|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 27th, 2008 From: briefing at unwatch.org
UN Watch Exclusive from Nigeria: Today’s Durban II Text In this Issue:
{See also www.UNWatch.org to get a fill of our indignation at how the UN is being misused by the oil barrons and their friends. Do not expect here Ethics, UN Charter ideas, or UN Human Rights ideals. The only positives come from indignation expressed by a handfull of UN Member States. Even some of these will not speak up all the time - this because of the daze that comes from their addiction to oil.} UN’s ‘Durban II’ African Prep Meeting Slams Israel, Free Speech; But Silent on Darfur Atrocities and African Ethnic Violence.
UN Watch’s Leon Saltiel (right) participated at this week’s conference Abuja, Nigeria, August 26, 2008 — Geneva-based human rights group UN Watch expressed alarm over the declaration adopted today by an African regional meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, which will now shape the UN world conference on racism to be held in April. “The declaration (CLICK FOR TEXT) fails to address racial and ethnic crimes committed by Sudan, tramples international human rights guarantees on free speech, places Islam above all other religions, and targets Israel alone, implying that it is uniquely racist,” said UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer. “Regrettably, Durban II is looking more and more like the original Durban debacle of 2001.” The stated objectives of the African regional conference, which opened Sunday and closed today, were to review regional implementation of the 2001 Durban declaration, and map the way for the UN’s Durban Review Conference on racism set for Geneva in April. But the declaration adopted today “failed to review any African country’s actions, and its inflammatory provisions now threaten to derail the world conference in April,” said Neuer. The Canadian government is boycotting the April meeting and its preparations, saying it will “not be party to an anti-Semitic and anti-Western hatefest dressed up as an anti-racism conference.” French President Sarkozy and cabinet ministers from Britain and the Netherlands have warned that a breach of red lines could also trigger their boycott of the 2009 meeting in Geneva. French Minister Rama Yade repeated the caution in a statement this month to the French parliament. “By failing to review the performance of African countries on racism and related intolerance, the conference is ignoring its primary mission, and squandering a golden opportunity to help Africa’s many victims of racism and xenophobia,” said Neuer. “Apart from UN Watch’s plenary speech on Sunday, neither the conference nor its final declaration addressed the Sudanese government’s crimes against humanity in Darfur, including the ethnic killings of at least 200,000 black Africans, mass rape, and the displacement of over 1 million men, women and children,” said Neuer. When UN Watch representative Leon Saltiel addressed the Darfur atrocities in his speech to the Abuja conference on Sunday, Sudan immediately interrupted with an objection — supported by Algeria and Morrocco — and chairman Martin Uhomoibhi of Nigeria ruled that country situations could not be mentioned. “Moreover, the text fails to review the xenophobic attacks that recently broke out in South Africa — the leading organizer of the Abuja meeting and the overall Durban process — where foreigners, notably from Zimbabwe and Mozambique, were targeted in May during a wave of anti-immigrant attacks in which at least 62 were killed and tens of thousands were displaced,” said Neuer. “Nor does the text review the ethnic crimes in Kenya this year that killed 1,000 people, displaced another 600,000 and burnt down 40,000 buildings, in an outburst of tribal bloodletting. Millions of African victims of xenophobia — present and future — are ill-served by the conference’s grant of impunity for racial or ethnic crimes committed in African countries.” The new text calls upon states to avoid “inflexibly clinging to free speech in defiance of the sensitivities existing in a society and with absolute disregard for religious feelings.” Other provisions in the text on “incitement to religious hatred,” said Neuer, “mirror efforts by Islamic states at the UN Human Rights Council to insinuate Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into international law. Yet UN expert on religious freedom Asma Jahangir and other international human rights experts have expressly opposed ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, which seek to alter international human rights law by defining religions — instead of individuals — as the bearers of rights.” The declaration’s attack on free speech contravenes the Article 19 guarantee of freedom of expression of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 60th anniversary the UN will be celebrating next week with a major gathering at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. (At the event, UN Watch will be chairing a NGO panel discussion on the UN Human Rights Council.) “The language goes far beyond the recognized norms for balancing prohibitions of racial hatred with respect for free speech, which is the lifeblood of democracy. If the right to express one’s beliefs — to question the dogmas of the day in society, law, politics, art, science, and, yes, religion — is to be restricted by the ‘feelings’ and ‘sensitivities’ of others, this will mark the end of free speech as we know it,” said Neuer. The text’s special emphasis on Islamophobia (paragraph 20) “seeks to impose a hierarchy of religions, placing adherents of Islam above all others,” said Neuer. “This is contrary to the basic