Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.
And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:
Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.
Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.
They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.
They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest – until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.
For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.
Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.
And for us at home – fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them – help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.
Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.
Give us strength, too – strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.
And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.
And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment – let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.
With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace – a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.
Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.
U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – June 6, 1944
A statement by Anne Bayefsky at the Third Substantive Preparatory Meeting of the Durban Review Conference.
April 17, 2009
United Nations, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland
The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating anti-Semitism you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.
The Durban conference – allegedly dedicated to combating racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance – will open April 20th on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler without agreement on even so much as remembering the Holocaust and the war against the Jews. Your draft words on the Holocaust – the very foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – have been narrowed to the barest mention from previous versions. And if the minor reference survives at all – it will be a testament to your interest in Jews that died 60 years ago, while tolerating and encouraging the murder of Jews in the here and now.
Furthermore, the draft before you demonizes the Jewish state of Israel and then has the audacity to pretend to care about anti-Semitism in a single word buried among 17 pages. Anti-Semitism means discrimination against the Jewish people. Since it is evident that almost none of you have the courage to say it, the face of modern anti-Semitism IS the UN – your – discrimination against Israel, the embodiment of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.
Over and over again we have heard a massive misinformation campaign about the content of these proceedings and the draft before you. We have heard the tale that this draft does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of the anti-Semitism at Durban I was that of NGOs while states and the UN were blameless.
Perhaps you think that journalists and victims will not bother to read for themselves the Durban Declaration adopted by some governments. There is only one state mentioned in it – Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices in it – Israel. And yet the very first thing that this draft before you does is to reaffirm that abomination, abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel’s free and democratic society, and for all the victims of racism ignored therein. Lawyers call it incorporation by reference when they hope nobody reads the small print. The propaganda stops here. We have read it. We understand the game. And we decry the ugly effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair of this Preparatory Committee also told us this week that the Durban Declaration in all its aspects is a consensus text. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the Canadian reservations made in Durban in 2001 which state categorically that the Middle East language was outside the conference’s jurisdiction and not agreed. Perhaps they failed to notice that one of the world’s greatest democracies, the United States, voted with its feet and walked out of the Durban I hatefest. The Durban Declaration has never represented a global consensus among free and democratic nations. When the head of the Islamic conference treats Durban as a bible, in their words, it is more accurately a defamation of religions.
This week you decided which states ought to serve in a leadership role at next week’s conference. Among them are some of the world’s leading practitioners of racism, not those interested in ending it. You have also decided to hand a global megaphone to the President of a state which advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust.
So in a state of shock and dismay we address ourselves not to the human rights abusers that glorify the Durban Declaration or its next incarnation, but to democracies – and we ask: Will Germany sit on Hitler’s birthday and listen to the speech of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people and grant legitimacy to the forum which tolerates his presence? What about the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the Magna Carta? Or France that helped to ship last generation’s Jews to crematoriums?
You could have fought racism. You chose instead to fight Jews. You could have promoted the universal standards against racism already in existence. You chose instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural preferences. You could have protected freedom of expression. You chose instead to undermine it by twisted concepts of incitement. You could have brought victims of racism together in a common cause. You chose instead to pit victims against each other in an ugly struggle for meager recognition.
For those democracies that remain under these circumstances you are ultimately responsible for what can only be called an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance around the world.
About the author: AnneBayefsky holds a B.A., M.A. and LL.B. from the University of Toronto and an M.Litt. from Oxford University. She is a barrister and solicitor of the Ontario Bar, and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute as well as professor at Columbia University Law School in New York, where her areas of expertise include international human rights law, equality rights, and constitutional human rights law. Visit her website here.
The U.N. Human Rights Council is wholly owned and operated by Islamic states that legitimize Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, supported by an automatic majority from China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes. Canada, now the true America, is the only country in the world that has been willing to stand up and resist Orwellian resolutions that are destroying the true principles of human rights.
The resolutions of the U.N. Human Rights Council failed to address human rights violations of Muslim countries, notably Iran’s persecution of Baha’is, Saudi Arabia’s banning of all religious practice aside from Islam, and the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq. Instead of this, the U.N. Human Rights Council recommended to criminalize the defamation of Islam.
Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung des Koordinierungsrats deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus, der Jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin und des Jüdischen Forums für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus
Italy must be praised for this admirable leadership in becoming the first European Union member state to withdraw, and similarly the Obama administration must be lauded for showing that the U.S. speaks with a consistent moral voice against the singling out of Israel for condemnation in the United Nations.
