Datasets:

BAAI

/

IndustryCorpus_politics

like 2

Follow

Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence 688

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1282

For Iran, cost of closing strait may outweigh gain By LEE KEATH | December 29, 2011 | 3:30 PM EST In this photo released by China's Xinhua News Agency, Iranian Navy personnel take part in their naval maneuvers dubbed Velayat 90 on the Sea of Oman, Iran, on Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011. An Iranian surveillance plane has recorded video and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier during Iran's ongoing navy drill near a strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Ali Mohammadi) NO SALES CAIRO (AP) — With missile batteries, fleets of attack boats and stocks of naval mines, Iran can disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz but probably cannot completely shut down the world's most important oil route, military analysts say. The question for Iran's leadership is whether it is worth the heavy price. Trying to close the strait would bring down a powerful military response on Iran's head from U.S. forces in the Gulf and turn Tehran's few remaining international allies against it. That Iran is making such dire threats at all illustrates its alarm over new sanctions planned by the U.S. that will target oil exports — the most vital source of revenue for its economy. Iran's leaders shrugged off years of past sanctions by the U.S. and United Nations, mocking them as ineffective. But if it cannot sell its oil, its already-suffering economy will be sent into a tailspin. "It would be very, very difficult for Iran even to impede traffic for a significant period of time," said Jonathan Rue, a senior research analyst at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. "They don't have the ability to effectively block the strait." What the Iranians can do, Rue and other analysts say, is harass traffic through the Gulf — anything from stopping tankers to outright attacks. The goal would be to panic markets, drive up shipping insurance rates and spark a rise in world oil prices enough to pressure the United States to back down on sanctions. The strait would seem to be an easy target, a bottleneck only about 30 miles (50 kilometers) across at its narrowest point between Iran and Oman. Tankers carrying one-sixth of the world's oil supply pass through it, from the fields of petrogiants Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbors, exiting the Persian Gulf into the Arabian Sea and on to market. They move through two two-mile-wide shipping lanes, one entering the Gulf, one exiting. In recent years, Iran has dramatically ramped up its navy, increasing its arsenal of fast-attack ships, anti-ship missiles and mine-laying vessels. Its elite Revolutionary Guards boasts the most powerful naval forces, with approximately 20,000 men, with at least 10 missile patrol boats boasting C-802 missiles with a range of 70 miles (120 kilometers) and a large number of smaller patrol boats with rocket launchers and heavy machine guns, according to a recent report by Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The navy has three submarines and an unknown number of midget subs, capable of firing "smart" torpedoes or laying mines. It also has a large scale capability for laying mines using both small craft and commercial boats, according to the report. The Revolutionary Guard has also deployed a heavy array of anti-ship Seersucker missiles with a range of up to 60 miles (100 kilometers) along its coast overlooking the strait, on mobile platforms that make them harder to hit. The Guard's naval forces and the regular navy "have been the most favored service. The Iranian air force and ground forces have not seen the same level of attention in domestic procurement and weapons systems," Rue said. "They realize their navies are the best options for inflicting casualties" on the U.S. or Arab Gulf nations. Still, those forces would not likely be enough to outright seal the strait, given the presence of the U.S. 5th Fleet based in the Gulf nation of Bahrain. On Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman George Little warned that any "Interference with the transit or passage of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz will not be tolerated." Laying minefields in the Hormuz waters would in theory be the most effective action, forcing time-consuming clearing by U.S. forces and their allies before tankers could move through. But particularly strong currents in the strait make such mining difficult. Moreover, the U.S. and its Gulf allies have extensive surveillance in the area, meaning the Iranians would have little time to set an effective minefield, Rue said. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have both extensively increased their anti-mining capabilities. Iran's anti-ship missile batteries on the coast are another major threat. But while the missile platforms are mobile, the radar facilities that enable them to target shipping largely are not, making them vulnerable to U.S. strikes. "It wouldn't be a cakewalk" for U.S. and other forces to push back an Iranian attempt to close the strait, Rue said. But in the end, "their capabilities are not great and ours overwhelmingly outmatch theirs." The closest parallel may be the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, when each side attacked shipping in the Gulf, trying to cut off the other's vital oil revenues. More than 500 ships were damaged in attacks, and Iranian mining and assaults prompted a U.S. operation escorting Kuwaiti tankers. But while oil shipments from the Gulf slowed, they came nowhere close to stopping. Alireza Nader, an analyst at the RAND Corp., said Iran could start with lower-level moves short of outright attacks. "It could harass shipping, stopping and searching ships. We could see those kind of provocative steps," he said. But turning to military moves raises the danger for Iran of retaliation. And trying to close the strait could be disastrous for Tehran. "If the benefits are higher than the costs, it could take that action, but it's difficult to see how that could be because of how bad the fallout would be," Nader said. "It's economic self-sabotage." Hormuz is in the territorial waters of Iran and Oman, but it is considered an international strait where free passage is guaranteed, meaning that under international law, closing it by any nation would be considered an act of war. Russia and China, Iran's main allies that have protected it from stronger U.N. sanctions, would have little choice but to respond. Russia, which now has oil production contracts in Iraq, and China, which relies on the region for its supplies, also have no interest in seeing traffic stop, said Olivier Jakob of the Switzerland-based oil monitor Petromatrix. Hormuz's closure would also be a heavier blow to Iran than any sanctions hitting the approximately 2.5 billion barrels a day of oil it exports, which provide some 80 percent of its revenue. Not only do all of its oil exports go through the strait, but also most of its imports, including vital gasoline supplies. "A full shutdown would really be the worse case for Iran. That's their last bullet," Jakob said. Given that, U.S. officials have expressed doubts Iran would carry out the threat. State Department spokesman Mark Toner called Iran's warnings merely "more rhetoric." Iran has threatened to close the strait in the past, but in response to a U.S. or Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. Now it has stepped it up a notch as a possible retaliation to sanctions, reflecting the degree of worry over the planned U.S. sanctions aimed at stopping its nuclear program, The sanctions would ban transactions with the Iranian Central Bank. Countries and companies around the world use the bank to finance purchases of Iranian oil, meaning they would either have to stop buying it or face action from Washington. Halting — or even denting — oil income would be devastating to an economy that is already struggling amid its international isolation. The value of Iran's riyal is now 15,200 to the dollar, from 10,500 a year ago. Cash withdrawals from banks have been restricted. Prices of food and grocery items like milk have increased up to 20 percent in recent months. In an attempt to cut its budget, the government recently ended subsidies on fuel and some foods, sending gas prices up sevenfold and quadrupling bread prices. In place of subsidies, the government gives direct payments of $40 a month to poor families to pay for necessities. The threats also reflect a worry among Iran's leaders that its oil can be replaced on the market by Arab producers, particularly Saudi Arabia, without too great an increase in world prices, said Mustafa Alani, a Geneva-based analyst with the Gulf Research Center. That makes a cutoff a viable option for the U.S., and if that happens "the economy will collapse." "All the noise about Hormuz is linked to the feeling that it is possible, and they say, 'if we go down, we will take everyone with us.' If Iranian oil stops, then all the oil stops," he said. But in the end, "I don't think they are willing to do it because the consequences would cost them too much," Alani said. "I don't think they are so stupid." AP correspondents Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Sinan Salaheddin and Rebecca Santana in Baghdad contributed to this report. Printer-friendly version