principles of equality enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and undermines the very premise of the global struggle against racism.” The declaration makes only one reference to a country situation, “reiterat[ing] its concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations.” Neuer asked, “Why is a non-African situation mentioned in a declaration about Africa, one that references neither Sudan’s racist killings, nor any other country in Africa?” “The special reference to the Palestinian issue implies that Israel is practicing racism. This reverts to the discredited rhetoric of the UN’s 1975 “Zionism is Racism” resolution, sponsored by the Soviet and Arab blocs, which was repealed by the United Nations in 1991, and which has since been repudiated by its highest officials,” said Neuer. “Portraying Israel’s conflict as racial is more than political mischief; it’s an attempt to dehumanize Israelis and their supporters as uniquely evil. We regret that African states today allowed the extreme political agenda of certain Middle Eastern governments to undermine their legitimate cause.” The UN, however, today tried to offer a different interpretation. “It is only one paragraph that mentions the Palestinians, so the interest of Israel was never badly damaged,” Ibrahim Wani, from the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, told Reuters, after the 3-day talks in Abuja. UN Watch participated at the African conference as an international non-governmental organization. The plenary speech delivered by UN Watch representative Leon Saltiel on Sunday (see below) was interrupted by Sudan, after he addressed the situations in Darfur and Zimbabwe, and described Libyan hypocrisy. UN Watch Defends Principles and Exposes Hypocrisy in Plenary Speech to Durban II Prep Conference in Africa UN Watch Speech to Regional Conference for Africa Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference Abuja, Nigeria, 24 August 2008 Delivered by UN Watch communications director Leon Saltiel (Video of speech will be published soon)
Thank you, Mr. President. We assemble here in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, in the heart of Africa, to discuss how to fight racism, and to prepare for the Durban Review Conference that will take place in April 2009. That I have come here from afar is testament to the great importance that UN Watch attaches to the African cause, to the global struggle against racism, and to the outcome of this gathering. Mr. President, UN Watch has always stood in solidarity with the African people in their struggle for human rights, equality and freedom. A half century ago, UN Watch founder Morris Abram was a leading advocate in the American civil rights movement led by Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. It was Mr. Abram who won the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court case that recognized African-American voting rights, under the principle of “one person, one vote,” and who went on to head the United Negro College Fund. In 1993, guided by the same vision of human rights and equality, Morris Abram founded UN Watch. Since then, we have been a leading voice at the United Nations for victims of persecution—for Africans in places like Darfur and Zimbabwe, as for millions of other victims of racism and intolerance around the world. Mr. President, It is with this legacy, and with these principles, that UN Watch urges this conference to rise to the occasion. Let this African gathering give voice to all who suffer from racism, persecution and intolerance. Let us promise that the crime of slavery shall never be forgotten. That men and women everywhere should be treated with basic dignity and equality. Let us be true to the universal principles of human rights that underlie the struggle against racism. Mr. President, We will only advance toward these goals if we stay on the true path—by avoiding dangerous diversions, and by remedying the wrongs of the past. We must prevent a recurrence of the foul actions of 2001, which paradoxically turned a conference on racism into a platform for racist hatred and anti-Semitism. Let us oppose the campaign by certain governments and lobby groups to distort the language of human rights for a narrow and extreme political agenda, which only distracts from and harms the African cause. Let us ensure that our outcome document—which will influence the final declaration of the April conference in Geneva—will neither single out nor demonize any country or people. Finally, let us keep this conference a serious one. Its credibility is at stake when countries preach one thing while blatantly practicing the very opposite. Consider, for example, the official submission of Libya that is before us today. The Libyan government speaks of racism against the African people and how it confronts, and I quote, “[a] new form of racism related to house helpers [and] (maids).” Yet just last month, when Mr. Hannibal Qaddafi was arrested in Geneva for the crime of beating his African maid and African house-helper, [At this point in the speech, Sudan interrupted with an objection, supported by Morocco and Algeria.] Libya fully supported his actions. Worse, Libya then punished one of these African victims by kidnapping his mother. With this same country being the chair of the committee organizing the Durban Review Conference, what should the world think? Mr. President, The eyes of the world are upon us. When history is written, let it be recorded that in Abuja, in August 2008, the struggle against racism was advanced, and not harmed; promoted, and not politicized. We owe its victims—in Africa and around the world—no less. Thank you, Mr. President.
