International Politics Thread

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The Bush administration doesn't hate the UN per se - it hates the fact that it can't quite control it.

I assume you know who the new US ambassador to the UN is? Would you still the US doesnt hates the UN? This guy John Bolton once said " It wouldnt matter if the 39 story building of UN lost 10 floors "  

Another neat appointment by Bush.

Just wanted to state the same! Bush is sending a "destructor" to the UN, not a "reshaper". That IS hate!

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/bolton.ap/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (AP) -- Challenging the White House, 59 former American diplomats are urging the Senate to reject John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

"He is the wrong man for this position," they said in a letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which must consider the nomination before it goes to the full Senate for confirmation. Lugar has scheduled hearings for April 7.

"We urge you to reject that nomination," the former diplomats said in a letter obtained by The Associated Press and dated Tuesday.

The ex-diplomats have served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, some for long terms, others briefly. They include:

Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard M. Nixon;

James F. Leonard, deputy ambassador to the United Nations in the administrations of President Gerald Ford and Carter, Ford's successor;

Princeton N. Lyman, ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria under Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton;

Monteagle Stearns, ambassador to Greece and Ivory Coast in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations;

Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., deputy director of the Arms Control Agency in the Carter administration.

Their criticism primarily dealt with Bolton's positions as the State Department's senior arms control official, his current job. They said he had an "exceptional record" of opposing U.S. efforts to improve national security through arms control.

The former diplomats also chided Bolton for his "insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States."

That view, they said, would not help him negotiate with other diplomats at the United Nations.

Adam Ereli, the State Department's deputy spokesman, responded: "He is a great nominee. We hope he will be confirmed. And we look forward to his getting to New York to do the nation's business."

Bolton, who rarely muffles his views in diplomatic nuance, was nominated March 7. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described him as "a tough-minded diplomat" with "a proven track record of effective multilateralism."

Bolton promised to work closely with members of Congress to advance President Bush's policies and said his record demonstrates "clear support for effective multilateral diplomacy."

Approval of the nomination requires a majority vote from the Senate committee, which has 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

In the letter, the former diplomats praised Bush's efforts at the start of his second term to improve relations with European allies and with the United Nations. It is for that reason, they said, "we write you to express our concern" with Bolton's selection.

They ticked off a number of treaties they said Bolton had opposed and said he had made "unsubstantiated claims" that Cuba and Syria were working on biological weapons.

Also, they said, Bolton once worked as a paid researcher for Taiwan and supported recognition of it as a sovereign state, and he was skeptical of U.N. peacekeeping operations.

"Given these past actions and statements, John R. Bolton cannot be an effective promoter of the U.S. national interest at the U.N.," the former diplomats concluded. "We urge you to oppose his nomination."

In another word, Michael Bolton will be better than John Bolton to be an ambassador.

[miles teg 1]

Actually his appointment makes perfect sense.

The Bush administration does NOT want to work with the UN period. This guy Bolton is the perfect man to make the Bush administration policies clear before the UN: "The UN is either with us or against us."

They also hate the UN becuase they view the UN as corrupt commie lovers, Arab lovers, Jew haters (ya can't go against God's chosen people), American haters, Christian haters, Abortion advocates/Baby (fetus) killers, freedom haters, tree-huggers, and niave liberal wussies who pee themselves at the mention of peace keeping unless American military muscle takes the lead. So they see the UN as seeing almost useless.

A greater gap between America and the rest of the world is what many American neocons want. They want total American dominance...not alliances, but outright global political and economic dominance. They don't want America to kiss the ass of what they see as liberal European commies and Chinese commies (unless the commies got $$$$ and investment opportunties). They want the US to be the world leaders. The great America that all the world looks up towards as the world leaders of freedom who will kick the ass of anyone who stands in our way with their Islamic or socialist commie crap.

TEAM AMERICA!!!

That movie is actually not far off from how many neocons view the world. They firmly beleive that the forces of American capitalism are the pinnacle of freedom and democracy in the free world. Those who we exploit are just on the wrong end of history (social darwanism) and better get with the program (American style capitalism) if they don't want to be exploited. They will argue that China got with the program and look...they are blossoming into a massive capitalist economic force...ah smell the freedom...and the sweatshops with those freedom loving Chinese people in them.

"AMERICA! (f**ck yeah!) Out to save the mu***fu**'n world again!" -from the Team America theme song.

(Yes I'm using a bit of sarcasm in my post).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

Rice Alarms Reformist Arabs with Stability Remarks

Quote[/b] ]

By Jonathan Wright

CAIRO (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has alarmed many reformist Arabs with comments suggesting a new U.S. approach that promotes rapid political change without regard for internal stability.

Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for "freedom" without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.

