U.N. Durban Review Conference Final Declaration is biased

April 22, 2009

It is highly disappointing, but not surprising, that more than 100 nations attending the Durban II Racism Conference in Geneva overwhelmingly voted to approve a final declaration that is biased. In a replay of the 2001 original United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Israel is again the only nation singled out.

The conference, which is a follow-up to the 2001 United Nations World Conference against Racism, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, was meant to address those human rights issues and their violators. However, both the Durban Review Conference and its predecessor degenerated into anti-Israel summits. The 2009 declaration reaffirms the conclusions from the original Durban conference. That document asserted that Palestinians are subject to Israeli “racism.”

The expectation that this anti-Israel declaration would again be the outcome prompted Israel, Canada, the United States of America, Italy, Germany, Australia, Holland, New Zealand, Czech Republic, and Poland to withdraw.

Libya helped to seal the negative outcome of the conference. Chosen as the chair of the conference, despite a long history of supporting terrorism and violating human rights, Libya yesterday engineered the swift movement of the declaration from the drafting committee and adoption of the preparatory document of last week.

Any hope for a better outcome document was dashed with an address to the conference by one who calls for the destruction of and supports terrorism against the State of Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many nations walked out in protest on April 20, 2009, in the face of his hateful, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel tirade.

The 23 European Union nations delegates walked out during Ahmadinejad speech, in which he said that the foundation of the State of Israel rendered “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order “to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

***

Quotes from Ahmadinejad’s speech in Geneva [source: BBC News]

“The victorious powers [of the world wars] call themselves the conquerors of the world, while ignoring or down-treading the rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.”

“Following World War II, they resorted to making an entire nation homeless on the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.”

“It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide, whilst the awakened consciences and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutality and the bombardment of civilians of Gaza.”

“[Conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan were] a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations. Today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity. In the beginning of the third millennium, the word Zionism personifies racism. [It] falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide hatred.”

“Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their supporters of political and international means…Governments must be encouraged and supported in the fight aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and moving towards reforming the current international mechanisms.”

“You are all aware of the conspiracy of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference… It should be recognized that boycotting such a session is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism.”


Durban II Hatefest

April 17, 2009

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: Anne Bayefsky 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.


Le Grand Meaulnes

April 14, 2009

grand-meaulnes

Stefan Zweig aurait pu appeler cet univers enchanteur le monde d’hier (Die Welt von gestern), qui n’était pas seulement celui de l’écrivain bref et tragique d’avant-guerre Alain-Fournier (en réalité Henri-Alban Fournier), auteur légendaire du Grand Meaulnes, mais aussi et surtout de toute une génération d’écoliers rompus aux âpres du devoir et de la droiture…à une époque où l’amitié demeurait une valeur indefectible.

Chapitre premier: Le Pensionnaire.

“Il arriva chez nous un dimanche de novembre 189…

Je continue à dire «chez nous», bien que la maison ne nous appartienne plus. Nous avons quitté le pays depuis bientôt quinze ans et nous n’y reviendrons certainement jamais.

Nous habitions les bâtiments du Cours Supérieur de Sainte-Agathe. Mon père, que j’appelais M. Seurel, comme les autres élèves, y dirigeait à la fois le Cours supérieur, où l’on préparait le brevet d’instituteur, et le Cours moyen. Ma mère faisait la petite classe.

Une longue maison rouge, avec cinq portes vitrées, sous des vignes vierges, à l’extrémité du bourg ; une cour immense avec préaux et buanderie, qui ouvrait en avant sur le village par un grand portail ; sur le côté nord, la route où donnait une petite grille et qui menait vers La Gare, à trois kilomètres ; au sud et par derrière, des champs, des jardins et des prés qui rejoignaient les faubourgs… tel est le plan sommaire de cette demeure où s’écoulèrent les jours les plus tourmentés et les plus chers de ma vie – demeure d’où partirent et où revinrent se briser, comme des vagues sur un rocher désert, nos aventures.

Le hasard des «changements», une décision d’inspecteur ou de préfet nous avaient conduits là. Vers la fin des vacances, il y a bien longtemps, une voiture de paysan, qui précédait notre ménage, nous avait déposés, ma mère et moi, devant la petite grille rouillée. Des gamins qui volaient des pêches dans le jardin s’étaient enfuis silencieusement par les trous de la haie… Ma mère, que nous appelions Millie, et qui était bien la ménagère la plus méthodique que j’aie jamais connue, était entrée aussitôt dans les pièces remplies de paille poussiéreuse, et tout de suite elle avait constaté avec désespoir, comme à chaque «déplacement», que nos meubles ne tiendraient jamais dans une maison si mal construite… Elle était sortie pour me confier sa détresse. Tout en me parlant, elle avait essuyé doucement avec son mouchoir ma figure d’enfant noircie par le voyage. Puis elle était rentrée faire le compte de toutes les ouvertures qu’il allait falloir condamner pour rendre le logement habitable… Quant à moi, coiffé d’un grand chapeau de paille à rubans, j’étais resté là, sur le gravier de cette cour étrangère, à attendre, à fureter petitement autour du puits et sous le hangar.

C’est ainsi, du moins, que j’imagine aujourd’hui notre arrivée.

Car aussitôt que je veux retrouver le lointain souvenir de cette première soirée d’attente dans notre cour de Sainte-Agathe, déjà ce sont d’autres attentes que je me rappelle; déjà, les deux mains appuyées aux barreaux du portail, je me vois épiant avec anxiété quelqu’un qui va descendre la grand’rue. Et si j’essaie d’imaginer la première nuit que je dus passer dans ma mansarde, au milieu des greniers du premier étage, déjà ce sont d’autres nuits que je me rappelle; je ne suis plus seul dans cette chambre; une grande ombre inquiète et amie passe le long des murs et se promène.

Tout ce paysage paisible – l’école, le champ du père Martin, avec ses trois noyers, le jardin dès quatre heures envahi chaque jour par des femmes en visite – est à jamais, dans ma mémoire, agité, transformé par la présence de celui qui bouleversa toute notre adolescence et dont la fuite même ne nous a pas laissé de repos.

Nous étions pourtant depuis dix ans dans ce pays lorsque Meaulnes arriva.”

Lire la suite.


Russen verlassen die französische Riviera

April 14, 2009

Diese höchst erfreuliche Botschaft überbringt die deutsche Tageszeitung Handelsblatt. Sie schlappern in Badeschlapfen und Trainingsanzügen durch die teuersten Luxushotels. Sie haben keinen Stil, riechen streng mafiös. Die traditionsreiche südfranzösische Nizza hätten sie beinahe praktisch übernommen. G’tt sei Dank ist es jetzt Schluss damit, dank der globalen Finanzkrise. Um so besser, meint HIRAM 7 REVIEW, ohne französischen nationalen Stolz, dennoch mit einer offenen Schadensfreude über das Scheitern der geschmacklosen Neureichen, die es nicht verdient haben, das schöne Südfrankreich zu genießen. Vive la France!

“Den russischen Oligarchen nämlich, die bisher zu den wichtigsten Käufern in der Region gehörten, geht das Geld aus. Dabei war den ‘Novarich’, den neureichen Russen, die sich nach dem Vorbild der russischen Aristokraten aus dem 19. Jahrhundert an der französischen Rivera erholten, noch bis vor kurzem keine Immobilie zu teuer. Als Folge kletterten die Preise für die begehrten Prestigeobjekte an der blauen Küste steil in die Höhe. Doch mit dem Absturz der Börsenkurse seit September 2008, in dessen Verlauf so manches russische Vermögen um zwei Drittel schmolz, ist der Höhenflug vorerst gestoppt.”

Zum Artikel.

