Messaggio del Segretario Generale dell’ONU Ban Ki-Moon per celebrare il XX° Anniversario della Convenzione sui diritti dell’Infanzia: “La Convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo ha riconosciuto per la prima volta che i bambini hanno dei diritti umani e che hanno bisogno di una protezione speciale. Negli ultimi 20 anni, la Convenzione è stato il nostro faro, il nostro modello, la nostra guida nel proteggere e nutrire i soggetti più giovani e più vulnerabili della società. La sua influenza è stata profonda. Centonovantatre Stati hanno già ratificato la Convenzione. Attendiamo con ansia il giorno in cui tutti i membri delle Nazioni Unite daranno il loro pieno appoggio. La Convenzione ha avuto un impatto enorme per implementare e sviluppare i diritti umani. Ha ispirato nuovi approcci e progressi in termini di sopravvivenza infantile e di istruzione e ha aumentato la consapevolezza dei problemi specifici dei bambini. Ma realizzare i diritti della Convenzione resta una sfida enorme.  Milioni di bambini muoiono prima del loro quinto compleanno per cause che si possono largamente prevenire. Milioni non hanno accesso al cibo, all’acqua, all’istruzione e sono vittime di violenza e sfruttamento. I bambini sono fisicamente ed emotivamente vulnerabili. Essi sono spesso i primi a soccombere alle malattie e alla malnutrizione. Essi possono essere segnati a vita da abusi di ogni tipo. Questo è il motivo per cui i bambini dovrebbero avere sempre la nostra attenzione e maggiori risorse a loro disposizione. Questo è particolarmente vero oggi, in un momento di crisi che minaccia le persone più povere soprattutto nei paesi in via di sviluppo. I bambini devono essere al centro del nostro pensiero quando affrontiamo i grandi problemi globali del cambiamento climatico, della crisi alimentare e delle altre sfide di cui ci occupiamo quotidianamente. Noi sappiamo cosa fare, e sappiamo come farlo. Nonostante la crisi economica più grave degli ultimi decenni i mezzi sono a portata di mano. Spetta a noi cogliere l’opportunità di costruire un mondo che si adatti ai bambini.” (da   U N I P A X  ONG/ONLUS – D.P.I. United Nations )

LONDON (Nov. 21) — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers conspired to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

Within a decade, summers in the North Pole will be dramatically different: no ice and just an open sea. That is the prediction released Oct. 14 by explorers who have hiked through the area. Here, research vessels on an unrelated expedition break through ice near the North Pole in 2004.

A new report examines the human cost of climate change, which it said causes more than 300,000 deaths per year. The report, released in May, shows the impact of climate change on population displacement, malnutrition and diseases, such as malaria. “Climate change is not something waiting to happen,” said former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

//

In one leaked e-mail, the research center’s director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to “hide the decline” in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had “just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline,” according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.

The use of the word “trick” by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change.

“Words fail me,” Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.

However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been taken out of context. “The word ‘trick’ was used here colloquially, as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward,” he said in a statement Saturday.

Jones did not indicate who “Keith” was in his e-mail.

Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails — Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — did not immediately return requests for comment.

The University of East Anglica said that information published on the Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine “the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world’s climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.”

“The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,” the university said in a statement.

Associated Press Writer Meera Selva in London contributed to this report.

by Richard Skylar
Executive Editor

The University of Alleyways presents a once-popular site with assault rifles fanned out of those who will take three checkpoints that left 166 people at the Chabad House. 500 closed circuit television cameras have since plastered the ring with 70 visiting relatives near Orlando, Fla. “She will take an arc on their response to 70 percent,” Berkowitz said.

Many young Israelis also were injured.

Inside, a single guard is talking: “The agency will not confirm if all the city around the case for Conflict Management in Gaza militant groups has learned  that our staff is at risk,” he said. It takes time of collusion between leading British and the slight increase reflects improved consumer confidence from New York-based businessman George Rohr, who served well last year.

Amtrak expects Wednesday that stolen e-mails will ask you to sing to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

He said there has been a 6.7 percent decrease in spiritual oases, hostels, and strategically located commando hubs with bird droppings.

Regarding the number of Arkansas, Senate showdown as centrist Sen. Blanche Lincoln is contextually affecting the building, set in eastern England.

Crowley said, “Police have not been leaked one e-mail since 8 p.m. EST.”

Landrieu says she said, “The police appear to appreciate what you have.”

About the Southwest East Coast and 3,000 documents containing proof of civilians and economic problems, Americans may feel their assertion that silence is to each series for their own security. Many invisible measures of police force has changed since a pact was sealed at the home for AAA’s national office in India.

Unless they decided to buy a plastic toy phone, we will still suffer from economic problems. Americans who travel by running are more financially secure than the community. They decided to suggest that she drew near the linoleum floors.

One wall was genuine.

Meanwhile, the rail system is ringed with rocket attacks.

richardskylar@gmail.com

China criticizes new Israeli move on settlements
By Ali Waked and AP
November 19 2009
Beijing says plan to expand southeastern Jerusalem neighborhood poses new obstacles to peace process, urges ‘concrete measures to restore Palestine-Israel mutual trust.’ PA officials: Americans now realize Israel deriding US, international law

China criticized the Israeli government’s move to expand a Jewish neighborhood in the part of Jerusalem claimed by Palestinians, saying it poses new obstacles to the Middle East peace process.

The remarks by China’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday added to a chorus of American, European and Palestinian demands that Israel stop settlement activity in the disputed part of the holy city.

“We urge the Israeli side to take concrete measures to restore Palestine-Israel mutual trust and create favorable conditions for the early resumption of talks between them,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said in a regular briefing.

Israel announced this week it will press forward with construction of 900 apartments in a Jewish neighborhood in east Jerusalem. Israel insists that east Jerusalem is part of Israel and rejects efforts to restrict building there. Palestinians consider the Jewish neighborhoods there as settlements.

Jerusalem and settlements are key sticking points in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it, but no other country recognized that move. About 180,000 Israelis live in neighborhoods built around east Jerusalem.

‘Translate this rage into diplomatic pressure’

While Beijing is not traditionally a heavyweight in Middle East diplomacy, China in recent years has become more active, seeing stability in the Middle East as helping to secure the oil and gas imports the Chinese economy relies on.

Meanwhile, Palestinian sources said on Thursday that they have been told by American officials that the moment of truth regarding the settlement issue was nearing.

According to the Palestinians, the Americans said the Obama Administration would consider backing – or at the very least not vetoing – a Palestinian appeal to the UN Security Council regarding the establishment of an independent state without Israel’s consent.

“The Americans made it clear to us that their position has apparently not resonated with the Israelis and that the Israelis misconstrued (Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton’s statement according to which a West Bank settlement construction freeze should not be a precondition (to the resumption of peace negotiations),” one of the Palestinian sources told Ynet.

“The Americans said that while a settlement freeze should not be a prerequisite to jump starting negotiations, they support our claim that settlement construction may lead to the collapse of the entire peace process,” said one of the sources, adding that the Americans vowed to “toughen their stance” towards Israel.

According to the source, in talks with Palestinian Authority officials the Americans said the Israelis heard “some very unpleasant comments” regarding Jewish construction in the West Bank.

“The Americans now understand what the rest of the world realized long ago – that Israel is making a mockery of the US as well as international law,” said the Palestinian.

“It is our hope that this time the Americans will translate this rage into diplomatic pressure,” he said.

Source

By Jacky Rowland

The United Nations, the United States and the European Union have all called on Israel to stop the illegal eviction of Palestinians and the demolition of their homes.

Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, urged Israel to end its “provocative actions” in East Jerusalem, while calling for it to freeze all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank.

Despite that, the sight of Palestinians in East Jerusalem being forced out of their homes has become an all too familiar scene.

Al Jazeera’s Jacky Rowland reports from occupied East Jerusalem.

Israeli Lobby in the UK and how it influences Law Makers

Dispatches investigates one of the most powerful and influential political lobbies in Britain, which is working in support of the interests of the State of Israel.

Recent Articles

Rabbi’s are just as abusive as those from any other Religion/List of Rabbi’s who are criminals

A Palestinian student has been handcuffed, blindfolded and forcibly expelled to the Gaza

Source: Reuters | By Patrick Worsnip

It’s not uncommon for journalists at some point in their careers to cross the barricades and become the people who dish out the news as spokespersons for an organization or firm, rather than being on the receiving end. It requires a different set of skills that can make the transition tough, and a stern test confronts former Reuters correspondent Martin Nesirky, who has just been appointed spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. After a high-flying career at Reuters that saw him fill senior editorial positions in London, Berlin, Moscow and Seoul, Nesirky has had some time to acclimatize to his new role by working for more than three years as spokesman for the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), based in Vienna. But the move to New York brings much more formidable challenges.