Das Volk rebelliert nämlich nie allein deshalb, weil es einen schweren Sack schleppen muss, es lehnt sich nie gegen die Ausbeutung auf, denn es kennt kein Leben ohne Ausbeutung. Das Volk empört sich erst dann, wenn ihm jemand plötzlich und unvermutet einen zweiten Sack aufzubürden versucht. Er rebelliert, weil er spürt, dass du ihm mit diesem zweiten Sack betrügen wolltest, du hast ihn wie ein stumpfes Tier behandelt, den Rest seiner geschändeten Würde in den Schmutz getreten, ihn zum Idioten gemacht. Der Mensch langt nicht nach dem Beil, um seinen Geldbeutel zu verteidigen, sondern seine Würde. (Aus dem Roman König der Könige von Ryszard Kapuściński)
Steht der Zusammenbruch der öffentlichen Ordnung kurz bevor, nachdem die globale Finanzkrise die Ohnmacht der Politik (die mit einer unanständigen Umverteilung von Steuergeldern für die oberenZehntausendreagiert, anstatt das System grundlegend zu verändern) entlarvt hat? Den genauen Zeitpunkt und die Form des kommenden Bürgerkriegs kann man noch nicht voraussehen. Dass er kommen wird, steht jedenfalls fest. Wann und wie er kommen wird, liegt noch verborgen im Schoße der Zukunft.
Es ist zumindest die ziemlich apokalyptische Prophezeiung der europäischen Denkfabrik European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020, die in einer Pressemitteilung vom 18. Februar 2009 verkündet wurde.
Ein ähnliches düsteres Szenario prognostiziert ebenfalls Igor Panarin, Dekan der Fakultät Internationale Beziehungen der Diplomatischen Akademie des russischen Außenministeriums: ” Der US-Dollar ist durch nichts mehr gedeckt. Die Außenverschuldung ist lawinenartig gewachsen: 1980 hatte es noch keine gegeben, 1998, als ich meine Prognose aufstellte, lag sie bei zwei Billionen Dollar, heute beträgt sie mehr als elf Billionen Dollar. Das ist eine Pyramide, die unbedingt einstürzen wird. Millionen von Bürgern haben ihre Ersparnisse eingebüßt. Die Preise und die Arbeitslosigkeit werden steigen. General Motors und Ford stehen am Rande des Zusammenbruchs. Das bedeutet, dass ganze Städte arbeitslos werden.”
***
Pressemitteilung European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020
Seit Februar 2006 vertrat LEAP/E2020 die Auffassung, dass die umfassende weltweite Krise in vier Grundphasen ablaufen würde, nämlich die Anfangsphase, die Beschleunigungsphase, die Aufprallphase und die Dekantierungsphase. Die Ereignisse der letzten zwei Jahre fügten sich hervorragend in dieses Schema. Jedoch müssen wir uns endlich in die Einsicht finden, dass die Regierenden unfähig sind, die wahre Natur der Krise zu verstehen. Denn seit nunmehr mehr als einem Jahr bekämpft die Politik mit ihren Maßnahmen nur die Symptome der Krise, nicht aber die Ursachen.
Deshalb gehen wir heute davon aus, dass mit dem vierten Quartal 2009 eine fünfte Phase der Krise einsetzen wird, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zerfallen wird.
Nach der Auffassung von LEAP/E2020 werden zwei bedeutende Phänomene diese neue Phase der Krise prägen; die kommenden Ereignisse werden damit in zwei parallelen Entwicklungen ablaufen:
A. Die zwei bedeutenden Phänomene:
1. Das Wegbrechen der globalen Finanzbasis (Dollar + Schulden)
2. Die sich beschleunigende Divergenz der Interessen der großen Staaten und der internationalen Organisationen
B. Die zwei parallelen Entwicklungen:
1. Die rasche Auflösung des gesamten gegenwärtigen internationalen Systems
2. Die Auflösung der Handlungsfähigkeit der mächtigen Staaten und großen internationalen Organisationen
Wir hatten gehofft, dass die Dekantierungsphase den Regierenden dieser Welt ermöglichen würde, die Schlussfolgerungen aus dem Zusammenbruch der Nachkriegsweltordnung zu ziehen. Man kann heute mit größtem Bedauern nur feststellen, dass solcher Optimismus nicht mehr zu rechtfertigen ist.
In den USA wie auch in Europa, in China oder in Japan handeln die Regierenden, als ob die Weltordnung nur von einer vorüber gehenden Krise erfasst wäre und es genügen würde, noch etwas Treibstoff (Liquidität, also weitere Schulden) und weitere Tinkturen (Leitzinssenkungen, staatlicher Aufkauf von wertlosen Forderungen, Konjunkturförderprogramme zu Gunsten insolventer Industriezweige) in das System zu gießen, um den Motor wieder zum Anspringen zu bringen. Sie wollen einfach nicht verstehen, dass, wie der Begriff der umfassenden weltweiten Krise, den LEAP/E2020 im Februar 2006 prägte, zu vermittelt versucht, die Weltordnung nicht mehr funktionsfähig ist. Statt verzweifelt zu versuchen, diese am Boden liegende, unrettbare Weltordnung zu retten, muss endlich die Schaffung einer neuen Weltordnung angegangen werden.
Geschichte wartet nicht, bis die Menschen für sie bereit sind. Da die Schaffung der neuen Weltordnung nicht vorausschauend und planend möglich war, wird der Zerfall der öffentlichen Ordnung während dieser fünften Phase der Krise die Welt in ein solches Chaos stürzen, dass die neue Weltordnung als Zufallsprodukt und Improvisation entstehen wird. Die beiden parallelen Entwicklungen, die wir in dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB beschreiben, werden für einige der großen Staaten und internationalen Organisationen tragisch sein.
