Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Talks can restore peace in Swat, Malakand: Hoti
PESHAWAR: Amir Haider Hoti, the Awami National Party (ANP) candidate for the chief minister slot said on Tuesday that peace could be restored in Swat and Malakand regions only through dialogue and that the coalition government would include clerics, militants and all concerned parties in the peace process.Hoti was briefing the media at the Shahi Mehman Khana after a meeting with newly elected members of the provincial assembly (MPAs-elect) from Swat and Malakand division. The would-be chief minister warned his government would take action against all those who do not participate in the peace process and continue negative activities. ANP Provincial President Afrasiab Khattak, General Secretary Mian Iftikhar Hussain and Senior Vice President Baz Muhammad Khan were also president at the meeting.Hoti said he discussed in depth the Malakand situation and restoration of peace with the MPAs-elect. He said the incoming government’s priorities and policies also came up for discussion. Hoti said different proposals were forwarded but there was a consensus among the members that peace was possible only through negotiations. “That’s the only way and clerics, militants and all those concerned be included in the peace process,” Hoti added.Hoti said his government would also review the policies of the previous government in this regard and remove the flaws, adding that the meeting did not discuss the formation of government or distribution of ministries. Referring to the renaming of the province as Pakhtunkhwa, Hoti said talks were in progress with the PPP and decision would soon be made in this regard.Waqar Ahmed, MPA-elect from PF-82 Swat-3 who attended the meeting, told Daily Times, “We discussed a lot on restoration of peace in Swat and will unfold our plan after the formation of the government.” staff report
Rice: Peace deal could happen by year's end
By Haaretz Correspondent and News Agencies , By Avi IssacharoffIsrael and the Palestinians can still reach a peace agreement by the end of the year, despite the recent violence in the Gaza Strip, visiting U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. Rice, who met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Ramallah, urged both parties to return to the negotiation table as soon as possible. "What we are trying to achieve is not easy ... but I do believe it can be done," Rice said at a joint press conference with Abbas. "We need very much for everybody to be focused on peace," he added. For his part, Abbas said that "peace and negotiations are our strategic choice," but fell short of announcing a resumption of peace talks that his government cut off after the upsurge in fighting in Gaza. "I call on the Israeli government to halt its aggression so the necessary environment can be created to make negotiations succeed, for us and for them, to reach the shores of peace in 2008," Abbas said, referring to the goal - stated at a U.S.-sponsored Mideast peace conference in November - of reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty by the end of the year. A comprehensive cease-fire Palestinian sources said Abbas' discussion with Rice centered around the idea of a comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza. Abbas emphasized the need for a lull to allow the peace process to move forward, the sources said, adding that the PA has no problem with renewing negotiations however that an appropriate mechanism must be found to allow for unimpeded progress in the wake of the fighting. Hamas said Rice's visit was unwanted and was intended to cover up "the crimes of the occupation." Earlier, Rice visited Cairo and announced that she had waived the Congressional restrictions withholding $100 million in military aid to Egypt. The funds were released in an effort to improve bilateral relations and encourage Egypt to take a more active part in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Let there be peace!
PEACE and Love in Society (PALS) and the Violence Prevention Alliance (VPA) will be spearheading a series of events in observation of today's Peace Day.
Individuals across Jamaica are being urged to join in the activities as they take a stance against all forms of violence and disorder.
Janilee Abrikian, general manager of PALS, said Jamaicans are being encouraged to start the day by attending assembly at a primary or secondary school.
"You don't have to have a child attending that school, but it could just be a school in your community or one that you're interested in supporting," she said.
Something blue
Abrikian said individuals are also encouraged to wear blue and to dip their headlights in recognition of the day.
The big event for Peace Day will be a peace march and rally in the Corporate Area under the theme 'Peace for Prosperity'.
The march is expected to start from three points - the National Stadium, Mandela Park in Half-Way Tree and the Hunts Bay Police Station in Three Miles - and will culminate at the Urban Development Corporation parking lot at the Waterfront in downtown Kingston.
The rally is expected to begin at 6:30 p.m. and will see addresses from Tony Rebel, Prodigal Son and other popular entertainers.
A church service organised by PALS will also be held at the Haven of Hope Open Bible Church at 37A August Town Road. The service will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue on to the August Town Primary School, which is to be the school for Peace Day.
March planned
Residents in Spanish Town, St Catherine, will also be having a march from Dempshire Pen to the Prison Oval. The march, which begins at 9:00 a.m, will end at 10 a.m. and will see an address from Henley Morgan.
The community of Flankers in Montego Bay is also expected to have an information fair and peace concert today, organised by the Flankers Peace and Justice Centre in collaboration with the Citizen Security and Justice Programme.
Individuals across Jamaica are being urged to join in the activities as they take a stance against all forms of violence and disorder.
Janilee Abrikian, general manager of PALS, said Jamaicans are being encouraged to start the day by attending assembly at a primary or secondary school.
"You don't have to have a child attending that school, but it could just be a school in your community or one that you're interested in supporting," she said.
Something blue
Abrikian said individuals are also encouraged to wear blue and to dip their headlights in recognition of the day.
The big event for Peace Day will be a peace march and rally in the Corporate Area under the theme 'Peace for Prosperity'.
The march is expected to start from three points - the National Stadium, Mandela Park in Half-Way Tree and the Hunts Bay Police Station in Three Miles - and will culminate at the Urban Development Corporation parking lot at the Waterfront in downtown Kingston.
The rally is expected to begin at 6:30 p.m. and will see addresses from Tony Rebel, Prodigal Son and other popular entertainers.
A church service organised by PALS will also be held at the Haven of Hope Open Bible Church at 37A August Town Road. The service will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue on to the August Town Primary School, which is to be the school for Peace Day.
March planned
Residents in Spanish Town, St Catherine, will also be having a march from Dempshire Pen to the Prison Oval. The march, which begins at 9:00 a.m, will end at 10 a.m. and will see an address from Henley Morgan.
The community of Flankers in Montego Bay is also expected to have an information fair and peace concert today, organised by the Flankers Peace and Justice Centre in collaboration with the Citizen Security and Justice Programme.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Guest editors for peace
Yesterday our Guest Editors from the Violence Prevention Alliance were busy selecting stories and photographs for tomorrow's Gleaner. Under the theme 'Unite for Peace and Prosperity', the team led by Prof Barry Chevannes (right) took over the newsroom at North Street. Dr Deanna Ashley (left) examines a photograph for Monday's publication, while Dr Elizabeth Ward (second left) and Diane Ellis look on.
Maya Angelou honored with Voice of Peace award
MUSIC: Community choirs ring out as Angelou recognized in Dallas
Saturday may have started out gray and drizzly, but by early afternoon it was as sunny inside the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center as it was outside.
That's because the venue was hosting the first of what was hoped to be an annual Voices of Peace celebration, put on by nonprofit group Hope for Peace and Justice, dedicated to "equip[ing] people of faith to be champions of values that will leave the world more compassionate, united, and healthy."
That's according to the Rev. Michael S. Piazza, organization president and the national pastor and dean of the Dallas-based Cathedral of Hope.
Mr. Piazza was just one of several emcees for an afternoon honoring the group's first recipient of its Voice of Peace award, poet Maya Angelou, an award-winning author and civil-rights acticist.
The show drew a packed house that heard an orchestra and the Voices of Peace Chorus, a choir of members of the Women's Chorus of Dallas, the Turtle Creek Chorale and the Cathedral of Hope Sanctuary Choir.
The aggregation filled the bowl of the stage of the Meyerson, all the way up to the magnificent pipe organ, which was also deployed. As this group kicked things off with a number of songs, including several written specifically for Dr. Angelou, the hall's energy began to grow.
The male chorus of the First Baptist Church brought the energy up to tent-revival levels with a rousing version of the old spiritual "Down by the Riverside," a feeling that was clinched by fourth-grader Dalton Sherman, winner of the recent 16th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Oratory Competition. He gave a stirring speech about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that drew laughs and a standing ovation.