 Die französische Riviera, musikalisch gedichtet vom französischen Sänger, Aussteiger (Absolvent der französischen Elite-Hochschule für Ingenieure, “École Centrale”) und Segler ANTOINE cartecotedazur

UN AIR D’ÉTÉ
paroles: Pierre Bertrand, Pierrette Bertrand
musique: Pierre Bertrand

Abandonné ma cage
Attiré par la plage
J’ai roulé jusqu’ici

Sous un ciel sans nuage
J’ai le coeur en voyage
J’ai envie de ma vie

Je ressassais des idées sombres
Du côté du mur à l’ombre
Tout a changé, plus rien n’est pareil
J’ai sauté du côté du soleil

Un air d’été
Tout léger, tout léger, tout léger
Comme une fleur en plein coeur de l’hiver
M’a rendu cette envie de valser

Un air d’été
Tout léger, tout léger, tout léger
Comme une bouteille retrouvée dans la mer
M’a rendu le courage d’aimer

Prière de ne pas déranger
Je suis en vacances…

J’ suis bien dans ma peau
Heureux à nouveau
Prière de ne pas déranger
Je suis en vacances…

Je m’endormais dans mon coin
Je ne rêvais plus à rien
Mon chien se mourait d’ennui

Je me traînais les pieds
En retard à l’arrivée
J’éprouvais mes amis

Depuis je ne parle plus je chante
Je ne marche plus je danse
Tout a changé et plus rien n’est pareil
J’ai sauté du côté du soleil


Les Métamorphoses de Jacques Dutronc, enfant terrible de la chanson française

April 11, 2009

Il faut plaisanter sur tout. Il n’y a que les concierges qui disent: “La plaisanterie a des limites”. (Jacques Dutronc, Pensées et répliques)

Nanti d’un regard malicieux, revêche et ironique, auteur et interprète de chansons au vitriol mais néanmoins fantasmagoriques et tendres, flanqué d’un style maintes fois imité mais jamais égalé, Jacques Dutronc demeure, en dépit de ses presque 66 ans, qu’il fêtera le 28 avril prochain, l’archétype même de l’anarchiste de droite, mais aussi et surtout le maître incontesté de l’humour iconoclaste et intelligent de la scène musicale française des quatre dernières décennies. Bravo l’artiste!

jacques-dutronc-1966


The Myths of U.N. Durban Review Conference

April 10, 2009

hamasunhumanrightscouncil

The Algerian-chaired United Nations committee is seeking to rewrite international human rights law by definining any criticism of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, and is endorsed by Article 30 of the current Durban II draft; see UN Watch speech below.

Click also here for New York Times video documenting racist treatment of two million black African migrants by Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, chair of Durban II conference planning committee.

***

Testimony by Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director, before the United Nations Human Rights Council

10th session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, March 2009)

Thank you, Mr. President.

Racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?

For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.

Myth Number One: that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions.

The truth is that many were removed – thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out – but red lines continue to be breached:

  • Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
  • Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
  • Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.

Myth Number Two: that going to the conference means dialogue.

In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism.

Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.

Myth Number Three: that Durban 2 will help millions of victims.

But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees?

Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur?

Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination?

Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran?

Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s International Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?

To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. President.


Jean Ferrat – La Montagne (1966)

April 4, 2009

Jean Ferrat, alias Jean Tennenbaum, interprète en 1966 La Montagne, une admirable chanson citoyenne et d’avant-garde à l’époque, avant que les faux-culs et arrivistes écologistes s’emparent du thème pour le monopoliser, et ce faisant s’agripper plus tard aux strapontins ministériels…

Paroles

Ils quittent un à un le pays
Pour s’en aller gagner leur vie
Loin de la terre où ils sont nés
Depuis longtemps ils en rêvaient
De la ville et de ses secrets
Du formica et du ciné
Les vieux ça n’était pas original
Quand ils s’essuyaient machinal
D’un revers de manche les lèvres
Mais ils savaient tous à propos
Tuer la caille ou le perdreau
Et manger la tomme de chèvre

Pourtant que la montagne est belle
Comment peut-on s’imaginer
En voyant un vol d’hirondelles
Que l’automne vient d’arriver?

Avec leurs mains dessus leurs têtes
Ils avaient monté des murettes
Jusqu’au sommet de la colline
Qu’importent les jours les années
Ils avaient tous l’âme bien née
Noueuse comme un pied de vigne
Les vignes elles courent dans la forêt
Le vin ne sera plus tiré
C’était une horrible piquette
Mais il faisait des centenaires
A ne plus que savoir en faire
S’il ne vous tournait pas la tête

Pourtant que la montagne est belle
Comment peut-on s’imaginer
En voyant un vol d’hirondelles
Que l’automne vient d’arriver?

Deux chèvres et puis quelques moutons
Une année bonne et l’autre non
Et sans vacances et sans sorties
Les filles veulent aller au bal
Il n’y a rien de plus normal
Que de vouloir vivre sa vie
Leur vie ils seront flics ou fonctionnaires
De quoi attendre sans s’en faire
Que l’heure de la retraite sonne
Il faut savoir ce que l’on aime
Et rentrer dans son H.L.M.
Manger du poulet aux hormones

Pourtant que la montagne est belle
Comment peut-on s’imaginer
En voyant un vol d’hirondelles
Que l’automne vient d’arriver?


Prospects for U.S.-Russian Security Cooperation

April 4, 2009

U.S.-Russian relations seem to be at an impasse. However, given these nations’ power, standing, and nuclear capability, dialogue will be resumed at some point.

An analysis of the prospects for and conditions favoring cooperation is an urgent task – crucial precisely because current relations are so difficult.

A new report edited by Dr. Stephen J. Blank, professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Army War College, offers both a tribute to a vision of political order based upon prior cooperation and a call to revitalize the relationship.

“Russia, despite claims made for and against its importance, remains, by any objective standard, a key player in world affairs. It possesses this standing by virtue of its geographical location, Eurasia, its proximity to multiple centers of international tension and rivalry, its possession of a large conventional and nuclear force, its energy assets, and its seat on the UN Security Council. Beyond those attributes, it is an important barometer of trends in world politics, e.g., the course of democratization in the world. Furthermore, if Russia were so disposed, it could be the abettor and/or supporter of a host of negative trends in the world today. Indeed, some American elites might argue that it already is doing so.”

Read full story.


Das Versagen der Eliten

April 3, 2009

Nicht wer zuerst nach den Waffen greift, verursacht einen Aufruhr, sondern wer die Ursache dafür geschaffen hat. (Niccolò Machiavelli)

banana-republic

Demokratien suchen sich Vorbilder, die immer wieder zu wünschen übrig lassen…

Das Versagen der Eliten wiegt inzwischen vermutlich sehr viel schwerer als die Leistungen, die sie erbringen: man denke nur an das miserable Krisenmanagement bei der Bewältigung der Finanzkrise, die unvermeidbar einen Bürgerkrieg hervorrufen wird. Schlechter Führungsstil gekoppelt mit Arroganz und Ignoranz wird am Ende immer bestraft: alte Lektion des Florentiner Meisters der Politik, Niccolò Machiavelli.

Aus gegebenem Anlass: Ein musikalisches Pamphlet im Dreierpack (”Entrez, m’sieur dans l’humanité”, “Qui se soucie de nous?”, “Face à la merde”) von Frankreichs Galionsfigur der geschmackvollen Satire, Jacques Dutronc.


Obama Administration to Join anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council

March 31, 2009

The Obama administration has revoked a decision by the Bush administration to boycott the Geneva-based United Nations’ premier rights body to protest the influence of repressive and racist states, according to The Washington Post.

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.


Anti-Semitism: The Ugliest Backlash in Our Lifetime

March 31, 2009

This Pesach, Jews around the world have experienced the ugliest backlash of blatant anti-Semitism many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. We shouldn’t be surprised. When the world faces crisis, Jews are often the scapegoat.

How dangerous is the threat?

  • Dozens of synagogues around the world have been attacked and targeted by extremists
  • Hundreds of demonstrations around the world have heard crowds chant phrases like: Jews “go back to the ovens”
  • Anti-Semites continue to exploit financial Web sites to spread their hate online

Our ability to respond depends on the commitment of people like you. We need your support.

HIRAM7 REVIEW is the only European online magazine specifically dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, to identifying and exposing extremists and their hate groups.

Now more than ever, we need your support. In these difficult economic times, our ability to respond to these new dangers depends on the commitment from the entire community.

Can we count on you?


