Elsewhere Today (411)
Aljazeera:
Iraq similar to Vietnam says Bush
Thursday 19 October 2006, 15:30 Makka Time, 12:30 GMT
The US president has for the first time acknowledged a possible parallel between the raging violence in Iraq and the Vietnam War.
George Bush on Wednesday was asked in an ABC News interview if he agreed with a New York Times columnist's comparison of the strife in Iraq with the Tet Offensive, which is considered a key turning point in the US war in Vietnam.
"He could be right," he said. "There's certainly a stepped up level of violence."
Bush said insurgents are trying "to inflict enough damage that we'd leave."
"First of all, al-Qaeda is still very active in Iraq. They are dangerous. They are lethal. They are trying to not only kill American troops, but they're trying to foment sectarian violence," he said.
"They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause (the) government to withdraw," Bush said.
Vietnamese campaign
The Tet Offensive, a campaign launched by the North Vietnamese in early 1968, was considered a military defeat for them, but the scope of the assault shocked Americans and helped turn US public opinion against the war.
The White House later sought to put the comparison in context.
"The full context was that the comparison was about the propaganda waged in the Tet Offensive ... and the president was reiterating something he's said before - that the enemy is trying to shake our will," Dana Perino, a Bush spokeswoman, said in a statement.
"They know that we're a caring and compassionate people and that we're deeply affected by gross violence," she said.
"The president also believes the American people understand the importance of beating our enemy who is determined to kill innocent freedom-loving people."
In the television interview, the US leader also expressed support for Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, but warned that his patience is not infinite.
"In my judgment, Maliki has got what it takes to lead a unity government," Bush said.
"I'm patient. I'm not patient forever. And I'm not patient with dawdling. But I recognise the degree of difficulty of the task, and therefore, say to the American people, we won't cut and run," he said.
AFP
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/74E4D099-8A63-4C3E-BF44-F1E13B3B7EBD.htm
allAfrica:
A Conversation with Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
allAfrica.com INTERVIEW
Washington, DC, October 18, 2006
At a breakfast fundraiser in Washington DC for the Liberian Education Trust, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf discussed the nation's prospects for development and peace with veteran journalist Judy Woodruff and a supportive audience. AllAfrica transcribed the session.
Judy Woodruff: I am delighted to be here this morning. I'd like to welcome President Johnson Sirleaf. I would like to start out with a reminder of Ginger Rogers famous line; someone asked her, "Are you really as good a dancer as Fred Astaire?" and she said, "Absolutely, and I have to do it backwards and in my heels!"
I would say, in the case of President Johnson Sirleaf, that you have to do it backwards and in your heels in a country with enormous challenges. We are particularly delighted that you are here. Thanks very much.
I don't want to give very much of an introduction. You have it in the program. Suffice to say, President Johnson Sirleaf has been involved in the life of her native country, Liberia, for several decades. She started out at the ministry of finance. She was educated in the United States and Liberia. She ran for president in 1996, and last year, she ran again. She was elected and took office nine months ago yesterday, on January 16 of this year.
President Johnson Sirleaf, we don't want to focus on the challenges you face, principally, but I do want to ask you, to begin, to size up for the audience the situation that your country is in at the moment. The infrastructure was destroyed after fourteen years of civil war. We know the effect on the economy, not to mention education. Give us your description of the challenges your country faces right now.
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf: First of all, let me say how glad I am to be here. I see so many familiar faces around the room who I have worked with and interacted with over the years. Let me apologize for being late. I just came in this morning. Because of bad weather, we got delayed by a whole day. It is good to be here.
One has to see Liberia contextually…Since a coup d'etat in 1980, we have been in economic freefall. We had most of our infrastructure destroyed, because the coup d'etat and the military dictatorship that took over led to … a civil war that really destroyed everything. The challenges are many; they have all been reported and talked about. But I think the greatest challenge of all is the challenge of youth.
We have a young population; some 40% of our population is less than 20 years old. Many of them were conscripted into warfare, have never been to school – and at this stage, how do we respond to that? We are trying to meet the challenges of improving infrastructure. We are trying to meet the challenges of reconciliation from wars and of ethnic tensions and rivalries that were associated with that, but most of all, getting our young children back to school and giving them hope and confidence in the future.
For many years they have reached a place where they lost hope, where they could see nothing but death and destruction, where they have no confidence in government, no confidence in leadership, no understanding that they had a place and a stake in their society, and they could grow up and become a major participant in the process of reconstruction. I think our responsibility is to restore that hope; to bring back the smiles on the faces of the children again; to make them know that we are moving ahead to respond to their needs.
It is a difficult task right now. Timing is of the essence.
It has been nine months since the election. It takes a while to get all of the procedures and policies and programs in place to respond to their needs. At this stage, our biggest challenge is getting things on the ground that affects their lives. That means getting the schools, getting the clinics, getting many of them the training and skills that enable them to get a job.
We are working with our [aid] partners; we are trying to stress the need for urgency. I think we have a lot of progress, but the progress compared to the challenges is still much too small. The challenge for the next six months, when we have the weather conditions to enable us, is to put these young people back to work, to get them to school, to fix our infrastructure.
It is going to be about how quickly we can do it; how effectively our partnership can be made to work, given constraints on our resources; how we can create the environment that will attract private sector involvement that would create the jobs. So in the next few months, as I go forward to my first anniversary on January 16, what we do will make a big difference in consolidating the peace and reinforcing the hope and promise of our young people, who are the future.
Woodruff: The statistics, President Johnson Sirleaf, are: population, 3.2 million; unemployment, 85%; illiteracy, 80%; only 28 doctors in the country, I read; three pediatricians; 35% of the population is undernourished; 3.7 billion dollars in debt. Why the focus on education and particularly on educating girls?
Sirleaf: That is where the future lies. As a matter of fact, that is probably our most important neglect. Women need education; they need skills. Our young people can apply themselves; they can become a part of the rebuilding process.
Why girls? Because girls, in Liberia, in Africa, are the ones that have been left out. If there was an opportunity and not enough resources for both boys and girls, the young boys would get the opportunity, because they represented the person who could take care of the family, the one who had the opportunity for jobs, the one who would excel in leadership positions. Young girls got married too early.
The emphasis on girls is to correct many years of neglect. We are already beginning to feel some effects, as the enrollment of girls is beginning to increase.
Woodruff: Tell us what the numbers are in terms of boys and girls who are enrolled in school right now up to age of 18.
Sirleaf: The enrollment rate for boys is somewhere around 40%. We don't have enough of them in school, because we don't have the schools. [The percentage for] girls is about half of that. The total numbers, I don't have that on me.
Woodruff: But you were saying that it was less …
Sirleaf: Oh yes, very much so. The girls' enrollment rate is about one-half of boys'. The program we launched recently – the Liberian Education Trust – Debbie is here, she is running that from here. [They] have been trying to get statistics, and I have to tell you, that is one of our problems, the lack of statistics over the years. There were no attempts to gather statistics. We are trying to get our national accounts and all that back in place again. Debbie, do you happen to have those numbers.
Deborah Harding, president of Liberian Education Trust: I think it is 50% of the school-age kids are in school, of which 24% are girls.
Woodruff: Is the greater challenge the resources, or is it changing the attitudes of people about the need for educating girls, or both?
Sirleaf: I would put the weight on the latter. Yes, money is a constraint, but for families to survive, their young children, particularly girls, have been a source of income, because they go out on the streets.
There is nothing more heartbreaking than to walk the streets and see a five-year-old or six-year-old with a huge basket on their heads, selling food or little packages of water and things like that. They should be in school.
The mothers themselves are in the market, sometimes with their children with them, in difficult conditions. This is the only way for them to get enough money to feed the family that night, or for that matter, to pay tuition for one or two of the boy children. If it is a large family, not all of them can go to school, because they do not the resources. In some cases, the facilities for schooling are not available in their communities. So, I think it is changing the mindset of the family and pressing upon them the need to get all children in school, but also to place emphasis on the girl child, which is the one that gets neglected in the circumstances where the resources are not available.
Woodruff: How much time do you think … what is the window you think you have to turn things around – maybe you think you have turned things around – so you don't run the risk of the sort of instability that led to the country being enveloped in civil war?
Sirleaf: Eighteen months from now. We did our first 150 days and called them deliverables and tried to set measurable targets of the things we would achieve in the areas of peace and security, infrastructure, governance and the rule of law. We achieved a lot of that. Largely it was a planning effort, setting the goals, getting the policies right.
Now we are working on an interim poverty reduction strategy and the time frame for that is July 06 to June 08. That is the period that we have got to deliver. Between now and then, we have got to deliver progressively in many areas so people begin to see results on the ground.
When I talk about the urgency – within that time frame, transformation has got to be visible. Transformation has got to be felt. We have got to touch the lives of these young girls and boys. We have got to make a difference in their families. Because if we do not – the record on that is clear in post-conflict countries – if you don't make a difference in a relatively short amount of time, one to two years, chances are that the country slips back into chaos and back into conflict.
For Liberia, this is the one best opportunity that we have to fix it, to make sure that we get lasting peace and that we progressively deliver on the agenda. Our country is not poor, let me be quick to point that out. Our country is rich is natural resources, rich in human resources, and we see some of them around the room, many of whom are here pursuing good things, like an education or a job. Remittances are an important part of our resources right now, but those resources have not been properly managed. That is our challenge. In two years, by the time I reach my second anniversary in January 2008, things will be different. The roads will be fixed, the lights will be fixed, the kids will be in school. If I don't, I am in trouble (laughter, applause).
Woodruff: You just said it, you are dealing with electricity, a lack of running water, sewage issues. Is there another country, you mentioned post-conflict, that you look to as an example, who did it right, who did it well, who you can point to and say, "They did. They are who we should copy"?
Sirleaf: There are two countries whose experiences are similar to us: Mozambique and Rwanda. Those two countries have successfully put in place the policies, the priorities, the programs that have turned things around, that have made for a successful transition. The circumstances may not be totally equal to ours, but they have experiences, practices that we can use, and we are trying to study them. We are trying to do some networking between their agencies and ours to determine if we can use they have learned.
Woodruff: Why are you so passionate about this? You have an interesting life, a successful life, why devote this time to such a difficult challenge?
Sirleaf: Because we can be a model. Because we have the potential to show that you can turn tragedy and chaos into success. We have the right team and proper resources to do it. I have been involved in all of this for awhile. I have worked for it; I have earned the stripes, and at this stage, this one opportunity has come, and I do think we can make Liberia a successful story.
It is a small country – 3.2 million people, a country the size of Ohio, but we have the resources. If we can just get it right: the partnership right, the priorities right, the causes right, it is possible to make a total transformation. It is possible for a country that has had so much in its history, both the good times and the bad, but more important, almost total destruction, to turn it around. That in itself would be a strong message to countries, particularly in Africa, to show that, with good leadership, things can be different.
Woodruff: You are in United States appealing for support, not only from the government sector, but we did have an appropriation from the Congress in the summertime. I don't know if that money has reached you yet; I gather that it has not.
Sirleaf: It is a long road from commitment to cash!
Woodruff: My friend Tami Hultman from AllAfrica, who is over there taking your picture, was telling me it was 50 million dollars, is that right?
Sirleaf: The supplemental was 50 million dollars.