The keynote, however, was the acceptance speech of Dr. Angelou. Walking slowly onto the stage, she managed to convey both frailty and strength.
Her speech took the biblical theme of the rainbow God sent during the flood to give Noah hope. Anyone who does even the smallest unasked courtesy to a fellow man, she said, was one such rainbow.
At the end of her address, Dr. Angelou thanked the audience for being a "rainbow in my clouds" and asked them to consider her the same.
Judging by the response, that was a foregone conclusion
That's according to the Rev. Michael S. Piazza, organization president and the national pastor and dean of the Dallas-based Cathedral of Hope.
Mr. Piazza was just one of several emcees for an afternoon honoring the group's first recipient of its Voice of Peace award, poet Maya Angelou, an award-winning author and civil-rights acticist.
The show drew a packed house that heard an orchestra and the Voices of Peace Chorus, a choir of members of the Women's Chorus of Dallas, the Turtle Creek Chorale and the Cathedral of Hope Sanctuary Choir.
The aggregation filled the bowl of the stage of the Meyerson, all the way up to the magnificent pipe organ, which was also deployed. As this group kicked things off with a number of songs, including several written specifically for Dr. Angelou, the hall's energy began to grow.
The male chorus of the First Baptist Church brought the energy up to tent-revival levels with a rousing version of the old spiritual "Down by the Riverside," a feeling that was clinched by fourth-grader Dalton Sherman, winner of the recent 16th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Oratory Competition. He gave a stirring speech about the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that drew laughs and a standing ovation.
The keynote, however, was the acceptance speech of Dr. Angelou. Walking slowly onto the stage, she managed to convey both frailty and strength.
Her speech took the biblical theme of the rainbow God sent during the flood to give Noah hope. Anyone who does even the smallest unasked courtesy to a fellow man, she said, was one such rainbow.
At the end of her address, Dr. Angelou thanked the audience for being a "rainbow in my clouds" and asked them to consider her the same.
Judging by the response, that was a foregone conclusion
Friday, February 29, 2008
Kosovo and Palestine: Why Different Standards?
In July 2000, President Clinton, at the insistence of Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak, invited President Arafat and Barak to Camp David. In less than two weeks of intensive negotiations, Clinton expected Arafat and Barak to arrive at a solution to end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Incomplete progress was achieved at Camp David, but an agreement was not.
Follow-up negotiations resumed in the months ahead, and by January 2001 an agreement was reached, but as far as Clinton and Barak were concerned, it was too late. Clinton evacuated the White House, and Barak lost the elections in Israel. Ariel Sharon, who worked relentlessly to sabotage all peacemaking efforts between Israel and the PLO after Oslo, assumed office in Israel and the intifada against the Israeli occupation intensified. Much blood has been spilled since then, but two more nonofficial “peace” agreements between Israelis and Palestinians were worked out — the Geneva agreement between Yaser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin, and another one between Sari Nussiebeh, currently head of Al-Quds University, and Ami Ayalon, a minister in the current Israeli government. Outlines, frameworks, and parameters, call them what you wish, for solving the conflict were reached between the sides after Oslo, but never formally or officially adopted or signed.
In November 2004 when President Arafat died, one very significant Palestinian era came to a close, and a new one arrived. Mahmoud Abbas, a veteran Palestinian leader, peacemaker and a fervent supporter of a negotiated peace settlement with Israel, was elected as the president of the Palestinian National Authority. He was also the chairman of the PLO. For almost two years President Abbas was “no peace partner” to Israel. But his consistent peace efforts finally produced some results when the international community, particularly the United States and Europe, pressed the new Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reconsider Israel’s position and resume negotiations with the PLO.
No less than nine trips made by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East led to last November’s Annapolis conference. In addition to Abbas, Olmert, and President George W. Bush, representatives of more than 90 countries attended the conference. There were high hopes that the conference would lead to the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians. But hopes have faded and pessimism has taken its place.
Some, however, do not believe the situation is as bad as it appears, and put forward different interpretations of what is going on. They believe something substantial is being cooked in secrecy behind closed doors. More than twenty meetings between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators took place over the last few weeks, five summit meetings between Abbas and Olmert, and President George W. Bush made a visit to the region. Is it possible that nothing in this period was achieved? According to Israeli TV Channel 2 commentators, progress on different core issues was made, and “Olmert and Abbas are cooking the chicken and are hiding it in the freezer because the table is not ready for the meal. Ahmad Qurie and Mahmoud Abbas on one side, Olmert and Livni on the other side can’t reveal what has been achieved in the negotiations.”
However, to Palestinian ears, the above interpretation by Israeli commentators is deceiving, if not altogether false, because:
First, Israel is continuing to build Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.
Second, using Shas’ threats to bolt the government as an excuse, Israel refuses to conduct negotiations on comprehensive core issues and endlessly stretches negotiations. This tactic is well known to Palestinians. They remember how Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, during the Madrid conference in 1991, threatened to stretch negotiations with the Palestinians for tens of years. Shamir’s threats are the realities of today.
Third, and this is the most important reason, our history with Israel’s compliance with signed agreements (such as the Oslo Accords, signed in the open with superpowers as witnesses) was never honored. How can an agreement negotiated in secret between the sides be honored by Israel at an unknown future date? The sad reality is that the meal Israeli commentators referred to is spoiled.
If, in July 2000, President Clinton thought an agreement between the sides could be reached in less than two weeks, and if parameters for a solution were negotiated and in place since January 2001, why is it necessary to wait until the end of 2008 to see if a solution can be found?
The only conclusion is that without real and serious international intervention to pressure Israel to come to its senses, and arrive at a just and comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinian people quickly, the whole situation will explode sooner or later, particularly if a serious military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah takes place. The mutually exchanged threats between both sides are an indication of what is to be expected in the not too distant future. If the military conflagration erupts, any negotiations taking place now between Olmert and Abbas will be no more than an academic exercise leading to nowhere.
If the Western world is really serious about ending the conflict, and achieving a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, and in the region, an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, and a peace agreement should be realized in the next few months. If the EU and the United States can ensure Kosovo’s independence now, they can also ensure similar arrangements for an independent Palestine by this summer. A satisfactory conclusion to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will transform the area and strengthen the forces of moderation. This will also defeat the forces of extremism enhancing the prospects for peace in our region and the world.
Follow-up negotiations resumed in the months ahead, and by January 2001 an agreement was reached, but as far as Clinton and Barak were concerned, it was too late. Clinton evacuated the White House, and Barak lost the elections in Israel. Ariel Sharon, who worked relentlessly to sabotage all peacemaking efforts between Israel and the PLO after Oslo, assumed office in Israel and the intifada against the Israeli occupation intensified. Much blood has been spilled since then, but two more nonofficial “peace” agreements between Israelis and Palestinians were worked out — the Geneva agreement between Yaser Abed Rabbo and Yossi Beilin, and another one between Sari Nussiebeh, currently head of Al-Quds University, and Ami Ayalon, a minister in the current Israeli government. Outlines, frameworks, and parameters, call them what you wish, for solving the conflict were reached between the sides after Oslo, but never formally or officially adopted or signed.
In November 2004 when President Arafat died, one very significant Palestinian era came to a close, and a new one arrived. Mahmoud Abbas, a veteran Palestinian leader, peacemaker and a fervent supporter of a negotiated peace settlement with Israel, was elected as the president of the Palestinian National Authority. He was also the chairman of the PLO. For almost two years President Abbas was “no peace partner” to Israel. But his consistent peace efforts finally produced some results when the international community, particularly the United States and Europe, pressed the new Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reconsider Israel’s position and resume negotiations with the PLO.
No less than nine trips made by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the Middle East led to last November’s Annapolis conference. In addition to Abbas, Olmert, and President George W. Bush, representatives of more than 90 countries attended the conference. There were high hopes that the conference would lead to the resumption of peace talks between Israel and Palestinians. But hopes have faded and pessimism has taken its place.
