|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 24th, 2010 http://asiasociety.org/style-living/food… Aug 13, 2010
Fasting this Ramadan? Follow these few key guidelines to eating well and staying healthy during the holy month. By Rafaya Sufi Fasting this Ramadan? Or have friends who are? Follow these few key guidelines to eating well and staying healthy during Ramadan. Since its foundation, Ramadan is celebrated with vigor amongst Muslim communities. A typical day of fasting consists of consuming an overnight breakfast at dawn, restricting any food and drink till sunset. Muslims may continue to eat and drink after the sun has set till the next morning’s fajr prayer at dawn. The key to maintaining a healthy lifestyle during the month depends on a few practical points. 1. Water: For starters, proper hydration is essential. Fasting does not mean that all bodily functions stop requiring water. Headaches, fatigue, fuzzy thinking, irritability, and illness are often caused by inadequate hydration. We need half our body weight each day to just maintain normal bodily functions. To determine your water needs, use this simple formula: Your body weight in pounds/2 = The amount of water you need to drink in ounces a day So, If you weigh 180 lbs/2 = 90 oz/day, minimum 2. Replace Sugar With Fruit (when possible): What’s better than eating a delicious slice of cake (or baklava, or brownie, or some chocolate mousse, or….) once you break your fast? Fruit! Yes, this is a hard one, so quit complaining and follow these instructions for healthier you. You may think you deserve a piece of your favorite dessert after all those hours of restraining, but sugar robs our bodies of minerals and vitamins. During a period of fasting, our bodies need to hold on to as many minerals and vitamins as possible, so don’t let them escape just by giving in to your craving (after all, this is a month of self-restraint). Try baking this nutritious Fried Banana recipe at home as an alternative to sugar-loaded desserts. 3. Soup: A quick, easy, and nutritious food to consume during Ramadan is soup. Soup provides deep nourishment and is easily absorbed by the body. It is also a great way to meet your water needs, and if you blend all the good stuff together, picky eaters will never question what they are eating! After you break your fast, have some soup, and make it a staple diet for the month. Try making some delicious, vitamin-packed Mulligatawny soup at home. 4. Eat Slowly/Don’t Overdo It: What’s the rush? You have all evening! There is a tendency to eat really fast amongst people breaking their fasts. Trying to pack in 101 activities within the first few minutes of breaking your fast, which includes eating 101 foods, can cause some serious indigestion. Avoid that awful feeling by slowing down. Take small bites so you can chew well. The longer you chew your food, the less work your digestive track needs to do and you absorb more nurturance. So overall, it’s a win-win situation. 5. Vitamins and Minerals: Load up on them! Unfortunately, food today is not as nutritious as it was once. Unless you’re consuming 100 percent organic foods, you’ll probably need to replenish your body with lost electrolytes and vitamins. The top nutrients to look at are vitamins C, B-complex, zinc, E, and A. Vitamins C, A, and E along with zinc are known as antioxidants, and unless you’re living under a rock, antioxidants are in–they’re the latest health trend these days because they do wonders for your body. Eat fresh fruits, berries, and vegetables in abundance! B-complex vitamins are great at relieving stress, so be generous with those. Most Americans are already deficient in the B-complex vitamins due to eating high amounts of refined and processed foods, so skip the white bread, and opt for a whole-wheat option instead. Enjoy this healthy Ginger Tea to combat that tired feeling after fasting all day. That’s all for now, folks. Have a healthy Ramadan! Watch and learn how to make Harira soup Traditional Moroccan Soup (Ramadan Special)### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 24th, 2010 ——————————- The ‘Zionist plot’ to build a mosque. By Wesley Pruden, Jewish World Review - August 24, 2010 / 14 Elul, 5770
The Ground Zero mosque, which is stirring such a sandstorm in New York City, isn’t so popular in certain precincts of the Middle East, either. Some Muslims there think President Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York are nuts. Impotent and irresolute, too. Some of the true believers in Arabia say the mosque is a conspiracy hatched by the Jews to set out a clear and permanent connection between Sept. 11 and Islam, a constant reminder of an attack on America led by devout Muslims. Dr. Abd al-Muti Bayumi, a prominent fellow of the Islamic Research Academy of Al Azhar, sometimes regarded as “the Vatican of Sunni Islam,” says the construction of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero is the child of a “devious mentality” to connect the dots of Sept. 11 and Islam, to stoke memories of barbarism in the name of Islam. Another Arab notability, Dr. Amna Nazir, a professor of doctrine and philosophy at Al Azhar, calls “building a mosque on this rubble indicates bad intention — even if we wished to shut our eyes, close our minds and insist on good will.” These are not the empty sentiments of good will and sensitivity so beloved of the girly men of the West. They’re statements of concern that “Zionist conspiracy” aid in construction of the Ground Zero mosque will ultimately damage Islam. Dr. Bayumi, for one, preaches suicidal jihad to demonstrate that his heart is in the wrong place: “I say in all honesty that we recruit the people of Islam, and instill in them the spirit of the true jihad, which is death for the sake of Allah, for the sake of our faith.” The skepticism and hostility in Arabia to building the Ground Zero mosque — and until recently the proposed mosque was bigger news in the Middle East than in Minneapolis or Memphis — contrasts sharply with the enthusiasm of Muslims for the project in America. What do Muslims in Arabia know that Muslims in America don’t? Sounds like a lot. Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, author of “The Al Qaeda Reader” and guest lecturer at the National Defense Intelligence College, thinks it’s a result of culture and geography: “I believe it has to do with the differing mentalities of Western, or ‘indigenous,’ Muslims. The [indigenous Muslims], who have had little experience of the West, simply cannot believe that Muslims [in America] would be so foolhardy as to pursue such an obvious affront to their host nation.” An indigenous Muslim can’t believe that even an infidel nation would tolerate the insult. He knows what a similar insult, such as the construction of a Christian chapel in Saudi Arabia, would invite in an Islamic country. Not knowing very much about the world, the indigenous Muslim expects a similar result from the infidels. Muslims here, on the other hand, have learned to game the system in the West, particularly in America, where the elites’ thirst for moonshine is unquenchable. Muslim troublemakers have learned to expect apologies and excuses for anything they do so long as they invoke the right liberal weasel words, such as “tolerance” or “pluralism” or “dialogue.” They’ve learned that talk of “building bridges,” particularly if the bridges lead to nowhere, are preferred fare in the salons of the elites. Insulting Americans invites only apologies, accompanied by abundant bowing and curtsying. George W. Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington only six days after Sept. 11 to preach that “Islam is peace,” that “when we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.” Too bad for both George W. and Islam, but that’s not what most people here think of Islam. You couldn’t expect Michael Bloomberg to understand any of this, but Barack Obama, the son and stepson of Muslims who received his early education in Islamic schools, must know better. He should be familiar with the Islamic worldview that warm and fuzzy feel-good talk — what we once called “appeasement” — correctly invites contempt from men with strongly held conviction, however evil that conviction might be. The American elites no longer understand strongly held convictions, good or evil, religious or political. The church and synagogue is only a place for rites and ritual, a place to marry your daughters and bury your dead. But devout Muslims really believe. They never apologize for who they are or what they believe. They have only contempt for the platitudes they have learned to use so effectively in hoodwinking the West — and for presidents who peddle the moonshine. QUOTE OF THE DAY AT THE SOURCE:
“Rejoice not at thine enemy’s fall — but don’t rush to pick him up, either.”
**<>**<>**<>**<>****<>**<>**<>**<>** ### | |||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 24th, 2010 Fareed Zakaria discusses CC with Jeff Sachs (Columbia), Pat Michaels (Cato, ex-UVA) & NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Pat Michaels says he is 40% funded by Petroleum Industry. There is no need to fight global warming. Gavin Schmidt says he thinks we’re too sane not to do something about global warming. Jeffrey Sachs says – if we do not act we will end up with a catastrophic planet. Is it clear? =============== Fareed Zakaria talks to Hirsi Ali who rejected Islam and Irshad Manji who wants to reform Islam. Hirsi Ali, African Black, born in Mogadisho, Somalia and immigrated to Holland where she went to university and after 9/11 left Islam to become an atheist that says if you need a God take Christ. Her family says she risks hell for leaving Islam. She says don’t lock 1.57 billion Muslims in a book written in the 7th century. She wrote “Nomad” about her leaving Islam. She worked with Teo Van Gogh on a movie “Submission” about women in Islam, when he was killed. She was a member of the Netherlands Parliament, and now lives with security in the US and is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She says that most Americans are unaware of Saudi Funded proselytizing in America. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 13th, 2010 China’s State Capitalism Poses Ethical Challenges.By Ian Bremmer, Devin T. StewartGlobalPost, August 10, 2010 Earlier this summer, a company owned in part by the Chinese government bought a 5.1 percent stake in the only American-owned provider of enriched uranium for use in civilian nuclear reactors. The stake is small, but its implications are considerable. The American company, USEC, was involved with the original development of the atomic bomb during World War II. Chinese involvement could raise concerns about national security in Washington, and given China’s opaque form of economic management, the transaction raises other ethical issues around transparency and fairness. In the long run, however, free market economies like the United States would best serve the cause of individual freedom worldwide by practicing what they preach. They should keep the global flow of money, ideas, and goods open. As China’s economy grows, its political influence will expand, bringing Beijing into ever-closer contact with the interests of others. As the world’s largest exporter, for example, China will find itself in competition (and sometimes conflict) with a diverse set of multinational companies and governments. Within China, there will be more clashes involving the collision of local rules with foreigners and their business models. Beijing continues to welcome foreign investment, but recent labor disputes at a Honda Motor factory and a spate of suicides involving workers at Foxconn, a Taiwanese-invested Chinese company that manufactures the Apple iPhone, underline the clash of political and commercial cultures. Sometimes these confrontations produce compromise or even a convergence of standards. At other times, open conflict is the likelier scenario. China is the world’s leading practitioner of state capitalism, a system in which governments use state-owned companies and investment vehicles to dominate market activity. The primary difference between this form of capitalism and the Western, more market-driven variety, is that decisions on how assets should be valued and resources allocated are made by political officials (not market forces) with political goals in mind. In China, robust growth is a good thing, as long as it doesn’t have second-order effects that undermine the leadership’s monopoly hold on political power. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other governments practice various forms of this system, but China gives state capitalism its global significance. The political agenda behind China’s state capitalist development is a complicated one. On the one hand, the financial crisis and global market meltdown have bolstered the arguments of those within the Chinese leadership who warn that reliance for economic growth on exports to Europe, America, and Japan exposes China to Western market volatility. In response, Beijing will gradually work to increase domestic demand for Chinese products and to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign consumers. On the other hand, the leadership knows that Chinese companies must adopt Western working standards and management techniques if labor unrest is to be contained. The cases of Honda and Foxconn, which employs some 800,000 people in China, underline a remarkable trend: Chinese workers are demanding and receiving better working conditions and wages. For example, the Guangdong Provincial People’s Congress may give workers the officially sanctioned right to strike. This marks a positive development in the interaction of state capitalist and market-driven economics, but continued progress won’t come easy. The Chinese leadership will respect labor rights when necessary and ignore them when possible. The financial crisis and BP’s oil spill remind us that excessive focus on near-term profits continue to plague market-driven capitalism. Yet, state capitalism poses profound ethical challenges of its own. First, when state-owned companies go abroad in search of new contracts, they are not bound by shareholder opinion or reputational risk. As a result, they can do business in places and with people that their private-sector rivals cannot—and with a high degree of secrecy. There are familiar examples like Iran, Sudan, and Myanmar. In Guinea last year, just 15 days after soldiers shot down 157 pro-democracy demonstrators, an unnamed Chinese company signed a $7 billion mining contract with the Guinean government. Multinational companies can no longer afford such transactions. In addition, within free market democracies, courts exist to safeguard the rights of individuals and companies. In state capitalist countries, they exist to legitimize the state’s hold on political power. As a result, when the White House pressures BP to pay damages, the company knows it will have its day in court. In China, a foreign company is unlikely to win a ruling against the government. In the United States, companies “lawyer up.” In China, they are “Googled out.” Take Google, for example. When Google executives decided that cyber-attacks on its Gmail accounts from inside China could no longer be tolerated, they decided on open confrontation with China’s government over censorship issues. Google remains a relatively popular brand with Chinese internet users, but there were several reasons why Beijing would rather force Google out than compromise with it. First, there are other search engine firms that do not challenge the leadership’s right to restrict the flow of information. Second, one of those firms is Baidu, a Chinese company with friends in government and a much larger Chinese market share than Google. The message sent to Google was clear: Lawyer up if you want to, but you have started a war you cannot win. The clash of market-driven and state-driven capitalism poses other questions. Should U.S. lawmakers allow a company or investment fund owned by a foreign government to own significant stakes in a U.S. financial firm or oil company? On the one hand, the political firestorm that erupted in Washington when China National Offshore Oil Corporation tried to buy U.S.-owned Unocal in 2005 generated plenty of friction in U.S.-Chinese relations and did lasting damage to America’s reputation as a destination for foreign investment. Yet, there are good reasons to scrutinize these kinds of proposals. State-owned companies and sovereign wealth funds based in authoritarian countries are often as opaque as their governments. Is it not reasonable to wonder how such a company or fund will manage its new assets before approving a sale with potential security implications? On the other hand, if relatively free market countries are to compete successfully with state capitalist systems, it won’t be by trying to beat them at their own protectionist game. The unprecedented cross-border flows of ideas, information, people, money, goods, and services have already done a lot of good for a lot of people. If allowed to develop further, they will eventually open state capitalist systems to a degree of free market competition that will force them to change. Not all trades are good ones. Some foreign investment might legitimately compromise U.S. national security. But if the goal is to shift power and wealth from authoritarian governments into the hands of private citizens, the game must be played on free market terms. —————————- Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group and author of The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? Devin Stewart is program director and senior fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, where Bremmer is a trustee. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 6th, 2010 Opinion: It’s a WikiLeaks World, Get Used to It. by Jim Harper, Director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute. (Aug. 5) – No matter where right or wrong lie in the posting of classified military reports on WikiLeaks.org, one lesson should be clear: This is how it’s going to be. Technology will continue to undercut secrecy — not just in the military, but in all large organizations. Government and corporate leaders who aren’t ahead of this problem may already have trouble on their hands they don’t know about. While there is universal agreement that over-classification in the U.S. government is a problem, leaking government documents isn’t a good way to fix it. Nevertheless, a pair of related technology trends will continue to push this “fix” in a disorderly way if it’s not solved methodically. Technology: First, individuals today have tremendous power to collect, transmit and process information. Average people have hand-held computers and phones, huge-capacity flash memory thumb drives, and so on. The tech-savvy have even more powerful information devices, familiarity with encryption, and anonymization tools. We have overcome the natural conditions that made easy-to-censor hand-written letters a minimal threat to “operational security” in World War II. Culture: Cultural trends are coming into play as well. Military service-members today live in a culture of information sharing that might baffle their senior officers. They expect to be in touch with the outside world during their tours. Their service is long and difficult enough without quarantining them in a communications bubble for protracted periods. Indeed, doing so would undermine military effectiveness by cutting deeply into the morale of young men and women whose stateside lives are “always connected.” This is the generation that knows the value and power of sharing information. As Admiral Greer said in Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October”: “The likelihood of a secret being blown is proportional to the square of the number of people who’re in on it.” It’s a converse of Metcalfe’s law, which describes the increase in value of a network as the number of participants grows. Computer security has wisdom to share with national security and military security — indeed, with any organization that relies too heavily on secrecy: “You’re doing it wrong.” Secrecy should be treated as a weakness, to be avoided whenever possible. Since at least the Vietnam-era controversy over the accuracy of U.S. government “body counts,” it’s been getting harder to control military information, and the difficulty will only increase. Secrecy is sometimes necessary, and propaganda is a legitimate dimension of war, but as technology and tools of transparency make their way even to remote battlefields, secrecy and propaganda that are at odds with the evidence on the ground will necessarily be less effective. Organizations of any size should examine what information they have that is not publicly available, and how they would be harmed by its release. Ultimately, the U.S. military and all organizations, government and corporate, should begin to plan strategy and tactics so that they don’t rely on controlling information — at least not for long after it originates. Information technology is a strong and growing adversary, and it is better to turn its strengths to one’s advantage than to waste resources trying to fight against it. by Christopher Weber, aol Correspondent A week after WikiLeaks dumped 92,000 classified military documents online, the Pentagon is ordering the whistle-blower Web site to give them back. The Pentagon also ordered WikiLeaks to delete all the documents, most of which relate to military operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, from its Web site and records, The Associated Press reported. WikiLeaks has not responded to the Pentagon request. The White House condemned the document dump and military officials said the posting of the names of Afghans who have helped allied forces could jeopardize their safety. The site reportedly withheld another 15,000 similar documents, and may publish them as well, the AP said. “Public disclosure of additional Defense Department classified information can only make the damage worse,” Morrell said. Wikileaks is a 3-year-old nonprofit founded by Julian Assange that allows anonymous sources to upload private documents so anyone can read them online. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 30th, 2010 Be’chol Lashon is the Hebrew for “In Every Tongue” and it advocates for the Growth & Diversity of the Jewish People. Today Jews come indeed in every color and every stripes and some leaders do the outreach to embrace them all. Just look at Dr. Lewis Gordon of the Center for Afro-Jewish Studies at Temple University in Philadelphia, Mr. Romiel Daniel of Queens, New York, The head of Jews of India in our region, Dr. Ephraim Isaac, of the institute for Semitic Studies. They do not look like your stereotype Jew. I met them and was impressed – the latter actually for the first time as we both visited Addis Ababa at the time of the delayed Ethiopian Millennium. Then Rabbi Hailu Paris with his communities in Brooklyn and the Bronx, Ethiopian born and graduae of Yeshiva University, and his Assistant Monica Wiggan (http://www.blackjews.org/Essays/RabbiParisEthiopianTrip.html), and Rabbi Gershom Sizomu of the Abayudaya Jews of Uganda from whom I got a very distinctive kippah with the menorah – of the old temple worked in. Then Dr. Rabson Wuriga of the Hamisi Lemba clan in South Africa and Zimbabwe and so on – in Nigeria, in Peru, in India, in China. And who has not heard by now of the present White House Rabbi – Cappers Funnye – the cousin of Michelle Obama – and associate director of Bechol Lashon and spiritual leader of Beth Shalom B’nei Zaken Ethiopian Hebrew Congregation of Chicago? The New York regional director of DiverseJews.org is Lacey Schwartz who is also National Outreach Director of BecholLashon.org, assisted by Collier Meyerson and to top it all Davi Cheng, Director of the Los Angeles region is Jewish, Chinese, and Lesbian. As I said it is all a new image of the Jew. Last night, at the Gallery Bar, 120 Orchard St., NYC there was a Shemspeed Summer Music Festival event. The two further upcoming events in New York will be on: Monday, August 2nd – the Shemspeed Hip Hop Fest at Le Poisson Rouge – 158 Bleeker Street NYC Featuring Tes Uno, Ted King & guest Geng Grizlee and others with CD Release parties for “A Tribe Called Tes” and “Move On.” Thursday, August 5th – Shemspeed Jewish Punk Fest at Pianos, 158 Ludlow Street, NYC Featuring Moshiach Oil & The Groggers. info on each event above and at http://shemspeed.com/fest —————————————————–
Rethinking How U.S. Jews Fund Communities Around the World.The Forward For more than half a century, North America’s Jewish federation system has divided its overseas allocations between the Jewish Agency for Israel and the American Joint Distribution Committee. The Jewish Agency has been dedicated to building up Israel and encouraging aliyah, while the Joint has focused on aiding Jewish communities in need around the globe. Today, both agencies are working to assert their continued relevance in a changing Jewish world. With aliyah slowing, the Jewish Agency is moving toward embracing a new agenda: promoting the concept of Jewish peoplehood. The JDC, meanwhile, has sought to claim a larger share of the communal pie, which had long been split 75%-25% in the Jewish Agency’s favor. After a recent round of sniping over the funding issue, the two sides are now stepping back from their public confrontation and recommitting to negotiations over the future of the collective funding arrangement. Underlying this fight, however, is a more fundamental tension over communal funding priorities: Should overseas aid be focused on helping needy Jews and assisting communities that have few resources of their own, or should it be used to bolster Jewish identity? With this debate raging, the Forward asked a diverse group of Jewish thinkers and communal activists from around the world to weigh in and address the following question: How should North America’s Jewish community be thinking about its priorities and purposes in funding Jewish needs abroad? New Century, New Priorities By Yossi Beilin During the 20th century, the challenges facing world Jewry were the following: rescue of Jews who encountered existential danger, assistance to Israel, helping with the absorption of those who immigrated to new countries and opening the gates for those who were denied the right to emigrate. In the 21st century, ensuring Jewish continuity is the greatest challenge facing the Jewish people. Yet too often Jewish organizations in the United States and elsewhere remain focused on the challenges of the previous century. (Indeed, Jewish groups were not very receptive when I first proposed the idea for Birthright Israel 17 years ago.) Ensuring the existence of Jewish life (religious and secular) throughout the world via Jewish education, encounters between young Israeli and Diaspora Jews, creating a virtual Jewish community using new technologies — these must be at the top of the global Jewish agenda. This requires American Jewish philanthropy and leadership, which in turn requires discerning between past and present priorities. Yossi Beilin, a former justice minister of Israel, is president of the international consulting firm Beilink. Reviving Polish Jewry By Konstanty Gebert The rebirth of Central European Jewish communities after 1989, though numerically not very impressive, remains significant for moral and historical reasons. It is also crucial for Jewish self-understanding. An enormous proportion of American Jews can trace their origins to what used to be Poland alone. This is where much of Diaspora history happened. Alongside the courage and determination of local Jews, the far-sighted support of several American Jewish organizations and philanthropies made this rebirth possible. In Poland the Joint Distribution Committee, the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation and the Taube Foundation played key roles. Their support has translated not only into Jewish schools and festivals in places once believed to be Jewish-ly dead, but also in most cases into changed relations between local Jewish communities and their fellow citizens as well as clear support for Israel on the part of these countries’ governments. Yet for all this progress, Central European Jewish communities might never become self-financing. The support given them by American Jewry remains a vital Jewish interest. It must be strengthened. Konstanty Gebert, a former underground journalist, is a columnist at the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza and founder of the Polish-language Jewish monthly Midrasz. What We Give Ourselves By Lisa Leff More than any Jewish community in history, postwar American Jews have used our prosperity to help Jewish communities around the world. On one level, the greatest beneficiaries of this support have been Jews abroad. But we should also recognize that these philanthropic efforts have shaped our communal values and identity. Through our international aid, we have dedicated ourselves to universalist and cosmopolitan ideas like tikkun olam and solidarity across borders. In helping disadvantaged and oppressed Jews abroad, we have also deepened our community’s commitments to democracy, human rights and economic justice for all. It’s only natural that Jewish groups pitch in on Haitian earthquake relief and advocate on behalf of oppressed people of all backgrounds. Whatever the outcome of the federations’ deliberations over how to divide allocations between the Jewish Agency and the Joint Distribution Committee, it is imperative that American Jewry maintain its commitment to our values through supporting international philanthropy. Lisa Leff is an associate professor of history at American University and the author of “Sacred Bonds of Solidarity: The Rise of Jewish Internationalism in Nineteenth-Century France” (Stanford University Press, 2006). Putting Identity First By Jonathan S. Tobin The choices we face are not between good causes and bad or even indifferent ones but between vital Jewish obligations. But since the decline in giving to Jewish causes means that we must make tough decisions, programs that reinforce Jewish identity and support Zionism both in the Diaspora and in Israel must be accorded a higher priority. At this point in our history, with assimilation thinning the ranks of Diaspora Jewry and with continuity problems arising even in Israel, the need to instill a sense of membership in the Jewish people is an imperative that cannot be pushed aside. Under the current circumstances, absent an effort that will make Jewish and Zionist education the keynote of our communal life, the notion that Jewish philanthropies or support for Israel can be adequately sustained in the future is simply a fantasy. Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of Commentary magazine. Collective Responsibility By Richard Wexler One cannot have a meaningful discussion about framing the national Jewish community’s priorities and purposes in funding Jewish needs abroad without first asking the question: Is there actually a collective “North American Jewish community” today? Collective responsibility has been and remains the foundation upon which the federation system and, therefore, the national Jewish community are built. It is what distinguishes the federations from all other charities. It is embodied in our participation in the adventure of building Israel and in meeting overseas needs through the Jewish Agency and the Joint Distribution Committee, in the dues that federations pay to the Jewish Federations of North America and so much more. But today, federations “bowl alone.” Collective responsibility gives meaning to kol Yisrael arevim zeh l’zeh — all Jews are responsible for one another. Until federations understand once again that Jewish needs extend beyond the borders of any one community, we cannot have a meaningful priority-setting process for funding Jewish needs abroad. Richard Wexler is a former chairman of the United Israel Appeal. Originally published here: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/rethinking-how-u-s-jews-fund-communities-around-the-world-1.292527 —————————————————————————–
Gary Tobin’s Legacy Lives on in New Ugandan Health CenterBy Amanda Pazornik The J Weekly
|
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010
The following comes from http://iranliberty.com/nukes/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=11690 and it is very disturbing to us. We received the link in an e-mail and it shows clearly that the Rutgers University Center for Middle Eastern Studies has on its faculty a clear bigot originating from Iran, Dr. Afshin Razani, who should not hold the position he was entrusted with – the shaping of the mind of a new generation of Americans whom he feeds plain hate-mongering rubbish. We know the Director of the Center at Rutgers, Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American scholar, and we are surprised that he keeps this sort of staff in his court – Dr. Razani is not the man that will help you understand neither Iran nor Palestine. Furthermore, when you read the rubbish we posted here and which comes all of it from above link, you will also see that as Rutgers University is a State University – a New Jersey Public University – the implication that what is taught at the center is Islamic Religion, may in effect undermine the legal status that covers the establishment of the Center. We follow up here with what appears in the English part of above link ————————————–
Profile
Dr. Razani received his BS in economics and public administration from Pahlavi University, Shiraz, Iran. After completing military service, he traveled to the United States and received his master’s degree in economics and his PhD in sociology from Southern Illinois University. Dr. Razani has taught economic and sociology courses including Introductory Economics, Introductory Sociology, Social Stratification, Social Change, Contemporary Social Problems, and Sociological Theory, at both undergraduate and graduate levels at Southern Illinois University, Ramapo College (Mahwah, NJ), and Montclair State University (Montclair, NJ). He has done extensive research on subjects related to the politics of Iran and the Middle East, focusing upon issues of democracy, social justice, and social movements, and has delivered public lectures and speeches on these topics throughout the United States and Canada. He has authored and translated numerous analytical articles on Iran and the Middle East for such publications as Iran Today, and Akhgar in the United States, and Tchissta, a monthly journal in Tehran Afshin Razani, Ph.D.