MERCI DE GAULLE – Hommage national

March 31, 2009

Grande souscription nationale pour que vive et se transmette l’héritage du général de Gaulle

Plus que jamais, la Fondation Charles de Gaulle a besoin de votre aide pour promouvoir et développer le nouveau Mémorial Charles de Gaulle de Colombey-les-Deux-Églises.

Dans ce but, la Fondation Charles de Gaulle a lancé une grande campagne de souscription nationale “Merci de Gaulle” à laquelle un site est dédié.

Pour accéder au site “Merci de Gaulle”, cliquer ici.


Der Geist von ZAHAL

March 27, 2009

idflogo

Ethische Dilemmata während der Operation Gegossenes Blei

Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.

Das internationale Recht basiert auf dem ‚klassischen’ Modell des Krieges zwischen zwei Armeen. Infolgedessen ist es eine große Herausforderung, existierende internationale Rechtsgrundsätze auf Konflikte mit Terrororganisationen anzuwenden. Sie können keine befriedigende Antwort auf die zahlreichen ethischen Dilemmata geben, die bei solchen Konflikten erwachsen.

Im Bemühen, ihre militärische Unterlegenheit wettzumachen, haben die Terrororganisationen systematische Strategien entwickelt, die das Unvermögen des internationalen Rechts in Bezug auf diese Fragen ausschlachten.

Dem Terrorismus sind der Wert des menschlichen Lebens und der Humanismus gleichgültig, sowohl was die eigene Nation angeht als auch seine Feinde. Aufgrund der fehlenden Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht fühlen sich die Terroristen frei von jeglichen ethischen oder moralischen Beschränkungen und operieren ohne jegliche internationale Überwachung.

Terrororganisationen versuchen, das Vorgehen der Feindstaaten zu delegitimieren. Sie erreichen dies, indem sie sich selbst als Opfer stilisieren. Dieses Bestreben wird dadurch gefördert, dass das Schlachtfeld in dicht bevölkerte Gebiete verlegt wird, wobei mit dem Endziel der Medienaufmerksamkeit eine Wirklichkeit von Tod und Elend erzeugt wird.

Die Operation Gegossenes Blei ist ein klassisches Beispiel für asymmetrische Kriegsführung. Die Hamas hat hierbei terroristische Verhaltensmuster mit zynischen Resultaten an den Tag gelegt.

Im Laufe der vergangenen zwei Jahre hat die Hamas ihre terroristische Infrastruktur mutwillig als inhärenten Teil der zivilen Infrastruktur aufgebaut (bspw. waren mehr als ein Drittel der 122 Häuser im Viertel Al-Attra mit Bomben bestückt). Während der Kämpfe wurden die Bewohner Gazas auf die Straßen gebracht, und die Hamas versteckte sich zwischen ihnen, in ziviler Kleidung, und machte sie dadurch zu menschlichen Schutzschilden. Alan Dershowitz hat dies als die „Tote-Baby-Strategie” der Hamas bezeichnet.

Der Terrorismus der Hamas wurde die gesamte Operation hindurch aufrechterhalten. Als die Übergänge für den Transfer humanitärer Hilfe geöffnet wurden, hat die Hamas sie absichtlich bombardiert. Als Hilfsgüter transferiert wurden, hat die Hamas sie erbeutet und nicht an die lokale Bevölkerung weitergegeben. Als die Kamphandlungen eingestellt wurden, um humanitäre Zeitfenster zu schaffen, hat die Hamas weiter geschossen und Zivilisten gefährdet, die sich nach draußen gewagt hatten. Und als Israel anbot, sich um die Verwundeten zu kümmern, hat die Hamas sich geweigert, sie zu überführen.

Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.

Im Feld steht der Kommandant komplexen ethischen Dilemmata gegenüber, die sein persönliches Urteil dazu erfordern, ob er den Anti-Terror-Einsatz, der die lokale Bevölkerung gefährden könnte, fortsetzen oder ob er seine eigenen Soldaten und die Zivilisten, die zu beschützen er ausgesandt wurde, gefährden soll.

Um den ethischen Dilemmata des Krieges, vor allem solchen, die während der Terrorismusbekämpfung auftreten,  begegnen zu können, haben die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) einen moralischen Code entwickelt („Der Geist von ZAHAL”). Dieser Code setzt sich aus den Werten zusammen, die der Gründung des Staates Israel innewohnten, den Werten der westlichen Demokratie und der Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht.

Der „Geist von ZAHAL” ist tief in die Grundausbildung jedes einzelnen Soldaten und Kommandanten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte  eingebaut. Die ethische Verantwortung unserer Soldaten widerspricht nicht der Notwendigkeit persönlicher Sicherheit – sie setzt einen hohen Standard für das persönliche Urteil beim Zielen auf Terroristen, die unter Zivilisten Schutz suchen.

Die Rechtsexperten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte haben jeden Aspekt der Operation begleitet, von der Planung bis zur Durchführung. Dies reflektiert die Anerkennung der Bedeutung der Einhaltung des internationalen Rechts als dem Entscheidungsprozess inhärenter Aspekt.

Vorbereitungen für potentielle ethische Dilemmata begannen bereits in der Planungsphase der Operation. Während der Operation wurden unzählige Maßnahmen ergriffen, um den Kollateralschaden an den Bewohnern des Gaza-Streifens zu minimieren: Mehr als 1 250 000 Flugblätter wurden verteilt, mehr als 165 000 Bewohner des Gaza-Streifens wurden vorab telefonisch gewarnt, und die „Anklopftechnik” wurde breitflächig angewandt.

Trotz des häufigen Kampfes in dicht bevölkerten Gebieten und des Missbrauchs von lokalen Bewohnern als menschliche Schutzschilde durch die Hamas verdeutlichen die Einschätzungen der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte, dass der Großteil der Opfer bewaffnete Kämpfer waren (709 bewaffnete Kämpfer, 295 Zivilisten und 162 Personen, deren Grad der Involvierung noch geprüft wird).

Das Schlachtfeld ist ein Schauplatz, der für Fehler anfällig ist. Für die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte  ist jeder Kollateralschaden an Zivilisten problematisch und wird untersucht, um aus den eigenen Fehlern zu lernen und die Kampfdoktrin für die Zukunft zu verbessern. Für die Hamas ist der Kollateralschaden sowohl an israelischen als auch palästinensischen Zivilisten ein Mittel zum Erreichen ihres Ziels.

Bis ein effektiver moralischer Code zur Regulierung des Kriegs gegen den Terror geschaffen sein wird, gibt es keine einzige und eindeutige Lösung für ethische Dilemmata. Die Dilemmata stellten eine Herausforderung dar, die von allen westlichen Armeen geteilt wird, eine Herausforderung, der man begegnen muss, um die demokratischen Kernwerte zu bewahren, die unsere Staaten prägen.

Es scheint so, als ob der Einsatz von menschlichen Schutzschilden durch Terror- und Guerillaorganisationen infolge der steigenden Verstädterung, der operationellen Vorteile einer solchen Umgebung und der internationalen Verurteilung von Anti-Terror-Aktivitäten in bewohnten Gebieten noch wachsen wird. Das schiere Ausmaß dieser Dilemmata wird noch zunehmen und nicht nur Israel und den Nahen Osten, sondern die internationale Gemeinschaft als Ganze betreffen. Insofern ist die globale Acht- und Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber dieser Angelegenheit unerlässlich.

Israelische Verteidigungsstreitkräfte


David Harris Remarks at Gorbachev-Shultz Reunion

March 26, 2009

ajcevent

AJC Executive Director David Harris was invited to give substantive opening remarks at this afternoon’s historic reunion between former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, moderated by Charlie Rose. Below is the text of what Gorbachev publicly praised as an outstanding speech that, he said, helped him to gain a new understanding of the Jewish community’s view of Russian and Soviet Jewish history.

Opening Remarks by David Harris
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC)

A the reunion between former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz

American Jewish Historical Society
New York, March 26, 2009

I am grateful to the American Jewish Historical Society for organizing today’s historic lunch and for giving me the privilege to speak.

In 1974, I traveled to the USSR for the first time, part of a U.S.-Soviet teacher’s exchange program. I was sent to School No. 185 in Leningrad.

