell phone service, blocking the Net, shooting people and sending the riot police.
The Chinese unrest poses an interesting dilemma. What is Iran? An Islamic republic, whose leader aspires to lead the Muslim world, to make of Muslims rising up in an authoritarian state? Islamic commitment requires solidarity with the Uighurs, while repressive solidarity requires pledge with Chinese security forces. The answer in the current Iranian climate has been predictable enough: almost no mention in the official media of the Chinese riots –and no mention that one party is Muslim.

These are both authoritarian states that have generally stopped short of totalitarian control, adapting to the 21st century by limiting freedom and deploying repression where it is critical to the maintenance of the system, but allowing some measure of liberty –to travel, trade, speak out– where it is considered harmless. Call them the new “Red Line” states. Live your lives and make money, they say, but never cross the red lines, which include organizing against the system and denouncing the leadership in place.
These methods have seemed effective but became unsuccessful in recent weeks. The Iranian regime, surprised by a last minute wave of support to the opposition leader, Mir Hussein Mussavi, opted in mid June for a brutal crackdown in defense of an electoral lie. The shift from control to savage repression was abrupt and devastating, pushing many young Iranians from reluctant consent to .total opposition.

Despite this, many young Iranians have borne witness –with mobile video images and photos, through twitter and other shapes of social networking–  and have thus amassed a permanent global act of indictment against the usurpers of mid June 2009. the Neda effect –the image of eyes blanking, life abating and blood blotching across the face of young student Neda– will undermine the regime over time.
China makes no electoral simulation in its one-party system, but it too, has been temporarily undone by the power of word and image spreading across the Internet. The current unrest in the Xinjiang western desert region has its origins in an incident thousands of kilometers away in southern Guangdong province, where a Uighur dormitory was attacked in June by Han Chinese and at least two people were killed.
Photographs appeared online. The government tried and failed to delete them. Calls for protest spread through web sites and instant messaging. Again, the government attempted to block online discussion of the incident. But Uighur rage had gone viral.

By the official count 183 people have now been killed in the protests. As in Iran, images of police officers, confronting weeping women burgeon, carrying emotional charge all through the country and across the world.
Both Iran and PRC have tried to blame people outside the country for the turmoil. They have identified foreign agents they assert are orchestrating troubles. They should look closer to home.

Repression, injustice and brutality have encountered a force hard to control: the empowerment of people through technology. Communication feeds a hunger for freedom that may in the end be stronger than any red line.

In China Uighurs Fight for Freedom. Other People Too.

Uighur riots sparked by fears that separatist dream is dying.
Riots of July 5, between Uighurs and Han in Urumqi, capital of Xinjiang in northwestern China, are the most serious in decades. In this region of 20 million people, where the main community is Muslim and Turkish-speaking, the causes of violence are deep …

One of the later news that has convulsed the world last week  -though not as much as the death of Michael Jackson-  has been the strong police repression in Chinese Xinjiang (known as Chinese Turkestan), where several Uighur riots took place. Actually treatment given to them by Chinese authorities in their own homeland as well as in the rest of China, where they often migrate for job purposes is clearly discriminating.

This situation must be put in context. 55 minorities coexist in China and they represent approximately 110 million (2005), on a total of 1.315 million citizens of the People’s Republic. Han are the ethnic majority, equivalent to 91 percent.

Among these 55 ethnic minorities, Uighurs are the largest both demographic and territorial. There are about ten million native Uighurs, 5.5 Tibetans, and 6 million Mongolians. With the particularity that these three ethnic groups represent about 50 percent of the territory of China, and with a low population density, the vast reserves of oil, gas, coal, and large quantities of other raw materials.

Among the 55 ethnic minorities, the Hui and Manchu use to write Chinese characters, while the remaining 53 have their own writings. Since 1950, the Government of Beijing has organized a panel of experts to ‘help’ the creation and improvement of written expression.

In political life, the use of spoken languages is theoretically guaranteed, and when important official meetings take place too. Simultaneous interpretation of the seven major languages are supposedly provided; state laws and transcendent official documents should also be published in these seven languages.

(15 July update)

Meanwhile…

Uighurs who dare to protest the discrimination and abuse are arrested. The protests are brutally suppressed. In Yining in 1997, Chinese police forces responded violently to street riots causing many deaths. After 9/11 attacks persecution intensified. Some Uighur leaders were accused of having links with Al Qaeda and were imprisoned. Repression against any Uighur group suspected of terrorism, separatism and religious extremism is relentless, systematic and ongoing.

All this is happening for decades. What did say politicians or religious leaders from the Islamic world? Not much.

Recently, the Turkish government has shown its concern over the situation in Xinjiang, but without increasing the decibels too much. Better not. This is the reaction of an official Chinese newspaper: “The support of Turkey to the Uighur separatists and terrorists can only cause indignation in China. If [Turkey] does not want to ruin the relationship between our two peoples they should stop supporting these separatist mobs. They must stop being an axis of evil “.

·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·   ·

Three themes outlined below have played important roles in the modernization of the unity of the People’s Republic :

1) A geographical factor. The Pacific Ocean is the East border of the People’s Republic, the desert is at north, while the limits to the west and south are high mountain ranges. In such circumstances, the regional economies tend to converge among themselves.

2) A long history of unification. China is a unified country for almost three millennia, when the Qin dynasty. And in the last 800 years, in contrast to the European trend where the ancient great empires divided into nations, China showed a trend towards consolidation, stronger than ever, over the last Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties. Be noted that the Yuan and Qing dynasties were established by the Mongols and Manchus, respectively, two outsider peoples that strongly promoted, however, the unification of China.

3) The Han core stability. Their ancestors were called Han Hua, peripherals and other peoples were known as Yi. Hua meant men civilized country’s central and Yi wild men of the periphery. An idea that lasted from generation to generation, making strong distinctions between Hua and Yi, where Hua were not an ethnic affiliation, but cultural. So, Hua population grew to become the largest and core binder compared to Yi. And since the Han dynasty (202 a. C./220 AD), peripheral peoples have called Han those who were living in the central country, abandoning the former used Hua. For over two millennia, the Han have continued to absorb the peripheral outlying populations to reach a rate of 91 per cent of the total population of China today.

In the three most important territorial nationalities mentioned above, there are more or less broad trends towards greater autonomy or even independence. In the case of the Mongols, these features are less intense for their long history of relationship with the Chinese themselves, to the point where there was a powerful Mongol dynasty.

Tibetans, as we know well, have a strong personality, currently represented overseas through the Dalai Lama. And although the progress of Tibet is clear, and the Han are still a minority, demonstrations during the past year there have shown that Tibetans look to keep their ancestral culture on their own standing without impositions from outside.

The Uighurs are less known in the rest of the world than the Mongols or Tibetans. They are far more different than other Chinese citizens for their religious Muslim. Furthermore, the treatment they have received raises many doubts about the supposed equality of every citizen under the Chinese law. Therefore, the outbreak of violence in Xinjiang should help the authorities in Beijing to refrain from punish Uighurs but rather to study the problems in view of satisfaying a mutual cooperation. Additionally, China is an hyper power now and cannot afford to go shooting their own people, creating a feeling of malaise that could turn against the Government of Beijing itself, despite their good intentions and actions in many international areas. It goes without saying that if many peripheral populations of the People’s Republic want more freedom, they are not alone. There are many millions of Han who fight for democracy too…

Towards a Conservative Europe… Allegro ma non troppo

Elections in the European Union have granted a great victory to the conservative parties, and even to others not so moderate on the extreme right. What happened is relatively complex, and needs to be analyzed country by country. French or German moderate rights are not comparable with the more conservative Spanish and Italian. Not even the British, which, incidentally, will go on their own, instead of fitting into the EPP (European People’s Party). It seems to be definitely: Tories would enter into another group. Why? Maybe because they still have been dragging out the same problem for years; that is, the British conservative have not yet assumed the fact that the British Empire does no longer exist; also because they do not get used to the fact that the rights that matter in Europe are French and German.

