Couscous: The food so nice, they named it twice… Which doesn’t explain other twice-named things like Ken-Ken or Boutros Boutros-Ghali

“Da Ali G Show: Da Compleet Seereez”
a review by Darby O’Gill

Season 1 DVD:

Going back to where it all began, well for the U.S. at least, Sacha Baron Cohen shows us just how great he can be. If you’ve never seen “Da Ali G Show,” I highly recommend picking up this DVD set. Originally airing here in the states on HBO, this six episode series would have made Andy Kaufman proud. Baron Cohen uses his three alter egos: Ali G, Borat, and Brüno, to travel cross America to interview unsuspecting politicians and celebrities. Now this is as real as it gets. I truly wonder how many agents and managers were fired for setting up these interviews. If you watch closely, at times you can see Sacha trying to hold it together, as even he can’t believe just how far the interview has managed to go. Ali G’s interviews with Buzz Aldrin and Boutros Boutros-Ghali in this season are instant classics.

Rating:

Season 1 DVD Special Features:

• The unedited ‘Spyz’ Movie that Ali G pitches in Hollywood

This ten minute short is hilarious and I would love to know the longest it played before being turned off by a Hollywood executive.

• Unseen footage of Borat at the Hampton’s Horse Show and the American Patriotism Event

This is just uncut footage from the show.

• Audio commentary with Sacha Baron Cohen and Series Producer/Writer Dan Mazer

Sadly it’s only on the first episode, but it’s better than nothing. The nice thing is that even though it’s only the one commentary, you do get a real insight into the making of one of these episodes. They talk about the planning of one of these interviews; from how they write a list of things they would like to happen, to a list of crazy things they could only hope to happen. And more often than not they make it to the crazy list.

• Glossary of Ali G jargon

Not really needed, but there if you want to look at it. It’s just an on screen list of words and phrases. I didn’t really look at all of it.

DVD Special Feature Rating:

Season 2 DVD:

Ali G, Borat, and Brüno are back for another six episodes of interview hijinks. The one bad thing about this series is that there are not nearly enough episodes. It’s basically more of the same as season one. But let’s be honest, is that really such a bad thing? This series could also be called a collection of the most awkward, whitest fist pumps ever. One of the best interviews of this season has to be Ali G’s chat with Pat Buchanan. Repeatedly in this interview Ali G asks Mr. Buchanan about B.L.T.’s in Iraq. At no point does Buchanan correct him that they are W.M.D.’s, and not B.L.T’s, but he even repeats it back to him. This is one of those moments that you can clearly see Sacha trying to push it as far as he can. After talking about the possibility of B.L.T.’s in Iraq, with or without mustard (gas), Ali then asks, “Is it ever worth fighting a war over sandwiches?” This is why this show is so great. Where else can you see a man be interviewed, that has no idea of what’s really going on… besides Fox News that is. And this series truly does save the best for last. On the credits of the last episode, Ali G interviews, well tries to interview, Andy Rooney. Offended. Confused. Pissed off. These are only a few words that could possibly describe Mr. Rooney’s mood. You really have to see it to appreciate it.

Rating:

Season 2 DVD Special Features:

• Ali G gives a commencement speech to the graduating class at Harvard

This is the whole speech, which runs a little long, but funny none-the-less. The best part of watching this, is watching the uptight kid sitting behind Ali G sweat and scan the audience as Ali delivers his raunchy speech.

• Ali G holds an educational summit, interviews linguistics professor Noam Chomsky, and visits an historic naval vessel.

• Borat learns American football in Texas, gets a hunting lesson at an exclusive ranch, and lunches with the Arizona Republican Party.

• Brüno dishes gossip with a Hollywood stylist, and visits a psychic to speak to his late boyfriend, and much more. (Well not really. These four things are the only special features on the DVD. I really hate when they pull this shit.)

This is just unused footage, it runs just under forty minutes, and has some nice moments in it. One of the best is when Borat is hunting in Texas and outs a hunter’s dislike for Jews. Little does the hunter know that he is talking to a Jew.

DVD Special Feature Rating:

Pe rmanent Mission of the Arab League – Report Conclusions of the Independent Fact Finding Committee on Gaza,

Presented by :

Professor John DUGARD, Chairman of the Committee,
The UNWHF Human Rights Commission, meeting in Geneva, has been told that the situation is now so serious that only an international force in the region can bring an end to the violence.
La Commission des Nations Unies UNWHF, en reunion a Geneve et a Bruxelles le 9 Juin 2009 a RESIDENCE PALACE – Rue de la Loi 155 – BE-1040 Brussels
Phone : 0032474276857

Hanan Ashrawi addresses the commission
The Palestinian representative called on the EU to become more involved
John Dugard, the commission’s special investigator to the Palestinian territories, presented a report detailing a string of human rights violations.
Professeur John DUGARD, President de la Commission Special d’Investigation pour les Territoires Palestiniens, mandate par l’ONU, a presente un rapport detaille des violations des Droits Humains par Israel en Territoire Palestiniens

They included the indiscriminate killing of civilians by both sides; the destruction of Palestinian homes by the Israeli military; the detention of children and the continuing settlement of Israeli communities on Palestinian land.
Incluant les preuves des meurtres perpetres par l’Armee Israelienne sur les populations civiles, y compris des Juifs vivant a Ghaza ; la detention d’enfants, la destruction des habitations et des structures necessaires a la vie quotidienne des populations.

His report concludes that the two parties are unable to bring the violence to an end by themselves and that an international peace-keeping force is now imperative.
Ce rapport conclu que les deux parties en presence sont incapables de regler durablement leurs problemes et que la mise en place du programme UNWHF est la solution aux problemes socio-economiques des deux pays, pour l’installation d’une paix durable

But the Israeli Government refused to co-operate with Mr Dugard during his visits to the region, claiming he had no authority.
Le Gouvernement Israelien a refuse de co-operer avec le Professeur John Dugard durant la visite de la Commission dans la region, clamant qu’il n’avait aucune autorite.

Mr Gonzalo BOYE, member of the Commission for application of Human Rights, confirm that the European Parliament Commission composed by Ms Marina LE PEN, Ms for the Isreal’s relations are not presents and no participations -

Who is Mr Gonzalo BOYE : GONZALO BOYE, QUE CUMPLIÓ CONDENA POR COLABORAR CON ETA
El abogado de una víctima del 11-M ejerce la defensa de una etarra del grupo Donosti
El letrado Gonzalo Boye, que representa a una víctima en el juicio del 11-M, ejerce además la defensa de la presunta etarra Lorea Irigoyen Arbizu, arrestada en marzo en la operación de la Guardia Civil contra el grupo Donosti. Así figura en el recurso interpuesto contra el procesamiento de Irigoyen al que ha tenido acceso Libertad Digital, en el que el abogado alega que el único vínculo de Irigoyen con ETA es su relación de pareja con otro imputado. Boye, que fue condenado a diez años de cárcel por colaborar con ETA en el secuestro de Emiliano Revilla, recusó a uno de los peritos autores del informe de los explosivos por ser miembro de la AVT. VEA DENTRO EL RECURSO QUE FIRMA BOYE.



returns, sebelius, tax | No Comments »
Geneva Convention Did Not Apply To Terrorists
on March 30, 2009 lawcom-lawyer-ex-us-officials-must-face-torture-charges -
Six former Bush administration officials accused in a Spanish complaint of sanctioning the torture of terror suspects should come to Spain to face justice, a human rights lawyer urged Monday. If they are innocent they shouldn’t be afraid, lawyer Gonzalo Boye, one of the rights lawyers behind the complaint, told The Associated Press in an interview. The case against the American officials — including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith — was brought by human rights lawyers before Spain’s investigative judge Baltasar Garzon, who has sent it on to prosecutors to see if the charges merit a full investigation.It alleges the men gave legal cover to the torture of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by claiming that the U.S. president could ignore the Geneva Conventions and by adopting an overly narrow legal definition of torture.In addition to Gonzales and Feith, the complaint names former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington; Justice Department officials John Yoo and Jay S. Bybee; and Pentagon lawyer William Haynes.Spanish law gives its courts jurisdiction beyond national borders in cases of torture or war crimes, based on a doctrine known as universal justice, though the government has recently said it hopes to limit the scope of the legal process.

On the 9 june 2009,in Residence Palace, the European Union is represented by Her Royal Highness, princess EDWIGE Vincent Caudie de Bourbon, she confirm the importance to put in place the World Human Facility program of United Nations, and the Private Budget WHF for all, to avoid conflicts, forced immigrations – As you know, Palestinians are obliged working in Israel to obtain their ressources, or in fact they are very rich, because Palestinian on Gaza has the most important ressources in GAZ
L’Union Europeenne etait representee par S.A.R. Princesse Edwige Vincent Caudie de Bourbon, elle confirme l’importance de la mise en place immediate du programme World Humann Facility WHF, pour que tous les conflits cessent immediatement, ainsi que les immigrations forcees – Comme vous le savez, les Palestiniens sont obliges de travailler en Israel pour assurer leur vie quotidienne, alors que la Palestine Bande de Ghaza est une des regions les plus riches en GAS.

In another rebuff, Israel’s representative to the commission dismissed the report’s findings, saying Israel would continue to defend itself against terrorist attacks.
‘Nation in captivity’

Hanan Ashrawi, representing the Palestinian Authority, received applause from commission delegates following a speech in which she talked of the pain of a nation in captivity.
Hanan Ashrawi, representante des Autorites Palestinienne, a ete tres applaudi par les delegues de la Commission des Droits Humains pour son discours du Malheur d’une Nation en Captivite
Mrs Ashrawi called on the European Union to become more involved in the peace process, claiming this would provide a balance to what she described as the favouritism of the United States towards Israel.
Mrs Ashrawi a demande a l’Union Europeenne d’intervenir afin de solutionner le processus de Paix, mentionnant que les Etats Unis ne devait plus faire de favoritisme vis a vis d’Israel.

Professor Paul DE WAART , member of the Commission of Gaza, is a Flamish personnality :
Professeur Paul DE WAART, membre de la Commission de Ghaza, est une personnalite Belge Flamande aul de Waart,
Professor of International Law, University of Amsterdam – The Netherlands
Paul de Waart has been a journalist from 1952 to 1962. In 1962 he entered the Development cooperation department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague until 1978. In 1974 was appointed extraordinary professor of international law at the Faculty of Law VU University Amsterdam. In 1978 full professor of international law. Emeritus professor of international law since 1997. He has been member of the ad Hoc United Nations Group of Experts on the Right to Development (1981-1987) and Chair joint Academic Project “Dynamics of Self-Determination” of Israeli, Palestinian and Western researchers from 1988 to 1993. Member of the former committees of the International Law Association on Legal Aspects of a New International Economic Order (1980-1992) and Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development (1992 ‚Äì 2002), since 2002 he is also member of the current Committee on the International Law of Sustainable Development. His publications include books and articles on human rights, development issues and international settlement of disputes.
* Nico Schrijver, Willem van Genugten, Kees Homan, Paul de Waart, The United Nations of the Future. Globalisation with a Human Face, Amsterdam: KIT Publishers, 2006, 304 p. ‘The Future of the Charter of the United Nations’, in: Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2006), “Les valeurs fondamentales et le droit des Nations Unies”, Colloque sur la Chartre des Nations Unies, Paris, 2006.
Avec Nicki Boldt, Björn Elberling, Nicholas Li, Richard Norman, Otto Spijkers, Tobias Thienel,

The Invisible College UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN
Ils sont membres comme Jacques Attali, Mi

ALL OF THEM KNEW THOSE FACTS, THEY NEVER IN FACT APPLY THE HUMAN RIGHTS, LES PERSONNES CI-DESSOUS CONNAISSENT PARFAITEMENT TOUS CES CRIMES DEPUIS DES ANNEES ILS N’ONT EN FAIT JAMAIS APPLIQUE LES DROITS HUMAINS CONVENTION DE GENEVE, COMPLICES DE CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE :
Presidency CRAL Foundation, Gianfranco Pittator
Presidency CRT Foundation, Andrea COMBA
<img src=”http://esperanceesperanza.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/paolo-filippi-cio-of-alessandria.jpg” alt=”Paolo Filippi – CIO of Alessandria” title=”Paolo Filippi – CIO of Alessandria” width=”100″ height=”123″ class=”alignnone size-full wp-image-144″ />Presidency Province of Alessandria, Paolo Filippi
Presidency Province of Turin
Presidency Region of Piedmont, Mercedes BRESSO
Giulio Andreotti, Secretaire du Pape, Premier Ministre Italy, Secretary of the Pope, Prime Minister of Italy
Oscar Arias Sanchez, President du Costa Rica
Jacques Attali, President de la Banque Europeenne de Developpement, President of The European Bank of Development
Alexandr Bessmertnykh, Foreign Office of Russia, Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres de Russie
Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Premier Ministre du Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto – assassinee -
Paul Bono, Singer Human Rights Activistics IRELANDE, Chanteur activist aupres de l’UN
Aldo Bonomi, Founder of AASTER – Italy – Foundateur de AASTER
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretaire General des Nations Unies, ONU, General Secretary of United Nations NU
Algirdas Brazauskas, Prime Minister of LITHUANIA, Premier Ministre de LITHUANIE
Michel Camdessus, President du Fond Monetaire International, President of the International Monetary Fund, FMI
Fernando H. Cardoso, President of Brazil, President du Bresil, famille CARDOSO-BARROSO-SUAREZ,
Luigi Guidobono Cavalchini, President de UniCredit Banque Italie, CIO of the UniCredit Private Banking ITALY
H.E. Mons. Fernando Charrier, Monseigneur Charrier et Eveque d’Alessandria, Mons. Charrier is Bishop of Alessandria
Sergio Chiamparino, Maire de Turin Italie, Burgmeister of Turini, Mayor of Turin
Giulietto Chiesa, Journalist of the European Parliament for ITALY, Journaliste au Parlement Europeen pour ITALIE
Emilio Colombo, Senator, Senateur, Prime Minister of Italy, Premier Ministre Italie
Francesco Cossiga, Senator, Senateur, President de l’Italie, President of the Italia Republic
Enrique Baron Crespo, Membre du Parlement Europeen, European Parliament Member
Ralf Dahrendorf, member of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, membre de la Commission Europeenne
Gianni De Michelis, member of the European Parliament, membre du Parlement Europeen
Jacques Delors, Chairman of the European Commission, President de la Commission Europeenne, President of the European Socialist Party, President du Parti Socialist Europeen,- Actuellement Actually : Jose Manuel Barroso
Carlo Mario Demicheli, Maire de Bosco Marengo, Burgmeister von Bosco Marengo, Maoyor of Bosco Marengo – Italy
Gernot Erler, President of the SPD Baden Wurttemberg – Allemagne – Germany
Hans Dietrich Genscher, Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres de l’Allemagne, Minister Foreign Office of Germany
Enzo Ghigo, member of the Regional Council of Piedmont, Membre du Conseil de Region du Piedmont, Italie
Marshall Goldman, Professeur Emeritus of Russian, Kathryn Wasserman Davis Institute – Harvard USA
Morimasa Goya
Andrei Grachev, Membre du Conseil de l’UNESCO – Japan, Japon
Inder Kumar Gujral, Premier Ministre de l’Inde, Prime Minister of India
Gyula Horn, Premier Ministre de Hongrie, Prime Minister of Hungary
Wojciech Jaruzelski, President de Pologne, President of Poland
Pierre Joxe, Ministry of Interior, Ministre de l’Interieur, Membre du Conseil Constitutionnel, Member of the Constitutional Council with President Jacques Chirac and Presidetn Valery Giscard d’Estaing- France
Toshiki Kaifu, Prime Minister of Japan, Premier Ministre du Japon
Helmut Kohl, President of CDU, President of Chretiens Democrates, Chancellier Federal d’Allemagne, Federal Chancellor of Germany – Actually, actuellement : Angela Merkel
Vincenzo Maddaloni, Journalist Italy, Medias
Jack Matlock, Ambassadeur des Etats Unis aupres de la Russie, Embassador of the USA for Russia
Federico Mayor Zaragoza, Mayor of Zaragoza, President de l’UNESCO pour ESPAGNE – President of UNESCO for Spain,
Tadeus Mazowiecki, Premier Ministre de Pologne, Prime Minister of Poland
Keba Mbaye, Vice President of the International Court of Justice, Vice President de la Cour International de Justice, TPI, Tribunal Penal International de LA HAYE
Jiang Ming Jung, President des Nations Unies de l’Academie Internationale d’Ecologie, President of the International Academy of Ecology – The Green, les Verts, ALDE – China, Chine
Mons. Andrea di Montezemolo, Nonce Apostolique aupres de Sa Saintete le Pape Benoit XVI, Apostolic Nuncio for Holly See The Pope Benedict XVI
Klaus Naumann, President du Comite de l’Organisation Traite Atlantique Nord OTAN , President of the Committee of the Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty NATO – Germany
Nursultan Nazarbayev, President de la Republique du Kazakhstan,
Fabrizio Palenzona, Vice President of Credit Unit Group – Italy
Georgi Parvanov, President de la BULGARIE, President of Bulgaria
Li Peng, President du Comite National de la Republique Populaire de Chine, Chairman Standing Committee National People’s of China
Shimon Peres, President of Israel, Nobel Price
Yevgeni Primakov, Premier Ministre de Russie, Prime Minister of Russia – Actually, actuellement : Vladimir PUTIN
Alessandro Profumo, Directeur de UniCredit Group, Director of UniCredit Group – ITALY
Jordi Pujol, President de Region Catalogne, President of Region of Catalonia
Michel Rocard, Membre du Parlement Europeen, Member of the European Parliament, Prime Minister of France, Premier Ministre de la France – Actuellement Actually : Francois FILLON
Deng Rong, Embassador Diplomatic Representation of China for USA, Ambassadeur de la Chine aupres des Etats Unis d’Amerique
Mara Scagni, Mayor of Alessandria
Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, Senator, President de l’Italie
Rudolf Schuster< president de la Slovaquie, President of Slovac Republic
Tadahiro Sekimoto, President of Institute International Socio-Economics Studies in Japan
Achille Silvestrini, great Chancellor of the Oriental Pontifical Institute – Roma Italy – Holly See -
Lord Robert Skidelsky, Chairman Central Global Studies CGS
Mario Soares, President of Portugal, Member of the European Parliament, membre du Parlement Europeen,
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Archeveque Desmond TUTU, Secretaire General du Conseil d’Afrique du Sud, General Secretary of South Africa
Hubert Vedrine, Minister of Foreign Office for France, Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres de la France – Actuellement Actually = Dr Bernard KOUCHNER
Ilario Viano, Prof et Dr Chemoterapy, President de l’Ordre des Medecins de l’Italy - Actuellement Actually : President de l’Ordre des Medecins D’Europe Dr Fruhling, Academy Royale de Medecine de Bruxelles
Antje Vollmer, Vice President of the Bundestag – Allemagne
Milos Zeman, Premier Ministre de la Republique Tcheque, Prime Minister of the Czech Republic