Some, however, do not believe the situation is as bad as it appears, and put forward different interpretations of what is going on. They believe something substantial is being cooked in secrecy behind closed doors. More than twenty meetings between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators took place over the last few weeks, five summit meetings between Abbas and Olmert, and President George W. Bush made a visit to the region. Is it possible that nothing in this period was achieved? According to Israeli TV Channel 2 commentators, progress on different core issues was made, and “Olmert and Abbas are cooking the chicken and are hiding it in the freezer because the table is not ready for the meal. Ahmad Qurie and Mahmoud Abbas on one side, Olmert and Livni on the other side can’t reveal what has been achieved in the negotiations.”
However, to Palestinian ears, the above interpretation by Israeli commentators is deceiving, if not altogether false, because:
First, Israel is continuing to build Jewish settlements in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank.
Second, using Shas’ threats to bolt the government as an excuse, Israel refuses to conduct negotiations on comprehensive core issues and endlessly stretches negotiations. This tactic is well known to Palestinians. They remember how Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, during the Madrid conference in 1991, threatened to stretch negotiations with the Palestinians for tens of years. Shamir’s threats are the realities of today.
Third, and this is the most important reason, our history with Israel’s compliance with signed agreements (such as the Oslo Accords, signed in the open with superpowers as witnesses) was never honored. How can an agreement negotiated in secret between the sides be honored by Israel at an unknown future date? The sad reality is that the meal Israeli commentators referred to is spoiled.
If, in July 2000, President Clinton thought an agreement between the sides could be reached in less than two weeks, and if parameters for a solution were negotiated and in place since January 2001, why is it necessary to wait until the end of 2008 to see if a solution can be found?
The only conclusion is that without real and serious international intervention to pressure Israel to come to its senses, and arrive at a just and comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinian people quickly, the whole situation will explode sooner or later, particularly if a serious military confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah takes place. The mutually exchanged threats between both sides are an indication of what is to be expected in the not too distant future. If the military conflagration erupts, any negotiations taking place now between Olmert and Abbas will be no more than an academic exercise leading to nowhere.
If the Western world is really serious about ending the conflict, and achieving a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine, and in the region, an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land, and a peace agreement should be realized in the next few months. If the EU and the United States can ensure Kosovo’s independence now, they can also ensure similar arrangements for an independent Palestine by this summer. A satisfactory conclusion to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will transform the area and strengthen the forces of moderation. This will also defeat the forces of extremism enhancing the prospects for peace in our region and the world.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Peace Time
Last fall, I was booked on a television program called Digital Age, in which I was asked to reflect on a moment in history--the Paris peace talks that ended the First World War and the treaty that was signed at Versailles--and how this process might have changed with today's modern methods of communications.
I gave a lot of thought to this, and my broad conclusion was that indeed everything would have changed: the aspirations, the process, the outcome and, above all, the consequences, both for that time and today, nearly a century later.
Time, or at least timing, is everything, especially when it comes to wars and revolutions or the diplomatic dances that put an end to them. There have been a host of peace conferences since 1919. But few lasted as long as the Paris debates, and none have had such catastrophic consequences throughout the world.
Take the Balkans as one key example. What took six months (actually longer, but the heads of state were billeted in Paris for just six months) to assemble in 1919--creation of that violent, dysfunctional state known as Yugoslavia--was undone in less than three weeks in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995 at a modern-day peace conference brokered by the extraordinary diplomat-banker Richard Holbrooke.
In 1919, communication and transportation were primitive, at least by today's standards. No one had yet flown across the Atlantic in an airplane; they went by ship, and a week or more was needed for the journey. Intercontinental telephones were chancy and barely audible, so cables were the preferred method of communication, and they often took hours, even days to code and transmit.
There was, of course, no Internet. Detailed research often involved consulting an early edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead of blogs, participants kept diaries, typed or scrawled at the end of very long days of negotiations, then most often simply dropped into dusty archives where they were promptly forgotten.
But of paramount importance was the matter of executive or political time. Woodrow Wilson was the first American president to ever travel outside the North American continent during his presidency. And he stayed away for six months, apart from one brief fence-mending trip to Washington. No president before or since has ever dared to spend that much time outside the U.S. Indeed, today a six-day presidential swing is considered an eternity. It took that much time and more for Wilson to simply travel from Washington to Paris one way on the SS George Washington.
For the Dayton Peace Accords, the various concerned parties jetted into Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Holbrooke, together with Secretary of State Warren Christopher, European Union Special Representative Carl Bildt and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, as well as Gen. Wesley Clark, sat down the various parties--Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Croatian President Franjo Tudman and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic--around a table and put their heads together.
Of course, jet-propelled shuttle diplomacy and flurries of e-mails helped smooth the path to these final talks. Still, there was no need for lengthy consultations a half a world away with time-consuming cables and messages, or long stretches in the cabins of an ocean liner. If there was a question, the answer was a quick, secure phone call away. And once assembled, everyone stayed put until the job was finished.
These differences changed dramatically the very nature of the two agreements that resulted: the Treaty of Versailles and the Dayton Accords. First and foremost, the U.S. failed to ratify the earlier treaty at all, while the Dayton Accords were signed and approved by all parties just three weeks later.
A good part of the failure of Versailles was Democrat Wilson's intransigence in the face of determined opposition from a Republican-led Congress. But much of that opposition stemmed from Wilson's failure to involve the Republican leadership in the negotiating process. Not a single member of Congress made the seven-month time commitment to come to Paris to participate in the deliberations. And Wilson's communications with Congress during the talks were minimal to nonexistent.
Of course, Wilson's European counterparts--especially British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau--had little of the same time/communications problems that faced Wilson. For Clemenceau, his parliament (which he had in his hip pocket) was just up the block from the Quai d'Orsay, where the treaty was being negotiated. For Lloyd George, a trip back to London was a two-day round-trip affair, and there were many British legislators who flitted in and out of Paris in the course of the six months it took to conclude a treaty.
But many other delegations--particularly the key Asian nations of Japan and Korea, as well as the more isolated nations of Europe (Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia in the Balkans; Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania in Eastern Europe)--were forced to delegate extraordinary authority to their diplomats on the scene. This, of course, left room for military forces back home to embark on adventures to claim bits and pieces of territory that the diplomats were then forced to ratify as faits accomplis.
Certainly there was plenty of military activity in the former Yugoslavia during the 1995 Dayton conference. But in the three weeks it took to broker an accord, it was impossible for either side to seize an important military advantage. Within days, NATO forces were airlifted in as peacekeepers, separating the warring parties in a truce that remains largely intact to the present, and has survived the creation of seven new nations.
In short, the statesmen and diplomats who descended on Paris in 1919 to redraw the map of the world did so under rules vastly different from those that exist today. Today we are paying the price for the challenges they faced. The borders and nations that were cobbled together from a host of ethnic groups, all forced to live together within common borders (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnnis in Iraq; Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians and Montenegrins in Yugoslavia) created the kinds of volatile, barely stable nations that have caused so much bloodshed and heartache today, decades after their ill-informed creation.
One by one, they are being undone. Next up, Iraq. And then? Maybe finally the long-unwinding of Versailles will be over.
I gave a lot of thought to this, and my broad conclusion was that indeed everything would have changed: the aspirations, the process, the outcome and, above all, the consequences, both for that time and today, nearly a century later.
Time, or at least timing, is everything, especially when it comes to wars and revolutions or the diplomatic dances that put an end to them. There have been a host of peace conferences since 1919. But few lasted as long as the Paris debates, and none have had such catastrophic consequences throughout the world.
Take the Balkans as one key example. What took six months (actually longer, but the heads of state were billeted in Paris for just six months) to assemble in 1919--creation of that violent, dysfunctional state known as Yugoslavia--was undone in less than three weeks in Dayton, Ohio, in November 1995 at a modern-day peace conference brokered by the extraordinary diplomat-banker Richard Holbrooke.