In addition, the results made the left-wing wonder if they are not being exceeded by right moderates on their own world’s vision. People seem more and more opting for the centre-right line -not the hard right that ruled the United States during two terms, except maybe  in Italy and Spain, as usual.
The sad part should be that the moderate right could fall into a lure of ultraliberal counter measures, shamelessly exploiting the workers to re-impose the awful 65 hours working week that they wisely decided to discard -in view of the fact that people who voted for them would not give support to that issue.
Spanish conservatives did count on the loyal support of their people, while the left has abstained from voting. The left-wing voters’ relationship to the polls is more complex: if they see something they do not like, they do not vote; while the right-wingers, even if their leaders’ ideology is as a satrap’s one, they do not care –e.g. Valencia regional leader Camps involved in corruption cases.
Silvio Berlusconi in Italy is a special case, something that would require a sociological and psychological analysis, and even to ‘craft’ a handbook on psychiatric mental health about those Italian who vote to such a peculiar personnage. Similar to Sarkozy’s France. German right is further levelheaded at least.

However, with Berlusconi and Sarkozy successes, the right removed the mask; they have no longer complex on what they are or what they do. Left-wing should ‘update’ itself before it’s too late… as the right, cleverly aped some issues and even occasionally expressed support to culture –and topics formerly reserved to their competitors as sex, adultery, religion are no longer a taboo.

Must European countries converge to one single model? The question seems to be at the core of the legitimacy of the European integration project.

A different and interesting view from Stefan Collignon over here.

Climate Change: Preparing a New Protocol (I)

The ongoing negotiations for a process on tackling global warming
as a result of emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
A process that is affecting extremely the planet’s ecosystems.

The Copenhagen Conference will number 15 of the UNFCCC meetings -the Contracting Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, signed in Rio de Janeiro during the Earth Summit in June 1992. And it is the result of the plenary sessions, as agreed at the 14th UNFCCC meeting in Bali in December 2007. The Conference will be held in Copenhagen, Denmark and will last two weeks from 7 December to 18 December 2009.

The first round of negotiations this year took place in Bonn, 29 March-8 April. The second meeting took place in Bonn, 1-12 June. Three further sessions will be held prior to Copenhagen: 10-14 August in Bonn (informal meeting); 28 September-9 October in Bangkok and 2-6 November in Barcelona.

As a major contribution to policy decision making at the conferences mentioned above -as well as those to come- the task done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has great importance. The IPCC is based in Geneva and it has been created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. It should be noted that in 2007 the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President.

One thing is clear: the Climate Change Conference is a major event, which will lead to the Protocol of Copenhagen (the first time it was officially named as such in May 2009) to combat global warming . The meeting will be attended by representatives of 170 countries, along with members of NGOs, the media and several other participants; it will be joined by some 8,000 people.

As background to the Copenhagen Conference, and despite their large deviations on forecasts of world food in the 1970s, when severe famines predicted failed to happen however -thanks to Norman Borlaug’s “Green Revolution”- it comes to my mind a comment from demographer Paul Ehrlich, the father of “The Population Bomb“ (1968): Genetically, we have barely evolved since the days of Aristotle. We do not have the fate of the fruit fly, which in a matter of weeks is able to “evolve” and develop resistance to DDT. Ten generations of homo sapiens take 200 years to die out. Cultural change is much faster and unpredictable.

Hope is the last to be lost, but I have serious doubts … The truth is this: we have been dreadful planet administrators to date. We have altered ecosystems and the atmosphere to the point of endangering the conditions that make Earth habitable. We came to create a smaller version of the planet in the desert of Arizona, Biosphere 2, and we saw what happened: the experiment ended in a complete fiasco. Meanwhile, we have overpopulated the Earth and have overexploited natural resources. Now we are altering the climate, and though we have scientific evidence and assume that we are intelligent, we have done virtually nothing to change our behavior.

But we will see that, once again, hope is not lost and the hope is Copenhagen. Because the Danish capital should be the scene where an agreement must be reached to clarify, among others, the level of ambition in the global fight against climate change. To do this, all countries should agree global reduction targets on a long-term basis. The European Union has already put its proposal and considers that global emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced by 50 percent in 2050 compared to the levels in 1990. Achieving these goals will require substantial effort on the part of developed countries, but these may not reduce alone emissions enough. If industrialized countries are to maintain leadership in the fight against climate change, emerging countries will also develop projects according to their capacities and circumstances, as well -especially the large economies as China and India.

It’s worth noting the importance of innovative financing instruments that are being analyzed, and that must be structured according to existing mechanisms, such as the newly created Climate Investment Fund at the World Bank. Also initiatives to access to new technologies need to be implemented , according to the code of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) whose statutes were approved by 25 countries -of a total of 125 high level representatives.

The initial approach of the Copenhagen Conference is done today, the second and final issue of this paper refers to the probable issues of success.

Related Posts:

Climate Change: Expectations for the New Protocol (II)
Climate Change: Upcoming meetings (III)

Tables Turned: Former ICTY Spokeswoman now before The Hague Court

Florence Hartmann, former spokeswoman for the UN’s Yugoslav war crimes tribunal stand trial before her former employer. Carla del Ponte’s former spokeswoman is charged with revealing confidential information over the trial of late Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic.

The French journalist, stands accused of contempt before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Hartmann did not wish to state her plea in court, so judge Carmel Agius entered on her behalf that she pleaded “not guilty” in November 2008.

“Silencing the truth”
Hartmann has publicly accused the UN war crimes tribunal of “trying to silence the truth”. Hartmann could face a seven years prison sentence or a 100,000 euro fine if found guilty. The ICTY alleges that she disclosed confidential information in September 2007 in her book “Peace and Punishment”, as well as in the article “Vital Genocide Documents Concealed”, which was published by the Bosnian Institute in January 2008.

Shady bargain
Hartmann covered the 1990s Balkan wars for Le Monde. In her publications Hartmann wrote that the Hague prosecution was allegedly unhappy with the tribunal’s decision to accept Serbia’s request to have some portions of the state archive documents considered in closed sessions. The judges in the Milosevic case allowed Serbia to censor parts of evidence that was made public. She believes that it was precisely those pieces of evidence that were key in determining Serbia’s responsibility for the genocide in Bosnia. Hartmann argues that it was thanks to the Tribunal’s collusion with Serbia in the suppression of this crucial piece of evidence, that Bosnia was not able to draw upon the latter in its case against Serbia for genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), leading to Serbia’s acquittal.
Far from punishing the perpetrators of genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunal has helped to shield them, Hartmann says. She accused judges of the Appeals Chamber, headed by former Tribunal President Fausto Pocar, of being “accomplices in manipulation organized by the authorities in Belgrade, so that the International Court of Justice, which heard the Bosnian genocide lawsuit, would be made to make the same mistakes the Hague Tribunal made”.