A SEASON OF DEPRESSING POLITICAL RE-RUNS

John Chuckman

Recent political events resemble nothing so much as re-runs of movies that should never have been released the first time.

Bush has gone to Europe to “ease tensions” in the NATO alliance. Of course, those very tensions were his work entirely, but a sense of the ridiculous never discourages a Jehovah’s Witness with a long list of house calls to make.

If you read the fine print under the marketing blurbs for Bush’s trip – much like the microscopically-printed disclaimer for a new prescription drug that hasn’t undergone adequate testing – you will see that Bush’s effort is directed at nothing more than securing European help in the mess he has made of Iraq. This is just a new, more subdued episode of previous Bush whining about being “either with us or against us.” He wants a shred of legitimacy for what he’s done, and he wants other people to help pay his enormous bills. Fortunately, it appears at this writing that Europe, while listening politely and offering a cookie to soothe Bush’s whining, is not about to alter its sensible course.

In another dreary re-run, America’s Republicans have focused their vicious rage against Kofi Anan, now attacking his son to get at him. This might seem bizarre coming from the friends of Enron, WorldCom, and Halliburton, people whose President made his first dollar in an oil-stock deal that should have seen the SEC sending him to jail, but hypocrisy has become almost a point of pride with Republicans, particularly the Sequined Christian Warrior Wing of the party.

The personal attacks against Anan and his son recall the attacks on former President Clinton and his wife. When it wasn’t about real estate, it was about sex, and when it wasn’t about sex, it was about a friend’s suicide. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with governing the country or policy differences. The noise went on for eight mind-numbing years, revealing an immense store of hatred and the finances to promote it.

Anan was actually America’s compromise to replace Boutros Boutros Ghali, a distinguished intellectual and diplomat, hated and pushed from his post by Americans. His crime was being too cosmopolitan and not pro-American enough, Americans so often blurring the initials U.N. into U.S. Well, since Ghali’s departure, the standard of adequate pro-Americanism has swelled like a malignant brain tumor. The soft-spoken, urbane Anan is just not good enough now, having quietly said during Bush’s re-election campaign that the American invasion of Iraq was illegal, which it clearly was. Anyway, urbanity alone can get you into serious trouble with the Grand Ole Opry crowd running Washington.

A pathetic re-run was the election in Iraq. We saw it in Vietnam and in other places, the claim that some great change had come through forced, much-photographed (and rigged) elections. All those light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel columns and press releases when all that was at the end of the tunnel was a stupendous pile of burnt Vietnamese corpses, mainly civilians. Well, that part too is being repeated in Iraq. Dead civilians. Piles of them every week.

It is reported on the Internet that the Shiite coalition actually received a much larger vote than the figure set to headlines by America’s Office of Auxiliary Propaganda, usually only known by names such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CBS. The vote apparently was shaved behind the scenes from around 60% to 48%, so that the new Iraqi government wouldn’t come in feeling its oats. After all, they have a lot to swallow, including indefinite occupation, the establishment of permanent American airbases, and a new embassy big and well-equipped enough to provide a Middle East White House and Spa for the convenience and comfort of future visiting American dignitaries.

Ah, such faith in democracy! But that is how the game of democracy is played in America itself. The man with the never-explained electronic hump on his back during television debates was “elected” twice using just such methods or variants. Bush holds office with about the same sense of legitimacy as the White House press credentials of a Karl Rove operative with nude pictures on the Internet.

Palestine’s new President, Mahmoud Abbas, is working extremely hard to satisfy every demand of Israel. It is hard to avoid the unpleasant impression of a new maid polishing every spoon and fork late into the night. What is not apparent right now is that Sharon and Abbas have very different ideas of what it is that Abbas is working towards. Abbas certainly has in mind the end of occupation and a genuinely independent Palestinian state. Sharon has in mind the privilege of Abbas continuing through an endless maze called the peace process.

The word “process” should be retired from the English language for a while. Everything has become a process. We have education processes instead of education, political processes instead of politics, and peace processes instead of peace. Sticking “process” onto other words represents an effort to make whatever is happening seem bigger and more impressive than it actually is. I could be convinced to exclude “peace process” from the proposed ban, the inflated nothingness of the phrase pretty much fitting reality in this one instance.

It’s all a re-run because, despite many failings, no one worked harder for an extended period to build the foundations of a Palestinian state and peace with Israel than Arafat. He turned his back on the written reason for his party’s founding, fought a fierce battle with other Palestinian parties, and worked hard for the Oslo Accords. It was all for nothing. At Camp David he was offered the statehood-equivalent of a set of empty barracks at several abandoned Israeli military bases surrounded by barbed wire. Sharon, assisted by the Electronic Hunchback of Washington, grotesquely shoved Arafat into a corner with no permission to speak or travel. Sharon publicly threatened Arafat several times with murder, and of course the circumstances of Arafat’s death remain quite unclear.

And it will prove the same for Abbas. A huge and crushing disillusion lies ahead. Israel’s idea of a “peace process” is endless delays and excuses while establishing “new facts on the ground” (a.k.a. seizing other peoples’ homes, orchards, and water supplies) with the regularity of around-the-clock operations at an automobile stamping plant.

khalil bendib

below is an email i received from my friend jen marlowe on the international day of global action for troy davis:

Dear friends,

Troy Davis is a death row prisoner in Georgia, facing execution for a crime he very possibly didn’t commit. Two weeks ago, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his appeal for a new trial. His stay of execution ends May 15th.

I’ve been corresponding with Troy Davis for about a year and a half, and, through my interest in his case, have begun to grow more concerned about the death penalty in general.

I’m sending you a piece I wrote about Troy specifically and the death penalty generally. The article ran yesterday in CommonDreams.org. As always, I welcome your comments!

The link to the article is:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/10-6

And–I want to point out that May 19th is a day of global action for Troy Davis. There are solidarity events being planned in cities and towns all over the US. I hope you’ll consider taking part. More information is available at:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/troy-davis-finality-over-fairness/sign-up-for-the-day-of-action-for-troy-davis/page.do?id=1011672

All the best,

Jen Marlowe

in jen’s article, “the death penalty club,” to contextualize troy davis’ case, she compares the united states practices of the death penalty with other nations that violate human rights by using this barbaric practice under the guise of so-called “justice”:

The majority of the world has been moving towards abolishing the death penalty. Two thirds of all countries have abolished it in law or in practice-the most recent being Burundi. In all of Europe, Belarus is the only country that still practices capital punishment.

Even with the trend towards abolition, capital punishment remains a crucial global human rights issue, mostly due to a handful of egregious offender nations. In 2008, 2,390 prisoners were executed in twenty-five countries. 93% of those executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United States and Pakistan.

There are the only two countries in the world that have not ratified the UN Convention prohibiting the execution of children. They are Somalia and the United States. There are currently over sixty prisoners on death row in the US for crimes they committed as juveniles.

In April 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed its second Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium on Executions, calling on countries which still practice capital punishment to restrict its use and not apply it to juveniles. Ten countries–including China, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and the US–voted against the Resolution. A similar resolution was adopted by a large majority at the United Nations General Assembly in 2007, and once again this past December. Both times the USA was part of the small minority in dissent.

I don’t know if Troy Davis ponders the fact that our global colleagues regarding capital punishment include China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and Somalia. But our membership in this infamous club should give all of us much pause.

There will all always be another Troy Davis, more and more possibly innocent prisoners on the chopping block, until the United States follows the lead of two-thirds of the world and fully abolishes the death penalty.

this is one of the many reasons why the united states and other countries like china and saudi arabia should not be allowed onto the united nations human rights council as i wrote the other day.

the san francisco bay view news reports on amnesty international’s plans for the global day of action that you can take part in:

To save Troy’s life, “we’re asking everybody to come out strong on May 19th – a day marked in human rights calendars across the world as the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis,” says Amnesty Death Penalty Abolition Campaign Director Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn.

“Whether you’re holding a ‘Text TROY to 90999’ sign on a busy street or organizing your local Amnesty chapter to hold a public demonstration or vigil, we need everybody to … register your Global Day of Action for Troy Davis activity or event now,” she said. For ideas and to register your event, go to Global Day of Action for Troy Davis.

“It’s really important that we get an accurate count of how many events and activities are taking place on May 19th, so we can share this information with officials in Georgia. Our emails and phone calls have gone a long way in buying Troy some much-needed time, but now we’ve got to take our action to the streets.

“We appreciate the tens of thousands of you who have stood in Troy’s corner while heart-stopping scenes have unfolded. On three separate occasions, Troy has been scheduled for execution. And on three separate occasions, his life was saved within a short period of time, even minutes, of his scheduled execution date.

“Each time, those last minute stays came after people like you turned out by the thousands to rally in his defense. It was no coincidence. Troy’s sister and long-time Amnesty activist, Martina Correia, has acknowledged Amnesty’s powerful role in saving her brother’s life each of those times.

“Now here we are again with the clock winding down,” warned the Amnesty spokesperson. “We are serious when we say that we need everyone to support Troy Davis on May 19th by organizing their own event or awareness-raising activity.

“After all, if you had 30 days left to fight for your life, wouldn’t you want to know that you had thousands standing in your corner?”

here is an interesting animated video from amnesty international explaining the context of troy davis’ case:

and for some inspiration and why capital punishment should be abolished here are the lyrics for one of my favorite ani difranco songs, “crime for crime” (back before ani drank the obama koolaid):

everyone needs to see the prisoner
they need to make it even easier
they see me as a symbol, and not a human being
that way they can kill me
say it’s not murder, it’s a metaphor
we are killing off our own failure
and starting clean

standing in the gallows
everyone turned my way
i hear a voice ask me
if i’ve got any last words to say
and i’m looking out over the field of familiar eyes
somewhere in a woman’s arms a baby cries

i think guilt and innocence
they are a matter of degree
what might be justice to you
might not be justice to me
i went too far, i’m sorry
i guess now i’m going home
so let any amongst you cast the first stone
now we’ve got all these complicated machines
so no one person ever has to have blood on their hands
we’ve got complex organizations
and if everyone just does their job
no one person has to understand

you might be the wrong color
you might be too poor
justice isn’t something just anyone can afford
you might not pull the trigger
you might be out in the car
and you might get a lethal injection
’cause we take a metaphor that far

but it isn’t just troy davis. and it isn’t just the death penalty that should be up for discussion. troy davis’ case is important, but it should be a symbol of abolishing the death penalty more generally. and it should be a symbol of what is wrong with the so-called “criminal justice” system more generally as well. it should also force us to think about and resist the united states’ practices at guantánamo, especially in light of what jeremy scahill recently revealed about its immediate reaction force or emergency reaction force, but as scahill explains, it is known as the extreme repression force:

Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented 50 Guantánamo prisoners, including 31 still imprisoned there, has seen the IRF teams up close. “They’re goons,” he says. “They’ve played a huge role.”

While much of the “torture debate” has emphasized the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” defined by the twisted legal framework of the Office of Legal Council memos, IRF teams in effect operate at Guantánamo as an extrajudicial terror squad that has regularly brutalized prisoners outside of the interrogation room, gang beating them, forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner’s head, banging their heads on concrete floors and hog-tying them — sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end.

The IRF teams “were fully approved at the highest levels [of the Bush administration], including the Secretary of Defense and with outside consultation of the Justice Department,” says Scott Horton, one of the leading experts on U.S. Military and Constitutional law. This force “was designed to disabuse the prisoners of any idea that they would be free from physical assault while in U.S. custody,” he says. “They were trained to brutally punish prisoners in a brief period of time, and ridiculous pretexts were taken to justify” the beatings.

So notorious are these teams that a new lexicon was created and used by prisoners and guards alike to describe the beatings: IRF-ing prisoners or to be IRF-ed.

Former Guantánamo Army Chaplain James Yee, who witnessed IRFings, described “the seemingly harmless behaviors that brought it on [like] not responding when a guard spoke.” Yee said he believed that during daily cell sweeps, guards would intentionally do invasive searches of the Muslim prisoners’ “private areas” and Korans to “rile the detainees,” saying it “seemed like harassment for the sake of harassment, and the prisoners fought it. Those who did were always IRFed.”

“I’ll put it like this,” Stafford Smith says. “My clients are afraid of them.”