"This a very dangerous scheme. Anarchy will be out of control," said Hassan Nafaa, a professor of political science at Cairo University and an advocate of gradual change.

A liberal Arab diplomat, who asked not to be named, said: "They seem to be supporting chaos and instability as a pretext for bringing democracy. But people would rather live under undemocratic rule than in the chaotic atmosphere of Iraq, for example, which the Americans tout as a model."

U.S. policy in the Middle East has traditionally given priority to the stability of cooperative governments such as those in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, while turning a blind eye to the way those governments treat their peoples.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said, a liberal who has challenged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to his face over authoritarian government, said Arab societies were too fragile for the kind of rapid and unchecked change that Rice appears to welcome.

Apart from the danger of extremists coming to power, the Arab world would face the threat that societies and states could collapse completely, he told Reuters.

"We can hardly take the great risks that Dr Rice suggests. We are determined to keep domestic peace as well as external peace as far as we can, but not to the point of stifling change," added Said, who is deputy director of the al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

"TOTALLY CAVALIER ATTITUDE"

The Bush administration has argued that political violence and hostility to the United States in the Middle East are the result of internal repression, rather than of U.S. policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the main Arab grievance.

That argument is at the core of President Bush's campaign for domestic political change in Arab countries, which has had a mixed reception even among Arab liberals.

His campaign has stimulated the debate on reform in the Middle East and emboldened some democrats to challenge governments which now appear to be on the defensive.

Rice's remarks went one step further, suggesting the United States was willing to take a gamble on "democratic institutions" having a "moderating influence" in the region.

"Can we be certain of that? No. But do I think there's a strong certainty that the Middle East was not going to stay stable anyway? Yes. And when you know that the status quo is no longer defensible, then you have to be willing to move in another direction," she said.

Helena Cobban, a writer on Middle East affairs based in the United States, said: "She (Rice) reveals a totally cavalier attitude to the whole non-trivial concept of social-political stability in Middle Eastern countries."

"So it looks as though Arc of Instability may now actually be the goal of U.S. policy, rather than its diagnosis of an existing problem," she added.

Mohamed el-Sayed Said said Rice's approach appeared to have links with a trend in right-wing Israeli thinking that favors destabilising Arab governments and societies.

"We see an emphasis on destruction and we see that Israel is willing to push Arab societies to the abyss without caring for stability. We suspect these ideas came from Israel," he added.

"COMPREHENSIVE REFORM"

Hala Mustafa, editor of the Egyptian quarterly publication Democracy Review, said reformers must have a clear agenda for where they want to go and that instant change would favor the Islamists, who dominate the political culture.

"If we start without any agenda, it will end in confusion ... We are talking about comprehensive reform that would lead to the change we need, not to turmoil or chaos," she added.

Rice, asked about the prospect of Islamist victories through reform, said that would not be desirable.

But she added: "It is really as opposed to what at this point? It isn't as if the status quo was stable the way that it was ... The only thing the United States can do is to speak out for the values that have been absent, liberty and freedom there, and it will have to take its own course."

Abdel Raouf El Reedy, a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States and chairman of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Relations, said the United States was overlooking its own responsibility to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"If the United States wants to be credible, it has to be serious about ending the military occupation (of Palestinian territories) because this is generating resentment and anger and in this way helping the radical forces in the region," he said.

HOLY CRAP! This woman is NUTS! What the hell is this administration thinking??? THey already tried this shit in Latin America and it FAILED MISERABLY unless the goal was to keep 3rd world nations weak so as to provide easy pickings for US corporations to exploit unstable and corrupt democracies. They do not take into account that Islamic fundamentalism THRIVES upon Chaos. This is the BREEDING GROUND FOR TERRORISTS!!! These NeoCons are out of their freak'n minds in their little theoretical universes. Apparently they haven't the slightest clue at cause and effect relationships between US foreign policy and Terrorism and the support of dictators. They don't even understand American History 101. American democracy didn't suddenly come into existence as a perfect system. America today is a product of over 200 years of VERY VERY PAINFUL growth and evolution which included the genocide of most of the indigenous population of America and a long history of slavery and oppression of miniorities. And yet they expect democracy to thrive by creating instability. They are absolutely nuts unless the goal is to create more terrorism in order to justify increased military spending, keep Republicans in office by keeping America fearful of all those angry Arabs out there jealous of our "freedom and democracy", or worse, to help create a situation ripe for ARMAGGEDDON!!! YEEEHAAA!

What a disappointment it will be when Jesus doesn't show up after all the mushroom clouds start appearing all over the Middle East.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SpongeBob 0]

Landslide victory for Mugabe!  

