on the anniversary of Israel's attack on Gaza
SUNDAY 27 DECEMBER
RALLY and MARCH 5PM
CANDLELIGHT VIGIL 7PM
Break the Siege of Gaza - End the Occupation
TOWN HALL SQUARE, SYDNEY
WHAT WE ASK:
• an end to the siege of Gaza
• remember those killed in Israel’s "Operation Cast Lead" attack on Gaza
• remind the world that 20 thousand (as at October 2009) people in Gaza
still live in tents as Israel blocks the import of building materials
• an end to Israel’s military occupation
• an end to the discrimination suffered by1.5 million Palestinians citizens
of Israel, denied even their national identity and recognition of the right
of return for Palestinian refugees
See flyer here:
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Monday, December 14, 2009
Protest letter sent from Pax Christi Austalia re: Nobel Peace Prize
Pax International
Christi Christian Peace Movement
Australia
National President: Father Claude Mostowik MSC
61+2+9550 3845
0411 450 953
mscjust@smartchat.net.au
December 10, 2009
His Excellency
Mr Lars A WENSELL
Royal Norwegian Embassy
17 Hunter Street
Yarralumla ACT 2600
emb.canberra@mfa.no
Pax Christi, Australia, which is part of the International Christian Movement for Peace, Pax Christi International, wishes to protest and express its profound dismay at the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to US President, President Barack Obama.
Norway has often been portrayed as a nation of peace by presenting itself as a moral model and moral action in various peace-negotiating actions from the Oslo accords in the 1990’s to the present. This image has been shattered when we learn that your country has had troops working alongside US Special Operations forces in Afghanistan and its involvement in logistic support of running of Guantanamo Bay.
When Barack Obama became President of the USA he pledged to dismantle Guantánamo Bay. He has failed in this. He has failed stop torture. He has failed to bring to justice US citizens and their collaborators who have been involved in the torture of numerous prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan. More importantly, he has protected these perpetrators.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who can justify committing more troops to Afghanistan in the same week that he receives his award devalues and debases the Nobel Peace Prize. Many would argue that the Prize has already been devalued when it was awarded to people such as Simon Peres, Yassar Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin to mention a few names.
When the Nobel Peace Prize is offered to people whose words grossly mismatch his executive decisions, like Barack Obama, it becomes a meaningless honour.
President Obama’s insistence that the troop escalation in Afghanistan is a necessary response to the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be rejected. The actions of the USA along with its allies, including Norway, in Afghanistan, have done nothing to bring stability and peace to the people of Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. Does the Noble Peace Prize Committee really wish to present to the world a message that war is peace?
Pax Christi Australia would wonder if the Nobel Committee may now regret its decision in light of recent developments. Pax Christi Australia can only hope that more and more people and those belonging to peace groups will rise up in solidarity to promote peace through development and justice, to more strenuously acknowledge our common humanity, to loudly protest all war, and listen to voices of the peoples of Pakistan and Afghanistan who are highly affected and rarely considered
Yours sincerely,
[Father] Claude Mostowik msc
National President.
Christi Christian Peace Movement
Australia
National President: Father Claude Mostowik MSC
61+2+9550 3845
0411 450 953
mscjust@smartchat.net.au
December 10, 2009
His Excellency
Mr Lars A WENSELL
Royal Norwegian Embassy
17 Hunter Street
Yarralumla ACT 2600
emb.canberra@mfa.no
Pax Christi, Australia, which is part of the International Christian Movement for Peace, Pax Christi International, wishes to protest and express its profound dismay at the recent awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to US President, President Barack Obama.
Norway has often been portrayed as a nation of peace by presenting itself as a moral model and moral action in various peace-negotiating actions from the Oslo accords in the 1990’s to the present. This image has been shattered when we learn that your country has had troops working alongside US Special Operations forces in Afghanistan and its involvement in logistic support of running of Guantanamo Bay.
When Barack Obama became President of the USA he pledged to dismantle Guantánamo Bay. He has failed in this. He has failed stop torture. He has failed to bring to justice US citizens and their collaborators who have been involved in the torture of numerous prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan. More importantly, he has protected these perpetrators.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a man who can justify committing more troops to Afghanistan in the same week that he receives his award devalues and debases the Nobel Peace Prize. Many would argue that the Prize has already been devalued when it was awarded to people such as Simon Peres, Yassar Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin to mention a few names.
When the Nobel Peace Prize is offered to people whose words grossly mismatch his executive decisions, like Barack Obama, it becomes a meaningless honour.
President Obama’s insistence that the troop escalation in Afghanistan is a necessary response to the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be rejected. The actions of the USA along with its allies, including Norway, in Afghanistan, have done nothing to bring stability and peace to the people of Afghanistan, and now Pakistan. Does the Noble Peace Prize Committee really wish to present to the world a message that war is peace?
Pax Christi Australia would wonder if the Nobel Committee may now regret its decision in light of recent developments. Pax Christi Australia can only hope that more and more people and those belonging to peace groups will rise up in solidarity to promote peace through development and justice, to more strenuously acknowledge our common humanity, to loudly protest all war, and listen to voices of the peoples of Pakistan and Afghanistan who are highly affected and rarely considered
Yours sincerely,
[Father] Claude Mostowik msc
National President.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation - Opinion Poll - Changed
ANSTO apologises for poll changes
ANSTO is interested in stimulating public debate and discussion about nuclear science and technology. In so doing, it recently began a web poll on whether nuclear power should be part of Australia's future energy mix.
As a result of a dramatic change in poll voting patterns over the weekend, a staff member, without authority, modified the poll by changing the "I am against it" answer to "It is one of the options" at around 7.30am today. This was an unauthorised change. ANSTO acknowledges that both making a change and changing the answer "I am against it" to "It is one of the options" was a serious error of judgement by the staff member. This gave misleading and incorrect results to web visitors and poll participants.
Following an approach by an online news service, the staff member then changed the answer to "No" in a bid to correct the situation.
When ANSTO management became aware of the situation, it took action to restore the poll to the original answer and also included "No" to ensure all voters in the intervening period would be included in the statistics.
As the CEO of ANSTO, I wish to apologise unreservedly to stakeholders and participants for this unauthorised intervention in the poll results. The poll is on the front page of the ANSTO website at www.ansto.gov.au.
Dr Adi Paterson
Chief Executive Officer
Posted: 26 October 2009
Media Release from the Greens
ANSTO turn nuclear poll "NO" into "YES"
The Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has been caught out blatantly lying over the results of its own survey which showed overwhelming rejection of nuclear power by Australians.
“ANSTO deliberately fudged an online poll to appear as if respondents voted in favour of nuclear power in Australia,” Australian Greens Spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam said this morning.
“Up until the weekend (Sun 25 Oct) the poll was running 3-1 against nuclear power. ANSTO simply changed the words “I am against it” option to read “It is one of the options," without resetting the poll numbers. Voila – manufactured consent for nuclear power.
“After howls of protest from irate respondents and calls from journalists, ANSTO changed the poll again, allowing people to register a simple “No”.
“This is a small but perfect example of the dishonesty that surrounds the "debate" about nuclear power in Australia,“ Senator Ludlam said.
“Instead of hearing the clear message coming through in its own survey, ANSTO turned a 'no' into a 'yes'. What an appropriate symbol for the way the whole nuclear power debate is being run in Australia.
"ANSTO chair Ziggy Switkowki has been a persistent advocate for nuclear power, even though we're told it is against Government policy. It is time Minister Kim Carr stepped in and clarified to ANSTO - and the public - what that policy is.
“The dishonest act brings into question any so-called surveys or reports stemming from ANSTO or any other nuclear advocates trying to propagate the idea that Australians are warming to the idea of nuclear energy.”
(See attached documents showing online poll before and after the fudge – www.ansto.gov.au)
Media contact – Fernando de Freitas on 0415 174 302
ANSTO is interested in stimulating public debate and discussion about nuclear science and technology. In so doing, it recently began a web poll on whether nuclear power should be part of Australia's future energy mix.
As a result of a dramatic change in poll voting patterns over the weekend, a staff member, without authority, modified the poll by changing the "I am against it" answer to "It is one of the options" at around 7.30am today. This was an unauthorised change. ANSTO acknowledges that both making a change and changing the answer "I am against it" to "It is one of the options" was a serious error of judgement by the staff member. This gave misleading and incorrect results to web visitors and poll participants.
Following an approach by an online news service, the staff member then changed the answer to "No" in a bid to correct the situation.
When ANSTO management became aware of the situation, it took action to restore the poll to the original answer and also included "No" to ensure all voters in the intervening period would be included in the statistics.
As the CEO of ANSTO, I wish to apologise unreservedly to stakeholders and participants for this unauthorised intervention in the poll results. The poll is on the front page of the ANSTO website at www.ansto.gov.au.
Dr Adi Paterson
Chief Executive Officer
Posted: 26 October 2009
Media Release from the Greens
ANSTO turn nuclear poll "NO" into "YES"
The Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has been caught out blatantly lying over the results of its own survey which showed overwhelming rejection of nuclear power by Australians.
“ANSTO deliberately fudged an online poll to appear as if respondents voted in favour of nuclear power in Australia,” Australian Greens Spokesperson on nuclear issues, Senator Scott Ludlam said this morning.
“Up until the weekend (Sun 25 Oct) the poll was running 3-1 against nuclear power. ANSTO simply changed the words “I am against it” option to read “It is one of the options," without resetting the poll numbers. Voila – manufactured consent for nuclear power.
“After howls of protest from irate respondents and calls from journalists, ANSTO changed the poll again, allowing people to register a simple “No”.
“This is a small but perfect example of the dishonesty that surrounds the "debate" about nuclear power in Australia,“ Senator Ludlam said.
“Instead of hearing the clear message coming through in its own survey, ANSTO turned a 'no' into a 'yes'. What an appropriate symbol for the way the whole nuclear power debate is being run in Australia.
"ANSTO chair Ziggy Switkowki has been a persistent advocate for nuclear power, even though we're told it is against Government policy. It is time Minister Kim Carr stepped in and clarified to ANSTO - and the public - what that policy is.
“The dishonest act brings into question any so-called surveys or reports stemming from ANSTO or any other nuclear advocates trying to propagate the idea that Australians are warming to the idea of nuclear energy.”
(See attached documents showing online poll before and after the fudge – www.ansto.gov.au)
Media contact – Fernando de Freitas on 0415 174 302
Friday, September 4, 2009
SRI LANKA: Religious sisters in Sri Lanka refugee camps among Tamil refugees
Article on Asia News IT by Melani Manel Perera
Twenty nuns working in centers and hospitals around Vavuniya. Sister Fatima Nayaki, head of the group, says: "The only desire of every refugee is to begin a new life with dignity and freedom."
Colombo (AsiaNews) - For three months they have helped war refugees gathered in camps and hospitals in northern Sri Lanka. Twenty nuns of various congregations, who in May, through Caritas-Sri Lanka, responded to the government request for assistance to the so-called internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Official data report that, until mid-August, only 19 camps in the district of Vavuniya, are home to more than 79 thousand families for a total of over 246 thousand people. The sisters have lived with them and now they are describing what they saw. At first they were not allowed to enter the camps and hospitals, only after some time could they begin their work of assistance, but not without restrictions and prohibitions.
Sister Jayangika of apostolic congregation of the Carmelites, worked in a hospital in Poovarasankulam. "The health authorities would allowed us to treat only people with chickenpox. There were several pregnant women. Ten of them had lost their husbands and had only the clothes on their backs. " Sr. Jayangika adds: "They eyes were filled with tears and we wanted to cry-out from seeing them in those conditions. Of course we could not do it in front of them, so each time a scream would rise in our throats we struggled to hold back”.
Sister Fatima Nayaki, who led the group of nuns, tells AsiaNews: "The only desire of every refugee is to begin a new life with dignity and freedom. They do not want to remember what has happened to them in recent months and are struggling with their past. When they saw us they asked us to pray for them and bless them".
Sister Francisca, of the Congregation of the Holy Family, said: "The refugees are waiting for someone to come help them, bring them food, clothes. They have only rice, dhal, salt and some coconut”. In temporary shelters set up by the government to house refugees in the transition from the camps to villages of origin, there are shops and markets. But Sr. France explains that "the benches are full of fruit but is too expensive and the refugees have no money to buy it. Some collect a few coins recovering clean water, firewood or catching fish for other refugees, but never more than 10 or 15 rupees, and they use them to buy food for the children".
Many of the camps in which the sisters have provided support are huddled along the roadside. "Everyone can see them from outside - says Sr. Francisca - Hundreds of colourful huts. But the life of those who live there is not colourful at all. There are only people who mourn their children, who have been killed or have disappeared”.
In the days of the great pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Madhu the streets were full of cars and trucks. The religious women add: "Watching the pilgrims on the move was painful for many. We consoled them explaining that Madhu Amma [the Mother, ndr] knew their problems and that She was with them. On August 15, then some priests of the diocese of Mannar who had not travelled to the shrine celebrated the Mass of the Assumption in the camps with the refugees”.
Twenty nuns working in centers and hospitals around Vavuniya. Sister Fatima Nayaki, head of the group, says: "The only desire of every refugee is to begin a new life with dignity and freedom."
Colombo (AsiaNews) - For three months they have helped war refugees gathered in camps and hospitals in northern Sri Lanka. Twenty nuns of various congregations, who in May, through Caritas-Sri Lanka, responded to the government request for assistance to the so-called internally displaced persons (IDPs).
Official data report that, until mid-August, only 19 camps in the district of Vavuniya, are home to more than 79 thousand families for a total of over 246 thousand people. The sisters have lived with them and now they are describing what they saw. At first they were not allowed to enter the camps and hospitals, only after some time could they begin their work of assistance, but not without restrictions and prohibitions.
Sister Jayangika of apostolic congregation of the Carmelites, worked in a hospital in Poovarasankulam. "The health authorities would allowed us to treat only people with chickenpox. There were several pregnant women. Ten of them had lost their husbands and had only the clothes on their backs. " Sr. Jayangika adds: "They eyes were filled with tears and we wanted to cry-out from seeing them in those conditions. Of course we could not do it in front of them, so each time a scream would rise in our throats we struggled to hold back”.
Sister Fatima Nayaki, who led the group of nuns, tells AsiaNews: "The only desire of every refugee is to begin a new life with dignity and freedom. They do not want to remember what has happened to them in recent months and are struggling with their past. When they saw us they asked us to pray for them and bless them".
Sister Francisca, of the Congregation of the Holy Family, said: "The refugees are waiting for someone to come help them, bring them food, clothes. They have only rice, dhal, salt and some coconut”. In temporary shelters set up by the government to house refugees in the transition from the camps to villages of origin, there are shops and markets. But Sr. France explains that "the benches are full of fruit but is too expensive and the refugees have no money to buy it. Some collect a few coins recovering clean water, firewood or catching fish for other refugees, but never more than 10 or 15 rupees, and they use them to buy food for the children".
Many of the camps in which the sisters have provided support are huddled along the roadside. "Everyone can see them from outside - says Sr. Francisca - Hundreds of colourful huts. But the life of those who live there is not colourful at all. There are only people who mourn their children, who have been killed or have disappeared”.
In the days of the great pilgrimage to the shrine of Our Lady of Madhu the streets were full of cars and trucks. The religious women add: "Watching the pilgrims on the move was painful for many. We consoled them explaining that Madhu Amma [the Mother, ndr] knew their problems and that She was with them. On August 15, then some priests of the diocese of Mannar who had not travelled to the shrine celebrated the Mass of the Assumption in the camps with the refugees”.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Pat Dodson on God, philosophy and his move to academia
Source: http://www.unsw.edu.au/news/pad/uniken/UnikenMayJune09/UnikenMayJune.pdf
(UNIKEN Magazine of University of NSW, pp 12-13.)
In an Australian first, UNSW’s Professor Pat Dodson is tackling Indigenous issues through whole-of-country dialogue underpinned by policy research.
Susi Hamilton reports.
Pat Dodson wears several hats. There’s the broad-brimmed, black Akubra that is ubiquitous in all Dodson’s public appearances.
Then there are the other “hats” he wears as a former priest, the one-time Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Commissioner into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Sydney Peace Prize winner and now Professor at UNSW.
If there is one thread connecting all those achievements, it is leadership. In an academic sense, his leadership will help steer UNSW’s newly created Indigenous Policy and Dialogue Research Unit.