Nach unserer Auffassung verbleibt nur ein sehr kleines Zeitfenster, während dem das Schlimmste noch vermieden werden kann, nämlich bis zum Sommer 2009. Dann wird die Zahlungsunfähigkeit erst Großbritanniens und dann der Vereinigten Staaten die Grundlagen des bestehenden Systems zusammen stürzen lassen und Chaos ausbrechen.
Wir gehen sehr konkret davon aus, dass der geplante G20-Gipfel April 2009 die letzte Chance für die bestehende Weltordnung ist, die aktuell wirkenden Kräfte so auszurichten, dass der Übergang in die neue Weltordnung sich mit dem geringst möglichen Schaden vollzieht.
Wenn ihnen das nicht gelingt, wird den Mächtigen der aktuellen Weltordnung die Kontrolle über die Ereignisse vollständig entgleiten, und zwar nicht nur auf globaler Ebene, sondern für einige von ihnen auch in ihren eigenen Ländern; die Welt wird in die Phase, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zusammen bricht, gleiten wie ein Schiff, dessen Ruder gebrochen ist. Am Ausgang dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung wird die Welt mehr dem Europa von 1913 ähneln als der Welt, an deren reale Existenz die meisten noch bis 2007 glaubten.
Die meisten der von der Krise betroffenen Staaten, unter ihnen die mächtigsten dieser Erde, versuchten verzweifelt, das immer weiter anwachsende Gewicht der Krise zu schultern; sie verstanden nicht, dass sie damit die Gefahr herauf beschworen, unter dieser Last zusammen zu brechen. Sie vergaßen, dass Staaten, von Menschen geschaffen, nur solange Bestand haben, wie sich eine Mehrheit dieser Menschen mit ihnen identifiziert. In dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB wird LEAP/E2020 seine Analysen über die Auswirkungen dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung auf die USA und die EU vorlegen.
Es wird für alle, Privatpersonen wie Wirtschaftsführer, dringlich, sich auf eine sehr schwierige Zeit vorzubereiten, in der ganze Bereiche unserer Gesellschaft wegbrechen werden und zumindest zeitweise oder sogar dauerhaft aufhören werden, Bestandteile der Gesellschaft zu bilden.
So wird z.B. der Zerfall des Weltwährungssystems im Sommer 2009 nicht nur den Dollar (und aller Geldanlagen in Dollar) zusammen brechen lassen, sondern das Vertrauen in alle Papierwährungen (also ohne Gold- oder Silberdeckung) massiv unterminieren. Alle Empfehlungen in dieser Ausgabe des GEAB sollen auf diese Situation vorbereiten.
Weiterhin gehen wir davon aus, dass die Staaten, die besonders monolithisch, besonders mächtig, besonders zentralistisch sind, diejenigen sein werden, die von der fünften Phase der umfassenden weltweiten Krise besonders massiv betroffen sein werden. Weitere Staaten, die unter dem Schutz dieser Staaten stehen, werden ihre Schutzmächte verlieren und damit dem Chaos in ihren Regionen ausgeliefert sein.
At last month’s emergency session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, ambassadors from the world’s dictatorships – and even some democracies – lined up to attack Israel for “targeting a U.N. school.” Canada alone voted in opposition to the grossly one-sided text.
Now a new report by Patrick Martin of Canada’s Globe and Mail reveals that, contrary to what was reported worldwide:
No Israeli shells landed in the UNRWA school compound;
No one taking refuge in the U.N. schoolyard was killed;
None of these facts prevented a U.N. agency from falsely reporting that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …”
Will the Human Rights Council now apologize for having falsely condemned Israel for the targeting of facilities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in Gaza, including schools?
As usual when it comes to Israel, the Council was little concerned with actual facts. Egyptian representative Hisham Badr, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said that Israel did not distinguish between combatants and civilians, targeting United Nations schools. According to Yemen, “The attacks against schools. . . were grave crimes against humanity. Sudan spoke of the the mad attacks by Israel in Gaza, including against United Nations schools. Syria said UN schools have turned into mass graves. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Djibouti joined the fray – as did even several Western countries. Argentina demanded an independent international investigation on the attacks on UNRWA schools. Slovenia condemned Israeli attacks on schools. Switzerland said that at least 46 civilians seeking shelter in UNRWA school were killed.
Will any of these countries issue an apology, or seek to correct the resolution’s false assertions and faulty premises? Don’t bet on it.
For the full story, see the article below.
***
Account of Israeli attack doesn’t hold up to scrutiny
PATRICK MARTIN The Globe and Mail, January 29, 2009
Jabalya, Gaza Strip – Most people remember the headlines: “Massacre Of Innocents As UN School Is Shelled; Israeli Strike Kills Dozens At UN School.”