In 1919, communication and transportation were primitive, at least by today's standards. No one had yet flown across the Atlantic in an airplane; they went by ship, and a week or more was needed for the journey. Intercontinental telephones were chancy and barely audible, so cables were the preferred method of communication, and they often took hours, even days to code and transmit.
There was, of course, no Internet. Detailed research often involved consulting an early edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Instead of blogs, participants kept diaries, typed or scrawled at the end of very long days of negotiations, then most often simply dropped into dusty archives where they were promptly forgotten.
But of paramount importance was the matter of executive or political time. Woodrow Wilson was the first American president to ever travel outside the North American continent during his presidency. And he stayed away for six months, apart from one brief fence-mending trip to Washington. No president before or since has ever dared to spend that much time outside the U.S. Indeed, today a six-day presidential swing is considered an eternity. It took that much time and more for Wilson to simply travel from Washington to Paris one way on the SS George Washington.
For the Dayton Peace Accords, the various concerned parties jetted into Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. Holbrooke, together with Secretary of State Warren Christopher, European Union Special Representative Carl Bildt and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, as well as Gen. Wesley Clark, sat down the various parties--Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Croatian President Franjo Tudman and Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic--around a table and put their heads together.
Of course, jet-propelled shuttle diplomacy and flurries of e-mails helped smooth the path to these final talks. Still, there was no need for lengthy consultations a half a world away with time-consuming cables and messages, or long stretches in the cabins of an ocean liner. If there was a question, the answer was a quick, secure phone call away. And once assembled, everyone stayed put until the job was finished.
These differences changed dramatically the very nature of the two agreements that resulted: the Treaty of Versailles and the Dayton Accords. First and foremost, the U.S. failed to ratify the earlier treaty at all, while the Dayton Accords were signed and approved by all parties just three weeks later.
A good part of the failure of Versailles was Democrat Wilson's intransigence in the face of determined opposition from a Republican-led Congress. But much of that opposition stemmed from Wilson's failure to involve the Republican leadership in the negotiating process. Not a single member of Congress made the seven-month time commitment to come to Paris to participate in the deliberations. And Wilson's communications with Congress during the talks were minimal to nonexistent.
Of course, Wilson's European counterparts--especially British Prime Minister David Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau--had little of the same time/communications problems that faced Wilson. For Clemenceau, his parliament (which he had in his hip pocket) was just up the block from the Quai d'Orsay, where the treaty was being negotiated. For Lloyd George, a trip back to London was a two-day round-trip affair, and there were many British legislators who flitted in and out of Paris in the course of the six months it took to conclude a treaty.
But many other delegations--particularly the key Asian nations of Japan and Korea, as well as the more isolated nations of Europe (Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia in the Balkans; Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania in Eastern Europe)--were forced to delegate extraordinary authority to their diplomats on the scene. This, of course, left room for military forces back home to embark on adventures to claim bits and pieces of territory that the diplomats were then forced to ratify as faits accomplis.
Certainly there was plenty of military activity in the former Yugoslavia during the 1995 Dayton conference. But in the three weeks it took to broker an accord, it was impossible for either side to seize an important military advantage. Within days, NATO forces were airlifted in as peacekeepers, separating the warring parties in a truce that remains largely intact to the present, and has survived the creation of seven new nations.
In short, the statesmen and diplomats who descended on Paris in 1919 to redraw the map of the world did so under rules vastly different from those that exist today. Today we are paying the price for the challenges they faced. The borders and nations that were cobbled together from a host of ethnic groups, all forced to live together within common borders (Kurds, Shiites, Sunnnis in Iraq; Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians and Montenegrins in Yugoslavia) created the kinds of volatile, barely stable nations that have caused so much bloodshed and heartache today, decades after their ill-informed creation.
One by one, they are being undone. Next up, Iraq. And then? Maybe finally the long-unwinding of Versailles will be over.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
197 in race for Peace Nobel
A total of 197 candidates are in the running for this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Institute said on Wednesday, with Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ex-German chancellor Helmut Kohl and Esperanto known to be on the list.
“This is the second-highest number in the history of the Nobel” Peace Prize, Geir Lundestad, the head of the Nobel Institute, said, recalling there were 199 nominees in 2005.
The list of candidates for 2008 comprises 33 organisations and 164 individuals, Lundestad said.
The names of the nominees are kept secret by the institute for 50 years. But those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organisation they have proposed if they wish.
As a result, nominees already known to be on the list include Bouteflika, proposed by Algerian members of parliament and ministers, and Kohl, put forward by ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who himself won the prestigious prize in 1990.
“This is the second-highest number in the history of the Nobel” Peace Prize, Geir Lundestad, the head of the Nobel Institute, said, recalling there were 199 nominees in 2005.
The list of candidates for 2008 comprises 33 organisations and 164 individuals, Lundestad said.
The names of the nominees are kept secret by the institute for 50 years. But those who are entitled to nominate are allowed to reveal the name of the person or organisation they have proposed if they wish.
As a result, nominees already known to be on the list include Bouteflika, proposed by Algerian members of parliament and ministers, and Kohl, put forward by ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who himself won the prestigious prize in 1990.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Pakistani Taliban call for peace talks with new govt
ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Taliban militants said Sunday they were ready for peace talks with Pakistan's new government, but only if it rejects President Pervez Musharraf's "war on terror" in the country's tribal belt.
A rebel spokesman quoted Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud -- accused by Musharraf of masterminding the slaying of ex-PM Benazir Bhutto -- as calling for negotiations with parties that beat the president's allies in elections.
The announcement comes amid US concerns about Islamabad's commitment against extremists, following Monday's victory by Bhutto's opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the party of former premier Nawaz Sharif.
"The Taliban movement welcomes the victory of anti-Musharraf political parties... and announces its willingness to enter into negotiations with them for bringing peace," Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar said, quoting a statement by Mehsud.
"Taliban are ready for negotiations with the political parties as long as they do not re-impose war on them. If they do so, then Taliban will continue their activities against them," Omar told journalists in Peshawar by telephone.
He urged the new administration to "avoid repeating the mistakes of Musharraf government". Omar says he is a spokesman for Taliban groups operating in the tribal areas but there is no way to independently verify his claim.
Musharraf's regime swung between peace deals and negotiations with the militants -- which were criticised by Western allies -- and all-out military offensives in the lawless tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.
The PPP and Sharif's party agreed on Thursday to form a coalition but are still hammering out their policies on the future of Musharraf, a key US ally, and on how they will deal with mounting Islamic extremism.
In fresh violence on Sunday, three security personnel and one militant were killed after dozens of rebels attacked a security post Sunday near Peshawar.
Another militant was shot dead after wounding three troops with a grenade in the tribal region of North Waziristan, officials said.
Hundreds of people have died in months of clashes with Taliban militants in Pakistan, and the country has been hit by a wave of suicide attacks over the past year.
The most high-profile bombing killed Bhutto at a political rally on December 27. The Pakistani government said Mehsud orchestrated the killing and accused him of links to Al-Qaeda, but he has denied all involvement.
Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N party responded to the Taliban statement by saying that political and economic solutions were needed to deal with extremism.
"Our stance is that General Musharraf has mishandled the situation to stay in power. We feel that if Musharraf steps down, half of the terrorism would end," party spokesman Ahsan Iqbal told AFP.
If a PPP-led coalition manages to muster a two-thirds majority in parliament, it could seek to remove Musharraf, either by impeaching him or having his election as president last year declared illegal.
The PPP said Sunday it was considering working with the Karachi-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which was part of the pro-Musharraf coalition that ruled from 2002 to 2007.
"The Pakistan People's Party wants to take all political forces along to form the government and is discussing the possibility of cooperating with the MQM," PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar said.
He said there were different opinions within the party and "nothing has been finalised."