Quote[/b] ]Zimbabwe voters cast ballots as Mugabe predicts massive win

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....bwevote

ARARE (AFP) - President Robert Mugabe predicted a landslide victory for his ruling party as Zimbabweans cast ballots in polls that the opposition charged were not fair despite being free of the bloodshed of the past two elections.

Long queues of voters stood under drizzling rain at the opening of the polling stations across Zimbabwe's townships, cities and villages to cast their ballots in the parliamentary elections.

Election officials reported no major incidents of violence following 12 hours of voting that elections commission chairman George Chiveshe said took place "in a peaceful and in some instances joyful atmosphere."

Looking cheerful, Mugabe turned up at a township community hall to vote and dismissed opposition concerns of election fraud as "nonsense", adding that he was "absolutely confident" of winning a two-thirds majority for his Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party.

"It's going to be a victory for us," said Mugabe who turned up at a polling station at a Highfield township community hall near Harare accompanied by his wife Grace and young son Chatunga.

"Everybody is seeing that these are free and fair elections," said the 81-year old veteran who was accompanied by his wife Grace and young son Chatunga.

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai turned up at a Harare school to cast his ballots with his wife Susan and declared: "I am hoping that the outcome will be an MDC victory, I have no doubts about that."

"This is not going to be a free and fair election," said Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) which is posing the strongest challenge yet to ZANU-PF's 25 years in power.

Whatever the outcome, Zimbabweans have been relieved that the campaign was free of the bloodshed that marred elections in 2000 and 2002 and which left some 100 dead and many more beaten, mostly opposition supporters who were attacked by ZANU-PF youth militias.

"This time we are voting freely," said Comfort Size, a firewood vendor who stood outside a polling station in Harare's oldest township of Mbare.

"The process is peaceful. It's quiet. No one has been beaten as far as I know," said Maphios Mbonesi, a security guard who also described himself as a farmer.

"We are quietly queueing," said Silas Manembe, a worker in a canvas company. "Last time there were some marshalls trying to organise us but were actually intimidating a lot of us."

Analysts attribute the absence of bloodshed to Mugabe's desire to regain legitimacy as a statesman instead of presiding over what the United States now considers one of the world's six "outposts of tyranny.'

Mugabe, who led his country to independence from British rule in 1980, has vowed to "bury" the opposition in the elections, accusing them of colluding with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to recolonize the country.

But the opposition has responded that the elections are not about Blair but rather about providing food and jobs for Zimbabweans whose living standards have dropped drastically since 2000 when Mugabe launched a land reform program that saw thousands of white owned farms seized and distributed to landless blacks.

Once considered the breadbasket of southern Africa, Zimbabwe is facing food shortages with the government admitting for the first time last month that it would begin importing corn meal, the national staple, to feed some 1.5 million needy Zimbabweans.

Despite the absence of violence and eased restrictions on the opposition, the MDC and civic groups maintain that biased media coverage and a flawed voters' roll will conspire against the opposition bid to end 25 years of ZANU-PF rule.

In the last parliamentary vote in 2000, the MDC picked up 57 seats while ZANU-PF got 62, but under Zimbabwe law, the president directly appoints 30 members of parliament, meaning that the ruling party was able to command a strong majority in parliament.

To win in this election, the MDC would have to gain 76 seats compared to only 46 for ZANU-PF, which can again rely on presidential appointments to pad its majority in parliament.

Some 5.8 million Zimbabweans were registered to vote in the elections, Zimbabwe's sixth parliamentary vote since independence.

A British journalist and his photographer were arrested while interviewing voters outside a polling station and charged with violating the country's strict media laws.

Toby Harnden, chief foreign correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph and photographer Julian Simmonds were arrested for working without an official accreditation, police said.

Stupid journalists, always interfering in other people's business. Why can't they let democracy run its course without being interfered with from outside agitators.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyvi....31.html

Quote[/b] ]About 5.8 million of Zimbabwe's nearly 12 million people are registered to vote. But the voters list has been swelled by the addition of up to a million dead people, some of whom died more than 10 years ago.

Even zombies are rising from their graves to vote.  Long live democracy in Zibabwe! Long live Mugabe!

[theavonlady 2]

Landslide victory for Mugabe!  

From the This Is Zimbabwe Blog:

Quote[/b] ]Still moving the goal posts : Sokwanele Update #2

Reports reaching us from a number of activists in different locations around the country indicate that, contrary to the electoral ground rules set down by zanu-pf, presiding officers are now being instructed not to publish the results of poll immediately following the completion of the vote count at each polling station. Instead presiding officers are now under instructions to convey the results to the constituency centers and to await authorization from the Harare command center before releasing the results to the public.