Shortly after arriving, I was walking in the hallway when a young girl passed by and quietly put a piece of paper in my hand. When I was alone, I read the note. It said: “David Harris, I feel you are a Jew. If I’m right, please know that my family are refuseniks. Won’t you come visit us?”

I did. It was one of several such families I eventually met. Why did they want to leave? Her father, an engineer, explained that his children had no future in the Soviet Union. The barriers were too high, anti-Semitism too endemic.

So why were they denied the right to emigrate?

The father told me a joke which was then making the rounds:

Shapiro was called into KGB headquarters and told he would never be allowed to leave. “But why, comrade major? he pleaded. Because you know state secrets. What state secrets, comrade major? In my field, the Americans are at least ten years ahead of us. Well, said the KGB major, that’s the state secret.”

I asked the girl, who was about 14 at the time, why she thought I was Jewish and risked approaching me.

She told me that in the USSR no one in their right mind would give a boy the first name David unless he was Jewish, or else they had cripple him for life. She assumed it was probably the same in other countries.

It’s why she and other students insisted that Abraham Lincoln was the first Jewish president. Nothing I said could convince them otherwise.

The plight of the engineer’s family was but one episode in a difficult history, involving millions and spanning centuries.

It’s hard to know where the story begins.

Perhaps in 1648, when the Ukrainian Cossacks, led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky, went on a murderous rampage and killed as many as 100,000 Jews.

Or in 1791, when Catherine the Great created the Pale of Settlement, forcing Jews to live in this confined space for well over a century.

Or in 1827, when Czar Nicholas I began conscripting Jewish boys into the army for a 25-year tour, during which every effort was made to convert them to Christianity.

Or in 1881, when the assassination of Czar Alexander II triggered a deadly wave of pogroms, which would recur in the ensuing decades, often led by the Black Hundreds, whose slogan was, “Kill the Yids and save Mother Russia!”

Or that same year, when Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, argued that the Jewish problem could be solved only if one third of Russia’s Jews emigrated, one third converted, and one third perished.

Or in 1903, when the czarist secret police fabricated the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed that Jews plotted to control the world.

Or in 1911, when Mendel Beilis was arrested in Kiev and put on trial for the supposed ritual murder of a Christian child’s blood libel.

Or in 1917, when Jews were accorded equal rights, creating the short-lived hope that better times were ahead.

Or in 1918, when that hope was proven illusory, as the Civil War resulted in an estimated 2,000 pogroms and tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.

Or in the 1920s, when emigration was no longer possible, and it became clear that Jewish religious life in the Soviet Union would be proscribed.

Or in the 1930s, the decade of the Great Terror, when many Jews were among the millions purged by Stalin.

Or in the 1940s, when Soviet Jews fought valiantly in the Red Army, losing hundreds of thousands of lives and winning a disproportionate share of medals of valor, only to return home to taunts that they had sat out the war in Tashkent.

Or in 1948, when Solomon Mikhoels, the legendary actor and chair of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, was killed on Stalin’s orders in a feigned traffic accident.

Or the same year, when Golda Meir, as Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, came to Moscow’s only remaining synagogue, alarming the Kremlin when 50,000 Jews took to the streets to welcome her.

Or in 1952, when Mikhoel’s colleagues, having been charged with “treason, bourgeois nationalism, or other crimes against the state,” were executed in the night of the murdered poets.

Or in those years when the first copies of Leon Uris’s Exodus, the story of Israel’s birth, began circulating in Russian in samizdat, or self-publication, awakening kinship with the Jewish state.

Or in 1967, when Israel, faced with extinction by enemies armed with Soviet weaponry, vanquished the threat in just six days, electrifying Soviet Jews.

Or in 1970, when, to dramatize their plight, nine Jews and two non-Jews sought to hijack a plane in Leningrad and leave the country.

Or perhaps, perhaps, there wasn’t a precise date at all, just a sense for many that, despite Jews’ deep roots and love of Russian culture, something wasn’t right here, and time alone wouldn’t make it any better.

Maybe it was the knowledge that the Soviet internal passport, with its pyataya grafa, fifth line nationality” was a lifelong handicap for any Jew.

Maybe it was the recognition that prestigious universities and institutes were too frequently off-limits to Jews.

Maybe it was the awareness that certain jobs were denied to Jews, and that Jews who had jobs had to work harder to prove that they deserved them.

Maybe it was the fear that Jewish children would be subjected to taunts and jeers in school, and that school officials wouldn’t necessarily defend them.

Maybe it was the anguish that, as Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the legendary poet, reminded us when he spoke of Babi Yar, there were no memorials to the countless Jews slain by the Nazis on Soviet territory during the Holocaust.

Maybe it was the reality that Jews could not satisfy their most basic curiosity about being Jewish history, religion, tradition, language without endangering their families.

Maybe it was the relentless demonization of Israel and vilification of Zionism in Soviet officialdom.

Or maybe it was the recognition that Maxim Gorky’s words in Russian Fairy Tales were applicable for all time: “Once upon a time, in some czardom, in some state, there were Jews, simple Jews” for pogroms, for slander, and for other state needs.

Whatever the cause, by 1971, there was a full-fledged Soviet Jewry movement in the USSR and a growing support network around the world.

For the next two decades, history was written.

Soviet Jews cried out in Russian: “Otpusti narod moy.”

They cried out in the Hebrew they were beginning to learn clandestinely, “Shelach et ami.”

And they cried out in English for the world to hear the famous Biblical words, “Let my people go.”

These Soviet Jews, few in number at first, were extraordinarily brave.

They challenged the power of the state not just of any state, but the might of the Soviet Union.

Couldn’t the Kremlin simply crush them, make examples of them? And hadn’t the word emigration been missing from the Soviet lexicon for decades?

Repatriation to Israel, as the first activists demanded, seemed absurd. After 1967, there weren’t even diplomatic ties.

And yet, and yet, they weren’t crushed. Their numbers grew. The word emigration surfaced. And Israel became the overwhelmingly preferred destination for those who began leaving in 1971.

Many paid a heavy price.

Thousands were not fortunate enough to get permission to leave. Either they ended up in limbo, often for many years, as refuseniks. Or they became Prisoners of Zion, jailed for their activism and beliefs.

But nothing deterred them. And they knew they were not alone.

Jews from around the world, unwilling to sit silently while millions were once again targeted, organized, rallied, petitioned, fasted, lobbied, advocated, and traveled.

Governments responded, most notably the United States and Israel, but others as well.

For our country, the plight of Soviet Jews became a central item on our bilateral agenda and for the Congress.

Israel, despite the absence of direct links with the USSR, found many ways to give hope and support to Jews in the Soviet Union.

The Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975 by 35 nations, including the USSR and all of Europe, gave the Soviet Jewry movement an additional lever by calling for the protection of human rights.

And countless non-Jews responded.

From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Bayard Rustin, from Sister Ann Gillen to Father Robert Drinan, they represented many races, religions and creeds.

They stood up, their voices were heard, and their message was clear, “Let them live freely as Jews in the Soviet Union, or let them go.”

Try as the Soviet Union might, it could not quell the growing storm of protest.

If the Kremlin relaxed its stance on emigration, as it did in 1973 and 1979, more Jews rushed to seek permission to leave.

If it tightened its stance, as it did after the Moscow Olympics in 1980, then the global outcry intensified.

And so we come at last to the Reagan-Gorbachev era. Few could have predicted its auspicious outcome.

Certainly, when we were asked to organize a mass rally in Washington, on the eve of President Gorbachev’s first visit in 1987, little could we have foreseen the extraordinary events of the next four years.

And little could I have imagined, as the chief organizer for that rally, as the son of one of the last emigrants from the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, and as a person who was expelled from the USSR in 1974 because of my contact with Jews, that I would be here today in the presence of Mikhail Gorbachev.

We had about five weeks to organize the rally from scratch. The largest Jewish rally in Washington till then had only drawn 12-14,000 people, which didn’t give us much hope. Plus, it was slated for December, with its notoriously tricky weather. And, not for the first time, it wasn’t easy to get Jewish groups to put aside differences and unite around a shared goal.