Woodruff: Why should Americans care? Why should Americans reach out to help this tiny country on the continent of Africa, which, as you said, is the size of Ohio, 3.2 million people? Why should it make a difference to Americans?
Sirleaf: It is the one country in Africa where America has a long-standing relationship. There have been periods of support and periods of withdrawal, but always the ties have been there - not only government-to-government, but people-to-people. Many of my compatriots have studied in this country, lived in this country, have worked in this country, have some of the same cultural traits as this country. So that friendship and that bond is there.
We say today, however, that Liberia is responsible for its own development. Going forward, we want a partnership that has mutuality, respect, and mutual interest. That said, if you ever ask anyone in Africa, "Where is the American connection in Africa?", without a doubt, the answer would be Liberia.
Already America has invested quite a bit in Liberia's success; it has been part of its downfall and part of its rise. Now is a time we can show, in partnership, that we can make it successful. We think the partnership is growing. We have some very strong support from the Bush administration, the first lady has been exceptional, supporting me and some of the things we do, so this opportunity is a chance to show that partnership can work.
Audience Question: Madame President, you cite Rwanda as an example of success, and, as you know, Rwanda has the highest percentage of women parliamentarians in the world, at almost half of its lower house. Could you reflect on that for a bit and discuss the particular roles that women play in post-conflict reconstruction?
Sirleaf: Women during conflict suffer. Women have to take care of their children while the men go off to war. Women have to fetch food and make sure the family is fed. Women are vulnerable; they get used as sex slaves. And so, at the end of the day, women are always up front, promoting peace, because it is their families and their children that get infected by warfare.
The women then get left out of the processes, because the men come back, and it is now their time to take over. That is changing in some places – and certainly in Rwanda. Many women became heads of households because of the genocide. I think increasingly, not only in post-conflict countries but all over, the potential of woman and the sensitivity that women bring to the task of leadership has been recognized, and they are taking a much bigger role.
Audience Question: You mentioned at the UN Assembly that you wished there would be a world body to help empower women and girls. How would you lay that out? Would it just be country-specific, or would it be an all-encompassing body?
Sirleaf: I would like to see an independent body that is fully authorized with adequate resources. There is a body right now, Unifem, that is responsible for promoting women's matters, but it is just used as a sub-agency, and its resources are so limited that it cannot make much of a difference. They can only do marginal things. We are talking about a major agency that has the scope, mandate, and the resources to respond to the needs of women, as Unicef responds to the needs of children.
Audience Question: I am an educator here at a university in town, and I work with young women to get them to consider careers in politics. There continues to be a reservation among young women I work with to get involved in electoral politics. I was wondering if you could comment, from your experience.
Sirleaf: I think, in every country, one needs to encourage women to be a part of the political processes right where it starts – for example, claiming leadership roles in political parties. One of the major constraints that women face in promoting themselves in politics is resources. Increasingly, all over the world, money is a big factor in electoral processes, unless we can get the means not only to encourage women but also the instruments to raise money for women.
It is possible to have more workshops, to focus on leadership, more ways to promote women's groups and women's institutions. Then you get the critical mass. We always have to bear in mind that women in politics and women in professions carry twice the burden as men. Most of the time they carry the burden of the household, as well as of pursuing their political or professional careers. That makes women exceptional.
Audience Question: You talked a lot about some of the tangible things you need to rebuild in Liberia. I was curious if you have any more reflections on the value of hope, as an intangible that makes a lot of the other tangible things possible?
Sirleaf: You know, I think the intangibles sometimes have much more impact on the responses that one needs to create consensus. When people lose hope, they don't think the future is going to make any difference. They become very cynical, very critical, lack confidence in anything that they see. They look for the hidden agenda. Over the years, no one responded, no one delivered, there was no one they could count on.
That to is so important and that is what we are trying to turn around in Liberia. We say to people: "There is a future. In this future, you have a part to play; you are important stakeholder in this.
That hope comes, first of all, with the change of the status quo that happens with an election. But it does not last unless you can build on it. Right now, we have that hope and that expectation, and that is why I say that delivering has such urgency. It is what turns that hope into action; it is what turns that hope into consensus; it turns that hope into cooperation. That is where we are right now.
Woodruff: Are the people hopeful at this point? How do you measure that?
Sirleaf: We measure it by what they say, what they do, and how they act. Those who now go out and get a job, and they take that job and turn it into something constructive – whether it is trying to rebuild their homes with their meager income or trying to find business opportunities. They now have confidence that they will not be repressed – that the police won't come and destroy whatever they are trying to do.
For us that is very important, because, too many times in our history, people have tried to rebuild, only to find it destroyed again – another wave of rebel activity or another wave of wars and conflict. The hope now is that peace is here and that, finally, this peace is probably sustainable. Now we can start to think about what we can do to reorder our lives to think about the future.
That hope is there now. Our challenge is to keep it there and consolidate it.
Audience Question: I would like to go back to the education sector for a moment and ask for your thoughts on the MDGs in terms of universal elementary education. Is Liberia likely to be on target for achieving that and do you think it is the best measure of success for Liberia?
Woodruff: That's the Millennium Development Goals [adopted by the United Nations as a set of targets for reducing extreme poverty worldwide].
Sirleaf: We are way behind in meeting the MDGs. Whether we are dealing with poverty reduction or [school] enrollment, we are way behind. We are now trying to catch up, and much of our poverty reduction strategy is tied into the MDGs. With our best effort, I doubt we will meet all of those goals as currently structured by the target date 2015.
Enrollment – I think we will come close. Poverty, some of the others, we may not. Is it possible that we could make it in the time that we have left? If we are lucky, and all of the programs we have take root and move at an accelerated pace. We want to be cautious, and realize that it is a big task.
Audience Question: I appreciate your highlighting the plight of child labor. I was wondering how your administration looks at not only having enough facilities but making education relevant to those families that are dealing with poverty on a daily basis – making it attractive enough for those families to opt to send their children to school and not into the labor market?
Sirleaf: The problem with the quality of education: a lot has to do with teachers. Many of the trained teachers have left the country. Many who have not left the country are not pursuing a teaching career, because the incentives are just not there compared to other areas. Much of it has to do with instructional materials. Many of the schools do not have proper libraries and laboratories.
That is what makes the task so difficult because it is not just the physical structure of the school, repairing the schools, but getting teachers, good teachers, getting well-paid teachers, and that is a long-term endeavor. All we can do is start the process and do as much as we can and set multiyear targets to improve the quality of education.
Woodruff: Are teachers who left the country coming back?
Sirleaf: A few. Our incentive system, our pay, not only for teachers, but also for all professionals is so low that it is difficult for us to get them to give up what they are doing now and make the sacrifice. Once we improve on the budget level to get our incentive-level up, our civil-servant pay up, we hope to attract them back. A few are coming.
Then we try to restore our teachers training colleges so we can train teachers. We need teaching assistants who need to go through a high-level of instruction to improve their own abilities. It takes awhile to do it.
Audience Question: Could you tell us a little bit about the mineral resources of Liberia, tangible resources.
Sirleaf: When I say we are rich – not poor – you want to know what I mean? We have got a lot of mineral resources. We are a traditional iron producing country. We are negotiating with the largest steel-producing company in the world. We have iron-ore mining; we have other deposits of iron-ore, diamonds, deposits of gold and other minerals; our forestry sector in Liberia represents the greatest area of biodiversity. Our forest cover is perhaps still the largest in west Africa.
We had sanctions put on us by the Security Council, but those sanctions have now been lifted with the new forestry law that will ensure benefits to the communities where the forests are located and ensure competitiveness to make sure the resources are used to help the people. We hope to go into valued-added activity, producing plywood and other types of wood.
As you know, we are on the ocean, so fishery is one of the traditional areas; before we were a major exporter. Today there fishing illegally in our waters by other countries; once we get that under control, we can promote a fishing industry.
In terms of other agriculture, Liberia is very rich. We are an exporter of coffee, cocoa, and other kinds of products. Of course, our farms have gone into a state of disrepair but we are trying to get that back.
We are part of the Guinea Gulf, and we are hoping that we are going to be one of those countries that has some oil, so we have done some studies that show that some places have the potential. Permits have already been given so people can start some exploration.
We have a wide range of things that could provide the means, so we can have a very aggressive development agenda.
Audience Question: Your successful election was a remarkable symbol for people all over the world and the values you stand for. I was wondering if you could talk for just a little bit about what was surprising in your campaign because for most of us, it seems like a remarkable victory.
Sirleaf: We had a strategy was tied to women. Here was an opportunity to mobilize Liberian women. Out time had come! In all the country's history there had never been a women president. Here is one time that we had one who was equal to the task by whatever measurement you use, including being involved in the political process.
Many people missed the fact that the ordinary market women, uneducated, caught on to the strategy, caught on to the idea that "I sit in the sun, I sit in the rain, and sell my goods, for one primary purpose – to educate my children." They saw somebody who had education and could make a difference. That was our theme in the runoff.
People missed the fact that it was not just popularity that carried us, but women's own view for what the future would hold for their children. What was surprising? The only surprising thing was that we did not get 85%; only 58%! [laughter, applause]
Woodruff: Thank you very much.
Copyright © 2006 allAfrica.com. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200610180733.html
allAfrica:
Govt Declares State of Emergency in Ekiti State
By Frances Ovia
This Day (Lagos) NEWS
October 18, 2006
President Olusegun Obasanjo has declared a state of emergency in Ekiti State following a constitutional crisis sparked off by the impeachment of the state governor, Ayo Fayose and his deputy Biodun Olujimi. Obasanjo announced the appointment of a sole administrator, Major General Tunji Olonrin from Ogun State to manage the affairs of the state for the next six months.
According to the president, the move was to stop the state from descending into anarchy and threatening security Nigeria. His words:"I hereby declare a state of emergency in Ekiti state." "It is a clear case of usurpation of power. It is dangerous for our democracy ... to allow this flagrant violation of our constitution to go unchecked," Obasanjo said in a television broadcast. In a swift reaction to this, a civil rights lawyer, Bamidele Aturu described the action of the president in declaring a state of emergency as militarization of society and idiocy of elitism.
Fayose and Olujimi were removed on Monday by the state's legislators on corrupt charges after which the speaker of the House of Assembly, Friday Aderemi, was sworn in by the state's acting chief judge as acting governor. The impeached governor and his deputy lay claim to the seat of power even though a new governor had been sworn-in. Accordingly, the governor, his deputy and state house of Assembly have also been suspended and the declaration published in a gazette which has been forwarded to the National Assembly for approval as required by the constitution. A state of emergency was first declared in 2004 in Plateau State, and it lasted for six months. The Plateau State governor, Joshua Dariye, was suspended from office for inciting ethnic bigotry in his state.
Copyright © 2006 This Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200610190017.html
AlterNet:
Disney's PR Strategy Unhealthy for 'Little Consumers'
By Michele Simon, AlterNet
Posted on October 19, 2006
The announcement this week by Disney that the company is placing nutrition guidelines on licensed food products aimed at children (along with kid-friendly meals at theme parks) is just the latest effort by Corporate America to save its tarnished image.