While Sharif is pressing for Musharraf's ouster, the PPP is more coy on its plans for the president, whose popularity has slumped as basic commodity prices soar and Islamist violence intensifies.
"You cannot impeach him right now because you don't have two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and the Senate. Since we cannot do it now, there is no need to say anything about it," Babar said.
A rebel spokesman quoted Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud -- accused by Musharraf of masterminding the slaying of ex-PM Benazir Bhutto -- as calling for negotiations with parties that beat the president's allies in elections.
The announcement comes amid US concerns about Islamabad's commitment against extremists, following Monday's victory by Bhutto's opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and the party of former premier Nawaz Sharif.
"The Taliban movement welcomes the victory of anti-Musharraf political parties... and announces its willingness to enter into negotiations with them for bringing peace," Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar said, quoting a statement by Mehsud.
"Taliban are ready for negotiations with the political parties as long as they do not re-impose war on them. If they do so, then Taliban will continue their activities against them," Omar told journalists in Peshawar by telephone.
He urged the new administration to "avoid repeating the mistakes of Musharraf government". Omar says he is a spokesman for Taliban groups operating in the tribal areas but there is no way to independently verify his claim.
Musharraf's regime swung between peace deals and negotiations with the militants -- which were criticised by Western allies -- and all-out military offensives in the lawless tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.
The PPP and Sharif's party agreed on Thursday to form a coalition but are still hammering out their policies on the future of Musharraf, a key US ally, and on how they will deal with mounting Islamic extremism.
In fresh violence on Sunday, three security personnel and one militant were killed after dozens of rebels attacked a security post Sunday near Peshawar.
Another militant was shot dead after wounding three troops with a grenade in the tribal region of North Waziristan, officials said.
Hundreds of people have died in months of clashes with Taliban militants in Pakistan, and the country has been hit by a wave of suicide attacks over the past year.
The most high-profile bombing killed Bhutto at a political rally on December 27. The Pakistani government said Mehsud orchestrated the killing and accused him of links to Al-Qaeda, but he has denied all involvement.
Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-N party responded to the Taliban statement by saying that political and economic solutions were needed to deal with extremism.
"Our stance is that General Musharraf has mishandled the situation to stay in power. We feel that if Musharraf steps down, half of the terrorism would end," party spokesman Ahsan Iqbal told AFP.
If a PPP-led coalition manages to muster a two-thirds majority in parliament, it could seek to remove Musharraf, either by impeaching him or having his election as president last year declared illegal.
The PPP said Sunday it was considering working with the Karachi-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which was part of the pro-Musharraf coalition that ruled from 2002 to 2007.
"The Pakistan People's Party wants to take all political forces along to form the government and is discussing the possibility of cooperating with the MQM," PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar said.
He said there were different opinions within the party and "nothing has been finalised."
While Sharif is pressing for Musharraf's ouster, the PPP is more coy on its plans for the president, whose popularity has slumped as basic commodity prices soar and Islamist violence intensifies.
"You cannot impeach him right now because you don't have two-thirds majority in the National Assembly and the Senate. Since we cannot do it now, there is no need to say anything about it," Babar said.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The moral victory of Kosova
In an earlier article under the title "The Historical Victory of Kosova", we refuted arguments of the opponents of Kosova’s formal independence that involve falsifications of the historical reality. In the present editorial, we will reject biased philosophical / ideological / political approaches propagated by skeptics and adversaries of Kosova’s formal independence.
As societies do not exist without a moral order shared by all and stipulated by the democratically elected legislative power, every society’s moral principles and concepts have to be reflected in the politics, the practices of the political life in its entirety.Politics without Moral Order: Utter BarbarismCertainly not all the societies feature the same high moral standards at all times; to use terms used in the discipline of History, we should call this situation ‘decadence’, ‘sociopolitical disintegration’, ‘decay’ or ‘fall’; it actually characterizes the end phases of earlier civilized societies.Representative and or totalitarian, monarchical, communist or republican, no political establishment escapes from this, as decay and fall may at a certain moment characterize any society.The inception of the international or global community is a modern phenomenon that pertains precisely to fundamental moral concepts and principles as diffused and prevalent everywhere. The rise of the concept of Crime against the Mankind (which did not exist in the Antiquity of the Christian and Islamic Ages) hinges on moral and philosophical considerations; the term encompasses flagrant violations of moral codes that are common to, valid for, and accepted in (and by) all societies.We cannot therefore dissociate the proclamation of Kosova’s independence, the international recognition of the country, and its entrance in the UN and other international bodies from fundamental political considerations of purely moral character.This becomes clear in the light of terms used by those who deny Kosova the right to formal independence; moral particularly, the Russian president called Western countries’ support to Kosova as 'immoral and illegal'! The outgoing Russian leader, who may soon feel absolutely comfortable in the shoes of the future Russian prime minister, went on accusing the European countries of their double standards, and saying that they should be "ashamed" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/kosovo.russia).What is moral, and what is legal in politics, and subsequently in international politics? Confronted with conflicting ideas, clashing concepts, and opposite principles, one has to identify the most fundamental elements of the Moral Philosophical Order from which all the other commonly accepted moral values have derived.Proceeding so, one defines Humanism and the Human Values, as conceived, analyzed and systematized by the Renaissance and the Classicist philosophers, as the foundations of today’s international Moral Order and Code.Humanism, People, Nation and StateAt the epicenter of the focus of our civilization, and cornerstone of its integrity is the Human Being; human freedom and dignity, equity and justice, equality, tolerance, altruism and respect for the other are epigrammatically the pillars of our world. The seminal importance of the Human Being within our system of values is extended to the human society, and every ethnic, linguistic and religious group that self defines itself according to their specific cultural and national identity.Thus, the importance of the Human Being is transferred to the ‘People’, a large group of human beings sharing common origin, language, culture and religion. Viewed diachronically, a ‘people’ is called ‘nation’. The latter term was repeatedly confused with the state, the organization setup by a people in order to provide infrastructure for organized social life.This created a great confusion; states (also called nations, as we said) antedate the rise of our modern world, and the Renaissance humanist philosophers. But states (nations) at the end of the Christian and Islamic Ages were not conceived in the same way as today. The concept of the nation at those days hinged on the feudal and imperial systems. A nation was personified by a feudal lord, and/or an emperor. With the rise of the Absolutism and the Absolute Monarchy, the same word took a markedly different meaning, and this was exemplarily highlighted by the notorious statement of the Roi Soleil, Louis XIV, "L’ état, c’ est moi" (I am the State/Nation).The concordance between ‘people’ and ‘nation’ is a later philosophical conclusion, and as debate it dates back to the 18th century, representing the epitome of Enlightenment; it was formed under strong classicist impact, and in opposition to the respective Medieval or Renaissance concepts. However, the rise of Romanticism, as a rejection of the Classicism and as a nostalgia for aspects of the Renaissance world, brought about Romanticism, a system with incredibly rich and complex ramifications one of which was Nationalism, one more connotation of the already rich in nuances word.At the times the International Law was emerging as concept and approach, ‘nation’ was identified with ‘people’ for some philosophers and intellectuals, whereas for others nation was the supposedly apparent organization of a people into a system, namely the state. The importance of the state was practically undeniable as the two world wars were triggered, undertaken and won by states, despite the participation of vast masses. When the UN initiative was launched during WW II, few would react to the equation of the nation with the state. With the rise and the fall of the Soviet block the equation prevailed for long.Today, we cannot afford to stick to the aforementioned obsolete, trivial, and utterly anti-democratic equation. The fall of the Soviet regimes demonstrated clearly that, if a society is democratically organized, the equation of the nation with the state does not occur at the prejudice of the sovereign people. But if the society is not democratically organized, and the administration does not reflect the will of the people, the state is a mechanism of oppression.And the original fact, value, and concept is the ‘People’; the ‘state’ exists as a derivative value and concept. The value of a state is relative; it consists in mere reflection of the value of the people, under the condition of representativeness, involving democratic elections and genuine and accurate reflection of the popular will.National Sovereignty and Territorial IntegrityConsequently, the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity have to be considered as applicable and valid only in case of democratic states reflecting as best possible the will of the indigenous people (nation) or peoples (nations).National sovereignty is to be considered as sovereignty exercised by an individual national group organized as a democratic society; national sovereignty is the privilege of a people (historically viewed as a nation) – not of a state. The privilege is transferred to the state, only in case the state genuinely and accurately reflects the will of the indigenous people (nation).National sovereignty cannot be exercised by one specific nation over another nation, as this would automatically imply servility and voluntary submission, attitudes that contradict the human nature.National