“I think it’s time for a national dialogue about our underpinning philosophical basis as we redefine our identity and role in a globalised society,” he observes.
“This is not just about Indigenous affairs,” says Dodson. “This is about all Australian people having a say.”
The stakes are high. Asked if he’d like to have an influence on government policy in relation to Indigenous people, Dodson scoffs.
“I’m thinking much bigger than that,” he grins. “Ultimately, we’d like to see a treaty or even constitutional reform.”
The work has already begun. Dodson has just hosted the first regional dialogue in the Kimberley, involving business leaders, government representatives, Indigenous people and other community members.
The plans to build a major gas plant off the Kimberley coast were a major focus of the talks, with some Aboriginal people expressing concern that the development might lead to some of the same problems experienced in the Pilbara.
“The mining went ahead there, but there was little tangible benefit for the Indigenous community,” he says. “We don’t want that to happen again.”
The dialogue is “not a talk-fest,” Dodson declares. “It’s about developing an interface between key stakeholders. Too often local communities feel excluded from policies and decisions that directly affect their daily lives.”
The Northern Territory intervention is an example of the kind of “top-down” approach he hopes to avoid.
There’s no doubt this is an ambitious project. Reconciliation on this scale is something people have been working towards for generations, but it has so far proved elusive. Nonetheless, Pat Dodson has taken on big challenges in the past. When he became involved in land rights campaigns as a young Catholic priest, it got him into “strife” with some of the clergy.
He eventually left, due to the restrictions of the church and differing views on reconciliation, but says he’s still a believer.
“I rarely attend services. I guess I’m a bit more like my grandfather,” he says. “Where is God? He’s everywhere, isn’t he? You don’t have to go into a church to find him. I have a very liberal view of what it all means.”
He speaks of the wrench of leaving the church, but then finding a new purpose in life in the political realm. “You have to decide in your own mind about what you need to do to remain true to who you are and your purpose – to the extent that you understand it,” he laughs.
Broome might be home, but the 61-year-old Yawuru man spends a lot of time away. The part-time position at UNSW will take him to many regional communities as well as regular visits to the Kensington campus. He also chairs the board of the Kimberley Development Commission and heads the Lingiari Foundation – an Indigenous non-government advocacy and research group.
While Mick Dodson, who is currently Australian of the Year, has moved in academic circles for years, it is a new realm for his older brother.
“I periodically have some discussions with Mick, but he does his own things,” says Pat Dodson. “He’s a lawyer, so he has a different way of looking at things. I’m more philosophical and I have a broader-based approach.”
Dodson sidesteps questions about personal motivation and family connections, steering questions back to topics closer to his work. But the Dodson family’s story is well known. Their mother died when they were young and they were orphaned when their father died in 1960. Pat and Mick were made wards of the state, but their sisters decided the boys should accept scholarships to study in Hamilton, Victoria.
While education clearly had a role in why the Dodson boys both became so prominent politically, it doesn’t explain their success completely. “I think it comes from the early stages of injustice, when you had a non-native protector who had total right and power and autonomy to determine your life,” Dodson says.
“They decided where you lived, who you could marry, how you conducted your domestic affairs, who could remove your children, who could decide everything, such as where your garbage bin needed to go at the front of your house.
“You come out of these sorts of moulds and you say, ‘This is not how human beings are meant to be treated, or what citizenship entitles you to enjoy, and there are other measures which we should be aspiring to.’”
Almost half a century after that first trek across the country, Pat Dodson made the trip to the Prime Minister’s 2020 Summit, giving guidance on Indigenous affairs with a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island community members, activist organisations and a smattering of academics, including UNSW’s Sarah Maddison.
Maddison was struck by Dodson’s commitment and compassion.
During a chance conversation soon after, it became clear to Maddison, the Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, that a collaboration was possible.
“A colleague of Pat’s said as a throw-away line, ‘We’re thinking that the dialogue needs an institutional base,’” she recalls. “I went to the bathroom and had this flash – ‘I have an institution!’”
Within a year, Dodson was on campus at UNSW, getting his staff card and being inducted by the Human Resources Department. Indigenous studies is not unusual in academia, but UNSW’s approach is. It involves two components: a whole-of-country dialogue, plus policy research. The Unit is based in the Social Policy Research Centre, but within three years it is hoped there will be a standalone centre.
The dialogue process is also an Australian first. It follows a model that has proved worthwhile in South Africa, Indonesia and Guatemala, although it hasn’t been as successful in Canada.
The Dean of Arts and Social Sciences, Professor James Donald, said one of his personal highlights of 2008 was hearing Dodson give the Sydney Peace Prize lecture at the Opera House – an address that showed him the possibility of new philosophical underpinnings for the nation.
Donald says that the research combines social engagement and social justice on a pressing issue that “may just change the course of Australian history”.
When asked about his favourite achievement – the Sydney Peace Prize notwithstanding – Professor Dodson scans the Library lawn quickly and says, “I think this adventure of coming to university. It is challenging, but it is also reminiscent of the eight years that I spent in the seminary, which was a very rewarding, studious period of my life.”
And then there’s that hat. Is it symbolic, is it purely practical – what does it signify to him?
“I’ve worn a hat for many years, in part from a practical perspective because I live in the north and it keeps the sun from my face,” he smiles. “It is a reminder that Aboriginal people are part of this country – and particularly the band, which was knitted by my older sister. It’s second nature to me – I feel a bit undressed when I don’t have it on my head. I get very annoyed when I see people carrying a hat instead of wearing it!”
“Where is God? He’s everywhere, isn’t he? You don’t have to go into a church to find him.”
Watch the video on UNSWTV’s Arts and Society channel at www.tv.unsw.edu.au
__._,_.___
(UNIKEN Magazine of University of NSW, pp 12-13.)
In an Australian first, UNSW’s Professor Pat Dodson is tackling Indigenous issues through whole-of-country dialogue underpinned by policy research.
Susi Hamilton reports.
Pat Dodson wears several hats. There’s the broad-brimmed, black Akubra that is ubiquitous in all Dodson’s public appearances.
Then there are the other “hats” he wears as a former priest, the one-time Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Commissioner into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, Sydney Peace Prize winner and now Professor at UNSW.
If there is one thread connecting all those achievements, it is leadership. In an academic sense, his leadership will help steer UNSW’s newly created Indigenous Policy and Dialogue Research Unit.
“I think it’s time for a national dialogue about our underpinning philosophical basis as we redefine our identity and role in a globalised society,” he observes.
“This is not just about Indigenous affairs,” says Dodson. “This is about all Australian people having a say.”
The stakes are high. Asked if he’d like to have an influence on government policy in relation to Indigenous people, Dodson scoffs.
“I’m thinking much bigger than that,” he grins. “Ultimately, we’d like to see a treaty or even constitutional reform.”
The work has already begun. Dodson has just hosted the first regional dialogue in the Kimberley, involving business leaders, government representatives, Indigenous people and other community members.
The plans to build a major gas plant off the Kimberley coast were a major focus of the talks, with some Aboriginal people expressing concern that the development might lead to some of the same problems experienced in the Pilbara.
“The mining went ahead there, but there was little tangible benefit for the Indigenous community,” he says. “We don’t want that to happen again.”
The dialogue is “not a talk-fest,” Dodson declares. “It’s about developing an interface between key stakeholders. Too often local communities feel excluded from policies and decisions that directly affect their daily lives.”
The Northern Territory intervention is an example of the kind of “top-down” approach he hopes to avoid.
There’s no doubt this is an ambitious project. Reconciliation on this scale is something people have been working towards for generations, but it has so far proved elusive. Nonetheless, Pat Dodson has taken on big challenges in the past. When he became involved in land rights campaigns as a young Catholic priest, it got him into “strife” with some of the clergy.
He eventually left, due to the restrictions of the church and differing views on reconciliation, but says he’s still a believer.
“I rarely attend services. I guess I’m a bit more like my grandfather,” he says. “Where is God? He’s everywhere, isn’t he? You don’t have to go into a church to find him. I have a very liberal view of what it all means.”
He speaks of the wrench of leaving the church, but then finding a new purpose in life in the political realm. “You have to decide in your own mind about what you need to do to remain true to who you are and your purpose – to the extent that you understand it,” he laughs.
Broome might be home, but the 61-year-old Yawuru man spends a lot of time away. The part-time position at UNSW will take him to many regional communities as well as regular visits to the Kensington campus. He also chairs the board of the Kimberley Development Commission and heads the Lingiari Foundation – an Indigenous non-government advocacy and research group.
While Mick Dodson, who is currently Australian of the Year, has moved in academic circles for years, it is a new realm for his older brother.
“I periodically have some discussions with Mick, but he does his own things,” says Pat Dodson. “He’s a lawyer, so he has a different way of looking at things. I’m more philosophical and I have a broader-based approach.”
Dodson sidesteps questions about personal motivation and family connections, steering questions back to topics closer to his work. But the Dodson family’s story is well known. Their mother died when they were young and they were orphaned when their father died in 1960. Pat and Mick were made wards of the state, but their sisters decided the boys should accept scholarships to study in Hamilton, Victoria.
While education clearly had a role in why the Dodson boys both became so prominent politically, it doesn’t explain their success completely. “I think it comes from the early stages of injustice, when you had a non-native protector who had total right and power and autonomy to determine your life,” Dodson says.
“They decided where you lived, who you could marry, how you conducted your domestic affairs, who could remove your children, who could decide everything, such as where your garbage bin needed to go at the front of your house.
“You come out of these sorts of moulds and you say, ‘This is not how human beings are meant to be treated, or what citizenship entitles you to enjoy, and there are other measures which we should be aspiring to.’”
Almost half a century after that first trek across the country, Pat Dodson made the trip to the Prime Minister’s 2020 Summit, giving guidance on Indigenous affairs with a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island community members, activist organisations and a smattering of academics, including UNSW’s Sarah Maddison.
Maddison was struck by Dodson’s commitment and compassion.
During a chance conversation soon after, it became clear to Maddison, the Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, that a collaboration was possible.
“A colleague of Pat’s said as a throw-away line, ‘We’re thinking that the dialogue needs an institutional base,’” she recalls. “I went to the bathroom and had this flash – ‘I have an institution!’”
Within a year, Dodson was on campus at UNSW, getting his staff card and being inducted by the Human Resources Department. Indigenous studies is not unusual in academia, but UNSW’s approach is. It involves two components: a whole-of-country dialogue, plus policy research. The Unit is based in the Social Policy Research Centre, but within three years it is hoped there will be a standalone centre.
The dialogue process is also an Australian first. It follows a model that has proved worthwhile in South Africa, Indonesia and Guatemala, although it hasn’t been as successful in Canada.
The Dean of Arts and Social Sciences, Professor James Donald, said one of his personal highlights of 2008 was hearing Dodson give the Sydney Peace Prize lecture at the Opera House – an address that showed him the possibility of new philosophical underpinnings for the nation.
Donald says that the research combines social engagement and social justice on a pressing issue that “may just change the course of Australian history”.
When asked about his favourite achievement – the Sydney Peace Prize notwithstanding – Professor Dodson scans the Library lawn quickly and says, “I think this adventure of coming to university. It is challenging, but it is also reminiscent of the eight years that I spent in the seminary, which was a very rewarding, studious period of my life.”
And then there’s that hat. Is it symbolic, is it purely practical – what does it signify to him?
“I’ve worn a hat for many years, in part from a practical perspective because I live in the north and it keeps the sun from my face,” he smiles. “It is a reminder that Aboriginal people are part of this country – and particularly the band, which was knitted by my older sister. It’s second nature to me – I feel a bit undressed when I don’t have it on my head. I get very annoyed when I see people carrying a hat instead of wearing it!”
“Where is God? He’s everywhere, isn’t he? You don’t have to go into a church to find him.”
Watch the video on UNSWTV’s Arts and Society channel at www.tv.unsw.edu.au
__._,_.___
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Statement of Religious Delegation to Honduras
August 18-25, 2009
We are the sixth international delegation that has come to Honduras since the coup d’état of June 28, 2009. We have come from Panama and the United States as people of faith – Catholic Christians -- to accompany the pain of the Honduran people and to understand more clearly the reality they are living. We represent the Justice Team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and Pax Christi International.
We have been in Honduras from August 18-25, visiting Tegucigalpa, Progreso, San Pedro Sula, Santa Rosa de Copan and Santa Barbara. What we have seen and heard here has broken our hearts and evoked in us deep concern.
It also has given us hope as we met with many sectors of Honduran society that demonstrate amazing courage and capacity to organize a diverse and strong popular resistance to the coup and subsequent repression. Clearly, Hondurans have enduring hope for a country that promotes the common good, justice and human rights.
We have heard first-hand from victims of horrific human rights violations inflicted by Honduran military and police forces upon ordinary people peacefully exercising basic rights guaranteed by the Honduran Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These abuses, including beatings, rape, harassment and intimidation, arbitrary arrest, disappearances and even death, have been well documented by the Honduran Human Rights organization, COFADEH, and in recent reports from Amnesty International and by the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission, also present in Honduras this week.
We are alarmed to see people and patterns of abuse re-emerging from the shadows of repression in earlier decades. Impunity in the past for criminals and violators of human rights has left Hondurans vulnerable to a painful repeat of history. Militarization, disinformation, extreme attempts to control the civilian population and a terrible polarization of the citizenry have far-reaching ramifications for a people yearning for a just end to poverty and exclusion.
We are distressed by the implications for the region and beyond of what we have seen in Honduras. We are convinced that the conflict here is not only about Mel Zelaya, although the return of the legitimate president to office is imperative, but about the abuse of political and military, and especially of economic, power. That does not bode well for the future of the hemisphere or for any country in the world where the basic rights of citizens to a decent life, to a healthy environment, and to participate in important decisions that affect their lives challenge the privileges and power of a few – be they individuals, institutions or business interests.
We are heartened by the strong response of the international community to events on June 28th. The United Nations, the Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union, and many individual countries around the world have denounced the coup and have taken strong measures to isolate the illegitimate government.
We are concerned, however, by what we believe is an inadequate public response of the U.S. government to the coup and to the ensuing repression. We were encouraged by the initial U.S. response, but, caught in the controversy over constitutional technicalities, subsequent actions were neither timely nor sufficiently strong.
We urge the U.S. government
- to be unequivocal and very public in denouncing the brutal human rights violations committed by Honduran military and police forces;
- to cancel diplomatic as well as tourist and business visas for a broader group of those implicated in orchestrating or leading the coup;
- to freeze the accounts in U.S. banks of these same coup leaders; and
- to follow the example of other nations by recalling Ambassador Llorens until the legitimate president of Honduras is restored to office.
Although the process hosted by Nobel laureate Oscar Arias may facilitate the return to Honduras of President Zelaya, long term peace will depend on ensuring that the poor and marginalized sectors of society be included in the economic and political life of the country.
One of our deepest preoccupations, however, is about the profound divisions in and animosity surrounding the vibrant Honduran Catholic community, when the rich resources of our faith tradition should be guiding the nation toward a just resolution to this intolerable situation.
We have heard from many people about the deep hurt, anger and loss of credibility occasioned by the July 3rd statement of the Honduran Bishops’ Conference. Despite our attempts, we were unable to secure a meeting with Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, SDB to hear his perspective on this and try to understand his words and actions that have created such an intense reaction from the Honduran people.
The Gospel and Catholic social teaching clearly articulate the values, principles and priorities that should offer a framework for the Church’s engagement with Honduran society at this painful moment. In particular, the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the distinguishing features of the Latin American and Caribbean church (Aparecida #391), and the virtue of solidarity should place the Church clearly on the side of Hondurans whose basic dignity is now being abused.
We met courageous priests, women religious and lay women and men who accompany people from all walks of life whose human rights are being violated. Many of these pastoral workers have been threatened and attacked as well. We had a long conversation with the bishop of Santa Rosa de Copan and heard clearly his commitment to the poor and his perspectives on the influence of economic interests in facilitating the coup. That analysis we heard repeated many times over in our visits throughout the country. We pray that the official Catholic Church in Honduras will listen with care to the pain of those who feel abandoned and assume a role of speaking out forcefully for an end to the pattern of intimidation and official abuse against those non-violently expressing their opposition to the coup.