“Up to 15 people attempted to commit suicide at Camp Delta due to the abuses of the IRF officials,” according to the Spanish investigation. Combined with other documentation, including prisoner testimony and legal memos, the IRF teams appear to be one of the most significant forces in the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo, worthy of an investigation by U.S. prosecutors in and of themselves.

the above is just an excerpt, but i strongly recommend reading the entirety of scahill’s investigative report. jonathan cook has an important piece this week on the zionist entity’s guantánamo known as facility 1391:

The United Nation’s watchdog on torture has criticised Israel for refusing to allow inspections at a secret prison, dubbed by critics as “Israel’s Guantanamo Bay”, and demanded to know if more such clandestine detention camps are operating.

In a report published on Friday, the Committee Against Torture requested that Israel identify the location of the camp, officially referred to as “Facility 1391”, and allow access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Findings from Israeli human rights groups show that the prison has in the past been used to hold Arab and Muslim prisoners, including Palestinians, and that routine torture and physical abuse were carried out by interrogators.

The UN committee’s panel of 10 independent experts also found credible the submissions from Israeli groups that Palestinian detainees are systematically tortured despite the banning of such practices by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999.

The existence of Facility 1391 came to light in 2002, when Palestinians were detained there for the first time during Israel’s reinvasion of the West Bank.

In a submission to the UN committee, Israel denied that any prisoners are currently being held at the site, although it admits that several Lebanese were detained there during the attack on Lebanon in 2006.

The committee expressed concern about an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that found it “reasonable” for the state not to investigate suspicions of torture at the prison. The panel is believed to be concerned that without inspections the prison might still be in use or could be revived at short notice.

The Israeli court, the committee wrote, “should ensure that all allegations of torture and ill-treatment by detainees in Facility 1391 be impartially investigated [and] the results made public”.

Hamoked, an Israeli human rights organisation, first identified the prison after two Palestinian cousins seized in Nablus in 2002 could not be traced by their families. Israeli officials eventually admitted that the pair were being held at a secret site.

Israel still refuses to identify the precise location of the prison, which is inside Israel and about 100km north of Jerusalem. A few buildings are visible, but most of the prison is built underground.

“We only learnt about the prison because the army made the mistake of putting Palestinians there when they ran out of room in Israel’s main prisons,” said Dalia Kerstein, the director of Hamoked.

“The real purpose of the camp is to interrogate prisoners from the Arab and Muslim world, who would be difficult to trace because their families are unlikely to contact Israeli organisations for help.”

Ms Kerstein said the prison site was an even grosser violation of international law than Guantanamo Bay because it had never been inspected and no one knew what took place there.

According to the testimonies of the Palestinian cousins, Mohammed and Bashar Jadallah, they were held in isolation cells measuring two metres square, with black walls, no windows and a light bulb on 24 hours a day. On the rare occasions they were escorted outside, they had to wear blacked-out goggles.

When Bashar Jadallah, 50, asked where he was, he was told he was “on the moon”.

According to the testimony of Mohammed Jadallah, 23, he was repeatedly beaten, his shackles tightened, he was tied in painful positions to a chair, he was not allowed to go to the toilet and he was prevented from sleeping, with water thrown on him if he nodded off. Interrogators are also reported to have shown him pictures of family members and threatened to harm them.

Although Palestinians passing through the prison were interrogated by the domestic secret police, the Shin Bet, foreign nationals at the prison fall under the responsibility of a special wing of military intelligence known as Unit 504, whose interrogation methods are believed to be much harsher.

Shortly after the prison came to light, a former inmate – Mustafa Dirani, a leader of the Lebanese Shia group Amal – launched a court case in Israel claiming he had been raped by a guard.

Mr Dirani, seized from Lebanon in 1994, was held in Facility 1391 for eight years along with a Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Abdel Karim Obeid. Israel hoped to extract information from the pair in its search for a missing airman, Ron Arad, downed over Lebanon in 1986.

Mr Dirani alleged in court that he had been physically abused by a senior army interrogator known as “Major George”, including an incident when he was sodomised with a baton.

The case was dropped in early 2004 when Mr Dirani was released in a prisoner exchange.

Ms Kerstein said there was no proof that more prisons existed in Israel like Facility 1391, but some of the testimonies collected from former inmates suggested that they had been held at different secret locations.

She said the concern was that Israel might have been one of the countries that received “extraordinary rendition” flights, in which prisoners captured by the United States were smuggled to other countries for torture.

“If a democracy allows one of these prisons, who is to say that there are not more?” she said.

The committee examined other suspicions of torture involving Israel. It expressed particular concern about Israel’s failure to investigate more than 600 complaints made by detainees against the Shin Bet since the panel’s last hearings, in 2001.

It also highlighted the pressure put on Gazans who needed to enter Israel for medical treatment to turn informer.

Ishai Menuchin, executive director of Israel’s Public Committee against Torture, said his group had sent several submissions to the committee showing that torture was systematically used against detainees.

“After the court decision in 1999, interrogators simply learnt to be more creative in their techniques,” he said.

He added that, since Israel’s redefinition of Gaza as an “enemy state”, some Palestinians seized there were being held as “illegal combatants” rather than “security detainees”.

“In those circumstances, they might qualify for incarceration in secret prisons like Facility 1391.”

i find it so ironic that those who deserve justice–the political prisoners in any number of zionist jails or american jails or guantánamo–are ignored, are rendered invisible meanwhile those whose crimes were committed right out in the open continue to go unpunished. daniel machover and adri nieuwhof’s recent article in electronic intifada detils just why these war criminals form the zionist entity must be prosecuted, particularly for their crimes in the world’s largest open air prison, otherwise known as gaza:

As High Contracting Parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, EU countries are obligated to bring the legal duties of the Fourth Geneva Convention into their law. The basic starting point is enacting any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing or ordering any of the grave breaches of the convention (i.e., war crimes). The following grave breaches mentioned in the convention seem relevant to the assault on Gaza:

“[W]illful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention.”

EU countries also have the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed or to have ordered such grave breaches, and must bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts (or extradite them to another country that is prepared to prosecute).

The authoritative commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, published by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), states that:

“As soon as a contracting party realizes that there is on its territory a person who has committed … a [grave] breach, its duty is to ensure that the person concerned is arrested and prosecuted with all speed. The necessary police action should be taken spontaneously, therefore, not merely in pursuance of a request from another State.”

The ICRC commentary confirms that EU countries have an obligation to actively search for suspected war criminals. It follows that this duty should include maintaining border controls that enable a state to ensure that known suspects seeking to enter the jurisdiction are arrested on arrival. Many studies by human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Redress Trust, have looked at the compliance of states with their legislative obligations under the Geneva conventions and these reveal some shocking failures by major EU countries. Austria, France, Greece and Italy have simply done nothing to make it possible for suspected war criminals to be prosecuted in their countries under the principle of universal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, full compliance with the principle of universal jurisdiction has not been achieved in several countries and in Malta and Latvia the situation is not fully clear and requires further research. For example, in Belgium the requirements to exercise universal jurisdiction do not comply with the Geneva conventions, because they contain a series of complex rules regarding the status of the suspect and the victim, none of which are permitted in the conventions.

The mere presence of a suspected war criminal of whatever nationality on the territory of a state should be enough to trigger universal criminal jurisdiction, regardless of the nationality or current whereabouts of the victim. Moreover, with the EU’s obsession about the safety of borders and preventing undesirable people from entering the free market area, one would have thought that the member states would coordinate to ensure European countries never become safe havens for suspected war criminals.

Palestinian victims of alleged war crimes, just like other victims of war crimes, seek justice and the fair application of the rule of international criminal law to their cases. On 4 May, Judge Fernando Andreu of the Spanish National Court announced the decision to continue the investigation into the July 2002 bombing of al-Daraj, Gaza. This attack resulted in the deaths of 16 Palestinians, including 14 civilians. The decision represents a major step towards achieving justice for the victims. It opens the door for accountability, whereby suspected Israeli war criminals may be held responsible for the suffering they have inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza.

Fair criminal trials in EU member states, especially if they result in convictions, could provide genuine deterrence and begin to provide justice for Palestinian victims of Israeli actions. The EU has a massive role in that regard. Instead of paying lip service to injustices inflicted upon the Palestinian people by issuing statements “deploring the loss of life” and promises to “follow closely investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law,” EU countries would achieve much more by applying the rule of law to Israel, starting with making their laws match their obligations under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. After all, 60 years later there is little sign that the need for war crimes trials has reduced.

hasan abu nimah recently had a two-part article in electronic intifada, the first of which is called “ban ki moon’s moral failure” and the second of which is called “covering up israel’s gaza crimes with the un’s help” shows us how the real criminals–those committing state terrorism–are getting away with mass murder, massacres:

But the reality is that Ban has learned all the “right” lessons from the past. In 1996, then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali published — against American “advice” — a UN report that demolished Israeli claims that its shelling on 18 April that year of the UN peacekeeping base in Qana, Lebanon, killing 106 people, was an accident. Boutros-Ghali effectively paid with his job as the Clinton Administration vetoed his bid for a second term. In 2002, after the Israeli army destroyed much of Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank, the Security Council ordered then Secretary-General Kofi Annan to carry out an investigation. But Israel refused to allow the inquiry team into the country, and so Annan, rather than going back to the Security Council to ask for its support in carrying out his mandate, simply told the investigation team to disband and go home.

Ban is taking things even further. He apparently created the board of inquiry not in order to find out the truth, but only as a political exercise to cover himself from the charge of total inaction. But the board of inquiry members did take their mandate very seriously and honestly. By rejecting their call for accountability, Ban has in effect rejected and betrayed his own mandate to uphold the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.

And on what grounds did the secretary-general decide to publish only 27 pages? Most likely the rest of the report was not only damning to Israel, but would have exposed his decision to block further investigation as even more nakedly cynical.

It is especially puzzling since Ban himself had described the board of inquiry as “independent.” In response to allegations he had “watered down” the document, he stated: “I do not have any authority to edit or change any wording” of its “conclusion and recommendations.”

He did much more than that: he withheld 85 percent of the report! It may be true that the report is just an “internal document and is not for public release” as Ban wrote in his letter, and that the inquiry “is not a judicial body or court of law.”

as usual the real criminals who get away with torture and mass murder are the heads of state in the u.s. and the zionist entity to name the most prominent. and those who fall prey to its rules that never apply to the state itself and usually only to those who are poor and brown and muslim. and so where is the justice system here?

Il paradosso di Istanbul: “L’acqua è una necessità umana fondamentale, ma non un diritto”

Il V World Water Forum (chiusosi a Istanbul il 22 marzo, e organizzato, come le edizioni precedenti di Marrakech, L’Aja, Kyoto, Città del Messico, dal World Water Council, da un think-tank internazionale di governi, esperti, ong e agenzie intergovernative sponsorizzato e di fatto guidato dalle più grandi multinazionali del settore idrico), propone come soluzione le stesse politiche che questa crisi hanno creato: la considerazione dell’acqua come merce, sottoposta alle regole di mercato, e la costruzione di grandi infrastrutture che colpiscono ecosistemi e comunità (del resto l’attuale presidente del World Water Council Loïc Fauchon è allo stesso tempo presidente della  Société des Eaux de Marseille, di proprietà di Suez e Veolia, rispettivamente 70 e 110 milioni di clienti nel mondo, le più grandi multinazionali dell’acqua).

Il forum, come in tutte le passate edizioni, porta avanti la privatizzazione delle risorse idriche del pianeta. Ma oggi il contesto globale appare certamente mutato, con un numero sempre maggiore di Stati che riconosce attraverso interventi legislativi l’acqua come bene comune indisponibile al mercato. In Ecuador e Bolivia il diritto all’acqua viene addirittura sancito nelle nuove Costituzioni. Già in occasione dell’edizione del Forum tenutosi a Città del Messico nel 2006 Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela e Cuba, firmarono congiuntamente una dichiarazione per chiedere che un reale processo democratico, trasparente e aperto si sostituisca al  World Water Forum.

Ma il Forum, incurante del mutato scenario e della crisi globale, che è innanzitutto crisi ambientale e quindi idrica, è andato avanti e per l’edizione del 2009 ha scelto la Turchia come paese ospite. E la Turchia rappresenta un terreno di sperimentazione privilegiato per le politiche degli oligopoli mondiali dell’acqua. Da tempo infatti questo paese ha aperto ai privati la gestione dei servizi idrici e attualmente sta elaborando una legislazione per consegnare al mercato anche le fonti d’acqua. 

Ma non solo. L’Acqua rappresenta un fattore geopolitico cruciale. Riguarda anche la scelta di progetti infrastrutturali come le grandi dighe che erodono spazi vitali ed agricoli, responsabili di milioni di sfollati ambientali e di danni incalcolabili agli ecosistemi fluviali.

Una delle regioni del mondo più colpita da questi progetti è il Kurdistan turco, zona estremamente ricca d’acqua. Ed è proprio per la sua ricchezza che questa regione è stata scelta come il luogo “ideale” per la realizzazione del mega-progetto che prevede la costruzione di dighe, colossale progetto di sviluppo idrico infrastrutturale nel sud-est della Turchia che prevede la costruzione di 22 dighe e 19 impianti idroelettrici sui fiumi Tigri, Eufrate ed i loro affluenti. Una delle principali opere previste è rappresentata dall’impianto Ilisu, che il governo turco intende costruire sul fiume Tigri: la diga sarà alta 138 metri, larga 1.820 metri e creerà un lago artificiale ampio 313 chilometri quadrati, comportando l’inondazione di 6000 ettari di terre agricole, la distruzione dell’ecosistema del fiume Tigri, la scomparsa di numerosi centri d’inestimabile valore archeologico e storico (tra cui la città di Hasankeyf, luogo con 5000 anni di storia, forse il centro più importante per la cultura curda: il progetto è di fatto l’ennesimo strumento di repressione che lo stato turco usa contro la popolazione Kurda, che si oppone da oltre dieci anni al progetto, già vittima di continue violazioni ai propri diritti umani individuali e collettivi). 

Anche quest’anno un’articolazione variegata di comunità in resistenza (movimenti, reti, associazioni, ong) ha portato ad Istanbul la voce dei popoli che si oppongono alla mercificazione dell’acqua a favore di una gestione pubblica, partecipata e democratica della risorsa idrica: acqua come strumento di pace, simbolo e anima della difesa dei territori. Nelle giornate di seminari e assemblee i rappresentanti della società civile internazionale hanno denunciato l’illegittimità del World Water Forum e le ingiustizie che le politiche globali sull’acqua producono. Diverse le manifestazioni di protesta, alle quali sono seguite le reazione durissime da parte della polizia turca: 17 gli arresti e due attiviste rimpatriate perché accusate di un reato d’opinione (l’apertura di uno striscione contro le dighe). A dimostrazione di quanto aperto e democratico fosse il Forum.  

La delegazione governativa italiana, presente al Forum, guidata dalla ministra Prestigiacomo, aveva  tra i suoi obiettivi primari quello di una maggiore co-partecipazione pubblico-privata nella gestione dei servizi idrici “resa obbligatoria dalla crescita dei costi dell’oro blu” si legge nella nota stampa ufficiale. In altre parole continuare a portare avanti le politiche già ampiamente sperimentate nel nostro paese di aziende miste per la gestione dei servizi idrici, in cui i costi economici, politici e sociali delle privatizzazioni ricadono sul pubblico con aumento di tariffe per i cittadini, diminuzione occupazionale, scarsa manutenzione e qualità, e con utili altissimi sempre nelle stesse mani: Suez, Veolia, e le altre sorelle. Esempio in Italia e all’estero rimane Acea, ex municipalizzata del Comune di Roma, da dieci anni trasformata in una holding con partecipazioni azionarie di Suez e Caltagirone, quotata in borsa, capace di occuparsi di energia, rifiuti, inceneritori e forse domani gas. Ai cittadini di Roma toccano solo rialzi in bolletta, i malfunzionamenti e la scarsa qualità, nel silenzio del Consiglio Comunale e della giunta impegnati più a tutelare gli interessi dei grandi azionisti in borsa.