The People Perceived As A Threat To Security An Article by Randa A. Kayyali Emergency Relief and Reconstruction Funds for Lebanon How can you help – we took this out because we do not believe we want to help Dr. Razani ………………. Pols undermine U.S. by pandering to Israel – Home News Tribune Online 06/5/07 – BY HASSAN MAHMOUD According to a recently published book, “Presidential Courage” by presidential historian Michael Beschloss, Harry Truman was an anti-Semitic bigot who called New York City a “Kike town” and said, “Those goddamned Jews are never satisfied. Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was here on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck?” While staying in Independence to interview Truman in 1961, the talk-show host David Susskind asked him why he never invited him into his home. Truman replied, “You are a Jew, David, and no Jew has ever been in the house.” By the approach of the presidential election of 1948, Truman’s approval rating was very low. At that time, the United Nations was debating the partition of Palestine between the indigenous Palestinians and the immigrant Jews from Europe. The White House counsel, Clark Clifford, strongly suggested that Truman recognize a Jewish State for which the Jewish donors would support his campaign. As per the book, John Kennedy, allegedly, later insisted that recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast because a Zionist bagman handed the president $2 million in cash in a suitcase. On the other side, Secretary of State George Marshall, whom Truman described as the “great one of the age” and the “architect of victory who won the war,” told the president that if he followed Clifford’s advice and if he were to vote in the election he would vote against him. He and Assistant Secretary of State Loy Henderson and Under Secretary Robert Lovett warned that the founding of a Jewish State in Palestine would be a strategic mistake as it would throw away many years of hard work with the Arabs, would jeopardize oil supplies, turn the whole Arab world into our enemy and make Israel a burden on the United States. With the hypocritical personality of a U.S. president as such, one wonders how national vital decisions were made. Since 1948, many upheavals occurred in the Middle East resulting in many wars and destruction and loss of hundreds of thousands of lives — including thousands of Americans — and periodic economic turmoil due to disruption of oil supply, plus the birth of international terrorism. All of these catastrophes could have been alleviated or minimized if we could have wisely managed the aftermath of the creation of Israel in the midst of a sea of Arab and Muslim nations by evenhandedly forcing the adherence of the antagonists to the United Nations resolutions of 1947, which demarcated the boundaries of two states — Palestine and Israel. Unfortunately, our politicians never learned from the past. When President Bush is asked about the fallacy of the allegations upon which the ruinous Iraq war was waged, his recent answer during his news conference of May 24 was that a main reason for the war was Saddam’s payment to the families of the killed Palestinians who attacked Israel. When he speaks of the dispute with Iran, he always invokes the danger of Iran to Israel. Can’t our politicians stop holding our security and economic interest hostages to the whims of the extremist Israelis who are pursuing colonialist policies in the Middle East and always demand from us to back their follies even by scarifying the lives of our soldiers and our economic welfare? Amazingly, at the time when a number of our soldiers are kidnapped in Iraq, some New Jersey politicians thought that the fate of our kidnapped soldiers is not worth as much as the fate of three Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah and Hamas. Assemblyman Eric Monoz and state Sen. Thomas H. Kean Jr., both R-Union, Somerset, Essex, Morris, sponsored resolutions that call on the United Nations to take action to help free the three Israeli soldiers. Munoz stated: “I want Israeli citizens here and abroad and the government of Israel to know that the United States — and in particular the State of New Jersey — stands united with them in their efforts to bring these young men home safely.” One wishes that these comforting words and strong resolutions are spoken and made on behalf of the missing Americans and their families. Shame on those politicians. Their pandering to foreign interests blinded them to the interests of America. “Be Counted” columnist Hassan Mahmoud is a resident of Westfield. “Be Counted” columnists are members of the public. Their opinions do not represent those of the Home News Tribune. BY MILTON VIORST I enter Paterson over the Broadway hill past Eastside Park, where as a kid I biked on clear days, turning to gaze at the Manhattan skyline a dozen miles away. The park is where I caught fireflies in a jar on hot summer nights and belly-flopped on a sled on cold winter afternoons, where I sold sodas to picnickers on Sundays and once tried out, unsuccessfully, for the high school baseball team. Just below the park, in the direction of downtown, is Derrom Avenue, whose elegant mansions long advertised the wealth of Paterson’s commercial aristocracy. Incongruously, amidst these mansions now stands the Islamic Center, Paterson’s principal mosque, symbol of the city’s latest transformation. Paterson, it is widely said, is home to America’s second-largest Arab community. Dearborn, Mich., is first. Paterson is also the hub of several hundred thousand Arabs living in northern New Jersey. Yet, growing up, how come I knew no Arabs? The city, rather handsome and well-kept in those days, was shaped by solidly middle-class Irish, Italian and Jewish communities. Since Alexander Hamilton persuaded George Washington to harness the power of the roaring falls of the Passaic River, its wealth derived from industry, but in the 20th century it also served as a commercial hub for several hundred thousand residents of the North Jersey region. My grandfather came from Poland in 1900 to work in Paterson’s silk mills, the industrial core; my father, after a turn in the mills, found retailing more compatible. The earliest Arab immigrants were Christian Syrians drawn from the textile workshops of Aleppo; Muslims, a second wave that began in the 1920s, preferred to set up small shops. By the 1940s, Arabs were an identifiable community, but I never saw them. Paterson’s ethnic groups were largely strangers to one another, gathered on their own turf around their churches, later their synagogues, then their mosques. Though we lived in neighborhoods that were tightly juxtaposed, only rarely did we cross the lines… ADC-NJ wishes to thank all of our supporters for making our 9th Annual Banquet a great success. The event, which took place at the Grand Ballroom of the Hasbrouck Heights Hilton, was attended by approximately 300 supporters and members. This year’s Achievement Award was presented to Ms. Sarah El-Shazly, of the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General and the Recognition Award was presented to The Mental Health Association in Passaic County. Among the many dignitaries present were: Ambassador Shereef EL-Kholy, Consul General of Egypt in New York; Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein; representatives from the offices of Congressman Scott Garrett and Congressman Bill Pascrell; Joe Orlando, CEO of Barnert Hospital; Andre Sayegh, Member, Paterson Board of Education and Chief of Staff for State Sen. Girgenti; from the New Jersey Commission on Civil Rights: Chairman, Hon. John Campbell and Commissioner, Hon. Dr. Joan Rivitz; and from the Rutgers University Center for Middle Eastern Studies were: Director Dr. Hooshang Amirahmadi, Dr. Afshin Razani, Dr. Charles Haberl and staff member Paola Rizzuto. Also present were representatives from the following organizations: The Arab American Family Support Center of NJ (Tanweer), ADC-NY, ADC-Greater Philadelphia Area, American Muslim Union (AMU), Egyptian American Professional Society (EAPS), Egyptian American Group, Islamic Center of Passaic County (ICPC), Islamic Center of Jersey City, NAAP, New Jersey Muslim Lawyer’s Association, Palestinian Heritage Foundation (PHF), and Wafa House. We would like to thank our keynote speaker, Senator Lincoln Chafee, for offering the ADC-NJ audience an honest, sensible and realistic approach to the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process. We offer our sincerest thanks to all who attended and helped to make this years Banquet a success. Please let us know if you have any suggestions as to how we can make next year’s Banquet even more successful. Please email your comments and suggestions to adc@adcnj.us Photos, media coverage of the event and the keynote speaker’s ( Sen. Lincoln Chafee) speech among other speeches will be posted shortly
Middle East studies in the News Mideast Program Growing in Diversity [on Middle East studies at Rutgers, Peter Chelkowski of NYU] by Katie O’Connell The world’s fastest growing religion has a growing department at the University studying it. The Rutgers University Center for Middle Eastern Studies is a program through which students can explore the diverse canvas of cultures, societies, religions, languages, histories and politics of the countries that comprise the region of the Middle East. “The Middle East is much more complex than it appears on the surface,” said Afshin Razani, an instructor in the Middle Eastern Studies Department. “Islam is the fastest growing religion, with nearly 1.3 billion followers who come from many different parts of the world,” said Paola Rizzuto, staff member at the center. “Despite this fact, Islam is still one of the least understood faiths.” The region of the Middle East cannot be defined or generalized in any one specific manner, and one must be able to understand the complexity and diversity of the Middle East, as to avoid any one-sided interpretations, Razani said. Razani said some of the most popular courses of the department are Introduction to the Modern Middle East, a required course for a major and minor in the program, and courses that focus on contemporary Middle Eastern issues and politics. The department’s language courses are also very popular, Razani said. Students can take courses in Persian, Arabic, Hebrew and, as of this semester, Turkish. Currently, the center is expanding and will be introducing a contemporary Arab studies program and a class called Islam and Democracy in the near future, Razani said. The center’s Web site is also undergoing a major overhaul to make it more interactive and informative, said Razani. The expansion of the program is due in part to the help of community leaders. The center strives to be involved both with the Rutgers community and surrounding communities, said Razani. A part of this community involvement is achieved through programs the center hosts throughout the semester. This semester, the center hosted the speaker Azar Nafisi, author of “Reading Lolita in Tehran”; a unity iftaar, breaking of the fast during Ramadan; a fundraising dinner that focused on Islam in the Contemporary world and Gaza: Pictorial of a Humanitarian Crisis with AP photographer and Washington reporter on Middle East Affairs correspondent Mohammed Omer, according to an e-mail from Rizzuto. The center is planning to host several more events next semester, Rizzuto said. The center’s fundraiser event last Thursday, entitled “Rituals in Islam,” was meant to increase awareness about the Islamic faith and was attended by 60 to 70 people, Rizzuto said. The event hosted Emmy award-winning journalist Anisa Mehdi and Peter Chelkowski, New York University professor of Middle Eastern Studies. In addition to hosting events that educate the community on Middle Eastern cultures, the center also works with outside groups such as Global Citizen 2000, a program that will enable high school teachers to increase the quantity and quality of teaching about the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and globalization, according to the Global Citizen 2000 Web site. “As members of the Rutgers University community, we are in a unique position to foster unity and to raise cultural awareness,” Rizzuto said. “New Jersey is the most diverse state in America, and this is reflected in the demographics of our community of scholars.” Note: Articles listed under “Middle East studies in the News” provide information on current developments concerning Middle East studies on North American campuses. These reports do not necessarily reflect the views of Campus Watch and do not necessarily correspond to Campus Watch’s critique ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010 Maradona out as coach as Argentina’s soccer coach. “Diego shut himself off to any change,” executive committee member Luis Segura said on Argentine television. “Diego has all the right to do what he wants. But so does AFA.” The federation had offered Maradona a four-year contract through the 2014 World Cup, but Maradona said he would do so only if his entire staff remained. That was unacceptable to AFA president Julio Grondona. He had asked for several assistants to be replaced, including Maradona’s close friend Alejandro Mancuso. The federation said its executive committee unanimously decided to not keep Mardona. AFA spokesman Ernesto Cherquis Bialo called the decision “very painful” but said there was no way to solve the impasse. “This marks the end of a first chapter with Mr. Maradona,” Cherquis Bialo said. “The doors to this house, as always, will be open to him.” Youth team manager Sergio Batista was appointed interim coach for the Aug. 11 exhibition at Ireland, which will be followed by a Sept. 7 home exhibition against world champion Spain. Possible permanent successors include two club coaches in Argentina: Alejandro Sabella of Estudiantes and Miguel Russo of Racing. Asked about the full-time coach, Cherquis Bialo said: “The people who were in the meeting have no name in their imaginations. It has just been announced that the contract with the coach will not be renewed. And so, a new stage begins.” The 49-year-old Maradona became Argentina’s coach in November 2008, replacing Alfio Basile and taking over a team he led to the 1986 World Cup title and the 1990 final. He had little coaching experience, and his team absorbed two of the worst losses in the country’s history: a 6-1 rout at Bolivia in World Cup qualifying and the World Cup defeat to Germany. Argentina attacked with flair in South Africa, with Messi setting up scoring strikes by Gonzalo Higuain and Carlos Tevez. Maradona, dressed on the sideline in a gray suit, was an enthusiastic cheerleader, but that could not compensate for his team’s tactical deficiencies. The loss to Germany exposed frailties on defense and lack of midfield speed. Messi, widely regarded as the game’s best player, left with World Cup without scoring a goal. Maradona never explained why Messi — he was left to roam the field on his own — wasn’t scoring. “Nobody ever told me where to play. So I shouldn’t have to tell Messi where to play, either,” Maradona said. Maradona, who has fought cocaine and alcohol addiction, grew up in a Buenos Aires slum, and his escape from poverty has endeared him to many. But he has worn out his welcome in other quarters. Maradona ruffled the government of President Cristina Fernandez, who twice invited the coach to meet with her. But cabinet chief Anibal Fernandez said Maradona failed to respond or answer the phone, forcing the president’s secretaries to leave messages. Fernandez had been openly supportive of keeping Maradona as coach, and one legislator has proposed building a monument to honor him. Two weeks ago, the federation offered Maradona the chance to extend his contract. But Maradona put off meeting with Grondona to travel to Venezuela at the invitation of a friend — President Hugo Chavez. Still, Maradona had many supporters. “I want Maradona to stay,” Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo said Tuesday in an interview on radio La Red. “We will support his decision. If he leaves we will miss him.” Added team trainer Fernando Signorini: “I have no doubt they didn’t want him. Maradona is like a stone in the shoe of power.” ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010 Paul the Psychic Octopus Attacked by Ahmadinejad? {Oi Wey!} David Knowles (July 27, 2001) — Perhaps the Iranian president picked Germany to win the World Cup? Last week, at a national youth conference held in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at Paul the “Psychic” Octopus, the seemingly clairvoyant, German-based cephalopod who accurately predicted the outcome of eight matches of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, including Spain as the overall winner. In the midst of a fiery speech denouncing Israel, the U.S. and Iran’s other “enemies,” Ahmadinejad suddenly and surprisingly turned his vitriol on Paul, declaring the creature a symbol of “Western propaganda and superstition.” Paul, who recently retired following his pitch-perfect prediction record, has not yet issued a response. ——————- and we read and posted earlier that both – Spain and Russia are ready to pay good money to have the honor to host Paul the Octopus in their aquariums. Is Ahmedi-nejad envious of the offers to Paul? ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 25th, 2010 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/eo20… Monday, July 26, 2010
Black Sea challenge by U.S. set to keep Russia on edge.A storm is gathering in and around the Black Sea as Russia faces a mounting challenge from the United States, which is beefing up its military presence in former Soviet satellite countries like Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary. One look at a map of the region shows the critical geopolitical importance of the Black Sea, as its southern coast connects to the Middle East via Turkey and its northern coast adjoins Ukraine, which is home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and which houses 80 percent of the pipelines supplying natural gas from Russia to Western Europe. In Romania, the U.S. has spent $50 million since last year to expand bases to accommodate 1,700 troops. The principal facility is the Mikhail Kogalniceanu Air Base located in Constanta, facing the Black Sea. The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is said to maintain a secret detention facility at the base. There is nothing new about the U.S. maintaining military bases in Romania, which dates back to the beginning of the Iraq war. What is important is Washington’s announcement of its intention to use them indefinitely. In May, a marine corps unit centered around a tank battalion was dispatched to the Mikhail Kogalniceanu base for the first time. In Bulgaria, meanwhile, the U.S. plans to expand bases there to accommodate 2,500 troops. The core facility is the Bezmer Air Base, about 50 km from the Black Sea southern coast. When the project is completed, the U.S. will have a strategic air base in Bulgaria comparable in scale to the air bases at Inzirlik in Turkey and Appiano in Italy. Joint American-Bulgarian air force drills were conducted in May. The American move to strengthen its defense capability in countries formerly under Soviet influence is not limited to Romania and Bulgaria. It is also conspicuous in Hungary, although that country does not face the Black Sea. For several years the Papa Air Base in Hungary has functioned as a base for the U.S. Air Force’s state-of-the-art Boeing C-17 transport aircraft, making it one of the crucial strategic air transport centers outside of the U.S. It is important to note that all these moves represent only the initial step that Washington has taken to expand its military presence in the Black Sea region. Upon completion of these base expansion projects in 2012, two-thirds of the highly mobile Rapid Reaction Corps of the U.S. Army in Europe will be concentrated in Romania and Bulgaria. This means that the U.S. front line of defense is shifting from the eastern border of Germany to the Black Sea, which is adjacent to the Middle East, the Caucasus and Russia. Another source of Russian uneasiness is a move to revive a plan to establish a U.S. missile defense system in Europe. Even though President Barack Obama is said to have abandoned a project involving Poland and Czech Republic, it is said that a similar system will be completed in Romania and Bulgaria between 2018 and 2020. Romania is ready to accept deployment of 20 SM-3 anti-ballistic missile units, currently installed on American naval vessels with the Aegis Combat System. These missiles could later be replaced with the more advanced terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missiles. They will also be deployed in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, it has become more likely that the X-band radar system, which the U.S. originally planned to install in the Czech Republic, will be set up in Israel. U.S. destroyers carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles have made a number of calls on Georgian, Romanian and Bulgarian ports since the armed conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008. A leading official of the Russian Navy stated recently that an increased U.S. presence in the region would bring about a “dramatic change in the military balance in the Black Sea” and present a “serious threat to Russia.” He went on to say that Russia would counter these American moves by further strengthening the Black Sea Fleet. Washington responded by bluntly claiming that the deployment of the missile defense system is designed to prevent Iran from attacking Europe with its missiles. But anyone with even the most rudimentary military knowledge would admit that Tehran has neither the technology to develop long-range missiles nor the need to attack Europe. Russia’s sense of crisis is not groundless. The only consolation for Moscow of late came in Ukraine’s presidential election in February, when pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko lost to pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych. Subsequently, the Ukrainian legislature passed a new law, permitting the Russian Black Sea Fleet to continue using the facilities in Sevastopol for another 25 years. Even so, Moscow does not have any effective means of countering Romania and Bulgaria, which seek to strengthen their military collaboration with the U.S. The whole world puzzles over Washington’s motivation for seeking a greater military presence in the Black Sea region, since it hardly can be interpreted as mere expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nor is it impossible to understand the true motive of the U.S. by reading the Quadrennial Defense Review, announced in February. It appears all but certain that the waves of the Black Sea will only get higher. This is an abridged translation of an article from the July issue of Sentaku, a monthly magazine of political, social and economic affairs.
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 25th, 2010 Friday, July 23, 2010, The Japan Times online.
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/eo20… India ignoring Washington as it woos Iran.
By HARSH V. PANT
Special to The Japan Times
LONDON — India and Iran have decided to give new direction to their bilateral ties that have been dormant for some time now.
Ever since the United States and India started to transform their relationship by changing the global nuclear order to accommodate India, Iran has been a litmus test that India has had to pass from time to time to the satisfaction of U.S. policymakers. India’s traditionally close ties with Iran have become a factor influencing a U.S.-India partnership. India-Iran ties have been termed an “axis,” a “strategic partnership” and even an “alliance.” However, the American focus on India-Iran ties has been highly disproportionate to the realities of this relationship, a result more of the exigencies of domestic politics than of regional political realities. Until recently, when the choice emerged between Iran and the U.S., India would side with the U.S. But the Obama administration’s callous attitude toward India is pushing India toward Iran, and that could have grave geopolitical consequences. Ignoring Washington, India recently signed several agreements with Iran, including an air services agreement and a memorandum of understanding on new and renewable energy aimed at increasing trade from $15 billion to $30 billion. Economic cooperation in priority areas such as oil, gas, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and textiles is key to this endeavor. Plans are afoot for greater maritime cooperation; Iran has already joined the Indian Navy’s annual initiative, the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium. Moreover, the two sides have decided to hold “structured and regular consultations” on the issue of Afghanistan. America’s Afghanistan policy has caused consternation in Indian policymaking circles. A fundamental disconnect has emerged between U.S. and Indian interests with regard to Af-Pak. The Obama administration has systematically ignored Indian interests in crafting its Af-Pak priorities. While actively discouraging India from assuming a higher profile in Afghanistan, for fear of offending Pakistan, the U.S. has failed to persuade Pakistan to take Indian concerns more seriously. While the U.S. may have no vital interest in determining who actually governs in Afghanistan — so long as Afghan territory is not used to launch attacks on U.S. soil — India does. The Taliban — good or bad — oppose India in fundamental ways. The consequence of abandoning the goal of establishing a functioning Afghan state and a moderate Pakistan will be greater pressure on Indian security. To preserve its interests in this milieu, India is now coordinating more closely with states like Russia and Iran. During Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit earlier this year, India sought Russian support in countering what it views as a U.S.-Pakistan axis in Afghanistan. India is making a concerted move to reach out to Tehran. India’s deputy national security adviser, Alok Prasad, was in Iran a few weeks back trying to seek Iranian support in stabilizing the rapidly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan. Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna, too, has held discussions with his Iranian counterpart, especially concerning the West’s plans for reintegrating “good Taliban” gathers momentum. Over the last several years, India has repeatedly voted in favor of International Atomic Energy Agency resolutions condemning Iran’s nuclear behavior. Though the Indian prime minister has been categorical in asserting that a nuclear Iran is not in Indian interests, the Indian government has been keen in recent months to emphasize that it favors dialogue and diplomacy as means of resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis. India has underlined that unilateral sanctions on Iran will hurt India, including sanctions by individual countries that restrict investments by third countries in Iran’s energy sector. As Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao recently made clear, India is “justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries, with their restrictions on investment by third countries in Iran’s energy sector, can have a direct and adverse impact on Indian companies and more importantly, on our [India's] energy security and our attempts to meet the development needs of our people.” The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project has also been on the agenda as India remains keen to gain access to Iranian energy resources. Not only has Pakistan signed the deal with Iran, China is starting to make its presence felt in Iran in a big way. It is now Iran’s largest trading partner and is undertaking massive investments in Iran, rapidly occupying the space vacated by western companies. India is right to feel restless about its marginalization with respect to Iran despite civilizational ties with the country. The problems with the IPI pipeline remain difficult to overcome. India has differences over the pricing of the gas even as ensuring the security of the pipeline in restive Balochistan makes it difficult for India to accept the deal in its present version. Though problems remain in India-Iran relations, the latest overtures by New Delhi toward Tehran underscore the importance that India attaches to ties with Iran. That this is happening at a time when there has been a significant cooling of U.S.-India ties makes it even more significant. With the Obama administration’s credibility in India at an all-time low, New Delhi is left with few options, which include engaging with states that Washington doesn’t like. Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London.