Writing in reply to a parliamentary question, Rama Yade, France’s Senegalese-born Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Secretary, warned that France will walk out of the UN’s Durban II process if it veers off track. “France will not maintain its participation at any price,” said Yade in her response published on August 5. “The President said at the dinner organized by CRIF, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights herself said to the UN Human Rights Council: France will remain engaged in this process only if the review conference does not depart from its assigned objectives.” Read More…
The UN Human Right Council’s expert on Palestine yesterday praised a boat trip to Gaza by pro-Palestinian campaigners, without revealing his own close ties to the group. Falk is best known for his repeatedly expressed support for the conspiracy theory that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside job” by the Pentagon. Read More… Qaddafi Rights Prize Awarded to Former Malta PM for ‘Defending Palestinian and Iraqi Oppressed Peoples’ Even with the Qaddafi servant-beating episode still unresolved, the Libyan human rights prize went ahead and announced its annual award. The International Committee for the Al-Gaddafi Award for Human Rights awarded its prize for 2008 to former Maltese prime minister Dom Mintoff, the Tripoli Post reported. “In their appreciation of those honourable leaders of the North who have stood by justice and rights and who defended the causes of oppressed peoples, especially in Palestine and Iraq, the International Committee of Al-Qathafi Award for Peace of 2008 is awarded to the European leader and former Prime Minister of Malta,” the committee said… Read More… UN Watch Feature Interview in German Weekly
Die Genfer NGO “UN Watch” kontrolliert seit 1993 die Arbeit der Uno im Hinblick auf Menschenrechtsfragen. Sie ist mit dem Ame rican Jewish Committee assoziiert. Ihr Vorsitzender, der Kanadier Hillel Neuer, tritt regelmäßig vor dem UN-Men schen rechts rat auf. In einer Rede im März 2007 kritisierte er sehr drastisch die Arbeit des Rates, der “die Sprache und Idee der Menschenrechte entstellt und per vertiert” habe…” – Feature interview of H. Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, by Ivo Bozic in “Die Atmosphäre ist totalitär,” Jungle World, Aug. 7, 2008. Read More…
Make your voice heard: visit UN Watch’s new blog and add your comments: http://blog.unwatch.org/. UN Watch RSS Feeds UN Watch is pleased to provide RSS feeds for its content. This feature will keep you up-to-date with UN Watch’s latest press releases, briefings, reports and commentary. You can choose from the different feeds and subscribe to them with your RSS reader. Subscribe. To support the unique and vital work of UN Watch, please contribute here. tel: (41-22) 734-1472 fax: (41-22) 734-1613 Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 20th, 2008
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 19th, 2008 The title of the following article by Roula Khalaf, written for the Financial Times, is: “WHY ARAB STATES MUST EMBRACE IRAQ.” King Abdullah of jordan, the most West-oriented ruler of an Arab State, has broken the ice by going to Baghdad. OK - he did this because of the revealed great financial reserves of the new Iraqi State - and Jordan, as a non-Petroleum Arab State, needs money. But as Roula Khalaf says - there was more to it then simple monetary calculations. With the US disengagement from Iraq in the cards - do the Arab want to see the country move completely to Iran’s sphere of influence? It is clear now that the US will not continue to do the deterrent work for them. Roula Khalaf is an excellent Arab journalist that we met once at a WWF event in Amman, Jordan. She is now the Middle East Editor for the Financial Times, and, as we picked up on the internet, she announced the launch of the the UK newspaper’s ME edition. Khalaf states that twice a week the paper will publish dedicated regional news. http://www.zawya.com/radio/default.cfm/sidDE080428061709359685
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 19th, 2008 Terror War Re-Evaluated as Musharraf Steps Down. America and Pakistan’s neighbors are being forced to re-evaluate their strategy in the war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the resignation yesterday of President Musharraf, whose nine-year reign included a decision after September 11, 2001, to cooperate closely with America in the fight against international terrorism.