A Istanbul come a Roma le politiche dell’acqua sono sempre più una cartina tornasole del livello di democrazia e partecipazione dei cittadini e delle comunità locali. Riappropriarsi dell’acqua significa riacquisire spazio pubblico vitale, recuperare dal basso parola di fronte allo svilimento della politica istituzionale e dare corpo e senso alla democrazia.

«Le guerre del XXI secolo non saranno condotte in nome del petrolio, ma dell’acqua»: oltre vent’anni dopo le parole pronunciate nel 1986 dall’allora ministro egiziano degli esteri, e in seguito Segretario generale dell’ONU, Boutros Boutros Ghali, la profezia sembra si sia avverata. L’acqua, sempre più rara e dunque contesa, ha segnato il destino di milioni di persone. Negli ultimi anni, l’acqua ha giocato un ruolo di primo piano in almeno 37 guerre nel mondo. Una situazione destinata a peggiorare.

«L’acqua è sicuramente tra le ragioni principali della guerra arabo-israeliana del 1967. Con l’occupazione, Israele ha assunto il controllo del fiume Giordano e della falda freatica», rileva Fadia Daibes Murad, idrologa e responsabile del programma DanCurchAid in Medio Oriente. Oltre alla crescita demografica e al cambiamento climatico, la ripartizione delle risorse è resa ancor più complicata dal crescente fabbisogno idrico da parte di agricoltura, industria e turismo.

Dice Catarina de Albuquerque, esperta indipendente del Consiglio per i diritti umani per le questioni legate all’accesso all’acqua potabile:«Il Comitato per i diritti economici, sociali e culturali dell’ONU ha riconosciuto nel 2002 il diritto all’acqua. Questo diritto non è tuttavia esplicitamente menzionato nella Dichiarazione universale dei diritti umani. Soltanto una manciata di paesi, tra cui Sud Africa, Uruguay e Bolivia, hanno iscritto tale diritto nella loro Costituzione. La risoluzione che ha definito il mio mandato non menziona nemmeno una volta il diritto all’acqua; mi posso occupare esclusivamente dell’acqua potabile e devo tralasciare le risorse idriche destinate ad altri utilizzi». L’avvocatessa portoghese non è poi abilitata ad occuparsi di questioni transfrontaliere! Assurdo… nel mondo ci sono infatti oltre 260 fiumi e specchi d’acqua che si estendono su più territori. E dove la scarsità di acqua si scontra con gli interessi divergenti di più nazioni, la conflittualità sale alle stelle. Lo evidenziano proprio i controversi progetti di dighe e centrali sul Tigri e l’Eufrate (che coinvolgono Turchia, Siria e Iraq), ma anche i progetti sul Mekong (Cina, Vietnam, Laos e Thailandia) oppure lo sfruttamento delle acque del Giordano (Siria, Israele e Popolo Palestinese). 

(fonti: swisscom e asud.net)

“In Europa, dove in qualsiasi posto si trova ogni tipo di bevanda, non si pensa mai alla necessita’ di bere.  Quando invece si viaggia in Africa, bisogna sempre porsi il problema dell’acqua, calcolare i tempi alla perfezione, spostarsi in modo da arrivare al pozzo successivo entro una certa ora. Se non lo si raggiunge in tempo si muore. L’acqua  e’ un bene comune. O bevono tutti o non beve nessuno.”

[R. Kapuscinsky, da Comanda il piu' anziano, 1999]

Author’s Note:  This diary is dedicated to the memory of Alison Des Forges, of Human Rights Watch, and author, or principle author, of “Leave None to Tell the Story,” Human Rights Watch’s narrative of the events of the Rwandan Genocide. It surpasses excellence. It’s not that I knew or ever met her, but I’m sure she felt personally compelled, as I have, to write about Rwanda, and certainly found it even more difficult. In her memory, in the memory of those both living and dead who have been touched by this, I have done my level best here. And like General Romeo Dallaire, head of the failed UN peacekeeping mission for Rwanda, I find I can take no consolation from that fact.

Virtually the entire world ignored this genocide, and why that happened is what I try to answer here.

We had a couple of friends over, and you know, I just–we just sat down to dinner, and all of a sudden, there was this huge explosion. And I–I–didn’t naturally, you know, come to me what that was because I wasn’t used to hearing those kinds of sounds.” –Laura Lane, U.S. Embassy, Kigali, Rwanda[1]

“And it went from “There’s been an explosion at the airport” to “We think it’s the ammunition dump at Kinumbi that’s blown up” to “It’s a plane that’s crashed” to “It’s the presidential plane that crashed.” –Brent Beardsley, Military Assistant to General Dallaire[2]

On the evening of 6 April 1994, the presidential airplane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana as well as Cyprien Ntaryamira, President of Burundi was shot down as it slowed and descended on approach to the airport in Kigali, Rwanda. Two shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles struck the aircraft, the first hitting a wing, and the second impacting the tail. A pair of empty SA-16 missile tubes were later found, their serial numbers indicating that they had once been part of the Iraqi arsenal. Even today, it’s not known who was responsible, but what is known is that within hours, maybe within minutes, certain neighborhoods in Kigali were being patrolled by units of the elite Rwandan Presidential Guard and by the National Police. By daybreak the killing had begun.

The bloodshed continued and spread for eleven weeks, and by the time it was over, an estimated 657,000 men, women and children had perished.

“PEUX CE QUE VEUX. ALLONS-Y.“

The mission was supposed to be straight forward: oversee a peace agreement between a stable government in place and a well organized, disciplined rebel militia, the RPF, both of whom had requested UN participation in their peace process. Chosen to head the mission, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire had never seen combat, had never been to Africa, and had never had a command. He and his aide, Major Brent Beardsley arrived in Rwanda knowing nothing of what awaited them:

“We had very, very little information, knowledge of the background to Rwanda, its history, its culture–you know, what had taken place in the country since independence or even before independence, and especially even in the last couple years. So we went in quite blind.”[3]

In Washington and at the UN, there was little enthusiasm for the peacekeeping mission, which had been approved just days after the “Blackhawk Down” shootout in Mogadishu, Somalia. There was even less enthusiasm for paying for the mission. The Clinton administration was already unhappy with the fact that it was supposed to be paying one-third of the costs of the seventeen then current peacekeeping missions around the world, and was already in arrears to the UN to the tune of half a billion dollars. The Rwandan mission was sold, primarily by the French, as a cheap, easy victory for peacekeeping—a counter-argument to Somalia.

Warned at the outset not to ask for too much, Dallaire scaled his force down to 5,000 peacekeepers. This was, however, more than anyone was willing to field, and he had to settle for half that number. Even so, with hard work and the right deployments of peacekeepers, Dallaire thought he could get the job done. And he had some early success. He managed successfully to open a safe corridor and transport a contingent of RPF troops and leadership to Kigali without incident. Several prohibited transports of weapons into Rwanda were successfully interdicted by peacekeepers and he was able, if not to create the weapons-free zone in Kigali mandated by the Arusha Accords, he was at least able to drive the arms buildup underground.

It quickly became apparent to Dallaire that the peacekeeping mission wasn’t going to run as straightforwardly as those in New York had led him to believe. Violence had never completely vanished. The Hutu political coalition, the CDR, their militias, and Radio Mille Collines continued to spread hate propaganda and promise Tutsi extinction.

A short chronology of attacks on political figures, civilians and on UNAMIR personnel continued throughout the early period of his mission:

• November 17-18: Unidentified assailants killed some forty persons, including local authorities, in a highly organized attack in the northern communes of Nkumba, Kidaho, Cyeru, and Nyamugali.
• November 26: A Belgian Red Cross truck was deliberately targeted by government soldiers and blown up by a mine.
• November 29-30: Unidentified assailants killed more than a dozen persons in the northwestern commune of Mutura.
• December 2: Assailants armed with machine guns fired on a UNAMIR patrol in northern Rwanda.
• January 5: A crowd of CDR supporters attacked the Tanzanian ambassador whom they regarded as too favorable to peace negotiations.
• January 8: During a violent demonstration by interahamwe—involving also the sub-prefect of Kigali and soldiers of the Presidential Guard in civilian clothes—the National Police did nothing to intervene. In a meeting afterwards, U.N. officers remarked that the events of the morning make “us think how few possibilities we have to deal with this kind of action.” They acknowledged that UNAMIR might have to intervene more actively “to compensate for the lack of effectiveness of the National Police,” even if doing so worsened relations with the population, which was already shouting anti-Belgian slogans that morning.
• January 20: Assassins tried to kill Justin Mugenzi, president of the Liberal Party and head of its Hutu Power faction.
• January 24: interahamwe were arrested for bombing a house in Kigali and other interahamwe rioted in the streets. In a separate incident, assailants shot at Belgian peacekeepers guarding Booh-Booh’s residence. (Roger Booh-Booh was the Secretary-General’s personal representative to Rwanda, and in overall charge of UNAMIR)
• January 26 and 27: Two grenades exploded at the CND building where the RPF were quartered. In another incident, assailants fired on Belgian peacekeepers who were on patrol.
• January 30-31: A Belgian soldier threw stones and broke windows at the home of Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, the CDR leader, and supposedly threatened him. RTLM and Radio Rwanda both broadcast the news that Belgian soldiers had tried to kill Barayagwiza. The incident focused attention on the inappropriate behavior of some Belgian soldiers who clearly showed their disdain for pro-Habyarimana forces. In another incident, an assailant threw a grenade at UNAMIR headquarters. The same day, RTLM broadcast that “the time has come to take aim at Belgian targets.”
• February 15: Belgian military intelligence reported that the Rwandan army chief of staff had put all troops on alert, canceled leaves, ordered a check of stocks of ammunition and other war materials, and asked for recruitment of more soldiers.
• February 20: Assassins tried to kill Prime Minister-designate Twagiramungu and did kill one of his bodyguards. In another incident, a crowd stoned Belgian peacekeepers and they had to fire 63 shots in the air in order to free themselves.
• February 21: Assassins killed the minister of public works and head of the PSD party, Félicien Gatabazi.
• February 22: Martin Bucyana, president of the CDR, was killed by a mob in Butare in retaliation for the killing of Gatabazi. In another incident, a UNAMIR convoy escorting the RPF was attacked with grenades; one RPF soldier was killed and a U.N. military observer was wounded. High-ranking RPF leaders were supposed to have been part of the convoy but at the last minute changed their plans.
• February 23: UNAMIR peacekeepers sent to rescue a judge exchanged fire with attackers.
• February 22-26: interahamwe killed some seventy people and destroyed property in Kigali. Belgian officers described the situation as “explosive.”
• February 28: A shell struck between the CND building where the RPF was quartered and the UNAMIR headquarters.
• March 1994 was fairly quiet, until the 31st, when Alphonse Ingabire, operational head of the CDR (the ruling coalition of Hutu political parties), was killed. The CDR militia responded with the murder of a member of a rival party.[4]

Throughout this period, warnings that the situation was becoming critical were constant. Aid and human rights personnel inside and outside of Rwanda, Rwandan religious figures, even members of the Rwandan army all sent pleas out to the world warning that if serious attention wasn’t paid to the situation, the worst was likely to occur. We now know that both the UN peacekeeping office in New York, then headed by Kofi Annan, as well as the Belgian Foreign Ministry received numerous reports regarding the danger of the situation. The peace process called for in the Arusha Accords, agreed to by the RPF and four other Rwandan political parties (but not the ruling MNRD) was stalled. The Hutu interahamwe militia, along with members of the Presidential Guard in civilian clothes mobbed the inauguration of the transitional government, preventing rival party members from entering the parliament building and taking part as mandated by the accords. The transitional government never got off the ground. A few days later, it was learned that some in the mob were armed and there specifically to target Belgian peacekeepers, who at that time, didn’t give them an opening.

On January 11, an interahamwe commander, code-named Jean-Pierre, spoke with Belgian UNAMIR officers requesting asylum for himself and his family in return for which he offered to expose several illegal large arms caches in Kigali. He said that the UNAMIR force had been infiltrated, and that everything the peacekeepers planned was known beforehand. Furthermore, he told peacekeepers that lists of Tutsi residents of Kigali, and of Hutu moderates, were being compiled, which persuaded Jean-Pierre that a mass extermination was being planned. Jean-Pierre revealed that groups of interahamwe milita were being trained in “discipline, weapons, explosives, close combat and tactics” in three week sessions held at Rwandan army camps. He stated that he was a senior member of the President’s security forces, and that he reported to Rwandan army chief of staff and to the President of the MNRD[5]

All this and more was detailed in Dallaire’s report to UN headquarters, which is now known as the famous genocide fax. Jean-Pierre had claimed that Belgian peacekeepers were being deliberately targeted, as well, with the aim of forcing Belgium to withdraw it’s peacekeepers. He pinpointed secret arms caches in Kigali which were to be distributed within days, after which, he said that he believed that ethnic Tutsi, as well as Hutu moderates, were to be attacked. Dallaire then asked New York that his mandate be expanded to enable him to sieze these arms, and offer Jean-Pierre asylum. Dallaire closed his message with the words, “Peux ce que veux. Allons-y” meaning, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Let’s go.” New York’s reply was that pro-active measures such as this undermined UN neutrality, undermined the mission, and instead of being granted asylum, Jean-Pierre’s information should be shared with the Rwandan government.

The Belgians were indeed targeted. On the morning of 7 April, Dallaire assigned a detail of 10 Belgians and 5 Ghanian peacekeepers to the home of acting Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, now titular head of the Rwandan government and a Hutu moderate who opposed the division between Hutus and Tutsis. An armed band of interahamwe surrounded the Prime Minister’s house, and at gunpoint disarmed the peacekeepers who were under orders not to open fire. Eventually, the Ghanians were released. Not so the Belgians. Dallaire himself spotted them lying on the ground at Kigali military headquarters. He was allowed to collect their bodies later that day.

April 6 to 7, Kigali, Rwanda and Buffalo, NY

‘America’s best-informed Rwandan observer was not a government official but a private citizen, Alison Des Forges, an historian and a board member of Human Rights Watch, who then lived in Buffalo, New York. Des Forges had been visiting Rwanda since 1963. She had received a Ph.D. from Yale in African history, specializing in Rwanda, and she could speak the Rwandan language, Kinyarwanda. Half an hour after the plane crash Des Forges got a phone call from a close friend in Kigali, human-rights activist Monique Mujawamariya. Des Forges had been worried about Mujawamariya for weeks because the hate-propagating Radio Mille Collines had branded her “a bad patriot who deserves to die.” Mujawamariya had sent Human Rights Watch a chilling warning just a week earlier: “For the last two weeks, all of Kigali has lived under the threat of an instantaneous, carefully planned operation to eliminate all those who give trouble to President Habyarimana.”

‘Now Habyarimana was dead, and Mujawamariya knew instantly that the hard-line Hutu would use the incident as a pretext to begin mass killing. “This is it,” she told Des Forges on the phone. For the next twenty-four hours, Des Forges called her friend’s home every half hour. With each conversation Des Forges could hear the gunfire grow louder as the Hutu militia drew closer. Finally the gunmen entered Mujawamariya’s house. “I don’t want you to hear this,” Mujawamariya said softly. “Take care of my children.” She hung up the phone.’[6]

(Monique Mujawamariya survived. She narrowly escaped her attackers and managed to get out of Kigali and flew to Washington where she met with Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, who though sympathetic, offered no help. She then spoke with a member of Congress who told her, “The United States has no friends. The United States has interests. And in the United States there is no interest in Rwanda.”[7])

Repeated calls by Dallaire for more troops, for more equipment, even for jamming equipment to silence Radio Mille Collines and its explicit calls for genocide were refused by New York. By the time it had become clear to the world that a genocide was taking place, Boutros Boutros-Ghali—never shy when it came to the use of force—called for the international community to step up.