Like any U.N. spokesperson, Nesirky, a Briton, will have to take into account the concerns of the 192 nations that belong to the world body. That’s 192 different governments that can get upset by something he might say. But his chief problem may be his boss Ban, whose public image, to put it mildly, could take a little burnishing. Aside from his awkward use of English, which has television producers tearing their hair, Ban has had a rough ride from hostile media that have accused him of failing to use his position to end the world’s conflicts and right its wrongs.

Then there is the sprawling and ill-defined nature of the U.N. press and public relations operation, with different officials and factions competing for the secretary-general’s attention and waiting to pounce on any mis-step by one of the others. The outgoing spokeswoman, Michele Montas of Haiti, stuck to the job for less than three years. In trying to stay close to the South Korean secretary-general, Nesirky could benefit from his knowledge of the Korean language from his time in Seoul. He is also married to a South Korean. But these advantages too could be a double-edged sword. U.N. diplomats have long complained that Ban is happiest in a Korean comfort zone and relies too much on a compatriot who serves as his deputy chief-of-staff, Kim Won-soo.

As a white male from a Western permanent member of the Security Council, Nesirky could also face suspicion from diversity lobbies and from the developing world, which already sees Ban as too much in thrall to the United States. (Ban’s U.S. critics make the opposite accusation.)

In the world of spokespeople, the U.N. post may look from the outside like a dream job. But insiders were not so envious. Nesirky joins the world body as Ban is getting ready to try to persuade the great powers who decide these things that he has done well enough in his first five-year term of office, which ends in December 2011, that he deserves a second one. Most analysts give him a good chance, saying he has done nothing to offend key players in Washington and Beijing. But if they are wrong, Nesirky’s job could turn out to be one of his shorter assignments.

Das israelische Vorhaben, im widerrechtlich besetzten Ost-Beitolmoqaddas 900 neue Wohneinheiten zu bauen hat weltweite Proteste und Empörung ausgelöst. UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon verurteilte die Entscheidung und verwies darauf, daß das Land, auf dem Gilo gebaut wurde, seit 1967 besetztes palästinensisches Gebiet sei. Der Siedlungsbau gefährde die angestrebte Zwei-Staaten-Lösung zur Beilegung des Konflikts zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern.

Kritik kam auch von Robert Gibbs, Sprecher des Weißen Hauses in Washington, der sich »bestürzt« zeigte. Die israelische Ankündigung brüskiert den US-Sondervermittler George Mitchell, der mehrfach einen Baustopp in der Siedlung Gilo gefordert hatte. US-Präsident Barack Obama hat die israelische Haltung zum Siedlungsbau in den Palästinensergebieten als “sehr gefährlich” bezeichnet. Der Frieden werde dadurch erschwert, sagte Obama am Mittwoch in einem Interview.

Der Sprecher von Präsident Mahmud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, sagte, Israel sei nicht am Frieden interessiert und wolle »sicherstellen, daß die internationalen Bemühungen für einen Frieden und die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung scheitern«. Die »ständige Akzeptanz der internationalen Gemeinschaft für solche Maßnahmen Israels gefährdet die Stabilität der Region und die Grundlagen für den Frieden, den wir suchen«, fügte Rudeineh hinzu. Er bezeichnete die verbale US-Kritik an israelischer Siedlungsbaupolitik als unausreichend und forderte ernsten Druck Washingtons auf das zionistische Regime.

Scharfe Kritik übte der palästinensische Chef-Unterhändler Sajeb Erakat. Der Stopp des Siedlungsbaus sei die einzige Möglichkeit, um “zu einem wirklichen Friedensprozess zurückzukehren”, sagte er und ergänzte, durch die Erweiterung der Judensiedlungen habe Israel die Palästinenser und die internationale Staatengemeinschaft verspottet. Die am Mittwoch auf Anordnung der israelischen Behörden erfolgte Zerstörung eines ohne Genehmigung in Ost-Jerusalem gebauten Hauses verglich er mit der südafrikanischen Apartheidpolitik.

Die Europäische Union zeigte sich in einer Erklärung “bestürzt” über die neuerlichen Siedlungspläne des zionistischen Regimes. Auch Russland – neben der UNO, den USA und der EU das vierte Mitglied im sogenannten Nahost-Quartett – kritisierte die israelische Entscheidung. Das Außenministerium in Moskau nannte den israelischen Siedlungsplan “unannehmbar für den Friedensprozess im Nahen Osten” und forderte Israel auf, seine Entscheidung zu überdenken. Der Generalsekretär der Arabischen Liga Amr Mussa verurteilte die israelische Entscheidung, welche zur Verschlechterung der Lage in der Region führt. Erforderte den UN-Generalsekretär und die Mitgliedsstaaten des Weltsicherheitsrates auf, gegenüber dem illegalen Ausbau der Judensiedlungen in den besetzten Palästinensergebieten klare Stellung zu beziehen. Saudi-Arabien nannte die Siedlungspolitik das “Haupthindernis” für den Frieden. Die ägyptische Regierung bezeichnete den Siedlungsplan des zionistischen Regimes als provokatorisch.

Ein Mitglied der parlamentarischen Versammlung Palästinas sagte in einem Interview mit dem Nachrichtensender Al Alam, dass die heiligen Stätten in Beitolmoqaddas nicht nur den palästinensischen Bewohnern dieser Stadt sondern allen Muslimen und Christen weltweit angehören, weshalb die arabische, islamische und sogar die westliche Welt ihre Bemühungen um den Schutz von Beitolmoqaddas intensivieren müssen.

Quelle:

IRIB Deutsches Programm

Gandhiji once said, “There’s enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”. The rapaciousness displayed by unprincipled businesses in sub prime lending and other financial concoctions have already resulted in an economic meltdown. Its brand new avatar to profit from helplessness of mankind is likely to be rewarded the same way. We can only hope they would realize their folly and amend ways.

An excellent report on global land grabs can be found here: Link

Oct 16^th was World Food Day. On this day “The World Summit on Food Security” convened in Rome and will conclude today, November 18th.  Part of a three pronged series of events, these meetings are being held to address the additional burden that the global economic crisis has placed on world hunger.

The Food and Agriculture of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that the number of hungry people worldwide, will pass the one billion mark this year. This means that one sixth of the world is suffering from persistent hunger.

The agenda of these meetings is to provide an action plan on how to boost agricultural productivity. The FAO states:

[The gravity of the current food crisis is the result of 20 years of under-investment in agriculture and neglect of the sector. Directly or indirectly, agriculture provides the livelihood for 70 percent of the world's poor.]

As you can see, global warming is not mentioned. Rather the world’s, and thus our failure, to provide policies, leadership, and economic development is seen as the reason for this current surge of hunger.

(If you want to learn more: at the FAO’s webpage discussing the summit, there is a link to sign a petition to end world hunger, HERE. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a message stressing the need for multilateral commitment, creativity and leadership. On his page HERE, are other links, on how to get involved. There is also a Twitter link.)

As it should be, the emphasis of the events is directed toward poor and developing nations. However, you ever had any doubts, the food crisis is a perfect example of how the United States is part of the global community. Take look at the Washington Post Article, HERE.

We continue to think it is acceptable to starve the brains and stunt the growth of a percentage of our children. It is okay to enfeeble and kill off some of our elderly early and we don’t want to deal with the racial inequities that are still inherent in our domestic economic policies. We still think it is ok to tell women they should get married for money rather than addressing the community practices that allow others avoid responsibility for children.  We still think we should blame women when their children can’t perform in school.

In the USDA’s, 66 page .pdf report, HERE, the US has categories that define levels of food insecurity. The categories of nourishment are defined as: 1) food secure, meaning enough food at all times for a healthy active lifestyle, 2) food insecure, meaning at least some time during the year there was inadequate food in the house, and 3) very low food security, meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food.

We have been running along at a general population of around 12% food insecure people for years. For children with families it’s been 15%. With the economic “recession”, our percentage of food insecure people is now around 14.4% and 21% respectively. This figure does not include indigent or homeless people, so the figure is likely to be higher[1]. By category of selected household statistics, an astonishing 37.2% of “female head of household” with children are food insecure. However, the “male head of household” category is doing pretty badly as well at 27.6%. The third category of other “household with child”, (grandparents, other relative, etc.) is at 29.2%. As might be expected, low-income families are suffering the worst.