We also urge the Catholic community worldwide and all people of good will to strengthen international solidarity with the Honduran people, accompanying those whose basic human rights are being violated, advocating for a just and enduring resolution to this crisis, and addressing the many ways in which international greed for minerals and markets, wealth, power and control provide fertile ground for the suffering in Honduras. Long-term peace and stability depend on ensuring that the poor and marginalized sectors of society be included in the economic and political life of the country.
We believe that Hondurans – including civil society, the Catholic Church and all communities of faith, the military and police, the private sector, organized labour, politicians, scholars, lawyers – can come together to create a just society and end the crisis they are now living. To move in that direction will require a return to legitimate government of and for ordinary people, an end to the abuse of power that characterizes the Honduras we have visited in these days and a deep commitment to honest and broadly participative dialogue across the differences that now divide Honduran society.
We commit ourselves to supporting this endeavour and to helping to animate action in solidarity with the people of Honduras in the international networks of religious communities and people of faith of which we are a part.
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas-Justice Team:
Sister Diane Guerin, Justice Minister, Mid-Atlantic Community
Sister Edie Lopez, Justice Minister, Central and South America Community
Jean Stokan, Director, Institute Justice Team
Marie Dennis, Co-President, Pax Christi International and Director, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
2009-0628-en-am-HR
We are the sixth international delegation that has come to Honduras since the coup d’état of June 28, 2009. We have come from Panama and the United States as people of faith – Catholic Christians -- to accompany the pain of the Honduran people and to understand more clearly the reality they are living. We represent the Justice Team of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, the Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns and Pax Christi International.
We have been in Honduras from August 18-25, visiting Tegucigalpa, Progreso, San Pedro Sula, Santa Rosa de Copan and Santa Barbara. What we have seen and heard here has broken our hearts and evoked in us deep concern.
It also has given us hope as we met with many sectors of Honduran society that demonstrate amazing courage and capacity to organize a diverse and strong popular resistance to the coup and subsequent repression. Clearly, Hondurans have enduring hope for a country that promotes the common good, justice and human rights.
We have heard first-hand from victims of horrific human rights violations inflicted by Honduran military and police forces upon ordinary people peacefully exercising basic rights guaranteed by the Honduran Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These abuses, including beatings, rape, harassment and intimidation, arbitrary arrest, disappearances and even death, have been well documented by the Honduran Human Rights organization, COFADEH, and in recent reports from Amnesty International and by the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission, also present in Honduras this week.
We are alarmed to see people and patterns of abuse re-emerging from the shadows of repression in earlier decades. Impunity in the past for criminals and violators of human rights has left Hondurans vulnerable to a painful repeat of history. Militarization, disinformation, extreme attempts to control the civilian population and a terrible polarization of the citizenry have far-reaching ramifications for a people yearning for a just end to poverty and exclusion.
We are distressed by the implications for the region and beyond of what we have seen in Honduras. We are convinced that the conflict here is not only about Mel Zelaya, although the return of the legitimate president to office is imperative, but about the abuse of political and military, and especially of economic, power. That does not bode well for the future of the hemisphere or for any country in the world where the basic rights of citizens to a decent life, to a healthy environment, and to participate in important decisions that affect their lives challenge the privileges and power of a few – be they individuals, institutions or business interests.
We are heartened by the strong response of the international community to events on June 28th. The United Nations, the Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union, and many individual countries around the world have denounced the coup and have taken strong measures to isolate the illegitimate government.
We are concerned, however, by what we believe is an inadequate public response of the U.S. government to the coup and to the ensuing repression. We were encouraged by the initial U.S. response, but, caught in the controversy over constitutional technicalities, subsequent actions were neither timely nor sufficiently strong.
We urge the U.S. government
- to be unequivocal and very public in denouncing the brutal human rights violations committed by Honduran military and police forces;
- to cancel diplomatic as well as tourist and business visas for a broader group of those implicated in orchestrating or leading the coup;
- to freeze the accounts in U.S. banks of these same coup leaders; and
- to follow the example of other nations by recalling Ambassador Llorens until the legitimate president of Honduras is restored to office.
Although the process hosted by Nobel laureate Oscar Arias may facilitate the return to Honduras of President Zelaya, long term peace will depend on ensuring that the poor and marginalized sectors of society be included in the economic and political life of the country.
One of our deepest preoccupations, however, is about the profound divisions in and animosity surrounding the vibrant Honduran Catholic community, when the rich resources of our faith tradition should be guiding the nation toward a just resolution to this intolerable situation.
We have heard from many people about the deep hurt, anger and loss of credibility occasioned by the July 3rd statement of the Honduran Bishops’ Conference. Despite our attempts, we were unable to secure a meeting with Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, SDB to hear his perspective on this and try to understand his words and actions that have created such an intense reaction from the Honduran people.
The Gospel and Catholic social teaching clearly articulate the values, principles and priorities that should offer a framework for the Church’s engagement with Honduran society at this painful moment. In particular, the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the distinguishing features of the Latin American and Caribbean church (Aparecida #391), and the virtue of solidarity should place the Church clearly on the side of Hondurans whose basic dignity is now being abused.
We met courageous priests, women religious and lay women and men who accompany people from all walks of life whose human rights are being violated. Many of these pastoral workers have been threatened and attacked as well. We had a long conversation with the bishop of Santa Rosa de Copan and heard clearly his commitment to the poor and his perspectives on the influence of economic interests in facilitating the coup. That analysis we heard repeated many times over in our visits throughout the country. We pray that the official Catholic Church in Honduras will listen with care to the pain of those who feel abandoned and assume a role of speaking out forcefully for an end to the pattern of intimidation and official abuse against those non-violently expressing their opposition to the coup.
We also urge the Catholic community worldwide and all people of good will to strengthen international solidarity with the Honduran people, accompanying those whose basic human rights are being violated, advocating for a just and enduring resolution to this crisis, and addressing the many ways in which international greed for minerals and markets, wealth, power and control provide fertile ground for the suffering in Honduras. Long-term peace and stability depend on ensuring that the poor and marginalized sectors of society be included in the economic and political life of the country.
We believe that Hondurans – including civil society, the Catholic Church and all communities of faith, the military and police, the private sector, organized labour, politicians, scholars, lawyers – can come together to create a just society and end the crisis they are now living. To move in that direction will require a return to legitimate government of and for ordinary people, an end to the abuse of power that characterizes the Honduras we have visited in these days and a deep commitment to honest and broadly participative dialogue across the differences that now divide Honduran society.
We commit ourselves to supporting this endeavour and to helping to animate action in solidarity with the people of Honduras in the international networks of religious communities and people of faith of which we are a part.
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas-Justice Team:
Sister Diane Guerin, Justice Minister, Mid-Atlantic Community
Sister Edie Lopez, Justice Minister, Central and South America Community
Jean Stokan, Director, Institute Justice Team
Marie Dennis, Co-President, Pax Christi International and Director, Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
2009-0628-en-am-HR
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
YOUTH PARLIAMENTARIANS DEBATE FOR PEACE AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE
MEDIA RELEASE
Acting Minister for Youth
The Hon. Linda Burney MP
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Around 100 young people from NSW have gathered at Parliament House today to debate peace in politics at the inaugural Youth Peace Parliament, said Acting Minister for Youth, Linda Burney.
Minister Burney officially opened the event that was organised by the Ministry for Peace, a non-profit organisation calling on the Australian Federal Government to establish a Department of Peace.
“Today’s marks the first time that the future generation of NSW have met at Parliament House to discuss the role of peace in democracy,” said Ms Burney.
“More than 90 young people were in attendance at the Youth Peace Parliament and they represented 23 schools from around NSW, including areas such as Broken Hill, Berrigan Shire, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga.
“The young people, from grades nine to 12, became members of parliament for the day, including splitting into political parties and electing leaders.
“Prior to the event, they studied how the parliamentary process worked so they could put what they learnt at school into practice at Parliament House,” said Ms Burney.
In addition to electing a leader, the young people elected a deputy leader and a party whip. They then held party meetings to decide on bills to put forward in Parliament. The three parties were named Blue Peace, White Peace and Aqua Peace.
“The Youth Peace Parliament was a great opportunity for young people to understand how parliament works, debate issues of concern to them, and understand how laws are passed in NSW,” said Ms Burney.
Ms Burney also presented 16 young people with Ministry for Peace ‘Youth Ambassador’ certificates.
“The Ministry for Peace now has 62 official youth ambassadors. They represent the ministry, and act as official ambassadors of peace in their schools and in their communities.
“The role of youth ambassador is an important responsibility, particularly leading up to and on the day of the United Nations’ International Day of Peace, celebrated annually on September 21.”
Ministry for Peace Chair, Biannca Pace, said the Youth Peace Parliament was an opportunity for young people to review parliamentary procedures and processes.
“By being part of Youth Peace Parliament at Parliament House, young people had first-hand experience of parliamentary processes.
…/MORE
…/2
“They provided feedback on how parliament can improve, which we will keep and present to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd next year, after the second Youth Peace Parliament.
“In addition, I gave out two awards to young people. The first was a ‘Peace Pioneer’ award given to the most original and applicable motion put forward. The second was the ‘Advocate of Peace’ award given to a young person who demonstrated passion and commitment to peace through their public speaking and actions throughout the day,” said Ms Pace.
Ms Burney said, “Youth Peace Parliament is a great program to engage young people in the state’s political system.
“I congratulate the Ministry for Peace for organising the event, and teachers and parents for supporting the program and actively educating young people on parliamentary processes.”
About the Ministry for Peace
The Ministry for Peace is a non-profit organisation part of a global initiative calling on world governments to establish Ministries and Departments of Peace worldwide. The Ministry believes the Australian Federal Government must support the peace initiatives of the United Nations, and urges Australians to write letters and place phone calls to Canberra, local members, State Government and local government to show support for the creation of a Department of Peace.
For more information, go to www.ministryforpeace.org.au
Media contact: Phyllis Sakinofsky 9228 4455 / 0406 164 034
Acting Minister for Youth
The Hon. Linda Burney MP
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Around 100 young people from NSW have gathered at Parliament House today to debate peace in politics at the inaugural Youth Peace Parliament, said Acting Minister for Youth, Linda Burney.
Minister Burney officially opened the event that was organised by the Ministry for Peace, a non-profit organisation calling on the Australian Federal Government to establish a Department of Peace.
“Today’s marks the first time that the future generation of NSW have met at Parliament House to discuss the role of peace in democracy,” said Ms Burney.
“More than 90 young people were in attendance at the Youth Peace Parliament and they represented 23 schools from around NSW, including areas such as Broken Hill, Berrigan Shire, Dubbo and Wagga Wagga.
“The young people, from grades nine to 12, became members of parliament for the day, including splitting into political parties and electing leaders.
“Prior to the event, they studied how the parliamentary process worked so they could put what they learnt at school into practice at Parliament House,” said Ms Burney.
In addition to electing a leader, the young people elected a deputy leader and a party whip. They then held party meetings to decide on bills to put forward in Parliament. The three parties were named Blue Peace, White Peace and Aqua Peace.
“The Youth Peace Parliament was a great opportunity for young people to understand how parliament works, debate issues of concern to them, and understand how laws are passed in NSW,” said Ms Burney.
Ms Burney also presented 16 young people with Ministry for Peace ‘Youth Ambassador’ certificates.
“The Ministry for Peace now has 62 official youth ambassadors. They represent the ministry, and act as official ambassadors of peace in their schools and in their communities.
“The role of youth ambassador is an important responsibility, particularly leading up to and on the day of the United Nations’ International Day of Peace, celebrated annually on September 21.”
Ministry for Peace Chair, Biannca Pace, said the Youth Peace Parliament was an opportunity for young people to review parliamentary procedures and processes.
“By being part of Youth Peace Parliament at Parliament House, young people had first-hand experience of parliamentary processes.
…/MORE
…/2
“They provided feedback on how parliament can improve, which we will keep and present to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd next year, after the second Youth Peace Parliament.
“In addition, I gave out two awards to young people. The first was a ‘Peace Pioneer’ award given to the most original and applicable motion put forward. The second was the ‘Advocate of Peace’ award given to a young person who demonstrated passion and commitment to peace through their public speaking and actions throughout the day,” said Ms Pace.
Ms Burney said, “Youth Peace Parliament is a great program to engage young people in the state’s political system.
“I congratulate the Ministry for Peace for organising the event, and teachers and parents for supporting the program and actively educating young people on parliamentary processes.”
About the Ministry for Peace
The Ministry for Peace is a non-profit organisation part of a global initiative calling on world governments to establish Ministries and Departments of Peace worldwide. The Ministry believes the Australian Federal Government must support the peace initiatives of the United Nations, and urges Australians to write letters and place phone calls to Canberra, local members, State Government and local government to show support for the creation of a Department of Peace.
For more information, go to www.ministryforpeace.org.au
Media contact: Phyllis Sakinofsky 9228 4455 / 0406 164 034
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Australian National Imams Council: Media Release
مجلس الأئمة الفدرالي الاسترالي
5th of August 2009
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) and the Muslim religious leaders it represents categorically denounce any form of terrorist activity on both Australian and overseas soil.
Like other Australian citizens we are equally astonished by the arrests of “alleged terrorists” in Victoria yesterday, and the Australian Muslim Community will support police investigations into these allegations as we are strongly against violence and vehemently discourage it.
The Muslim community is a law abiding active member of the Australian society. The Australian legal system is built on a presumption of innocence, which we are confident, will be upheld throughout this legal process.
In view of these serious allegations, and given that this matter is currently under police investigation and before the courts, we trust that the Police and other relevant authorities will perform its proper duties in this investigation so as to ensure that all aspects of the investigation is thorough and just.
We also appeal to all media outlets to exercise responsibility and diligence in their reporting and to respect the privacy of the families of those who are currently under investigation.
Thank you,
Imam Mohamad Nawas
Public Relations Officer
Contact details;
Phone No: 0433 924 197
Email:
info@anic.org.au
Kind Regards,
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC)
Ph: 1300 765 940
Fax: 1300 765 964
Email: info@anic.org.au
Web: www.anic.org.au
Postal Address: P. O. Box 145 , Lakemba NSW 2195 Australia
5th of August 2009
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) and the Muslim religious leaders it represents categorically denounce any form of terrorist activity on both Australian and overseas soil.
Like other Australian citizens we are equally astonished by the arrests of “alleged terrorists” in Victoria yesterday, and the Australian Muslim Community will support police investigations into these allegations as we are strongly against violence and vehemently discourage it.
The Muslim community is a law abiding active member of the Australian society. The Australian legal system is built on a presumption of innocence, which we are confident, will be upheld throughout this legal process.
In view of these serious allegations, and given that this matter is currently under police investigation and before the courts, we trust that the Police and other relevant authorities will perform its proper duties in this investigation so as to ensure that all aspects of the investigation is thorough and just.
We also appeal to all media outlets to exercise responsibility and diligence in their reporting and to respect the privacy of the families of those who are currently under investigation.
Thank you,
Imam Mohamad Nawas
Public Relations Officer
Contact details;
Phone No: 0433 924 197
Email:
info@anic.org.au
Kind Regards,
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC)
Ph: 1300 765 940
Fax: 1300 765 964
Email: info@anic.org.au
Web: www.anic.org.au
Postal Address: P. O. Box 145 , Lakemba NSW 2195 Australia
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Civilian Death Toll Soaring In Afghanistan
By James Cogan
WSWS.org August 3, 2009
A report issued late last month by the Human Rights Unit of the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) sheds light on the rising number of innocent Afghan men, women and children who are being killed in order for the US and its allies to consolidate their neo-colonial occupation of the country.
The UNAMA report contrasted the number of officially recorded civilian deaths for the first six months of 2009 with the number in previous years. From January 1 to June 30, it registered 1,013 civilian fatalities, ‘compared with 818 for the same period in 2008, and 684 in 2007’. In other words, as the Obama administration has escalated the war and sent thousands of additional troops and aircraft to Afghanistan, the number of civilian deaths has soared by 24 percent.
The military activities of both the Taliban-led insurgency, dubbed in the report ‘Anti Government Elements (AGEs), and the operations of the so-called Pro Government Forces (PGFs)—foreign troops and Afghan government security forces—contributed to the body count.
Insurgent roadside bombings and suicide bombings were blamed for 595 deaths or 59 percent of the casualties. In many cases, civilians were killed during attacks on occupation military targets. American and NATO forces drive convoys through residential areas and have established bases inside Afghan towns and villages in order to prevent them coming under the direct control of the Taliban.