Nobody came forward. Even the request for jamming gear was refused, on the grounds that it would violate the free speech of Rwandans. The Security Council, likely at the behest of the Clinton administration, responded by evacuating most of the peacekeeping force. Out of Dallaire’s original 2,500 troops, only 270 were left. During the night of 9-10 April, three days after Habyarimana’s plane crashed, troops finally arrived. A force of 1,000 Belgian and Franch paratroopers landed in and secured the airport in Kigali. Another force of US Marines sat just over the border in Burundi, about 500 strong. The French and Belgians fanned out across Rwanda, collecting foreign nationals, white foreign nationals. When all were gathered up, civilians and soldiers alike boarded airplanes and left. Americans, perhaps unwilling to chance that anymore SA-16’s were floating around, drove overland to the Burundi border. The only international organization that didn’t desert the Rwandans was the Red Cross. They, and one American, an aid worker named Carl Wilkens who offered his home as shelter to some Rwandans whom he knew personally, were all of the international community that remained.

The Peacekeeping Problem

The end of the cold war was seen at the UN as removing many of those restraints which great power conflict had placed upon its perceived role. Peace broke out at last, and it was felt that the new world order naturally placed the UN in leadership of those forces representing human reason, international amity, peace, and development. And New York was eager to fulfill this role. Prior to 1990, the UN had amassed a decent record of assisting ex-colonial countries achieve internationally recognized statehood, and had a small track record of mixed results with peacekeeping efforts. By 1990, the UN actively sought an expanded role, and for a variety of reasons, member states were willing go along. The world had changed with Gorbachev’s fall, and the UN was both willing to experiment with more aggressive measures and to enlarge the scope of what it considered Chapter VII threats to international peace and stability. This sea-change in the view of the UN’s role in the world was outlined in An Agenda for Peace, in which Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali defined a broader view of UN activism that included more than the integrity of states. In the world following the cold war, it was felt that the greatest danger to human rights and human development was in fact, the governments of those people so oppressed. It was believed that, if the UN was to fulfill the promise of its founding, and to work for the principles of those conventions which had been universally adopted as the right of every person, then now was the time to step up.

After the end-of-cold-war celebrations, sentiment in the world quickly soured; Yugoslavia was breaking up, ethnicnationalist conflict broke out across Asia, and unresolved conflict in Africa intensified. Prior to 1990, UN peacekeeping deployments was fairly rare, but there had been enough experience with both successes and failures that New York could begin drawing some tentative conclusions about what worked and what didn’t. However, the UN was neither created for, nor equipped to deal with the events unfolding in the early 1990’s. Notwithstanding the high water mark of international cooperation with which the world dealt with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the type of international conflict for which the UN had been formed had now become a rarity. Since 1991, civil wars and other forms of violent domestic unrest have been the dominant form of conflict. Serious structural problems hampered the UN as well. While it is frequently the target of criticism for being overly bureaucratic, the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations was incredibly malnourished. In October 1989, the DPKO consisted of nine people who were incredibly adept at improvising: six civilians and three military advisors oversaw 8,000 peacekeepers in five stable operations.[12] Furthermore, everyone, including the UN Secretariat, ran on a diplomatic schedule. If a peacekeeper ran into trouble after 5 PM US eastern time or on a weekend, there was literally nobody in New York he could reach for guidance. Until 1993, there wasn’t even a “situation room” at UN headquarters, and when one was created, it accurately refelected the attitudes of the miserly member states:

“Compared to the situation rooms of most states, it was almost comically outfitted: 1950’s fake wood paneling, makeshift maps on the wall, an array of phones sitting on mismatched desks, and a few, scattered fax machines. It looked more like the accomodations for a public access television station than it did the military nerve center for very tenuous peacekeeping operations.”[13]

This wasn’t necessarily an improvement, for though there were by now some 50 people in the DPKO, the number of peacekeepers had skyrocketed from 8,000 troops in five easy operations in 1989, to over 70,000 in seventeen operations, many of which were in situations where shooting was still taking place.

The political milieu in which the UN became more active also undercut its efforts to broker peace.

“The Mogadishu Line“

The UN first became involved in Somalia with the passage of Resolution 704, creating UNOSOM, the United Nations Operation in Somalia, which consisted of 50 military observers there to monitor the cease-fire agreement. By that time, the situation had deteriorated badly: independent militias split away from the Somali government and the Ethiopian backed Somali National Movement (SNM). Then the militias splintered. The situation was such that, though the world had rushed to provide relief, in the two year period ending in the fall of 1992, some half million Somalis had been starved to death. Ceasefires weren’t working. The militias were extorting aid workers and stealing relief supplies. More people were in the direst of peril. All the while, media attention kept Somalia in sharp focus, and the UN mission grew and evolved in an effort to come to grips with the appalling situation: UNOSOM I begat UNOSOM II, and finally, in December 1992, the Security Council responded with Resolution 794, in which the Security Council:

Welcomes the offer by a member state described in the Secretary-General’s letter to the council of 29 November 1992 (S/24868) concerning the establishment of an operation to create such a secure environment;

The “member state” was the US in the waning days President George H. W. Bush’s administration, and the task force was to be directed by Washington.

By May, thousands of troops were deployed into the bedlam dominated by “starving Somalis, well-fed, khat-chewing youngsters in jeeps fitted with machine guns, and impotent peacekeepers” [14]. What the operation became could not now be classified as peacekeeping, but rather one of “peace making”.

Disagreements over the mission soon emerged, and various bureaucratic concerns began to collide.

“The Americans consistently rebuffed Boutros-Ghali’s plans and stated publically that American forces would not be collecting weapons without consent of the parties.”[15]

Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali expressing “disquiet” that the UNOSOM mission was getting out of hand. Boutros-Ghali responded that disarming the clans and factions was essential, that the problem wasn’t too much force, but that more was needed. The Pentagon was worried as well, and asked for the additional deployment of mechanized units, which was too much for the Clinton White House.

The situation in Somalia exploded on 5 June, 1993, when the militia under command of Mohammed Farrah Aidid ambushed and killed 24 lightly armed Pakistani peacekeepers. Sentiments hardened both in New York and Washington, and Aidid was awarded the status of “Public Enemy Number One,” and the mission profile changed to target him. On 3 October 1993, an attack on Aidid by American Army Rangers, resulted in the deaths of 18 Americans. The video of one American’s body being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu amid cheering Somalis changed sentiments once again, and heralded the end of the UN missions in Somalia with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress demanding that American troops be brought home at once.

Clinton, who had inherited the Somali mission from his predecessor, saw the domestic agenda for which he was elected imperiled. Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned, for “health reasons” and the White House distanced itself from, and began publically criticizing the UN. Clinton was retreating from his earlier predisposition toward peacekeeping and multilateral actions. As a result, the doctrine for overseas intervention now called for no deployment of American troops abroad that was not in direct support of American national interests and under total American direction. The UN Secretariat, desperate for a peacekeeping success, was nonetheless now somewhat prepared to scale back on UN activism. The traditional doctrine of peacekeeping activity was revived, and was intended to become the posture of all future UN peacekeeping activities. Peacekeeping missions would have to rely totally on the perception and guarantee that the United Nations was an impartial participant. Aggressive enforcement was out, and there was to be no more crossing of the “Mogadishu Line” of neutrality, impartiality, and above all, consent of the parties.

Two days after the October attack in Somalia, the Security Council passed the resolution authorizing the Rwandan mission.

Trouble Finding My Feet

Gringo
“There’s no way to satisfy everyone. No matter what is done there will be as many critics as those with praise. One side or the other will get drowned out by the media, that’s the only difference.

I say it’s always worth a try to do good, but be ready for the backlash. Next time around it may not be easy to get participants.” (emphasis mine)

There exists an entire genre of genocide literature, as there does regarding international failures to respond to genocide and mass atrocities. If you’re interested in it, I warn you, it makes for depressing reading. Depressing enough is Simon Chesterman’s Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law which chronicles the trend of the Security Council to authorize Chapter VII actions—those that are deemed threats to international peace and security, and he concludes:

“Central to most arguments in favour of a right of humanitarian intervention is a moral position that, in the face of atrocity, one cannot simply do nothing. . . . For the dichotomy of the just war or just peace is a false, misleading, and dangerous one. It is false in that it implies that humanitarian intervention is morally, if not legally, valid because the ends sought justify the means employed. . . . The dichotomy is misleading because it suggests that normative restraints currently prevent states from intervening on humanitarian grounds. Not only is there no evidence of such reluctance, precisely the contrary is true: states have demonstrated their willingness to intervene on any number of dubious bases—the question, rather, is whether a further and necessarily subjective legal basis should be given for future interventions. Finally, the dichotomy is dangerous because it obscures the fact that unilateral enforcement is not a substitute for but the opposite of collective action: as unilateral action assertions of humanitarianism come to displace multilateral institutional legality, so the normative restraints on the recourse to force weaken.”[16] (emphasis his)

Chesterman is a lawyer and law professor, who doesn’t need to live with the political consequences of either reacting to atrocity or having an enormous tragedy unfold on millions of television screens, and doing nothing. Yet his point is well made. He documents the various excuses (one cannot dignify them by calling them “reasons”) that governments have put out there to justify the various military acts they have taken: the Reagan Doctrine of “democracy promotion”, used to justify the invasion of Grenada and by George H. W. Bush in the invasion of Panama. “Democracy restoration” in the US intervention in Haiti. So-called humanitarian intervention elsewhere. The fact of the matter is, states are extremely reluctanct to deploy armed forces unless some perceived national interest is threatened. The problem is, with an international order in which the “realist” image of international relations dominates, there are altogether too many “valid” reasons to deploy in their perceived national interest. Countries are only too willing to do so. Chesterman’s concise analysis chronicles the growth of UN activism I mention above, along with the disturbing trends of the Security Council’s willingness to relinquish control of interventions to member states, and to retroactively endorse interventions (the NATO bombing in the FRY, for example) already unilaterally taken.

All of which accurately reflect the state of the UN and of international relations today. The United Nations remains an abused institution, asked to do much while the resources to undertake these tasks are only grudgingly given. It remains one forum out of many in which international power politics is played, with perhaps—only perhaps—more regard for humanitarian concerns than in other settings. The genocide in Rwanda was quite possibly preventable, even without military force. Des Forges makes the convincing point that the World Bank and IMF could have warned the Habyarimana government that the spigot was about to be shut off, and that his government, at least the wealthy akuza, might well have taken this to heart. For psycological, legal, political, bureaucratic, and moral reasons, this, and other fairly benign actions were never taken.

The Law Comes To Rwanda

“I once traveled into the field with Alison Des Forges, and somewhere along the road she asked our driver to stop. We got out and walked to the edge of a sewage pit. There, at the bottom, was a mass of human bones, the remains of dead Tutsis. Flies were buzzing all around us, the sun was shining with utter indifference. I wanted to remove them, these victims. . . . Frankly, I could not believe that the government had not already done so. During my next meetings with the prosecutor general and the minister of justice—even before I had raised the issue—both men informed me that exhuming the bones in that sewer was not possible. It would create, I was told, disorder in society. Exhumations and burials had gone on for years already, they said, and it was not necessary to do anymore. Rwanda, they said, was now looking toward the future. Rwanda, they said, needed a quietus.”[17]

Perhaps the only answer is the oldest one of all: for good people to stand up and do what they can, both in defense of the right to ethnic expression through state soveriegnty and in support of individuals in need. And yet. . . .

The Responsibility To Protect initiative was, I believe, a well meaning attempt to come to terms with the conflicting priorities of national self-interest, state sovereignty, and the feeling that in the face of atrocity, not that something must be done, but that doing nothing is unacceptable. R2P is not an attempt to get around existing international law, in fact, R2P insists that the Security Council remain the sole source of the legitimate use of force in the world. It is rather, another step in a worldwide debate and attempt to come to a universal consensus over when humanitarian intervention may, if at all, be justified. However, we see even R2P perhaps unwisely invoked in a New York Times Op-ed piece titled, Turn North Korea Into a Human Rights Issue in which stronger action against a regime which is clearly uncaring of the well-being or, for that matter, the very survival of its own people. In the article, the Secretary-General is urged to place great emphasis on human rights and actively confront Kim Jong-il’s regime, which is, in fact, brutal and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of its citizens. The writers do not call for greater confrontation with North Korea without precedent, for R2P explicitly allows for such an interventionist posture by the international community on the grounds that his regime is unwilling or unable to fulfill its sovereign responsibility to protect its own people.{18]

The authors? Vaclav Havel, Kjell Magne Bondevik, and Elie Wiesel.

Notes:

[1]transcript of Ghosts of Rwanda, FRONTLINE, 2004.
[2]Ibid.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Des Forges, Alison; Leave None to Tell the Story
[5]Habyarimana’s party, the MRND [Mouvement Revolutionaire Nationale pour le Developpement], was part of the CDR [Coalition de Defense de la Republique], which was a broadbase multi-party coalition which grew to become the main expression of the “Hutu Power” movement. Within the MRND, there was rumored to be the akuza, the “little house,” a small inner circle of wealthy Hutu elites centered around President Habyarimana’s wife, who worked closely with the army and who pulled all the strings behind the scenes. Several akuza members, including the now widowed Mme. Habyarimana, were witnessed just after the start of the genocide, in high level government meetings and with army commanders.
[6]Power, Samantha. A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2002.
[7]transcript of Ghosts of Rwanda, FRONTLINE, 2004.
[8]Power, pg 341.
[9]Power, pg 341.
[10]transcript of Ghosts of Rwanda, FRONTLINE, 2004.
[11]The Ghosts of Rwanda, FRONTLINE video, 2004.
[12]Barnett, Michael. Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002.
[13]Ibid., pg 31.
[14]Ibid., pg 35.
[15]Ibid., pg 34.
[16]Chesterman, Simon. Just War or Just Peace: Humanitarian Intervention and International Law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2002.
[17]Del Ponte, Carla and Sudetic, Chuck. Madame Prosecutor: Confrontations with Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity. New York, NY: Other Press, 2009.
[18]This illustrates perfectly the importance of media attention and political will in the humanitarian intervention debate. I find that I myself have no stomach for any military adventures on the Korean Peninsula. On the other hand, I fail to find any photographic or video depictions of the ordinary North Koreans starving on my television screen either, which I’m certain would provoke in me enough feelings of outrage that I could very well favor, or at least not oppose, a more confrontational stance to what I intellectually know is the regime of a madman. Make of it what you will, I’m only being honest about this.

A recent tMiM search for “John Vanderslice” came up empty. This. will. not. do.

We have now mentioned John Vanderslice. And now that we have mentioned John Vanderslice, we recommend that you dig up his music and become acquainted.

His finest track is “White Plains” from the Cellar Door LP. If you can (legally) find the studio version online, drop us a line.

And as always, thank you for your patience as we continue to bring our indie music blog into full compliance.And n

UPDATE: View the R&S Tribute to Michael Jackson and “Thriller” here.