Reporters are guilty of jumping every time a company makes an announcement such as Disney's, grossly exaggerating the positive health impact. Examples of stories this week include: "Disney Gets Serious on Nutrition" (Boston Globe), "Disney Cleans Plate of Junk Food" (Los Angeles Times), and the most irresponsible, "Disney Bans All Junk Food" (Daily Mail). These misleading headlines serve corporations very well because they are all most people will remember. So now parents think that Disney no longer markets junk food to kids. Only one problem: It's not true.
With rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, America is currently embroiled in a national debate over who is to blame for the public health crisis. Increasingly, it's not just the fat and sugar peddlers like McDonald's and Coca-Cola that are taking the heat. The major entertainment conglomerates are also finding themselves on the receiving end of public outcry. And rightly so, with cartoon "spokescharacters," toy give-aways, and other cross-promotional strategies, kids today are reduced to lucrative branding opportunities.
So why shouldn't we be surprised that reporters bought into Disney's press release? First of all, the company admits to a ridiculously long phase-in period. Corporations like to make announcements far ahead of when they plan to actually implement changes. Disney's timeline for getting the junk food out ranges from two to four years, partly because they are locked into preexisting licensing agreements. Surely a company with such huge bargaining power could find smart enough lawyers to renegotiate. Then again, maybe breaking current contracts would interfere with quarterly earnings. If Disney really cared about kids' health, why not either stop marketing the junk food now or simply wait until the changes are actually implemented to announce them?
Next, the Disney corporation is more than just movies and theme parks - it's much more. The media conglomerate isn't doing anything about the junk food advertising that appears on its array of television stations, which include ABC Network, ABC Family, Disney Channel, and Toon Disney. Also, not a word was mentioned about the increasing trend of product placement in movies and television, an advertising technique that children are especially vulnerable to because of its stealth nature. (Product placement is actually illegal on children's television, but not in movies or "mixed audience" shows that also target adults.) For example, in Disney's "Spiderman" film, Spiderman retrieves a Dr. Pepper with his web and in "Spiderman 2," Dr. Pepper is joined by product placements for Fritos and Pop-Tarts, not exactly "good for you" foods.
Most importantly, Disney's announcement amounts to little more than an excuse to keep its brand in front of kids. By setting nutrition guidelines - as opposed to stopping the promotion of cartoon-branded food altogether, as many child advocates are calling for - Disney has cleverly given itself an entirely new marketing opportunity. According to the company 's press release, "Disney Consumer Products has already begun to offer many licensed products which comply with the guidelines. They include breakfast items such as instant oatmeal featuring characters like The Incredibles and Kim Possible, and Disney Garden fresh produce such as kid-sized apples and bananas." I've never heard of "kid-sized" fruit. Do we really need to be branding fresh produce now?
Some advocates are calling the Disney move a good first step. But who exactly is holding the company accountable to this so-called policy? Who will make sure that Disney follows through on implementation? The name of the game for food and media corporations is to stave off legally enforceable (and potentially costly) government regulations, not to mention the threat of litigation. What the food and media companies fear even more than bad PR is government meddling and lawsuits. Instead, industry touts "self-regulation" as the answer to childhood obesity, a proven failed system of corporate oversight that merely maintains the status quo of high profit margins at the expense of children's health.
And what happens when Disney starts losing money and shareholders demand putting profits ahead of health? Legally the company will have no choice but to go back to business as usual to remain competitive. As we've learned from other corporate promises - such as McDonald's reneged 2002 pledge to stop using trans fat - once profits dip in the next quarter, no more caring about health. That's why we really need the federal government to step in and protect children's health with enforceable regulations to curb the onslaught of junk food marketing. Until companies are legally forced to change, they won't.
While Disney is telling us its motivation is children's health, the company's true goal is to get parents to keep buying its products and visiting its theme parks, and most importantly, to keep the Disney brand in front of kids' eyes. So now cartoon characters will market allegedly healthier foods to kids. But children don't need the Incredibles to tell them when and what to eat. Kids, like adults, get hungry all by themselves. That's how nature designed us. If companies like Disney would simply get out of the way, parents would have a much easier job.
Michele Simon is a public health lawyer and author of "Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back" (Nation Books). Visit her online at www.informedeating.org
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/43181/
Clarín: Con pinturas y grabados, Botero lleva las torturas
de "Abu Grahib" al corazón de Nueva York
La muestra consta de 45 cuadros que retratan a prisioneros desnudos, maniatados y con los ojos vendados, tal como estaban en esa cárcel de Irak. La exposición finaliza el 18 de noviembre, y después el artista donará las obras. "Uno no puede hacer dinero basado en el dolor de los demás", explicó.
Clarín.com, 19.10.2006
El pintor colombiano Fernando Botero expone en la galería Marlborough de Manhattan su serie "Abu Ghraib", compuesta por 45 obras sobre las torturas cometidas por las tropas estadounidenses a los prisioneros iraquíes en la cárcel de la que la muestra toma su nombre. La exposición, que ya fue presentada en Europa, fue inaugurada ayer y se extenderá hasta el 18 de noviembre.
"Pensarán que yo como colombiano no debería decir nada, pero la libertad de expresión es universal y yo puedo decir lo que quiera", declaró ayer a la prensa el pintor latinoamericano vivo mejor cotizado en el mundo de las artes plásticas, horas antes de abrir la muestra.
En las pinturas y grabados que componen "Abu Ghraib", se ven prisioneros desnudos sobre los que los guardias estadounidenses orinan, y detenidos con las manos atadas y los ojos vendados, entre otras imágenes de tortura.
"Como todas las exposiciones que yo he hecho, siempre hay gente que detesta mi trabajo, pero en este caso será, tal vez, por lo que representa que habrá gente que se va a sentir molesta con estas imágenes. Les va a parecer tan mal que se haya hecho esto, a pesar de que todos los periódicos del mundo ya contaron esta historia", dijo Botero.
Al igual que su colección sobre la violencia en Europa, éstas obras no se venderán, sino que serán donadas a instituciones que no fueron especificadas. "Uno no puede hacer dinero basado en el dolor de los demás", concluyó el artista.
Fuente: AP
Copyright 1996-2006 Clarín.com - All rights reserved
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/10/19/um/m-01293241.htm
Guardian:
Out of options
Leader
Thursday October 19, 2006
When cornered, Tony Blair has the knack of lending his arguments an air of ferocious nobility, conjuring up a persuasive illusion almost regardless of reality. It is a talent that has served him many times in office; such ingenious defiance helped make the case for the Iraq war in the first place. He tried the trick again yesterday in the Commons, when both David Cameron and Sir Menzies Campbell turned on him over the British military presence in Iraq. But the old skill seems to be fading. Though the rhetoric was there, the impact was not. Yesterday the prime minister sounded both loud and lost, staying the course only because his opponents lack an alternative strategy. He could not create enthusiasm for his own approach when he said, once again, that Britain must "stay until the job is done".
There is a place for such steadfastness in politics, but on Iraq the prime minister is running out of allies. At home, general Sir Richard Dannatt's astonishing expression of doubt in the task his troops have been asked to undertake continues to resonate. In Iraq, the situation seems only to get worse. Yesterday saw the deaths of 10 more US soldiers, taking this month's tally to 68, and the dismissal of two of the country's most senior police generals, as Iraq's security forces fragment into milita-controlled factions. That follows last week's Lancet report suggestion that 650,000 Iraqis may have died since the war began. And in Washington, the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan committee chaired by James Baker, the former secretary of state, is reportedly looking at desperate options, including asking Iran and Syria to rescue the US from the consequences of its actions.
The Baker group's influence over President Bush's thinking may not be strong, but the US administration's nerve is beginning to crack. At home that is true, too, of Mr Cameron, who is busy contorting Conservative policy on Iraq into a position where he can support the swift recall of troops without either rescinding his support for the war or offering much of an opinion on how the country should resolve its terrible problems. The Liberal Democrats yesterday jabbed at such Tory opportunism but at prime minister's questions, Sir Menzies himself did not venture beyond his own support for withdrawal at some indefinite point in the near future. Both opposition leaders seem content for the moment to point out the great flaws in Mr Blair's position rather than advance alternatives for Iraq of their own.
They can get away with it because Mr Blair is now almost without cover. His assertion in the Commons yesterday that Iraqis voted "for a non-sectarian government in which Sunnis, Shias and Kurds all work together" ignores the truth that sectarian parties were forced into power-sharing, but are hardly carrying it out. He had to admit that in parts of southern Iraq the British presence would have become "a provocation" had it continued, but went on to claim that four out of 16 areas of Basra had been stabilised - as if completing the task was simply a matter of finding time to tidy up the other 12. His words do not square with Gen Dannatt's last week, when he said Britain "should get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".
Calling for "a lower ambition" about what can now be achieved, Gen Dannatt exposed the truth that there is now no simple job that can be completed in Iraq. Whenever they go, British troops will be retreating from their mission, not completing it. That unhappy outcome will not bring security to Iraq. But the prime minister's insistence that security and a functioning democracy are likely prospects, and that Britain and the US are succeeding in establishing them, is looking more threadbare by the day. Once, the prime minister's rhetorical magic could persuade others. Now, on Iraq, Mr Blair is the only person who still appears to be seduced by the illusion that he has created.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1925405,00.html
Guardian:
Bush accepts Iraq-Vietnam war comparison
Mark Tran
Thursday October 19, 2006
The escalating violence in Iraq could be compared to the 1968 Tet offensive in Vietnam, which was a turning point in that war, the US president admitted last night.
In an interview on ABC News, George Bush was asked whether he agreed with the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who wrote that the real "October surprise" was what "seems like the jihadist equivalent of the Tet offensive".
"He could be right," Mr Bush replied. "There's certainly a stepped-up level of violence, and we're heading into an election."
Mr Bush has strongly resisted comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. Vietnam remains a touchy subject for America; the war deeply divided the country, ended in an ignominious retreat for the US after the loss of more than 57,000 American lives, and has become synonymous with political and military debacle.
The 1968 Tet offensive was a military failure for the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, but it turned American public opinion against the war and fatally damaged President Lyndon Johnson, who abandoned his re-election campaign two months later.
The comparison with Vietnam coincided with one of the deadliest days in Iraq for the US military, with at least 10 soldiers killed yesterday. Around 70 US troops have died so far in October, making it one of the worst months for the American military since the invasion in March 2003.
"My gut tells me that they have all along been trying to inflict enough damage that we'd leave," Mr Bush told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. "And the leaders of al-Qaida have made that very clear. They believe that if they can create enough chaos, the American people will grow sick and tired of the Iraqi effort and will cause (the) government to withdraw."
The Iraq war has turned into a major liability for Mr Bush and the Republicans. With just three weeks until the midterm elections, many expect the White House to lose control of the House of Representatives and perhaps the Senate as well.
In a New York Times/CBS News poll taken from October 5 to October 8, two-thirds of respondents said they disapproved of Mr Bush's handling of the war and 66% said the war was going somewhat or very badly.
In the poll, 45% said the Democrats were more likely to make the right decision on Iraq, compared with 34% for the Republicans, despite the latter traditionally being identified as the most trustworthy on national security.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that support for Congress had eroded to its lowest point since the "Republican revolution" of 1994 that gave the party control of Capitol Hill.
Voters' approval of Congress had fallen to 16% from 20% since early September, while their disapproval had risen to 75% from 65%, the poll showed.