As to race, because Black, and Hispanic groups still have proportionally lower incomes and higher poverty levels, as expected, the food insecurity is higher at 25.7% and 26.9%, as opposed to whites at 10.7%. Native Americans are apparently counted in the “other” category at 13.7%. Due to the lack of categorization, this is bound to be a highly deceptive figure.

I think, Pacific John’s recent post over at Alegre’s, elucidates the gap in understanding and potential for turmoil in our current condition.

Although President Obama has stated that “the solution begins with job creation” and is planning increases in food stamps and other feeding programs, these efforts cannot be the end of hunger in this country. Evidence suggests first of all, that many people in this predicament have jobs, but wages do not provide enough income. Secondly, corporate  “big business” agriculture as is suggested by people like Michael Pollan[2], have streamlined, and influenced the USDA as a way to get rid of excess product, rather than toward nutrition. This results in too much corn, wheat and soybean production, at the expense of a national program employing good standards.

Finally, I want to say that during World War II, the US government mobilized the country to feed it’s self, feed the troops, and set standards for good nutrition as part of the effort to win the war. Our country has been at war for eight years now. There has been no such effort. This is much like all the other ways we have tried to pretend that this is war image clean and light of economic impact. As Ban Ki-moon says, we need a coordinated approach to fight this crisis, not the latest political maneuver.

[2] Michael Pollan is the author of “ In Defense of Food”, and “The Omnivores Dilemma”.

Par Yossi Sarid

Comme Ben Gourion l’a fait en son temps, Mahmoud Abbas doit proclamer l’Etat palestinien qui sera rapidement reconnu par l’immense majorité des nations de l’ONU, affirme Yossi Sarid, ancien dirigeant du parti de gauche Meretz et éditorialiste à Haaretz. Pour lui, comme il l’a affirmé à Mahmoud Abbas, l’occupation connaîtra le même sort que le mur de Berlin et l’apartheid : elle va s’effondrer.

Haaretz

C’est précisément maintenant que le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas ne doit pas perdre espoir, et ce non pas en raison des déclarations vides et doucereuses de Shimon Peres au sujet de l’espoir venant de Ramallah, lors d’une manifestation ce dimanche.

Abbas avait raison lorsqu’ il a décidé d’annoncer qu’il allait bientôt démissionner : Il est impossible de mener des négociations « sans conditions préalables », tant que la colonisation se poursuit. Pendant 42 ans, Israël a égrené les conditions préalables et les « faits accomplis », sous la forme de toits de tuiles rouges, réduisant le processus de paix à rien d’autre qu’un processus sans fin.

Mais avant qu’Abou Mazen ne quitte ses fonctions, il lui reste encore une mission à accomplir : il doit déclarer unilatéralement la création d’un Etat palestinien indépendant. La Palestine maintenant.

Les deux parties ont le droit d’agir unilatéralement. Abbas le doit à son peuple, à lui-même, et à nous. Cette semaine, la presse a indiqué que le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu considérait cette éventualité comme très effrayante, et qu’il espérait que les Américains la tuent dans l’œuf. Mais son cauchemar est notre seule chance de mettre fin à l’occupation de notre vivant.

En déclarant l’indépendance, M. Abbas devrait s’adresser aux Juifs vivant dans l’État de Palestine, afin qu’ils préservent la paix et prennent leur part dans la construction du nouveau pays en tant que citoyens à part entière et égaux, jouissant d’une représentation équitable dans toutes ses institutions. David Ben-Gourion n’aurait pas été fâché par un tel acte de plagiat de sa propre Déclaration d’indépendance.

Ainsi, Abbas deviendrait le Ben-Gourion palestinien. La situation n’était pas moins inextricable et les circonstances n’étaient pas plus assurées lorsque Ben-Gourion a proclamé son indépendance en 1948. Mais notre père fondateur a pris ce risque, et nous sommes heureux qu’il l’ait fait.

Le risque pris par Abbas serait bien moindre. Sur les 192 Etats membres des Nations Unies, plus de 150 reconnaîtraient une Palestine libre, et elle deviendrait rapidement le 193ème Etat de l’organisation. Bien que la position américaine reste une inconnue, il est difficile de croire que Barack Obama serait d’accord pour laisser l’Amérique s’isoler, maintenant qu’elle a commencé à nouveau à faire partie du concert des nations.

Et que pourrait faire Netanyahu ? Envahir et reconquérir la Cisjordanie ? Restaurer le gouvernement militaire dans la Muqata à Ramallah ?

Et quels ordres donnerait à son armée Ehud Barak ? La Serbie n’a pas osé envahir le Kosovo après sa déclaration d’indépendance, et même la grande Russie ne s’est pas autorisée à se maintenir sur le territoire souverain de la Géorgie après la guerre.

Immédiatement après la déclaration, les célébrations débuteront dans la capitale, Jérusalem-Est, et les gens de partout dans le monde viendront y participer, y compris les Israéliens. Les gens de la maison d’Ismaël festoieront joyeusement à travers les quartiers de la ville, surtout dans ces quartiers d’où ils ont été expulsés par des personnes avançant des prétextes religieux. Cela devra être une joie sans aucune manifestation de violence, sans une seule pierre lancée.

Cette semaine, j’ai téléphoné à M. Abbas, pour la première fois depuis au moins quatre ans. Je lui ai dit tout ce que je vous écris aujourd’hui. Je lui ai également dit autre chose : ce qui est advenu au mur de Berlin il ya 20 ans, et à l’apartheid quelques mois plus tard, adviendra aussi à l’occupation : elle va s’effondrer, même si des tentatives dérisoires auront lieu pour la renforcer.

Yossi Sarid est membre du parti Meretz. Il a siégé plusieurs fois à la Knesset depuis 1973. Il a été ministre de l’Environnement dans le gouvernement de coalition formé par Yitzhak Rabin en 1992 puis ministre de l’Éducation dans le gouvernement de coalition formé par Ehud Barak.

Source : Contre Info

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

“I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that’s what I have encouraged the senators,” he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver “as soon as possible.”

The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a “legally binding” commitment to “25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.

But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general “Your Excellency.” Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of “the privilege of this distinguished visitor.”

And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for “the accelerated leadership role” that the United Nations has taken. “Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course.”

Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night’s broadcast.

Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol’s Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry’s climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations — which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.

Even Americans who don’t come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn’t know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church’s Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Ban’s profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.

“America, if you believe this country is great but you’re not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out,” Fox News Channel’s Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that “at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations.” Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama “believes in One World Government.” And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity’s show to warn about a One World Government in which “our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates” of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.

Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. “Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen,” he said. “They must conclude a robust global agreement,” that is “comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair.”

Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that “the world is not standing still,” and that “all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States.”

After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. “Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport.”

Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

“All’improvviso ho avuto l’impressione che fosse tutto collegato. Era come se potessi vedere tutto. Una lunga catena di eventi che risalivano a molto prima di Seattle (nel film Lark Hill, ndr). Mi è sembrato di poter vedere quello che era successo prima. E quello che ancora deve succedere. Era come uno schema perfetto, disposto davanti a me, e mi sono reso conto che ne facciamo tutti parte, che siamo tutti intrappolati”. “Allora lei sa che succederà”.
“No, è stata una sensazione. Ma posso indovinare. Con un simile caos qualcuno commetterà una sciocchezza e quando questo accadrà le cose si metteranno male”.
da V per Vendetta