It has been a big week for the “King of Pop”. First there was the news of a Jacko Neverland auction, which is set to offer everyday household items such as a life-size ET statue, a collection of mini-Popemobiles, multiple diamond and sequin encrusted single gloves and the gate to Neverland itself. Jacko is now trying to legally block the auction, but since he setup the auction in the first place and signed over all the items, I’ll still be able to bid on one of those gloves come April. When I was reading about the auction, I came across one particular line that caught my attention:

[The Auction House] had been in regular contact with both Jackson and his closest confidant, the mysterious Dr. Tohme Tohme, and had been under the impression they were happy with everything… right up to the time the lawsuit was filed on Wednesday. 

Jackson’s closest confidant, the mysterious Dr. Tohme Tohme?!?! I couldn’t make this shit up if I tried.

Almost instantly, Dr. Tohme Tohme joined the pantheon of ridiculous names, along with the legendary Boutros Boutros Ghali, streetball legend God Shammgod and Tohme Tohme’s distant name cousin Tony!Toni!Tone! 

Then two days ago, MJ announced a 10 show comeback concert at London’s O2 Arena. Within hours of the announcement, the website that was handling pre-orders for the concert was inundated with over  a million ticket requests, proving that no amount of bad PR, brutal albums and deviant behavior can derail Jackson’s global popularity.

Honestly, I am strongly considering a London trip this July to catch one of these shows. If Michael actually shows up (British bookmakers are already offering 5 to 1 odds that Jacko won’t show for the first concert) these shows could be epic. And say what you want about the man, but you all know that during the ’80s, every kid had Thriller and Bad, busted out moonwalks at school dances and would do anything for a shiny new red leather jacket. I have been fortunate enough to see many of my musical idols in concert, and a Michael Jackson performance would be off the chains, no matter how old and creepy he is.

Say what you want about Jacko. But he is one of the greatest entertainers ever and without him we never would have seen two of the greatest viral videos of all-time.

SPIEGEL ONLINE

01/05/2009 06:42 PM

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI

‘Israel Has a Habit of Closing its Eyes to Hard Facts’

The Israeli military strike in Gaza will have “unforeseeable consequences” for the region, warns former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, he discusses the short-sightedness of Israeli politicians, Egypt’s role and his muted hopes for peace.

 

AP

A Palestinian man looks at a destroyed Hamas security compound after an Israeli air strike in Gaza City.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Has Israel’s current offensive against the Gaza Strip put a final end to the Middle East peace process?

Boutros-Ghali: We will know very soon. But it is already clear at this point that Israel’s attack on Gaza has been a catastrophe. This military operation has given a boost to fundamentalists not only in Palestine, but also in every other Arab country. I have a hard time believing that Israel hasn’t noticed this. In their attack on Lebanon in the summer of 2006, the Israelis must have learned the lesson that actions like these only strengthen the position of the integrists. During that period, Hezbollah increased its influence and grew to become the strongest political forces in Lebanon.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But couldn’t Lebanon be considered a special case?

Boutros-Ghali: No. The war in Gaza strengthens the position of radical Islamists in the entire Arab world in the same way that the war against Hezbollah did two years did. Moreover, it also weakens the position of Abu Masin (Mahmoud Abbas), the president of the Palestinian Authority, as well as the moderate parties in Arab countries and Israel who have been calling for dialogue and genuine peace negotiations.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: That sounds very pessimistic. Hopes for peace can’t just disappear overnight.

Boutros-Ghali: Today, I would prefer to defer that judgment to God.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Are you truly unable to see any silver lining on the horizon?

Boutros-Ghali: A genuine improvement in the general situation will probably only be seen by future generations. If I were to paint a rosy picture, I wouldn’t be telling the truth.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why do you have such a negative view of the future — especially you, who have earned a reputation for being a person of hope in stormy times? Right after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when no one wanted to believe in the possibility of peace, you helped former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to sign a peace accord with Israel at Camp David, a pact which continues to be honored to this day.

Boutros-Ghali: It is different this time. The current decision-makers in Israel, who ordered this attack on Gaza, haven’t thought about the future. That was a mistake of momentous consequence.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What has led you to this conclusion?

Boutros-Ghali: Israel has a habit of closing its eyes to hard facts. In geographical terms, the Gaza Strip represents almost exactly 2 percent of the total area of Palestine. There is no getting around the fact that this area would have to be greatly expanded as part of the scope of a genuine peace agreement. An additional fact on the ground, which the Israelis prefer to forget about, is the 1.3 million Arab Palestinians who remained in their villages and cities when the state of Israel was founded in 1948 and who make up about one-fifth of Israel’s current population. By around 2060, the Palestinians will account for roughly half — if not more — of the inhabitants of Israel and the areas occupied by Israel.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: According to that theory, this demographic development will put an end to the dream of having a state with a majority Jewish population, something which greatly concerns the Israelis. But does it have any bearing on the current conflict?

Boutros-Ghali: The growing imbalance between Jews and Arabs in the area controlled by Israel is of decisive importance for the near future of the Jewish state. Already today, you can see that the Zionist idea of having a purely Jewish state is not going to work out and that this (demographic) development renders the idea no longer tenable. The fuse is already lit. Emigration from Israel is already on the rise — and not just in the wake of crisis situations. More and more parents are losing faith in the future and want to spare their children from having to live a life marked by constant fear and a lack of peace. But Israel’s current leadership appears to be solely motivated by a concern for election tactics. Given the scale of the damage that has already been done, that is irresponsible.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Israel wants to put an end — once and for all — to the rocket attacks carried out by Islamist militants.

Boutros-Ghali: What the military is currently doing is causing a hundred times more damage and will have unforeseeable consequences for the entire region as well as, of course, for the Israelis.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamist hardliners — not to mention Arab nationalists — have been accusing Egypt of abandoning the Palestinians. Is that a correct accusation?

Boutros-Ghali: Egypt’s borders are open day and night to all Palestinians who are sick or have been wounded. Egypt is sending all sorts of aid into the Gaza Strip.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Still, Hamas is calling on Cairo to open its borders to all Palestinians.

Boutros-Ghali: Humanitarian aid, food, medicine, teams of doctors, fuel supplies, treatment for the wounded and ill in Egyptian hospitals — all of that is already being offered. But there is no doubt that having borders that were completely open and no longer controlled would lead to the infiltration of armed terrorists. Memories of the bloody attacks on tourist hotels in Sharm al-Sheikh and other Sinai vacation destinations are still fresh in our minds.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Some have demanded that the Egyptians withdraw from their peace agreement with Israel.

Boutros-Ghali: Calls like that are senseless. Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel has helped all Arabs. What other Arab country besides Egypt can have credible contacts with Israel and negotiate the opening of borders and an incremental lifting of the blockade? Calling off the peace with Israel would have terrifying consequences for all Arabs and the Israelis; our children and grandchildren would curse us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Will US President-elect Barack Obama do something decisive to bring an end to the conflict in the Middle East?

Boutros-Ghali: The Americans are completely preoccupied with the global financial and economic crisis. The new administration will devote 50 percent of its activities to these issues. Likewise, American engagement will also be called for in other global crises in Latin America, Africa and Asia as well as perhaps in conflicts in Somalia, East Africa, eastern Congo, India, Pakistan and the Caucasus.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: And in the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well?

Boutros-Ghali: Not much has changed in the United States since my term as secretary-general of the United Nations. The American public is not particularly interested in the Arab world, and the pressure exerted by the Jewish lobby is as strong as ever. However, it is unfortunately the case that Israel only responds to pressure if it is coming out of Washington. Given the current disaster in Gaza and the absolute split between Palestinian camps into that of the Islamist Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, which continues to be open to negotiations, Washington will do nothing over the next three or four years to facilitate the resumption of peace negotiations. Events in Gaza have set us all back by years. Unfortunately, to hope that the Europeans might play an effective role is just wishful thinking.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is the Arab world already so divided that it can’t muster itself into a strong, united position?

Boutros-Ghali: Working together, the Arabs put a good peace plan on the table that envisioned recognizing Israeli sovereignty within the pre-1967 borders in return for an independent Palestinian state within these borders. Israel made the mistake of ignoring this offer.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What do you foresee as happening in 2009?

Boutros-Ghali: I anticipate across-the-board changes for the worse for all countries in the Middle East. In the Arab world, religious extremists will become even more popular, particularly given the fact that over half the population is made up of easily influenced teenagers. In Israel, the extremists who are set on continued violence will gain ground. The extremes are getting more extreme; and, in the short term, all-or-nothing politicians will be viewed as heroes. But the innocent masses will suffer more than they did before.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: As a former secretary-general of the United Nations, what conclusion have you drawn about this conflict, which you once tried to solve?

Boutros-Ghali: For the foreseeable future, I don’t see an era promising happiness. It’s true that the curse of the colonial era disappeared half a century ago, and the Cold War is behind us. Millions of people expected a world that was better, more socially just and marked by technological progress. However, the unfortunate result has been that the age-old ills of mankind — growing social disparity, inflammatory national and religious ideologies, cultures closing themselves off to outsiders — have once again foiled these hopes. It is a shame that I will surely not live to see the dawning of a truly better world.

Interview conducted by Volkhard Windfuhr. Translated from the German by Josh Ward.

BAN KI-MOON

Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea, the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations, brings to his post 37 years of service both in government and on the global stage.

Career highlights

At the time of his election as Secretary-General, Mr. Ban was his country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. His long tenure with the ministry included postings in New Delhi, Washington D.C. and Vienna, and responsibility for a variety of portfolios, including Foreign Policy Advisor to the President, Chief National Security Advisor to the President, Deputy Minister for Policy Planning and Director-General of American Affairs. Throughout this service, his guiding vision was that of a peaceful Korean peninsula, playing an expanding role for peace and prosperity in the region and the wider world.

Mr. Ban has longstanding ties with the United Nations, dating back to 1975, when he worked for the Foreign Ministry’s United Nations division. That work expanded over the years, with assignments as First Secretary at the ROK’s Permanent Mission to the UN in New York, Director of the UN Division at the ministry’s headquarters in Seoul, and Ambassador to Vienna, during which time, in 1999, he served as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization. In 2001-2002, as Chef-de-Cabinet during the ROK’s Presidency of the General Assembly, he facilitated the prompt adoption of the first resolution of the session, condemning the terrorist attacks of 11 September, and undertook a number of initiatives aimed at strengthening the Assembly’s functioning, thereby helping to turn a session that started out in crisis and confusion into one in which a number of important reforms were adopted.

Mr. Ban has also been actively involved in issues relating to inter-Korean relations. In 1992, as Special Advisor to the Foreign Minister, he served as Vice Chair of the South-North Joint Nuclear Control Commission following the adoption of the historic Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. In September 2005, as Foreign Minister, he played a leading role in bringing about another landmark agreement aimed at promoting peace and stability on the Korean peninsula with the adoption at the Six Party Talks of the Joint Statement on resolving the North Korean nuclear issue.

Education

Mr. Ban received a bachelor’s degree in international relations from Seoul National University in 1970. In1985, he earned a master’s degree in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Prizes and awards

Mr. Ban has received numerous national and international prizes, medals and honours. In 1975, 1986 and again in 2006, he was awarded the ROK’s Highest Order of Service Merit for service to his country.

Personal

Mr. Ban was born on 13 June 1944. He and his wife, Madam Yoo (Ban) Soon-taek, whom he met in high school in 1962, have one son and two daughters. In addition to Korean, Mr. Ban speaks English and French.

Former secretaries-general

KOFI A. ANNAN of Ghana , the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, served from 1997 to 2006 and was the first to emerge from the ranks of United Nations staff.

One of Mr. Annan’s main priorities as Secretary-General w as a comprehensive programme of reform aimed at revitalizing the United Nations and making the international system more effective. He was a constant advocate for human rights, the rule of law, the Millennium Development Goals and Africa , and sought to bring the Organization closer to the global public by forging ties with civil society, the private sector and other partners.

At Mr. Annan’s initiative, UN peacekeeping was strengthened in ways that enabled the United Nations to cope with a rapid rise in the number of operations and personnel. It was also at Mr. Annan’s urging that, in 2005, Member States established two new intergovernmental bodies: the Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council. Mr. Annan likewise played a central role in the creation of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the adoption of the UN’s first-ever counter-terrorism strategy, and the acceptance by Member States of the “responsibility to protect” people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. His “Global Compact” initiative, launched in 1999, has become the world’s largest effort to promote corporate social responsibility.

Mr. Annan undertook wide-ranging diplomatic initiatives. In 1998, he helped to ease the transition to civilian rule in Nigeria . Also that year, he visited Iraq in an effort to resolve an impasse between that country and the Security Council over compliance with resolutions involving weapons inspections and other matters — an effort that helped to avoid an outbreak of hostilities, which was imminent at that time. In 1999, he was deeply involved in the process by which Timor-Leste gained independence from Indonesia . He was responsible for certifying Israel ’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, and in 2006, his efforts contributed to securing a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hizbollah. Also in 2006, he mediated a settlement of the dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi peninsula through implementation of the judgement of the International Court of Justice. His efforts to strengthen the Organization’s management, coherence and accountability involved major investments in training and technology, the introduction of a new whistleblower policy and financial disclosure requirements, and steps aimed at improving coordination at the country level.

Career highlights

Mr. Annan joined the UN system in 1962 as an administrative and budget officer with the World Health Organization in Geneva . He later served with the Economic Commission for Africa in Addis Ababa , the UN Emergency Force (UNEF II) in Ismailia , the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva , and in various senior posts in New York dealing with human resources, budget, finance and staff security. Immediately before becoming Secretary-General, he was Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping . Mr. Annan also served as Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the former Yugoslavia (1995-1996), and facilitated the repatriation from Iraq of more than 900 international staff and other non-Iraqi nationals (1990).

Education

Mr. Annan studied at the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi , Ghana , and completed his undergraduate work in economics at Macalester College in St. Paul , Minnesota in 1961. In 1961-1962, he undertook graduate studies at the Institute of International Affairs in Geneva , and in 1972 earned a Master of Science degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.

Prizes and awards

Mr. Annan was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize for Peace, jointly with the Organization. He has also received numerous honorary degrees and many other national and international prizes, medals and honours.

Personal

Mr. Annan was born in Kumasi , Ghana , on 8 April 1938, and is fluent in English, French and several African languages. He and his wife, Nane, between them have three children.

Former secretaries-general

Mr. BOUTROS BOUTROS-GHALI became the sixth Secretary-General of the United Nations on 1 January 1992, when he began a five-year term. At the time of his appointment by the General Assembly on 3 December 1991, Mr. Boutros-Ghali had been Deputy Prime Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt since May 1991 and had served as Minister of State for Foreign Affairs from October 1977 until 1991.

Mr. Boutros-Ghali has had a long association with international affairs as a diplomat, jurist, scholar and widely published author.

He became a member of the Egyptian Parliament in 1987 and was part of the secretariat of the National Democratic Party from 1980. Until assuming the office of Secretary-General of the United Nations, he was also Vice- President of the Socialist International.

He was a member of the International Law Commission from 1979 until 1991, and is a former member of the International Commission of Jurists. He has many professional and academic associations related to his background in law, international affairs and political science, among them, his membership in the Institute of International Law, the International Institute of Human Rights, the African Society of Political Studies and the Académie des sciences morales et politique (Académie française, Paris).

Over four decades, Mr. Boutros-Ghali participated in numerous meetings dealing with international law, human rights, economic and social development, decolonization, the Middle East question, international humanitarian law, the rights of ethnic and other minorities, non-alignment, development in the Mediterranean region and Afro-Arab cooperation.

In September 1978, Mr. Boutros-Ghali attended the Camp David Summit Conference and had a role in negotiating the Camp David accords between Egypt and Israel, which were signed in 1979. He led many delegations of his country to meetings of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, as well as to the Summit Conference of the French and African Heads of State. He also headed Egypt’s delegation to the General Assembly sessions in 1979, 1982 and 1990.