The Republicans have been sliding in the polls not just because of Iraq but due to a spate of scandals, including the disclosure that Republican House leaders knew of inappropriate emails to House pages from the Florida Republican Mark Foley, who resigned late last month.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1926048,00.html
il manifesto:
Le inutili difese del privilegio bianco
Più libertà di movimento per i capitali significa più barriere per gli umani
Marco D’Eramo
Fu quando costruì il muro di Berlino che l'Unione sovietica rivelò al mondo la fragilità del socialismo realizzato e preannunciò la propria sconfitta: che è sistema è mai quello che per trattenere i propri cittadini deve rinchiuderli con un muro? Così quello della Germania est fu il primo e finora unico regime nella storia abbattuto da una (biblica) domanda di visti turistici. Per questo gioimmo in molti quando nel 1989 il muro fu abbattuto: non rimpiangemmo il breznevismo. Ma mai avremmo immaginato che meno di vent'anni dopo i muri, materiali e immateriali, sarebbero proliferati nel mondo. C'è il muro che gli israeliani erigono in Palestina, squarciando le città in due. C'è il muro che la fondamentalista Arabia saudita vuole costruire al confine con l'Iraq per impedire l'ingresso ai fondamentalisti di al Qaeda. C'è il muro che gli americani hanno progettato di costruire tutto attorno a Baghdad per combattere il terrorismo. C'è la barriera che l'India sta costruendo al confine col Bangladesh per respingere gli immigrati: «Fa spavento pensare a orde di gente così povera da rischiare la pelle per raggiungere quella terra promessa che sono gli infami slums di Calcutta» (Mike Davis). Il mondo sembra preso da un'improvvisa passione per muri, bastioni, recinti, staccionate elettrificate, cavalli di Frisia, fili a lame di rasoio, proprio mentre i cantori delle magnifiche sorti e progressive intonano inni alla mobilità e alla comunicazione, alla potenziale ubiquità di ognuno di noi. Ma le barriere, una materiale e due immateriali, che fanno più impressione sono quelle erette per difendere tre roccaforti del capitale. C'è la Howard Line a proteggere l'isola-continente Australia dagli immigrati che vorrebbero sbarcare e che vengono respinti, affondati, imprigionati. C'è poi la Fortezza Europa con la sua capillare sorveglianza dei mari, i suoi centri di detenzione, gli avamposti nei paesi dell'Africa e del Maghreb. C'è infine il muro fisico di 1200 km che gli Stati uniti vogliono costruire lungo la frontiera messicana e di cui esistono vasti spezzoni tra San Diego e Tijuana e tra El Paso e Ciudad Juárez. Simili al Vallum Adrianum, al Limes Porolissensis che il tardo impero romano eresse nella futile illusione di difendersi dalle «orde barbariche», queste tre barriere difensive si sono rafforzate proprio mentre progredivano i trattati che liberalizzavano il commercio internazionale. La «guerra ai clandestini» è stata ufficialmente dichiarata e si è intensificata di pari passo con la messa in atto del Wto a livello mondiale, e del Nafta a livello nordamericano.Da 15 anni a questa parte, più vengono eliminati gli ostacoli alla libera circolazione delle merci e del capitale e più si creano barriere per imbrigliare la circolazione degli umani. Non è un caso. È la libertà delle merci a creare le condizioni di questi esodi umani. I capitali che vagano per il pianeta alla ricerca dei posti in cui la forza lavoro è più a buon mercato (notare il doppio senso della parola buono) sono il vento che sospinge di qua e di là le masse umane in balia di esso. Il capitale li scaccia dalle loro terre dove non possono più vivere, e li chiama nelle proprie signorie dove non vuole più pagare a tariffe sindacali i suoi indigeni. In fondo lo ha sempre fatto: nell'800 la globalizzazione fece sì che il grano americano e sudamericano, assai più a buon mercato, mandasse in rovina i coltivatori europei che producevano su terreni montagnosi o poco fertili, e che quindi, come i nostri meridionali, emigrarono nella terra che li aveva forzati all'esodo. Ma nell'800 non si costruivano i muri, perché il capitale poteva ancora bearsi nell'illusione di controllare i flussi e le loro conseguenze. Una miopia pagata con le sommosse dei ghetti neri nell'America degli anni '60 e con la rivolta delle banlieues francesi, solo per citare due esempi. Il capitale ha bisogno di immigrati e clandestini, ma li vuole tenere fuori. Una volta le contraddizioni erano in seno al popolo. Ora sembrano aver traslocato di campo.
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/18-Ottobre-2006/art30.html
il manifesto:
Algerini a Parigi, un massacro dimenticato
Il 17 ottobre 1961 una pacifica manifestazione di protesta venne repressa nel sangue. Olivier La Cour Grandmaison, presidente dell'associazione «Contre l'oubli», denuncia il revisionismo francese
Filippo Del Lucchese
Pochi scatti in bianco e nero, strappati all'indifferenza o alla colpevole ostilità della Ville Lumière dal fotografo Elie Kagan. E naturalmente le testimonianze degli algerini, dei manifestanti, di chi è sfuggito alla repressione brutale e assassina. Questo è tutto ciò che rimane, nella memoria, del 17 ottobre 1961. In piena guerra d'Algeria, a pochi mesi dall'indipendenza, il Front de Libération National aveva convocato una manifestazione contro il duro coprifuoco razzista imposto agli algerini residenti in Francia. Mentre intellettuali come Frantz Fanon, di fronte alle tiepide risposte della sinistra, denunciavano la violenza e la tortura come mezzi di ordinaria amministrazione della guerra coloniale, la manifestazione di Parigi diventava l'occasione per la vendetta da parte del governo francese. Se ne incaricarono il prefetto Papon e i suoi gardiens de la paix, responsabili, quella sera di ottobre, di uno degli episodi più infami della storia coloniale di questo paese. Ci sono voluti molti anni e il lavoro eccezionale di storici, intellettuali e artisti, perché quei crimini fossero riconosciuti e ricordati. Tra loro Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison, docente di scienze politiche e di filosofia politica all'Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne, autore di Haine(s). Philosophie et politique (Puf, 2002) e di Coloniser. Exterminer. Sur la guerre et l'Etat colonial (Fayard, 2005) nonché presidente dell'associazione «17 octobre 1961: Contre l'oubli».
Qual è il significato del 17 ottobre 1961 nel contesto della storia coloniale francese?
Le manifestazioni del 17 ottobre 1961 furono la risposta pacifica, organizzata nella capitale, per protestare contro un coprifuoco razzista. Razzista perché imposto ai soli algerini, che all'epoca erano ancora francesi di diritto, ma venivano chiamati «francesi musulmani d'Algeria». Uno statuto d'eccezione, perché gli effetti di una tale legislazione discriminatoria gravavano soltanto su di loro. Per impedire queste manifestazioni, il prefetto Maurice Papon mobilitò un enorme dispositivo di polizia. Il bilancio fu terribile: circa trecento algerini furono massacrati dalle forze dell'ordine, quella sera e nei giorni successivi. Sequestrati, fermati o arrestati, i manifestanti vennero spesso affogati nella Senna. Fu, a tutti gli effetti, un crimine contro l'umanità commesso dallo Stato francese, che ancora oggi non è stato ufficialmente riconosciuto dalle più alte cariche istituzionali. Né è stato giuridicamente sanzionato in alcun modo, a causa delle leggi di amnistia votate dopo la fine della guerra di Algeria. Né i sopravvissuti né i parenti delle vittime accertate e di quelle scomparse hanno potuto ottenere la minima riparazione. Né Papon, né coloro che hanno agito sotto il suo comando sono mai stati giudicati per i loro crimini.
Questa politica del silenzio e dell'oblio sui crimini di Stato sembra avere anche una controparte più attiva nella recente «offensiva» per rivalutare il ruolo positivo della colonizzazione. Qual è il significato, ad esempio, della legge del 23 febbraio 2005 in questo contesto?
Questa legge, che stabilisce una vera e propria menzogna di Stato riconoscendo un ruolo positivo alla colonizzazione, è motivata da diverse ragioni. Soddisfare certi settori dell'opinione pubblica, per esempio, e lavorare alla restaurazione dell'immagine della Francia in un difficile contesto nazionale e internazionale. Incapace di trovare soluzione ai problemi economici e sociali o di offrire delle prospettive che vadano oltre l'esibizione quotidiana delle ambizioni personali di una classe dirigente, l'attuale maggioranza tenta di resuscitare la mitologia coloniale. Pensa così di poter risollevare il prestigio e l'orgoglio del paese e dei suoi cittadini. A ciò si aggiunge, certamente, un desiderio di rivalsa politica sui progressi significativi già compiuti, come ad esempio il riconoscimento della schiavitù come crimine contro l'umanità, con la legge Taubira del 2001. La legge del 23 febbraio non ha equivalenti in nessun altro paese democratico, dove nessuna maggioranza ha mai osato legiferare per imporre all'opinione pubblica e agli insegnanti un'interpretazione ufficiale, partigiana e menzognera del passato. Un'eccezione francese, dunque, sinistra e scandalosa, che viola i diritti, le libertà e i principi che, teoricamente, dovrebbero governare una società democratica. In nessun modo lo Stato dovrebbe farsi garante di un'interpretazione particolare del passato, qualunque essa sia.
Qual è stata la risposta della società francese a questa politica revisionista e, in particolare, a questa legge?
Con la mobilitazione di molte associazioni, di storici e intellettuali, è stato ottenuto il ritiro dell'articolo 4 di questa legge, relativo al «carattere positivo della colonizzazione». Ma altri passaggi del testo restano per me inaccettabili, poiché vi è ancora espressa, in forme più blande o con eufemismi, la stessa tesi per cui la colonizzazione sarebbe stata di beneficio per i paesi e i popoli sotto il dominio francese. Per certi versi, la situazione in Francia è paradossale: «dovere della memoria» è ormai difeso da tutti, con la sola eccezione del Fronte Nazionale di Le Pen. Solo qualche settimana prima della legge sul ruolo positivo della colonizzazione, per esempio, era stata decisa la celebrazione del sessantesimo anniversario della liberazione di Auschwitz. A ciò si aggiunge il riconoscimento ufficiale del genocidio armeno, votato all'unanimità dall'Assemblea nazionale con la legge del 29 gennaio 2001, mentre è di pochi giorni fa la legge che rende perseguibile chi osa negarlo. D'altro canto si assiste alla glorificazione dell'«avventura coloniale», come alcuni osano ancora scrivere, aprendo la strada a uno spensierato revisionismo.
In questo contesto, un anno fa le banlieues francesi prendevano fuoco, rivelando la patologica incapacità della Francia nell'affrontare il proprio passato. Qual è il rapporto fra queste crisi «postcoloniali» e la storia violenta della decolonizzazione?