The tribunal says that she “knew that the information was confidential at the time disclosure was made, that the decisions from which the information was drawn were ordered to be filed confidentially, and that by her disclosure she was revealing confidential information to the public.”

In the meantime, The Hague Tribunal determined that the former spokesperson’s financial situation disabled her to finance her defence, thus the court would bare all the expenses…

Is this an intentional mistake or the ICTY judges are loosing their north?

May I be polite if I feel revolted by this incomprehensible proceeding? Should one says that it does not sound good, nor even worse, but really inacceptable. The judges in this case must decide which law is more important: the right of victims to access information that has allowed Srebrenica happen, and the right of the ICTY judges to hide this information to victims through a “private” decision? What is the purpose of the international justice if we place in the same indicted dock Florence Hartmann and Radovan Karadzic, even if the charges are different?

If you asked the Czar or Russia right before the bolshevik revolution if he thought people were ready to become a republic he would probably have said NO

If you asked Louis XVI from France, right before his head bounced into the bucket below the guillotine if people were ready to be free he would have probably said NO.

If you ask the ICTY judges if they are ready to risk a lot making a fool of themselves -awfully…. well, they would probably say NO

You can follow the proceedings in Hartmann’s case here.

Conjunction of planets

… a call to order to our Spanish political leaders

Conjunction of planets is becoming more and more unworkable, since President Obama is a planet apart and he knows inside out who is blameworthy for the crisis  –this downturn that spreads throughout the world. Because of President Obama makes what is required to cut the recession roots in the US. And since American workers are totally guiltless, he is boosting employment and starts on control the senior executives’ salaries by law decree.

In Spain, the Leader of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, Mariano Rajoy [right-wing], simply can not do it and the Prime Minister, J.L. Rodríguez Zapatero [social democrat] lacks the courage to do it. Both are surrounded by local celebrities of doubtful ideology. Individuals disguised for the sole purpose of getting rich  –thanks to the Treasury [1]. Their range of privileges and wages, cost € hundreds of millions per year to taxpayers.

The Populars [2] have received massive support from voters who have little democratic culture, and who are familiarized  –and comfortable– with the direct appointment of their candidates. These voters feel compelled to support these doubtful celebrities without analysing their morals or their management capacity: it is notorious that Popular Mr. Mayor Oreja was the Euro MEP with the highest number of absences during the last parliamentary session. Besides that, the 8 year Popular Administration [1996-2004] and their way of doing, provide evidence that their policy would never take us out of the crisis. Their performances in the Spanish Parliament show that they neither want nor they can go against their natural practices: could the Partido Popular explain why they did not give support to the bill project that was related to regulate money flows placed in tax havens [roughly between 5 and 8 € billion]? It does not take long an economist to know that the taxes they would pay on such a money flow would reduce the public deficit significantly.

The Partido Popular should also explain if their alternatives to crisis would be equal or similar to those of Mr. Aznar’s [3], i.e., selling public corporations to their senior friendly leaders –namely the Telefonica President [4] of that time received round about € 6 million  –an amount that let him carry legally great benefits in Miami.

The left-wing voters  –those that Mr Rajoy says repeatedly they are uneducated–  they do analyze and I would say that most of them who did not vote during the latter European election, won’t either give support to Mr. Rajoy during next general elections –so you should not speed up so much, Mr Rajoy, to get the Prime Minister’s chair so easily.

It is a grave matter: most of Spanish people are skeptical on politics. It is up to their political leaders to persuade them to trust in democracy again.

[1] IRS Treasury Department, in US
[2] Those who belong to Mr Rajoy’s right-wing “Partido Popular”
[3] Mr Aznar was the former Prime Minister in 1996-2004, preceding Mr Zapatero

Spanish version over there

Bongo Kicks the Bucket: Calm, Luxury and Consternation

President Omar Bongo of Gabon died  on Monday in a  a hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where he was reportedly being treated for cancer. He was 73.

The man was endowed with a prodigious memory, a real political intelligence and cynicism enough to ensure him the necessary longevity to become a true dictator. He has hold forty-one years.

With Bongo, Gabon turned into a strategic oil emirate for France and a stalwart heavyweight pillar of the “Franceafrique“. So, when crude prices quadrupled in 1973, Omar Bongo converted to both Islam and finance.
Money flowed like water. He had therefore the intelligence to protect the money of unhealthy lusts  by diversifying his investments. That is, putting the money aside, I mean at HIS side.

In 1975, he founded three banks:
* The Bank of Gabon and Luxembourg (BGL) in Libreville
* The International Bank (Siba) in Luxembourg
* The French Intercontinental Bank (Fiba) in Paris, the largest one.

The latter will be THE Bongo’s bank and will be chaired by one of his trusted men, Pierre Houdray, until 2000.

Let us continue…

The Head of State had a personal account and a sub-account in which his stepfather, Congolese President Denis Sassou Nguesso, had a proxy. Those accounts were fueled by (partly public) ELF French oil company by at least $40 million per year. FIBA served as a nest egg to the clan of Libreville: family, relatives, counselors and so.

This opulence is reflected in the Bongo’s real estate assets. For several years, NGOs Sherpa and Transparency International lead a court battle against the money diversion by African heads of state.They had inventoried these dictators’ “ill-gotten gains”, including their real estate in Ile-de-France (Paris region). The President of Gabon and his family figure prominently.

But the Fiba is also the tank which Omar Bongo draws from to “help” his french political friends. The ritual is immutable: when he stops in Paris, at the  Hotel Meurice, it is compulsoty to seek an audience and get the approval from the boss. A phone call to Pierre Houdray and the case is resolved.

Afterwards, one just need to report to headquarters, (avenue Georges-V in Paris) to take delivery of the grant, in cash. Bongo has actively supported Gircard d’Estaign and Jacques Chirac in the 70s, but François Mitterrand’s election in 1981, as well.

According to the men of Elf, including Andre Tarallo, the “Mr. Africa” of ELF Group, all political parties have benefited from this assistance (you know… France & Gabon, brothers in arms), with the exception of the far right National Front.

During the 90s, the proliferation of laws on the financing of political life, the system becomes more complex. More opaque too, using the resources of many tax havens (Liechtenstein, the Caribbean, Bank of New York …) which earned him the wrath of money laundering committee  from the US Congress.

The engineers of power will also be advised to take care of the ethnic balance within the country. For the time being, his family, including his children Ali and Pascaline (candidates for the succession), stand ready to defend the heritage (there’s a big money involved), even at the cost of a war of succession.

Concerns, as in old families plenty of secrets, are left to heirs. Hence, Pascaline’s Missi Dominici would be better-advised to turn into philosophers. (Ali, Pascaline, you must also be aware of the harassment and intimidation that threaten those Gabonese who dare to oppose the corrupt practices encountered there. You know of course that the massive misappropriations of state revenues contribute towards impoverishing the citizens of Gabon and prevent the emergence of normal democratic institutions.)

And Mr Sarkozy would also be well advised not to forget that “the worries of Gabon are also those of France.” Same old stuff…

Constitutional Court knocks down Hadopi

The French law that allows disconnecting Internet-users has crashed against the Constitutional Court today at 18.00. The highest authority on constitutional law condemned late this evening the controversial legislation passed a month ago by the parliament on the grounds that “internet is a component of freedom of expression and consumption” in the Declaration of Human Rights, and that justice is the only who can punish illegal downloads -not an Administrative  authority.