Included in the number of civilian deaths caused by the insurgency are also a number of pro-occupation government officials and employees who were assassinated.
The occupation forces killed 310 of the civilian deaths recorded by UNAMA, or 30.5 percent. ‘Unknown’ or unconfirmed parties were held responsible for the remaining 108 fatalities, or 10.5 percent.
Air strikes were the main cause of fatalities inflicted by the US and allied forces. UNAMA recorded 40 air attacks that, combined, caused 200 deaths. In June alone, six air strikes killed 51 people, suggesting that the rate is climbing despite proclamations by American generals that greater care is being taken to avoid what the military still calls ‘collateral damage’.
UNAMA’s assessment of the impact of air strikes would be challenged by many in Afghanistan. The report accepted, for example, the official figure that 63 civilians died in the hours-long May 4 aerial assault on the village of Bala Baluk, in the western province of Farah. Locals continue to insist that the number who died was at least 144. It also accepted that the hundreds of alleged Taliban killed in remote areas of the country by air strikes were in fact combatants.
According to a tally compiled by Associated Press, American and NATO forces claimed to have killed more than 2,310 Taliban this year. In 2008, the tally was over 3,800. With the scale of fighting escalating, the new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, ordered occupation forces in mid-June to stop giving any estimates on alleged Taliban casualties.
The air strike figure also does not count the hundreds of men, women and children who have been killed this year by missile strikes launched from unmanned US Predator drones over the border in the tribal agencies of Pakistan. The anti-occupation insurgency is supported by the ethnic Pashtun population of the region. In retaliation, the US military is waging a systematic campaign of killings and terror against them.
On June 23, a single US attack on a funeral procession in South Waziristan killed over 80 people. In just two days in July, Predator strikes killed another 80.
Other civilian deaths that may not have been counted, or been falsely reported as Taliban fatalities, are those inflicted during the regular raids conducted by special forces’ units on the homes of suspected insurgent leaders, fighters or financiers.
The report noted: ‘Implementation of search and seizure operations (including night time raids) are also of concern, and there have been reports of a number of joint Afghan and international military forces operations in which excessive use of force has allegedly resulted in civilian deaths.’ Agencies such as UNAMA rarely have the ability to independently verify who, and how many, are killed in such actions.
Overall, the UNAMA report makes a pessimistic estimate of the situation facing the US-led occupation in Afghanistan. Far from Obama’s surge curbing Afghan resistance to the presence of foreign troops, the Taliban and other insurgents are gaining support and expanding the territory in which they operate.
UNAMA noted: ‘As the conflict has widened and deepened throughout 2007, 2008 and into 2009, almost a third of the country is now directly affected by insurgent activities with differing intensity. Armed conflict is particularly prevalent in the South, South-East, East, Central, and Western regions of the country. It is also spreading into areas formerly relatively tranquil, such as the North and North-East.’
The occupation forces, in response, are ‘attempting to quell the insurgency and responding to insurgent activity within civilian areas, [and] are also conducting more operations in areas where civilians reside. These factors have resulted in a rising toll in terms of civilian deaths and injuries and destruction of infrastructure, including homes and assets, which are essential for survival and the maintenance of livelihoods.’
The result will be greater numbers of Afghan civilians losing their lives, particularly in the continuing air strikes against alleged Taliban targets. On July 30, the Los Angeles Times reported that McChrystal had instructed that the Predator drones previously used for hunting for Al Qaeda leaders in remote mountainous areas of the country be focused instead on operations in ‘major insurgent strongholds’—i.e., areas with large civilian populations.
McChrystal has also requested that at least another dozen of the unmanned aircraft be dispatched from the US to Afghanistan. Central Command has further ordered the redeployment of U2 spy aircraft, combat engineer units, road-clearance teams and helicopters from Iraq to the burgeoning war in Afghanistan.
Underscoring again the fraudulent character of the ‘war against terrorism’, an unnamed official told the Los Angeles Times: ‘We might still be too focused on Bin Laden. We should probably reassess our priorities.’
McChrystal himself declared in a recent interview: ‘I don’t think there is enough focus on counter-insurgency. I am not in a position to criticise counter-terrorism, but at this point in the war, in Afghanistan, it is most important to focus on almost classic counter-insurgency.’
Far from being against terrorism, the war is against the Afghan people. The consequence of the rising death toll among both civilians and insurgents will be wider hostility toward the occupation forces and greater sympathy for the armed resistance to their presence.
At the same time, the surge is leading to a rise in US and NATO casualties. In July, foreign occupation forces in Afghanistan suffered their worst casualties of nearly eight years of war, with 75 losing their lives. In just the first two days of August, nine US and NATO troops have been killed—a rate as high as the worst days of fighting in Iraq.
The UNAMA report predicted that a sharp upsurge in violence would take place over the next several weeks, as the Obama administration and its allies attempted to hold a stage-managed presidential election in the country—including in areas controlled by the Taliban, where Afghan President Hamid Karzai is viewed with contempt.
WSWS.org August 3, 2009
A report issued late last month by the Human Rights Unit of the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan (UNAMA) sheds light on the rising number of innocent Afghan men, women and children who are being killed in order for the US and its allies to consolidate their neo-colonial occupation of the country.
The UNAMA report contrasted the number of officially recorded civilian deaths for the first six months of 2009 with the number in previous years. From January 1 to June 30, it registered 1,013 civilian fatalities, ‘compared with 818 for the same period in 2008, and 684 in 2007’. In other words, as the Obama administration has escalated the war and sent thousands of additional troops and aircraft to Afghanistan, the number of civilian deaths has soared by 24 percent.
The military activities of both the Taliban-led insurgency, dubbed in the report ‘Anti Government Elements (AGEs), and the operations of the so-called Pro Government Forces (PGFs)—foreign troops and Afghan government security forces—contributed to the body count.
Insurgent roadside bombings and suicide bombings were blamed for 595 deaths or 59 percent of the casualties. In many cases, civilians were killed during attacks on occupation military targets. American and NATO forces drive convoys through residential areas and have established bases inside Afghan towns and villages in order to prevent them coming under the direct control of the Taliban.
Included in the number of civilian deaths caused by the insurgency are also a number of pro-occupation government officials and employees who were assassinated.
The occupation forces killed 310 of the civilian deaths recorded by UNAMA, or 30.5 percent. ‘Unknown’ or unconfirmed parties were held responsible for the remaining 108 fatalities, or 10.5 percent.
Air strikes were the main cause of fatalities inflicted by the US and allied forces. UNAMA recorded 40 air attacks that, combined, caused 200 deaths. In June alone, six air strikes killed 51 people, suggesting that the rate is climbing despite proclamations by American generals that greater care is being taken to avoid what the military still calls ‘collateral damage’.
UNAMA’s assessment of the impact of air strikes would be challenged by many in Afghanistan. The report accepted, for example, the official figure that 63 civilians died in the hours-long May 4 aerial assault on the village of Bala Baluk, in the western province of Farah. Locals continue to insist that the number who died was at least 144. It also accepted that the hundreds of alleged Taliban killed in remote areas of the country by air strikes were in fact combatants.
According to a tally compiled by Associated Press, American and NATO forces claimed to have killed more than 2,310 Taliban this year. In 2008, the tally was over 3,800. With the scale of fighting escalating, the new commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, ordered occupation forces in mid-June to stop giving any estimates on alleged Taliban casualties.
The air strike figure also does not count the hundreds of men, women and children who have been killed this year by missile strikes launched from unmanned US Predator drones over the border in the tribal agencies of Pakistan. The anti-occupation insurgency is supported by the ethnic Pashtun population of the region. In retaliation, the US military is waging a systematic campaign of killings and terror against them.
On June 23, a single US attack on a funeral procession in South Waziristan killed over 80 people. In just two days in July, Predator strikes killed another 80.
Other civilian deaths that may not have been counted, or been falsely reported as Taliban fatalities, are those inflicted during the regular raids conducted by special forces’ units on the homes of suspected insurgent leaders, fighters or financiers.
The report noted: ‘Implementation of search and seizure operations (including night time raids) are also of concern, and there have been reports of a number of joint Afghan and international military forces operations in which excessive use of force has allegedly resulted in civilian deaths.’ Agencies such as UNAMA rarely have the ability to independently verify who, and how many, are killed in such actions.
Overall, the UNAMA report makes a pessimistic estimate of the situation facing the US-led occupation in Afghanistan. Far from Obama’s surge curbing Afghan resistance to the presence of foreign troops, the Taliban and other insurgents are gaining support and expanding the territory in which they operate.
UNAMA noted: ‘As the conflict has widened and deepened throughout 2007, 2008 and into 2009, almost a third of the country is now directly affected by insurgent activities with differing intensity. Armed conflict is particularly prevalent in the South, South-East, East, Central, and Western regions of the country. It is also spreading into areas formerly relatively tranquil, such as the North and North-East.’
The occupation forces, in response, are ‘attempting to quell the insurgency and responding to insurgent activity within civilian areas, [and] are also conducting more operations in areas where civilians reside. These factors have resulted in a rising toll in terms of civilian deaths and injuries and destruction of infrastructure, including homes and assets, which are essential for survival and the maintenance of livelihoods.’
The result will be greater numbers of Afghan civilians losing their lives, particularly in the continuing air strikes against alleged Taliban targets. On July 30, the Los Angeles Times reported that McChrystal had instructed that the Predator drones previously used for hunting for Al Qaeda leaders in remote mountainous areas of the country be focused instead on operations in ‘major insurgent strongholds’—i.e., areas with large civilian populations.
McChrystal has also requested that at least another dozen of the unmanned aircraft be dispatched from the US to Afghanistan. Central Command has further ordered the redeployment of U2 spy aircraft, combat engineer units, road-clearance teams and helicopters from Iraq to the burgeoning war in Afghanistan.
Underscoring again the fraudulent character of the ‘war against terrorism’, an unnamed official told the Los Angeles Times: ‘We might still be too focused on Bin Laden. We should probably reassess our priorities.’
McChrystal himself declared in a recent interview: ‘I don’t think there is enough focus on counter-insurgency. I am not in a position to criticise counter-terrorism, but at this point in the war, in Afghanistan, it is most important to focus on almost classic counter-insurgency.’
Far from being against terrorism, the war is against the Afghan people. The consequence of the rising death toll among both civilians and insurgents will be wider hostility toward the occupation forces and greater sympathy for the armed resistance to their presence.
At the same time, the surge is leading to a rise in US and NATO casualties. In July, foreign occupation forces in Afghanistan suffered their worst casualties of nearly eight years of war, with 75 losing their lives. In just the first two days of August, nine US and NATO troops have been killed—a rate as high as the worst days of fighting in Iraq.
The UNAMA report predicted that a sharp upsurge in violence would take place over the next several weeks, as the Obama administration and its allies attempted to hold a stage-managed presidential election in the country—including in areas controlled by the Taliban, where Afghan President Hamid Karzai is viewed with contempt.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
O'Brien's talk should re-energize church disarmament drive
Written by Dave Robinson Pax Christi USA Executive Director
In a bold move to reenergize the U.S. Catholic church’s decades-old quest for a nuclear weapons free world, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent an unlikely messenger [1] into the very heart of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex—Strategic Command’s (STRATCOM) Omaha headquarters.
The venue was the ‘2009 Deterrence Symposium’ organized by STRATCOM Commander General Kevin Chilton. STRATCOM oversees the operational end of the U.S. nuclear deterrent—thousands of nuclear bombs on missiles, bombers and submarines, poised on hair trigger alert, and capable of bringing cataclysmic destruction anywhere on the planet. The messenger was Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, a Vietnam Veteran and formerly the Archbishop of the Military Services.
O’Brien’s unique familiarity and credibility with the military signals the seriousness the U.S. Catholic church is bringing to the complex and urgent matter of nuclear disarmament.
The speech entitled, Nuclear Weapons and Moral Questions: The Path to Zero, was the concluding keynote of the first day of the Symposium, a gathering of the key civilian and military leaders charged with developing and implementing U.S. policy on the use and future of U.S. nuclear weapons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholics in Alliance adds its voice of praise for O'Brien speech
In a bold move to reenergize the U.S. Catholic church’s decades-old quest for a nuclear weapons free world, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent an unlikely messenger [1] into the very heart of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex—Strategic Command’s (STRATCOM) Omaha headquarters.
The venue was the ‘2009 Deterrence Symposium’ organized by STRATCOM Commander General Kevin Chilton. STRATCOM oversees the operational end of the U.S. nuclear deterrent—thousands of nuclear bombs on missiles, bombers and submarines, poised on hair trigger alert, and capable of bringing cataclysmic destruction anywhere on the planet. The messenger was Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, a Vietnam Veteran and formerly the Archbishop of the Military Services.
O’Brien’s unique familiarity and credibility with the military signals the seriousness the U.S. Catholic church is bringing to the complex and urgent matter of nuclear disarmament.
The speech entitled, Nuclear Weapons and Moral Questions: The Path to Zero, was the concluding keynote of the first day of the Symposium, a gathering of the key civilian and military leaders charged with developing and implementing U.S. policy on the use and future of U.S. nuclear weapons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catholics in Alliance adds its voice of praise for O'Brien speech
Monday, July 27, 2009
Last Two Activists Hand Themselves In at End of Exercises
MEDIA RELEASE:
You can call: Yulanji Bardon 0432036871 for further information
TWO ANTI WAR ACIVISTS remained for 11 days in the Shoalwater Military Exercise Area until last Sunday, officially the last day of the joint Australia-US exercises. The two, Yulanji Bardon and Emily Nielsen, turned themselves in to Range Control and were escorted from the premises by military police, under arrest for trespass.
The presence of Ms Bardon and Ms Nielsen and 5 other activists prevented the live fire phase of the exercises from being reinstated. They were able to meet their goal of staying till the end of the Talisman Sabre Exercises which represented the largest training in ‘interoperability’ between the US and Australia.
Emily Nielsen [19] said: "These exercises are not just a ten-day long game of laser tag as Brigadier Bob Brown and the media would have us believe. They represent Australia joining the United States in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan where thousands of civilians have been killed."
Ms Bardon and Ms Neilsen lived on rations and slept in a tent in the Western and southern sectors of the area while Jim Dowling and Culley Palmer had stayed in the Eastern area. Their presence posed a difficulty for the military who were forced to limit live firing and conduct a ‘quiet’ invasion. They dodged helicopters, military dogs and avoided thousands of military personnel refuting the idea of the ‘all-pervasive security state’.
"The ideas that the military offers protection and that terrorism can be overcome with military means are in glaring need of revision. " Ms Bardon said. "If two young women with a compass and limited ‘tactical experience’ can get away with sight-seeing in a military base over the course of eleven days without detection, there may need to be an inquiry into just how effective these training exercises actually are."
Yulanji and Emily entered the base on the 16th July with 5 other activists in two groups: the Jaegerstatter 3 and the Grana 4.
5 of the group have been arrested and subject to charges of trespass with notices to appear. Yulanji and Emily have bail conditions not to go near military installations.
Bryan Law has a notice to appear in court on 7th August. Mark Palmer has a notice to appear later in the month.
Jake Bolton appeared on Friday 24th pleaded guilty and was fined $200.
Jim Dowling and Culley Palmer were not arrested but walked out of the area on Thursday.
Another 4 Christian nonviolent activists, Margaret Pestorius, Jarrod Saul McKenna, Jessica Morrison and Simon Moyle [the Bonhoeffer 4], were fined $2500 in an earlier action to stop the exercises. They were discovered by men playing ‘insurgents’.
Call Yulanji Bardon 0432036871 for further information
For an overview of nonviolent actions held in relation to Talisman Sabre call:
Margaret Pestorius 0403214422, Bryan Law 0403049566
You can call: Yulanji Bardon 0432036871 for further information
TWO ANTI WAR ACIVISTS remained for 11 days in the Shoalwater Military Exercise Area until last Sunday, officially the last day of the joint Australia-US exercises. The two, Yulanji Bardon and Emily Nielsen, turned themselves in to Range Control and were escorted from the premises by military police, under arrest for trespass.
The presence of Ms Bardon and Ms Nielsen and 5 other activists prevented the live fire phase of the exercises from being reinstated. They were able to meet their goal of staying till the end of the Talisman Sabre Exercises which represented the largest training in ‘interoperability’ between the US and Australia.