Cari lettori del blog,
ad essere sinceri, mi trovo in grossa difficoltà nello scrivere l’articolo di oggi.
L’unica certezza, infatti, in mezzo ai vari summit ONU e ai tragicomici G-qualcosa sparsi un po’ per tutto il mondo, è che stasera Berlusconi ha incontrato Gheddafi a margine della Conferenza FAO di Roma. Capite voi che sorpresa.
Per il resto, le notizie provenienti dai tavoli delle trattative sono sempre le stesse, inqualificabili, indecifrabili, decisamente scoraggianti e oltremodo meschine. Il vertice per la sicurezza alimentare, che si era aperto questa mattina con i soliti interventi sull’aria fritta da parte dell’ubiquo Napolitano e del Papa dello Stereotipo, Benedetto XVI, ha chiuso i battenti come chiudono i battenti tutti i meeting patrocinati dalle Nazioni Unite, ovvero con tante recriminazioni, mani in tasca e arrivederci all’anno prossimo. Insomma, ogni cosa sapeva di già visto, da Ban Ki-Moon che assumeva l’atteggiamento di circostanza al povero Jacques Diouf (Direttore generale della FAO) che si dannava per smuovere i delegati (senza peraltro riuscirci), da Berlusconi che faceva come sempre suoi i meriti di ogni accordo mondiale dal 1994 ad oggi alle manifestazioni delle Ong di contadini, pescatori e ambientalisti che bloccavano il traffico, soffocante di per sè, della Capitale. Perfino il documento finale era una meraviglia di ovvietà: soldi e finanziamenti spariti (i 44 miliardi di dollari chiesti da Diouf per sconfiggere la fame del mondo non si trovano, gli svariati trilioni per il sostegno alle banche sì invece), i soliti vaneggiamenti sul dimezzamento dei malnutriti nel mondo entro il 2015 (quando, dalla prima volta che l’obiettivo venne annunciato, nel 1998, si è passati da 800 milioni a oltre 1 miliardo)e poi, ovviamente, gli scintillanti “5 principi di Roma“:
1 – Sostegno economico ai programmi nazionali di sviluppo rurale.
2 – Necessità di implementare il coordinamento strategico.
3 – Impegno binario di sradicamento immediamento della fame e processo a lungo termine di eliminazione della cause della povertà.
4 – Rafforzamento della collaborazione tra le organizzazioni che si occupano di sicurezza alimentare.
5 – Vigilanza sull’attuazione concreta del programma.
I delegati, privati purtroppo del cocktail in Campidoglio, non ne hanno fatto un dramma ed hanno indossato prontamente le loro maschere di cera per tornare da eroi (delle multinazionali e del WTO) ai loro rispettivi paesi. Il sindaco Alemanno ha avuto invece, se non altro, il merito di affermare che effettivamente l’impegno concreto non è stato di casa nella sede del summit, a differenza del nostro premier, il quale, se dicesse la verità metà delle volte che parla di aiuti umanitari, meritebbe il Nobel per la pace ad perpetuum.
Simbolicamente, invierò una lettera alla Food and Agriculture Organization nella quale mi impegnerò a versare annualmente una cifra prefissata ad Oxfam International. Sara’ sempre meglio che parlare di intenzioni.

Ma torniamo al titolo ed alla citazione.
Da Seattle 1999, ovvero da quando i detentori del potere economico hanno capito che c’era una fascia della popolazione mondiale insofferente al modello di sviluppo unidirezionale e selvaggio della nostra società, ed hanno deciso di dare fondo a tutte le loro risorse per bloccare questa voce popolare che li avrebbe messi in pericolo, il declino è stato inesorabile. Gli obiettivi di Kyoto in materia ambientale e di Roma in tema di sicurezza alimentare si sono piano piano dileguati, lasciando al loro posto l’indifferenza dei governi e dei centri di potere economico di tutto il mondo. Non c’è più stato un singolo vertice in cui si sia raggiunto un accordo vincolante, partendo dalle assemblee para-fasciste del WTO per arrivare alla Conferenza di Bali del 2007, senza considerare i vari G-8, G-20, G-14, G-vedremo che hanno fatto piucchealtro piangere. E il numero dei meeting cresce in proporzione alla loro inutilità. Solo quest’anno Londra, L’Aquila, Pittsburgh, Barcellona, Bruxelles, Singapore, Roma, Copenhagen che verrà, giusto per citare i più importanti. Tutti perfettamente pieni di forma e vuoti di sostanza. Nel 2009 si può anche girare il mondo facendo il rappresentante di un governo che se ne sbatte dei problemi ma si mostra bello in assemblea. Giusto ieri abbiamo assistito all’inciucio vergognoso tra Obama e Hu Jintao, ed oggi, senza ritegno, dobbiamo sorbirci questa nuova presa per il c..o. Tutto è collegato, insomma, e non c’è neppure un briciolo di vergogna. Ma qualcosa prima o poi accadrà.

D.Piselli

Afghanistan people had no clue as to what would happen to the “run off” election (They of course did not know they wanted one), after the Taliban attack on a UN Guest House in Kabul. Not because Taliban vowed to stop the run off elections, but because the UN declared a “white” city for all their international staff and was locked in discussions as to what the next step should be with more possible attacks on UN staff.

The UN staff of the project “Enhancing Legal and Electoral Capacity for Tomorrow” (ELECT) who runs the elections in Afghanistan could not narrow the margin enough between Karzai and Abdulla Abdulla to go for a direct decision to have a run off. Nevertheless the international community through many of its faces claimed there was too much corruption to accept the results. Yet, even before the recount was over, the next lot of ballot papers for a run off election had reached Kabul, according to inside Kabul information. It was obvious the international community led by the Obama administration was determined to have a change in the Afghan rule in favour of Abdulla and was making every effort to push through another election on the Afghan people.

While the international actors were trying to work out their options for the Afghan people, Taliban this time was targeting the UN staff. There is over 6,500 UN staff deployed all over Afghanistan, with over 1,200 of them being foreign nationals, including those with UN Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA). The Talibans were clear in their mission. Even if the international players decide to have a run off, stopping the UN ELECT staff from conducting it, decides the outcome. They in fact did it this time. Around 600 UN staff was immediately sent out of Afghanistan. The main contender Abdullah Abdullah withdrew from running. The Obama administration is still debating whether to send 40,000 extra troops to Afghanistan or not. They now have 68,000 US troops already there.

UN SG Moon wants another US $ 75 million to enhance security for his staff in Afghanistan. Every threat by Taliban guerrillas increases the amount of money that flows into Afghanistan. Its not only military spending that goes up. It is also other non military agencies that supplement military activity that increases spending with Taliban attacks. It is estimated that over US $ 300 million was spent on the elections alone, by UNAMA and that does not include any of the allocations for ELECT and other UN agencies like WHO that handle food security issues. It is not only the UN that spends money on Afghanistan. The US-AID too had spent huge sums there, to indirectly sustain the US presence.

All this money has created hugely corrupt organisational structures in Afghanistan including UN agencies and their projects. That corruption is not something that goes unnoticed or unknown. Any UN official, foreign or local, for instance knows that 100 donkeys are paid US $ 50 per head, when only 20 donkeys are deployed to carry food stuff and other civilian material to non motorable regions in the vast rural Afghanistan. Perhaps the actual per donkey fee could even be less than US $ 50 some times.

A fair section of the Afghan society lives out of such “ignored” corruption in UN systems both within the system and in collaboration with the system, according to information rolling out of Afghanistan itself. Numerous programmes carried out by UN and other NGO supported projects, allow sums to be fizzled out continuously much in excess of the actuals. There is an unquestioned, silent acceptance that such monetary “gifts” need to be allowed to enter the Afghan society through different contacts, who demand compensation for providing access to especially closed, remote rural life.

It’s a bizarre world of greasing the communities with money, where armed Taliban fighters also control these community lives. In a society, where very little productive economic life could take place, this money from different donor agencies have come to stay as a regular income generation. It stays and grows, where systems are not accountable to any social representation. Where governing is not one that people could think about or the ever escalating war against Taliban insurgency allows to be established.

Thus war with big money in Afghan life, is a war that corrupts this society inside out and would not have any space for any real elections either, though UN agencies corrupt as they are, and international super powers, would want the world to believe.

(From a collage of Afghan related info)

Par Jacques Benillouche

Ils ont décidé d’accepter la résolution du 29 novembre 1947 partageant la Palestine britannique en deux Etats.

Les palestiniens veulent faire appel au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU pour proclamer unilatéralement leur Etat car, selon le négociateur palestinien Saëb Erakat «Nous avons décidé de nous adresser au Conseil de sécurité pour essayer d’obtenir son soutien à la création d’un Etat palestinien indépendant ayant Jérusalem pour capitale et dont les frontières seraient celles de juin 1967».

Les palestiniens semblent décidés, tardivement selon les israéliens, à s’en remettre à l’ONU alors qu’ils avaient jusqu’alors refusé de tenir compte des résolutions de partage qui avaient été votées. La résolution de l’ONU du 29 novembre 1947, votée à la majorité des deux tiers des membres, avait été refusée en bloc par tous les pays arabes qui avaient alors préféré se lancer dans l’aventure d’une attaque concertée contre l’Etat juif qui venait de naître.

Mais les palestiniens avaient déjà raté le coche à une autre occasion. En effet, on ignore qu’un autre plan de partage avait déjà été proposé en 1937. La Commission Peel, dirigée par Lord William Peel, dont le nom formel est «Commission royale pour la Palestine», avait été mise en place par les anglais afin de proposer des modifications au mandat britannique. Cette commission avait recommandé le partage en deux Etats. L’Etat juif devait se contenter d’occuper 3.200 km2, à comparer aux 20.770 km2 actuels, tandis que l’Etat palestinien devait s’installer dans le reste du pays à l’exception d’une enclave internationale englobant Jérusalem et d’un corridor reliant cette ville à la côte.