sovereignty can be shared between two nations under condition of internationally recognized, democratically expressed agreement (referendum); however, even in this case the cohabitation of the two nations has to be evident at the level of the administration, the political life, the educational; system, the free market, and the armed forces.When therefore we refer to the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, we can only accept them as correctly valid, conforming to Humanism and Enlightenment, if applied in an independent nation, not an independent state that may comprise more than one nations, eventually oppressing one or more.Serb national sovereignty is for Serbs – only!The sovereignty of Serbs is therefore a moral value as long as it is applied to Serbs and not to Kosovars, Sanjakis, Voivodinians (term regrouping several non-Serb nations cohabitating in Voivodina), Macedonians, Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks. If for any reason Serb national sovereignty is exercised over another nation – without that nation’s explicit consent –, this consists in a tyranny and it should be abolished.Subsequently, the territorial integrity of Serbia consists in a value as long as it encompasses Serbs; any effort to include another, unwilling, nation within the Serb territory is barbarism as it takes us back to the primitive hordes of the Neolithic. The sooner this becomes clear to nationalist – chauvinist Serbs the better. No national rule can be maintained over other nations anymore.In this regard, the fundamental concepts of Humanism and Enlightenment have prevailed in the case of Kosova’s formal independence, which is a Great Moral Victory for the undeservedly persecuted Kosovars, as well as for many oppressed and tyrannized nations allover the world.Kosova’s formal independence heralds a great perspective for Trans-Dniestr, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as well as Sanjak and Voivodina in the gradually fading tyranny of Serbia. Furthermore, Kosovo announces a promising future for other oppressed peoples in Balkans, notably the Turks and the Macedonians of Bulgaria, and the Hungarians of Transylvania. As a matter of fact, Kosova opens the way for Catalonia, Corsica, the Bask country, Galicia, Occitania, Brittany, and Scotland.
As societies do not exist without a moral order shared by all and stipulated by the democratically elected legislative power, every society’s moral principles and concepts have to be reflected in the politics, the practices of the political life in its entirety.Politics without Moral Order: Utter BarbarismCertainly not all the societies feature the same high moral standards at all times; to use terms used in the discipline of History, we should call this situation ‘decadence’, ‘sociopolitical disintegration’, ‘decay’ or ‘fall’; it actually characterizes the end phases of earlier civilized societies.Representative and or totalitarian, monarchical, communist or republican, no political establishment escapes from this, as decay and fall may at a certain moment characterize any society.The inception of the international or global community is a modern phenomenon that pertains precisely to fundamental moral concepts and principles as diffused and prevalent everywhere. The rise of the concept of Crime against the Mankind (which did not exist in the Antiquity of the Christian and Islamic Ages) hinges on moral and philosophical considerations; the term encompasses flagrant violations of moral codes that are common to, valid for, and accepted in (and by) all societies.We cannot therefore dissociate the proclamation of Kosova’s independence, the international recognition of the country, and its entrance in the UN and other international bodies from fundamental political considerations of purely moral character.This becomes clear in the light of terms used by those who deny Kosova the right to formal independence; moral particularly, the Russian president called Western countries’ support to Kosova as 'immoral and illegal'! The outgoing Russian leader, who may soon feel absolutely comfortable in the shoes of the future Russian prime minister, went on accusing the European countries of their double standards, and saying that they should be "ashamed" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/14/kosovo.russia).What is moral, and what is legal in politics, and subsequently in international politics? Confronted with conflicting ideas, clashing concepts, and opposite principles, one has to identify the most fundamental elements of the Moral Philosophical Order from which all the other commonly accepted moral values have derived.Proceeding so, one defines Humanism and the Human Values, as conceived, analyzed and systematized by the Renaissance and the Classicist philosophers, as the foundations of today’s international Moral Order and Code.Humanism, People, Nation and StateAt the epicenter of the focus of our civilization, and cornerstone of its integrity is the Human Being; human freedom and dignity, equity and justice, equality, tolerance, altruism and respect for the other are epigrammatically the pillars of our world. The seminal importance of the Human Being within our system of values is extended to the human society, and every ethnic, linguistic and religious group that self defines itself according to their specific cultural and national identity.Thus, the importance of the Human Being is transferred to the ‘People’, a large group of human beings sharing common origin, language, culture and religion. Viewed diachronically, a ‘people’ is called ‘nation’. The latter term was repeatedly confused with the state, the organization setup by a people in order to provide infrastructure for organized social life.This created a great confusion; states (also called nations, as we said) antedate the rise of our modern world, and the Renaissance humanist philosophers. But states (nations) at the end of the Christian and Islamic Ages were not conceived in the same way as today. The concept of the nation at those days hinged on the feudal and imperial systems. A nation was personified by a feudal lord, and/or an emperor. With the rise of the Absolutism and the Absolute Monarchy, the same word took a markedly different meaning, and this was exemplarily highlighted by the notorious statement of the Roi Soleil, Louis XIV, "L’ état, c’ est moi" (I am the State/Nation).The concordance between ‘people’ and ‘nation’ is a later philosophical conclusion, and as debate it dates back to the 18th century, representing the epitome of Enlightenment; it was formed under strong classicist impact, and in opposition to the respective Medieval or Renaissance concepts. However, the rise of Romanticism, as a rejection of the Classicism and as a nostalgia for aspects of the Renaissance world, brought about Romanticism, a system with incredibly rich and complex ramifications one of which was Nationalism, one more connotation of the already rich in nuances word.At the times the International Law was emerging as concept and approach, ‘nation’ was identified with ‘people’ for some philosophers and intellectuals, whereas for others nation was the supposedly apparent organization of a people into a system, namely the state. The importance of the state was practically undeniable as the two world wars were triggered, undertaken and won by states, despite the participation of vast masses. When the UN initiative was launched during WW II, few would react to the equation of the nation with the state. With the rise and the fall of the Soviet block the equation prevailed for long.Today, we cannot afford to stick to the aforementioned obsolete, trivial, and utterly anti-democratic equation. The fall of the Soviet regimes demonstrated clearly that, if a society is democratically organized, the equation of the nation with the state does not occur at the prejudice of the sovereign people. But if the society is not democratically organized, and the administration does not reflect the will of the people, the state is a mechanism of oppression.And the original fact, value, and concept is the ‘People’; the ‘state’ exists as a derivative value and concept. The value of a state is relative; it consists in mere reflection of the value of the people, under the condition of representativeness, involving democratic elections and genuine and accurate reflection of the popular will.National Sovereignty and Territorial IntegrityConsequently, the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity have to be considered as applicable and valid only in case of democratic states reflecting as best possible the will of the indigenous people (nation) or peoples (nations).National sovereignty is to be considered as sovereignty exercised by an individual national group organized as a democratic society; national sovereignty is the privilege of a people (historically viewed as a nation) – not of a state. The privilege is transferred to the state, only in case the state genuinely and accurately reflects the will of the indigenous people (nation).National sovereignty cannot be exercised by one specific nation over another nation, as this would automatically imply servility and voluntary submission, attitudes that contradict the human nature.National sovereignty can be shared between two nations under condition of internationally recognized, democratically expressed agreement (referendum); however, even in this case the cohabitation of the two nations has to be evident at the level of the administration, the political life, the educational; system, the free market, and the armed forces.When therefore we refer to the principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, we can only accept them as correctly valid, conforming to Humanism and Enlightenment, if applied in an independent nation, not an independent state that may comprise more than one nations, eventually oppressing one or more.Serb national sovereignty is for Serbs – only!The sovereignty of Serbs is therefore a moral value as long as it is applied to Serbs and not to Kosovars, Sanjakis, Voivodinians (term regrouping several non-Serb nations cohabitating in Voivodina), Macedonians, Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks. If for any reason Serb national sovereignty is exercised over another nation – without that nation’s explicit consent –, this consists in a tyranny and it should be abolished.Subsequently, the territorial integrity of Serbia consists in a value as long as it encompasses Serbs; any effort to include another, unwilling, nation within the Serb territory is barbarism as it takes us back to the primitive hordes of the Neolithic. The sooner this becomes clear to nationalist – chauvinist Serbs the better. No national rule can be maintained over other nations anymore.In this regard, the fundamental concepts of Humanism and Enlightenment have prevailed in the case of Kosova’s formal independence, which is a Great Moral Victory for the undeservedly persecuted Kosovars, as well as for many oppressed and tyrannized nations allover the world.Kosova’s formal independence heralds a great perspective for Trans-Dniestr, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as well as Sanjak and Voivodina in the gradually fading tyranny of Serbia. Furthermore, Kosovo announces a promising future for other oppressed peoples in Balkans, notably the Turks and the Macedonians of Bulgaria, and the Hungarians of Transylvania. As a matter of fact, Kosova opens the way for Catalonia, Corsica, the Bask country, Galicia, Occitania, Brittany, and Scotland.