Emily Nielsen [19] said: "These exercises are not just a ten-day long game of laser tag as Brigadier Bob Brown and the media would have us believe. They represent Australia joining the United States in the illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan where thousands of civilians have been killed."
Ms Bardon and Ms Neilsen lived on rations and slept in a tent in the Western and southern sectors of the area while Jim Dowling and Culley Palmer had stayed in the Eastern area. Their presence posed a difficulty for the military who were forced to limit live firing and conduct a ‘quiet’ invasion. They dodged helicopters, military dogs and avoided thousands of military personnel refuting the idea of the ‘all-pervasive security state’.
"The ideas that the military offers protection and that terrorism can be overcome with military means are in glaring need of revision. " Ms Bardon said. "If two young women with a compass and limited ‘tactical experience’ can get away with sight-seeing in a military base over the course of eleven days without detection, there may need to be an inquiry into just how effective these training exercises actually are."
Yulanji and Emily entered the base on the 16th July with 5 other activists in two groups: the Jaegerstatter 3 and the Grana 4.
5 of the group have been arrested and subject to charges of trespass with notices to appear. Yulanji and Emily have bail conditions not to go near military installations.
Bryan Law has a notice to appear in court on 7th August. Mark Palmer has a notice to appear later in the month.
Jake Bolton appeared on Friday 24th pleaded guilty and was fined $200.
Jim Dowling and Culley Palmer were not arrested but walked out of the area on Thursday.
Another 4 Christian nonviolent activists, Margaret Pestorius, Jarrod Saul McKenna, Jessica Morrison and Simon Moyle [the Bonhoeffer 4], were fined $2500 in an earlier action to stop the exercises. They were discovered by men playing ‘insurgents’.
Call Yulanji Bardon 0432036871 for further information
For an overview of nonviolent actions held in relation to Talisman Sabre call:
Margaret Pestorius 0403214422, Bryan Law 0403049566
Monday, June 22, 2009
A Moral Choice: Divesting from the Israeli Occupation
Moral choice
Resources on selective divestment
Jewish Voice for Peace statement on selective divestment
Jewish Voice for Peace informational booklet on divesting from the occupation
Survey of economic engagement to end the Israeli occupation
United Methodist Church and divestment
Presbyterian Church USA and divestment
Caterpillar and corporate accountability
Jews and allies speak up for selective divestment
Statement of support from Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions
Contact us to request more information
In the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, four million Palestinians live under military occupation. The Israeli government retains control over Palestinian land and lives but refuses to grant Palestinians equal rights under the law. For most Palestinians, most of the time, there is no recourse to stop injustice. Most Palestinians live in fear.
Though Israel has a right and duty to defend itself, occupying the Palestinian people by force has brought Israelis neither peace nor security. Instead, it has eroded Israeli civil society, causing a rise in post-traumatic stress disorder amongst Israeli soldiers and an increase in violence against women.
You can help end this.
Several Christian denominations have taken brave steps to ensure that their church investments are not funding injustice in Israel/Palestine. This year, the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church USA will vote on resolutions dealing with divesting from the Israeli occupation.
No body in either church has advocated for divesting from Israel. Rather, resolutions are on the table to divest from corporations, mostly multinational, that profit the Israeli occupation.
You can join us.
We welcome you to browse through the resources here, to familiarize yourself with the issues, and to get in touch with us if you have any questions. We welcome you to become a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. We count on our allies to support us and hope you will join us by clicking here.
Jewish Voice for Peace is asking you to make a moral decision during difficult times. Someone has to stand-up and speak against injustice. You are the prophetic voice.
In Peace,
Sydney Levy
Director of Campaigns
Resources on selective divestment
Jewish Voice for Peace statement on selective divestment
Jewish Voice for Peace informational booklet on divesting from the occupation
Survey of economic engagement to end the Israeli occupation
United Methodist Church and divestment
Presbyterian Church USA and divestment
Caterpillar and corporate accountability
Jews and allies speak up for selective divestment
Statement of support from Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions
Contact us to request more information
In the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, four million Palestinians live under military occupation. The Israeli government retains control over Palestinian land and lives but refuses to grant Palestinians equal rights under the law. For most Palestinians, most of the time, there is no recourse to stop injustice. Most Palestinians live in fear.
Though Israel has a right and duty to defend itself, occupying the Palestinian people by force has brought Israelis neither peace nor security. Instead, it has eroded Israeli civil society, causing a rise in post-traumatic stress disorder amongst Israeli soldiers and an increase in violence against women.
You can help end this.
Several Christian denominations have taken brave steps to ensure that their church investments are not funding injustice in Israel/Palestine. This year, the United Methodist Church and Presbyterian Church USA will vote on resolutions dealing with divesting from the Israeli occupation.
No body in either church has advocated for divesting from Israel. Rather, resolutions are on the table to divest from corporations, mostly multinational, that profit the Israeli occupation.
You can join us.
We welcome you to browse through the resources here, to familiarize yourself with the issues, and to get in touch with us if you have any questions. We welcome you to become a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. We count on our allies to support us and hope you will join us by clicking here.
Jewish Voice for Peace is asking you to make a moral decision during difficult times. Someone has to stand-up and speak against injustice. You are the prophetic voice.
In Peace,
Sydney Levy
Director of Campaigns
Saturday, May 23, 2009
The Spiritual Journey of Nonviolence
Pace e Bene eNews
May 21, 2009
The Spiritual Journey of Nonviolence
Pace e Bene Australia Associate Brendan McKeague was recently a featured speaker at the Australian Ecumenical Spirit Directors Conference.
His theme was: "My Experience of the Holy through Nonviolence."
Click here to read this powerful talk
May 21, 2009
The Spiritual Journey of Nonviolence
Pace e Bene Australia Associate Brendan McKeague was recently a featured speaker at the Australian Ecumenical Spirit Directors Conference.
His theme was: "My Experience of the Holy through Nonviolence."
Click here to read this powerful talk
Join the RESPECT campaign _Sign the pledge
ANTaR has launched a new campaign, calling on all Australians to commit to a new partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians based on mutual respect.
Find out more
Sign the pledge
Find out more
Sign the pledge
Sunday, April 12, 2009
JOIN THE GLOBAL FAMILY AGAINST WAR
The purpose of this website is to obtain enough signatures to present a petition to the United Nations urging all countries to relegate war to history, where it belongs.
The site outlines in a logical, succinct manner, alternatives to war as a way of solving differences between nations, and also how we can eliminate civil wars, terrorism, poverty and stop existing wars.
In support of my argument you will find quotes from highly esteemed past leaders like George Washington, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Dwight Eisenhower, Albert Einstein, John F Kennedy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Confucius, Anwar Sadat, Franklin D Roosevelt, Pope John II, Abraham Lincoln and many others.
Through the power of the people and for the benefit of all inhabitants of our planet, together we can eliminate war forever, so:
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE SITE.
Dave Elborn.
The site outlines in a logical, succinct manner, alternatives to war as a way of solving differences between nations, and also how we can eliminate civil wars, terrorism, poverty and stop existing wars.
In support of my argument you will find quotes from highly esteemed past leaders like George Washington, Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi, Dwight Eisenhower, Albert Einstein, John F Kennedy, Mikhail Gorbachev, Confucius, Anwar Sadat, Franklin D Roosevelt, Pope John II, Abraham Lincoln and many others.
Through the power of the people and for the benefit of all inhabitants of our planet, together we can eliminate war forever, so:
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE SITE.
Dave Elborn.
Friday, April 10, 2009
STOP TALISMAN SABRE NO WAR GAMES
The Australian Government is hosting Talisman Sabre, a huge US-Australian military exercise in July.
We oppose these war games because
· They are held on land which belongs to the Aboriginal people.
· They are designed to practice aggression and offensive military
strategies, not to defend Australia or protect its people.
· They are intended to train Australian military personnel to take US
military orders – the so-called “seamless interoperability”.
· The exercises will cost well over $100 million, an obscene amount in these
times of economic recession and on top of the $62 million spent every
single day by the government on the military.
· They will cause serious environmental damage in a beautiful area near the
irreplaceable Great Barrier Reef.
JOIN THE PEACE CONVERGENCE
Rockhampton – Yeppoon
July 10 – 13
Travel:
Tickets on the Sydney Bus cost $280 per person return. One way tickets are not available.
The Sydney bus is being organised as part of the Peace and Activism training course at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. For details of this and the travel itinerary, please see the reverse side of the leaflet. Participants in the course have first preference for seats on the bus.
Thursday July 9 leave Sydney 7 am; arrive Brisbane 11 pm approx.
Friday July 10 leave Brisbane 8 am; arrive Rockhampton 5pm
Set up camp. Public meeting in Rockhampton
Saturday July 11 Sydney group meeting 9 am
March and beach front rally in Yeppoon
Sunday July 12 Peace Convergence activities in Rockhampton
Monday July 13 depart campsite 10 am
Tuesday July 14 arrive Sydney 11 am approx
Accommodation:
The Council camping site where almost all the activists will stay has toilets, showers, a small shop and some other facilities.
Camping: camping sites cost $20 per night – a total of $60 for the 3 nights.
Cabins: A limited number of cabins are available at the site. They contain one double bed and three bunk beds and cost $65 for 2 people plus $10 for each extra person per night. If five people are sharing, the 3 nights will therefore cost each person $57.
For travel and accommodation bookings, please contact
Dr Hannah Middleton on (02) 9351 4468 or 0418 668 098
Bookings must be made by the end of April
We oppose these war games because
· They are held on land which belongs to the Aboriginal people.
· They are designed to practice aggression and offensive military
strategies, not to defend Australia or protect its people.
· They are intended to train Australian military personnel to take US
military orders – the so-called “seamless interoperability”.
· The exercises will cost well over $100 million, an obscene amount in these
times of economic recession and on top of the $62 million spent every
single day by the government on the military.
· They will cause serious environmental damage in a beautiful area near the
irreplaceable Great Barrier Reef.
JOIN THE PEACE CONVERGENCE
Rockhampton – Yeppoon
July 10 – 13
Travel:
Tickets on the Sydney Bus cost $280 per person return. One way tickets are not available.
The Sydney bus is being organised as part of the Peace and Activism training course at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. For details of this and the travel itinerary, please see the reverse side of the leaflet. Participants in the course have first preference for seats on the bus.
Thursday July 9 leave Sydney 7 am; arrive Brisbane 11 pm approx.
Friday July 10 leave Brisbane 8 am; arrive Rockhampton 5pm
Set up camp. Public meeting in Rockhampton
Saturday July 11 Sydney group meeting 9 am
March and beach front rally in Yeppoon
Sunday July 12 Peace Convergence activities in Rockhampton
Monday July 13 depart campsite 10 am
Tuesday July 14 arrive Sydney 11 am approx
Accommodation:
The Council camping site where almost all the activists will stay has toilets, showers, a small shop and some other facilities.
Camping: camping sites cost $20 per night – a total of $60 for the 3 nights.
Cabins: A limited number of cabins are available at the site. They contain one double bed and three bunk beds and cost $65 for 2 people plus $10 for each extra person per night. If five people are sharing, the 3 nights will therefore cost each person $57.
For travel and accommodation bookings, please contact
Dr Hannah Middleton on (02) 9351 4468 or 0418 668 098
Bookings must be made by the end of April
Monday, April 6, 2009
Speech by Obama in Prague
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama -- As Prepared for Delivery
Hradcany Square
Prague Czech Republic
April 5 2009
Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. And thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. Today, I am proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. And - to paraphrase one my predecessors - I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague.
I have learned over many years to appreciate the good company and good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people - Tomas Masaryk.
In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don't think I can match Masaryk's record, but I'm honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague.
For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place.
You have known war and peace. You have seen empires rise and fall. You have led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city - this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful - stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit.
When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become an American President. Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. And few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, and a leader of a united Europe.
Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams.
We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.
We are here today because of the courage of those who stood up - and took risks - to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like.
We are here today because of the Prague Spring - because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of the people.
We are here today because twenty years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied to them for far too long.
Sametová revoluce - the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundation of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.
That is why I am speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free - because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged; that walls could come down; and that peace could prevail.
We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible.
We share this common history. But now this generation - our generation - cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided it has become more inter-connected.
And we have seen events move faster than our ability to control them - a global economy in crisis; a changing climate; the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons.
None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not our occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive
us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin.
To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week.
To protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead.
To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded sixty years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we stood shoulder to shoulder - year after year, decade after decade - until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water.
This marks the tenth year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. We are bound by shared values, shared history, and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article 5 states it clearly: an attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.
The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked, thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future.
We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security.
And I want you to know that we Americans honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you have lost.
No alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern.
One of those issues that I will focus on today is fundamental to our nations, and to the peace and security of the world - the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that had existed for centuries would have ceased to exist.
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.
More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point when the center cannot hold.
This matters to all people, everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city - be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague - could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences may be - for our global safety, security, society, economy, and ultimately our survival.
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked - that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. This fatalism is a deadly adversary. For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power - as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime.
It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.
First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.
To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding, and sufficiently bold. This will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my Administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons grade materials that create them.
Second, together, we will strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.
To strengthen the Treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the Treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation.
That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. No approach will succeed if it is based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance opportunity for all people.
We go forward with no illusions. Some will break the rules, but that is why we need a structure in place that ensures that when any nation does, they will face consequences. This morning, we were reminded again why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long range missile.
This provocation underscores the need for action - not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response. North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. And all nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. And my Administration will seek engagement with Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect, and we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
Let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.
Finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon.
This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with a nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said that it seeks a bomb. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
Today, I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, and pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year.
I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given the inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve.
But make no mistake: we know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy and cowardly thing. That is how wars begin. That is where human progress ends.
There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart, but by standing together as free nations, as free people. I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together.
Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution. Those were the Czechs who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot.
Human destiny will be what we make of it. Here, in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, and accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. Thank you.
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 5 2009
Speech issued from the White House
Remarks of President Barack Obama -- As Prepared for Delivery
Hradcany Square
Prague Czech Republic
April 5 2009
Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. And thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. Today, I am proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. And - to paraphrase one my predecessors - I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague.
I have learned over many years to appreciate the good company and good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people - Tomas Masaryk.
In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don't think I can match Masaryk's record, but I'm honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague.
For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place.
You have known war and peace. You have seen empires rise and fall. You have led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city - this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful - stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit.
When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become an American President. Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. And few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, and a leader of a united Europe.
Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams.
We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.
We are here today because of the courage of those who stood up - and took risks - to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like.
We are here today because of the Prague Spring - because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of the people.
We are here today because twenty years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied to them for far too long.
Sametová revoluce - the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundation of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.
That is why I am speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free - because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged; that walls could come down; and that peace could prevail.
We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible.
We share this common history. But now this generation - our generation - cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided it has become more inter-connected.
And we have seen events move faster than our ability to control them - a global economy in crisis; a changing climate; the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons.
None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not our occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive
us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin.
To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week.
To protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead.
To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded sixty years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we stood shoulder to shoulder - year after year, decade after decade - until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water.
This marks the tenth year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. We are bound by shared values, shared history, and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article 5 states it clearly: an attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.
The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked, thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future.
We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security.
And I want you to know that we Americans honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you have lost.
No alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern.
One of those issues that I will focus on today is fundamental to our nations, and to the peace and security of the world - the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that had existed for centuries would have ceased to exist.
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.
More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point when the center cannot hold.
This matters to all people, everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city - be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague - could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences may be - for our global safety, security, society, economy, and ultimately our survival.
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be checked - that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. This fatalism is a deadly adversary. For if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st. And as a nuclear power - as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon - the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. This goal will not be reached quickly - perhaps not in my lifetime.
It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.
First, the United States will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons.
To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: as long as these weapons exist, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies - including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding, and sufficiently bold. This will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my Administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons grade materials that create them.
Second, together, we will strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy.
To strengthen the Treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the Treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation.
That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. No approach will succeed if it is based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance opportunity for all people.
We go forward with no illusions. Some will break the rules, but that is why we need a structure in place that ensures that when any nation does, they will face consequences. This morning, we were reminded again why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once more by testing a rocket that could be used for a long range missile.
This provocation underscores the need for action - not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response. North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. And all nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. And my Administration will seek engagement with Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect, and we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
Let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we intend to go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe at this time will be removed.
Finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon.
This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with a nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said that it seeks a bomb. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
Today, I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, and pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year.
I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given the inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve.
But make no mistake: we know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy and cowardly thing. That is how wars begin. That is where human progress ends.
There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart, but by standing together as free nations, as free people. I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together.
Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution. Those were the Czechs who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot.
Human destiny will be what we make of it. Here, in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, and accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. Thank you.
Friday, April 3, 2009
PALM SUNDAY Rally for Peace Parramatta, 2.00 pm
Amphitheatre at Parramatta Town Hall
2.00pm - Multi-Faith Prayers for Peace
Fr Pat Mullins, priest at Mt Druitt; Exodus Choir
2.30pm - Rally - Dr Sue Wareham, Medical Association for Prevention of War
Sally McManus, Australian Services Union
Sponsored by NSW Ecumenical Council
Organised by Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition
Contact: Bruce Childs 0412 803 457; Fr Claude Mostowik 0411 450 953; Peter Murphy 0418 312 301
No more Australian troops to Afghanistan!
Peace through Dialogue!
Prime Minister Rudd is poised to send up to 5,000 more soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration is delaying a formal request while public opinion is being gauged in Australia. Over 50 per cent of Australians now oppose the war in Afghanistan. The government needs to answer many questions before possibly increasing its military role there.
The war in Afghanistan is part of a much larger region greatly destablised by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent horrific war there. It is also destablised by the convulsion of the Government of Pakistan, also due largely to the huge mistakes of the Bush administration. China, Russia, Iran and India, as well as Pakistan, are neighbours of Afghanistan. All of them, with different interests, will try to influence events in Afghanistan. It appears that the Obama administration is now willing to talk to them about Afghanistan.
Questions that must be answered:
1. If an increase of Australian forces in Oruzgan Province is to replace the Dutch forces withdrawing in 2010, shouldn’t the Prime Minister tell us why the Dutch troops are going, before replacing them?
2. If European members of NATO are unwilling to increase the number of combat troops in Afghanistan, why should Australia do so?
3. Isn’t it true that the Karzai government is negotiating with parts of the Taliban, as is the UK and UN, because they recognize that the war is not working and that a political solution is required?
4. Since neither the British Army nor the Soviet Army could prevail in Afghanistan, shouldn’t the Prime Minister recognize that the US and Australian forces cannot prevail in this military conflict either? Isn’t it more responsible to refuse to go in deeper, to withdraw military forces and promote a political solution?
5. Isn’t the war in Afghanistan degrading Australia’s credibility as a genuine part of the international community, upholding international law, because Australian soldiers are killing civilians including women and children, only to support the general concept of the US Alliance?
6. Since the Bush gang - and the incoming Obama administration - could not define a credible, justifiable strategy for the Afghanistan War, how can Australia justify it? It is no longer credible to claim that the war is to capture Osama bin Laden because of the terror attacks in the USA way back on Sept 11, 2001.
7. While the Taliban is a reactionary political movement which commits atrocities against civilians, isn’t the US aerial bombing – particularly of wedding and funeral processions – killing even more civilians?
8. Isn’t it true that the Taliban are thriving because European Christian troops are taking control of their country? Doesn’t the high civilian casualties only make the Taliban stronger, and destablise Pakistan and India?
9. Isn’t it accurate to see the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai as a coalition of warlords who also engage in repression, discriminate against women, and are now the world leaders in heroin exports?
10. Wasn’t the Howard policy in Afghanistan part of his subservience to the George W Bush version of US interests? Shouldn’t Australia have an independent approach to foreign policy, even within the US Alliance, especially in the Afghanistan War where Australian soldiers are being killed and wounded?
11. Won’t the outcome in Afghanistan be similar to Viet Nam - another cohort of young Australian men and women with their lives brutalized for nothing, and brutalised communities who call Oruzgan Province ‘home’?
12. Isn’t Australia’s Afghanistan War commitment now costing $575 million per year? Wouldn’t this be better spent on essential public services, the uplift of Aboriginal communities, and on a peaceful Afghanistan?
Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition
Sponsored by: UnionsNSW, Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union NSW, Aust Manufacturing Workers Union NSW, NSW Teachers Fed, Australian Services Union, Pax Christi, MSC - Peace & Justice, Quakers Peace & Justice, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW, Progressive Labour Party, Labor for Refugees, Communist Party of Australia (Marxist Leninist), Evatt Foundation, SEARCH Foundation.
Palm Sunday rally for peace April 5 2009
www.search.org.au
Level 3, 110 Kippax St, Surry Hills, 2010
Ph: 02 9211 4164 Fax: 02 9211 1407
ABN 63 050 096 976
Promoting Democracy, Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability
2.00pm - Multi-Faith Prayers for Peace
Fr Pat Mullins, priest at Mt Druitt; Exodus Choir
2.30pm - Rally - Dr Sue Wareham, Medical Association for Prevention of War
Sally McManus, Australian Services Union
Sponsored by NSW Ecumenical Council
Organised by Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition
Contact: Bruce Childs 0412 803 457; Fr Claude Mostowik 0411 450 953; Peter Murphy 0418 312 301
No more Australian troops to Afghanistan!
Peace through Dialogue!
Prime Minister Rudd is poised to send up to 5,000 more soldiers to fight in Afghanistan. The Obama Administration is delaying a formal request while public opinion is being gauged in Australia. Over 50 per cent of Australians now oppose the war in Afghanistan. The government needs to answer many questions before possibly increasing its military role there.
The war in Afghanistan is part of a much larger region greatly destablised by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent horrific war there. It is also destablised by the convulsion of the Government of Pakistan, also due largely to the huge mistakes of the Bush administration. China, Russia, Iran and India, as well as Pakistan, are neighbours of Afghanistan. All of them, with different interests, will try to influence events in Afghanistan. It appears that the Obama administration is now willing to talk to them about Afghanistan.
Questions that must be answered:
1. If an increase of Australian forces in Oruzgan Province is to replace the Dutch forces withdrawing in 2010, shouldn’t the Prime Minister tell us why the Dutch troops are going, before replacing them?
2. If European members of NATO are unwilling to increase the number of combat troops in Afghanistan, why should Australia do so?
3. Isn’t it true that the Karzai government is negotiating with parts of the Taliban, as is the UK and UN, because they recognize that the war is not working and that a political solution is required?
4. Since neither the British Army nor the Soviet Army could prevail in Afghanistan, shouldn’t the Prime Minister recognize that the US and Australian forces cannot prevail in this military conflict either? Isn’t it more responsible to refuse to go in deeper, to withdraw military forces and promote a political solution?
5. Isn’t the war in Afghanistan degrading Australia’s credibility as a genuine part of the international community, upholding international law, because Australian soldiers are killing civilians including women and children, only to support the general concept of the US Alliance?
6. Since the Bush gang - and the incoming Obama administration - could not define a credible, justifiable strategy for the Afghanistan War, how can Australia justify it? It is no longer credible to claim that the war is to capture Osama bin Laden because of the terror attacks in the USA way back on Sept 11, 2001.
7. While the Taliban is a reactionary political movement which commits atrocities against civilians, isn’t the US aerial bombing – particularly of wedding and funeral processions – killing even more civilians?
8. Isn’t it true that the Taliban are thriving because European Christian troops are taking control of their country? Doesn’t the high civilian casualties only make the Taliban stronger, and destablise Pakistan and India?
9. Isn’t it accurate to see the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai as a coalition of warlords who also engage in repression, discriminate against women, and are now the world leaders in heroin exports?
10. Wasn’t the Howard policy in Afghanistan part of his subservience to the George W Bush version of US interests? Shouldn’t Australia have an independent approach to foreign policy, even within the US Alliance, especially in the Afghanistan War where Australian soldiers are being killed and wounded?
11. Won’t the outcome in Afghanistan be similar to Viet Nam - another cohort of young Australian men and women with their lives brutalized for nothing, and brutalised communities who call Oruzgan Province ‘home’?
12. Isn’t Australia’s Afghanistan War commitment now costing $575 million per year? Wouldn’t this be better spent on essential public services, the uplift of Aboriginal communities, and on a peaceful Afghanistan?
Sydney Peace & Justice Coalition
Sponsored by: UnionsNSW, Construction Forestry Mining & Energy Union NSW, Aust Manufacturing Workers Union NSW, NSW Teachers Fed, Australian Services Union, Pax Christi, MSC - Peace & Justice, Quakers Peace & Justice, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, People for Nuclear Disarmament NSW, Progressive Labour Party, Labor for Refugees, Communist Party of Australia (Marxist Leninist), Evatt Foundation, SEARCH Foundation.
Palm Sunday rally for peace April 5 2009
www.search.org.au
Level 3, 110 Kippax St, Surry Hills, 2010
Ph: 02 9211 4164 Fax: 02 9211 1407
ABN 63 050 096 976
Promoting Democracy, Social Justice and Environmental Sustainability
Monday, March 30, 2009
Poll finds 51% oppose role in Afghanistan
Tony Wright
The Age, March 30, 2009
AUSTRALIA'S involvement in the war in Afghanistan is increasingly unpopular, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd backing at the weekend a larger role for military trainers in the conflict.
The latest Age/Nielsen poll has found 51 per cent of voters oppose Australia's current involvement. Two-thirds of voters oppose any increase in the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan.
The findings follow Mr Rudd's enthusiastic response in the US to President Barack Obama's revamped strategy to try to win the war.
The strategy — an integrated approach of increased military effort, training of Afghan security forces and civil aid —was described by Mr Rudd as "absolutely right".
Although he insisted there had been no direct request from the US for more Australian forces during his visit to Washington, his support for the renewed American effort was interpreted as flagging the likelihood that Australia would increase its troop commitment.
Mr Rudd admitted during a TV interview in the US last week that the war in Afghanistan did not have broad voter support in Australia.
Today's poll confirms that opposition is increasing. In February 2006, an Age/Nielsen poll found that 48 per cent of Australians opposed the war, while 45 per cent supported it. Support has now slipped to 44 per cent, and opposition is the majority position. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, a Nielsen poll in October 2001 revealed 70 per cent support for the war on terrorism, though Afghanistan was not specifically named in the question.
The Age, March 30, 2009
AUSTRALIA'S involvement in the war in Afghanistan is increasingly unpopular, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd backing at the weekend a larger role for military trainers in the conflict.
The latest Age/Nielsen poll has found 51 per cent of voters oppose Australia's current involvement. Two-thirds of voters oppose any increase in the number of Australian troops in Afghanistan.
The findings follow Mr Rudd's enthusiastic response in the US to President Barack Obama's revamped strategy to try to win the war.
The strategy — an integrated approach of increased military effort, training of Afghan security forces and civil aid —was described by Mr Rudd as "absolutely right".
Although he insisted there had been no direct request from the US for more Australian forces during his visit to Washington, his support for the renewed American effort was interpreted as flagging the likelihood that Australia would increase its troop commitment.
Mr Rudd admitted during a TV interview in the US last week that the war in Afghanistan did not have broad voter support in Australia.
Today's poll confirms that opposition is increasing. In February 2006, an Age/Nielsen poll found that 48 per cent of Australians opposed the war, while 45 per cent supported it. Support has now slipped to 44 per cent, and opposition is the majority position. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US, a Nielsen poll in October 2001 revealed 70 per cent support for the war on terrorism, though Afghanistan was not specifically named in the question.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Plight of Tamil Civilians: NO CHANGE
By Chandi Sinnathurai
Countercurrents.org March 20, 2009
There is no famine of view points or opinions on this Sri Lankan dirty war on Tamil civilians. Much ink has been spilt, and inch columns have been filled by various journalists and writers. So much have been spoken by politicians, protests by activists, government and non-Governmental agencies both local and foreign. But, one thing is constant: All of these have failed to change either the mind of the Sri Lankan state or the plight of the Tamil civilians in the North.
The international community on the other hand mooted the idea of an humanitarian intervention. The grand plan was to ‘evacuate’ the civilians (around 200,000) from the Tiger pocket (35 sq km) of land. In other words, to deplete the Tigers of the so-called ‘civilian shield.’ Nothing seem to have materialised.
Tamil Tigers have repeatedly called for a ceasefire in order to kick-start negotiations. The SL Government has categorically rejected that appeal. For both India and Sri Lanka they want the Tigers disarmed. That might be the position of the international community including the UN.
In the Vanni region, there are over 330,000 Internally Displaced People without proper medical care, shelter, food, water and other necessary items.
BBC News* reported yesterday (19/03/09):
‘In addition to the war-related casualties, the lack of food, water and medical supplies left a number of children dead from acute respiratory infection and diarrhoea in the final two weeks of February,’ says James Elder, the spokesperson for Unicef, the UN children's agency.
According to BBC, Annemarie Loof, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) head in Sri Lanka, is quoted to have said:
‘MSF doctors came across a mother who lived with her child inside a bunker for four months - another woman had lost her two children in the fighting, then her husband went missing after losing a leg and a hand in an artillery attack.’
The fundamental cause of civilian suffering, according to aid workers, is owing to ‘the denial of freedom of movement for people trapped…’ *MSF pointed out that, both parties need to prioritise civilian safety.
The sad fact is, the war is continuing, and daily helpless civilians are dying.
BBC News Article Civilian Misery in Northern Sri Lanka
Countercurrents.org March 20, 2009
There is no famine of view points or opinions on this Sri Lankan dirty war on Tamil civilians. Much ink has been spilt, and inch columns have been filled by various journalists and writers. So much have been spoken by politicians, protests by activists, government and non-Governmental agencies both local and foreign. But, one thing is constant: All of these have failed to change either the mind of the Sri Lankan state or the plight of the Tamil civilians in the North.
The international community on the other hand mooted the idea of an humanitarian intervention. The grand plan was to ‘evacuate’ the civilians (around 200,000) from the Tiger pocket (35 sq km) of land. In other words, to deplete the Tigers of the so-called ‘civilian shield.’ Nothing seem to have materialised.
Tamil Tigers have repeatedly called for a ceasefire in order to kick-start negotiations. The SL Government has categorically rejected that appeal. For both India and Sri Lanka they want the Tigers disarmed. That might be the position of the international community including the UN.
In the Vanni region, there are over 330,000 Internally Displaced People without proper medical care, shelter, food, water and other necessary items.
BBC News* reported yesterday (19/03/09):
‘In addition to the war-related casualties, the lack of food, water and medical supplies left a number of children dead from acute respiratory infection and diarrhoea in the final two weeks of February,’ says James Elder, the spokesperson for Unicef, the UN children's agency.
According to BBC, Annemarie Loof, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) head in Sri Lanka, is quoted to have said:
‘MSF doctors came across a mother who lived with her child inside a bunker for four months - another woman had lost her two children in the fighting, then her husband went missing after losing a leg and a hand in an artillery attack.’
The fundamental cause of civilian suffering, according to aid workers, is owing to ‘the denial of freedom of movement for people trapped…’ *MSF pointed out that, both parties need to prioritise civilian safety.
The sad fact is, the war is continuing, and daily helpless civilians are dying.
BBC News Article Civilian Misery in Northern Sri Lanka
Monday, February 23, 2009
Inaugural lecture with Pat Dodson Wednesday March 4 2009
Caritas Austraia's Project Compassion
Starts: 6:30pm, Wednesday March 4 2009
Where: St Benedicts Hall, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney - Corner Broadway and Abercrombie St, Broadway, Sydney
Who: Dr Patrick Dodson, Mr Jack de Groot CEO, Caritas Australia
The largest aid and development fundraiser in Australia, Caritas Australia’s 2009 Project Compassion is launching its inaugural lecture with Caritas Australia partner Dr Patrick Dodson of the Lingiari Foundation. Following last year’s landmark apology from the Australian PM, acclaimed Indigenous leader and justice advocate Dr Dodson, will provide a road map on where to now for reconciliation.
For more information contact Caritas or download a flyer. RSVPs essential, places strictly limited
Starts: 6:30pm, Wednesday March 4 2009
Where: St Benedicts Hall, The University of Notre Dame, Sydney - Corner Broadway and Abercrombie St, Broadway, Sydney
Who: Dr Patrick Dodson, Mr Jack de Groot CEO, Caritas Australia
The largest aid and development fundraiser in Australia, Caritas Australia’s 2009 Project Compassion is launching its inaugural lecture with Caritas Australia partner Dr Patrick Dodson of the Lingiari Foundation. Following last year’s landmark apology from the Australian PM, acclaimed Indigenous leader and justice advocate Dr Dodson, will provide a road map on where to now for reconciliation.