They heralded the tragic news of January 6, 2009, when mortar shells fired by advancing Israeli forces killed 43 civilians in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. The victims, it was reported, had taken refuge inside the Ibn Rushd Preparatory School for Boys, a facility run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
The news shocked the world and was compared to the 1996 Israeli attack on a UN compound in Qana, Lebanon, in which more than 100 people seeking refuge were killed. It was certain to hasten the end of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and would undoubtedly lead the list of allegations of war crimes committed by Israel.
There was just one problem: The story, as etched in people’s minds, was not quite accurate.
Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: While a few people were injured from shrapnel landing inside the white-and-blue-walled UNRWA compound, no one in the compound was killed. The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.
Stories of one or more shells landing inside the schoolyard were inaccurate.
While the killing of 43 civilians on the street may itself be grounds for investigation, it falls short of the act of shooting into a schoolyard crowded with refuge-seekers.
The teacher who was in the compound at the time of the shelling says he heard three loud blasts, one after the other, then a lot of screaming. “I ran in the direction of the screaming [inside the compound],” he said. “I could see some of the people had been injured, cut. I picked up one girl who was bleeding by her eye, and ran out on the street to get help.”But when I got outside, it was crazy hell. There were bodies everywhere, people dead, injured, flesh everywhere.”
The teacher, who refused to give his name because he said UNRWA had told the staff not to talk to the news media, was adamant: “Inside [the compound] there were 12 injured, but there were no dead.”
“Three of my students were killed,” he said. “But they were all outside.”
Hazem Balousha, who runs an auto-body shop across the road from the UNRWA school, was down the street, just out of range of the shrapnel, when the three shells hit. He showed a reporter where they landed: one to the right of his shop, one to the left, and one right in front.
“There were only three,” he said. “They were all out here on the road.”
News of the tragedy travelled fast, with aid workers and medical staff quoted as saying the incident happened at the school, the UNRWA facility where people had sought refuge.
Soon it was presented that people in the school compound had been killed. Before long, there was worldwide outrage.
Sensing a public-relations nightmare, Israeli spokespeople quickly asserted that their forces had only returned fire from gunmen inside the school. (They even named two militants.) It was a statement from which they would later retreat, saying there were gunmen in the vicinity of the school.
No witnesses said they saw any gunmen. (If people had seen anyone firing a mortar from the middle of the street outside the school, they likely would not have continued to mill around.)
John Ging, UNRWA’s operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that “no one was killed in the school.”
“I told the Israelis that none of the shells landed in the school,” he said.
Why would he do that?
“Because they had told everyone they had returned fire from gunmen in the school. That wasn’t true.”
Mr. Ging blames the Israelis for the confusion over where the victims were killed. “They even came out with a video that purported to show gunmen in the schoolyard. But we had seen it before,” he said, “in 2007.”
The Israelis are the ones, he said, who got everyone thinking the deaths occurred inside the school.
“Look at my statements,” he said. “I never said anyone was killed in the school. Our officials never made any such allegation.”
Speaking from Shifa Hospital in Gaza City as the bodies were being brought in that night, an emotional Mr. Ging did say: “Those in the school were all families seeking refuge. … There’s nowhere safe in Gaza.”
And in its daily bulletin, the World Health Organization reported: “On 6 January, 42 people were killed following an attack on a UNRWA school …”
The UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs got the location right, for a short while. Its daily bulletin cited “early reports” that “three artillery shells landed outside the UNRWA Jabalia Prep. C Girls School …” However, its more comprehensive weekly report, published three days later, stated that “Israeli shelling directly hit two UNRWA schools …” including the one at issue.
Such official wording helps explain the widespread news reports of the deaths in the school, but not why the UN agencies allowed the misconception to linger.
“I know no one was killed in the school,” Mr. Ging said. “But 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.
“The state of Israel still has to answer for that. What did they know and what care did they take?”
In the last issue of Newsweek International, David Frum, a Canadian-born conservative journalist active in the both United States and Canadian political arenas and former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, highlighted George W. Bush positive foreign policy aspects, e.g. U.S.-India ties, Latin America links, and aiding Afghanistan.
Where Bush Was Right
by David Frum
“Change” was the magic word of this year’s campaign. In his speech to the Republican convention, John McCain – a 26-year Washington veteran – promised to change “almost everything” that the U.S. government does. Barack Obama, of course, put the word “change” into seemingly every campaign sign, TV ad, and sound bite. Yet there are some things the next president shouldn’t change.
George W. Bush hasn’t gotten much good press in recent years, but he’s accomplished some important things that the next president would do well to preserve and extend.
Consider three in particular:
1. The emerging U.S.-India strategic partnership.
Since 1995, there have been more than a dozen joint U.S.-Indian military exercises, but the size and importance of these operations has expanded dramatically under Bush. In 2007, the two countries conducted a three-week Special Forces counterinsurgency training exercise. That same year, Indian warships joined two U.S. aircraft carriers and warships from Australia, Japan and Singapore to practice maneuvers. India has begun buying U.S. military hardware, requesting more than a billion dollars in arms in 2007 and acquiring what is now the second-largest ship in the Indian navy: the I.N.S. Jalashva, formerly the U.S.S. Trenton, an amphibious transport vessel. And the United States and India have negotiated a new deal granting New Delhi access to nuclear fuel for civilian purposes.