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 21st, 2010 THE CARNEGIE COUNCIL INSIDER. that brings you information from www.Carnegie Council.org Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future Stephen Kinzer, Joanne J. Myers Stephen Kinzer argues that the United States needs to rethink its alliances in the Middle East and focus on strategic relationships with Iran and Turkey rather than Israel and Saudi Arabia. PLEASE NOTE – THE AUTHOR’S NAME WAS ALSO REPORTED AS STEVE KINZER – THAT IS THE WAY WE USED IT EARLIER. We reported on his book earlier at: “We live now at a time of RESET in the Positioning of Turkey in the Middle East with a potential Reset also in American policy towards the Middle East. The latest debacle that involved Turkey, planned or not, has the potential that a new leader in the region has come on board. The new energy has to be encouraged to do good in the future.” Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 11th, 2010 ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 21st, 2010 Present Dangers: Saudi Arabia’s House Of Cards.Ilan Berman, 07.13.10, Forbes Riyadh, on the road to ruin.How stable is Saudi Arabia? Not very, according to at least one member of the Kingdom’s ruling class. Last month Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, a prominent dissident now in exile in Cairo, issued an open letter to his fellow royals, urging them to abandon their desert fiefdom for greener pastures. According to the prince, the current social compact between the House of Saud and its subjects had become untenable, with the government no longer able to “impose” its writ on the people and growing grassroots discontent at the royals “interfering in people’s private life and restricting their liberties.” His advice? That King Abdullah and his coterie flee the Kingdom before they are overthrown–and before their opponents “cut off our heads in streets.” Or so the story goes. Reports of Turki’s missive have understandably made a splash in the Iranian press, with Riyadh’s regional rival engaging in some thinly veiled schadenfreude. But the actual letter itself is exceedingly hard to come by, at least in its English translation. Were it not for a report from the country’s official news agency denouncing the communiqué, you might think the entire episode was made up. Real or fabricated, however, the warning is instructive. Seventy-eight years after Abdul Aziz ibn Saud triumphantly carved out his kingdom on the Arabian Peninsula following a quarter-century of warfare against rival tribes, Saudi Arabia is living on borrowed time. And the likely culprit of its eventual undoing is the one commodity that allowed ibn Saud to secure international legitimacy in the years following his country’s founding: oil. The problems start with the Kingdom’s notoriously opaque energy sector. As veteran oil trader Matthew Simmons pointed out in his 2005 book Twilight in the Desert, “What we know about the Kingdom’s oil is pretty much what Saudi Aramco, the Petroleum Ministry and the royal family want us to know.” Indeed, empirical facts about Saudi energy wealth are exceedingly hard to come by. Today, the world’s largest deposit of proven oil resides not in the Persian Gulf, but in North America. That is because, despite its claim to global energy dominance, Saudi Arabia has refused to allow objective, independently verified measurements of its oil reserves. (Canada, by contrast, has permitted both the U.S Energy Information Administration and the Paris-based International Energy Agency to conduct a comprehensive assessment of its energy potential, with spectacular results.) The reasons for Riyadh’s reticence are obvious. No major new energy fields have been found in Saudi Arabia since the 1970s, and the chances of such discoveries are now, in Simmons’ words, “remote.” This means that the Kingdom’s position at the head of the world oil class is fragile; if Saudi reserves are found to be more modest than publicly proclaimed, its status as an energy superpower might be at risk. For the moment, at least, the House of Saud still retains considerable muscle in that department. Saudi Arabia is currently estimated to be capable of producing a whopping 12.5 million barrels of oil daily, an increase of nearly 4 million barrels from just five years ago. (Because of the global recession, output this spring was far short of that–just 8.5 million barrels a day.) And, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, at current production levels the Kingdom’s 264 billion barrels of reserve crude will last just over seven decades. Saudi Arabia’s energy wealth might run out much sooner than that, however, thanks to the country’s ballooning entitlement class. The actual size of the Saudi royal family is subject to some debate, but informed estimates a few years ago placed the number at more than 30,000 members, with some 4,000 princes each afforded a luxurious monthly stipend of tens of thousands of dollars apiece. And because of officially sanctioned polygamy, their ranks are swelling exponentially, projected to reach 60,000 or more by 2020. Needless to say, their allowances, and the attendant extravagant indulgences, are possible solely because of Saudi petrodollars. All of which has prompted an insatiable appetite for ever greater production and consumption of the Kingdom’s lifeblood. Grassroots prosperity, meanwhile, has headed in the other direction. Since the oil boom of the 1970s, per capita income in Saudi Arabia has constricted precipitously, falling from $28,000 in the early 1980s to below $7,000 in 2001. In other words, average Saudis have experienced a devastating reversal of economic fortune, even as the royal cohort that rules over them has become more numerous, indulgent and bloated. In recent years, the House of Saud has begun to get wise to the destabilizing potential of this disparity. King Abdullah’s ascension to the Saudi throne in 2005, following the death of his long-incapacitated half-brother, Fahd, was seen by many as the start of a new era of incremental reform within the Kingdom. Real remedial change has been slow in coming, however. As researchers from Human Rights Watch recently pointed out, the past five years have seen some incremental progress on judicial independence, freedom of the press and gender equality. But glaring disparities–not least in the economic sphere–continue to persist, perpetuating a seething, impoverished underclass. , the Pentagon contemplated contingency plans to secure Saudi oil reserves in the event of sustained political upheaval. Over time, however, military planning took a back seat to political symbiosis. To paraphrase former CIA agent Robert Baer, the United States effectively decided to “sleep with the devil,” protecting Saudi Arabia in exchange for preferential access to its crude. In the process, Riyadh became an essential energy supplier to the United States.Not much has changed, even after 9/11. To be sure, Saudi Arabia’s outsized role in the Sept. 11 attacks–and its subsequent indirect troublemaking in Iraq and Afghanistan–have led many to question the durability, and the advisability, of our historic partnership with Riyadh. But in practical terms, the same old corrosive status quo still obtains. Over the past decade, when adjusted for the war in Iraq and the global economic downturn, the amount of oil America receives from the Saudis has remained largely the same–an average of 1.25 million barrels a day, or 12% of total U.S. oil imports. Which brings us back to Turki’s warning. The prince’s communiqué may have been long on hyperbole, but its admonition was apt. The domestic compact created over the past seven decades by the House of Saud is simply unsustainable in the long run. And its dissolution, when it eventually happens, is likely to be ruinous for the Kingdom. Given America’s deep and enduring reliance on Saudi crude, it could be devastating for us as well. All of which makes a compelling case for serious thinking about the long-term viability of the Saudi state–and what the United States needs to do in order to prevent such a catastrophic collapse, or at least to manage it. Ilan Berman is vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C. His column, Present Dangers, appears monthly. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 21st, 2010
### | |||||||||||||
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 12th, 2010 Israel says it will intercept Libyan ship to Gaza; the UN throws up hands when faced with attacks by villagers in Southern Lebanon after the UN clearly did not live up to the mandate to demilitarize the border zone.Are we staring at the start of the third Lebanon war? How do you count those wars? Where was the starting line? When does such a war have self justification rather then being a distraction from other matters?Is there a split between some Shiites of Lebanon and the leaders of Iran? How more complicated can it get? Beware those who contemplate stepping into the MESS.
|
![]() |
Lebanese Shi’ite women marching in Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah’s |
| Photo by: AP |
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which was deployed to southern Lebanon in 2006 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – passed at the end of the war – was supposed to prevent such activity. In recent months, however, UNIFIL has been harassed by Shi’ite villagers in the southern part of the country who are apparently acting on Hezbollah’s orders. The international peacekeeping force, particularly its French battalion, has been repeatedly humiliated by the local population. Villagers have hurled stones and eggs at them, and have even seized soldiers’ weapons. UNIFIL’sAsarta Cuevas, this week asked the Lebanese government to protect his troops. commander, Maj. Gen. Alberto
The confrontation Hezbollah initiated with the French contingent has renewed the internal debate in Lebanon – between the Shi’ite organization and the Al-Mustaqbal camp headed by Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri (and thought to be under French patronage ). While Hezbollah hinted that UNIFIL’s French battalion is serving “foreign” (namely, Israeli ) interests, Hariri flew to Paris to conciliate President Nicolas Sarkozy and clarify that Lebanon is interested in keeping French troops on its soil.
‘Not a knockout blow.’
Thus, one of Israel’s chief accomplishments in the Second Lebanon War – distancing Hezbollah from its northern frontier – is slowly vanishing. The Shi’ite organization, which was dealt a severe blow in the summer of 2006, has recovered at an impressive rate in the military, civilian and political spheres.
“It was not a knockout blow, but it was sufficiently painful to force Hezbollah to grow up,” says Prof. Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria and Lebanon, the director of Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, and the university’s dean of humanities.
“Since the war, the organization has been presenting a more controlled, a more restrained, stance,” he says. “It’s the kind of experience that makes you or breaks you. On the other hand, its scars from the war will lead it to think many times over before it tries to face off with Israel again.”
In the last Lebanese parliamentary elections, in 2009, Hezbollah’s political standing changed very little. Initially its leaders admitted defeat, but the organization actually lost only one seat when compared to the previous elections, while its Christian partner in the anti-West camp, former army chief Michel Aoun, increased his political strength and clarified that Lebanon’s Maronites support Hezbollah.
Nevertheless, the group is limited by Lebanon’s electoral system as the Shi’ites in that country are allocated a maximum of 27 parliamentary seats. Perhaps this explains why Hezbollah is steadily tightening its military foothold in Lebanon. The Lebanese army, which receives American assistance, avoids clashing with Hezbollah, which is also interested in maintaining “industrial peace” with the army.
For the moment, at least – despite the unprecedented rate at which it is arming itself – Hezbollah apparently is not looking for another round of fighting with Israel, preferring instead to focus on a gradual takeover of Lebanon. Still, it should be recalled that in early July 2006, a few days before the war broke out, the assessment in Lebanon was that Hezbollah was not interested in a confrontation with Israel.
The death of Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah
Last Sunday, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah died in Beirut at the age of 75. One of the most important Shi’ite religious figures in the Muslim world, Fadlallah was regarded as one of Hezbollah’s founders and as its spiritual leader in the 1980s. He was also one of the most fascinating Shi’ite religious leaders in the modern world. Although his religious rulings were a model for emulation for hundreds of thousands of followers, they also led to clashes with the Shi’ite religious institutions in Iran.
Born in 1935 in Najaf, Iraq, his father was a native of Lebanon. Fadlallah wrote poetry until the age of 12, when he began attending one of the city’s Shi’ite madrassas (religious schools ). In 1966 he moved to Lebanon, where he engaged in religious studies as well as social welfare work among the Shi’ite community.
Displaying a marked interest in the status of women in Muslim society, Fadlallah argued that lack of equality between husband and wife ran counter to the Koran. In addition, he held relatively progressive views on abortions, maintaining that the procedure could be performed at any stage in the pregnancy if the fetus was endangering the mother’s health.
On the topic of men doing household chores, Fadlallah wrote that the “social culture of ignorance, not Islam, is the source of the argument that a man humiliates himself if he does household chores.” He even explained that Ali, regarded by Shi’ite Muslims as the first imam, used to help his wife Fatima (the prophet Mohammed’s daughter ) with housework and that, when the prophet asked her to bake bread, Ali himself would clean the house and gather firewood.