For more information contact Caritas or download a flyer. RSVPs essential, places strictly limited
Saturday, February 21, 2009
SOLDIERS OF PEACE - 19 March 2009 - Special Benefit Screening
A star-studded Australian documentary which won Best Feature Film and Best Documentary Director for Feature Film at the Monaco International Film Festival
With a powerful and moving message on the vital importance of peace to world sustainability, Soldiers of Peace takes the viewer on an inspiring journey across 5 continents and 14 countries to show the extraordinary peace efforts of ordinary individuals across the globe.
Narrated by actor Michael Douglas and featuring interviews with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Richard Branson, Dr Hans Blix, and Tim Flannery, Soldiers of Peace aims to put peace back on the world agenda and to illustrate the connection between individual acts of enterprise and heroism and the systemic changes needed for our planet's survival in the 21st Century.
The film visits religious fundamentalists in Nigeria who preach a peaceful co-existence; IRA bomber Pat Magee reconciling with the daughter of one of his victims; a young Kenyan woman bringing clashing tribes together through football; and former militia men who advocate peace through music.
A One Tree Films' production, Soldiers of Peace is the brainchild of Australian businessman and philanthropist, Steve Killelea, who is also the founder of the Global Peace Index, an annual ranking of the world's most peaceful nations. It is directed and filmed by award-winning director and war correspondent, Tim Wise.
SPECIAL BENEFIT SCREENING
Thursday, 19th March 7pm
Footbridge Theatre, Parramatta Road
(Sydney University)
Speakers: Director Tim Wise, Professor Jake Lynch, Director Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, and Professor Stuart Rees Director of Sydney Peace Foundation
Tickets $15. Book online at Moshtix
For more information visit: Soldiers of Peace Movie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With a powerful and moving message on the vital importance of peace to world sustainability, Soldiers of Peace takes the viewer on an inspiring journey across 5 continents and 14 countries to show the extraordinary peace efforts of ordinary individuals across the globe.
Narrated by actor Michael Douglas and featuring interviews with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Sir Bob Geldof, Sir Richard Branson, Dr Hans Blix, and Tim Flannery, Soldiers of Peace aims to put peace back on the world agenda and to illustrate the connection between individual acts of enterprise and heroism and the systemic changes needed for our planet's survival in the 21st Century.
The film visits religious fundamentalists in Nigeria who preach a peaceful co-existence; IRA bomber Pat Magee reconciling with the daughter of one of his victims; a young Kenyan woman bringing clashing tribes together through football; and former militia men who advocate peace through music.
A One Tree Films' production, Soldiers of Peace is the brainchild of Australian businessman and philanthropist, Steve Killelea, who is also the founder of the Global Peace Index, an annual ranking of the world's most peaceful nations. It is directed and filmed by award-winning director and war correspondent, Tim Wise.
SPECIAL BENEFIT SCREENING
Thursday, 19th March 7pm
Footbridge Theatre, Parramatta Road
(Sydney University)
Speakers: Director Tim Wise, Professor Jake Lynch, Director Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, and Professor Stuart Rees Director of Sydney Peace Foundation
Tickets $15. Book online at Moshtix
For more information visit: Soldiers of Peace Movie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 20, 2009
International Social Justice Day February 20, 2009
February 20, 2009 is an important day for all persons in our global village but especially for those of us committed to living the Good News of peace and justice. The World Day of Social Justice is being observed for the first time following its unanimous adoption by the 192 member States of the United Nations during their November 2007 General Assembly. You are invited and asked to share with your members the enclosed prayer for this day. It was developed by members of the USG/UISG Secretariat Commission for Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation in Rome. For a copy of the prayer go to: Click here for more information
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The World Calls On UN To Stop Genocide Of Tamils In Sri-Lanka
Dr C P Thiagarajah
Countercurrents.org February 17, 2009
Robert Evans, Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with South Asia , (according to IANS on 13 February 2009) called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to send a peacekeeping mission as soon as possible. This clarion call is most timely in view of the non-compliance of the Govt of Sri-Lanka (GSL) to UNHRC request to abide by international war laws in protecting civilians.
About a month earlier, on 14 Jan 2009, John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, in a debate at United Nations Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict said that, the Council's focus must be on the conduct of hostilities and the need for strict compliance with international humanitarian law. In Sri Lanka , strict compliance with international humanitarian law was all the more critical with the intensification of fighting in the Vanni. Consequently humanitarian needs assessment was difficult. He was, concerned about the 350,000 civilians trapped in an increasingly confined space.
NORIHIRO OKUDA ( Japan ) emphasized at the same session at UNHRC the importance of a) protecting and empowering civilians in armed conflict from a human security perspective. b) taking care of the dire situation of vulnerable civilians in armed conflicts worldwide, including Sri-Lanka , Afghanistan , Iraq , Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia . c) stopping deliberate attacks against civilians, journalists, aid workers as well as the recruitment of child soldiers, restriction of humanitarian access and other human rights violations.
The surprising aspect of the UN declaration with the expectation that the Sri-Lankan polarised government would abide by it assiduously have had tragic consequences. It had been estimated that 2000 were massacred within the period 1 January and 15 February 2009. The scene of the carnage heaped on the Tamils by the Sinhala GSL is heart rending and cannot be looked at.
Further, Ranjith Jayasundera, a Sinhalese, in Sunday Leader of 14 December under the title “Govt's war costing more lives than in Lanka's history” revealed that the Sri-Lanka Air Force already holds the unenviable record of being the first, only and thus most frequent dropper of bombs on its own citizens, and the government would gain little from being seen in the eyes of the world as having used cluster munitions on a refugee camp as alleged by some NGOs and the LTTE.
When the GSL is not paying any attention to the UN the only remedy lies in a more united drastic action by the UN. Canada and UK had already called for such a move. Here are some of the Western parliamentarians who sincerely felt that immediate action should be taken by the UN.
Mr Bob Ray Canadian MP told The Star, on February 04, 2009 “The UN can’t allow the Sri Lankan government to say “it’s an internal matter” and stay away”.
UK Parliament had a one and a half hours adjournment debate on 5 February 2009. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab):
I endorse the strength Minister’s call for a ceasefire. That said, if the Government of Sri Lanka are simply not prepared to listen to the international community's calls for a ceasefire, is it not time for some degree of sanctions, such as suspension from the Commonwealth or the suspension of military or trade agreements, to show that the rest of the world means business in trying to bring about peace in Sri Lanka?
Mr. Philip Hollobone ( Kettering ) (Con):
Is it not important for the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Sri Lanka as soon as possible so that they can see at first hand what is going on and have face-to-face meetings with the President of Sri Lanka?
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): we should spell out to the Sri Lankan Government the types of ultimate sanction that the international community could impose. A number of organisations could do that.
Joan Ryan (Enfield, North) (Lab): A recent report by the Genocide Prevention Project highlighted Sri Lanka as one of eight red alert countries where genocide or mass atrocities are under way or at risk of breaking out. I do not think that any of us can afford to ignore such an alert. We have said many times in the aftermath of genocide that we could have seen it coming and that we could and should have done more to prevent it. We must say and do more to prevent it from happening in Sri Lanka .
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD):
I am also delighted that the Foreign Secretary achieved, through his discussion with Secretary Clinton in the United States, a joint US-UK call for a ceasefire. However, I urge the Government to go further. As I said in a letter to the Prime Minister recently, they should go to the United Nations Security Council. We need the whole international community to speak as one. We need to work for that, because the Sri Lankan Government should be in no doubt about how the international community feels.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab):
Members have suggested, we should think seriously about sanctions. For years, the Government there have not been interested in listening to any criticism.
Simon Hughes ( North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD
Said firstly Sri-Lankan government should accept the proposed ceasefire immediately, allow the presence of the UN and the relief agencies. He wanted media freedom restored because Sri Lanka has the second worst record on press freedom in the world, behind only Eritrea .
Secondly, there has to be a reference to the UN, the Commonwealth and other bodies, so that the international community can make their voices clearer. There may be a case for reference to the International Criminal Court. At least one Sri Lankan Minister is an American citizen, and there may be a war crimes issue to be dealt with.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab):
He wanted the suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. He urged the members to do something that hurts.---We need to do something large and bold. We need to take a step.
Stephen Hammond ( Wimbledon ) (Con
We must ensure that any sanctions that we impose hurt the people we intend to hurt.
Canada parliament also took very serious decision after two and half hours debate and concluded that Tamil’s genocide be taken to UN.
Hon. Irwin Cotler ( Mount Royal , Lib.):
We must support the call for the appointment of a United Nations special envoy for Sri Lanka to monitor and guard against abuses and to assist the peace process, as has been recommended by the United Nations itself, by the United States Department of State and by other international actors. Free press be allowed unfettered access to the conflict area to report on the ground situation.
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches— East York , Lib.
an immediate ceasefire with international monitors put in place to ensure that it is respected. The UN should appoint a special representative to monitor the ceasefire and also to start the peace talks immediately.
It is time that the Government of Canada be aggressive on this issue with the United Nations. The Security Council of the UN should also be involved
Hon. Albina Guarnieri ( Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)
Canada must call for immediate posting of international observers and peacekeepers towns in the north and east . If not this tragedy will continue to reach catastrophic proportions. Canada can also demand that Sri Lanka submit fully to an international war crimes tribunal where the actions of leaders on all sides of this conflict can be investigated and judged. The suffering in Sri Lanka will continue as long as there is no legal consequence, no opportunity for justice and no international will to bring a just peace.
Mr.John Cannis : Thanks for using the true word "Genocide", pointing these statements "go nowhere", urging "we need solutions, not papers"
Hon. Jack Layton ( Toronto —Danforth, NDP)
He called for sustained effort for all possible diplomatic pressure to achieve the ceasefire. We are also calling for an immediate end to the apparent use of cluster bombs by the Sri Lankan military. We know that this is against international law. We also have to do everything we can to ensure the supply of emergency aid and access to the conflict zone for international aid organizations.
We have to use all available channels including our influence at the United Nations and at the Commonwealth to achieve these goals
Mr. Wayne Marston ( Hamilton East— Stoney Creek , NDP):
He indicated that the international community has to face the problem of the Sri Lankan government prohibition of independent journalists and human rights monitors from accessing the area of conflict. But one thing is very clear, Sri Lankan civilians are being maimed and are dying in this conflict.
Mr. Paul Dewar ( Ottawa Centre, NDP):
is it plausible for Canada to raise in the UN General Assembly the issue of ceasefire to the Security Council? How realistic is that idea, and what can we do to advance it?
U.S. Judiciary Committee Chairman and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said that "it is imperative that the government and the LTTE agree to an immediate ceasefire to avoid further loss of life, permit access to UN monitors and humanitarian organizations, and permit civilians to leave for areas of safety. The Obama administration, the British, Indian and other concerned governments, should be publicly urging the same,"
If no action is taken expeditiously there will be genocide of a quarter million Tamils within a week. Just look what happened in Rwanda when UN delayed action. Nearly a million Tutsi were murdered within 100 days. Will the UN take action? Yes I am sure for Ms Navaneethan Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a press release issued 29 Thursday January 2009 had made it clear that the UN is aware of HR violation in Mullaitivu where GSL last battle against the LTTE is taking place. She reiterated that “it is imperative that we find out more about what exactly has been going on”.
Countercurrents.org February 17, 2009
Robert Evans, Chairman of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with South Asia , (according to IANS on 13 February 2009) called on UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to send a peacekeeping mission as soon as possible. This clarion call is most timely in view of the non-compliance of the Govt of Sri-Lanka (GSL) to UNHRC request to abide by international war laws in protecting civilians.
About a month earlier, on 14 Jan 2009, John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, in a debate at United Nations Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict said that, the Council's focus must be on the conduct of hostilities and the need for strict compliance with international humanitarian law. In Sri Lanka , strict compliance with international humanitarian law was all the more critical with the intensification of fighting in the Vanni. Consequently humanitarian needs assessment was difficult. He was, concerned about the 350,000 civilians trapped in an increasingly confined space.
NORIHIRO OKUDA ( Japan ) emphasized at the same session at UNHRC the importance of a) protecting and empowering civilians in armed conflict from a human security perspective. b) taking care of the dire situation of vulnerable civilians in armed conflicts worldwide, including Sri-Lanka , Afghanistan , Iraq , Darfur, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Somalia . c) stopping deliberate attacks against civilians, journalists, aid workers as well as the recruitment of child soldiers, restriction of humanitarian access and other human rights violations.
The surprising aspect of the UN declaration with the expectation that the Sri-Lankan polarised government would abide by it assiduously have had tragic consequences. It had been estimated that 2000 were massacred within the period 1 January and 15 February 2009. The scene of the carnage heaped on the Tamils by the Sinhala GSL is heart rending and cannot be looked at.
Further, Ranjith Jayasundera, a Sinhalese, in Sunday Leader of 14 December under the title “Govt's war costing more lives than in Lanka's history” revealed that the Sri-Lanka Air Force already holds the unenviable record of being the first, only and thus most frequent dropper of bombs on its own citizens, and the government would gain little from being seen in the eyes of the world as having used cluster munitions on a refugee camp as alleged by some NGOs and the LTTE.
When the GSL is not paying any attention to the UN the only remedy lies in a more united drastic action by the UN. Canada and UK had already called for such a move. Here are some of the Western parliamentarians who sincerely felt that immediate action should be taken by the UN.
Mr Bob Ray Canadian MP told The Star, on February 04, 2009 “The UN can’t allow the Sri Lankan government to say “it’s an internal matter” and stay away”.
UK Parliament had a one and a half hours adjournment debate on 5 February 2009. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab):
I endorse the strength Minister’s call for a ceasefire. That said, if the Government of Sri Lanka are simply not prepared to listen to the international community's calls for a ceasefire, is it not time for some degree of sanctions, such as suspension from the Commonwealth or the suspension of military or trade agreements, to show that the rest of the world means business in trying to bring about peace in Sri Lanka?
Mr. Philip Hollobone ( Kettering ) (Con):
Is it not important for the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit Sri Lanka as soon as possible so that they can see at first hand what is going on and have face-to-face meetings with the President of Sri Lanka?
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): we should spell out to the Sri Lankan Government the types of ultimate sanction that the international community could impose. A number of organisations could do that.
Joan Ryan (Enfield, North) (Lab): A recent report by the Genocide Prevention Project highlighted Sri Lanka as one of eight red alert countries where genocide or mass atrocities are under way or at risk of breaking out. I do not think that any of us can afford to ignore such an alert. We have said many times in the aftermath of genocide that we could have seen it coming and that we could and should have done more to prevent it. We must say and do more to prevent it from happening in Sri Lanka .
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD):
I am also delighted that the Foreign Secretary achieved, through his discussion with Secretary Clinton in the United States, a joint US-UK call for a ceasefire. However, I urge the Government to go further. As I said in a letter to the Prime Minister recently, they should go to the United Nations Security Council. We need the whole international community to speak as one. We need to work for that, because the Sri Lankan Government should be in no doubt about how the international community feels.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow) (Lab):
Members have suggested, we should think seriously about sanctions. For years, the Government there have not been interested in listening to any criticism.
Simon Hughes ( North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD
Said firstly Sri-Lankan government should accept the proposed ceasefire immediately, allow the presence of the UN and the relief agencies. He wanted media freedom restored because Sri Lanka has the second worst record on press freedom in the world, behind only Eritrea .
Secondly, there has to be a reference to the UN, the Commonwealth and other bodies, so that the international community can make their voices clearer. There may be a case for reference to the International Criminal Court. At least one Sri Lankan Minister is an American citizen, and there may be a war crimes issue to be dealt with.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab):
He wanted the suspension of Sri Lanka from the Commonwealth. He urged the members to do something that hurts.---We need to do something large and bold. We need to take a step.
Stephen Hammond ( Wimbledon ) (Con
We must ensure that any sanctions that we impose hurt the people we intend to hurt.
Canada parliament also took very serious decision after two and half hours debate and concluded that Tamil’s genocide be taken to UN.
Hon. Irwin Cotler ( Mount Royal , Lib.):
We must support the call for the appointment of a United Nations special envoy for Sri Lanka to monitor and guard against abuses and to assist the peace process, as has been recommended by the United Nations itself, by the United States Department of State and by other international actors. Free press be allowed unfettered access to the conflict area to report on the ground situation.