India isn’t always an easy partner. New Delhi’s strategic interests sometimes don’t align with Washington’s – witness India’s comfortable relationship with Iran. And India is always sensitive to any hint it is being treated as anything less than an absolute equal. But with China becoming more assertive, India – along with Vietnam and other states on China’s seacoast – shares some vital interests with the United States. The next U.S. president should therefore build on Bush’s India legacy by drawing New Delhi into a closer defense relationship – not because Washington expects conflict with China, but in order to deter conflict.
2. A more equal partnership with Latin America.
During this decade, the big countries of South America turned to the left. Former union leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won the presidency of Brazil in 2002. The populist husband-and-wife team of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner has governed Argentina since 2003. Michelle Bachelet, a center-left leader, governs Chile.
In the past, leftist Latin governments have clashed with conservative U.S. administrations. Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez has gleefully goaded Washington, hoping to justify his increasingly authoritarian rule by inciting a clash with the colossus of the North. But the Bush administration frustrated Chávez with something unexpected: nothing. Instead of snapping at Chávez’s bait, Washington largely ignored him. (Except for one bad day, when it briefly seemed to countenance an attempted anti-Chávez coup – a mistake swiftly corrected.)
Given enough rope to hang himself, Chávez quickly alienated his democratic left neighbors, even as Washington showed it was ready to do business with them. The economic policies of the Latin left may have slowed growth and stoked inflation, but there is good reason to hope that South American states have now developed the political means to correct such errors–without crisis or violence. The Latins themselves deserve most of the credit for this. But for the first time since the McKinley administration, Washington under Bush can fairly claim that it didn’t get in the way. The next president could learn a lesson from Bush’s restraint – and perhaps apply it to Cuba, where five decades of U.S. isolation have failed to achieve much.
3. The determination to do counterinsurgency right.
The Bush administration made many serious mistakes in Iraq, but the president got the big thing right. Faced with defeat, his administration first acted to cut off foreign support for the Iraqi insurgency by arresting and (covertly) killing Iranian operatives inside Iraq. It then developed unexpected new allies among the Sunni tribes, adopted effective new counterinsurgency tactics and deployed large reinforcements. The result was an unexpected success that has opened the way for political reconciliation.
The next president will face a very similar problem in Afghanistan. Covertly aided by Pakistan, a nasty insurgency by the resurgent Taliban has taken shape there. While the mission retains broad support in the United States, many NATO allies are under serious domestic pressure to cut their losses and withdraw.
Bush’s Iraq model should be reapplied: pressure Pakistan into ending its assistance to the insurgents, send in more troops and adopt new tactics. The job will be tough. But the new president should know that if the last one could do it in Iraq, surely he can do it in Afghanistan.
In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad put anti-Semitism on full display, accusing “a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists” for dominating financial and political centers in Europe and the U.S. in “a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.” He accused Jews of playing an “underhanded” role in the crisis in Georgia, and reiterated his call for the demise of the “Zionist regime.” In a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) protested the address by the UN General Assembly President, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, at a dinner honoring the Iranian leader. The General Assembly president “has put the credibility of the United Nations into question,” wrote AJC.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
The American Jewish Committee was appalled to learn that the President of the General Assembly, Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, has put the credibility of the United Nations into question. He has agreed to speak at a dinner in honor of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, a person whose blatant Holocaust denial has been rejected by you, the Security Council, and the General Assembly. As recently as last week, Mr. Ahmadinejad, having previously termed the Holocaust a “fairy tale,” denied the Holocaust again, calling it “fake.”
General Assembly Resolution 60/7 “rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or in part.” To prevent further acts of genocide, General Assembly Res. 61/255 specifically calls on states “unreservedly to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event.” Your statement that Holocaust denial is “not acceptable” graces the home page of the UN’s Holocaust Remembrance site, together with another quotation from you: “Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any State…” The Security Council has joined in rejecting Mr. Ahmadinejad’s threats to the State of Israel.
Given Mr. Ahmadinejad’s repeated statements about the “annihilation” and eradication of a UN member state, Israel, the claim that this event is a dialogue for peace cannot be taken seriously. Furthermore, the claim that this dinner promotes dialogue of any kind is undercut by Mr. Ahmadinejad himself, who has clearly stated: “We are ready to hold dialogue with all countries of the world except for the Israeli regime.” It will serve as a platform through which the UN will help legitimize Holocaust denial, not to mention the destruction of a member state.
Ironically entitled “religious contributions to peace,” the invitation to the dinner at which Miguel D’Escoto is scheduled to speak identifies him in no other capacity but his role as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Mr. Secretary General, under your able leadership, the UN has been clear in its rejection of Holocaust denial. You have reminded states that the Holocaust is “a unique and undeniable tragedy.” Given the clarity and overwhelming support by you and the nations of the world for these resolutions, it is obvious that the presence of the President of the General Assembly at an event in honor of Mr. Ahmadinejad would make a mockery of you, the United Nations, and the nations and leaders who have made a point of rejecting Holocaust denial whenever, wherever, and by whomever it is made.