Uganda’s LRA Rebels Deny Peace Negotiation Walkout
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni government yesterday (Thursday) accused the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebels of abandoning the ongoing peace negotiations in the Southern Sudanese capital, Juba. This comes after the rebel delegation walked out in protest over the refusal of the government to agree to appoint members of the rebels to cabinet positions in President Yoweri Museveni’s government. The LRA contends it signed an agreement last year with the government, which stipulated that the rebels would be incorporated into the government as part of the peace negotiations. But the government rejected the rebels demand.
David Matsanga is the leader of the rebel negotiating team with the Uganda government. From the Southern Sudanese capital, Juba he tells reporter Peter Clottey the Ugandan government is reneging on its promise.
“That is total nonsense, it is total rubbish and there is no figment of truth. Our delegation has not walked out of the negotiations; we only protested one MONUC (United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo) forces are attacking our people in Ri-Kwamgba. They are flying too low so that they cause problems while we are on the negotiating table. Point number two the government of Uganda signed a document of comprehensive solutions last year, which says that they will share power, they will allow the LRA to participate in power in Uganda,” Matsanga pointed out.
He accused the Ugandan government of unwillingness to talk about last year’s agreement, which he said stipulated power sharing with the rebels.
“So, when we reached the stage to discuss the power sharing the Uganda government said oh no, no, no we don’t want to discuss that, so we told the chief mediator to teach them. It looks like the whole delegation of the Uganda government is bankrupt because it has not the idea of what they are negotiating about,” he said.
Matsanga claimed the LRA rebels are equally qualified to be part of President Museveni’s government as part of the power sharing deal at the ongoing peace negotiations in Juba.
“Do you think we are not worthy to have cabinet posts? You think Museveni got cabinet post like what? He is not also qualified to even be there. There are people in northern and northeastern Uganda who are also qualified. They need a share of the national cake. Museveni’s share is a one-man show. His family has taken over the whole thing in Uganda,” Matsanga noted.
He denied the LRA has demanded cash at the talks.
“We have never asked for any cash. Never! This new executive does not ask for cash, for what? All what we are saying is that after DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Re-integration), which is agenda number five. Our officers must be looked after very well with their ranks so that they are absolved. Those who want to join The Uganda army can join, and we have secured that and we are very happy with that and we are not going to push anything more than that,” he said.
David Matsanga is the leader of the rebel negotiating team with the Uganda government. From the Southern Sudanese capital, Juba he tells reporter Peter Clottey the Ugandan government is reneging on its promise.
“That is total nonsense, it is total rubbish and there is no figment of truth. Our delegation has not walked out of the negotiations; we only protested one MONUC (United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo) forces are attacking our people in Ri-Kwamgba. They are flying too low so that they cause problems while we are on the negotiating table. Point number two the government of Uganda signed a document of comprehensive solutions last year, which says that they will share power, they will allow the LRA to participate in power in Uganda,” Matsanga pointed out.
He accused the Ugandan government of unwillingness to talk about last year’s agreement, which he said stipulated power sharing with the rebels.
“So, when we reached the stage to discuss the power sharing the Uganda government said oh no, no, no we don’t want to discuss that, so we told the chief mediator to teach them. It looks like the whole delegation of the Uganda government is bankrupt because it has not the idea of what they are negotiating about,” he said.
Matsanga claimed the LRA rebels are equally qualified to be part of President Museveni’s government as part of the power sharing deal at the ongoing peace negotiations in Juba.
“Do you think we are not worthy to have cabinet posts? You think Museveni got cabinet post like what? He is not also qualified to even be there. There are people in northern and northeastern Uganda who are also qualified. They need a share of the national cake. Museveni’s share is a one-man show. His family has taken over the whole thing in Uganda,” Matsanga noted.
He denied the LRA has demanded cash at the talks.
“We have never asked for any cash. Never! This new executive does not ask for cash, for what? All what we are saying is that after DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Re-integration), which is agenda number five. Our officers must be looked after very well with their ranks so that they are absolved. Those who want to join The Uganda army can join, and we have secured that and we are very happy with that and we are not going to push anything more than that,” he said.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
United Nations Resolutions
The International Day of Peace, established by a United Nations resolution in 1981 to coincide with the opening of the General Assembly, was first inaugurated on the third Tuesday of September, 1982. Beginning on the 20th anniversary in 2002, the UN General Assembly set 21 September as the now permanent date for the International Day of Peace.
In establishing the International Day of Peace, the United Nations General Assembly decided that it would be appropriate
"to devote a specific time to concentrate the efforts of the United Nations and its Member States, as well as of the whole of mankind, to promoting the ideals of peace and to giving positive evidence of their commitment to peace in all viable ways… (The International Day of Peace) should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples."
The Assembly's resolution declared that the International Day of Peace
"will serve as a reminder to all peoples that our Organization, with all its limitations, is a living instrument in the service of peace and should serve all of us here within the Organization as a constantly pealing bell reminding us that our permanent commitment, above all interests or differences of any kind, is to peace. May this Peace Day indeed be a day of peace."
(Quotes excerpted from the United Nations General Assembly Resolution UN/A/RES/36/67)
The amended Resolution adopted in 2001 permanently fixed the date of the International Day of Peace to September 21.
“The Assembly, reaffirming the contribution that the observance and celebration of the International Day of Peace make in strengthening the ideals of peace and alleviating tensions and causes of conflict, (decided that) beginning with the fifty-seventh session, the Day should be observed on 21 September each year, with this date to be brought to the attention of all people for the celebration and observance of peace.”
The new Resolution added the call for the International Day of Peace to be a Global Ceasefire:
"Declares that the International Day of Peace shall henceforth be observed as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence, an invitation to all nations and people to honour a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the Day..." (Quotes from the amending UN resolution UN/A/RES/55/282 which fixes the date of the International Day of Peace on 21 September and calls for a Global Ceasefire on that Day.)
In establishing the International Day of Peace, the United Nations General Assembly decided that it would be appropriate
"to devote a specific time to concentrate the efforts of the United Nations and its Member States, as well as of the whole of mankind, to promoting the ideals of peace and to giving positive evidence of their commitment to peace in all viable ways… (The International Day of Peace) should be devoted to commemorating and strengthening the ideals of peace both within and among all nations and peoples."