But Natan Sharansky, released from the Gulag the previous year, kept pushing our sights higher. We set a goal of 250,000 people, never really believing we’d reach it. In fact, we exceeded it.

People from all walks of life came. They felt they had to be there. They understood that silence or indifference to human suffering is never an answer.

And they were joined by Vice President Bush and a parade of Washington dignitaries.

Not too long afterwards, President Gorbachev opened the gates, and the Jews came streaming out.

Of course, only President Gorbachev knows the degree to which this and other rallies and protests affected the decision-making of the Kremlin.

I do know that, for the mood and morale of Soviet Jews, they were vitally important.

The knowledge that the United States stood with them in their struggle was extraordinarily powerful. And there are few American officials who embody that support more than George Shultz.

No words are sufficient to describe the central role he played, or the message he sent, when, as secretary of state, he hosted a Passover Seder for Soviet Jewish activists at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1987.

At a moment when the world needs symbols of hope and possibility, today’s lunch couldn’t be better timed.

It’s a perfect reminder of the power of individuals to dream dreams and fulfill them, as Soviet Jews did.

And of the capacity of true statesmen to chart a brighter future and achieve it, as our two distinguished guests did so magnificently


Czech Government Collapse

March 25, 2009

The Czech government lost a vote of confidence by Czech parliamentarians, prompting the country’s prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, to announce that he will resign, the BBC reports.

The fall of the Czech government raises several questions. The Czech Republic currently serves as president of the European Union. A blog entry from the BBC examines who will run the EU while Prague sorts out its political situation.

Topolanek today said the fall of his government will not affect his country’s ability to preside as EU president.

RFE/RL reports Topolanek’s resignation will also raise questions about U.S. missile defense strategy in Eastern Europe.


France’s NATO Strategy

March 20, 2009

nato

France’s move to rejoin NATO’s integrated military command structure reflects a shift in Paris’ strategic thinking about its allies and its ability to project unilateral power abroad.

In a strategic paper from the German think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), Dr. Ronja Kempin reviews the challenges facing France’s military revolution.

Read full story.


Durban UN-Conference 2009: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

March 18, 2009

Ronald S. Lauder: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14, 2009

The United Nations are inviting to a conference which only serves as a platform for those who hate Israel – and all that on Hitler’s birthday.

April 20th this year will be the 120th anniversary of the birth of Hitler, the most notorious mass murderer and racist in the history of mankind. Coincidentally, this year April 20th will also be the opening day of a United Nations conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland. Its task will be to review the conclusions of the World Conference on Anti-Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, and their implementation. It would normally be a positive sign to hold an event like this on such a symbolic day. Alas, the history of the Durban process weighs against this.

Many diplomats and human rights activists will remember with horror the events that occurred in Durban in September 2001. It was turned into a grand show of unity of bigots, despots, anti-Semites and declared enemies of Israel. The Jewish state was denounced as racist and its right to exist – once guaranteed by the United Nations – questioned.

The Durban Review Process has shown that may participating states are not there to discuss ways of combating racism and intolerance but to cover up own failings by launching unfair attacks against Israel and the Jews. Repeatedly, resolutions have been tabled which do not address issues of racism but demonize Israel as racist. Israel is the only country to be singled out for criticism – a unique form of cynicism! If Israel really were the main sponsor of racism and intolerance, wouldn’t we all live in a near-perfect world?

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva will be under the motto ‘Dignity and Justice for All’. One could ask ironically if countries such as Iran, Cuba, Libya, or Pakistan have signed up to this motto. However, irony is lost once you come to realize that it is these very countries that play crucial roles in the run-up to the event. Libya chairs the Preparatory Committee, and the rapporteur is from Cuba.

Given the human rights situation in these countries that makes a mockery of the event. In Pakistan, the Taliban were recently granted the right to introduce Islamic Sharia law in the Swat Valley, which they brought under their control. Once again, women there risk their lives when striving for better education or personal freedom.

Iran’s role is a particularly bad one: the event will provide the preachers of hate in Tehran with another international platform. In Iran, ethnic and religious minorities such as the Bahai suffer from discrimination, and human rights abuses are rife. Iran even executes minors because of their homosexuality, and women are regularly stoned to death for allegedly having committed adultery.

The genocide in Rwanda took place only 15 years ago, and yet there are ominous signs that it could again happen elsewhere in Africa. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people were killed in ethnic violence because Sudan’s dictatorial president and the neighboring countries simply didn’t give a damn. The Libyan ruler Kaddafi recently blamed the mass killing in Darfur on Israel. Yet the African Union, whose current president Kaddafi is, doing precious little to solve the conflict.

The country reports on human rights recently published by the US State Department make it crystal clear: the very countries which at the United Nations are supposed act as fighters for human rights and against racism have the worst record when it comes to state-sponsored violations of human rights at home.

The bodies of the United Nations – especially the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – have been become popular forums for those bigots who like to denounce others in order to deflect from their own failings. In the less than three years of its existence the Human Rights Council has already condemned Israel 15 times. Worse conflicts were not dealt with at all, or diplomatically and discretely dealt with.

There is a danger that the UN anti-racism conference will once again be exploited to pursue aims that have nothing to do with the fight against racism and intolerance. Some Muslim countries event want draconian restrictions of freedom of speech pretending a “defamation of religion.”

Lately, even UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, who acts as the review conference’s organizer, felt obliged to call on the participating states to be objective and focus on the real aims of the conference. This is honorable, but it also speaks volumes about what to expect from the forum.

As things currently stand, the objectives of the Durban Review Conference cannot be achieved. Before more damage is done, Mrs. Pillay should therefore cancel the event. Otherwise, Western governments must stay away. More than a year ago, the Canadian government announced its boycott. Lately, the US administration and Italy joined them. Unfortunately, others – including the German government – are still hesitant.

Last year, the EU presidency defined clear “red lines”, which, once crossed, would trigger the withdrawal of European governments from the Geneva conference. Although the red lines have been crossed the European governments, except the Italian, are still reluctant to take a decision.

Diplomats always seek to make small progress and find a compromise. However, there are moments when we need political leadership in order to avoid one’s agenda being hijacked by disingenuous actors. Diplomacy is not an end in itself, and the ambition to get some form of consensus on a final declaration must not compromise the respect for liberty and human rights.

This is a test for Europe. It is not too late yet to avoid a repeat of the Durban disaster of 2001. One can only hope that Europe’s leaders do not naively walk into the same trap that was already laid out for them by the self-appointed fighters for human rights. German in particular should make a stand and not attend the Geneva conference on April 20th. Such a decision would be a strong signal.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, is president of the World Jewish Congress
.


Durban UN-Konferenz 2009: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

March 18, 2009

Außenansicht – Ronald S. Lauder: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.03.2009

Die Vereinten Nationen laden zu einer Konferenz, die nur als Bühne der Israel-Hasser dient – und das am Geburtstag Hitlers.

Am 20. April jährt sich zum 120. Mal die Geburt Hitlers, des schlimmsten Massenmörders und Rassisten der Menschheitsgeschichte. Und ausgerechnet am 20. April beginnt nun in Genf eine Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen, bei der die Ergebnisse der Antirassismuskonferenz aus dem Jahr 2001 im südafrikanischen Durban und ihre Umsetzung überprüft werden sollen. Die Veranstaltung an einem symbolträchtigen Datum wie diesem abzuhalten, wäre eigentlich zu begrüßen, wenn nicht die Vorgeschichte dagegen spräche.

An die erste UN-Konferenz gegen Rassismus in Durban, Südafrika, im September 2001 erinnern sich Diplomaten und Menschenrechtsorganisationen mit Grauen. Denn sie entwickelte sich zu einem Schaulaufen der Heuchler, Despoten, der Antisemiten und der Israel-Feinde. Der jüdische Staat wurde als rassistisch gebrandmarkt und sein – von den Vereinten Nationen verbrieftes – Existenzrecht in Frage gestellt.