Mr. Boutros-Ghali received a Ph.D. in international law from Paris University in 1949. His thesis was on the study of regional organizations. Mr. Boutros-Ghali also holds a Bachelor of Laws degree, received from Cairo University in 1946, as well as separate diplomas in political science, economics and public law from Paris University.

Between 1949 and 1977, Mr. Boutros-Ghali was Professor of International Law and International Relations at Cairo University. From 1974 to 1977, he was a member of the Central Committee and Political Bureau of the Arab Socialist Union.

Among his other professional and academic activities, Mr. Boutros-Ghali was a Fulbright Research Scholar at Columbia University (1954-1955); Director of the Centre of Research of The Hague Academy of International Law (1963-1964); and Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Law, Paris University (1967-1968). He has lectured on international law and international relations at universities in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and North America.

Mr. Boutros-Ghali was President of the Egyptian Society of International Law from 1965; President of the Centre of Political and Strategic Studies (Al-Ahram) from 1975; member of the Curatorium Administrative Council of The Hague Academy of International Law from 1978; member of the Scientific Committee of the Académie mondiale pour la paix (Menton, France) from 1978; and associate member of the Institute affari internazionali (Rome) from 1979. He served as a member of the Committee on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations of the International Labour Organisation from 1971 until 1979. Mr. Boutros-Ghali also founded the publication Alahram Iqtisadi, which he edited from 1960 to 1975, and the quarterly Al-Seyassa Al-Dawlia, which he edited until December 1991.

The more than 100 publications and numerous articles that Mr. Boutros-Ghali has written deal with regional and international affairs, law and diplomacy, and political science.

During the course of his career, Mr. Boutros-Ghali has received awards and honours from 24 countries, which, besides Egypt, include Belgium, Italy, Colombia, Guatemala, France, Ecuador, Argentina, Nepal, Luxembourg, Portugal, Niger, Mali, Mexico, Greece, Chile, Brunei Darussalam, Germany, Peru, C&ocircte d’Ivoire, Denmark, Central African Republic, Sweden and the Republic of Korea. He has also been decorated with the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

He was awarded a doctorate of law honoris causa from the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (September 1992); a doctorate honoris causa from l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris (January 1993); the Christian A. Herter Memorial Award from the World Affairs Council, Boston (March 1993); a doctorate honoris causa from The Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium (April 1993); the “Man of Peace” award, sponsored by the Italian-based Together for Peace Foundation (July 1993); an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Laval, Quebec (August 1993); and the Arthur A. Houghton Jr. Star Crystal Award for Excellence from the African-American Institute, New York (November 1993).

In addition, he was given an honorary membership of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Moscow (April 1994); an honorary foreign membership of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow (April 1994); an honourary foreign membership of the Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, (April 1994); an honorary doctorate from the University Carlos III of Madrid (April 1994); an honorary degree from the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (May 1994); a doctorate in international law honoris causa from the University of Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada (August 1994); honorary doctorates from the University of Bucharest (October 1994), University of Baku (October 1994), University of Yerevan (November 1994), University of Haifa (February 1995), University of Vienna (February 1995), and University of Melbourne (April 1995); and a doctorate of law honoris causa from Carleton University, Canada (November 1995). He was made a Fellow of Berkeley College, Yale University (March 1995) and is the recipient of the Onassis Award for International Understanding and Social Achievement (July 1995). He was awarded an honorary doctorate of law by the University Montesquien of Bordeau, France (March 1996), and he received an honorary doctorate from Koryo University, Seoul, Republic of Korea (April 1996).

Mr. Boutros-Ghali was born in Cairo on 14 November 1922. He is married to Leia Maria Boutros-Ghali.

Former secretaries-general

Javier Perez de Cuellar assumed office as Secretary-General of the United Nations on 1 January 1982. On 10 October 1986, he was appointed for a second term of office, which began on 1 January 1987.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar was born in Lima, Peru, on 19 January 1920. He is a lawyer and a career diplomat, now retired.

He joined the Peruvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1940 and the diplomatic service in 1944, serving subsequently as Secretary at the Peruvian embassies in France, the United Kingdom, Bolivia and Brazil, and as Counsellor and Minister Counsellor at the embassy in Brazil.

Having returned to Lima in 1961, he was promoted to the rank of Ambassador the following year, successively occupying the posts of Director of the Legal Department, Director of Administration, Director of Protocol and Director of Political Affairs. In 1966, he was appointed Secretary-General (Deputy Minister) for Foreign Affairs. In 1981, he served as Legal Adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar was Ambassador of Peru to Switzerland, the Soviet Union, Poland and Venezuela.

He was a member of the Peruvian delegation to the General Assembly at its first session in 1946 and a member of the delegations to the twenty-fifth to thirtieth sessions of the Assembly. In 1971, he was appointed Permanent Representative of Peru to the United Nations, and he led his country’s delegation to all sessions of the Assembly from then until 1975.

In 1973 and 1974, he represented his country in the Security Council, serving as President of the Council at the time of the events in Cyprus in July 1974. On 18 September 1975, he was appointed Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Cyprus, a post he held until December 1977, when he rejoined his Foreign Service.

On 27 February 1979, he was appointed as United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs. From April 1981, while still holding this post, he acted as the Secretary-General’s Personal Representative on the situation relating to Afghanistan. In that capacity, he visited Pakistan and Afghanistan in April and August of that year in order to continue the negotiations initiated by the Secretary-General some months earlier.

In May 1981, he again rejoined his country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs but continued to represent the Secretary-General in the context of the situation relating to Afghanistan until his appointment in December of that year as Secretary-General of the United Nations.

He also served as Professor of International Law at Peru’s Academia Diplomatica and Professor of International Relations at Peru’s Academia de Guerra Aerea. He is the author of Manual de Derecho Diplomatico (Manual of Diplomatic Law (1964).

Mr. Perez de Cuellar received doctorate degrees honoris causa from the following universities: the University of Nice; the Jagiellonian University at Cracow; Charles University at Prague; the University of Sofia; the University of San Marcos at Lima; the Free University at Brussels; Carleton University at Ottawa, Canada; the University of Paris (Sorbonne); the University of Visva-Bharati in West Bengal, India; the University of Michigan; the University of Osnabruck in the Federal Republic of Germany; the Coimbra University at Coimbra, Portugal; the Mongolian State University at Ulan Bator; the Humboldt University of Berlin; the Moscow State University; the University of Malta in Valleta; the Leyden University in the Netherlands; La Salle University in Philadelphia; Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts; the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland; and Cambridge University in the United Kingdom.

In the course of his career, Mr. Perez de Cuellar was decorated by some 25 countries.

In October 1987, he was awarded the Prince of Asturias Prize for the promotion of Ibero-American co-operation. In January 1989, he was awarded the Olof Palme Prize for International Understanding and Common Security by the Olof Palme Memorial Fund. In February 1989, he was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar is married and has two children.

Former secretaries-general

Kurt Waldheim was appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations for a five-year term beginning on 1 January 1972. The Security Council had recommended the appointment on 21 December 1971 and the General Assembly approved it by acclamation on the following day.

The Secretary-General was born at Sankt Andra-Wordern, near Vienna, Austria, on 21 December 1918. He graduated from the University of Vienna as a Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1944. He is also a graduate of the Vienna Consular Academy.

Mr. Waldheim joined the Austrian diplomatic service in 1945, and from 1948 to 1951 he served as First Secretary of the Legation in Paris. He was head of the personnel department of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs in Vienna from 1951 to 1955 In 1955 he was appointed Permanent Observer for Austria to the United Nations and later that year became head of the Austrian Mission when Austria was admitted to the Organization.

From 1956 to 1960, Mr. Waldheim represented Austria in Canada, first as Minister Plenipotentiary and later as Ambassador. From 1960 to 1962 he was head of the Political Department (West) in the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, subsequently becoming Director-General for Political Affairs until June 1964.

From 1964 to 1968, Mr. Waldheim was Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations. During that period he was Chairman of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space; in 1968 he was elected President of the first United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.

From January 1968 to April 1970, Mr. Waldheim was Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of Austria. After leaving the Government, he was unanimously elected Chairman of the Safeguards Committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in October 1970 he again became the Austrian Permanent Representative to the United Nations, a post he held until he was elected Secretary-General of the Organization.

In April 1971, he was one of the two candidates for the Federal Presidency of Austria.

During his first three years as Secretary-General, Mr. Waldheim made it a practice to visit areas of special concern to the United Nations. In March 1972 he travelled to South Africa and Namibia in pursuance of a mandate given him by the Security Council in order to assist in finding a satisfactory solution for the problem of Namibia.

The Secretary-General paid three visits to Cyprus, in June 1972, August 1973 and August 1974, for discussions with government leaders and to inspect the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in the island. During his visit in August 1974, in the wake of the hostilities, Mr. Waldheim arranged for talks to begin between Acting President Glafcos Clerides and Rauf Denktash.

The Secretary-General also made a number of trips to the Middle East in the continuing search for peace in the area. In August 1973 he visited Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and Jordan; in June 1974 he met with the leaders of Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Jordan and Egypt; and in November 1974 he went to Syria, Israel and Egypt in connection with the extension of the mandate of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). On these visits he also inspected the United Nations peace-keeping operations in the area – the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and UNDOF.

In February 1973, during an official trip to the subcontinent, the Secretary-General discussed with the Governments of India,Pakistan and Bangladesh the problems created by the war between India and Pakistan and ways and means to overcome its consequences. He also inspected the United Nations Relief Operation in Bangladesh, the largest relief operation ever undertaken under United Nations auspices.

In February and March 1974, the Secretary-General visited a number of countries in the Sudano-Sahelian area of Africa where the United Nations had undertaken a major relief operation to assist the victims of a prolonged drought.

The Secretary-General also opened and addressed a number of major international conferences convened under United Nations auspices. These include the third session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Santiago, April 1972), the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, June 1972), the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (Caracas, June 1974), the World Population Conference (Bucharest, August 1974) and the World Food Conference (Rome, November 1974).

The Secretary-General participated in Security Council meetings held away from Headquarters, in Africa (Addis Ababa, January 1972) and in Latin America (Panama, March 1973).

He addressed and attended meetings of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in Rabat (June 1972 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the OAU, in Addis Ababa (May 1973) and in Mogadiscio (June 1974). He also addressed the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington (March 1972).

In February 1973, the Secretary-General took part in the Paris International Conference on Viet-Nam; in December of the same year he presided over the first phase of the Geneva Peace Conference on the Middle East.

In July 1973, Mr. Waldheim addressed the Conference on European Security and Co-operation in Helsinki.

On the invitation of their respective Governments, the Secretary-General paid official visits to a number of countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Europe.

Married and the father of three children, Mr. Waldheim is the author of a work on Austria’s foreign policy, The Austrian Example, which has been published in German,English and French.

Mr. Waldheim died on 14 June 2007 in Vienna, Austria, at the age of 88.

Former secretaries-general

U Thant , who served as Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1961 to 1971, was chosen to head the world body when Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold was killed in an air crash in September 1961.

U Thant was born at Pantanaw, Burma, on 22 January 1909, and was educated at the National High School in Pantanaw and at University College, Rangoon.

Prior to his diplomatic career, U Thant’s experience was in education and information work. He served as Senior Master at the National High School, which he had attended in Pantanaw, and in 1931, he became Headmaster after winning first place in the Anglo-Vernacular Secondary Teachership Examination.

He was a member of Burma’s Textbook Committee and of the Council of National Education before World War II, and was an Executive Committee member of the Heads of Schools Association. He was also active as a free-lance journalist.

In 1942, U Thant served for a few months as Secretary of Burma’s Education Reorganization Committee. In the following year, he returned to the National High School as Headmaster for another four years.

U Thant was appointed Press Director of the Government of Burma in 1947. In 1948, he became Director of Broadcasting, and in the following year, he was appointed Secretary to the Government of Burma in the Ministry of Information. In 1953, U Thant became Secretary for projects in the Office of the Prime Minister, and in 1955, he was assigned additional duties as Executive Secretary of Burma’s Economic and Social Board.

At the time of his appointment as Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant had been Permanent Representative of Burma to the United Nations, with the rank of Ambassador (1957-1961).

During that period, he headed the Burmese delegations to the sessions of the General Assembly, and in 1959, he served as one of the Vice-Presidents of the Assembly’s fourteenth session. In 1961, U Thant was Chairman of the United Nations Congo Conciliation Commission and Chairman of the Committee on a United Nations Capital Development Fund.

During his diplomatic career, U Thant served on several occasions as Adviser to Prime Ministers of Burma.

U Thant began serving as Acting Secretary-General since 3 November 1961, when he was unanimously appointed by the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Security Council, to fill the unexpired term of the late Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold. He was then unanimously appointed Secretary-General by the General Assembly on 30 November 1962 for a term of office ending on 3 November 1966.

U Thant was re-appointed for a second term as Secretary-General of the United Nations by the General Assembly on 2 December 1966 on the unanimous recommendation of the Security Council (resolution 229, 1966). His term of office continued until 31 December 1971.

U Thant received honorary degrees (LL.D) from the following universities: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada (25 May 1962); Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts (10 June 1962); Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey (12 June 1962); Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts (2 June 1963); Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (13 June 1963); Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire (16 June 1963); University of California at Berkeley, California (2 April 1964); University of Denver, Denver, Colorado (3 April 1964); Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania (8 June 1964); New York University, New York (10 June 1964); Moscow University, Moscow, Soviet Union (30 July 1964); Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario (22 May 1965); Colby College, Waterville, Maine (6 June 1965); Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut (14 June 1965); University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada (28 May 1966); Hamilton College, Clinton, New York (5 June 1966); Fordham University, Bronx, New York (8 June 1966); Manhattan College, New York (14 June 1966); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (30 March 1967); Delhi University, New Delhi, India (13 April 1967); University of Leeds, England (26 May 1967); Louvain University, Brussels, Belgium (10 April 1968); University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada (13 May 1968); Boston Unversity, Boston, Massachusetts (19 May 1968); Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey (29 May 1968); University of Dublin (Trinity College), Dublin, Ireland (12 July 1968); Laval University, Quebec, Canada (31 May 1969); Columbia University, New York City (3 June 1969); the University of the Philippines (11 April 1970); and Syracuse University (6 June 1970). He also received the following honorary degrees: Doctor of Divinity, The First Universal Church (11 May 1970); Doctor of International Law, Florida International University, Miami, Florida (25 January 1971); Doctor of Laws, University of Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut (23 March 1971); Doctor of Civil Laws degree, honoris causa, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York, (30 May 1971); Doctor of Humane Letters, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (7 June 1971).

U Thant retired at the end of his second term in 1971 and he died on 25 November 1974 after a long illness. He was 65 years old.

** Formerly known as Burma.

Former secretaries-general

Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld was Secretary-General of the United Nations from 10 April 1953 until 18 September 1961 when he met his death in a plane accident while on a peace mission in the Congo. He was born on 29 July 1905 in Jonkoping in south-central Sweden. The fourth son of Hjalmar Hammarskjöld, Prime Minister of Sweden during the years of World War I, and his wife Agnes, M.C. (b. Almquist), he was brought up in the university town of Uppsala where his father resided as Governor of the county of Uppland.

At 18, he was graduated from college and enrolled in Uppsala University. Majoring in French history of literature, social philosophy and political economy, Mr. Hammarskjöld received, with honors, his Bachelor of Arts degree two years later. The next three years he studied economics, at the same university, where he received a “filosofic licenciat” degree in economics at the age of 23. He continued his studies for two more years to become a Bachelor of Laws in 1930.