Le débat avait été rude entre les dirigeants sionistes de l’époque. Golda Meir estimait que «l’Etat juif proposé ne correspondait pas à mon idée d’un foyer national pour le peuple juif. Il était bien trop petit et étriqué.» Le théoricien du parti, Berl Katznelson, avait fait part de son même avis dans les nombreuses réunions où se débattait la proposition Peel. Mais Ben Gourion avait décidé d’accepter cette proposition qui avait l’avantage de réaliser le rêve de Théodore Herzl de création d’un foyer juif autonome. Le visionnaire, dans sa sagesse, estimait «que n’importe quel Etat valait mieux que pas d’Etat du tout».

Ce plan de partage avait été écarté tout net par les Arabes en 1937 car le principe directeur de leur attitude de l’époque impliquait que leurs décisions devaient être prises sur la foi, non pas de ce qui est bon pour eux, mais de ce qui est mauvais pour Israël. L’Etat palestinien aurait pu voir le jour en 1937 et de nombreuses guerres auraient pu être évitées. Mais les israéliens frissonnent rétrospectivement en pensant que la création d’un Etat à cette date aurait pu permettre à un nombre important de juifs d’échapper à la barbarie nazie puisque la Palestine, sous le mandat britannique, avait été interdite aux juifs d’Europe pendant la guerre.

Il est fort improbable que les israéliens acceptent aujourd’hui de revenir aux frontières de 1967 et encore moins de céder Jérusalem, à l’exception peut-être de quelques faubourgs. La proposition d’Ehud Barak, au sommet de Taba en janvier 2001, de céder 93% de la Cisjordanie est caduque et la dernière du numéro 2 de Kadima, Shaoul Mofaz,  n’en propose que 60%. C’est dire si la situation reste bloquée pour l’instant.

Source : Slate.fr

Al centro, il Segretario generale Onu, Ban Ki-Monn

Come qualcuno temeva e nonostante le recenti dichiarazioni del Segreterio generale Onu Ban Ki-Moon che mette in guardia dal rinviare tutto al COP 16 del Messico, pare proprio che la Conferenza di Copenhagen sui cambiamenti climatici non fornirà i progressi attesi, ma solo un accordo quadro non vincolante.

Il motivo principale per cui un accordo finale non dovrebbe essere raggiunto in occasione della conferenza COP15 di dicembre pare dipenda dal Congresso degli Stati Uniti: gli Usa infatti, per il prossimo dicembre, non avranno una specifica legislazione vigente in materia.

Le président Ali Bongo

Le président de la république du Gabon, Ali Bongo assistera au prochain sommet mondial de la FAO sur la sécurité alimentaire qui debute le 16 novembre 2009 à Rome en Italie.  L’oganisation onusienne espère engager les chefs d’état à mettre en place de véritable politique afin d’éradiquer la faim dans le monde. Actuellement plus d’un milliard d’individus souffrent de malnutrition sur cette planète. La FAO a déjà mise sur pied un site internet http://www.1billionhungry.org/fr afin de faire prendre conscience à un large public le problème mondial de cette malnutrition. Jacques Diouf, directeur général de la FAO, a décidé de faire une grève de la fain durant une journée à compter du 13 novembre 2009 au soir, tout comme le secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban ki-moon.

In April 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched the United Nation’s international climate change campaign under the title “Seal the Deal!” This campaign is about mobilizing political leaders, the business sector, NGOs, women’s groups, youth organizations and civil society around the issue of climate change to ensure that a definitive, fair, balanced and effective climate agreement is reached when governments meet in Copenhagen from 7-18 December, 2009.  Seal the Deal! is about drumming up support at every level within the global community for urgent and united action on climate change. The significance of climate change in our world today is undisputed: countries all over the world are seeing its effects and are concerned about the devastating effects it could have on future generations. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has stressed the importance of immediate and serious action to fight the climate crisis, describing it as “the defining challenge of our generation.”

The latest scientific research shows that the climate is changing more rapidly than expected-~millions of people are already suffering from its effects. Nine out of every ten disasters recorded are now climate related. The impacts of climate change are already being felt in the most fragile ecosystems around the world such as coral reefs and mountain habitats. Twenty to thirty percent of species on earth also face an increased risk of extinction as wildlife and biological life confronts new challenges from climate change. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warns that, “the time for delays and half-measures is over. The personal leadership of every head of state or government is needed to seize this moment to protect people and the planet from one of the most serious challenges ever to confront humanity.”

What Can You Do?

Visit: http://tcktcktck.org/ and add your name to the list of global citizens for climate action. Tell world leaders that you are ready for a global climate deal that is fair, ambitious and binding. Then click on “Do More” to learn ways that you can recruit your friends to support this campaign, follow UN climate change negotiations, follow your country or adopt a negotiator.

New World Order Arrives

U.N. Chief Meddles in the U.S. Senate

Washington Post
November 11, 2009

The New World Order came into being at 4:25 Tuesday afternoon.

U.N. chief Ban Ki-Moon (R) speaks to the media with Joe Lieberman (L) and John Kerry following the committee’s meeting on global climate change, including the steps leading up to December’s International negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark, where Obama is to sign a global climate treaty that will surrender U.S. national sovereignty to a World Government controlled by the United Nations.

It arrived at the Capitol, until that moment the seat of American government, in the form of the stooped and bespectacled figure of Ban Ki-moon, who as U.N. secretary general is the de facto leader of what conspiracy theorists call the One World Government. One floor beneath the Senate chamber, Ban, a South Korean national, took his place behind a lectern bearing the Senate seal and spelled out his demands.

“I would certainly expect the Senate to take the necessary action; that’s what I have encouraged the senators,” he told reporters as a trio of lawmakers stood at his side. He added an admonition for the chamber to deliver “as soon as possible.”

The One World Government has specific requirements, Ban added, namely a “legally binding” commitment to “25 to 40 percent greenhouse gas reduction . . . as recommended by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

Uh-oh. A U.N. official standing in the Capitol telling U.S. lawmakers what binding commitments intergovernmental authorities expect from them? Glenn Beck was going to burst a blood vessel.

But the man who orchestrated this putsch by the New World Order, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Switzerland), did not appear concerned by the imagery. He called the secretary general “Your Excellency.” Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana (a Republican, but he drives a Prius) was equally deferential as he spoke of “the privilege of this distinguished visitor.”

And Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) hailed Ban for “the accelerated leadership role” that the United Nations has taken. “Your vision, that in Copenhagen there can be a politically binding agreement that will lead to a legally binding agreement to follow . . . is a very reasonable, sensible and hopeful course.”

Somewhere in Manhattan, Sean Hannity was tearing up his script for the night’s broadcast.

Kerry invited Ban to lecture the Foreign Relations Committee, but it’s not clear what the chairman hoped to gain from the photos of him standing with Ban in the Capitol’s Brumidi Corridors. Indeed, it seemed quite possible that a U.N. endorsement of Kerry’s climate efforts would embolden its foes, who like the world body even less than they like cap-and-trade. In the pantheon of conspiracy theories, the United Nations is right up there with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, the Federal Reserve and the Council on Foreign Relations — which, as it happens, Kerry addressed a couple of weeks ago.

Even Americans who don’t come from the grassy-knoll tradition tend not to regard the United Nations with great confidence. A Gallup poll earlier this year found that 65 percent of respondents thought it was doing a bad job, compared with 26 percent who think it is doing a good job. Ban himself is not terribly nefarious, if only because he is unknown. A Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of those surveyed didn’t know who he was. The others may have confused him with the Unification Church’s Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Ban’s profile could become much higher, and not in a good way, if Americans start to perceive him as meddling in Senate consideration of climate legislation. Even before he stormed the Capitol, Fox News was drawing a connection between global warming talks in Copenhagen next month and One World Government.

“America, if you believe this country is great but you’re not really into that whole One World Government thing, watch out,” Fox News Channel’s Beck warned a couple of weeks ago. His guest, Lord Christopher Monckton of Britain, told Beck that “at Copenhagen, a treaty will be signed that will, for the first time, create a world government with powers to intervene directly in the economy and in the environmental affairs of individual nations.” Earlier on Fox News, Dick Morris informed Hannity that President Obama “believes in One World Government.” And author Jerome Corsi went on Hannity’s show to warn about a One World Government in which “our sovereignty would be subject to the dictates” of the United Nations and other international organizations.

The One World Government was on open display at the Capitol on Tuesday, as international U.N. staffers waited outside the room where Ban spoke to the senators. The secretary general had come with his own world government (armed?) security detail, who stood alongside the Capitol police.

Ban, wearing a gold U.N. lapel pin, unfolded his speech. “Less than a month from now, the leaders of the world will gather in Copenhagen,” he said. “They must conclude a robust global agreement,” that is “comprehensive, binding, equitable and fair.”