Es zeigt sich in der Vorbereitung der Konferenz fast täglich aufs Neue, dass es vielen teilnehmenden Staaten nicht um die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz geht, sondern darum, eigene Verfehlungen durch unfaire Attacken auf Israel und die Juden zu kaschieren. Israel wird als Apartheid-Staat diffamiert, in dem Juden angeblich Andersgläubige unterdrücken. Mehrfach sind Resolutionen und Anträge eingebracht worden, die nicht Rassismus bekämpfen, sondern Israel als rassistisch verleumden. Israel ist das einzige Land, das namentlich kritisiert wird – ein Zynismus sondergleichen, denn wäre Israel in puncto Rassismus und Intoleranz wirklich das Hauptproblem, dann würden wir in einer fast perfekten Welt leben.

Die Konferenz in Genf steht unter dem Motto “Würde und Gerechtigkeit für alle”. Man kann ironisch fragen, ob sich auch Länder wie Iran, Libyen, Kuba oder Pakistan dem verpflichtet fühlen. Die Ironie bleibt einem jedoch im Halse stecken, weil man erkennen muss, dass diese Länder bei der Veranstaltung das Wort führen. Libyen sitzt dem Vorbereitungsausschuss vor, der Berichterstatter des Organisationskomitees kommt aus Kuba, und auch Iran spielt eine tragende Rolle. Angesichts der Zustände in diesen Ländern ist dies eine Verhöhnung der Konferenz. In Pakistan wurde unlängst den Taliban in dem von ihnen beanspruchten Swat-Tal zugestanden, die Scharia einzuführen. Frauen riskieren nun wieder viel, wenn sie nach Bildung oder persönlicher Freiheit streben. Irans Rolle ist besonders schlimm: Mit der Veranstaltung erhalten die Hassprediger in Teheran erneut eine internationale Bühne. In Iran werden Minderheiten wie die Bahai diskriminiert und Menschenrechte aufs schlimmste verletzt. Iran lässt sogar homosexuelle Minderjährige öffentlich hinrichten, und Frauen droht bei Ehebruch die Steinigung.

Der Völkermord in Ruanda ist erst 15 Jahre her, und doch gibt es wieder bedrohliche Anzeichen, dass er sich anderswo in Afrika wiederholen könnte. In der Region Darfur mussten Hunderttausende sterben, weil das dem diktatorischen Präsidenten des Sudan und den Nachbarstaaten schlicht gleichgültig war. Der libysche Staatschef Gaddafi macht Israel für Darfur verantwortlich, und die Afrikanische Union, welcher Gaddafi vorsteht, unternimmt recht wenig gegen den Konflikt.

Der jüngste Menschenrechtsbericht des amerikanischen Außenministeriums spricht eine deutliche Sprache: Gerade jene Länder, die sich bei den Vereinten Nationen als Kämpfer gegen Rassismus aufschwingen, sind die größten Sünder, wenn es um die Missachtung der Menschenrechte im eigenen Land geht. Die Gremien der UN – insbesondere die Vollversammlung und der Menschenrechtsrat – sind zu beliebten Foren jener Heuchler geworden, die Verfehlungen anderer anprangern, um von eigenen abzulenken. In den zweieinhalb Jahren seines Bestehens wurde Israel durch den UN-Menschenrechtsrat bereits 15 Mal verurteilt. Andere, wesentlich schlimmere Konflikte wurden dagegen gar nicht behandelt oder mittels diplomatischer Formeln diskret ad acta gelegt.

Es besteht die Gefahr, dass auch die UN-Antirassismuskonferenz erneut instrumentalisiert wird, um ganz andere Ziele zu verfolgen als die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz. Manche islamische Länder wollen eine drakonische Beschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit unter dem Vorwand der “Beleidigung der Religion”.

Zuletzt sah sich sogar UN-Menschenrechtskommissarin Navanethem Pillay, die Ausrichterin der Rassismuskonferenz, genötigt, die teilnehmenden Staaten zur Objektivität aufzufordern und sich auf die eigentlichen Ziele der Konferenz zu konzentrieren. Das ist ehrenwert, lässt aber nichts Gutes erahnen.

Klar ist: Die Ziele der Veranstaltung können nach derzeitigem Stand nicht erreicht werden. Bevor nun noch mehr Schaden angerichtet wird, sollte Frau Pillay die Konferenz absagen. Andernfalls müssen die westlichen Regierungen ihr fernbleiben. Bereits vor gut einem Jahr erklärte die kanadische Regierung ihren Boykott, dieser Tage schlossen sich die US-Regierung und Italien an. Andere, darunter auch die Bundesregierung, zögern leider noch.

Die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft hat im vergangenen Jahr vier “rote Linien” definiert, deren Überschreitung nach sich ziehen würde, dass die europäischen Regierungen bei der Genfer Konferenz nicht teilnehmen. Obwohl diese Linien eindeutig überschritten wurden, zögern die europäischen Regierungen, ausgenommen eben Italien, leider noch.

Diplomaten streben nach kleinen Fortschritten und Kompromissen. Es gibt aber auch Momente, die nach politischer Führung verlangen. Diplomatie ist kein Selbstzweck, und das Streben nach einem Abschlussdokument, auf das sich die Staaten einigen können, darf nicht dazu führen, dass Freiheit und Menschenrechte relativiert werden.

Europa ist gefordert. Noch ist es nicht zu spät, eine Wiederholung des Desasters von 2001 zu verhindern. Die Europäer sollten nicht noch einmal gutmütig in die Falle tappen, die ihnen selbst ernannte Streiter für Menschenrechte gestellt haben. Gerade Deutschland müsste am 20. April der Konferenz in Genf demonstrativ fernbleiben. Noch ist es für die Bundesregierung nicht zu spät, ein starkes Zeichen zu setzen.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, ist Präsident des Jüdischen Weltkongresses.


Neue Kontroverse um die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer

March 18, 2009

Die Tageszeitung Die Welt berichtet, dass die israelische Historikerin Rachel Elior an der Existenz der antiken Sekte der Essener zweifelt: Rachel Elior hält sie für eine Erfindung des Geschichtsschreibers Josephus Flavius, hebräische oder aramäische Quellen gebe es nicht.

“Daraus zieht Rachel Elior den Schluss, dass es sich bei den Schreibern der Rollen nicht um fromme Essener am Toten Meer, sondern um Sadduzäer handelte, also Angehörige der Gruppe im antiken Judentum, die zahlreiche Hohepriester stellte und bis zu ihrer Vernichtung im Jüdischen Krieg die gemäßigte Elite des Volkes repräsentierte. Die Texte von Qumran wurden demnach im Jerusalemer Tempel geschrieben und in Jerusalemer Bibliotheken verwahrt. Erst bei Kriegsausbruch wurden sie ans Tote Meer gebracht, um sie vor den Römern zu schützen.”

Zum Artikel.


G-20-Finance Ministers Meeting

March 16, 2009

News reports indicate a meeting of finance ministers from the G-20 countries, laying the groundwork for a major April 2nd, 2009 heads-of-state summit addressing the financial crisis, produced agreement in several areas.

Australia’s representative at the meetings said: “Everybody agreed: It’s fiscal stimulus plus. We’ve got to do something about the flow of credit in the financial system; we’ve got to reform our international financial institutions.”

Reportedly the delegates reached general agreement on the need both to boost International Monetary Fund (IMF) resources in the short-term and to reshape the fund in the longer term, including a timetable to increase the voting rights of emerging economies.

Reuters reports the group also agreed to boost funding to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) by $100 billion, bringing the bank’s war chest to $150 billion total.


Fremd-Sprache

March 14, 2009

In einem Essay erschienen in der heutigen Ausgabe der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung  betrachtet der polyglotte Schriftsteller Literaturwissenschaftler Adolf Muschg das Sprachenerlernen als Schlüssel zur interkulturellen Kompetenz:

“Man lernt ihre Eigenheit würdigen, eingeschlossen die Willkür, die Freiheit, den Zufall, die in ihr am Werk sind. Daraus ergibt sich eine kulturelle Kompetenz über den Spracherwerb hinaus: eine Disposition, immer auch die andere Seite einer Sache zu hören.”

Zum Artikel.