Our informant in Binga reports that presiding officers in that constituency have been ordered to lock the polling stations at the close of polling and withdraw all means of communication from agents to ensure that nothing is communicated. This means that the results will not be published at the polling stations when the vote has been completed. The presiding officers are under instructions not to communicate any information about the poll until the consolidated result for the whole constituency has been verified and announced centrally. This is a major departure from the electoral procedures laid down by law.

This information has been confirmed for us by an undercover source in the Hwange East constituency.

Once again zanu-pf are moving the goal posts – this time while the game is in progress.

posted by Sokwanele at 2:59 PM

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Challenging the White House, 59 former American diplomats are urging the Senate to reject John R. Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

I got 66 ready to roll...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....sador_4

Quote[/b] ]

66 Former Officials Line Up Behind Bolton

Mon Apr 4, 8:12 AM ET   White House - AP

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, ex-CIA Director James Woolsey and 64 other retired arms control specialists and diplomats are lined up in support of John R. Bolton, whose nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has stirred controversy.

In a letter being delivered Monday to Sen. Richard G. Lugar (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, other committee members and congressional leaders, they said the attack on Bolton is really an attack on President Bush's policies.

Last week, 62 critics of Bolton signed a letter calling for his rejection by the Senate, especially because of his opposition to the United States signing a number of arms control treaties.

Bolton supporters said his stance "reflects a clear-eyed necessity of the real limits" of accords with other nations that demand one sided terms from the United States. They included Max Kampelman and Edward Rowny, arms control negotiators in the Reagan administration.

Lugar, an Indiana Republican, has scheduled a hearing on the nomination for Thursday.

Some of the Bolton's foes have scheduled a news conference Monday to publicize their views.

The counterattack, organized by Frank Gaffney, a Pentagon official in the Reagan administration said Bolton "has distinguished himself throughout a long and multifaceted career."

It suggested critics of Bolton positions on various arms control treaties are "misdirected" because his views "are identical" to those of Bush and that "their differences seem to be with a man twice elected by the American people to design and execute security policies, rather than with one of his most effective and articulate officials in advancing those policies."

....

Quote[/b] ]The great America that all the world looks up towards as the world leaders of freedom who will kick the ass of anyone who stands in our way with their Islamic or socialist commie crap.  

TEAM AMERICA!!!

I guess you didn't get the d***, asshole, and p**** metaphor.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I guess you didn't get the d***, asshole, and p**** metaphor.

That's 48hrs of post restriction. You know better than that.

Miles Teg, don't flame bait or you will meet the same fate.

[hellfish6 7]

Re: Mugabe...

Man I hate that guy. Very few people in the world today are as racist as that man. Very few leaders in the world today can fuck up an otherwise totally productive country like he can. And the absolute worst part of it all is that it didn't have to end up this way.

[miles teg 1]

Sorry....wasn't trying to flame bait. I actually didn't take offense to his post. He's talking about the end of the movie "Team America" where those metaphors are used...and while it was very funny its not a very good way to look at the complex issues of Middle East politics...but sadly many like Billy Bob do in fact view the world in simplistic metaphorical ways. Religious fundamentalists do this to me all the time. They try to take stories from their holy books (Qu'ran, Torah, Bible, ect...) to describe to me how to solve a problem or why we have a problem in the world...when the story they give as a metaphor has in fact nothing to do historically with the current problem is a completely different situation.

So basically Billy Bob's reply validated my entire point. This is how at leat half of all Americans think. So thats why I didn't take offense at his reply. It makes perfect sense that he would make that point.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I guess you didn't get the d***, asshole, and p**** metaphor.

That's 48hrs of post restriction. You know better than that.

Miles Teg, don't flame bait or you will meet the same fate.

Note to self: watch more movies

[billybob2002 0]

Sorry....wasn't trying to flame bait.  I actually didn't take offense to his post.  He's talking about the end of the movie "Team America" where those metaphors are used...and while it was very funny its not a very good way to look at the complex issues of Middle East politics...but sadly many like Billy Bob do in fact view the world in simplistic metaphorical ways.   Religious fundamentalists do this to me all the time.  They try to take stories from their holy books (Qu'ran, Torah, Bible, ect...) to describe to me how to solve a problem or why we have a problem in the world...when the story they give as a metaphor has in fact nothing to do historically with the current problem is a completely different situation.

So basically Billy Bob's reply validated my entire point.  This is how at leat half of all Americans think.   So thats why I didn't take offense at his reply.  It makes perfect sense that he would make that point.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Quote[/b] ]Sorry....wasn't trying to flame bait. I actually didn't take offense to his post. He's talking about the end of the movie "Team America" where those metaphors are used...and while it was very funny its not a very good way to look at the complex issues of Middle East politics...but sadly many like Billy Bob do in fact view the world in simplistic metaphorical ways. Religious fundamentalists do this to me all the time. They try to take stories from their holy books (Qu'ran, Torah, Bible, ect...) to describe to me how to solve a problem or why we have a problem in the world...when the story they give as a metaphor has in fact nothing to do historically with the current problem is a completely different situation.