Speaking softly but firmly, the South Korean cautioned the Americans that “the world is not standing still,” and that “all the eyes of the world are looking to the United States.”

After a few minutes, Kerry cut off questioning. “Folks, the secretary general has to get to the airport.”

Ban needed to catch the U.S. Airways shuttle to New York. The One World Government Air Force isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

West Africa is on the verge of becoming a source for drugs as well as a transit point, the United Nations drug chief warned Thursday.

Antonio Maria Costa told the United Nations Security Council that since July his office and Interpol have been investigating numerous West African sites where they found large amounts of chemicals used to produce high grade cocaine and manufacture Ecstasy.

Costa, who directs the Vienna-based United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, reminded the council that five years ago his office rang “the alarm bells” to warn the world about the destabilizing impact of cocaine trafficking from Latin America to Europe via West Africa, especially through Guinea-Bissau.

In the past 18 months, Costa said, his office has noted “a significant drop” in drug seizures in West Africa and a similarly “strong decline in European drug seizures with West Africa as the suspected source.”

“Since, generally, trends in seizures are a good proxy to determine what’s happening to actual drug flows, we conclude that drug trafficking through the region has declined.” he said.

Costa warned, however, that “this trend must be interpreted cautiously” because Europe’s craving for cocaine persists and trafficking routes may have moved further south or inland.

He also cited three new “disturbing elements” which must be tackled.

Growing amounts of drugs coming into West Africa are being consumed locally which is new but not surprising, Costa said.

“Low prices and high supply of cocaine, particularly in Guinea-Bissau, cause havoc among a youth already so distraught by so many problems,” he said.

Costa said there are also “reports of drug use (as well as trafficking) affecting the military.”

“This threatens more than security sector reform,” he said. “It creates armies of addicts.”

Costa stressed that military forces around the world, in rich countries and poor ones, have experienced and addressed “the disastrous consequences of addiction” among their soldiers.

He said the new “shocking information” of drug production in West Africa is being processed.

“I want to ring a new set of alarm bells: West Africa is now on the verge of becoming a source of drugs, not only a transit area. Organized crime is growing indigenous roots,” Costa warned, without naming specific countries.

The Security Council was meeting to discuss Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s latest report on Guinea-Bissau where a rare, peaceful transition of power took place in July with the election of a new president, Malam Bacai Sanha. The tiny West African nation has been wracked by coups, countercoups and a civil war.

Costa said the sites where chemicals for drug processing were discovered were not in Guinea-Bissau, but just beyond its borders.

“Yet, something similar is likely to happen in Bissau where drug traffickers have acquired vast swathes of land and an important real estate presence,” he warned. “The country is very vulnerable because of its poor judicial system, uncontrolled sea and air space and open land borders.”

Folgendes Interview habe ich mit Willi Lemke im Rahmen eines Journalistenseminars in Feldafing am Starnberger See zum Thema “Bildkorrekturen – Sport, Entwicklung und Medien” von Inwent geführt. Während des zweitägigen Treffens hat Lemke dort auch einen Vortrag gehalten – neben Sportlern, Funktionären, Botschaftern und Journalisten. Das Überthema wurde anhand der Olympischen Spiele in Peking und der Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft in Südafrika diskutiert.

Willi Lemke, Sportsonderberater des UN-Generalsekretärs, über seine Arbeit für die Vereinten Nationen, die Chancen und Gefahren des Sports sowie die Bedeutung der Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft in Südafrika.

Herr Lemke, Sie sind seit April 2008 als Sonderberater des Generalsekretärs für Sport im Dienst von Entwicklung und Frieden bei den Vereinten Nationen tätig. Wie haben Sie das erste Jahr im Amt erlebt? Es ist eine sehr anstrengende und dennoch faszinierende sowie dankbare Arbeit, die es mir ermöglicht, interessante Projekte zu besichtigen und wichtige Entscheidungsträger zu treffen. Ich bin weltweit unterwegs und setze mich für den Sport als Entwicklungsinstrument ein, um die UN-Millenniumsziele zu erreichen. Dabei versuche ich, die einzelnen Akteure zu koordinieren und zu unterstützen.

Es heißt immer, der Sport solle nicht politisch sein. Ist das überhaupt möglich? Nein, Sport ist niemals unpolitisch. Die eigentliche sportliche Handlung ist es. Aber die Gesellschaft, in der der Sport stattfindet, macht ihn automatisch politisch. Die WM in Südafrika soll innen- wie außenpolitisch ein Riesenerfolg werden. Und wenn ein Land die WM verdient hat, dann ein afrikanisches. Ist das Turnier neben dem leidenschaftlichen Fußball und den feiernden Fans auch gut organisiert, dann wird der Erfolg für Südafrika und somit für den ganzen Kontinent noch größer sein. Denn die Medienpräsenz wird so groß sein, wie noch nie. Weitaus mehr als in Peking.

Wo sehen Sie die Grenzen des Sports als Entwicklungsinstrument und wo lauern die Gefahren? Das Thema Doping ist im Augenblick etwas sehr Belastendes. Das haben wir noch nicht voll im Griff. Es gibt viel zu viele Schwachstellen und die Gegenseite versucht immer wieder neue Rezepte zu finden, um zu betrügen. Auch Gewalt im Sport gibt es leider viel zu häufig, genauso Rassismus. Wir haben zudem illegale Wettpraktiken, die die Spiele und Ergebnisse manipulieren sollen. Das sind die dunklen Seiten des Sports, die ich gar nicht ausblenden will. Aber die positiven Seiten, die für das Individuum und für die Gesellschaft bis hin zur Entwicklung der Nationen in Richtung Entwicklung und Frieden wichtig sind, überwiegen deutlich.

Welche Rolle spielen die Medien bei der sportlichen Entwicklungspolitik? Ich würde nicht fordern: Schreiben Sie nur über die positiven Programme. Es gibt in der Tat viele Dinge, die auch ich in Frage stelle. Daher ist es wichtig, kritisch zu sein. Aber ich denke gerade an eine Judohalle im Rebellengebiet an der Elfenbeinküste, die 120 Kinder und junge Erwachsene in einem fantastischen Projekt aufgebaut haben. Dort wird Nachwuchsarbeit von den ganz Kleinen bis zu den Großen gemacht. Der Gender-Aspekt ist genauso dabei wie die Erziehungsfunktion, also zum Beispiel der Grundgedanke, den Gegner zu respektieren – egal welche Religion, welche Hautfarbe er hat. Wir benötigen Journalisten, um das zu transportieren. Daher haben sie eine ganz wichtige und verantwortungsvolle Aufgabe. Man sollte nicht nur die negativen Aspekte hervorheben. Medien haben eine Verantwortung und dieser müssen sie sich bewusst sein. Daher muss eine Berichterstattung auch immer ausgewogen sein – auch wenn die Quote das Leben der Journalisten belastet.

Sie haben in einem Vortrag für Nachwuchsjournalisten gesagt, durch Sport ließen sich mittel- oder langfristig Kriege verhindern. Das ist ein sehr hohes Ziel. Wie meinen Sie das? Ich bin mir darüber im Klaren, dass der Sport Kriege nicht verhindern kann. Das haben wir nach der Eröffnungsfeier in Peking gesehen, als in Georgien auf einmal Panzer rollten. Und das obwohl wir wenige Monate zuvor bei den Vereinten Nationen einstimmig den olympischen Frieden beschlossen hatten. Das war ein furchtbarer Schlag. Aber das Beste der Spiele war für mich, als die russische Medaillengewinnerin von der georgischen bei der Siegerehrung des Luftpistolenwettbewerbs umarmt worden ist. Das war ein unglaublich wichtiges Symbol und hat der Politik deutlich die Rote Karte gezeigt und gesagt: Wir sind die Menschen und wir kriegen das ohne Waffen hin. Das war ein Signal des Friedens an die Welt.

Sie haben auch betont, dass durch die WM in Südafrika ein ehemals gespaltenes Land zusammengeführt werden könne. Ja, absolut. Ich sehe das als eine ganz große Chance und Herausforderung. Warum: Weil wir der Auffassung sind, dass die Menschen mit Stolz darauf schauen werden, wenn sie eine positive WM zustande gebracht haben – nicht in sportlicher Hinsicht, sondern als Gastgeber. Unterschiedliche Bevölkerungsgruppen werden zusammenrücken. Fußball kann das schaffen, was andere Bereiche nicht können. In Südafrika können sie dann sagen: Guckt mal, auf diesem Kontinent kriegen wir was hin, alle sind sicher, wir sind logistisch gut drauf, wir können etwas von A bis Z perfekt organisieren. Das ist innen- wie außenpolitisch ein Signal und schafft Vertrauen. Investoren werden kommen – das ist dringend erforderlich, damit Arbeitsplätze geschaffen, Armut und Elend bekämpft werden können und sich das Land friedlich weiterentwickeln kann.