Pakistan crackdown

March 13, 2009

The BBC reports Pakistani authorities have broadened their crackdown on anti-government protests in several parts of the country. Authorities in the country’s northwest have banned political gatherings, the article says, and officials in Sindh province blocked a protest convoy.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani ordered security for opposition leader Nawaz Sharif to be stepped up, following intelligence reports that Sharif and his brother are under threat.

Meanwhile, Britain’s Foreign Minister David Miliband and U.S. regional envoy Richard Holbrooke held talks with Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. The Times of India reports Zardari also held meetings with Pakistan’s military chief Ashfaq Kiyani.

Dawn continues its coverage with a blog dedicated to the protests.

Read full story.


Security Challenges Arising from the Global Financial Crisis

March 11, 2009
Statement of Richard Nathan Haass, former Director of Policy Planning in the U.S. State Department, current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, before the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. House of Representatives
Washington DC, March 11, 2009

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Armed Services on security challenges arising from the global financial crisis. Let me first commend you and your colleagues for holding this hearing. Most of the analysis and commentary on the global economic crisis has focused on the economic consequences.

This is understandable, but it is not sufficient. The world does not consist of stovepipes, and what happens in the economic realm affects political and strategic policies and realities alike. It is also important to say at the outset that this crisis, which began in the housing sector in the United States, is now more than a financial crisis. It is a full-fledged economic crisis. It is also more than an American crisis. It is truly global.

I would add, too, that the crisis is unlike any challenge we have seen in the past. It is qualitatively different than the sort of cyclical downturn that capitalism produces periodically. This crisis promises to be one of great depth, duration, and consequence. This crisis was not inevitable. It was the result of flawed policies, poor decisions, and questionable behavior.

It is important that this point be fully understood lest the conclusion be widely drawn that market economies are to be avoided. The problem lies with the practice of capitalism, not the model. Nevertheless, the perception is otherwise, and one consequence of the economic crisis is that market economies have lost much of their luster and the United States has lost much of its credibility in this realm.

It is inconceivable in these circumstances to imagine an American official preaching the virtues of the Washington Consensus. This is unfortunate, as open economies continue to have more to offer the developing world than the alternatives. It also adds to the importance that the U.S. economy get back on track lest a lasting casualty of the crisis be modern capitalism itself.

The impact of the economic crisis will be varied and go far beyond the image of capitalism and the reputation of the United States. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair was all too correct when he testified recently that the primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications. The crisis will have impact on conditions within states, on the policies of states, on relations between states, and on the thinking of those who run states. I have already alluded to this last consideration.

Here I would only add that initial reactions around the world to the crisis appear to have evolved, from some initial gloating at America’s expense to resentment of the United States for having spawned this crisis to, increasingly, hopes that the American recovery arrives sooner and proves to be more robust than is predicted. This change of heart is not due to any change of thinking about the United States but rather to increased understanding that the recovery of others will to a significant extent depend on recovery in the United States. In a global world, what happens here affects developments elsewhere and vice versa. Decoupling in either direction is rarely a serious possibility. The crisis is clearly affecting the developed world, mostly as a result of the centrality of banking-related problems and the high degree of integration that exists among the economies of the developed world. Iceland’s government has fallen; others may over time. Many governments (including several in Central and Eastern Europe but outside the Eurozone) will require substantial loans.

The economies of Japan, much of Europe, and the United States are all contracting. World economic growth, which averaged 4 to 5 percent over the past decade, will be anemic this year even if it manages to be positive, which is increasingly unlikely. It is worth noting that the most recent World Bank projection predicts negative growth for 2009. Change of this sort will have consequences. There will likely be fewer resources available for defense and foreign assistance. Reduced availability of resources for defense makes it even more critical that U.S. planners determine priorities. Preparing to fight a large-scale conventional war is arguably not the highest priority given the enormous gap between the relevant military capabilities of the United States and others and the greater likelihood that security-related challenges will come from terrorism and asymmetric warfare. State-capacity building, the sort of activity the United States is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, will continue to place a heavy burden on U.S. military and civilian assets.

Also remaining highly relevant (and deserving to be a funding priority) will be standoff capabilities designed to destroy targets associated with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Developing states may appear to be better off than wealthier countries at first glance. Their growth on average is down by half from previous years, but still positive. Appearances, however, can be deceptive. This growth is measured from a low base in absolute and relative terms. The reduction in growth in some instances has been dramatic. Developing country exports are down as demand is down in the developed world.

Also reduced are aid flows and most importantly investment flows to the developing world. Commodity prices are much lower, a boon to those who rely on imports but a major problem for the many who are dependent on the income from one or two exports. A few countries merit specific mention. One is China. China’s economic success over the past few decades constitutes one of history’s great examples of poverty eradication. This process, one that has involved the migration of millions of people every year from poor rural areas to cities, will slow considerably. The already large number of domestic political protests in China over such issues as land confiscation, corruption, environmental degradation, and public health, is likely to grow. Absent renewed robust economic growth, the chances are high that the government will react by clamping down even more on the population lest economic frustration lead to meaningful political unrest.

Russia is in a different position, one characteristic of countries dependent on raw material exports for much of their wealth. The Russian economy is contracting after a period of boom. As is the case with China, this suggests the likely assertion of greater political control. But Russia is not as fully integrated as China is with the world economy. There is thus a greater (although impossible to quantify) chance that Russia’s leaders will turn to the time-honored resort of manufacturing an overseas crisis to divert attention than will China’s.

The same holds true for Iran and Venezuela, two countries that are heavily reliant on energy exports and whose foreign policies have been counterproductive (to say the least) from the U.S. perspective. But at the same time, it is possible that one or both will pull in their horns. Venezuela is already showing some signs of this, with its more welcoming stance toward international oil companies. This may well be simply a tactical adjustment to immediate needs.

And at least in principle, Iran’s government might find it more difficult to make the case to its own people for its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons option if the Iranian people understood that it was costing them dearly with respect to their standard of living. Iraq is another oil producing country whose wealth is closely associated with the price of oil. Here the effects are sure to be unwanted. There is the danger that disorder will increase as unemployment rises, prospects for sharing revenue shrink, and the ability of the central government to dispense cash to build broad national support diminishes. In light of the multiple challenges already facing the United States, the last thing the Obama administration needs is the specter of an unravelling Iraq.

Two other countries are worth highlighting. One is Pakistan. Pakistan’s economic performance is down sharply for many reasons, including a decrease in both foreign investment in the country and exports from Pakistan to other countries. Pakistan has little margin for error; the possibility that it could fail is all too real. The worsened economic situation makes governing all that much more difficult. The consequences of a failed Pakistan for the global struggle against terrorism, for attempts to prevent further nuclear proliferation, for the effort to promote stability in Afghanistan, and for India’s future are difficult to exaggerate. North Korea is a second nuclear-armed state whose stability is worsened by the economic crisis.

At issue is the extent to which South Korea (along with China and Japan) can provide resources to the North to help stave off collapse. Another serious consequence of the global economic crisis, one that affects both developed and developing countries, is the reality that protectionism is on the rise. One realm is trade; some seventeen of the twenty governments set to meet in London early next month have increased barriers to trade since they met late last year. Negotiated free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea continue to languish in the U.S. Congress. The president lacks the Trade Promotion Authority essential for the negotiation of complex, multilateral trade accords. Prospects for a Doha round global trade pact appear remote. The volume of world trade is down for the first time in decades. The economic but also strategic costs of this trend are high. Trade is a major source of political as well as economic integration; one reason China acts as responsibly as it does in the political sphere is because of its need to export its products lest potentially destabilizing unemployment jump sharply. Trade has other virtues as well. More than anything else, trade is a principal engine of global economic growth. The completion of the Doha round might be worth as much as $500 billion to the world in expanded economic activity. One-fourth of this expanded output would occur in the United States. This is the purest form of stimulus.

For the United States, exports are a source of millions of relatively high-paying jobs; imports are anti-inflationary and spur innovation. Alas, the economic crisis will make it difficult if not impossible to conclude new trade pacts and to gain the requisite domestic support for them. Economic nationalism is on the rise, and when this happens, the will and the ability of political leaders to support policies that are perceived to hurt large numbers of their citizens (but which in reality help many more) invariably goes down. What is more, the economic crisis may also make it more difficult to reach agreement on a global climate change pact when representatives of most of the world’s countries gather in Copenhagen late this year. Developed and developing countries alike will resist commitments that appear to or in fact do sacrifice near-term economic growth for long-term environmental benefit. What, then, should be done to limit the adverse strategic effects of an economic crisis that is certain to get worse and persist for some time?