“President Musharraf has been a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the war against terrorism and extremism,” Ms. Rice said in a statement. “President Bush appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,” a White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said. He added: “We’re confident that we will maintain a good relationship with the government of Pakistan.” American officials said they were confident that the uneasy ruling coalition of the moderately Islamic party led by Mr. Sharif and the Western-oriented party that was led by Benazir Bhutto until her assassination and is now led by her widower, Asif Ali Zardari; son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani, would cooperate with America on the war on terror as closely as Mr. Musharraf did. “The war against extremism is bigger than one man,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said. Mr. Musharraf’s “departure is a loss for the U.S. because the civilian government will not do as good a job against terrorism,” a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, told The New York Sun. In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, “What we needed in Pakistan is someone to stand with us, and Musharraf did just that,” a Bush administration official said yesterday, speaking on the condition of anonymity. America reciprocated to the tune of $10 billion in military support for the Pakistani government after Mr. Musharraf promised to dedicate his army and intelligence services to the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Now, according to some in Washington, the best remaining Pakistani partner in the war on terror is the current army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who has yet to express a preference for any party. Meanwhile, the partnership between the Pakistan Muslim League-N and the secular Pakistan Peoples Party is fragile and unlikely to maintain Mr. Musharraf’s tight grip over the army and the country’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence. India is specifically concerned that a resurgent ISI could shift Pakistan’s attention to Kashmir and hostilities with New Delhi from the war on terror and the Afghan border. As speculation about Mr. Musharraf’s departure increased in recent weeks, India’s national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told a Singaporean newspaper, the Straits Times, that the president’s absence would leave “a big vacuum.” India is “deeply concerned about this vacuum because it leaves the radical extremist outfits with freedom to do what they like, not merely on Pak-Afghan border but clearly our side of the border too,” Mr. Narayanan told the paper. In recent years, the long-standing tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad have eased under Mr. Musharraf. The two countries established commercial ties, while the situation in Kashmir grew calmer. During the last few weeks, however, cross-border attacks have increased, Pakistani-backed pro-independence Kashmiri fighters have intensified their activities, and diplomatic talks have slowed. Additionally, both India and Afghanistan blamed the ISI for the bombing in July of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. —————- So, all acknowledge that the real power in Pakistan - military dictatorship or not - is in the hands of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and who rules over them? Quite clearly, there never was a Pakistani Ataturk - and what do these generals want? Whatever it is - it is not democracy. What does Military Nationalism mean in a Pakistani context? Where is their loyalty when it comes to the Taliban, and even Al-Qaeda? What was their historic relationship to the Saudi Arabian money pipeline, or to the US involvement in the Cold War heating-up proxy-stage in Afghanistan with the introduction of religious extremism well funded via the Saudis? Will someone start using this Sunni potential as an antidote to the Iranian Shia element in the larger Islamic World? Historically, it was just only Pakistan, who besides the Saudi monarchy, recognized the annexation of Jerusalem by Jordan. Without a military hand ruling in Islamabad - this being replaced by a politically broad, but weak, alliance - will the ISI, and everybody else, find it more convenient to spend the ISI time now in playing the fields outside Pakistan, rather then trying to muddle the waters at home? Will anyone look under the rug of the old nuclear materials, and know-how sales, and will there be a second round of this sort of sales - specially as they have more to offer then Iran or North Korea? Musharraf or not, the incomming US President will have to worry about what goes on inside the nominal borders of Pakistan much more then the stated preocupation with Afghanistan. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 9th, 2008 Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008 Nissan orders Israeli ally to pull commercial. “The commercial was produced by a local automobile distributor based on its own judgment, and Nissan Motor has nothing to do with the commercial,” a Nissan spokesman in Japan said.