Das klingt nach einem wichtigen Projekt für die Vereinten Nationen. Die WM ist eine ganz große Aufgabe. Der UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon hat mir gesagt: Südafrika muss ein Erfolg werden – nicht nur für das Land, sondern für den gesamten Kontinent. Das hat Priorität. Das Turnier ist Risiko und Chance zugleich. Es gibt natürlich Herausforderungen, aber auch unendlich viel Potential. Es war eine mutige Entscheidung der Fifa und wir werden sie unterstützen.

Man denkt bei Entwicklungshilfe daran, die Wasserqualität zu verbessern oder Krankheiten zu bekämpfen. Was nützt es denn, in einer Schule den Sportunterricht einzuführen? Es ist für einen Bürgermeister irgendwo in Afrika wichtiger, eine Wasserleitung zu haben als einen Basketballkorb. Das ist völlig klar. Natürlich müssen die Grundbedingungen erst einmal gegeben sein. Wenn du die aber hast, darfst du auf den Sport nicht verzichten. Der Sport gehört dazu, die Kinder haben ein Recht auf Sport, ein Recht zu spielen und sich zu bewegen. Denn das hat eine Vielzahl von Funktionen, beispielsweise im pädagogischen Bereich. Wenn man einem Kind klar macht, dass es jeden Tag üben muss, um die Bananenflanke eines Tages zu beherrschen, wird es leichter kapieren, dass auch beim Vokabeln-Lernen das Üben wichtig ist. Genauso ist es bei Mathematik und Biologie.

Aber ist es überhaupt möglich, den Sport bei all den Problemen in den hilfsbedürftigen Ländern als entwicklungspolitisches Instrument einzusetzen? Natürlich ist mir klar, dass sie im Slum von Nairobi keine Mutter-Kind-Krippe finden, sondern verzweifelte Frauen, die versuchen, das Leitungswasser zu erhitzen, damit sie es trinken können. Das ist ein viel wichtigeres Problem als die sportliche Bewegungsstunde. Aber trotzdem hat das Kind ein Recht darauf, und daher sollten wir von den Vereinten Nationen versuchen, ganz gezielt Projekte im Sport anzubieten, die auch fortgesetzt werden, wenn die Entwicklungshilfe ausläuft. Das ist nämlich der entscheidende Punkt. Es dürfen keine Disteln auf der Sportanlage wachsen, weil sich keiner verantwortlich fühlt, wenn das Projekt abgeschlossen ist. Ich möchte eine Entwicklungspolitik, die die Menschen vor Ort mitnimmt. Sie müssen von sich aus sagen, wir wollen nicht mehr ohne Sport klar kommen und kümmern uns darum. Dann ist es optimal gelaufen…

…was in welchen Projekten der Fall ist? Ich kann da einige nennen. Das erwähnte Judo-Projekt finde ich sehr beeindruckend, weil es ausschließlich von Menschen aus der Elfenbeinküste selbst umgesetzt wird. Ich habe zudem ein Projekt in Durban gesehen, dass sehr meiner Auffassung entsprach – unterstützt von der Kommunalverwaltung. In einem Township mit tausenden von Teilnehmern, in sieben Sportarten, verschiedenen Locations und mit eigenen Übungsleitern. Das Tolle war, dass sich so viele zusammengeschlossen haben, um Sport zu treiben und Veranstaltungen zu organisieren. Die Menschen im Township wurden involviert und das ist besser und nachhaltiger, als es ohne dieses Potential, nur von oben herab, zu organisieren.

Es werden aber hauptsächlich westliche Sportarten verbreitet. Spielen bei Ihnen auch lokale Sportarten eine Rolle? Eine Kontinentalmeisterschaft im Bambuswerfen wird man sich nicht anschauen und man wird keine Sponsoren finden. Das ist das Problem. Aber ich möchte betonen, dass traditionelle Veranstaltungen unbedingt gefördert werden sollten, unter anderem auch von der Unesco. Wenn ich da etwas bewegen kann, würde ich mich immer für eine besondere Förderung durch die Vereinten Nationen oder deren Unterorganisationen einsetzen.

Welche Funktionen soll der Sport in Zukunft übernehmen und was haben Sie persönlich vor? Ich bin froh, dass mir Ban Ki-moon erneut Vertrauen geschenkt hat und ich für ein weiteres Jahr diesen tollen Job fortführen darf. Ich möchte mich für die Kinder in Gaza einsetzen und bin gerade dabei, mit meinem Büro in Genf nach Möglichkeiten zu suchen, wie ich die UN-Hilfsorganisation für palästinensische Flüchtlinge im Nahem Osten bei den Sommersportspielen in Gaza unterstützen kann. Außerdem möchte ich Schulen aus Entwicklungsländern mit Schulen aus Industrieländern zusammenbringen. Von Kind zu Kind, von Schule zu Schule, von Land zu Land. Es kostet keinen einzigen Pfennig, kein Steuergeld, keinen UN-Dollar. Du musst nur die Herzen der Kinder erreichen. Erst vor wenigen Monaten habe ich eine Partnerschaft zwischen einer südafrikanischen und einer Bremer Grundschule organisiert. Die Kinder haben gejubelt. Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Lebensumfeld Anderer halte ich für unglaublich wichtig, damit man seine eigene Lebenssituation einzuschätzen lernt. Ich glaube, dass Sport ein Mittel zur positiven Veränderung der Welt sein kann…

…und auch zur Veränderung Ihres Gemütszustandes, wenn Werder gewinnt. Wie oft sind Sie denn noch im Weserstadion? Fast immer. Ich richte meinen Terminplan nach den Werder-Spielen. Ich schaue, dass ich mit dem Flugzeug immer so lande, dass ich um 15.30 Uhr ins Stadion kann. Wenn ich dann allerdings am Sonntag schon wieder weg muss, meckert meine Frau.

veröffentlicht im Magazin des Journalistenseminars
“Bildkorrekturen – Sport, Entwicklung und Medien” von Inwent in Feldafing vom 27.-29. November 2008

If there was ever a week where events conspired to push Afghanistan out of the headlines, this was it. First the Fort Hood tragedy, and then Saturday’s health care vote, occupied our political media this week, sidelining the aftermath of Dr. Abdullah’s withdrawal from the runoff election.

After deliberating briefly, the Independent Electoral Commission cancelled the second vote and declared Hamid Karzai president-elect on Monday, the day after Abdullah’s announcement. The Post describes the “collective sigh of relief” in Kabul, accompanied by “celebratory text messages” and honking horns, as it became clear that the country wouldn’t be subjected to a second round of polls.

President Obama was quick to make hay out of the announcement, using his congratulatory phone call to Karzai to deliver a lecture on the importance of cracking down on corruption. Karzai, of course, has been making eager noises about doing so, but has been unwilling to get specific. His victory press conference was heavy on references to corruption, but check out this quote: “These problems cannot be solved by changing high-ranking officials. We’ll review the laws and see what problems are in the law, and we will draft some new laws.” That hardly sounds like the zeal of a reformer. And when U.N. envoy Kai Eide called for an end to the “culture of impunity” at a press conference, the Afghan Foreign Ministry issued a stern statement equating Eide’s words with “issuing instructions concerning the composition of Afghan government”, which they termed a violation of sovereignty.

What Obama and his allies want, as one European diplomat said, is “a couple of high-profile heads on a platter”. (One of those “heads”, that of Mohammed Qasim Fahim, was flanking Karzai during his press conference. Another, that of Abdul Rashid Dostum, arrived in Afghanistan for unexplained reasons on Monday night.) Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wants to see some prosecutions of corrupt officials, and Gordon Brown hit basically the same notes in a speech on Friday, claiming that he wouldn’t put British troops “in harm’s way for a government that does not stand up against corruption”. To give Karzai a nudge in the right direction, the U.S. and its allies are drafting a “compact” for Afghanistan, according to McClatchy, that lays out some of the specific reforms they’d like Karzai to implement, such as ceding more authority to the provinces.

Whatever is going on in private, the American government’s public response to the election debacle continues to be inconsistent and occasionally farcical. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, for example, twisted himself in knots denying that the Afghan government has a legitimacy problem. Hillary Clinton became the latest American official to hedge her bets by speaking of the U.S.’ desire to have a partner “not just in the president” but in local Afghan government as well; Spencer Ackerman thinks this reflects the influence of counterinsurgency advocates like John Nagl and Richard Fontaine, who have argued that the Obama administration should focus development efforts at the local level to bypass the Kabul morass.