The United States – the Obama administration and the Congress – should resist protectionism. “Buy America” provisions in the stimulus legislation will increase costs to American consumers and all but make certain that other countries will follow suit, thereby reducing the prospects for American firms to sell abroad. More American jobs are likely to be sacrificed than preserved. Increased protectionism will also dilute the strategic benefits that stem from trade and its ability to contribute to international stability by giving governments a stake in stability. Similar arguments hold as to why “lend national” provisions are counterproductive. Bringing countries into the world trading system (best done through WTO accession) makes strategic sense, too, as it gives them a stake in maintaining order at the same time it opens government decision-making to greater degrees of transparency. Recession cannot become this country’s energy policy or a reason not to decrease U.S. consumption of oil, imported or otherwise. Lower prices will dilute any economic incentive to consume less oil. Regulatory policy will be the principal means of discouraging demand and encouraging the development of alternative energy sources and technologies. Reduced demand is essential for strategic reasons (so as not to leave the United States highly dependent on imports and so that countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran do not benefit from dollar inflows), for environmental reasons, and for economic reasons, i.e., not to increase the U.S. balance of payments deficit. The goal should be to use this moment of temporarily-reduced prices to decrease the chances we as a country again find ourselves in a world of high energy prices once the recession recedes.

The United States should work with other developed and reserve-rich countries to increase the capacity of the IMF to assist governments in need of temporary loans. Current capacity falls short of what is and will be needed. It would be helpful if aid budgets were not victims of the economic crisis. Aid is needed on a large scale not just for humanitarian reasons (to fight disease, etc.) but also to build the human capital that is the foundation of economic development. Aid will also be a necessary substitute in the short and medium run for investment. Absent such flows we are likely to see greater misery and an increased number of failing or failed states. The upcoming G-20 summit in London provides an opportunity to adopt or encourage some useful measures in many of these realms. It is essential that others, including Europe and Japan, take steps to stimulate their economies. It is equally important, though, that guidelines be promulgated so that stimulus programs do not become a convenient mechanism for unwarranted subsidies and “buy national” provisions that are simply protectionist measures by another name.

The London meeting is also an opportunity to increase IMF capacity, to generate commitments to provide aid to developing countries, and to agree on at least some regulatory principles for national banking and financial systems. There is not time, however, to try to rebuild the architecture of the international economic system, solve the problems caused by countries that run chronic surpluses, or revamp the system of exchange rates. Let me close with two final thoughts. Much of this hearing and statement is focused on the question of the consequences of the economic crisis for global security. But it is important to keep in mind that the relationship is not only one way. Developments in the political world can and will have an effect on the global economy.

Imagine for a second the economic consequences of, say, a Taiwan crisis or fighting between India and Pakistan or an armed confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. This last possibility is the most worrying in the near term and underscores the importance of trying to negotiate limits on Iran’s enrichment program lest the United States be confronted with the unsavory option of either living with an Iranian near or actual nuclear weapons capability or mounting a preventive military strike that, whatever it accomplished, would be sure to trigger a wider crisis that could well lead to energy prices several times their current level.

Finally, getting through this economic crisis should not be confused with restoring prolonged calm in the markets or sustainable growth. Enormous stimulus measures here at home coupled with equally unprecedented increases in the current account deficit and national debt make it all but certain that down the road the United States will confront not just renewed inflation but quite possibly a dollar crisis as well. At some point central banks and other holders of dollars will have secnd thoughts about continuing to add to their dollar holdings, currently larger than ever given the desire for a safe harbor. Ongoing U.S. requirements for debt financing, however, will likely mean that interest rates would need to be raised, something that could choke off a recovery. This underscores the importance of limiting stimulus packages to what is truly essential to reviving economic activity and to taking other measures (such as entitlement reform and the already discussed steps to reduce oil use) lest the current crisis give way to another one.


The Exasperating Gift of Singularity: Edmund Husserl, Emmanuel Levinas, Michel Henry

March 10, 2009

bozga-bookshow

The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. (Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Foreword)

This book is concerned with the idea that, in light of the works of Edmund Husserl, Emmanuel Levinas and Michel Henry, phenomenology has an important contribution to make to the question of singularity.

It also demonstrates that the issue of a singular givenness, and/or of the givenness of singularity is highly consequential for justifying alternative views to a purist form of phenomenology.

REVIEW: “The book is extremely timely since it touches on themes that are of paramount importance within the phenomenological tradition in France today. Particularly impressive is Bogza’s use of Michel Henry, who is hardly known in the English speaking world and whose work is still in need of translation. Hopefully this book will bring about an interest in his work which is long overdue” (Dr. Lilian Alweiss, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Philosophy)

Table of Contents  
Introduction

PART ONE: Phenomenology on Singularity  (Husserl)

I.The Problem and its Background

II. The Primitive Sense-Data, or Noncompounded Singulars

III. The Manifold-Unitary Singulars or Singularity as Particularity

IV. The Pre-phenomenal: Singularity as Uniqueness

PART TWO: Phenomenology of Singularity (E. Levinas and M. Henry)

V. Levinas on the Singularising Singularity of the Other

VI. Michel Henry on the Singular Ipseity of Life

Conclusion


About the author: Adina Bozga studied philosophy and political science in Bucharest, Romania. She obtained her PHD in Philosophy in  2003 from the University of Warwick, UK. She is the author of a series of articles in phenomenology and a member of the editorial board of «Studia Phaenomenologica». Her current research interests include social and political philosophy, and phenomenology.

To order this book, please click here.

Zeta Books

Address 52 Carol I Bldv, ap. 5
020923 Bucharest,
Romania
Telephone
Fax
0040 733 046 689
0040 318 166 779
Website www.zetabooks.com
Orders orders@zetabooks.com

Deutschland soll sich dem Boykott der antisemitischen UN-Propaganda-Konferenz „Durban II“ durch Kanada, die USA und Italien anschließen

March 10, 2009

Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung des Koordinierungsrats deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus, der Jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin und des Jüdischen Forums für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus

Pressemitteilung lesen.


U.S.-Russia-NATO

March 6, 2009

With USA saying it wants to pursue a “reset” of relations with Russia, NATO announced it would restore full diplomatic ties with Moscow.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton attempted to explain the new approach to Europeans, saying she doesn’t think Russia should have a veto on NATO expansion.

Read full story.


Stop Swiss Bid to Elect Anti-American and Anti-Israel Extremist Jean Ziegler to U.N.

March 5, 2009

ziegler

Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva tomorrow: Will she stop Swiss nomination of U.N.’s leading anti-American and anti-Israel official?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets in Geneva tomorrow with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, whose government has just nominated Jean Ziegler – a former Swiss politician notorious for his anti-American books, giving a prize to a French Holocaust denier, and apologetics for Libyan’s Qaddafi regime – to a U.N. human rights post. Jean Ziegler is a longtime Socialist party confidante of Ms. Calmy-Rey.

Calmy-Rey’s government nominated Ziegler for re-election to the advisory committee of the UN Human Rights Council, as the only candidate of the council’s Western group. When Western states elect a notorious apologist of dictators and one of the world’s most virulent promoters of hatred against their own embattled civilization, they signal defeatism in the wrong place and at the worst time. Ziegler’s latest French-language best-seller is entitled Hatred of the West. The U.N. vote is scheduled for March 25, 2009.

Who is Jean Ziegler?

As documented in a essay by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, Jean Ziegler is:

  • Apologist for some of the worst human rights criminals of our time. 
  • After Fidel Castro imprisoned 70 journalists, Ziegler proclaimed “total support for the Cuban revolution.”  During an official visit to the Communist island in October 2008, Ziegler hailed the virtues of Castro regime even while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.

Only pressure from U.S. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, supported by other voices of reason, can stop Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey from pursing this outrageous nomination.

Click Here to Take Action!