The General Assembly resolution reminded states that “remembrance is critical to prevent further acts of genocide.” You have indicated that any attempt to cast doubt on the reality of this unique and undeniable horror must be firmly resisted by all people of goodwill and of whatever faith.
Mr. Secretary-General, we ask that you put the full weight of your moral authority as head of the United Nations, and as someone who is profoundly concerned with its standing in the world, to convey to Mr. D’Escoto the unacceptability of his participation in his capacity as President of the UN General Assembly.
This dinner is an inauspicious beginning for the 62nd General Assembly, and it does not augur well for the prospect of a balanced and just session.
Respectfully,
Richard J. Sideman & David A. Harris
The American Jewish Committee also called on UN member states to condemn Ahmadinejad’s speech, rife with anti-Semitic stereotypes, to the GA.
“Today, President Ahmadinejad has left no doubt that he hates Jews,” said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. “His violent bigotry is made all the more threatening by Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of four UN Security Council resolutions.”
Ahmadinejad’s address was rife with obvious anti-Semitic stereotypes, including his descriptions of a covert Jewish “network” that controls the media, dominates financial markets, and deviously starts wars. His comment that “the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse” echoed his previous calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map.”
“As he seeks to build the deadliest weapons on earth, a proud anti-Semite has hijacked the United Nations to broadcast hate,” said Harris. “We call upon the international community to start applying pressure commensurate with the threat posed by President Ahmadinejad, and to stop doing business as usual with the country he represents.”
Several of the world’s most influential central banks unveiled a coordinated response to this week’s market turmoil and broader concerns about financial markets.
The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Swiss National Bank made a joint statement that they would work with the U.S. Fed to help make short-term loans available to financial institutions in their countries.
Separately, the Financial Times reports Russia will inject over $19 billion to support its sputtering financial markets, following a dramatic stock slide.
A backgrounder from the Wall Street Journal says the credit crisis, spawned from bad U.S. mortgage-backed debt, has spread into the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, and that there is no clear end in sight.
Mom with a View: On being an effective leader by Emuna Braverman
New books on leadership seem to be published daily in the business world. Some of the sales are fueled by a desperate desire for a get-rich-quick scheme. But the rest, I assume, appeal to those who want to rise to positions of leadership but don’t know how, or those who are in leadership positions but can’t seem to exercise it effectively.
Although I believe in general that “great leaders aren’t made, they’re born” – that the drive, ambition, people skills and integrity of character required to be a top quality leader are most often innate – there is some fine tuning we can do.
Perhaps one of the most important traits of a true leader is the ability both to listen to others and to make them feel heard. If people feel heard they will follow you anywhere, even at great self-sacrifice. A recent study demonstrated that the majority of us are willing to accept a lower income if we feel appreciated at work. A leader makes his or her employees feel that way, by valuing their input and ideas.
A frequent complaint voiced about presidents and prime ministers is that they don’t listen to anyone else’s opinion. We’re willing to accept many other moral and character flaws – but not this.
Good leaders need to listen – and respond. I was once invited to a meeting of a non-profit organization to plan their upcoming fundraiser. Many creative and thoughtful ideas were proposed and discussed. Subsequently we discovered that the event had actually already been planned. The meeting was to give those involved with the organization a “sense of involvement”. I guess they were going for the “sense” and not the “involvement”. All attendees felt used and discontinued further active participation in the organization.
Effective leaders implement the ideas of others – and credit them for it. This gives everyone a stake in the success of the business or cause. It also enhances the popularity of the leader.
Some (not very good) leaders labor under an illusion that everything has to come from them. Yet they are more revered and loved when they truly listen to others. And of course the institution thrives more. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that one individual can’t possibly think of all the ideas and innovations. In making space for others, everyone benefits.
This is true in our personal and spiritual lives as well. In allowing room for other people, we benefit the most. In listening to others, we create real relationships. In responding to others we make them feel heard and deepen the connection. And we may even learn some new/better ways of being, get some help parenting or some marriage tools – maybe even a cooking, shopping or business tip.
It’s valuable to focus on this essential leadership skill in all aspects of our lives. Of course we can only grow spiritually when we open ourselves up to the experience and knowledge of others, to insights outside our own and ultimately to the wisdom of the Almighty Himself.
Business books are not about good leaders, they’re about great ones. To achieve greatness, the focus needs to be on others, not ourselves. To run a successful company may only require a good leader. But someone who listens to others, whatever their status, who in his humility is receptive to the words of others, and consequently the teachings of the Almighty is a great leader. Now that would be a book worth reading.
Author Biography:
Emuna Braverman has a law degree from the University of Toronto and a Masters in Psychology from Pepperdine University. She lives with her husband and nine children in Los Angeles where they both work for Aish HaTorah International.
Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.
In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes on the eve of the coming G8 summit that this is the moment to prove that we can cooperate globally to deliver results: in meeting the needs of the hungry and the poor, in promoting sustainable energy technologies for all, in saving the world from climate change – and in keeping the global economy growing.
The Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail examines the shifting North American power dynamic wrought by rising oil prices. The paper says the rise has served to boost Canada’s regional strength.
9 mars 1941: Le Congrès des États-Unis vote le Lend-Lease Bill.
Discours prononcé par le Général de Gaulle à la radio de Londres le 12 mars 1941
Au nom de la nation française, je remercie les États-Unis d’Amérique de la décision qu’ils viennent de prendre, sur l’initiative du Président Roosevelt, en ce qui concerne l’armement des peuples qui combattent pour la liberté.
Cette décision a une portée morale immense.
Elle aura, dans l’ordre matériel, des conséquences colossales.
Du point de vue moral, cette décision signifie que l’Amérique a pris ouvertement parti. Elle a jugé, une fois pour toutes, que la tyrannie des dictateurs constitue le plus grand danger et la plus grande infamie qui aient jamais menacé le monde.
L’Amérique a résolu d’assurer la défaite de l’ennemi par le plus vaste effort d’armement que l’univers ait jamais vu. Mais, en outre, les États-Unis, témoins très bien renseignés, manifestent avec éclat leur confiance dans la victoire des Alliés. Car un peuple aussi avisé, quelles que puissent être ses sympathies, ne prêterait pas à fonds perdus d’aussi gigantesques ressources à des gens qu’il croirait condamnés.
Du point de vue matériel, le concours illimité de l’Amérique apporte à nos alliés et aux Français Libres la certitude d’une supériorité croissante et implacable des moyens. Cette guerre est une guerre mécanique. La puissance militaire s’y mesure presque exclusivement au nombre et à la qualité des machines de combat. Il n’y a pas eu, depuis le premier jour du conflit, il n’y aura pas, jusqu’au dernier, de résultats tactiques, ni stratégiques, importants, sinon par l’action des engins mécaniques. Or, l’industrie américaine est en mesure de produire, et va produire effectivement, pour les donner aux Alliés, tant de navires, tant d’avions, tant de chars, que l’ennemi, martyrisé plus durement chaque jour, n’échappera pas à l’écrasement final.
Aucun homme sensé ne niera qu’il doive se produire jusque-là de multiples péripéties. L’ennemi auquel nous avons affaire est tout à fait capable de remporter encore des succès. Mais la décision prise par les États-Unis le place dans une situation sans issue. Le filet est jeté sur le fauve.
La France continue la guerre.
Elle la continue par sa résistance nationale à la soumission et à la collaboration. Elle la continue par l’effort guerrier d’une partie de ses territoires, de son armée, de sa marine, de son aviation. Des hommes sans conscience ou sans réflexion ont pu croire que le rôle de la France dans la guerre était terminé. Or, depuis l’effondrement momentané qui suivit le soi-disant armistice, ce rôle n’a cessé de s’étendre. La volonté nationale est maintenant redressée, là même et là surtout où la présence de l’ennemi se fait le plus lourdement sentir. La France a des marins belligérants sur toutes les mers. Elle a des aviateurs combattant dans tous les ciels. Ses drapeaux flottent sur tous les champs de bataille. A mesure que passeront les jours, j’affirme que ce poids pèsera plus lourd dans la balance. La France, elle aussi, gagnera la guerre.
Quant aux traîtres ou aux malheureux qui, abusant de la confiance et de la détresse du peuple et faisant le jeu de l’ennemi, ont saisi le pouvoir pour souscrire à la servitude, pour interdire le chemin du devoir à tant de bons Français dans l’Empire et dans la flotte et pour s’enfoncer, heure par heure, plus avant dans le déshonneur de la collaboration, leur provisoire fortune s’écroulera à mesure que reparaîtra la fortune éternelle de la France. Malheur à ceux qui ont joué la défaite de la patrie! Il vaudrait mieux, pour eux, qu’ils ne fussent jamais nés.
A report from the Canadian government’s agency focused on natural resources examines the country’s fossil energy reserves and outlines potential obstacles facing the country.
“Canada is experiencing a significant economic surge driven in large part by the natural resources sectors, in particular by the fossil fuel industries in Western Canada. Combined under the banner of fossil energy, Canada’s oil, natural gas, and coal resources make the country one of the world’s most attractive energy centres for continuing investment and development.
This economic opportunity comes with challenges, such as requirements to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and managing the impacts of climate change. Canadian GHG emissions are up more than 25 percent since 1990. There is growing public concern supported by consensus among the scientific community (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that global emissions growth will soon drive atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations to levels not seen in 10 million years, bringing a growing risk of rapid climate change.”
Germany’s Spiegel magazine writes that the divide boils down to this: “While the United States, Great Britain, Canada and the Netherlands have placed their bets on the war against the Taliban and no longer want to bear this burden alone, countries like Germany are convinced that their reconstruction mission is working.”
Germany and France have been most criticized for their refusal to send more troops, but the Toronto Star reports that France may help Canada in Afghanistan.
A recent report by the Atlantic Council, chaired by retired General James Jones, former NATO supreme allied commander, outlines what it says are enormous difficulties in pacifying and reconstructing Afghanistan.