Fadlallah also encouraged women to study Islamic religious law, to provide commentary on religious texts and to discuss such matters even with men.
While Fadlallah expressed total support for the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, he challenged the authority of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his entourage, and repeatedly warned the members of the Islamic movement to beware of charismatic leaders (specifically mentioning Khomeini in that context ) whose personalities overshadow the message they are supposed to be conveying to their public. In 1982, he began setting up a network of social service agencies in Lebanon, as an emissary of his spiritual mentor and role model, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei, whom he regarded as the Marja al-Taqlid (a religious authority to be followed and emulated ) – despite the fact that Hezbollah and Iran considered Khomeini to be the Marja al-Taqlid.
Face-off with Iran and Hezbollah
Following Khomeini’s death in 1989, the question of who would inherit the mantle of the Marja al-Taqlid in the Shi’ite world took on ever-increasing urgency. Fadlallah regarded Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei as his Marja al-Taqlid, as did many other people in the Shi’ite world. With al-Khoei’s death in 1993, Grand Ayatollah Golpayegani of Iran became Fadlallah’s Marja al-Taqlid. It was after Golpayegani died that the crisis between Fadlallah, Hezbollah and Iran really began to play out more openly.
Tehran proclaimed Ayatollah Sheikh Mohsen Araki, who was over 100 years old at the time, as the Shi’ite Marja al-Taqlid – a move intended to pave the way for the ascension of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (following Araki’s death ). Fadlallah, however, announced his own support for Ayatollah Sistani, who at the time resided in Najaf.
At that point, Hezbollah declared its backing for Tehran’s position and announced that its members must support Araki and must not regard anyone else as the Marja al-Taqlid. Araki died in December 1994; three months later, Iran declared Khamenei’s appointment to that senior post.
Fadlallah argued that Iran was simply trying to bolster its own political-religious position among the Muslim Shi’ites; he continued to support Sistani, and as a result was severely criticized by other Shi’ite religious leaders. His mosque was banned and, on one occasion, shots were fired at his car.
Although he later reconciled with Hezbollah leaders, Fadlallah still kept his distance from them. Refusing to recognize Iran’s leadership in the Shi’ite world, he maintained his religious autonomy and chose his own unique political path.
—————————————
- Published July 7, 2010, HAARETZ
‘Obama warns Erdogan international Gaza flotilla probe bad for Turkey’
Following the Israeli Navy commandos’ raid in May in which nine Turkish activists were killed Turkey has demanded international probe.
United States President Barak Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that an international probe into Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla could have negative consequences for Turkey, British Arabic-language daily al-Hayat reported Saturday.
![]() |
Turkish PM Erdogan and U.S. President Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12, 2010 |
| Photo by: AP |
According to the report, Obama warned Erdogan that the international probe which Turkey has demanded could turn into a “double edged sword,” as it could lead to accusations against the passengers on board the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara ship, some of whom were members of the pro-Palestinian IHH organization.
The two leaders met in Canada on the sidelines of the G-20 summit earlier this week.
Following the Israeli Navy commandos’ raid in May in which nine Turkish activists were killed Turkey announced that it was recalling its ambassador to Israel.
Erdogan said the incident represented a complete violation of international law and called for an international probe into the military action.
Last month Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that his government would insist on an international commission to investigate the raid saying that “If an international commission is not set up and Turkey’s rightful demands are ignored, Turkey has the right to review its relations with Israel.”
The foreign minister was responding to Israel’s announcement Monday that it was setting up its own inquiry, which will include two international observers.
The May 31 Israeli raid on the flotilla, led by a Turkish NGO, took place outside of Israel’s territorial waters.
“A commission which will conduct an inquiry into an attack staged in international waters should be international. We demand that an international commission should be formed under the supervision of the UN with participation of Turkey and Israel. We will insist on this matter,” Davutoglu said.
“We believe that Israel, as a country which attacked on a civil convoy in international waters, will not conduct an impartial inquiry,” he added.
The Israeli raid has led to a severe strain in the once-close ties between Turkey and Israel.
###
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 10th, 2010 HOLOCAUST A CONFLATED SCAM TO CONFISCATE PALESTINIAN LAND – PURPORTS AHMADINEJAD.10 July 2010, The San Francisco Sentinel.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad questioned the historic dimensions of the Holocaust but rejected the label of an anti-Semite, the Fars news agency reported Friday. “The West made a claim – about the Holocaust – and urges all the people in the world to accept it or otherwise go to prison,” Ahmadinejad told a group of Islamic scholars Thursday in Nigeria, where he attended a summit of the Developing Eight, a group of countries with large Muslim populations. “The West allows everybody to question prophets and even God but not to pose a simple question and open the black box of a historic event,” he charged. Ahmadinejad had earlier sparked international fury by calling for the eradication of Israel from the Middle East and its relocation to Europe or North America and by describing the murders of 6 million European Jews by Germany’s Nazi regime as a “fairy tale.” He said Thursday that the Holocaust was an excuse for Israel and the West to take land away from millions of Palestinians and give it to Israel. Iran does not recognize Israel and maintains that a referendum by all Palestinians, including refugees, and Jews should decide the future fate of a Palestinian state. “We are after a diplomatic settlement through a referendum, but they [the West] say Ahmadinejad wants to kill people and is an anti-Semite,” the Iranian president said. “No, this is wrong,” he added. “I love all Muslims, Christians and Jews. What I dislike are the Zionists, which are a party that has availed itself of the Holocaust as an excuse to establish the illegitimate state of Israel.” The West fears the political differences between Iran and Israel might lead to a military confrontation between the two countries. The international concern has increased amid fears that Iran might be using its nuclear program to make an atomic bomb. Iran possesses 2,000-kilometer range missiles capable of targeting any part of Israel. Tehran has said it has no secret nuclear projects and all its military capabilities were merely for the purpose of self-defense and deterrence. But Tehran also warned that if Israel attacks the country’s nuclear sites, Iran would use its missiles to bomb Israel in retaliation. —————————– Developing Eight summit in Nigeria. ABUJA, Nigeria, July 8 (UPI) — Improved trade and better visa arrangements for business people are among the discussion topics for the Developing Eight, meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, Thursday. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is among dignitaries in Abuja for the meeting of the Developing Eight, a consortium of the world’s largest Muslim countries, includes Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey, Radio France Internationale reported. Turkish President Abdullah Gul also was attending the summit. —————————- Interesting to note – these Big Eight Islamic States include only Egypt from among the Arab States; neither was included India which has the second largest Islamic population among UN Member States and is a true democracy. On the other hand, how would you react if the Big Eight from among the Christan majority States would meet, or “God-forbids” – whatever God – the biggest Eight Countries with Chinese Communities meet and criticize some white (read European) intruder? Just think the meaning of it all! We really would like to hear from you on this. This brings us back to the notion that time has come for the Biggest Eight Democracies to meet
———————— ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 10th, 2010 Turkey is making a play for regional power.By Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Institute for International Studies and Abramowitz fellow of the Hoover Institution. Published: June 6 2010, The Financial Times. In the Middle East nothing is ever what it seems. We have heard that the Gaza flotilla was on a humanitarian mission. Well, five of the six ships were, unloading their cargo in the Israeli port of Ashdod, but the Mavi Marmara was not, provoking an Israeli assault. This attack was “contrary to international law”, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, proclaimed. But in a state of war, as exists between Hamas-ruled Gaza and Israel, a blockade is not exactly a crime. Egypt has been sealing off Gaza by land and nobody has ever accused Cairo of breaching any conventions. It was “state terrorism”, said Mr Erdogan. Yet terrorists do not dispatch solicitous messages, as Israel did when it radioed that it “approves the delivery of humanitarian supplies and invites you to enter the Ashdod port, after which you can return to your home ports”. Terrorists come to kill. The Israelis came with paintballs. The troops, as a tape released by the Israel Defence Forces shows, clearly thought they were under fire. “Real weapons, real guns?” cries out one commando. “Yes, yes, real weapons!” Was the Israeli response “disproportionate”, as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France claimed? That nine people died seems to deliver a resounding yes. But Israel’s action was incompetent, not heinous. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 protects civilians but also says that if they are “engaged in activities hostile to the security of the state”, they shall not enjoy “such rights and privileges”. Humanitarians do not come armed with rods and slingshots. The Turkish charity that organised the foray, Insani Yardim Vakfi (better known by its German acronym IHH), is viewed with suspicion by too many intelligence services to qualify as the friendly aid outfit as which it poses. But let us look beyond the Mavi Marmara. Though Israelis and Palestinians get most of the limelight, much of the script is written elsewhere. The newest entrant in the larger drama is Turkey, where the flotilla was financed and put to sea. Ankara’s fierce response to the incident was a rallying cry to the region. Next to Iran, Nato member Turkey is now the biggest headache for the west. With Egypt sinking into torpor and Riyadh firmly ensconced on the fence between Washington and Tehran, Turkey has seen the leadership of the region up for grabs – and is going for it. It has drawn Syria into its orbit and has reached a nuclear deal with Iran, its rival for hegemony. What better way to pursue this end than to lead a crusade against the Jewish state? Going after the “Little Satan” is the card that trumps them all, and it embarrasses the “Great Satan” to boot. The real game is about dominance at the expense of America, which US President Barack Obama has yet to grasp. Neither has Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister. Sailing into the Turkish trap was a blunder worthy of General Custer at Little Big Horn. The clumsy execution damages the IDF’s reputation. Why did those commandos abseil down on to a deck swarming with well-prepared defenders? Why not use water cannon and teargas – any kind of non-lethal force – if board you must? Check the videos and you see those “civilians” doing just the right thing: tying the abseil ropes to the hull, forcing the pilots to forgo the advantage of a rapid, intimidating drop. To disable the Mavi Marmara’s screw and rudder would have killed no one but would have kept her from breaking the blockade. Israel has Turkish guile and its own folly to thank for this tragedy. Israel must learn, as it should have after the Lebanon war of 2006 and the Gaza war of 2009, that for it to kill civilians is precisely what its enemies want. The US must learn that the real contest is between itself, Turkey and Iran. It is now up against both. The arena extends from Ankara to Kabul, and the issue is who shall be umpire. Mr Obama thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of all trouble. If it were, Iran would not be trying to develop nuclear weapons and Turkey would not be seeking mastery over its ancient domain. Nor were Palestinians on the mind of the previous claimants to hegemony – from Nasser’s Egypt to Saddam’s Iraq. Remember that the deadliest and longest war in the region was between Iraq and Iran. Terror in Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan is not designed to uproot Jewish settlements. It is not Israel that motivates Syria’s recolonisation of Lebanon. Turkey and Iran are not vying for control so as to promote a two-state solution. Palestine has got nothing to do with it. But it shares a tragic fate with Israel. Whenever the two start talking, somebody will set a trap or throw a bomb. To borrow from Churchill: in the Middle East, it is easier to war-war than to jaw-jaw.
### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 10th, 2010 from: Stop Stoning!