Non so se si tratti di un'incapacità patologica, ma cronica lo è, senza ombra di dubbio. Cominciamo col ricordare che, per fermare le rivolte del novembre dello scorso anno, su iniziativa del primo ministro, il governo ha fatto ricorso alla legge del 3 aprile 1955 sullo stato di emergenza, impiegata per la prima volta dalle autorità metropolitane proprio durante la guerra di Algeria. Una legislazione di eccezione, destinata originariamente a ristabilire l'ordine nelle colonie, è stata dunque mobilitata contro dei giovani francesi, marchiati e condannati nella più parte dei casi per la loro supposta origine etnica. Siamo di fronte alla prova, a carico delle più alte autorità dello Stato, della permanenza di una rappresentazione - e delle pratiche che ne derivano - direttamente ereditata dal periodo coloniale. Più in generale, i legami tra il passato coloniale e l'attualità si mostrano attraverso una molteplicità di elementi. Il primo riguarda senz'altro l'Islam, ritenuto da molti una religione di guerra, ostile al progresso della ragione così come alle libertà democratiche. È ciò che ripetono incessantemente i sostenitori dello scontro di civiltà, che sono riusciti a imporre una nuova doxa. Ma questi argomenti, tutt'altro che originali, sono stati forgiati per la prima volta, nel contesto francese, nel periodo della conquista dell'Algeria. Un secondo elemento di continuità fra passato e presente è l'idea per cui alcune categorie di persone, di origine maghrebina in particolare, sarebbero difficilmente «assimilabili», se non del tutto refrattarie all'integrazione, per ragioni culturali e religiose. Qui, di nuovo, riemerge una retorica in cui l'immagine di questo «tipo particolare» di cittadino francese viene costruita secondo gli stereotipi dell'«indigeno» mussulmano. Di lui si diceva, al tempo delle colonie, che non avrebbe potuto veramente accedere alla «civiltà francese». È impossibile, quindi, comprendere ciò che accade oggi in Francia senza tenere presente questo passato coloniale che non tramonta e che, per parafrasare Marx, pesa in modo visibile sulle rappresentazioni dei nostri contemporanei.
http://www.ilmanifesto.it/Quotidiano-archivio/18-Ottobre-2006/art74.html
Jeune Afrique: Gbagbo:
"Il ne faut pas que nous comptions sur l'extérieur"
CÔTE D'IVOIRE - 18 octobre 2006 – AFP
Le président ivoirien Laurent Gbagbo a déclaré mercredi qu'il ne fallait pas que la Côte d'Ivoire "compte sur l'extérieur" pour sortir de la crise et critiqué les "mauvais remèdes" prescrits à son pays, à son retour du sommet de l'Union africaine (UA) d'Addis Abeba.
"Nous n'avons pas à rougir du combat que nous menons
Il ne faut pas que nous comptions sur l'extérieur, sur la communauté internationale pour ramener la paix en Côte d'Ivoire", a déclaré le président ivoirien devant la presse à sa descente d'avion à l'aéroport d'Abidjan.
"Je l'ai déjà dit, je suis toujours dans la même disposition d'esprit. Parce que ceux qui ont fait au départ les mauvaises analyses sur la Côte d'Ivoire ne sortent pas encore de leurs schémas", a-t-il ajouté.
"Quand on ne sort pas des mauvaises analyses, on prescrit de mauvais remèdes", a-t-il ajouté, en rappelant qu'il proposait de son côté "un autre remède" que les recommandations émises mardi par l'UA.
M. Gbagbo estime notamment que la crise ne pourra être résolue sans le désarmement immédiat de la rébellion des Forces nouvelles (FN), qui contrôle le nord du pays depuis sa tentative de coup d'état ratée contre lui en septembre 2002.
"Nous allons être plus explicites dans les prochaines jours et semaines", a conclu le président ivoirien, sans plus de précisions.
M. Gbagbo a été acclamé sur place par plusieurs centaines de ses partisans, les "jeunes patriotes", aux cris de "Gbagbo président!"
Venus manifester à l'aéroport pour accueillir le président et lui demander de limoger son Premier ministre Charles Konan Banny, désigné par la communauté internationale en décembre 2005, les jeunes patriotes se sont dispersés dans le calme après l'arrivée du président.
L'UA a décidé mardi de reconduire pour un an M. Gbagbo et M. Banny, en donnant des pouvoirs élargis à ce dernier pour faire avancer le processus de paix, sans pour autant suspendre ceux du président, accusé par une partie de la communauté internationale de bloquer le processus pour rester au pouvoir.
La rébellion des FN a de son côté jugé que les recommandations de l'UA n'étaient "pas suffisantes" pour "lever les blocages volontairement entretenus par le président Gbagbo" qui peut ainsi "ouvrir une nouvelle année d'errance et de souffrances pour le peuple de Côte d'Ivoire".
Le chef de l'Opération des Nations unies en Côte d'Ivoire (Onuci), Pierre Schori, s'est en revanche félicité du "consensus africain" sur le dossier ivoirien, en estimant que l'UA va y apporter de la "discipline".
Selon plusieurs diplomates en poste à Abidjan, ni la formulation des recommandations ni la situation sur le terrain ne permettent à M. Banny d'exercer des réels pouvoirs face à M. Gbagbo.
Mardi, la directrice de cabinet adjointe de M. Gbagbo, Sarata Touré, a jugé "clair que le Premier ministre n'aura pas de pouvoir exécutif".
Les recommandations de l'UA visent à faire avancer le laborieux processus de paix et organiser des élections dans ce pays coupé en deux.
Elles doivent servir de base à une nouvelle résolution du conseil de sécurité de l'Onu définissant les modalités de la transition ivoirienne après le 31 octobre, et qui devrait être votée le 25 octobre.
© Jeuneafrique.com 2006
http://www.jeuneafrique.com/jeune_afrique/article_depeche.asp?
art_cle=AFP33406gbagbrueirt0
Mail & Guardian:
Can De Beers survive DiCaprio?
Jocelyn Newmarch
16 October 2006
Pundits have delighted in predicting the death of De Beers. For most of last century, De Beers headed up a world diamond cartel that regulated rough diamond supply and kept prices high. It sold between 80% and 90% of the world’s diamonds. Then things changed. The cartel broke up, the group sold its shares in Anglo American and de-listed, announcing a new strategy. Now De Beers is adapting to being just another company in the luxury goods industry, even though it is still the dominant player in diamonds.
One thing hasn’t changed. It’s still chaired by an Oppenheimer, the third to occupy the position, and the family is still one of the group’s three main shareholders. Ernest cemented the group’s financial dominance while his son Harry supervised the cartel’s operations and global marketing. Now Nicky is in charge of bringing De Beers into the next phase of its existence. It is still very much a family business (the Oppenheimers own 40%) and still very much about diamonds.
Edward Zwick’s film Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio as a South African mercenary and set in war-torn 1990s Sierra Leone, is only set to open internationally on December 15. But the publicity war has already begun. Diamond advocates are taking out full-page adverts in American newspapers and a website, www.diamondfacts.org, has been launched.
“We welcome the opportunity this film presents to talk about the steps the diamond industry has taken to prevent the trade in conflict diamonds. De Beers finds it unacceptable that revenue from the sale of rough diamonds has been used in the past to fund the activities of rebels and believes that one conflict diamond is one too many; 100% of diamonds from De Beers Group are from conflict-free sources,” said company spokesperson Tom Tweedy.
“It [the film] is absolutely a concern for us,” Guy Leymarie, CEO of De Beers LV, told CNN Money. He added that it was difficult to forecast the impact the film would have on sales.
Then there’s the Kalahari Bushmen saga, which refuses to go away.
“There is no connection between diamonds and the relocation of the San from Botswana’s vast Central Kalahari Game Reserve,” said Tweedy. “The government of Botswana has stated that the relocation of the San communities has nothing to do with diamonds, but is being carried out to provide the San with better educational, health and social amenities.”
Nevertheless, the Kalahari Bushmen took out a full-page advert in American film magazine Variety, asking DiCaprio to help them. Survival International says Botswana diamonds should be regarded as conflict diamonds. On behalf of the Bushmen, it asked supermodel Linda Evangelista to step down as the face of De Beers.
The diamond company is a private, non-listed business so its value can only be estimated rather than gleaned from market data. Nonetheless, the Oppenheimer’s 40% stake is worth about $16,13-billion. Annual sales now total about R6,539-million and dividend payments last year amounted to R250-million.
Surprisingly, perhaps, given the company’s dominance in its sector (De Beers is diamonds), De Beers is much too small to be considered for inclusion in the Fortune 500. Its turnover is less than half of the lowest-ranked Fortune 500 company. It would barely make a Fortune 1 000 if such a list existed.
De Beers has somewhat reluctantly admitted that it can no longer control global prices. So it’s aiming for the next best thing: becoming the “supplier of choice” for the industry. By adding marketing and branding value and supplying selected dealers or “sightholders”, it hopes to command a higher price for its diamonds compared to its competitors. It now commands 60% of the diamond market, which is a respectable figure.
It has, for the first time, entered the retail jewellery market through its De Beers LV stores, a joint venture with seasoned luxury goods merchants Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy of 10 upmarket stores. An inconvenient price- fixing judgement in the United States, which restricted the ability of De Beers executives to travel to the country, has been dealt with. De Beers agreed to pay a $10million fine in 2004 and can now operate in the US.
The De Beers cartel was one of the most successful in history. It was able to buy diamonds that came on to the market in excess of certain targets, thus maintaining prices and avoiding large fluctuations in the price. But, as diamond production increased, maintaining the monopoly became increasingly expensive. The group called it quits in 2000.
Despite the break-up, De Beers has been an extremely good investment for the Oppenheimer family. Nicky and his relatives ranked 134th on the Forbes Rich List, which estimates their net worth to be $4,6billion. Sadly, perhaps, they only managed second place on the Sunday Times Rich List of wealthy South Africans, which ranks wealth according to JSE shareholdings. Indian upstart Lakshmi Mittal came first.
Aside from the Oppenheimers’ 40%, Anglo American holds 45% and the Botswana government owns a direct 15% stake in De Beers. It also has a 50% stake in De Beers subsidiary Debswana.
Though it is historically linked to Anglo, De Beers now forms a comparatively small portion of the group’s business. It contributed 9% of the group’s headline earnings last year; earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of $655-million; and $583million of operating profit. It’s a paltry amount, relatively speaking: Anglo’s total underlying earnings reached a record $3,7billion last year, a 39% increase on the previous year. Fortune magazine ranked Anglo American 196th on the Fortune 500 this year.
It is not easy to work out just what De Beers is worth. The group sold a 26% stake in its South African operations, De Beers Consolidated Mining, to BEE company Ponahalo Holdings for about R3,8billion last year. This would value Consolidated Mining alone at R14,6billion. A rough estimate of the group as a whole, based on the earnings Anglo receives, would value the group at $740million (about R5,7-billion).
But times are tough. Announcing its most recent results for the six months up to June this year, De Beers said in July that short-term rough diamond market conditions would remain challenging.
Trade website Diamond Intelligence Briefs (www.diamondintelligence.com) has complained of the high prices of De Beers’s marketing arm, the Diamond Trading Company, and has suggested that it may need to lower prices towards the end of the year. Indications are that it has already lowered prices at least once, in July.
Until this year, diamond prices were on the rise. Anglo American says world retail diamond sales exceeded $60billion for the first time in 2004. Last year, sales reached $65billion, but the World Diamond Congress said demand had flattened this year as diamonds experienced competition from other luxury goods.
Industry leaders were hoping sales would recover before Christmas, but there are fears that consumers will shy away from jewellery because of the negative attention drawn to conflict diamonds by DiCaprio’s film.