Canada will not support preparations for a UN anti-racism conference planned for Durban, South Africa, next year, a decision which has been welcomed by the Canadian Jewish Congress.
The government in Ottawa believes that the previous meeting in 2001 turned into an embarrassing promotion of racist attitudes and “a bit of a circus for intolerance and bigotry, particularly, but not exclusively directed at the Jewish people,” Jason Kenney, the government’s secretary of state for multiculturalism, told Canadian television.
He added that Hitler posters were displayed “by NGOs that have been re-invited by the organizing committee now chaired by Libya.” The opposition NDP party said Canada needed to be at the table in Durban and that the government should not abandon its traditional commitment to multilateralism.
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban highlighted divisions between the developing and developed world. It also showed the seething anger in much of the Arab world against Zionism, the international movement that helped establish Israel. Some countries, notably Pakistan and Syria, had wanted to state in a declaration that Israel’s “foreign occupation” had given rise to racism in the Middle East. The US and Israel alleged anti-Semitism was behind much of the anti-Israel rhetoric and walked out in protest.
The Canadian Jewish Congress praised Canadian officials for pulling their support for the conference and said it was a principled stand.
The Globe and Mail reports that Canadian members of parliament are increasingly pushing Prime Minister Stephen Harper to take steps to address economic problems, and particularly concerns over the recent rise of the Canadian dollar.
A recent paper from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an independent Canadian research group, examines U.S.-Canadian trade relations twenty years after the two countries signed a free trade agreement.
Last week, Russia’s richest man, Roman Abramovich, agreed to pay $400 million for a 40% stake in Highland Gold Mining Ltd., Russia’s fourth-largest bullion producer. The sudden focus of Russia’s billionaires on gold comes as the metal hit a 28-year-high last month and hovers near $800 an ounce.
“Clearly these people have the financial wherewithal to invest wherever they want, so it speaks positively about gold,” said Don Whalen, the executive chairman of Toronto’s High River Gold Mines Ltd., which operates in Russia.
In der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung hat der jüdische Germanist Chaim Vogt-Moykopf ein Essay über die auch im Einwanderungsland Kanada ausgebrochene Kontroverse um die multikulturelle Gesellschaft verfasst.
Das Land habe sich bisher zu wenig Fragen gestellt, und wenn, dann wie in Quebec, nicht die richtigen: “Welche Wertvorstellungen die Immigranten mitbringen, tut nichts zur Sache, welchen Gestaltungswillen und welche Pläne sie im Gepäck führen, ebenfalls nicht. Es muss nur alles auf Französisch sein.”
A report sponsored by two Canadian think tanks examines the difficulties of managing democracy in increasingly multicultural countries and offers solutions for effective governance.
Less than a day after gun and bomb attacks killed Pakistan’s iconic opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, her death has already spurred more violence in her fragile homeland.
The Times of India reports that an al-Qaeda leader claimed credit for Bhutto’s killing, calling her “the most precious American asset.”
Amid rampant speculation about the elections, which were expected to bring Bhutto back to power for a third term as prime minister, Pakistan’s current Prime Minister Mohammadian Soomro today announced elections would be held as scheduled and urged Pakistanis to remain calm. Western leaders have called for elections to proceed despite widespread concerns over whether the vote will be seen as legitimate.
Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a press conference yesterday that he had urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to offer the services of U.S. intelligence and security agencies for the investigation into Bhutto’s death.
Governor Bill Richardson will deliver a major speech today in which he will criticize U.S. policy toward Pakistan as having been “too much on personalities like President Musharraf and not enough on democratic principles and human rights.” In the speech, he will pledge that if he is elected, “not a penny more in aid will be provided to Pakistan to fight terrorism until Musharraf leaves office.”
Canadian dollar exchange rates against US Dollar (noon spot rate, monthly average). Created by Luigi Zanasi using Excel from Statistics Canada (CANSIM) and Bank of Canada data.
TIME named Canada’s currency its “newsmaker of the year.”
In an accompanying article, the magazine examines the potential geopolitical effects of the skyrocketing “loonie.”
French intelligence services have identified a 55 year-old Palestinian man now living in Canada as the suspected perpetrator of a bomb attack at a Paris synagogue that killed four people in 1980. The man was traced after German intelligence officials acquired a membership list of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Operations (PFLP-OS), a now-defunct Palestinian extremist group that was behind the bomb attack.
The attack happened outside the synagogue in Rue de Copernic in October 1980 and killed three French men and a young Israeli woman.
Police drew up an identikit photograph of a young man with a moustache who was seen parking the motor-cycle that contained the bomb, and they also traced two fake Cypriot passports which he was believed to have used.
According to the French newspaper Le Figaro, a judge has now instructed investigators to find out more about the suspect, who had spent many years in the United States before moving to Canada. He has joint Canadian-Lebanese nationality, the paper said. A judiciary official confirmed some details of the newspaper report, while saying investigators were angry that word had been leaked to media, fearing it could jeopardize the investigation.
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW 