Yesterday a massive global outcry stopped an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, from being stoned to death. But Sakineh still faces hanging, and today, fifteen more people await execution by stoning — people are buried up to their necks and large rocks are hurled at their heads. Sakineh was convicted of adultery, like all the other 12 women and one of the men awaiting stoning. But her children and lawyer say she is innocent and that she did not get a fair trial — they state her confession was forced from her and, speaking only Azerbaijani, she did not understand what was being asked of her in court. Despite Iran’s signing of a UN convention that requires the death penalty only be used for the “most serious crimes” and despite the Iranian Parliament passing a law banning stoning last year, stoning for adultery continues. Sakineh’s lawyer says the Iranian government “is afraid of Iranian public reaction and international attention” to the stoning cases. And after Turkey and Britain’s Foreign Ministers spoke out against Sakineh’s sentence, it was suspended. ———— Honestly, we do not think for a moment that Iran will listen to the British, but perhaps a real strong note from Turkey might start having effect on a regime that contends it is run by medieval Islamic rules. The UN – take note. Iran must somehow be brought into the 21st century. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 9th, 2010 Brian Stelter knows something about TWITTER – he is running his own, but he also had a Thursday article in the New York Times in which he analyzed the transgressions of another Journalist – a CNN senior editor – that went beyond what is allowed in journalism and ended up being fired by CNN. Her obvious transgression was on Twitter. Brian Stelter (brianstelter) on Twitter – 2:04pm Get short, timely messages from Brian Stelter. Twitter is a rich source of instantly updated information. It’s easy to stay updated on an incredibly wide … His article on-line was CNN Fires Middle East Affairs Editor.By BRIAN STELTER, Published: July 7, 2010The title as in NYT print July 8, 2010 was: “A TWITTER POST THAT ENDED A 2-YEAR CAREER AT CNN.” CNN on Wednesday removed its senior editor of Middle Eastern affairs, Octavia Nasr, after she published a Twitter message saying that she respected the Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Parisa Khosravi, the senior vice president of international newsgathering for CNN Worldwide, said in an internal memorandum that she “had a conversation” with Ms. Nasr on Wednesday morning and that “we have decided that she will be leaving the company.” For her coverage of events like last year’s protests in Iran, CNN had previously called Ms. Nasr a “leader” in integrating social media Web sites like Twitter within its newsgathering process. Ms. Nasr, a 20-year veteran of the network, wrote on Twitter after the cleric died on Sunday, “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah … One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” Some supporters of Israel seized on the Twitter message as an indication of bias. A CNN spokesman said Tuesday that Ms. Nasr had made an “error of judgment” that “did not meet CNN’s editorial standards.” In an explanatory blog post on CNN.com Tuesday evening, Ms. Nasr said she was sorry about the message “because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah’s life’s work. That’s not the case at all.” She said she used the words “respect” and “sad” because “to me as a Middle Eastern woman, Fadlallah took a contrarian and pioneering stand among Shia clerics on woman’s rights. She continued, “This does not mean I respected him for what else he did or said. Far from it.” Despite her senior editor title, Ms. Nasr did not run CNN’s Middle East coverage, a spokesman said. She reported and provided analysis about the region for CNN’s networks. Her explanation of the Twitter message was apparently not enough for her CNN bosses. Ms. Khosravi wrote in the memo, “at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward.” ——————- The problem with this is not Ms. Nasr – she would be clearly entitled to say what she wants to her tweeter – that is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but CNN has more at stake here. It is the credibility of CNN that she undermined and provided clear proof to the Israelis that when CNN covered the Lebanon war it might not have been impartial. With people like Octavia Nasr, partisans to a cause, the credibility of the media is being destroyed. We post this because we think CNN is the best there is on US TV. We watch religiously the Fareed Zakaria weekly program – the only consistently intelligent program we know on US TV – so we do not want to see CNN downgraded to the level of a FOX. Granted, Ms. Nasr was not a columnist anchor of the network, but she was in charge of media gathering – and if the news are faked by partisanship – the whole system is “kaput.” ——————- FRIDAY, JULY 09, 2010 WASHINGTON, Jul 8 (IPS) – CNN’s firing of Octavia Nasr, the editor responsible for the network’s Middle East coverage, over a Twitter post in which she expressed her sadness over the death of a Lebanese cleric has set off a firestorm of debate about what the decision says about CNN’s fairness in reporting on the region. On Sunday, Nasr wrote, “Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah… One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot,” on her Twitter account, which is followed by over 7,000 readers. Fadlallah was an inspirational figure for Lebanese Shiites and an early supporter of Hezbollah. Fadlallah, who initially supported the use of suicide bombings as a means of resistance against the occupation of Lebanon and Palestine, later criticised Hezbollah for its close ties to Iran, as well as Ayatollah Khomeini’s velayet- e faqih “rule of the clerics”, which Khomeini imposed in Iran in 1979. Critics of Fadlallah have charged that he was staunchly anti-U.S., and had been linked to bombings that killed more than 260 U.S. citizens, but others have pointed to the cleric’s support for women’s rights and fatwas against female circumcision and honour killings as evidence of his comparatively progressive position. After the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and a number of right-wing news outlets and blogs took issue with her expression of regret over Fadlallah’s death, on Tuesday, Nasr wrote another Twitter post in which she attempted to clarify her earlier comment and emphasised her admiration of Fadlallah’s defence of women’s rights.
“Fadlallah, designated by the U.S. Department of Treasury as a specially designated terrorist, disseminated numerous fatawa’ supporting terrorist operations and was a vocal supporter of terrorism against Israeli targets,” read a statement from the ADL on Tuesday. “It is clearly an impropriety for a CNN journalist/editor to express such a partisan viewpoint as Ms. Nasr did in her tweet,” the statement continued. “How did CNN senior editor of Middle East affairs Octavia Nasr celebrate July 4? By mourning the passing of Hezbollah’s Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah,” blogged Daniel Halper at the neoconservative Weekly Standard. But other journalists and watchdog groups expressed concern over the speed with which CNN fired Nasr and the emergence of a double-standard when reporting on Middle Eastern affairs. “The network – which has employed a former AIPAC official, Wolf Blitzer, as its primary news anchor for the last 15 years – justified its actions by claiming that Nasr’s ‘credibility’ had been ‘compromised,’” wrote Salon’s Glenn Greenwald in an article in which he went on to argue that Nasr was fired for offending the “neocon Right” by expressing regret over the death of a “profoundly complex figure, with some legitimate grievances, some entrenched hatreds and ugly viewpoints, and a substantial capacity for good.” Peter Hart, activism director at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a media watchdog group, told IPS that, “If there was some suggestion that she had been producing questionable journalism over all these years you’d think this would have been an issue before this, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. So it’s a decision which is disconnected from any sensible policy. The real problem is that she said something which offended very powerful people and that was her mistake.” Nasr had worked for the Atlanta-based CNN for 20 years and rarely appeared on-air except for occasional appearances as an analyst in discussions on Middle East news. She had no history of an anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian bias and, according to Greenwald, “blended perfectly into the American corporate media woodwork”. “Octavia Nasr got fired for the one smart thing she ever said,” quipped journalist Nir Rosen, a fellow at the New York University Center on Law and Security, in a Twitter post. “[P]lenty of American journalists and politicians have shown ‘respect’ (and in some cases, fawning admiration) for various world figures with hands far bloodier than Ayatollah Fadlallah – including Mao Zedong, Ariel Sharon, the Shah of Iran, or even Kim il Sung – but it didn’t cost them their jobs,” wrote Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard University. Questions have been raised over why Nasr, known as an uncontroversial reporter of Middle East affairs, was fired so quickly for an off-the-cuff Twitter post. According to some observers, her unwillingness to conform to the narrative depicted by a number of right-wing news outlets and U.S. Jewish groups that Fadlallah was a terrorist, anti-US and anti-Semitic resulted in CNN receiving pressure to fire her. “Nasr’s comment was enough to spark fierce outrage from the various precincts of the neocon blog/twittersphere, who went after Nasr for her egregious failure to reduce Fadlallah to an anti-Israel, anti-American terrorist bogeyman,” blogged Matt Duss, a National Security Researcher at the liberal Center For American Progress. While right-wing news outlets, such as the Weekly Standard and the conservative WorldNetDaily gleefully reported on Nasr’s departure from CNN, others expressed concern for the double standard which has emerged when discussing Middle East affairs in the US mainstream media. “The standard here is based on nothing that Nasr reported for CNN. [Her Twitter post] was barely a one sentence expression of sympathy. Firing her was a decision that was completely disconnected from her work so it’s a decision that’s very troubling. Lou Dobbs’s thoughts about immigrants were on CNN every night and CNN stood by him as the criticism mounted and the factual inaccuracies piled up,” said Hart. “In this case, a stray comment is enough to terminate someone’s role at CNN almost overnight,” he said. “The discrepancy is rather revealing and CNN would have a very hard time revealing precisely what their policy is on this. It’s hard to find precedent for this. She has a history of covering the region and that is not easily replaced.” ———————- We do not approve of the Lou Dobbs diatribe on CNN on US immigration, and we think he should have been chastised by the network, but this is the only point the above article makes that we can agree with. Otherwise, the article is in itself proof of how split and detrimental to the surfacing of the truth on matters of the Middle East the whole public policy arena is for years. There are plenty of Jewish groups that think Wolf Blitzer is biased against the Israeli government. We have met the man at the time he worked at the UN and are convinced he is a true journalist. Most others mentioned belong either to the left or to the right and as we know well both sides have other goals then a two State solution for the Middle East morass. Our website neither accepts the demise of Israel, nor the lack of a Palestinian State, so we clearly can say that someone who believes that Allah calls for suicide bombers to achieve his goal of eradicating Israel, is no better then Ahmedi-Nejad – the true follower of Hitler. Yes, Ms. Nasr had to go not because ADL wanted her to go. It is because CNN needed her to go- and yes, CNN might look also at who else has to go in order to build back its own credibility. ————————
UN DAILY NEWS DIGEST – 9 July, 2010: LEBANON: SECURITY COUNCIL CALLS FOR FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF UN PEACEKEEPERS . Strongly deploring recent incidents directed at United Nations blue helmets in Lebanon, the Security Council today called for ensuring the safety and freedom of movement of the peacekeepers serving there. Members of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) have recently been the target of protests and attacks by villagers in the south of the country in response to routine military exercises carried out by the mission. “The members of the Security Council strongly deplore the recent incidents involving UNIFIL peacekeepers which took place in southern Lebanon on June 29th, July 3rd and July 4th in the UNIFIL area of operation,” Ambassador U. Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, which holds the Council’s rotating presidency for July, said in a statement read out to the press following closed-door talks. They also emphasized the importance of not impairing UNIFIL’s ability to fulfil its mandate under Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hizbollah. The resolution also calls for respect of the so-called Blue Line separating the Israeli and Lebanese sides, the disarming of all militias operating in Lebanon and an end to arms smuggling in the area. “They call on all parties to ensure that the freedom of movement of UNIFIL remains respected in conformity with its mandate and its rules of engagement,” the statement added. In addition to monitoring the 2006 ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah, UNIFIL is also tasked with accompanying and supporting the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) as they deploy throughout the south, and extending its assistance to help ensure humanitarian access to civilian populations and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. Also today, Michael Williams, the UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, discussed the recent incidents involving UNIFIL with Lebanese Foreign Minister Ali Shami. “We all hope that the situation has now calmed down and that there will be no recurrence of such incidents,” he in a statement following the meeting in Beirut. Mr. Williams asserted that UNIFIL’s freedom of movement is a critical element for it to discharge its mandate and it must be fully respected. “I think that we all agree that the excellent cooperation between UNIFIL and LAF has been the backbone of the stability that has prevailed in the south, and we must do all we can to maintain and to enhance it,” he added. ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 3rd, 2010
Sat, 03 Jul 2010 18:29:32 -0500 “Civil Society: Supporting Democracy in the 21st Century,” at the Community of Democracies.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State Slowacki Theater
Krakow, Poland
July 3, 2010
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am delighted to be here with all of you. And I thank my friend, Foreign Minister Sikorski, for hosting us here in this absolutely magnificent setting, and for an excellent speech that so well summarized what the agenda for all of us who are members of the Community of Democracies should be.
The idea of bringing together free nations to strengthen democratic norms and institutions began as a joint venture between one of Radek’s predecessors and one of mine: Minister Geremek and Madeleine Albright. And they were visionaries 10 years ago. And it was initially a joint American-Polish enterprise. And I cannot think of a better place for us to mark this occasion than right here in Krakow. Thank you, Madeleine, and thanks to the memory of Minister Geremek. (Applause.) SECRETARY CLINTON: I think you heard from Foreign Minister Sikorski some of the reasons why Poland is an example of what democracies can accomplish. After four decades of privation, stagnation, and fear under Communism, freedom dawned. And it was not only the personal freedoms that people were once again able to claim for their own, but Poland’s per capital GDP today is nine times what it was in 1990. And in the middle of a deep, global recession, the Polish economy has continued to expand.