But diamonds don’t have to be bad news. These gems represent 33% of Botswana’s GDP ($3 billion) and a quarter, directly or indirectly, of the country’s jobs. Altogether, 28 000 people in Southern Africa are employed by the diamond industry and about 19 000 of these jobs are in South Africa.
“The diamond trade contributes more than $8,4billion a year to Africa. Revenues from diamonds have helped fund the construction of hospitals, medical centres and hospices, ensuring that more than five million people in Southern Africa have access to appropriate healthcare,” said Tweedy.
There are concerns about the profitability of De Beers’s operations in South Africa. In February, the group said four of its six local mines were profitable, but at its July results presentation, the company said only two were profitable, with the remaining four being close to profitable. The Koffiefontein mine near Kimberley has been closed. The company told the Mail & Guardian that it was reviewing all its mines to increase profitable production.
Recent months have brought rumours that the Botswana government is planning to sell its stake in the group. Botswana Minister of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources Charles Tibone has admitted to Mineweb.co.za that the original reason for buying a stake was “to gain a board position in De Beers and insight into the diamond industry. At the time the diamond industry was known for its secretiveness, and even though we were assured that we were getting as much information as needed, you could not really prove that was so ... so it was useful having a foothold in the boardrooms of the entity that was managing the diamond industry worldwide.”
Diamond Intelligence Briefs says Debswana is the world’s largest diamond producer with the lowest-cost mines, which puts it at an enormous advantage. The company has established its own sales and marketing plans, which could indicate that it is readying for a break from De Beers. This would be a huge loss for the group. According to the trade website, Debswana produces 66% of the group’s production in carats and 70% of the value.
Botswana has denied immediate plans to sell its stake, but has not ruled out plans to sell in the future. Whatever happens, it seems that De Beers, the great survivor, is heading for interesting times.
What conflict diamonds?
Edward Zwick’s upcoming film Blood Diamond stars Leonardo DiCaprio as a South African diamond dealer in Sierra Leone and promises to spotlight the trade in diamonds from war zones. The Guardian reports that industry stakeholders and human rights campaigners fear a consumer backlash against African diamonds, which are valuable exports for poor countries.
So-called “conflict” or “blood” diamonds - rough diamonds used to fund conflicts, mainly in African countries - first came to international attention in 1998, when human rights group Global Witness reported on the war in Sierra Leone, where rebel leaders sold diamonds to buy guns. It was estimated that conflict diamonds form about 4% of global trade.
In 2002 the Kimberley Process was signed to prevent conflict diamonds from reaching mainstream markets. Rough diamonds must be sealed in tamperproof containers and issued with certificates every time they cross an international border. Countries where diamonds are known to be fuelling a conflict are barred from international trade in these gems.
Romancing the stone
The slogan “a diamond is forever” still encapsulates the way most people feel about these gems. A diamond is a sentimental purchase, a gift of love, and should not be resold. Created by American advertising agency NW Ayer, the campaign was described as a “new form of advertising, which has been imitated ever since”. No brand name was mentioned - De Beers had a virtual monopoly anyway - so the agency was able to link the product to an emotional idea.
Successful as it was, the campaign was born out of necessity. In 1938, when De Beers commissioned NW Ayer, the Oppenheimers and their bankers were concerned about the world diamond price. Americans already bought three-quarters of all the cartel’s diamonds, but De Beers wanted them to buy more expensive stones.
Jocelyn Newmarch
All material copyright Mail&Guardian.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?
articleid=286801&area=/insight/insight__economy__business/#
Mail & Guardian:
Now it's the hummersexual
Mark Simpson: BODY LANGUAGE
17 October 2006
Since when did ‘regular guys’ need several tonnes of military hardware to be ‘regular’?
There’s a war going on in the United States. A war on metros. After years of living under the cruel designer heel of those triumphant metrosexuals, poor old retrosexuals - alias “regular guys’’ - are fighting back. Old-time, unself-conscious, un-moisturised masculinity is in. Guys are guys again, with manly, painstakingly shaped and trimmed beards. They eat manly food, drive manly trucks and read manly books on manliness.
Or so you may have read. Truth be told, this is a phoney war. The “menaissance’’ is mendacious. This isn’t retrosexual at all, but hummersexual - a noisy, overblown, studied and frankly rather camp form of fake masculinity that likes to draw attention to itself and its allegedly old-fashioned “manliness’’, but tends - like driving an outsized military vehicle in the suburbs - to be a tad counterproductive.
The hummersexual, you see, doth protest too much. Rather than “reclaiming your manhood”, hummersexuality tends to make people wonder whether there’s some kind of compensation going on. This is a fetishised, “strapped-on’’, unsustainable, gas-guzzling masculinity which, like the metrosexuality it is supposedly a reaction against, is a needy product of consumerism and media. After all, it is Madison Avenue - with its Hummer, its Burger King “manthem’’ (“We are men, hear us roar’’) and its Dodge “Anything but cute’’ ads - that styled it.
However, unlike his better- looking metrosexual younger brother, the hummersexual is in denial. He thinks he reeks of heterosexuality, but is blissfully unaware that he often seems to have just stepped out of the funkier kind of gay leather/bear bar.
Despite his best efforts to convince you, the hummersexual is not retro-sexual. Since when did “regular guys’’ need several tonnes of military hardware, or “new macho’’ lifestyle magazines or books, such as the bestselling Alphabet of Manliness and Men Don’t Apologise, to be “regular’’? The hummersexual is clearly, hilariously, faux-retrosexual. He’s an off-the-peg, drag-king idea of “real’’ masculinity: stuffed crotch and joke beard included at no extra charge.
George W Bush has exhibited some hummersexual tendencies. As commander-in-chief, he used the USS Abraham Lincoln as a giant nuclear-powered strap-on (“Mission accomplished!’’). “Reclaim your manhood’’ was practically his mendacious re-election slogan - actual war hero John Kerry was portrayed as the flip-flopping metrosexual girly man, to Bush’s real, manly, bring-it-on bravery.
Like Bush, the hummersexual is already past his sell-by. He’s an end-of-line sale. Hummers themselves were never going to sell themselves as green. Burger King was never going to sell itself as purveyor of exquisite Mediterranean salads. And the Republicans were never going to sell themselves as a modern party.
Whatever his life expectancy, the hummersexual is simply an annoying fraud. In his manly coup against male consumerism and self-regard, the hummersexual is hogging two parking spaces instead of one at the mall.
© Guardian Newspapers 2006
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?
articleid=286807&area=/insight/insight__body_language/#
Mother Jones:
The Journalist and the Murderers
Anna Politovskaya was not content to report on her government's abuses - she tried to stop them, and for that she was killed.
Charles Digges
October 18 , 2006
In the days following the brutal and senseless assassination of Anna Politkovskaya last Saturday, my phone and email were abuzz with the shock and outrage of my former colleagues in the Moscow foreign press corps. Many of them were already busily typing away, collecting theories and interviewing one another about our recollections of the iron lady of Russian journalism. "It could have been any one of us," we told one another.
But I have been mulling that over, asking myself: could it really?
I concluded that, except for special cases, I don't really think so. Such an assertion is really more a statement of solidarity by western journalists with Politkovskaya, as none of us – restricted by our particular journalistic vows to not draw our own conclusions – ever went as far as Politkovskaya did. None of us ever stated outright, in our own copy, that President Vladimir Putin is a cynical, racist liar who is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Instead, we would draw on our collection of dial-a-quotes that could be ventriloquated to state the obvious unpleasant truth for us.
The difference between her and the rest of us went beyond that, though. Politkovskaya didn't just report. She was on the front lines demanding the government put a stop to the horror she witnessed on a daily basis. She gave lie to the old adage that we western journalists seek refuge in when we are confronted first hand by atrocities and do nothing to respond but take out cameras and notebooks: We are here, we tell ourselves, only to get the story, not become part of it.
Politkovskaya disdained such perceived safeguards. She constantly crossed the chalk-drawn line between reporter and subject by shuttling messages between Chechens and their relatives in Moscow; by being one of the few Russians – and certainly the only reporter – who tried to negotiate with the Chechen rebels who stormed Moscow's Dubrovka Theater in 2002, taking the audience hostage; and by negotiating with Russian troops – who were busy bombing Grozny back into the Pleistocene – for a safe passage out of the Chechen capital for elderly residents who were pinned down by the mortar fire.
In other words, she took the ideal that had pushed us all into reporting in the first place – to make the world a better place – one step further, relying not only on the eloquence of her words, but getting her hands dirty in the trenches with her subjects.
By so doing, she challenged the myth of objectivity that we are taught to hold so dear: the canon a reporter should live by, she would have said, is not objectivity, but responsibility. The moral obligation of reporting, regardless of the dangers, is to bear witness.
I have come to believe that in every story there are not always two separate but equally reasonable points of view, especially in Russia, where there are clear villains and thugs and clear victims who have been unremittingly brutalized. Politkovskaya believed that too, and she put her principles into practice every day, and against all odds, in a country that is now so pervaded by racism, corruption, xenophobia, official hatred of the press and cruelty that it has become a perfect reflection of President Vladimir Putin himself.
She knew this, she wrote about it, and she was shot dead.
Yet she had the last word in her posthumous article of Thursday, October 12th, when her newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, published the story she had been completing on the day she was murdered. The story documents, with letters and photos, the sanctioned torture of civilians under the regime of Kremlin-backed Chechen Premier Razman Kadyrov. One possible motive for her killing was to prevent that story from seeing the light of day.
But only someone of Politkovskaya's stature could have leveled these dark, disturbing and thoroughly documented accusations against Russian officialdom – giving the lie, from beyond the grave, to Putin's assertion to a German newspaper that this muckraker's role in Russia's political life had been "insignificant."
Charles Digges has covered Russia for 12 years for publications such as the The Moscow Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and International Herald Tribune. He now works for the Norwegian environmental organization Bellona.
This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.
© 2006 The Foundation for National Progress
http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2006/10/politkovskaya_killed.html
Página/12:
Es la guerra en Irak, estúpido
EL TEMA QUE PREOCUPA EN ESTAS LEGISLATIVAS
En menos de un mes los norteamericanos irán a votar para la renovación del Congreso. Según los sondeos, el conflicto inacabado en el país del Golfo se sitúa como una de las mayores preocupaciones.
Por José M. Calvo*
Desde Washington, Jueves, 19 de Octubre de 2006
No es la economía, como ocurría en 1992 –“Es la economía, estúpido”, fue el mensaje interno del estratega James Carville escrito en el cuartel general del candidato Bill Clinton para que no se le olvidara a nadie–, ni tampoco los valores morales (la socorrida explicación de la derrota de John Kerry en 2004). Son, en buena medida, la seguridad y el terrorismo, pero irremediablemente acompañados de la guerra.
Lo que está en el centro de estas legislativas de noviembre es Irak: las críticas, el malestar y la desazón de los norteamericanos ante un conflicto al que no se le ve final. La gran paradoja es que la misma guerra que fue decisiva para la victoria de George W. Bush en 2004 es ahora un enorme lastre para los congresistas republicanos. ¿Cuál es la lista de prioridades de los votantes? En un sondeo de la CNN, un 43 por ciento dice que Irak, y otro 43 por ciento, la amenaza terrorista; un tercio cree que lo importante es Corea del Norte, y otro tercio la economía. Sólo un 25 por ciento incluye el escándalo del ex congresista Mark Foley. Pero el 64 por ciento se opone a la guerra, el rechazo más elevado hasta hora. Según un sondeo del Pew Center, el 54 por ciento piensa que la guerra no va bien. “Irak se ha convertido en un tema central en estas elecciones”, deduce el informe. Son malas noticias para el partido de Bush: el presidente de guerra ha hecho del conflicto el frente central de la batalla contra el terrorismo, y esta batalla es el eje de su política de seguridad.