So basically Billy Bob's reply validated my entire point. This is how at leat half of all Americans think. So thats why I didn't take offense at his reply. It makes perfect sense that he would make that point.

I got from that quote and "speech" is that there are times when it is appropriate to use force and not to use it. Bush in my mind is the model "half-dick" in that he would invade certain countries (ie. Iraq) for a "noble" (take that what it is worth) reason without problems. However, he acts like a "half-pussy" at times with other countries (ie. North Korea and Iran) that would be more appropriate to do so. Saying that, he would become a "dick" again after a certain point but not now.

[Akira 0]

Lotta "dick" goin' around....

[miles teg 1]

Well what conservatives need to ask themselves is "why" Bush is being a "Half-dick". There are I think reasons why we chose Iraq over Iran, a country that we know for sure has WMD's, one that has a long history of trying to develop nuclear weapons since before the Islamic revolution, and worse a country that is now ruled by religious fanatics.

With that said, I think that we should begin to seek out and encourage guerilla groups in Iran as sleeper cells (who won't prematurely try to start a revolt) as well as political disent on University campuses in Iran.

I'd rather see Iranians overthrow their government themselves then US forces invading. Otherwise everything bad that happens afterwards will be pinned on the US. Plus right now we simply can not afford to invade and occupy Iran unless we had world support...which we won't have short of some miracle.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd rather see Iranians overthrow their government themselves then US forces invading.

I recently watched a documentary on Iran´s youth and it´s orientation and attitude towards western values and their own country. It became clear that Iran is already transforming. It´s a change within society that is happening there right now.

And even if they don´t especially favour their own government, they ALL said that once the US would interfere with their country or even set foot on their ground they would do everything to kill them and throw them out of the country as they had no right to interfere with their country. They said that they see changes in the way the country is run and don´t need anyone from outside to tell them what they need or not.

From the old man in the village to the Armani dressed young businessman to students. They all said they would grab a gun to drive the US out of their country if needed, no matter if they fully support their government or not.

They also insisted on having access to nuclear power as Iran is growing large in numbers of people and needs nuclear energy to run the country in an adequate way.

Quote[/b] ] invade certain countries (ie. Iraq) for a "noble" (take that what it is worth) reason without problems

I wouldn´t call greed and profitmaking plus permanent military presence and a worldwide political agenda of forced "freedom" especialy noble.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Balschoiw-

Quote[/b] ]wouldn´t call greed and profitmaking plus permanent military presence and a worldwide political agenda of forced "freedom" especialy noble.

Greed and profit making arent noble, but they are one of the foundations of western civilisation. Of course its debatable the precise role profit making plays in the current conflicts. And the 'agenda of forced freedom' is not worldwide, which is precisely one of the things that makes it look suspicious. The US is still helping to prop up autocratic and dictatorial regimes around the world so ill accept no talk of a worldwide US agenda of 'freedom'. In fact the Bush administration even appears to have employed the state torture services of some of these countries for use on 'terrorist suspects' (in which it appears the British government may have been complicit by providing airbases for transport).

The EU though is also helping to support repressive regimes (just look at the unjustifiable move to lift the Chinese arms embargo whilst massive human rights abuses continue).

Hellfish6-

Quote[/b] ]Re: Mugabe...

Man I hate that guy. Very few people in the world today are as racist as that man. Very few leaders in the world today can fuck up an otherwise totally productive country like he can. And the absolute worst part of it all is that it didn't have to end up this way.

Agreed. He used to be seen as a great hope for the country and the white land owners initially supported him though. Britain and the US should have been more forthcoming with assistance for land restribution in my view (supporting his gradualist policies) but nonetheless there is no excuse for his sudden change of policy to violence and increasing intimidation (the policy of political starvation in the previous election whereby the opposition areas got no food being in my opinion the most despicable), i think his advanced age has something to do with it.

I havent seen the film, so i couldnt possibly comment on how much of a dick George Bush is.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]And the 'agenda of forced freedom' is not worldwide, which is precisely one of the things that makes it look suspicious.

So how does it come that Rice and Bush toot it whenever they can, whereever they can, if it makes sense or not ?

I guess Bush Bush can´t even say "Good morning" without a little "freedom" in it. But as all that dirty details show he´s not Mr Freedom. In fact he´s Mr "I will force you to be happy and free even if that means I have to throw your kid in jail, abuse your dad at a jail nearby and he can be a really lucky guy if we don´t take him to Gitmo"

I´m sorry but whenever this chimp pops up on the TV all I can hear is freedom...terrorists...insurgents...stability...democracy..praise the lord.