By any measure, Poland is stronger politically, as well. We all mourned with Poland in April when a plane crash claimed the lives of Poland’s president, the first lady, and many other national officials. It was one of the greatest single losses of leadership suffered by any country in modern history. But it is a tribute to Poland’s political evolution that, in the aftermath of that accident, the country’s institutions never faltered. And tomorrow polls will move forward with selecting a president through free and fair elections. Now, I would argue that this progress was neither accidental nor inevitable. It came about through a generation of work to improve governance, grow the private sector, and strengthen civil society. These three essential elements of a free nation — representative government, a well-functioning market, and civil society — work like three legs of a stool. They lift and support nations as they reach for higher standards of progress and prosperity. Now, I would be the first to admit that no democracy is perfect. In fact, our founders were smart enough to enshrine in our founding documents the idea that we had to keep moving toward a more perfect union. Because, after all, democracies rely on the wisdom and judgment of flawed human beings. But real democracies recognize the necessity of each side of that three-legged stool. And democracies that strengthen these three segments of society can deliver extraordinary results for their people. Today I would like to focus on one leg of that stool: civil society. Now, markets and politics usually receive more attention. But civil society is every bit as important. And it undergirds both democratic governance and broad-based prosperity. Poland actually is a case study in how a vibrant civil society can produce progress. The heroes of the solidarity movement, people like Geremek and Lech Walesa and Adam Michnik, and millions of others laid the foundation for the Poland we see today. They knew that the Polish people desired and deserved more from their country. And they transformed that knowledge into one of history’s greatest movements for positive change. Now, not every nation has a civil society movement on the scale of Solidarity. But most countries do have a collection of activists, organizations, congregations, writers, and reporters that work through peaceful means to encourage governments to do better, to do better by their own people. Not all of these organizations or individuals are equally effective, of course. And they do represent a broad range of opinions. And, having been both in an NGO and led NGOs and been in government, I know that it’s sometimes tough to deal with NGOs when you are in the government.
But it doesn’t matter whether the goal is better laws or lower crime or cleaner air or social justice or consumer protection or entrepreneurship and innovation, societies move forward when the citizens that make up these groups are empowered to transform common interests into common actions that serve the common good. As we meet here on the eve of our American Fourth of July celebration, the day when we commemorate our independence, I want to say a word about why the issue of civil society is so important to Americans. Our independence was a product of our civil society. Our civil society was pre-political. And it was only through debate, discussion, and civic activism that the United States of America came into being. We were a people before we were a nation. And civil society not only helped create our nation, it helped sustain and power our nation into the future. It was representatives of civil society who were the first to recognize that the American colonies could not continue without democratic governance. And after we won our independence, it was activists who helped establish our democracy. And they quickly recognized that they were a part of a broader struggle for human rights, human dignity, human progress. Civil society has played an essential role in identifying and eradicating the injustices that have, throughout our history, separated our nation from the principles on which it was founded. It was civil society, after all, that gave us the abolitionists who fought the evils of slavery, the suffragettes who campaigned for women’s rights, the freedom marchers who demanded racial equality, the unions that championed the rights of labor, the conservationists who worked to protect our planet and climate. I did begin my professional life in civil society. The NGO I worked for, the Children’s Defense Fund, helped expand educational opportunities for poor children and children with disabilities, and tried to address the challenges faced by young people in prison. Now, I would be the first to say that our work did not transform our nation or remake our government overnight. But when that kind of activism is multiplied across an entire country through the work of hundreds, even thousands of NGOs, it does produce real and lasting positive change. So a commitment to strengthening civil society has been one of my constants throughout my public career as First Lady, Senator, and now Secretary of State. I was able to work with Slovakian NGOs that stood up to and ultimately helped bring down an authoritarian government. I have seen civil society groups in India bring the benefits of economic empowerment to the most marginalized women in that society. I have watched in wonder as a small group of women activists in South Africa begin with nothing and went on to build a community of 50,000 homes. President Obama shares this commitment. In his case, it led him to become a community organizer in Chicago. Both of us joined in the work of civil society because we believe that when citizens nudge leaders in the right direction, our country grows stronger. The greatness of the United States depends on our willingness to seek out and set right the areas where we fall short. For us and for every country, civil society is essential to political and economic progress. Even in the most challenging environments, civil society can help improve lives and empower citizens. SECRETARY CLINTON: Now, it may seem to some of us like a very nice, but perhaps not essential presence to have just one woman from each country be here. But I can speak from personal experience that, just as civil society is essential to democracy, women are essential to civil society. And these women speak for so many who have never had a chance to have their voices heard. So, along with well-functioning markets and responsible, accountable government, progress in the 21st century depends on the ability of individuals to coalesce around shared goals, and harness the power of their convictions. But when governments crack down on the right of citizens to work together, as they have throughout history, societies fall into stagnation and decay. Over the last 6 years, 50 governments have issued new restrictions against NGOs, and the list of countries where civil society faces resistance is growing longer. In Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, physical violence directed against individual activists has been used to intimidate and silence entire sectors of civil society. Last year, Ethiopia imposed a series of strict new rules on NGOs. Very few groups have been able to re-register under this new framework, particularly organizations working on sensitive issues like human rights. The Middle East and North Africa are home to a diverse collection of civil society groups. But too many governments in the region still resort to intimidation, questionable legal practices, restrictions on NGO registration, efforts to silence bloggers. In Central Asian countries, constitutions actually guarantee the right of association. But governments still place onerous restrictions on NGO activity, often through legislation or stringent registration requirements. Venezuela’s leaders have tried to silence independent voices that seek to hold that government accountable. In Russia, while we welcome President Medvedev’s statements in support of the rule of law, human rights activities and journalists have been targeted for assassination, and virtually none of these crimes have been solved. And we continue to engage on civil society issues with China, where writer Liu Xiaobo is serving an 11-year prison sentence because he co-authored a document calling for respect for human rights and democratic reform. Too many governments are seeing civic activists as opponents, rather than partners. And as democracies, we must recognize that this trend is taking place against a broader backdrop. In the 20th century, crackdowns against civil society frequently occurred under the guise of ideology. Since the demise of Communism, most crackdowns seem to be motivated instead by sheer power politics. But behind these actions, there is an idea, an alternative conception of how societies should be organized. And it is an idea that democracies must challenge. It is a belief that people are subservient to their government, rather than government being subservient to their people. Now, this idea does not necessarily preclude citizens from forming groups that help their communities or promote their culture, or even support political causes. But it requires these private organizations to seek the state’s approval, and to serve the states and the states’ leaderships’ larger agenda. Some weren’t engaged in political work at all. Some were not trying to change how their countries were governed. Most were simply getting help to people in need, like the Burmese activists imprisoned for organizing relief for victims of Cyclone Nargis. Some of them were exposing problems like corruption that their own governments claim they want to root out. Their offense was not just what they did, but the fact that they did it independently of their government. They were out doing what we would call good deeds, but doing them without permission. That refusal to allow people the chance to organize in support of a cause larger than themselves, but separate from the state, represents an assault on one of our fundamental democratic values. The idea of pluralism is integral to our understanding of what it means to be a democracy. Democracies recognize that no one entity — no state, no political party, no leader — will ever have all the answers to the challenges we face. And, depending on their circumstances and traditions, people need the latitude to work toward and select their own solutions. Our democracies do not and should not look the same. Governments by the people, for the people, and of the people will look like the people they represent. But we all recognize the reality and importance of these differences. Pluralism flows from these differences. And because crackdowns on NGOs are a direct threat to pluralism, they also endanger democracy. More than 60 years ago, Winston Churchill came to the United States to warn the world’s democracies of an iron curtain descending across Europe. Today, thankfully, thanks to some of you in this room, that iron curtain has fallen. But we must be wary of the steel vise in which many governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit. Democracies don’t fear their own people. They recognize that citizens must be free to come together to advocate and agitate, to remind those entrusted with governance that they derive their authority from the governed. Restrictions on these rights only demonstrate the fear of illegitimate rulers, the cowardice of those who deny their citizens the protections they deserve. An attack on civic activism and civil society is an attack on democracy. Now, sometimes I think that the leaders who are engaging in these actions truly believe they are acting in the best interests of their country. But they begin to inflate their own political interests, the interests of that country, and they begin to believe that they must stay in office by any means necessary, because only they can protect their country from all manner of danger. I ran a very hard race against President Obama. I tried with all my might to beat him. I was not successful. And when he won, much to my surprise, he asked me to join his Administration to serve as Secretary of State. Well, in many countries, I learned as I began traveling, that was a matter of great curiosity. How could I work with someone whom I had tried to deprive of the office that he currently holds? But the answer for both President Obama and I was very simple. We both love our country. Politics is an important part of the lifeblood of a democracy. But governing, changing people’s lives for the better, is the purpose one runs for office. Second, the United Nations Human Rights Council needs to do more to protect civil society. Freedom of association is the only freedom defined in the United Nations declaration of human rights that does not enjoy specific attention from the UN human rights machinery. That must change. Third, we will be working with regional and other organizations, such as the OAS, the EU, the OIC, the African Union, the Arab League, others, to do more to defend the freedom of association. Many of these groups are already committed to upholding democratic principles on paper. But we need to make sure words are matched by actions. And, fourth, we should coordinate our diplomatic pressure. I know that the Community of Democracies working group is focused on developing a rapid response mechanism to address situations where freedom of association comes under attack. Well, that can’t happen soon enough. When NGOs come under threat, we should provide protection where we can, and amplify the voices of activists by meeting with them publicly at home and abroad, and citing their work in what we say and do. We can also provide technical training that will help activists make use of new technologies such as social networks. When possible, we should also work together to provide deserving organizations with financial support for their efforts. As part of that commitment, today I am announcing the creation of a new fund to support the work of embattled NGOs. We hope this fund will be used to provide legal representation, communication technology such as cell phone and Internet access, and other forms of quick support to NGOs that are under siege. The United States will be contributing $2 million to this effort, and we welcome participation and contribution from like-minded countries, as well as private, not-for-profit organizations. For the United States, supporting civil society groups is a critical part of our work to advance democracy. But it’s not the only part. Our national security strategy reaffirms that democratic values are a cornerstone of our foreign policy. Over time, as President Obama has said, America’s values have been our best national security asset. I emphasized this point in December and January, when I delivered speeches on human rights and Internet freedom. And it is a guiding principle in every meeting I hold and every country I visit. My current trip is a good example. I have just come from Ukraine, where I had the opportunity not only to meet with the foreign minister and the president, but with a wonderful group of young, bright Ukrainian students, where I discussed the importance of media freedom, the importance of freedom of assembly, and of human rights. Tonight I will leave for Azerbaijan, where I will meet with youth activists to discuss Internet freedom, and to raise the issue of the two imprisoned bloggers, and to discuss civil liberties. From there I will go to Armenia and Georgia, where I will be similarly raising these issues, and sitting down with leaders from women’s groups and other NGOs. This is what we all have to do, day in and day out around the world. So, let me return to that three-legged stool. Civil society is important for its own sake. But it also helps prop up and stabilize the other legs of the stool, governments and markets. Without the work of civic activists and pluralistic political discourse, governments grow brittle and may even topple. And without consumer advocates, unions, and social organizations that look out for the needs of societies’ weakest members, markets can run wild and fail to generate broad-based prosperity. We see all three legs of the stool as vital to progress in the 21st century. So we will continue raising democracy and human rights issues at the highest levels in our contacts with foreign governments, and we will continue promoting economic openness and competition as a means of spreading broad-based prosperity and shoring up representative governments who know they have to deliver results for democracy. But we also believe that the principles that bring us here together represent humanity’s brightest hope for a better future. As Foreign Minister Geremek wrote in his invitation to the inaugural meeting of the Community of Democracies 10 years ago, “Regardless of the problems inseparably associated with democracy, it is a system which best fulfills the aspirations of individuals, societies, and entire peoples, and most fully satisfies their needs of development, empowerment, and creativity.” I think often about the role of journalists. Journalists are under tremendous pressure. But a journalist like Jerse Tarovich, a son of Krakow, asked tough questions that challenged Poland to do better. And Pope John Paul II, who, as Stalin would have noted, had no battalions, marshaled moral authority that was as strong as any army. We all have inherited that legacy of courage. It is now up to us. Every Fourth of July Americans affirm their belief that all human beings are created equal, that we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, as a community of democracies, let us make it our mission to secure those rights. We owe it to our forebears, and we owe it to future generations to continue the fight for these ideals. ### | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||


















queue Soupe Harira moderne









The continuing problem Ayatollah