Mr. Hammarskjöld then moved to Stockholm, where he became a secretary of a governmental committee on unemployment (1930-1934). At the same time he wrote his doctor’s thesis in economics, entitled, “Konjunkturspridningen” (The Spread of the Business Cycle). In 1933 he received his doctor’s degree from the University of Stockholm, where he was made assistant professor in political economy.

At the age of 31 and after having served one year as secretary in the National Bank of Sweden, Mr. Hammarskjöld was appointed to the post of Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Finance. He concurrently served as Chairman of the National Bank’s Board, from 1941 to 1948. Six of the Board’s members are appointed by Parliament and the Chairman by the Government. This was the first time that one man had held both posts, the Chairmanship of the Bank’s Board and that of Under-Secretary of the Finance Ministry.

Early in 1945, he was appointed an adviser to the Cabinet on financial and economic problems, organizing and coordinating, among other things, different governmental planning for the various economic problems that arose as a result of the war and the postwar period. During these years, Mr. Hammarskjöld played an important part in shaping Sweden’s financial policy. He led a series of trade and financial negotiations with other countries, among them the United States and the United Kingdom.

In 1947 he was appointed to the Foreign Office, where he was responsible for all economic questions with rank of Under-Secretary. In 1949, he was appointed Secretary-General of the Foreign Office and in 1951, he joined the Cabinet as Minister without portfolio. He became, in effect, Deputy Foreign Minister, dealing especially with economic problems and various plans for close economic cooperation.

He was a delegate to the Paris Conference in 1947, when the Marshall Plan machinery was established. He was his country’s chief delegate to the 1948 Paris Conference of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC). For some years he served as Vice-Chairman of the OEEC Executive Committee. In 1950, he became Chairman of the Swedish Delegation to UNISCAN, established to promote economic cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries. He was also a member (1937-1948) of the advisory board of the government-sponsored Economic Research Institute.

He was Vice-Chairman of the Swedish Delegation to the Sixth Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly in Paris 1951-1952, and acting Chairman of his country’s delegation to the Seventh General Assembly in New York in 1952-1953.

Although he served with the Social-Democratic cabinet, Mr. Hammarskjöld never Joined any political party, regarding himself as an independent, politically.

On 20 December 1954, he became a member of the Swedish Academy. He was elected to take the seat in the Academy previously held by his father. Elected to two terms as Secretary-General Mr. Hammarskjöld was unanimously appointed Secretary-General of the United Nations by the General Assembly on 7 April 1953 on the recommendation of the Security Council. He was reelected unanimously for another term of five years in September 1957.

During his terms as Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjöld carried out many responsibilities for the United Nations in the course of its efforts to prevent war and serve the other aims of the Charter.

In the Middle East these included: continuing diplomatic activity in support of the Armistice Agreements between Israel and the Arab States and to promote progress toward better and more peaceful conditions in the area; organization in 1956 of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and its administration since then; clearance of the Suez Canal in 1957 and assistance in the peaceful solution of the Suez Canal dispute; organization and administration of the United Nations Observation Group in Lebanon (UNOGIL) and establishment of an office of the special representative of the Secretary-General in Jordan in 1958.

In 1955, following his visit to Peking, 30 December 1954 – 13 January 1955, 15 detained American fliers who had served under the United Nations Command in Korea were released by the Chinese People’s Republic. Mr. Hammarskjöld also traveled to many countries of Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas and the Middle East, either on specific assignments or to further his acquaintance with officials of member governments and the problems of various areas.

On one of these trips, from 18 December 1959 to 31 January 1960, the Secretary-General visited 21 countries and territories in Africa — a trip he described later as “a strictly professional trip for study, for information”, in which he said he had gained a “kind of cross-section of every sort of politically responsible opinion in the Africa of today”.

Later in 1960, when President Joseph Kasa-Vubu and Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Republic of the Congo sent a cable on 12 July asking “urgent dispatch” of United Nations military assistance to the Congo, the Secretary-General addressed the Security Council at a night meeting on 13 July and asked the Council to act “with utmost speed” on the request. Following Security Council actions the United Nations Force in the Congo was established and the Secretary-General himself made four trips to the Congo in connection with the United Nations operations there. The first two trips to the Congo were made in July and August 1960. Then, in January of that year, the Secretary-General stopped in the Congo while en route to the Union of South Africa on another mission in connection with the racial problems of that country. The fourth trip to the Congo began on 12 September and terminated with the fatal plane accident.

In other fields of work, Mr. Hammarskjöld was responsible for the organization in 1955 and 1958 of the first and second UN international conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy in Geneva, and for planning a UN conference on the application of science and technology for the benefit of the less developed areas of the world held in 1962.

He held honorary degrees from Oxford University, England; in the United States from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Pennsylvania, Amherst, John Hopkins, the University of California, Uppsala College, and Ohio University; and in Canada from Carleton College and from McGill University.

Former secretaries-general

Trygve Halvdan Lie was born on 16 July 1896, in Oslo, Norway, the son of Martin and Hulda Arnesen Lie. He was educated at Oslo University where he obtained a law degree in 1919. On 8 November 1921, he married Hjordis Joergensen. They had three children – Sissel, Guri and Mette.

Mr. Lie became a member of the Norwegian Labor Party Youth Organization in 1911. He was an assistant to the secretary of the Labor Party from 1919 to 1922, a legal adviser to the Norwegian Trade Union Federation from 1922 to 1935, and national executive secretary of the Labor Party in 1926. In the Labor Party Government formed by Johan Nygaardsvold, Mr. Lie was Minister of Justice for the years 1935 to 1939, then Minister of Trade and Industries from July to September 1939 and, at the time of the outbreak of the Second World War, became Minister of Supply and Shipping. In that capacity he evolved the provisional measures that saved the Norwegian fleet for the Allies, after the German invasion in April 1940. In June that year he went to England, when the Norwegian Government decided to continue the fight from abroad.

He became acting Foreign Minister in December 1940 and was appointed Foreign Minister of Norway in February 1941. Mr. Lie was elected a member of the Norwegian Parliament in 1936 and was re-elected in 1945. On 12 June 1945, the Government of which he was a member resigned; Mr. Lie was appointed Foreign Minister of the interim coalition cabinet which took over the government at the time, and Foreign Minister in the new Labor Party Government in October 1945.

Mr. Lie led the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco, April 1945, and was Chairman of Commission III for drafting the Security Council provisions of the Charter. He was also Chairman of the Norwegian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly in London in January 1946. On 1 February 1946, Mr. Lie was elected the first Secretary-General of the United Nations. He was formally installed by the General Assembly at its 22nd meeting on 2 February 1946. The General Assembly on 1 November 1950, continued Mr. Lie in office for a further three years from 1 February 1951. He resigned as Secretary-General of the United Nations in November 1952.

Mr. Lie had the following appointments since leaving the United Nations: Governor of Oslo and Akershus, Chairman of Norway’s Board of Energy. By a resolution of the General Assembly in 1958, King Olav of Norway was asked to find a basis on which Ethiopia and Italy could start to settle a border dispute involving the former Italian colony, Somalia. King Olav, in 1959, appointed Mr. Lie as Mediator.

Mr. Lie passed away on 30 December 1968.

No rest for the travel weary, so I’ve got a link to give you something to listen to until tomorrow.  Some dudes from Thursday, Glassjaw, and Converge made an album of love ballads under the moniker United Nations and you can stream the entire effort over at their Myspace page today.  No idea how long that will last so check it out on the quick.  And how great is that album artwork?  That’s probably a lawsuit waiting to happen, but until then it sure is nice to look at.

Of course, everybody knows you can’t talk about the United Nations without talking about Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And, naturally, you can’t talk about Boutros Boutros-Ghali without talking about Ali G:

U to tha N.  We out.

It irritates the living hell out of me when politicians (or anyone for that matter) uses the “I have been there” line. You know, that line when a country comes up in a conversation and they say “I have been there”. I was listening Bill Maher (yeah, yeah) on my iPod when some or other politician was using this argument that things are soooo much better in Iraq. You know – he’s “been there”. Like he knows something we don’t know. Sorry buddy. You haven’t been there. Going on an escorted trip to some holiday camp isn’t “been there”. It’s just a package deal holiday trip. It’s buying that Disney trip off the travel agent. Not planning your own trip to Florida. Disney isn’t Florida. You haven’t been to Florida just because you have been to Disney World. Mickey Mouse isn’t Governor Charlie Crist – and Goofy isn’t Jeb Bush either. They just act like them. I know – it’s a shocker. But that’s the truth.

Dick Cheney has been to Iraq. Hillary has been all over the place. All escorted trips. Talking to people and seeing people that other people controlled. Not a moment of meeting the people in the streets. No. They met the people those in power wanted them to meet. Those “good little soldiers”. Those on the side of the winners or warlords or occupiers – not those who suffer in their homes without water or electricity or food or jobs. Or walls for that matter. Those have been bombed as well. So what you have are just very big windows as the Republicans would like you to believe. You see what they want you to see. And not what you should see. You don’t see the families caring for the wounded ones or crying for the lost ones.

It brings me to McCain. (No, I am still not writing about the election - just the topic of “I have been there”). McCain went to Iraq last week. Made a few “misspokes” by confusing a few issues. Wouldn’t you with Lieberman standing next to you? You just don’t know which way Lieberman might go – Independent today, Republican tomorrow, Democrat yesterday. Anyway – I digress. Again. So McCain went to the marketplace. Bought a few goods there I hope. You know. A bucket of water (just a few minor shrapnel holes in it). Some oil (imported from Saudi Arabia because you can’t find Iraqi oil). An AK47 (seen some action). But no food and no freedom fries. But why didn’t he go to the market he went to the last time? Because it wasn’t safe. Not even with those Blackwater guards, marines, armoured vehicles and helicopters. He hasn’t “been there”. He could only say “I haven’t been there”.

They don’t know those places. They don’t live in those places. They fly in and they fly out. Just so they can say “I have been there”. Just so they can spin it in a way that you like it – with a bit of cream on top thank you. It makes it soooo much easier to swallow. It’s just the way I used to feed my dog his medicine – hide it in a piece of ham. But even my dog got it in the end. He started spitting out the pills (but still ate the ham). Americans aren’t stupid. No. Let me rephrase that. Americans aren’t dumb for long. You start smelling something rotten and starts spitting out the pill of stupidity. And the approval rating of those “who have been there” starts dropping faster than the bombs in Iraq. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time…

“I have been there”. I should be a politician really. No – I should be the ruler of the world by now. Hear me people of the world – your leader is here. The wait is over. Get the roses and the wine ready, because here I come. The people of Cameroon – I am your main-man. I have been there once. For almost a day. A stopover on my flight to Bamako, Mali. Actually, I have been there twice – on my return flight as well. I am the most knowledgeable foreign policy person I know. Why? Because “I have been there”. Zambia - vote me in. I spend time in Lusaka – many times. “I have been there”. I’ve eaten your nsima and drank your Mosi. Ivory Coast – your saviour and warlord is here. “I have been there”. Twice. Stuck at the airport.  Hungary – anoint me in the Danube. “I have been there”. For 3 long days in a luxury hotel that included a massage from a big hairy Hungarian – male. Mexico – ola, make me your main revolutionary piñata. “I have been there”. Mexico City, Chihuahua, Monterrey and many Tequila’s. France – c‘est la vie, your monsieur of la resistance has arrived. “I have been there”. Four long days in Paris – baguettes, wine, cheese, insults and all. Germany – your über prince of the united country is here. “I have been there”. In Trier to shop for toys, in Berlin to do nothing really, and in Nuremberg for a job interview. “I have been there”. I have been everywhere. Almost. Never mind South Africa where I was born and raised. Or the UK where I spend four long years watching footie, drinking pints and eating crap “fish and chips” like a real Englishman. Or the US where I have lived for the last 18 months shouting for the Red Sox and hating the Yankees like all good Americans should. Yes, I have been there. But I know nothing. Because I don’t live their lives. I am just a guy from South Africa. An Umlungu who knows too little and says too much.

Really, if “I have been there” qualifies you as a foreign policy expert then every pilot on the Delta international route is Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And sorry my friend, you ain’t from Egypt or his world. I sometimes even doubt if you are even from this world. Even if you “have been there”. You still haven’t “been there” or “got it”.

So. Stop it please. Stop trying to sound all travelled and wise because you “have been there”. You haven’t. You haven’t even “been there” when it comes to the US. You can’t use a daft and brainless line just to justify and spin your stupid, warped and pathetic policies. It isn’t an answer. It isn’t an analysis. It isn’t even SNL or Real Time. It’s just you being stupid. Like my dog was in the beginning. But even he got over it. He roams and knows his territory. He even marks it by lifting his leg on everything. Instead of telling me “I have been there”, tell me how you are going to “be here”. Just don’t leave a mark like my dog. Just don’t take the piss.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by RSS

Those viewers who are interested in this blog series should be armed with the order and titles, as the key words are similar and may result in the seeker being shunted to one or two blogs. To give all interested parties the opportunity to view them all, herein please find the complete set, according to publication:

1.)  “DIRTY DEEDS IN THE LEVANT?”

2.)  “MR ‘T’ GOES EAST”

3.)  ”BINYAMIN DENOUNCES MR. T”

4.)  “GUARDIAN ANGELS LEAVE FOR PALESTINE”

5.)  “NETANYAHU CHASED FROM HOSPITAL”

6.)   ”GUARDIAN ANGEL, SLIWA, MEETS WITH MR. T”

7.)   “GUARDIAN ANGELS FIGHT IDF AT BORDER”

8.)   “MR. ’ T ‘ HOSPITALIZED”

A caveat: people who have adverse physical reactions to startling, astonishing information should not risk reading these blogs. Go to a less interesting blog elsewhere, where one’s safety is secured by the sheer banality of the message.

All rights reserved. Nomoonnight, 2008. 

6 avril 1994, Kigali.
Un missile « SAM-16 Gimlet » provenant d’une saisie française pendant la guerre du Golfe désintègre le « Falcon 50 » (avion français) ainsi que ses passagers Juvénal Habyarimana (président du Rwanda) & Cyprien Ntaryamira (président du Burundi) entre autres…
Les tireurs (français ?) viennent de déclencher « le génocide à la machette ».
1 million de morts plus tard, soit 3 mois plus tard…
l’opération « Turquoise » se déploie et fait mine de découvrir l’horreur.
François Mitterrand, humoriste, déclare : « De quel génocide voulez-vous parler ? De celui des Tutsis ou celui des Hutus ? » (Biarritz, 08/11/94, F.Mitterand).
Mais encore : « Dans ces pays-là, un génocide, c’est pas trop important. » (Confidence de Mitterrand faite à l’un de ses proches, rapporté par Le Figaro du 12/01/1998.Le Quotidien, cité par Courrier international, édition du 8 avril 2004, n° 701).

Boutros-Boutros Ghali, secrétaire général des Nations Unis nous explique: « Nous avions des consignes pour ne pas utiliser le mot « génocide » car, en vertu de la convention du 9 décembre 1948, nous aurions été obligés d’intervenir… Malheureusement, un conflit qui se déroule dans un coin reculé d’Afrique, où de surcroît, il n’y a pas de pétrole, n’intéresse personne… »
Personne ? Sauf les français du « DAMI » qui s’emploient à entraîner les milices au combat, leurs fournir armes et techniques de torture avant de s’en prendre aux enfants et aux femmes (violées, déchiquetées, éventrées, égorgées etc.)
Pourquoi ? Car : « Je le dis solennellement : la France doit maintenir sa route et refuser de réduire ses ambitions africaines. La France ne serait plus tout à fait elle-même si elle renonçait à être présente en Afrique. » (Discours d’ouverture de la conférence de Biarritz, 08/11/94, F.Mitterand).

Images : AFP