He talks of his "mission" but I fail to see how that mission should be compatible with the rest of the world.

Quote[/b] ]The EU though is also helping to support repressive regimes (just look at the unjustifiable move to lift the Chinese arms embargo whilst massive human rights abuses continue).

This will not get through. Some smell money to be made, but this will not pass the EU. Not now.

Apart from that the US just sold some planes to a country that tried to bypass IAEA multiple times to aquire material for nukes and wanted to trade that material to NK for example. Pakistan it is. Not my number one on the countries-you-can-trust-in-list.

Does the EU tell the US that it is not okay to sell fighters to a country with a very dubious record in human rights and international affairs ?

They better sort the human rights issues they have on their own and on the conquered soil. If they go on like that they will be at the top 5 of the HRW-list in no time.

The top 100 offenders

[theavonlady 2]

Oh, oh!

Quote[/b] ]Naval clash looms in row with China

By Leo Lewis

A ROW between Japan and China intensified yesterday as Tokyo took steps towards granting Japanese companies the right to test-drill for oil and gas in a disputed area of the East China Sea.

China protested furiously. “Japan has come up with a provocation to China’s rights and the norm of international relations,†Qin Gang, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, said. “China has already made a protest to Japan, and reserves the right to take further reaction,†he added.

Japanese energy companies have waited nearly 40 years for the controversial decision. The move signals Tokyo’s defiance of violent anti-Japanese protests across China last weekend and its determination to defend what it claims are its rights to precious resources.

The decision, initiated by Japan’s Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, was taken after Beijing ignored an ultimatum last week demanding a stop to Chinese exploration in the disputed area.

The issue will be raised at a meeting between Nobutaka Machimura, the Japanese Foreign Minister, and his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, in Beijing on Sunday. Mr Machimura will also repeat calls for China to cease work on the gas fields and to hand over information on its operations.

This week, Tang Jiaxuan, a Chinese state councillor, warned Tokyo against giving Japanese companies test-drilling rights, saying that to do so would “bring about further complications and intensify the East China Sea situation, and would fundamentally change the nature of the issueâ€.

Defence analysts believe that by giving Japanese companies the right to send in drilling ships, the chances of a clash possibly involving naval patrol boats, are now much higher.

Although the recent deterioration in relations between the two Asian neighbours has been focused on Japan’s perceived lack of remorse for wartime atrocities, analysts believe that the undersea energy battle is the real issue.

China and Japan are, respectively, the world’s second and third-largest consumers of energy and the lack of major resources on their own territories means that both are heavily reliant on imports.

A Japanese official said that the Government decided to start preparations for test-drilling because Japan’s need was now urgent. The area of the East China Sea in question is a potentially rich natural gas and oil field waiting to be tapped and both countries are desperate for a stable, local source of oil and gas.

The dispute centres on a chain of tiny islands whose ownership has itself been the subject of argument. A recent report found that two gas projects recently started by China are just a few thousand yards from a “median line†that Tokyo marks between the two countries’ economic zones.

According to the survey, China is about to tap resources that Tokyo views as Japan’s. Beijing does not recognise the line and claims that its economic waters extend to the edge of the continental shelf, well beyond the zone being drilled.

The uninhabited islands are more than 600 miles from the Japanese mainland and are known as Senkaku to the Japanese, and Diaoyu to the Chinese.

The Japanese Government raised the stakes in the diplomatic tangle when it said recently that it would take control of a lighthouse built in 1978 on Uotsurishima, one of the islands, as part of an activist group’s attempt to demonstrate that it was technically an island rather than a rock.

As an island, Uotsurishima extends Japan’s economic zone by about 180 miles. Seven Chinese activists landed on the island in March 2004 and destroyed part of the lighthouse. Efforts to reach agreement over energy projects in the area have failed.

[Colossus 2]

Here we go again

Quote[/b] ]Israeli rocket wounds Hamas man

A Palestinian militant has been seriously wounded when an Israeli aircraft fired a rocket at Hamas members in the southern Gaza Strip.

The aircraft targeted a pair of Palestinian militants about to launch mortars at the Gush Katif Jewish settlement, the Israel army said.

It is the first time Israel had fired missiles at Palestinian militants since a ceasefire was declared in February.

Overnight, a Hamas gunman was shot dead by Israeli forces on the edge of Rafah.

BBC News

Damnit Hamas! You had to ruin the peace

[Bordoy 0]

Who thinks Hamas will really want peace? They are just like any other terrorist organisation.

[red oct 2]

truthfully i don't think either side really wants to co-exist. one side blows something or someone up, the other retaliates, talks come to a end. i don't know why we even bother waisting the time and resources holding peace talks when this is all that ever happens.