The European Parliament provided the same evidence, by approving an amendment that rejected an administrative authority who could decide, as provided by law now condemned, to  punish users. The text, approved with the objections of the Socialists, allowed an administrative authority so called Hadopi, order off recidivists for a period ranging from three months to one year.

It’s been a great blow to president Sarkozy. The Constitutional Court verdict means a severe blow to Nicolas Sarkozy, who defend the project tooth and nail to make it a personal matter. The law also has earned the support of a majority of artists.

The Government, which must comply with the ruling, argues that when establishing an administrative authority its target was not to overburden the courts. Immediately this evening, the French minister of culture, Mrs Christine Albanel, has just reiterated her desire to push the project even if the Government has to reform a so basic issue as the way to apply the sanction.

In short, this is the first time in many years, that the highest court setbacks so harshly the government in France. Specifically, the high court has made clear that the government has not respected the right to three fundamental principles: the trias politica separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and the freedom of internet access. It seems that Mr Sarkozy’s Government forgot that these are -and still remain- general principles of law.

And whether some like it or not, Montesquieu’s tripartite system is the model for the governance of democratic states.

Related Posts:
· Hadopi Law to Constitutional Court
· European Parliament Gives Support to Internet Freedom

In Memoriam – Tian’anmen Dark Memory

“From Mao Zedong to Deng Xiaoping, their domination is the continuation of 1,000-year feudal dynasties.” (Ding Zilin, mother of pro-democracy student Jiang Jielian killed on 4 June 1989)

Speaking of the night 20 years ago when the all-powerful authorities in China were so nervous by student protests that they brought their boot down with a mortal finality on the lives of many of those who had the impudence to question them.
On 4 June, it will be 20 years since the brutal crushing of student pro-democracy demonstrations in Tian’anmen Square, Beijing, but which also spread out in many other cities. On the night of 3 June 1989, the People’s Liberation Army moved in, killing hundreds and possibly thousands of people. China has never given a full account of what happened during the assault or who died.
It was a massacre that changed the way the world viewed China. The image of a solitary protester, still an anonymous figure, lying down in front of a tank at the edge of the square materialized the hope and futility of the movement. However, within a few months, the illusion of China’s economic growth prevailed over Western countries’ moral worries about dealing with the Communist government, and it was back to business as usual, a state of affairs that continues until today. However, the democracy movement spread internationally, and within months the Berlin Wall was down, Central Europe had left behind the chains of oppression, and governments in Warsaw Pact countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland did not decide on shooting on their own citizenry, and the world was changed.
These changes came too late for Jiang Jielian and his mother. After her son’s death, Ding Zilin attempted suicide on various occasions. Then she became provoked by her own suffering and anger.
Three months after the massacre, she met a family that had suffered a similar loss. They soon began to talk to other mothers who had lost children. There was not a “hooligan” – as Chinese officials called the protesters – among the 150 families they roughly came into contact with. The group became known as the Tian’anmen Mothers, and every year in early June they call on the government to answer for what happened to their children.
The Chinese government has defended the massacre, and ignored questions about a new report on former Communist Party leader Zhao Ziyang, who was ejected for opposing the confrontation. China Foreign department still mention it as political incident: “Facts have proven that the socialist path with Chinese characteristics that we’ve pursued is in the fundamental interest of our people and it reflects the aspirations of the entire nation,” said Ma Zhaoxu, Foreign ministry spokesman.
China’s remarkable economic rise is cold comfort for the Tian’anmen Mothers. “This massacre happened despite the concerns of the international community. Even though the Communist Party has tried to cover it up for 20 years, it is indeed a crime, and no power can change it. This crime demands justice,” said Ding Zilin.
The Tian’anmen Mothers group has three demands: “First and foremost, we want the truth. We are asking for an independent and fair investigation. The authorities should publish the name list of all victims of the 4 June crackdown, the total number of victims and the truth. They should give an account of every victim,” she said.
“Second, the authorities should compensate those victims’ families. And last but not least, responsibility needs to be introduced. The people who bear the responsibility for this tragedy should pay according to laws. Our requests are quite different from the Communist Party’s idea of ‘rehabilitation’, because we require that this issue should be handled by laws and justice,” she said.
“Our loved ones have gone. This is a fact that we must accept. Nothing will change that. But as victims’ families, we are asking for justice. As a Chinese mother, I wish this tragedy can never take place again in China, and that the authorities can not massacre civilians after this. We want them to know that killers will be punished by law. Deng Xiaoping ordered the army to shoot people, and that will remain in history forever.”
Over the years these activists have faced regular difficulties with the authorities for their activism. They have been effectively under house arrest for years; usual Communist Party membership conveniences have been revoked, most of them have been under surveillance, and were forced into early retirement. The majority were ordered to leave Beijing during the 2008 Olympics. People who have lost the most important things in their lives don’t care what happens to themselves, although the day by day live is particularly difficult for everyone, and they have come under serious pressure.

On 17 May, the families of the victims use to attend a memorial service for their loved ones, something they have done every five years since 1989. They face at all times the annoyance and exclusion from the Communist PRC system. To some extent, the indifference from abroad, as well.

Remember the victims of the Tiananmen massacre
Put a light in your window on June 4, 2009, 8:00pm (your local time)

Guru of protectionism Emmanuel Todd urge us to protect and survive

(Translated from my French blog  “Résident de la République” )

The financial crisis is convulsing politics in unexpected ways. The triumph of an inexperienced black liberal senator in the US presidential election may yet be counted as the first surprise of many. What else could be in store?

Emmanuel Todd, the French historian, made a name for himself by predicting the collapse of the Soviet Union. He has been canvassing into his crystal ball again. In his latest book, Après la démocratie (After Democracy), he brings to mind the alarming possibility of a post-democratic Europe reverting to ethnic disasters and dictatorship.

The author’s starting point is incredulity that a politician as “vacuous, violent and vulgar” as Nicolas Sarkozy could ever have been elected president. As interior minister, Mr. Sarkozy proved he was ill-suited to high office by inflaming social tensions during the riots in France’s troubled suburbs, Mr. Todd argues. Mr. Sarkozy’s first months in power have only confirmed this judgment. As incompetent in economics as in diplomacy, the hyperactive Mr Sarkozy is going nowhere fast, the author contends, rather like a cyclist pedalling away on an exercise bike.

Yet Mr. Sarkozy’s election is a symptom of the sickness of French democracy rather than its cause. Once, French politics was neatly defined by its ideological divisions: the Communists represented the secular, internationalist, working class; the Gaullists represented nationalist, conservative, Catholic values. But the collapse of religion and ideology has destroyed that framework, leaving behind a politically atomized society wide open to manipulation by the likes of Mr. Sarkozy or Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Tough economic times will only tempt such populist politicians to stoke public fears of immigration and to adopt ever more authoritarian ways.

However, the author is equally scathing about France’s opposition Socialists, a party of cosseted bureaucrats who have betrayed the workers they once represented. French civil servants do not have to worry about the corrosive effects of globalization because their own jobs cannot be sent offshore.

Mr. Todd paints a picture of a collusive political-media elite that benefits from globalization while being disconnected from the people who suffer from it. As arrogant as the aristocracy on the eve of the 1789 revolution, this elite blithely ignores the views of voters whenever it suits them. French voters rejected the European Union’s constitutional treaty, but a modified version was later adopted by parliament. Britain’s voters protested massively against the war in Iraq, but the government sent in the troops regardless.