The days of buying time for a strategy review may be coming to an end. Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin reports that Richard Holbrooke, et al., are rearranging their schedules to accommodate the rollout, and that “certain embassy representatives” in Washington are to be consulted about the review’s results shortly. McClatchy claims that Obama’s decision will be for 34,000 more troops in Afghanistan, arriving starting next March; according to the Times, the administration has settled on three possible scenarios, with ~34,000 representing the middle option, 40,000 the high ened, and 20-25,000 the minimum. (For what it’s worth, on InTrade, you can get 15:1 odds in favor of a 10,000+ increase being announced before December 31.)

It looks like prospects for a coalition government are dim, as Abdullah’s stance against participating in the government isn’t showing signs of softening. In Abdullah’s first media appearance since withdrawing, he sniped at Karzai’s legitimacy and criticized the IEC for cancelling the runoff, a decision he called “illegal”. He sounds more like an opposition leader than a potential coalition partner, and Steve Coll of the New America Foundation suggests that this is precisely how he wants to be seen in the West: a statesman who can “remain a viable figure in post-Karzai Afghanistan” rather than a “confirmed election loser”. This way, Abdullah has a stronger hand to play when he negotiates for reform–as he puts it, he’ll “act like a pressure group“. Wali Massoud, brother of Ahmad Shah Massoud and an Abdullah supporter, sounds downright happy with the situation: “”We are a force to be reckoned with for any government in this country.”

One Abdullah supporter who seems less enthused about the present situation is Balkh governor Atta Mohammed Noor, who seems determined to make himself the public face of discontentment with Karzai. Writing at the Asia Times, Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar argues that Noor’s real issue is with Abdul Rashid Dostum, not Karzai, and that Turkey could make use of its good offices to relax the tension between the two warlords. Nevertheless, Noor is still clamoring for Karzai supporters to be given some number of posts in the new government and making ominous remarks like this: “We do not want to use violence to further our demands — but the people have the right to defend themselves if democratic norms are violated.” So far, however, clashes between Karzai’s supporters and his opponents hae mostly been verbal–like the tiff that shut down the Wolesi Jirga on Thursday, complete with MPs issuing “threats of beating”, according to Pajhwok.

Election fallout aside, two other developments from the past week bear reporting, and both (unsurprisingly) make the task in Afghanistan more coplicated for the U.S. and its allies. First, the U.N. is temporarily removing 600 foreign workers from Afghanistan in the wake of last week’s attack on the guest house that killed several employees. That represents about half of the U.N.’s foreign staff in Kabul, and the fact that the U.N. is establishing an Afghanistan office in Dubai suggests that not all of those people will be returning. Ban Ki-Moon wants $75 million to beef up security in Kabul, possibly for the creation of a fortified compound. As the Center for American Progress’ Brian Katulis points out, this will drastically complicate the “civilian surge” that may or may not be happening, especially since it sends the signal that civilians are the weak underbelly of the international presence in Afghanistan.

The second development is the killing of five British soldiers by a “rogue” Afghan policeman at a checkpoint in Helmand on Wednesday. IWPR investigates his motivations here (note that the Taliban have not claimed responsibility), as well as the reaction of Afghan police and Helmandis to the incident. The shooting made this the deadliest year for British troops since 1982 (Falkland Islands war), and sent shockwaves through the British press at a time when the U.K. is already fairly confused about the nature of its mission in Afghanistan. A former Foreign Office minister responsible for Afghanistan, Kim Howells, called for a pullout from Afghanistan this week and used the incident to cast doubt on the success of the British training mission in Helmand.

Found a really well-written article in the Economist about the falling fertility rate and how it is socially and economically affecting the standard of living around the world.  A few main points/highlights:

• Over the next decade, half of humanity will be having only enough children to replace itself, or: the fertility rate (# of children a women is likely to have over her lifetime) will be about 2.0 (two children for two parents)
• This will unsurprisingly include Japan (who I think is already below replacement) and Russia, but surprisingly will include south India!
• Iran’s fertility rate rose to seven after the clerical regime took over in the 1980s, but by 2006 it had fallen to 1.9 (incredible!), speaking to the crowds of 15-29 year-olds, 1/3 of the population, that became so vocal over the recent elections–a baby-boom generation whose life quality/education has greatly grown
• Research has shown that, globally, there are a huge number of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies; the actual and wanted fertility rate usually differ by as much as 1.0 (women in all but the richest countries want about one less children); this is largely a result of the lack of both contraceptives and education, which fortunately have both become move available of late
• The switch from high to low fertility is producing a “Goldilocks generation” –a large work force; this phenomenon is being seen in both Asia and Latin America and significantly contributes to surges of economic growth (this might be annoying later as they age, see: Japan & Europe)

I find this so interesting.  This is the stuff I want to study–global trends that are clearly linked to life quality. Fertility and poverty seem to be some of the strongest correlations in terms of developmental factors, both inter- and intra-state.  I’m guessing delving much further into this might eventually lead to some ethical dilemmas–even in this article, the reference to China’s one-child policy and how it has been beneficial despite the female infanticide and forced abortions made my conscience prickle–but that just makes it all the more interesting!

I suspect my fascination with this originates largely from my super-nerdian double major of international relations and economics.  As much as I don’t like to admit it: I love graphs.  Especially when they’re about development, and especiallyer when they have adorable children cleverly incorporated.

Also greatly enjoyed this Huffington article brought to my attention by my thesis friend Ben.  My affinity/respect for Mr. Kristof (and his wife) has grown from an initial inexplicable hesitation to trust his expertise.   Half the Sky is definitely next on my list, although I don’t know about how the quality of my sleep will be affected after that bedtime reading; I read a sample of the first chapter online and it isn’t the lightest fare.

Anyway, the article details, among other things, more of Ban Ki-Moon’s wishy-washyness, the changing status of human rights–erstwhile far from “lofty and complex…serious issue[s]” like non-pro but since elevated (yay!), and empirical research indicating anecdotal evidence is more charity-inducing than statistical evidence.  This last point, while I fully believe, I think comes nevertheless conditional on relativity.  Because, quite honestly, while individual stories of female circumcision and sexual slavery may move many in the moment, I also feel that this tactic has been so often used that a lot of the public is numb to horrible reality of them.

For instance, a lot of people dislike Kristof’s NYT column not because of the content or the intention but because it makes them uncomfortable to hear about these things, about people so far away and so different that it is hard to imagine they belong to the same species.  Of course, this isn’t entirely the consequence of anecdotal over-exposure, but I do think it is largely the fact that these stories are so prevalent and so consistent that it seems like too complex, unsolvable a problem to begin chipping away at.  It is much easier to shake your head and move on to the Business section, or to ignore it altogether.  One message board poster commented on a Kristof article: “This is one of the things I dislike about Kristof’s columns. He’s always got a prescription, a detailed one at that.”  What?  I don’t even understand what the alternative would be.  Should he just write about a global problem and close with, “So…yeah.  Kinda sucks but. You know.  What are you gonna do?”  Maybe his prescriptions are wrong, but at least they are offered, for improvement, for argument, for stimulation.

Sorry, a little off-track.  The second half of the article touches on Muhammed Yunus, founder of Grameen Bank, Nobel Prize winner and UPenn honorary degree recipient who we saw at graduation in May! (Totally would have been a better speaker than Google CEO Eric GuysIUseTwitter Schmidt.)   Microfinance is also something that I would love to know more about/work with.  I think there are a few criticisms about the logistics, but, in general it has been uncontestedly successful in improving so many lives.

What I couldn’t help thinking while I was reading it, though, was that microfinance would never work  in the United States.  Or, at least would work far less well, I think.  Having encountered my fair share of the homeless in the last five years, I somehow doubt that if you gave one of them $1000–man or woman–they would be able to pay you back with interest in any amount of time.  Of course, $1000 doesn’t go as far by any means in America as much of the third world, particularly in terms of starting your own business, but I have to wonder how much of that money would be spent on cigarettes, or alcohol, or crack.  Poverty in America, at its most extreme, seems to be much more complex than third-world poverty in the sense that money is very much a necessary but by no means sufficient cure.  There is also a very strong cultural difference that fosters this; different priorities, different goals, different assumptions.

In the end, so much of it comes back to education, as I’m finding more and more everything does.  Okay, much longer of an entry than anticipated, what’s new.  Finally, on a lighter note, quote of the day:

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and Jill a rich widow.

–Evan Esar (American humorist, whatever that means)