[miles teg 1]

Well one big problem is that Israel refuses to negotiate directly with Hamas. They can negotiate all they want with the PLA, but it won't do a bit of good when the militant Hamas cells refuse to recognize total PLA authority and just ignore Abbas and continue to attack Israel. However its tricky to know whats going on without being on the ground. For all we know, some elements of Hamas and the PLA may be trying to reign in their gunmen, but it only takes a small handful of renegades to fire a rocket or snipe at Israelies. We simply don't get enough news about whats going on. It also may be very difficult for the PLA security forces to arrest these heavily armed gunmen without causing a civil war. I'm sure Israel would love for the Palistinians to have a civil war because then they'll be too busy fighting each other in a power struggle to bother much fighting Israel. Israel can then use the chaos as an opportunity to insert agents and pick each side apart. But that's a very stupid short term strategy as instability just breeds more terrorists and smarter Arabs will know what was behind the civil war (Israeli insistance that the PLA disarm and arrest Hamas militants).

What most people don't realize is that Hamas uses a cell structure which means there is very little centralized authority. So even if the PLA gets one Hamas leader to abide by the cease fire agreement, it doesn't mean that other Hamas cells will listen to that leader. Furthermore you have other Palistinian militant organizations like "Islamic Jihad" who may not listen to either the PLA or any Hamas leaders.

The most logical solution is to have a heavily armed international peacekeepers to act as a police force...preferably a Islamic peacekeeping force. Israel might worry that they would just smuggle heavy weapons to Palistinian militants, however a system of weapon accountability and strict US/Israeli supervision of incoming and outgoing weapon acountability would help prevent this from being a problem. Furthermore, weapons used by peacekeepers would only be those needed for police work and engaging heavily armed insurgents. This would include heavy APC's (possibly BTR series with anti-RPG cages) and only assault rifles and light machine guns. Heavier machine guns and automatic grenade launchers would be restricted to defensive positions and vehicle mounts. No underbarrel grenade launchers, RPG's, or ATGM's would be allowed. The peacekeeping force would be entirely dependent on supply lines and logistical support through the Israelies so there would be no danger of peacekeepers deciding to stay and not leave. Malaysian, Indonesia, and Pakistani peacekeepers would probably be the most desirable (non Arabs).

But I doubt this would happen because Israelies are too fearful of the UN and too damn pigheaded to realise that Abbas will not wage a civil war and that he faces enormous challenges and needs outside 3rd party military assistance.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Badgerboy 0]

Who thinks Hamas will really want peace? They are just like any other terrorist organisation.

In reference to Miles post above, look at the IRA.

How many Real IRA attacks were there when the IRA proper was started to talk about ceasing hostilities? Only take a smallg roup of nutcases to derail everything.

(Note, people resonsible for those bombings are going to jail, and were not targeted by British helicopter gunships.... )

[miles teg 1]

That's a good example...a bit different situation and very different culture, but for that to happen in the Palistinian territories, Hamas needs to be convinced that peace is the way to go which is why Israel needs to deal directly with Hamas and Islamic Jihad (the two biggest Palistinian militant groups) using the PLA as a mediator so as not to cut them out of the loop.

But again, both Israeli and Palistinian militant pigheadednes and outright hatred are preventing this from happening. The current approach has been tried before and it just doesn't work as long as Israel continues to respond to attacks with heavy firepower. What they need is better coordination with PLA security forces and to have them create a rapid reaction force to quickly surround and arrest militants once Israelis give them the grid coordinates of a rocket launch...thats assuming however that PLA security forces can even go into those neighborhoods without a fullscale battle with Hamas/Islamic Jihad militants. If not, then the PLA needs to loudly ask for international peacekeepers. Israel has the right to defend itself, but they need to defend themselves in the long term rather then sacrificing long term peace for short-term vengeance.

So basically while there is a cease fire agreement, all the steps have not been fully undertaken by both sides to make it work. There is ALOT that still can be done.

Its very disheartening to see the lack of leadership or fresh ideas in solving these issues.

Since you mention the IRA, I should point out that serious peace negotiations did not begin to happen until the British government secretly began negotiating directly with the IRA. They were tough negotiations, but ultimately they paid off and it was a bold move on the part of the British government. But who knows...for all I know maybe the Israelies are secretly negotiating with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but if so they have an odd way of negotiating.

But like many beauracracies, it may be a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing and thus we may have different sections of the Israeli government and military undermining each other.

Its this kind of problem analysis that I would LOVE to do because its impossible to know what the true problems are in the cease fire without studying both the Palistinians and the Israeli sides extensively in person and interviewing key members of both sides in order to understand what the true situation is and what the real roadblocks to peace are (real or imagined). Even imagined roadblocks can be very real to the people that have that imagined perception of a problem.