Ordinary workers blame cheap-wage China for killing jobs and compressing wages. Instead, France’s leaders scapegoat Muslim immigrants and target militant Islam, justifying an unpopular intervention in Afghanistan. Employees want Europe to protect their jobs but, in spite of his increasingly protectionist rhetoric, Mr. Sarkozy – and the opposition Socialist party – still adhere to the free-trade dictates of the EU and the World Trade Organization.

In Mr. Todd’s reductionist view, globalization is simply the exploitation of cheap workers in China and India by US, European and Japanese companies. He is therefore an unabashed champion of European protectionism. Erecting trade barriers would increase European wages which, in turn, would increase demand and boost trade, he argues. The “social asphyxia” that is sucking the breath out of democracy would disappear.

The British, whose very identity is wrapped up in free trade, will never buy protectionism, Mr. Todd suggests, but Germany and the rest of the EU could be persuaded.

At times, Mr. Todd’s anger outstrips his analysis. Too many questions are left hanging. Does globalization not benefit western consumers? Why would Germany, one of the great exporting nations, turn its back on free trade? Has Mr. Sarkozy not performed well in the crisis? But there is no doubt that the intellectual assault on free trade is intensifying. Mr. Todd’s book is a passionate assault in that war of ideas!

A tip: Do not run to buy it at the bookstore. Although some assumptions are attractive at first sight, the overall analysis, on an anthropological and demographic basis (Emmanuel Todd’s “primary business”), confines often to correlations too hastily constructed and argued quickly. Todd’s argument boiled down to something like: After democracy = “After sarkozysm” too simplistic to my liking. If you are interested in the future of democracy, rather try Wendy Brown, professor of political science at the University of Berkeley (Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics Out of Politics and History). This time, the analysis is all the more exciting and not a French framed one. Of course, keep in mind Colin Crouch’s classic Postdemocracy.

Related Posts: “After Democracy,” Emmanuel Todd: French Society in Crisis.

A Shout to Nothing

Who cares about the brutal Burmese dictatorship and the slow murder of Aung San Suu Kyi?

Nor did officials give him permission to visit her, even when he was dying of cancer in 1999. For four years they could not speak to each other. He, Michael Aris, was her husband and she met him when they were young students at the University of Oxford. She studied philosophy, and he was a student of Tibetan civilization. They got two children and a life of struggle for freedom in Burma, which lead them to separation when the Burmese dictatorship finally pulled her out from the world. She could see briefly her son, Kim at the airport in Rangoon in 1999. That’s all. For many years she couldn’t get reports on him and since then, she has been unable to see him again.
Daughter of the great hero of the country’s independence, Aung San, who was killed when she was two, her biography is full of acts of great courage, as occurred in the Irrawaddy delta, when she kept on moving towards a platoon who pointed her with a rifle. Also her talks throughout the country, defying the dictatorship ban. Despite the military junta efforts to banish her, she wanted to stay near the people, thus strongly motivated by her Ghandian ideas and her Buddhist moral. “The goodness and justice will not let you escape,” according to her own words. And as a result, this fragile woman, daughter of Burmese heroes, has dedicated her life fighting for her people’s welfare. She has won elections that the tyrant did not recognize; she is house arrested and not being able to go out or talk to anyone outside.
The latest news alert on her delicate physical condition and update us on her imprisonment, along with two women, mother and daughter, who take care of her for years. What for?  She was taken to prison after a U.S. citizen, John William Yettaw, swam a mile across Inya lake to her home and stayed overnight, which violated the terms of her house arrest. She was just six days short of completing her house arrest
She owns of all the awards the world is able to bestow on freedom heroes, as the Thorolf Rafto Prize, the Sakharov Prize and the Nobel Peace Prize. But, beyond the awards, she is suffering the abandon that all fighters bear when they do not fight for causes of interest. Who is concerned by the brutal dictatorship in Burma? Who cares about the thousands of dead and prisoners, the disregard to all basic rights, the slow murder of Aung San Suu Kyi herself, and the slaughter against the Buddhist monks who rebelled in recent months? Who cares of Amnesty International reports, which deals with mass killings of peasants with machetes? Who cares about the rapists hordes, which choose women from minority ethnic groups in prison for their acts of sexual violence? Not even the plundering of international aid by the military junta during the 2004 tsunami, leaving hundreds of thousands of victims to their fate, raised a convincing wave of anger throughout the world.
The so called State Peace and Development Council is today one of the world’s most heinous dictatorships, and their crimes against the people of Myanmar are, unequivocally, crimes against humanity. But?
It is not the first time that someone cries out for such a reasons, as nobody cares writing about it -dixit García Márquez. Not the first time, either, that one makes an unfriendly complaint, once again, perhaps in the futile hope that someone bothers this drumming. It is not true that street banners noise in the world will invigorate the victim’s core reasons. People are mostly mobilized owing to possible culprits’ name. That is, if the problem is Israeli or American, then noise shouts and bursts into anger. Quite the opposite if the problem is called Sudan’s dictator or the Burmese Tatmadaw’s leader, hence, the noise becomes deafening silence.

This happens because banners no longer have international causes, only obsessions. Thanks to this silence, dictatorships as Burmese are unpunished for their crimes. And as a result of this silence, the victims as Aung San Suu Kyi shout to nothing…

Join the global campaign to free Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi at Free Aung San Suu Kyi

Hadopi Law to Constitutional Court

Tuesday 19 May, French Socialist MEPs have lodged an appeal to the Constitutional Court, aimed to annul the Hadopi law against illegal downloading  –adopted 13 May.

Most of Communists and Green party have given support to the appeal. In a long argument, published by Les Echos website, the opposition representatives point out eleven points they consider unconstitutional.

Three main points were raised by the MPs opposed to the Hadopi law during the Parliament debates and they appear on the appeal:xxxxxxx

• “The introduction of a presumption of guilt” and “a serious infringement to the respect for defense rights and the right to an effective review on appeal” as well: In case of dispute the law provides that it is the user’s duty to prove his innocence revealing that he has ensured all necessary measures to secure his connection, i.e. installing security software agreed by the Government. MEPs consider these measures are contrary to Article 9 of the Statement of human rights and citizen, who defines the presumption of innocence.

• The “vague and blurred nature of the breach instituted by law”: Hadopi does not punish the downloading as such, but the “lack of security of Internet access”. Any line holder may be punished, even if he is not downloading himself,  but a third party (as a relative, or sb else who uses his wireless network without his knowledge). Too vague, say MPs Socialists, whom the text does not follow the Constitutional Court caselaw. The latter pointed out that the lawmaker should define very clearly the deficiencies established by law, in order to “exclude arbitrariness in sentencing.”

• The “double punishment” jeopardy and the “disproportionate punishment”: Having sent a first warning by e-mail, then a second by registered letter, Hadopi may sentence the holder with 1 year of Internet access suspension. However, the user must keep on paying his subscription while the suspension length runs, and may also be subject to criminal prosecution. Socialist MEPs consider that it hold concurrently “an administrative sanction of financial nature and a criminal punishment”, in violation of the Constitutional Court legal precedents.