Ayer, en la firma de la ley que establece el funcionamiento de las comisiones militares y regula los interrogatorios a los sospechosos de terrorismo –aprobada en el Congreso con los demócratas divididos–, el presidente dijo que la pregunta es: “Esta generación, ¿se tomó en serio las amenazas e hizo lo que era necesario para contrarrestar esas amenazas?”. Poco después, el Partido Republicano recordó los nombres de congresistas y senadores que votaron en contra de la ley, que sigue causando fuertes críticas en los grupos de derechos humanos y que podría ser debatida por el Tribunal Supremo en los próximos meses.
El reto para la Casa Blanca es que el votante disculpe a Irak en nombre de la seguridad y la lucha contra el terrorismo; el desafío para los demócratas es que el votante juzgue a los responsables del desaguisado sin aparecer como débiles frente al terrorismo. La oposición confía en que la guerra –y la proximidad a Bush– minen la credibilidad de los congresistas conservadores para estas elecciones y las próximas: “Irak podría suponer para los republicanos, en materia de seguridad nacional, lo que les supuso la Depresión en materia económica”, dice Rahm Emmanuel, líder del comité electoral demócrata del Congreso, al The New York Times.
Sin caer en este voluntarismo propagandista, Robert McMahon, vicepresidente del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, señala que la violencia entre los grupos étnicos iraquíes, combinada con el lento goteo en la muerte de los soldados (2767 hasta ayer) “hacen que los republicanos sean extremadamente vulnerables”. Por esta razón, añade, “algunos se han distanciado del presidente”. Los demócratas, señala también McMahon, divididos sobre la estrategia a seguir, “tratan de subrayar el equivocado razonamiento de Bush para ir a la guerra y los errores de la posguerra”.
Al margen de la electoralización de la guerra, hay que cambiar la política sobre el conflicto, según el Grupo de Estudios sobre Irak, una comisión de personalidades designada por el Congreso y apoyada por Bush que dirige el ex secretario de Estado James Baker. Dos diarios, The New York Post y Los Angeles Times, han filtrado sus recomendaciones: una es organizar un repliegue de las tropas e instalarlas fuera de Irak, para intervenir en caso de emergencia; otra indica que es prioritario “estabilizar Bagdad e incrementar los esfuerzos para integrar a los insurgentes en el proceso político” y que Irán y Siria deberían jugar un papel. Según Baker, hay otras opciones aparte de “mantener el rumbo” o “irse de Irak” y “hay que hablar con los enemigos; ni Siria ni Irán quieren un Irak caótico”.
Bush sostiene que no debe haber calendarios de repliegue y coincide en que la seguridad en Bagdad es vital y que el gobierno iraquí tiene que atajar la violencia entre chiítas y sunnitas, además de reiterar que las tropas se irán cuando la misión esté cumplida. Pero uno de sus más fieles aliados en el Senado, John Warner, que preside el Comité de las Fuerzas Armadas, acaba de decir que si en los tres próximos meses los iraquíes no logran calmar la violencia y afianzar la reconstrucción, “el Congreso tendrá que tomar algunas decisiones audaces”.
* De El País de Madrid. Especial para Página/12.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-74715-2006-10-19.html
Página/12:
“Retiren a los soldados italianos”
LOS CAPTORES DE UN FOTOGRAFO EN AFGANISTAN
Jueves, 19 de Octubre de 2006
Los secuestradores del fotógrafo de prensa italiano Gabriele Torsello, capturado el jueves pasado en Afganistán, exigieron ayer el retiro “de todos los soldados italianos” del país, en una nueva reivindicación difundida en el sitio Internet PeaceReporter. El martes, los captores de Torsello habían pedido el regreso a Kabul de un afgano convertido al cristianismo y asilado en Italia a cambio de la liberación del fotógrafo.
En ese primer ultimátum, los captores exigieron que antes del domingo Abdul Rahman regrese a Afganistán. Pero ahora, por medio de un llamado telefónico al responsable de PeaceReporter, exigieron “el retiro de todos los soldados italianos de Afganistán si el regreso del apóstata es imposible”, con la misma fecha límite del domingo. La página de informaciones por Internet explica que, tal como ocurrió el martes, los secuestradores comunicaron su exigencia mediante un llamado telefónico al encargado de la seguridad del hospital de Lashkar Gah (sur de Afganistán), de la organización humanitaria italiana Emergency, que tiene un estrecho contacto con PeaceReporter.
Rahman, de 41 años, se convirtió al cristianismo hace 16 años cuando trabajaba para una organización no gubernamental cristiana en Pakistán. Luego vivió nueve años en Alemania y regresó en 2002 a su país, donde su propia familia lo denunció a la policía por haber abjurado del Islam. Tras su detención, que duró un mes, la Corte Suprema afgana, uno de los bastiones del islam conservador, afirmó que el apóstata sería ejecutado si no volvía a abrazar el Islam. Bajo el peso de fuertes presiones políticas, los tribunales afganos decidieron suspender su juicio por vicio de forma y dudas acerca de sus “capacidades mentales”. Rahman llegó luego a Roma en marzo, a un lugar secreto, donde solicitó formalmente el asilo político a Italia.
El hospital de Emergency está recibiendo estos días las llamadas de los secuestradores de Torsello y han podido hablar con el fotógrafo, que los tranquilizó sobre su estado de salud. Sin embargo, en la llamada de ayer no pudieron comunicarse con él. Torsello fue secuestrado el jueves pasado por cinco hombres armados mientras viajaba en un autobús en la provincia de Helmand, donde existe una gran presencia de talibanes, manifestó un afgano que viajaba con él. El fotógrafo italiano, que trabaja por su cuenta, vive desde hace años en Londres y ha trabajado para organizaciones como Amnistía Internacional.
Emergency construye hospitales en zona de guerra para la recuperación de las víctimas civiles, anunció anteayer que “apoya todo esfuerzo para una solución positiva del caso, pero que no será sujeto a ninguna negociación” para la liberación de Torsello. El gobierno italiano no se ha pronunciado oficialmente y, según un portavoz del Ministerio de Defensa, “no habrá reacción alguna por ahora, la situación es muy delicada”. La situación del fotógrafo hace revivir la tensión surgida entre Italia y Afganistán en marzo pasado, cuando el caso de Rahman acaparó la atención mundial.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-74716-2006-10-19.html
Página/12:
López y Moyano
Por Sandra Russo
Jueves, 19 de Octubre de 2006
El sindicalismo peronista hizo su pantomima del gesto que mejor le sale todavía, la violencia, justo cuando se cumplía un mes de la desaparición de Julio López. Una y otra cosa no tienen aparentemente nada que ver. Pero es necesario desarmar ese “aparentemente”.
En estos años no hubo ninguna autocrítica sindical. Ni hubo renovación. Ni hubo revisión de métodos ni ajuste de escalas ideológicas con las que medir la realidad política. El sindicalismo reapareció hace un par de años, junto con la reaparición del empleo, un bien escaso tan venerado y tan deseado que su regreso, aun en cuotas, hizo pasar por alto los mismos nombres y ahora obliga a no pasar por alto las mismas metodologías.
El peronismo sindical siempre lo usó a Perón y Perón lo usó a su vez para cobijar el ala derecha inconfesable y evidente de una doctrina cuyo eje siempre fue la acumulación del poder a cualquier costo, incluso el de la patota y el crimen parapolicial. Desde la década del ’70, allí se hizo sólido el nido más reaccionario del movimiento. Hubo quienes intentaron cambiar aquellos códigos, y sus nombres figuran hoy en las listas de desaparecidos peronistas.
El peronismo sindical es un fenómeno del que Perón no podría, no debería estar orgulloso. No forjó su movimiento un sindicalismo crítico del poder y combativo, ni organizado, ni solidario, ni movilizado desde las bases hacia las cúpulas. El peronismo sindical ofrece tantas grietas y tantas miserias que es, podría decirse, una tara que Perón no pudo o no quiso resolver, porque Perón nunca ofreció resistencia a las patotas. Las alentó, siempre que jugaran de su lado.
La Triple A no nació de un repollo. Nació de una concepción mafiosa de la política, que ya el entonces líder senil de gente que mutuamente se odiaba dejó crecer y recrudecer.
Después de aquellos estallidos de violencia intrasindical cuyos muertos no se contaban, como si fuera la muerte un gaje del oficio, llegó la dictadura y con ella los asesinatos masivos.
Y a un mes de la desaparición de un testigo clave en el juicio a uno de los más sanguinarios represores de esa dictadura, ¿qué queda? Quedan solicitadas de organismos de derechos humanos. ¿Solamente los organismos de derechos humanos siguen de cerca la búsqueda de López? Que López no aparezca ni vivo ni muerto es una prueba de que hay bacterias asesinas resistentes al paso de los años. Antes del ’76, los muertos sindicales eran hallados en zanjones. Después del golpe, los muertos no eran hallados.
Estamos frente a dos fenómenos que es necesario abortar. Aborto terapéutico. A diferencia de Perón, que fue enorme pero no inocente en relación con la violencia desatada hace décadas, de cara al presente y al futuro el peronismo debe depurar su catálogo litúrgico y ponerlo a tono con los tiempos. Pero para eso es necesario no sólo un líder que se exprese claramente al respecto y ponga límites a la aparición de armas de fuego y vendettas pueriles por facturas añejas. También y sobre todo es necesaria una sociedad que dé señales de espanto frente a la violencia. Hay un hombre, un testigo desaparecido hace un mes. Y hay también una docilidad general inexplicable para aceptar ese hecho. Que una y otra cosa sucedan simultáneamente provoca escalofríos. Hay muchas maneras de decir que no. Firmemente, que no. Esta sociedad deberá elegir la manera en que se planta y dice no. Y si calla, como ha callado tantas veces, otorga.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-74723-2006-10-19.html
The Independent:
Space: America's new war zone
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 19 October 2006
The Bush administration has staked an aggressive new claim to dominate space - rejecting any new treaties that seek to limit the United States' extraterrestrial activities and warning that it will oppose any nations that try to get in its way.
A new policy recently signed by President George Bush, asserts that his country has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests.
The new policy further warns that the US will take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities "and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile" to those interests. The document adds: "Space activities have improved life in the United States and around the world, enhancing security, protecting lives and the environment, speeding information flow serving as an engine for economic growth and revolutionising the way people view their world and the cosmos."
"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power."
In some respects the policy represents the space equivalent of the "Bush Doctrine" national security policy initially outlined by Mr Bush in a speech at West Point military academy in June 2002. At that event - and later more formally codified - Mr Bush said the new US policy would place more emphasis on military pre-emption and unilateral actions.
Some experts believe the space directive, discreetly published more than a week ago and barely noticed outside specialist circles, puts the US on a new and dangerous course given that it transports "Bush Doctrine" policy to a new arena and rejects any efforts to limit US behaviour.