Hon. Maria Minna (Beaches— East York , Lib.
an immediate ceasefire with international monitors put in place to ensure that it is respected. The UN should appoint a special representative to monitor the ceasefire and also to start the peace talks immediately.
It is time that the Government of Canada be aggressive on this issue with the United Nations. The Security Council of the UN should also be involved
Hon. Albina Guarnieri ( Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.)
Canada must call for immediate posting of international observers and peacekeepers towns in the north and east . If not this tragedy will continue to reach catastrophic proportions. Canada can also demand that Sri Lanka submit fully to an international war crimes tribunal where the actions of leaders on all sides of this conflict can be investigated and judged. The suffering in Sri Lanka will continue as long as there is no legal consequence, no opportunity for justice and no international will to bring a just peace.
Mr.John Cannis : Thanks for using the true word "Genocide", pointing these statements "go nowhere", urging "we need solutions, not papers"
Hon. Jack Layton ( Toronto —Danforth, NDP)
He called for sustained effort for all possible diplomatic pressure to achieve the ceasefire. We are also calling for an immediate end to the apparent use of cluster bombs by the Sri Lankan military. We know that this is against international law. We also have to do everything we can to ensure the supply of emergency aid and access to the conflict zone for international aid organizations.
We have to use all available channels including our influence at the United Nations and at the Commonwealth to achieve these goals
Mr. Wayne Marston ( Hamilton East— Stoney Creek , NDP):
He indicated that the international community has to face the problem of the Sri Lankan government prohibition of independent journalists and human rights monitors from accessing the area of conflict. But one thing is very clear, Sri Lankan civilians are being maimed and are dying in this conflict.
Mr. Paul Dewar ( Ottawa Centre, NDP):
is it plausible for Canada to raise in the UN General Assembly the issue of ceasefire to the Security Council? How realistic is that idea, and what can we do to advance it?
U.S. Judiciary Committee Chairman and Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy said that "it is imperative that the government and the LTTE agree to an immediate ceasefire to avoid further loss of life, permit access to UN monitors and humanitarian organizations, and permit civilians to leave for areas of safety. The Obama administration, the British, Indian and other concerned governments, should be publicly urging the same,"
If no action is taken expeditiously there will be genocide of a quarter million Tamils within a week. Just look what happened in Rwanda when UN delayed action. Nearly a million Tutsi were murdered within 100 days. Will the UN take action? Yes I am sure for Ms Navaneethan Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a press release issued 29 Thursday January 2009 had made it clear that the UN is aware of HR violation in Mullaitivu where GSL last battle against the LTTE is taking place. She reiterated that “it is imperative that we find out more about what exactly has been going on”.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Emergency rally - Stop the war on Gaza 2pm Sunday 18 January
End the brutal siege, bombing and invasion of Palestine
End the Rudd government's support for Israel's massacres
Suspend all Australia-Israel ties until Gaza is free
Freedom and self-determination for Palestine
Assemble Sydney Town Hall for rally and march 2pm Sunday 18 January
Speakers include
Palestinian activists
John Pilger, renowned author and documentary film maker
Greens MP Sylvia Hale
End the Rudd government's support for Israel's massacres
Suspend all Australia-Israel ties until Gaza is free
Freedom and self-determination for Palestine
Assemble Sydney Town Hall for rally and march 2pm Sunday 18 January
Speakers include
Palestinian activists
John Pilger, renowned author and documentary film maker
Greens MP Sylvia Hale
Saturday, January 10, 2009
PRESS RELEASE IKV Pax Christi: Talking with Hamas
Utrecht, 8 January 2009
No sustainable political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible without Hamas. That is one conclusion in "Talking to Hamas: On Isolation and Its Failure" a report by peace organisation IKV Pax Christi.
"The political boycott of Hamas has failed", peace organisation IKV Pax Christi notes. It has served neither the Palestinians' national aspirations nor Israel's desire for security. This strategy has left in tatters the credibility of Quartet's pursuit of peace. (The Quartet is made up of the EU, Russia, the UN and the USA.)
"The presupposition that peace talks can achieve a good result when Hamas is left out is pure fantasy", notes Jan Gruiters of IKV Pax Christi. "Isolating Hamas has reinforced its radical tendencies while weakening President Abbas. Recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence must be the results of, not the prerequisites for, political dialogue with Hamas".
Like most other EU countries, the Netherlands is a proponent of Hamas' political and diplomatic isolation. Yet, this isolation has done nothing to bring about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In its report, which was written prior to incursion into Gaza, IKV Pax Christi examines various scenarios for Hamas' continued isolation, including 'more violence in Gaza', of the type now taking place. None of these scenarios leads to peace or to more security for the Israeli population. The report is based on credible sources including leading experts like Graham Fuller (ex-CIA), Efraim Halevy (ex-Mossad).
The report does not justify Hamas' strategy. IKV Pax Christi calls the shelling carried out by Palestinian extremists a contravention of international humanitarian law. Still, IKV Pax Christi calls on the international community, the EU and the Dutch government to reassess the political isolation of Hamas. Hamas must be influenced, not isolated.
An immediate and permanent ceasefire, the opening of border crossings and the raising of the blockade to admit humanitarian aid are only possible when Hamas is admitted to the political process. That is why the international community must support Arab countries' attempts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas and why it must shatter the taboo against dialogue with Hamas. These acts are also for Israel's benefit.
Note for the press
Download the report on www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/uk.
For more information please contact Helma Maas, IKV Pax Christi's press officer at +31 06 48.98.14.88 or consult our website.
IKV Pax Christi works for peace, reconciliation and justice in the world. We join with people in conflict areas to work on a peaceful and democratic society. We enlist the aid of people in the Netherlands who, like IKV Pax Christi, want to work for political solutions to crises and armed conflicts. IKV Pax Christi combines knowledge, energy and people to attain one single objective: there must be peace!
No sustainable political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is possible without Hamas. That is one conclusion in "Talking to Hamas: On Isolation and Its Failure" a report by peace organisation IKV Pax Christi.
"The political boycott of Hamas has failed", peace organisation IKV Pax Christi notes. It has served neither the Palestinians' national aspirations nor Israel's desire for security. This strategy has left in tatters the credibility of Quartet's pursuit of peace. (The Quartet is made up of the EU, Russia, the UN and the USA.)
"The presupposition that peace talks can achieve a good result when Hamas is left out is pure fantasy", notes Jan Gruiters of IKV Pax Christi. "Isolating Hamas has reinforced its radical tendencies while weakening President Abbas. Recognition of Israel and renunciation of violence must be the results of, not the prerequisites for, political dialogue with Hamas".
Like most other EU countries, the Netherlands is a proponent of Hamas' political and diplomatic isolation. Yet, this isolation has done nothing to bring about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In its report, which was written prior to incursion into Gaza, IKV Pax Christi examines various scenarios for Hamas' continued isolation, including 'more violence in Gaza', of the type now taking place. None of these scenarios leads to peace or to more security for the Israeli population. The report is based on credible sources including leading experts like Graham Fuller (ex-CIA), Efraim Halevy (ex-Mossad).
The report does not justify Hamas' strategy. IKV Pax Christi calls the shelling carried out by Palestinian extremists a contravention of international humanitarian law. Still, IKV Pax Christi calls on the international community, the EU and the Dutch government to reassess the political isolation of Hamas. Hamas must be influenced, not isolated.
An immediate and permanent ceasefire, the opening of border crossings and the raising of the blockade to admit humanitarian aid are only possible when Hamas is admitted to the political process. That is why the international community must support Arab countries' attempts to reconcile Fatah and Hamas and why it must shatter the taboo against dialogue with Hamas. These acts are also for Israel's benefit.
Note for the press
Download the report on www.ikvpaxchristi.nl/uk.
For more information please contact Helma Maas, IKV Pax Christi's press officer at +31 06 48.98.14.88 or consult our website.
IKV Pax Christi works for peace, reconciliation and justice in the world. We join with people in conflict areas to work on a peaceful and democratic society. We enlist the aid of people in the Netherlands who, like IKV Pax Christi, want to work for political solutions to crises and armed conflicts. IKV Pax Christi combines knowledge, energy and people to attain one single objective: there must be peace!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Candlelight vigil for Gaza victims
Come and show your respect for the victims of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza,
which has now resulted in the deaths of over 550 Palestinians
This Thursday 8 January from 7pm & next Thursday 15 January
Sydney Town Hall
which has now resulted in the deaths of over 550 Palestinians
This Thursday 8 January from 7pm & next Thursday 15 January
Sydney Town Hall
Monday, January 5, 2009
Justice says others help Obama shut Guantanamo
Editorial
January 5, 2009
‘Australia shares responsibility with the US for cleaning up the mess.’
GUANTANAMO Bay is and always has been a legal black hole, deliberately set up by the Bush Administration on a US military base in Cuba to hold terrorism suspects beyond the reach of US courts and, for that matter, international law. For six years, the world observed a charade of justice, as the Administration thwarted a succession of efforts to challenge, in a properly constituted court of law, the legal basis for the detention of 775 detainees in all.
Last June the Supreme Court finally established that the detainees could not be held beyond the reach of US law and upheld their claim to the centuries-old right of habeas corpus. Incoming president Barack Obama has already distinguished himself by denouncing Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and vowing to shut it down as he moves to rebuild "America's moral stature in the world". As his legal adviser, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, has said: "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."
Most of the 255 people still detained at Guantanamo are expected to be freed. Only one, Osama bin Laden's former driver Salim Hamdan, has undergone a trial by the Bush Administration's military commission that actually tested the evidence against him. Sentenced to 5½ years in prison, including his time in detention, he was released last month in his homeland, Yemen.
A minority of so-called "high-value" suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 terrorism, can rightly expect to be charged and tried in a court of law that complies with the democratic norms of justice. Even then, the admissibility of confessions and other evidence has regrettably been tainted by their long detention in harsh conditions and, in some cases, torture.
Another problem the US faces is resettling detainees whom it has demonised repeatedly to justify their years of detention without trial. In several cases since the Supreme Court's ruling in June, US courts have assessed the evidence against the men brought before them as being too weak to justify their detention and ordered their release. The US has now cleared about 60 detainees for release, but is unable either to ensure their safety if they return to their home countries or to find other countries willing to accept them.
Only a few nations, such as Germany and Portugal, have said they will consider taking detainees. The Netherlands has responded with an argument that is likely to resonate with a public that is also naturally fearful of men held as terror suspects for so many years. "If they are not to be tried but cannot return to their countries, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the country which arrested and imprisoned them, the United States," a Foreign Ministry official said. In other words, it's their mess and they should clean it up on their own. Unfortunately, the likely consequence would be to doom a large number of probably innocent people to yet more time in detention.
And the US did not do this all on its own. A few nations that were once supportive of Guantanamo Bay, including Australia under the Howard government, share the shame and some responsibility for helping to shut it down. The Rudd Government is one of about 100 asked by the US to help clear the camp. Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at the weekend that the Government had rejected a request to accept a group of detainees as they did not meet security and immigration criteria but that future requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A number of legal experts have already sought to establish the truth about the 775 detainees deemed to be "enemy combatants". One two-year project by Professor Mark Denbeaux and his students at Seton Hall Law School, in New Jersey, based on official documents, found that 86 per cent of detainees were not enemy combatants at all. As David McColgin, a lawyer for detainees, points out, "A lot of it was justified on false reports from local Afghan people who simply wanted to get the bounty money the US Government made available, which was a real incentive to provide potentially false information." Until recently, none of this information was tested in court.
Only 14 per cent of detainees were actually captured on a battlefield, but many of those are believed to be among the people still in detention. Thus the domestic political difficulties of resettling any detainees are considerable. However, Australia has already done so in the case of two of its citizens, both of whom are now free. Three years ago, Mamdouh Habib was freed without charge after three years at Guantanamo. He had been vilified by the Bush Administration and the Howard government, in order to persuade the public he belonged among the alleged "worst of the worst" at Guantanamo. No proper explanation, no apology, was offered upon his return. David Hicks returned to Australia in May 2007 to complete a nine-month sentence, having agreed to a plea-bargain deal as a way to end his 5½-year ordeal.
The bottom line is that if other nations want the US to end the injustices endured by the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, they will probably have to help. This dark chapter must be closed soon in order to reclaim some of the high moral ground that the US and its allies so needlessly surrendered in their struggle against terrorism.
This story was found at: The Age Article
January 5, 2009
‘Australia shares responsibility with the US for cleaning up the mess.’
GUANTANAMO Bay is and always has been a legal black hole, deliberately set up by the Bush Administration on a US military base in Cuba to hold terrorism suspects beyond the reach of US courts and, for that matter, international law. For six years, the world observed a charade of justice, as the Administration thwarted a succession of efforts to challenge, in a properly constituted court of law, the legal basis for the detention of 775 detainees in all.
Last June the Supreme Court finally established that the detainees could not be held beyond the reach of US law and upheld their claim to the centuries-old right of habeas corpus. Incoming president Barack Obama has already distinguished himself by denouncing Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and vowing to shut it down as he moves to rebuild "America's moral stature in the world". As his legal adviser, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, has said: "We can't put people in a dungeon forever without processing whether they deserve to be there."
Most of the 255 people still detained at Guantanamo are expected to be freed. Only one, Osama bin Laden's former driver Salim Hamdan, has undergone a trial by the Bush Administration's military commission that actually tested the evidence against him. Sentenced to 5½ years in prison, including his time in detention, he was released last month in his homeland, Yemen.
A minority of so-called "high-value" suspects such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 terrorism, can rightly expect to be charged and tried in a court of law that complies with the democratic norms of justice. Even then, the admissibility of confessions and other evidence has regrettably been tainted by their long detention in harsh conditions and, in some cases, torture.
Another problem the US faces is resettling detainees whom it has demonised repeatedly to justify their years of detention without trial. In several cases since the Supreme Court's ruling in June, US courts have assessed the evidence against the men brought before them as being too weak to justify their detention and ordered their release. The US has now cleared about 60 detainees for release, but is unable either to ensure their safety if they return to their home countries or to find other countries willing to accept them.
Only a few nations, such as Germany and Portugal, have said they will consider taking detainees. The Netherlands has responded with an argument that is likely to resonate with a public that is also naturally fearful of men held as terror suspects for so many years. "If they are not to be tried but cannot return to their countries, it is first and foremost the responsibility of the country which arrested and imprisoned them, the United States," a Foreign Ministry official said. In other words, it's their mess and they should clean it up on their own. Unfortunately, the likely consequence would be to doom a large number of probably innocent people to yet more time in detention.
And the US did not do this all on its own. A few nations that were once supportive of Guantanamo Bay, including Australia under the Howard government, share the shame and some responsibility for helping to shut it down. The Rudd Government is one of about 100 asked by the US to help clear the camp. Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard said at the weekend that the Government had rejected a request to accept a group of detainees as they did not meet security and immigration criteria but that future requests would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
A number of legal experts have already sought to establish the truth about the 775 detainees deemed to be "enemy combatants". One two-year project by Professor Mark Denbeaux and his students at Seton Hall Law School, in New Jersey, based on official documents, found that 86 per cent of detainees were not enemy combatants at all. As David McColgin, a lawyer for detainees, points out, "A lot of it was justified on false reports from local Afghan people who simply wanted to get the bounty money the US Government made available, which was a real incentive to provide potentially false information." Until recently, none of this information was tested in court.
Only 14 per cent of detainees were actually captured on a battlefield, but many of those are believed to be among the people still in detention. Thus the domestic political difficulties of resettling any detainees are considerable. However, Australia has already done so in the case of two of its citizens, both of whom are now free. Three years ago, Mamdouh Habib was freed without charge after three years at Guantanamo. He had been vilified by the Bush Administration and the Howard government, in order to persuade the public he belonged among the alleged "worst of the worst" at Guantanamo. No proper explanation, no apology, was offered upon his return. David Hicks returned to Australia in May 2007 to complete a nine-month sentence, having agreed to a plea-bargain deal as a way to end his 5½-year ordeal.
The bottom line is that if other nations want the US to end the injustices endured by the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, they will probably have to help. This dark chapter must be closed soon in order to reclaim some of the high moral ground that the US and its allies so needlessly surrendered in their struggle against terrorism.
This story was found at: The Age Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