Without commenting on the overall points on appeal, the conservative UMP spokesman Frédéric Lefebvre -a shy Hadopi promotor-, said that “the arts and creative world will judge the Socialists harmful intent to damage this protective text (…), whereas we show our determination to defend a lower VAT on CDs and DVDs, along the lines of what we obtained for food industry”.  The Constitutional Court now has a month to decide. Veredict expected on 19 June.

Myths (and old habits) die hard

Opening Beast is the president Sarkozy’s natural penchant to embezzle leading figures from the French left-wing opponent ranks. Once he has cut back Bayrou’s centre-left of significant figures, Sarkozy’s Opening Beast is hungry over again.

Mr Sarkozy’s know how.
The Beast asks now on a regular basis, to be fueled by a few shovelful of Socialist coal. For the reason that, once former socialist officers (i.e. current ministers Besson and Bockel), become more right-wing than the UMP(*) entire section of the very chic 16^th district in Paris, the effect inevitably blurs.
But Opening Beast can not eat whatever she wants. It is imperative that the fruit is ripe. An unripe candidate or a hopelessly idle applicant or a fossil in search of ego. Preferably in the banks of the Socialist party, if possible quite desperate by the inertia of this party, but not quite disgusted by PS infighting. A bit young still to be distressed by the biological clock that runs on top of politicians (the pendulum of Jacques Brel, “saying yes, saying no”, “qui dit oui, qui dit non”). Or finally, when the president’s biological clock stops on you because you are considered a thinking headlight (otherwise look at 70 years foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, 70 former culture minister Jack Lang, or the closely to become minister ,72, Claude Allègre).
These characters are much useful for the war machine of French state capitalism. This very mildly euphemism is usual in French journalist language, a sort of cache-sex for the ambitious Colbertian elites –the right-thinking and old fashioned establishment of this Bonapartist Republic (ah! state interventionism, this very French obsession appreciated by both right and left camps). From former PM Laurent Fabius till present’s Fillon –not to mention Chirac, Balladur, and… Jospin of course!– they all dreamed of and managed interventionism to point the country towards modernization and industrial technology (another favourite subject among our elites, the so called coherence of the empty shell syndrome, in other words the ego-trip speech, with no other goal but to last in time.)
But the very mission of Sarkozy’s Opening Beast is to increase the PS depression through feeding the impression of brain drain, whereas stimulating media debate by the use of President’s grand gesture (coups d’éclat), i.e. escaping forward. So he occupies the breathing space with iconoclast announcements –pretending break taboos and making speak journalists. The height of vanity.
All this allows the current French elites (that is, the 50-70 years old) to occupy the espace and permanently prevent the coming of new and younger recruits (30-45 years), so as to renovate the leadership. French youth is increasingly unmotivated because they are set aside from prebendas and other allowances or, on the contrary, highly active and getting around the antisystem opportunist tactics (a somewhat exclusive phenomenon to French culture). Potage is set and diner is ready for extremes (including FN-extreme right and NPA-extreme left). But not only.
A struggle underlies between generational change-over advocates and determinist statu quo supporters. What about the low opinion the baby boom generation have on young people? These oldies, are, even to this day, in power or close to retirement –they were blessed by gods, greedy, passing through wars, grew up in economic growth, borrowing in times of high inflation, found love in full sexual liberation before AIDS, profited from the huge influx of modern comfort (as Boris Vian sang in “La Complainte du progress”) and what is more, the pampered generation arrive now at retirement at a time when there are still good retirement funds. For the first time, their children would be entitled to return to their parents and show them the state of the planet and other misdemeanours and then to tell them, talking from the future: “when I was young, I wouldn’t have certainly all the facilities you have gathered”.
In France, everyone is scared by youth. But the older ones are the most fearful. As middle-aged bourgeois were frightened by the plebs from suburbs, this fear translates into a distance – i.e., the shameful youth unemployment rates in the French workplace, the willingness in replacing the judge for children with a juvenile justice as if the childhood or adolescence were an administrative status to be monitored, instead of a vulnerability period to be protected.
Facing the common excesses of youth, we no longer say “youth must have its swing”. We no longer look at with benevolence because fear dominates and the images disturb –recurring violent events take us back to suburbs reality and schools annoyance. I recommend review the film by Yves Robert, War of the Buttons (“La guerre des boutons”), shot in 1961: two bands of kids from two villages are fighting, harassed, smoking, drinking alcohol, beat their prisoners from the adversary band. Lebrac, the hero, is a rebel gang leader. Bertrand Rothé (**), a teacher in Sarcelles, Paris suburbs, focussed on the War of the Buttons, has just drawn up a novel where he renders all the petty crime, small fights, even immorality exposed in the film to present times. Therefore, he brings them to our time, just to show up. And that is certainly enlightening: the repressive machine, its files and controls, would led Lebrac in detention these days, in 2009, before he could come of age.

(*) Presidential party, formerly Gaullist-conservative
(**) “Lebrac, trois mois de prison”, Bertrand Rothé. Editions du Seuil

European Parliament Gives Support to Internet Freedom

The European Parliament has decided that ISPs and regulators, such as Hadopi in France, cannot restrict individuals’ access to the internet.
But this vote approving online freedom of expression is not the conclusion of the EU debate taking place between the European Parliament and Council. Since the Parliament has not agreed with the Council, the proposals will now enter the EU’s conciliation procedure where both bodies will try and reach a compromise.
The discussion came out from the modification of the Telecoms Package 2002 and specifically, one of the five directives that make up the package, called the Framework Directive. The reform cast the possibility that a three strikes measure –riposte graduée– proposed by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, could be adopted.
A three strikes law would kick file sharers and illegal downloaders off the internet for up to a year if they were third-time offenders. The decision by the Parliament not to adopt Sarkozy’s proposition is the second time it has come to this conclusion.
During the first reading of the proposal, Parliament formed what is known as Amendment 138. The Amendment reads, “No restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, except when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.”
Catherine Trautman, author of the other report relating to the Framework Directive, revised the text in April to weaken the Parliament’s Amendment and secure agreement between the Council and the Parliament, before the elections in early June.
Citizen rights groups, such as La Quandrature du Net were outraged by Trautman’s changes and called on MEPs to side with the previous version of the report, which contained the amendment.
Now the groups have welcomed the decision of the MEPs; i.e. Jérémie Zimmermann, co-founder of La Quadrature du Net, described it as a “victory”. “A formidable campaign from the citizens put the issues of freedoms on the internet at the center of the debates of the Telecoms Package,” (…). And “the massive re-adoption of amendment 138/46 rather than the softer compromise negotiated by rapporteur Trautmann with the Council is an even stronger statement,” he concluded.

Obama’s Strategic Challenges Ahead

After the customary hundred days, President Obama would have signed 12 executive orders and 13 presidential decrees. He completed 13 official travel (including three abroad) and delivered ten messages to the nation, –three of them in prime time. That is, in a frenetic pace that would parallel the hyperactive Roosevelt. In addition, despite having lost almost 20 points in popularity since the investiture, he is yet one of the most popular presidents since the Kennedy era (62% approval roughly).