"I think that saying we will not have any limits on our actions is quite dangerous," said Theresa Hitchens, director of the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information.
"It claims no one can prohibit our rights but it also denies rights to [others].
"You would think that we would have learnt our lessons about the danger of military pre-emptive action and unilateralism in Iraq yet we are repeating the same policy towards space."
In part the new directive builds on the space policy of the Clinton administration. But some believe its new, hardline rhetoric will increase international suspicions that the US is seeking to develop and deploy weapons in space.
"The Clinton administration opened the door to developing space weapons but that administration never did anything about it. The Bush policy now goes further," Michael Krepon, of the Stimson Centre, told The Washington Post.
Mr Bush's attitude to space has always been more ambitious than that of his predecessor. In 2004 he outlined a vision to restart sending astronauts to the Moon, and even to Mars. In the same year the US Air Force published a highly controversial plan for establishing weapons in space, amid speculation that advanced lasers, spacecraft and space-based weapons firing 100kg tungsten bolts were being developed. And earlier this year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop space weapons.
In those portions of the new policy document that have been made public, there is no specific mention of the weaponisation of space. It says the US's priorities are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership" and to enable "unhindered US operations in and through space to defend our interests there". But the policy also claims that national security is "critically" dependent upon space capabilities. As a result it calls on the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain US advantage and support defence and intelligence transformations".
In recent years some nations have called for talks to ban the deployment of weapons in space. Currently the deployment of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty.
When proposals to ban the weaponisation of space have been put forward at the UN, the United States has routinely abstained. But last October the US voted against a UN resolution calling for the banning of weapons in space.
Likewise, the US has repeatedly resisted efforts to hold negotiations on the issue of banning the placement in weapons by the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament.
Wade Boese of the Arms Control Association said the language in the new policy was "much more hard line" than any that previously existed.
He added: "We believe that this allergy to treaties is counter-productive. The US has the most to lose if there is an arms race in outer space in the long run. If the US [puts weapons in space], other countries will respond in some way."
A spokesman for the White House's National Security Council said in a statement that the policy was needed to "reflect the fact that space has become an even more important component of US economic, national and homeland security".
The final frontier
Moon
President Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration in January 2004, calling for humans to return to the Moon by the end of the next decade. The first wave of robotic probes is the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, due to launch in 2008. As well as seeking landing sites, it will search for water ice and other resources. The initiative is supported by 68 per cent of Americans, according to opinion polls.
Mars
Under President Bush's 2004 vision, Moon exploration would pave the way for human space travel to Mars and beyond. The Mars reconnaissance Rover arrived on the Red Planet on 10 March 2006, equipped with the most powerful telescope ever taken to another planet.
Star Wars
The Clinton administration in 1999 revived Ronald Reagan's "star wars" space-based anti-missile shield as the Pentagon pushed for a more aggressive military posture in space amid warnings that North Korea, Iran and Iraq could obtain nuclear weapons. The programme became known as "son of star wars". Space weapons could include lasers that can shut down rival satellites and "killer" satellites that could ram others.
The new Bush policy calls for space-based capabilities to support missile-warning systems, and "multi-layered and integrated missile defences" that could lay the groundwork for the militarisation of space.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article1902195.ece
The Independent: 'Stolen Generation' of Aborigines
wins apology and payout in Tasmania
By Kathy Marks in Sydney
Published: 19 October 2006
Eddie Thomas was just a few months old when the white people came and took him away. They took his brother and sister, too. The children's grandmother had been looking after them, following the death of their mother after Eddie's birth.
The three young Aborigines were taken from Cape Barren Island, off the north-east coast of Tasmania, and placed in state care in Launceston, on the Tasmanian mainland. Mr Thomas, now 70, was separated from his siblings and brought up in foster families, where he was beaten and "treated like a slave", he said yesterday.
His grandmother was prevented from visiting them. "There used to be this old lady come to the gate and our foster mother would say 'that's just a silly old black woman' and take us inside," he told The Australian newspaper. "It wasn't until I was old enough to go to work that I met up with an uncle who told me that was my grandmother. She wanted to talk to us, to cuddle us, but she wasn't allowed. She died of a broken heart."
Mr Thomas is a member of the "Stolen Generation" - one of thousands of Aboriginal children forcibly removed from their families and assimilated into white society, under an official policy introduced early last century and not abandoned until 1975.
Australia's treatment of its indigenous people remains a running sore, and the plight of the Stolen Generation is a principal reason. Nine years ago, a national inquiry concluded that the policy amounted to genocide.
The Prime Minister, John Howard, who had just come to power then, has yet to apologise on behalf of his predecessors. Survivors have not received a cent in damages.
That is about to change, in Tasmania at least, following the unveiling yesterday by the state premier, Paul Lennon, of a $5m (£2m) compensation package. For Mr Lennon, it represents a vital step on the road to reconciliation between black and white Australia. "It's about recognising that, in Tasmania's history, Aboriginal people were dispossessed from their land, severed from their culture and taken from their families," he said. "It's about saying that we're sorry that this happened."
The funds will be made available to Tasmanian Aborigines who were separated from their parents, or, in the case of those already dead, to their children. An independently appointed assessor will judge each claim and one-off payments of up to $5,000 per person and $20,000 per family will be made to relatives. The rest of the fund will be divided among surviving members of the Stolen Generation.
Whether other states and territories, and more importantly the federal government, will follow Mr Lennon's lead remains to be seen. But it seems fitting that Tasmania, the island state separated from the mainland by the Bass Strait, should be setting an example.
Within 70 years of the first convict settlement being established on the Derwent River in 1803, much of Tasmania's indigenous population had been wiped out. Those who survived were the descendants of people transported to remote islands in the Bass Strait, or the mixed-race offspring of illegal unions. Between 40 and 125 people are expected to be eligible for compensation, according to Michael Mansell, an Aboriginal lawyer in Tasmania, who described Mr Lennon's package as one of the most significant developments ever for reconciliation.
Nationally, it is thought that about 10,000 Aboriginal children were removed from their families by welfare agencies - with many of the agencies convincedthey were acting in the children's best interests. The policy was conceived in response to the perceived threat to "White Australia" from the intermingling of Aborigines and Europeans. Its aim was to integrate children, particularly those of mixed race, and "breed out" their colour. It was believed that full-blooded Aborigines were becoming extinct.
The suffering caused by the splitting of families is impossible to quantify. It inspired an award-winning film, Rabbit-Proof Fence, by the Australian director Philip Noyce.
The report from Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, released in 1997, found that up to one in three Aboriginal children had been forcibly removed between 1910 and 1970. They were placed in orphanages, church missions or foster care, where many were physically and sexually abused, or used as unpaid labour.
Mr Howard's response to calls for an apology and reparations was that "Australians of this generation should not be required to accept guilt and blame for past actions and policies over which they had no control"; besides, an apology would open the way for thousands of compensation claims. In 2000, a leaked report by his Aboriginal Affairs Minister, John Herron, denied the existence of a "stolen generation", claiming that no more than 10 per cent of children were taken, "including those who were not forcibly separated and those who were forcibly separated for good reason".
Despite this, the federal government provided $63m in practical assistance to those affected.
In Tasmania, Mr Lennon won multi-party approval for the draft bill, which he presented to Annette Peardon, an Aboriginal elder, in Launceston. For Ms Peardon, who was taken from her mother in 1958, the move evoked "sadness and gladness". Compensation, she said, was an acknowledgement by government that "it was reality, it did happen". She and two siblings were removed from their home on Flinders Island.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/article1902189.ece
Utne Reader:
The Devil Wears Prada and Drives a Hummer
The faithful join forces to fight reckless consumption
By Suzanne Lindgren
Utne.com, October 19, 2006
"Buy, buy, buy. Sell, sell, sell," goes the mantra of the capitalist. But our disposable lifestyle has gotten us into quite a mess, and if there's one thing all the talk about biofuels and wind power confirms, it's that we can't buy more space on the planet to fulfill our food and energy needs or sell our way out of the environmental damages we've already inflicted. Many on the left see the stereotypical conservative Christian consumer as the villain in this story - Bush crystallized the image with his post-9/11 call for Americans to open their pocketbooks and ward off economic collapse. Giving the lie to that stereotype are the leagues of religious groups looking inward - and to each other - to find an escape from the consumerist trap responsible for the current state of planet Earth.
At its core, sustainability is about values, and values are impacted by religion, argues Gary Gardner, director of research with the environmental and social sustainability research group Worldwatch Institute. "It's because I'm a religious person that I'm an environmentalist. For me there is no incompatibility there at all," Gardner explains in an interview with David Roberts for Grist. The connection between faith and environmentalism is also clear to Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope, who writes in his column for Sierra that "[o]ur shortsighted global-trade rules affront the pious and environmentalist alike." "In every major trade negotiation to date," he continues, "both camps have suggested provisions to allow subsistence farmers to remain on their land, to get lifesaving drugs into the hands of poor people, and to protect the earth's ecosystems - all elements of a sustainable system."
The increasing involvement of religious groups in environmental activism is adding a new dimension of political clout to the movement. But its impact goes farther than that. Gardner and others argue that religion can get to the roots of reckless consumption in a way that environmentalist lecturing can't. In the recent book, A Greener Faith, Roger S. Gottleib - according to a Discover review - stresses that "religious values offer an alternative to the gross consumerism that has fueled our despoliation of the planet." For many, the consumerism Pope calls a "fundamental spiritual crisis that challenges all the world's faiths," is best countered by a renewed sense of spirituality that trumps unabated capitalism's empty promises of fulfillment.
Go there >> How Does Your Gardner Go?
Go there too >> Ways & Means: The Devil's in the Retail
Go there too >> A Greener Faith
Utne.com
http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2006_271/news/12294-1.html
posted by attilav at 21:50
2 Comments:
beats by dre, converse outlet, ghd, mac cosmetics, insanity workout, hollister, nike roshe, north face outlet, babyliss, lancel, hollister, asics running shoes, nike air max, birkin bag, nike air max, oakley, wedding dresses, soccer jerseys, valentino shoes, louboutin, herve leger, mcm handbags, ferragamo shoes, converse, celine handbags, abercrombie and fitch, timberland boots, p90x workout, hollister, new balance, nfl jerseys, ralph lauren, longchamp, chi flat iron, mont blanc, nike huarache, north face outlet, iphone cases, gucci, instyler, vans, jimmy choo shoes, vans shoes, soccer shoes, baseball bats, reebok shoes, bottega veneta, lululemon, ray ban, nike trainers
2:46 AM
thomas sabo, canada goose, coach outlet, canada goose, bottes ugg, moncler, marc jacobs, montre pas cher, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, juicy couture outlet, swarovski, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, sac louis vuitton pas cher, canada goose outlet, toms shoes, pandora jewelry, moncler, links of london, moncler, hollister, moncler outlet, juicy couture outlet, canada goose uk, ugg boots uk, swarovski crystal, supra shoes, louis vuitton, ugg pas cher, replica watches, moncler, moncler, louis vuitton, pandora charms, canada goose outlet, pandora jewelry, karen millen, doudoune canada goose, moncler, canada goose, louis vuitton, canada goose, moncler, wedding dresses, louis vuitton, pandora charms
2:54 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home