Thats also why its so important to study terrorist organizations in terms of what their motivations and belief systems are. Once you understand that by living with them and getting to know them over an extended period (1 month minimum) you can begin to understand their world view. Do the same with Israel settlers, spend alot of time around Israeli politicians (to understand political realities), and also time with Israeli military leaders and you can begin to get a bigger picture of the world view of the key players on the Israeli side.

With a good understanding of both sides you can then begin to fashion realistic solutions to the conflict not in terms of one solution, but instead several solutions (taking into account different scenarios) so that if one does not work, then another can be tried. The plans for peace must be flexible and not driven by some stupid theory or model, but rather by real world events and perceptions so that the plan can be adapted easily as events unfold.

The real challenge is selling such plans however. That requires skilled political marketing.

I am a huge believer in political marketing. Control public perceptions and you're 80% there to achieving the goal of peace.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Colossus 2]

Quote[/b] ]

Cautious welcome for G8 debt deal

Some of the world's poorest countries have welcomed a

debt relief deal made by their richer lenders.

The world's richest countries - the G8- have agreed to write

off the $40bn (Å22bn; 33bn euros) debt owed by 18 mainly

African countries.

The package was agreed by G8 finance ministers meeting in

London ahead of July's summit in Scotland.

Anti-poverty campaigners have also welcomed the deal - but

say they want more nations to benefit.

Click here for a map showing highly-indebted poor countries

The UK, which holds the G8 presidency this year, also hopes

to secure a large increase in development aid to the poorest

countries.

Announcing the deal, UK Chancellor Gordon Brown said now

was "not a time for timidity but a time for boldness".

Under the agreement, the World Bank, the International

Monetary Fund and the African Development Fund will

immediately write off 100% of the money owed them by 18

countries - $40bn in total.

It will save those countries a combined total of $1.5bn a year

in debt repayments.

'Encouraging'

Nine other countries should benefit from 100% debt relief

within 12-18 months, Mr Brown said. After that, 11 more

countries could be eligible to join if they met targets for good

governance and tackling corruption.

The total package - which must be approved by the lending

institutions - could be worth over $55bn.

Ugandan Information Minister Nsaba Buturo - whose country

will benefit immediately - told AFP the decision

was "commendable", but added: "It's something that should

have been done yesterday."

Ethiopia's Finance Minister Sofian Ahmed said his country's

debt cancellation was "very encouraging", assuming there

were no strings attached.

Ministers in Nicaragua and Zambia said they would now be

able to boost health and education programmes.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a veteran of the fight against

apartheid in South Africa, said: "It is a splendid start and one

hopes that they will, from here, go on to cancel all debt for

most of the countries - I gather it is about 62 countries -

who are heavily indebted."

He acknowledged the continent had seen many corrupt

leaders who had squandered aid but he told BBC News

24: "Remember the West had a hand in promoting some of

those leaders because it suited them at the time."

Singer Bob Geldof, who has organised the global Live 8

concerts to highlight global poverty and put pressure on the

G8 to act, hailed the deal as a "victory", adding: "This is the

beginning."

He said: "Tomorrow, 280 million Africans will wake up for the

first time in their lives without owing you or me a penny from

the burden of debt that has crippled them for so long."

But he added: "The end will not be achieved until we have

the complete package... of debt cancellation, doubling of aid,

and trade justice."

Romilly Greenhill of ActionAid said it was "very good news for

people in the 18 countries that will immediately benefit.

"But it will do little to immediately help millions in at least 40

other countries that also need debt relief."

A spokesman for the UK's Jubilee Debt Campaign said while

there was "more work to be done," the deal went much

further than expected following previous World Bank and IMF

meetings.

Disagreements

The debt relief plan was adopted after Britain managed to

secure US backing on Friday.

Disagreements remain over how much extra development aid

poor countries should get and how to fund it.

The US has rejected the UK's proposed International Finance

Initiative, which aimed to raise $50bn a year by selling bonds

on world capital markets.

France wants an international aviation tax to fund the extra

aid.

The G8 countries are the United States, Canada, Britain,

France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia.

BBC News

Finally they can start developing there countries, but I think

large companies like Coca Cola, Altria Group, Inc. (Phillip Morris),

etc. etc. will get cold feets if the economy, in those countries,

grows fast. I bet they will move there factories with cheap

labor to Mongolia or something

I also believe that this might lead to more money for weapons

and military funds if all this extra money comes in the wrong

hands, like corrupt leaders and dictators.

Take Burma (Myanmar) for example, they wish to be on that

HIPC list but hasn't got the requierments to get reliefs.

It's like wishing them to get more weapons.