Foreign Policy

The first trial by fire with Russia will get on the START I Treaty renewal (Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction) which expires in December 2009. In spite of the promising preliminary contacts, the withdrawal of accreditation to two Russian diplomats to NATO accused of espionage (in a case linked to Hermann Simm, Estonian Alto officer sentenced to filter information from the Alliance for the Russian secret services), coupled with the planned NATO exercises in Georgia by May, (judged “provocative” by Mendeiev,) have strained Russian-American relations. With these preambles, it is foreseeable that the agreement truncates and the tension will increase with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield (NDM), regarded by Putin as a direct threat to Russia. NDM considers the installation of missile base interceptors in Poland, on the one hand; and one radar in the Czech Republic. It would come on stream in 2010. On the assumption that Obama will continue forward, Russia would presumably respond by the installation of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad (Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania) and the deployment of three regiments in Kozlesk.

Appeasement.

On the European stage, we could attend the end of the honeymoon period involving Obama and Sarkozy. Disagreement on matters as government making in Israel, shortly prone to the Palestinian argument that it would not be dischargeable in the medium term that the EU was forced to revise the preferential economic agreements with Israel. They could focus on the beginning of a new EU-US trade war, subsequent to imposition of protectionist measures in both countries. As for instance the import of agricultural products, (plague “miner tomato European” and “outbreak swine” in the USA). And finally, the Obama’s request for a substantial increase of allied troops in Afghanistan could lead to a postponed affirmation of French sovereignty that would result in the departure of French troops from Afghanistan (and in a parallel way of other European allies) before the French 2012 presidential vote. Obama will be forced to engage actively in an opening course of action for a new peace process in the Middle East.  After limited progress done by his special emissary (former senator Mitchell), the situation would have worsened consequently to Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet arrangements. An unlikely coalition government with the Palestinian, the ongoing the policy of expanding Jewish settlements and the completion of the West Bank Wall coupled with the failure of talks between Hamas and Abbas to form a Palestinian unity government: these are the controversial issues.  Obama would be therefore compelled to participate personally in the negotiation process. He is supposed to focus on the future Palestinian state set up.  At the end, the process would render the signing of a peace treaty between the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new President of the Palestinian Authority –which would be the representative of the new unity government that would emerge after the inevitable approach of Hamas and Fatah. That agreement would get the political blessing of Egypt, Russia, Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia, USA, EU, Japan and United Arab Emirates would follow as necessary partners in the economic reconstruction of Gaza, with an estimated cost of $ 2,000 million. It should be comprehensive and binding for all Middle East countries and would seriously contribute to the establishment of a new “status quo” in the area –it goes without saying, once the nuclear dispute with Iran is resolved and the restoration of diplomatic relations between both countries is done.

Gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq and transfer to Afghanistan.

Due to enlargement of the area of Taliban influence in Afghanistan, Pentagon considers transferring about 100,000 troops from Iraq by 2010 (where only about 50,000 remain until the final withdrawal in 2011). Taliban insurgents have gained a presence in 72% of the territory of Afghanistan, (increasing of 18% compared to November 2007) and are close to the capital Kabul. Taliban have established a kind of government de facto in some Afghan cities and towns. Regain of Russian military assistance (military advisers, logistics and information from spies, satellites) to the Taliban militia in their fight against the NATO forces deployed there, is a fact. In order to lengthen the conflict; along the deficient resolution of European allies to achieve gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  However, leaving U.S. alone could result in a dangerous Vietnamization of the conflict. Moreover, involving increasingly difficult to get approval on Budget from Congress, –embodied in the Obama’s petition for an additional $ 83,400 million to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 (estimated costs of both wars would be of $ 8,000 million per month roughly).

Lifting the trade embargo on Cuba

Obama would pay special attention to its traditionally considered backyard, trying to halt the Russian influence in Latin America after the agreement signature for Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Cuba (drawing on the political myopia of an administration obsessed with Busch Axis of Evil). Thus, after recent goodwill measures towards Cuba along with the start of informal talks, the lifting of trade embargo is essential. Just to help achieve the necessary empathy for the start of official bilateral round negotiations between both governments. Nevertheless, if no closer agreement is accomplish on those issues, the signing of a treaty on military cooperation between Russia in Cuba is predictable –getting specific military bases on Cuban territory with Iskander missiles and strategic aircraft with nuclear weapons. In addition, US-Pan American Alliance outset (led by Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina) could merge massive economic assistance and preferential agreements with countries open to trade boycott. Same governments are well disposed to isolate the progressive populist regimes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia to achieve their destabilization.

After the customary hundred days, President Obama would have signed 12 executive orders and 13 presidential decrees. He completed 13 official travel (including three abroad) and delivered ten messages to the nation, –three of them in prime time. That is, in a frenetic pace that would parallel the hyperactive Roosevelt. In addition, despite having lost almost 20 points in popularity since the investiture, he is yet one of the most popular presidents since the Kennedy era (62% approval roughly).

Foreign Policy

The first trial by fire with Russia will get on the START I Treaty renewal (Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms Reduction) which expires in December 2009. In spite of the promising preliminary contacts, the withdrawal of accreditation to two Russian diplomats to NATO accused of espionage (in a case linked to Hermann Simm, Estonian Alto officer sentenced to filter information from the Alliance for the Russian secret services), coupled with the planned NATO exercises in Georgia by May, (judged “provocative” by Mendeiev,) have strained Russian-American relations.

With these preambles, it is foreseeable that the agreement truncates and the tension will increase with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield (NDM), regarded by Putin as a direct threat to Russia. NDM considers the installation of missile base interceptors in Poland, on the one hand; and one radar in the Czech Republic. It would come on stream in 201. On the assumption that Obama will continue forward, Russia would presumably respond by the installation of Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad (Russian enclave situated between Poland and Lithuania) and the deployment of three regiments in Kozlesk.

Dissension between Sarkozy and Obama.

On the European stage, we could attend the end of the honeymoon period involving Obama and Sarkozy. Disagreement on matters as government making in Israel, shortly prone to the Palestinian argument that it would not be dischargeable in the medium term that the EU was forced to revise the preferential economic agreements with Israel.

They could focus on the beginning of a new EU-US trade war, subsequent to imposition of protectionist measures in both countries. As for instance the import of agricultural products, (plague “miner tomato European” and “outbreak swine “in the USA). And finally, the Obama’s request for a substantial increase of allied troops in Afghanistan could lead to a postponed affirmation of French sovereignty that would result in the departure of French troops from Afghanistan (and in a parallel way of other European allies) before the French 2012 presidential vote.

Obama will be forced to engage actively in an opening course of action for a new peace process in the Middle East.  After limited progress done by his special emissary (former senator Mitchell), the situation would have worsened consequently to Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet arrangements. An unlikely coalition government with the Palestinian, the ongoing the policy of expanding Jewish settlements and the completion of the West Bank Wall coupled with the failure of talks between Hamas and Abbas to form a Palestinian unity government: these are the controversial issues.

Obama would be therefore compelled to participate personally in the negotiation process. He is supposed to focus on the future Palestinian state set up.  At the end, the process would render the signing of a peace treaty between the new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new President of the Palestinian Authority –which would be the representative of the new unity government that would emerge after the inevitable approach of Hamas and Fatah.

That agreement would get the political blessing of Egypt, Russia, Syria and Iran. Saudi Arabia, USA, EU, Japan and United Arab Emirates would follow as necessary partners in the economic reconstruction of Gaza, with an estimated cost of $ 2,000 million. It should be comprehensive and binding for all Middle East countries and would seriously contribute to the establishment of a new “status quo” in the area –it goes without saying, once the nuclear dispute with Iran is resolved and the restoration of diplomatic relations between both countries is done.

Gradual withdrawal of troops from Iraq and transfer to Afghanistan.