———— We, at www.SustainabiliTank.info are compelled to say - “This is elemental - Watson” - the UN runs its DPI exactly in this same fashion thanks to the Japanese USG, Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, and an Egyptian caretaker of Arab interests, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, Director of the News and Media Division, at the UN since the days of the Egyptian UNSG, as his right hand. We Hope the Saudis will forgive now Nissan for the Israelis’ Transgressions. At the UN bringing up questions that illuminate some Saudi, Oil Producers, or Arab propaganda will be met by anulling the correspondent’s accreditation. That is how you get a UN that speaks a lot about climate change but has yet to come up with any policy what-so-ever. The Saudi’s and their men and women at the UN will not allow tires to be kicked. When a Japanese Spokesperson for the UNSG was not outspoken enough against Israel, at the time of the last war in Lebanon, Mr. Fawzi took over by himself the press conferences, even though he is not an official spokesperson. The argument was that as he is from the region, he knows the region better. Aha, we think it is clear now - the Saudis produce the oil, so they know better what the cars need. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 31st, 2008 Mr Ehud Olmert has gone out of his way to pledge that he would continue working for peace “as long as I am in my position”, and insists that talks with Palestinians and Syria are “closer than ever” to achieving understandings. He also said that he bowes to the steadily mounting pressure arising from corruption and fraud allegations against him last night by announcing his resignation after his party chooses a new leader in just over six weeks. The Kadima party leadership contest was fixed for 17 September and he would leave office as soon as a new leader was chosen. Mr Olmert, who has not so far been indicted on any criminal charge, is being investigated over suspicions that he used payments from a US businessman, Morris Talansky, many years ago, for personal use during his time as Mayor of Jerusalem and industry minister; and that he made multiple claims for travel expenses, pocketing the surplus for family holidays. Insisting that he had taken the decision in the interests of the country, he complained in his prime-time address that he had not been granted as Prime Minister “the right to be innocent until proved guilty”. He added: “I will step aside properly in an honorable and responsible way, and afterwards I will prove my innocence.” Last night’s announcement was a painful surrender for Mr Olmert, a lawyer and one-time right-winger, who moved to the Israeli political centre and has proved himself a world-class political survivor in the face of a string of corruption investigations and last year’s Winograd report, which excoriated his handling of the 2006 Lebanon war. While there was speculation in Israel that his resignation could damage the new series of negotiations with Syria on a possible handover of the Golan Heights, and the negotiations with the moderate West Bank Palestinian leadership, a possible Tsipi Livni premiership, at least, might not necessarily make them any more difficult than they already are. Ms Livni’s centrality in the talks with Palestinians was underlined by her presence at a trilateral meeting convened this week by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with Ahmed Qureia, Mr Abbas’s lead negotiator. On the other hand, it was not immediately clear whether Mr Olmert’s promise not to run or “intervene” in the Kadima leadership contest precluded him from carrying out a reported threat to help Transport Minister, Mr Mofaz’s candidacy over Ms Livni. Shaul Mofaz, 60 - Iranian-born right-winger who defected with Sharon from Likud to Kadima. Notably hardline Chief of Defense Staff and then Defense Minister. Now Transport Minister, he was accused of advancing leadership interests by threatening attack on Iran. Brings many of the old wheeler-dealing skills of Likud to his candidacy as a Kadima leader. Likely to project himself as a figurehead for Jews from Muslim countries against the traditional Ashkenazy ascendancy. Tzipi Livni, 50 - Former Mossad agent, now Foreign Minister, and the most popular politician with the Israeli public. A strong proponent of negotiations with the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. Remains hardline on excluding Hamas and rejecting any “right of return” for Palestinian refugees. Called on Olmert to resign after the Winograd report on Lebanon war – but failed to strike home by resigning herself. Almost certainly the most electable Kadima candidate. Among other candidates expected to stand are the Housing Minister Meir Shetreet, and Avi Dichter, Interior Minister and a former head of the domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet. The consequences of Mr Olmert’s announcement could open up a series of permutations for a possible future government. Mr Barak’s desire to return to the highest office and project himself as the real rival to Mr Netanyahu is hampered by his relatively low opinion-poll rating and the fact that he is not a Knesset member. But he could still play a crucial role as a potential coalition partner, although Mr Mofaz, if he were to win the Kadima leadership, might seek to form a coalition with the right-wing parties, possibly including Likud, and bring back to the power-center Mr. Netaniahu. Mr Barak could thus gain by siding with Ms. Livni or backing one of the newcomers. Ehud Barak, 66 - Labour leader, Defense Minister, and Prime Minister from 1999 to 2001. Could be a kingmaker but less likely to emerge as a prime minister. Seen as a security strongman, and skeptical about negotiations with the Mahmoud Abbas led Palestinian Authority, but advocated current ceasefire with Hamas. Was Israeli PM at the Clinton-brokered Camp David peace talks in 2000. Never really picked up the mantle after the loss of Yitzhak Rabin, but persuaded the Israeli public Yasser Arafat was to blame for collapse of the talks. Benjamin Netanyahu, 59 - Prime Minister between 1996 and 1999. Leading right-wing challenger to Ariel Sharon, first within Likud where he opposed disengagement from Gaza, and then as leader of the opposition after Sharon formed his new Kadima party in late 2005. Netanyahu’s party crashed to defeat in the March 2005 election, won by Sharon’s successor Ehud Olmert, but he has gained popularity as Mr Olmert’s has declined. Polls show Likud as the single biggest party if there was a general election today. Kadima and Labor will do their best to avoid new elections.
Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 29th, 2008 WTO Talks Collapse: Was There Ever a Future for Bananas? This latest round of trade talks was launched in the Qatar capital in November 2001, but has long been stalemated over issues of farm subsidies called for by the U.S., Japan and the EU, as well as tariffs on industrial goods imposed by the developing economies of Latin America and Asia. Proposed changes included EU and U.S. farm subsidy reductions of up to 80 percent. The compromise was that developing countries would open their markets to imports of manufactured goods, removing so-called “import shields.” In the deal last weekend, Latin American banana producers and EU officials appeared to begin the process of putting to rest a quarter-century banana “war.” Many Latin American banana exporters had contended for years that the EU routinely gave preferential treatment to their former colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP), and had kept import tariffs artificially high on the fruit that originates on mainland Latin America. The complaint was originally filed by the U.S. because three of the largest banana producers in Latin America are U.S. multinational corporations. COHA repeatedly has argued in the past that U.S. banana companies, and not Latin American economies, are likely to benefit from the removal of the tariffs (see “Banana Wars Continue – Chiquita Once Again Tries to Work Its Omnipotent Will, Now Under New Management: Likely Big Losers Will Be CARICOM’s Windward Islands”). In addition to this contention, many view the present Doha round as an inappropriate forum for banana talk to occur in the first place, as any new arrangement could anger some of the ACP nations and thus would endanger the future of the round. Nonetheless, it is important for the banana conflict to be resolved so that Latin America, as well as U.S. corporations and English-speaking Caribbean exporters (who in most cases depend upon such exports for their economic survival), can see the benefits from the sale of their largest cash crop. Throughout the negotiations, it can be said that the U.S. was less than sensitive to the importance of a favorable outcome to such islands as Dominica, Grenada, and St. Lucia- a matter of sheer survival.
It now should be clearer than ever as to why WTO talks have been at a stand still for so many years. It is not an enigma why it has been so difficult to achieve consensus with a myriad of players in the field with a lot to gain, but even more to lose. Lucrative deals for some nations can be devastating to others: WTO negotiations certainly have not proven to be a win-win game. This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Revaz Ardesher and Jessica Wayne ———————- WTO Talks Collapse Amidst Developing Countries’ Reluctance to Sacrifice Food Security. Opinion from - The Center for Economic and Policy Research. {The Center for Economic and Policy Research is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people’s lives. CEPR’s Advisory Board of Economists includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Richard Freeman, professor of economics at Harvard University; and Eileen Appelbaum, professor and director of the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University. } Indian women farm laborers plant rice. India and other developing nations are reluctant to sacrifice food security measures during World Trade Organization negotiations. Last-minute attempt to push through a WTO expansion “deal” fails.
www.SustainabiliTank.info does not accept that this was just about bananas - we just posted the case of the airline industry that would have come under the services end of the World Trade Agreement. A WTO was supposed to balance global trade so that everyone has to get something out of this, but when those that have neither the money, nor the fuel, have to do something to benefit interests that are placed in position to hurt them even more - so better put up barriers to harming trade. For some this means close in your agriculture, but we just pointed at some that would be better off if they closed in their airtransport -this just as an example. So let us be blunt here - the US would be completely in its right now to put an extra “oil-cost-tax” on the National airlines of the oil-states. With an end to the running-around-Doha exercize there is no reason why the US should not do this to help its airlines. Permalink | |