The Assembly's resolution declared that the International Day of Peace
"will serve as a reminder to all peoples that our Organization, with all its limitations, is a living instrument in the service of peace and should serve all of us here within the Organization as a constantly pealing bell reminding us that our permanent commitment, above all interests or differences of any kind, is to peace. May this Peace Day indeed be a day of peace."
(Quotes excerpted from the United Nations General Assembly Resolution UN/A/RES/36/67)
The amended Resolution adopted in 2001 permanently fixed the date of the International Day of Peace to September 21.
“The Assembly, reaffirming the contribution that the observance and celebration of the International Day of Peace make in strengthening the ideals of peace and alleviating tensions and causes of conflict, (decided that) beginning with the fifty-seventh session, the Day should be observed on 21 September each year, with this date to be brought to the attention of all people for the celebration and observance of peace.”
The new Resolution added the call for the International Day of Peace to be a Global Ceasefire:
"Declares that the International Day of Peace shall henceforth be observed as a day of global ceasefire and non-violence, an invitation to all nations and people to honour a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the Day..." (Quotes from the amending UN resolution UN/A/RES/55/282 which fixes the date of the International Day of Peace on 21 September and calls for a Global Ceasefire on that Day.)
9 Nobel Peace Prize winners seek UN action to halt arms sales to Myanmar
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa: Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu led a call by nine peace prize recipients Tuesday for the United Nations Security Council to act to halt the sale of arms to the military regime of Myanmar.
The laureates, including the Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel, also called for nations to implement arms embargoes to prevent Myanmar from getting weapons that are used against its citizens.
Most Western nations embargo arms sales to Myanmar due to its poor human rights record and the junta's failure to hand over power to a democratically elected government. Russia supplies Myanmar with arms, and Rosatom, the Russian federal atomic energy agency, signed a deal last May to build a nuclear research center there.
"We call upon the international community to actively work to implement arms embargoes against the regime," the laureates said in a statement.
"Further, we appeal to the members of the (United Nations) Security Council, and the international community, to take action quickly on measures that will prevent the sale of arms to the (Myanmar) military," and to impose banking sanctions on top Myanmar leaders and state and private entities that support the government's weapons trade, it said.
Many Western countries either ban or discourage investment in Myanmar as a way of pressuring the junta.
Myanmar's military government violently quashed peaceful protests in September. The U.N. estimates at least 31 people were killed and thousands more were detained in the crackdown.
The Nobel laureates said harassment of activists continued and that the military junta was using a "flawed" process to draft a constitution.
The junta, which said Tuesday that the draft constitution was complete, has announced plans for a May referendum and elections in 2010 — the first time it has set dates to carry out what it calls its road map to democracy.
But critics have called the constitutional process undemocratic because it has been closely directed by the military with no input from independent parties.
"The election promised by the military regime is a complete sham," Tutu said.
The veteran anti-apartheid cleric and human rights activist said the Security Council needed to heed the precedent set when it imposed an arms embargo on apartheid South Africa after the Soweto student uprisings of 1976.
The group repeated its call for the release of fellow Nobel peace laureate and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been in prison or under house arrest for more than 12 of the past 18 years.
The statement was issued by Tutu and signed by the exiled Tibetan Dalai Lama, Wiesel of the U.S., Iran's Shirin Ebadi, Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina, Mairead Maguire and Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala and American anti-landmine activist Jody Williams.
associated press
The laureates, including the Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel, also called for nations to implement arms embargoes to prevent Myanmar from getting weapons that are used against its citizens.
Most Western nations embargo arms sales to Myanmar due to its poor human rights record and the junta's failure to hand over power to a democratically elected government. Russia supplies Myanmar with arms, and Rosatom, the Russian federal atomic energy agency, signed a deal last May to build a nuclear research center there.
"We call upon the international community to actively work to implement arms embargoes against the regime," the laureates said in a statement.
"Further, we appeal to the members of the (United Nations) Security Council, and the international community, to take action quickly on measures that will prevent the sale of arms to the (Myanmar) military," and to impose banking sanctions on top Myanmar leaders and state and private entities that support the government's weapons trade, it said.
Many Western countries either ban or discourage investment in Myanmar as a way of pressuring the junta.
Myanmar's military government violently quashed peaceful protests in September. The U.N. estimates at least 31 people were killed and thousands more were detained in the crackdown.
The Nobel laureates said harassment of activists continued and that the military junta was using a "flawed" process to draft a constitution.
The junta, which said Tuesday that the draft constitution was complete, has announced plans for a May referendum and elections in 2010 — the first time it has set dates to carry out what it calls its road map to democracy.
But critics have called the constitutional process undemocratic because it has been closely directed by the military with no input from independent parties.
"The election promised by the military regime is a complete sham," Tutu said.
The veteran anti-apartheid cleric and human rights activist said the Security Council needed to heed the precedent set when it imposed an arms embargo on apartheid South Africa after the Soweto student uprisings of 1976.
The group repeated its call for the release of fellow Nobel peace laureate and Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been in prison or under house arrest for more than 12 of the past 18 years.
The statement was issued by Tutu and signed by the exiled Tibetan Dalai Lama, Wiesel of the U.S., Iran's Shirin Ebadi, Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina, Mairead Maguire and Betty Williams of Northern Ireland, Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala and American anti-landmine activist Jody Williams.
associated press
Peace talks to be fast-tracked
JERUSALEM: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas yesterday agreed to accelerate peace talks, despite differences over how quickly to tackle the thorny issue of Jerusalem.
Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert was "very clear" earlier this week when he asserted Abbas had accepted an Israeli suggestion to delay talks on Jerusalem until the end of negotiations on Palestinian statehood.
But the Palestinians disputed his comments, saying Abbas had made no such commitment.
Other core issues the two sides have pledged to tackle include borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees.
Earlier, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, addressing North American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Fayyad said "not enough has happened" since the US-hosted Middle East peace conference in November.
The UN yesterday urged Israel to halt its "collective punishment" of the 1.5 million population of Gaza to help improve the impoverished territory's economy.
"It is vital that Israel ceases actions of collective punishment, and allows all legitimate and necessary humanitarian and commercial supplies to reach the population," the UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process, Robert Serry, said in Amman.
A 10-year-old boy was killed yesterday and two others wounded in an exchange of fire between Hamas gunmen and Israeli troops in the central Gaza town of Deir el-Balah. Israeli soldiers also killed a Palestinian fighter from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Gaza.
Israeli spokesman Mark Regev said Olmert was "very clear" earlier this week when he asserted Abbas had accepted an Israeli suggestion to delay talks on Jerusalem until the end of negotiations on Palestinian statehood.
But the Palestinians disputed his comments, saying Abbas had made no such commitment.
Other core issues the two sides have pledged to tackle include borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees.
Earlier, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, addressing North American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, Fayyad said "not enough has happened" since the US-hosted Middle East peace conference in November.
The UN yesterday urged Israel to halt its "collective punishment" of the 1.5 million population of Gaza to help improve the impoverished territory's economy.
"It is vital that Israel ceases actions of collective punishment, and allows all legitimate and necessary humanitarian and commercial supplies to reach the population," the UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process, Robert Serry, said in Amman.
A 10-year-old boy was killed yesterday and two others wounded in an exchange of fire between Hamas gunmen and Israeli troops in the central Gaza town of Deir el-Balah. Israeli soldiers also killed a Palestinian fighter from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Gaza.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Poem
Peace
Some dream of a peace not imposed by UN soldiers or weapons of war
The dream of peace where in reality, we must first lose sight of the shore
Some pursue the peace known to them as the little white dove
A peace in which each creed, colour and race can love
Some search for the peace that begins not with war
The peace that men of arms need not die for
Some question the peace that we supposedly have today
The peace in which rain still falls and clouds are grey
Some speak of a true peace in which the world can live free
A peace that is only a hope and will never actually be
zee jan
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)