Due to enlargement of the area of Taliban influence in Afghanistan, Pentagon considers transferring about 100,000 troops from Iraq by 2010 (where only about 50,000 remain until the final withdrawal in 2011). Taliban insurgents have gained a presence in 72% of the territory of Afghanistan, (increasing of 18% compared to November 2007) and are close to the capital Kabul. Taliban have established a kind of government de facto in some Afghan cities and towns.

Regain of Russian military assistance (military advisers, logistics and information from spies, satellites) to the Taliban militia in their fight against the NATO forces deployed there, is a fact. In order to lengthen the conflict; along the deficient resolution of European allies to achieve gradual withdrawal from Afghanistan.  However, leaving U.S. alone could result in a dangerous Vietnamization of the conflict. Moreover, involving increasingly difficult to get approval on Budget from Congress, –embodied in the Obama’s petition for an additional $ 83,400 million to support military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009 (estimated costs of both wars would be of $ 8,000 million per month roughly).

Lifting the trade embargo on Cuba

Obama would pay special attention to its traditionally considered backyard, trying to halt the Russian influence in Latin America after the agreement signature for Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Cuba (drawing on the political myopia of an administration obsessed with Busch Axis of Evil).

Thus, after recent goodwill measures towards Cuba along with the start of informal talks, the lifting of trade embargo is essential. Just to help achieve the necessary empathy for the start of official bilateral round negotiations between both governments.

Nevertheless, if no closer agreement is accomplish on those issues, the signing of a treaty on military cooperation between Russia in Cuba is predictable –getting specific military bases on Cuban territory with Iskander missiles and strategic aircraft with nuclear weapons. In addition, US-Pan American Alliance outset (led by Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Argentina) could merge massive economic assistance and preferential agreements with countries open to trade boycott. Same governments are well disposed to isolate the progressive populist regimes of Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia to achieve their destabilization.

Durban-II, Another Summit to Forget

I still want to think that it has been a huge hoax, one of these happenings that  colored so much the flower adolescence of many of us. To be exact, I would like to believe what happened in Geneva on late April has not been the inevitable consequence of a chain of incredible and irresponsible manners on the part of  the UNO High Commissioner for Human Rights, but only an innocent slip-up dyed of  black humor. I still want to think all this, because I do not want to think that the UNO should have turned into such a lamentable caricature itself.
What would be Eleanor Roosevelt’s concern on the current UNO, she who so much fought to get done an organization aimed to preserve international law, the woman who headed the committee that recorded the statement of Human Rights? What would say all those who believed that this organization would strengthen freedom and democracy throughout the world? If this was the target, it has been smashed to smithereens after giving voice to brutal dictatorships all through thirty years; that is indicative of an utter failure to defend victims, and even demonstrating kindness towards most anti-Semitic sermons. It is a long time since UNO is not the white hope of the international law yet, but likely the privileged loudspeaker for satraps from anywhere proclaiming their delirious dreams. A UN totally caught within a General Assembly full of tyrannical governments, trying shamefully to apparent neutral. In spite of all this, in spite that the very same president’s Gadafi headed the Commission of Human rights, and in spite of some other similar cheerful moments, it is hard to realize that these inconsistencies were committed in a summit against the intolerance. Either it is a bad joke, or simply the UNO has fully lost its way.
How could the UN justify the invitation to a president of a fanatical dictatorship –Ahmadineyad– which sentences to death homosexual and dissidents, enslaves women, that has been declared responsible by international justice as the person in charge of the terrorist attack to Amia, Buenos Aires, which caused 85 death, the same who finances terrorist groups? How could one understand that the man who organized a congress denying the holocaust, which threatens destroy neighboring countries, who is openly anti-Semitic, have the word in a forum on racism, the very same day the holocaust tragedy is honored? Is it cynicism, cruelty, disorientation?
Is it unconsciousness? What were thinking the governments that attend the summit? That the man would behave well, would iron his shirt and his conscience, would speak in a reasonable way and would there turn himself into a lifelong democrat? Were they hoping that Iranian women would not suffer any discrimination? That we would come across the miracle of Fatimah, in version cuckoo clock?

The truth is the situation is so crazy and absurd, that one must acknowledge with Martin Luther King assessment: “nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity “. Once again the recurring lack of common sense, as in Durban-I, in 2001: an authentic anti-Semitic festival denounced by many organizations of human rights, as the Center Simon Wiesenthal absolutely scandalized by the anti Jewish hate that breathed the summit. Durban-II got now the same schemes, inviting some of the most notable dictators of the planet.

Another UN summit to forget, another success of intolerance. The way human rights go.

I still want to think that it has been a huge hoax, one of these happenings that

colored so much the flower adolescence of many of us. To be exact, I would like

to believe what happened in Geneva on late April has not been the inevitable

consequence of a chain of incredible and irresponsible manners on the part of

the UNO High Commissioner for Human Rights, but only an innocent slip-up dyed of

black humor. I am still want to think all this, because I do not want to think

that the UNO should have turned into such a lamentable caricature itself.

What would be Eleanor Roosevelt’s concern on the current UNO, she who so much

fought to get done an organization aimed to preserve international law, the

woman who headed the committee that recorded the statement of Human Rights? What

would say all those who believed that this organization would strengthen freedom

and democracy throughout the world? If this was the target, it has been smashed

to smithereens after giving voice to brutal dictatorships all through thirty

years; that is indicative of an utter failure to defend victims, and even

demonstrating kindness towards most anti-Semitic sermons. It is a long time

since UNO is not the white hope of the international law yet, but likely the

privileged loudspeaker for satraps from anywhere proclaiming their delirious

dreams. A UN totally caught within a General Assembly full of tyrannical

governments, trying shamefully to apparent neutral. In spite of all this, in

spite that the very same president’s Gadafi headed the Commission of Human

rights, and in spite of some other similar cheerful moments, it is hard to

realize that these inconsistencies were committed in a summit against the

intolerance. Either it is a prank of bad taste, or simply the UNO has fully lost

its way.

How could the UN justify their invitation to a president of a fanatical

dictatorship –Ahmadineyad– which sentences to death homosexual and dissidents,

enslaves women, that has been declared responsible by international justice as

the person in charge of the terrorist attack to Amia, Buenos Aires, which caused

85 death, the same who finances terrorist groups? How could one understand that

the man who organized a congress denying the holocaust, which threatens destroy

neighboring countries, who is openly anti-Semitic, have the word in a forum on

racism, the very same day when the holocaust tragedy is honor? Is it cynicism,

cruelty, disorientation?

Is it unconsciousness? What were thinking the governments that attend the

summit? That the man would behave well, would iron his shirt and his conscience,

would speak in a reasonable way and would there turn himself into a lifelong

democrat? Were they hoping that Iranian women would not suffer any

discrimination? That we would come across the miracle of Fatimah, in version

cuckoo clock?

The truth is the situation is so crazy and absurd, that one must acknowledge

with Martin Luther King when he said that “nothing in the world is more

dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity “. Once again the

recurring lack of common sense, as in Durban-I, in 2001: an authentic anti-

Semitic festival denounced by many organizations of human rights, as the Center

Simon Wiesenthal absolutely scandalized by the anti Jewish hate that breathed

the summit. Durban-II got now the same schemes, inviting some of the most

notable dictators of the planet. Another UN summit to forget, another success of

intolerance. The way human rights go.