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1290

US Battles Iraq and Afghanistan over Detention Without Charges Published on Tuesday, November 20, 2012 by The GuardianUS Battles Iraq and Afghanistan over Detention Without Charges The Obama administration fights to spread its own values on the core, fundamental right of due processbyGlenn GreenwaldFor several decades, the US government - in annual "human rights" reports issued by the State Department (reports mandated by the US Congress) - has formally condemned nations around the globe for the practice of indefinite detention: imprisoning people without charges or any fixed sentence. These reports, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her preface to last year's document, are grounded in the principle that "respect for human rights is not a western construct or a uniquely American ideal; it is the foundation for peace and stability everywhere." That 2011 report condemned numerous nations for indefinite detention, including Libya ("abuse and lack of review in detention"), Uzbekistan ("arbitrary arrest and detention"), Syria ("arbitrary arrest and detention"), and Iran ("Authorities held detainees, at times incommunicado, often for weeks or months without charge or trial"). In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US government is engaged in a fierce and protracted battle over the fundamental right to be free of indefinite detention. Specifically, the US is demanding that the governments of those two nations cease extending this right to their citizens. As a Washington Post article this morning details, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is insisting that the US fulfill its commitment to turn over all prisons, including the notorious facility at Bagram, to Afghan control, but here is one major impediment [emphasis added]: "Afghan and U.S. officials have also disagreed on the issue of detention without trial. Washington wants the Afghan government to continue holding certain prisoners it views as dangerous, even if there is not enough evidence to try them. "Aimal Faizi, the chief spokesman for Karzai, told reporters Monday that detention without trial is illegal in Afghanistan and that more than 50 Afghans are still being held in U.S. custody at Bagram, 35 miles northeast of Kabul, even though they have been ordered released by Afghan courts." The US has long been demanding that the Afghan government continue the American practice of indefinite detention without charges, and still presses this demand even after the top Afghan court in September ruled that such detentions violate Afghan law. Human rights workers in Afghanistan have long pointed out that America's practice of imprisoning Afghans without charges is a major source of anti-American sentiment in the country. In a 2009 interview, Jonathan Horowitz of the Open Society Institute told me: "The majority of the people who I have spoken to cite the way that the US captures and detains people as their main complaint against the US, second only to civilian casualties." This US-Afghan battle over basic due process has extended beyond detention policies. In 2009, the Obama administration's plan to assassinate certain Afghan citizens it suspected of being "drug kingpins" - with no charges, trial or any other due process - sparked intense objections from Afghan officials. Those officials tried to teach Obama officials such precepts as: "There is a constitutional problem here. A person is innocent unless proven guilty," and: "if you go off to kill or capture them, how do you prove that they are really guilty in terms of legal process?", and: "[The Americans] should respect our law, our constitution and our legal codes. We have a commitment to arrest these people on our own." Meanwhile, in Iraq, the government's release last week of Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah operative accused of killing five US troops in 2007, has infuriated Americans from across the ideological spectrum, including conservative senators and progressive writers. Let's leave aside the bizarre spectacle of Americans, of all people, righteously demanding that other people be held accountable for violence committed in Iraq when not a single American political or military official has been (i.e, those who initiated one of the worst aggressive wars of this generation), and when even private contractors from Blackwater were fully immunized for their wanton acts of violence against Iraqi civilians. Let's further leave aside the equally warped American belief that those who kill US soldiers who are part of an invading and occupying army are "terrorists". Consider the reason that Daqduq was released: "In a phone call on Tuesday, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, that the United States believed that Mr. Daqduq should be held accountable for his actions and that Iraq should explore all legal options toward this end, an American official said. . . . "But Mr. Maliki told Mr. Biden that Iraq had run out of legal options to hold Mr. Daqduq, who this year had been ordered released by an Iraqi court. . . . Iraqi officials have said that they thought delaying Mr. Daqduq's release until after the American presidential election would mollify the Obama administration. American officials have repeatedly insisted that they did not want him released at all . . . . "After Mr. Daqduq was transferred to Iraqi custody, an Iraqi court ruled that there was not enough evidence to hold him." US efforts to persuade the Iraqi government to transfer him to US custody for "trial" in a US "military commission" - where he would likely be detained either at Guantanamo or a specially created military brig in South Carolina - were previously rejected by the Iraqis on the ground that they have sovereignty over acts committed in Iraq and would honor the decisions of their courts. US claims that the release of Daqduq is the by-product of Iraqi closeness to the Iranians (rather than respect for due process) may well be accurate, but that does not make ongoing imprisonment in defiance of a court finding any more justified. As is true in Afghanistan, this battle over basic due process rights has a long history over the course of the US occupation of Iraq. In 2008, the US refused to release imprisoned Reuters photojournalist Ibrahim Jassam despite a ruling from an Iraqi court many months earlier that there was no evidence to justify his detention and that his release was therefore compelled. For two years, the US imprisoned AP journalist Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, without charges of any kind until a four-judge Iraqi judicial panel found his detention in violation of the law and ordered him immediately released. It is ironic indeed that the US is demanding that the practice of due-process-free indefinite detention be continued in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries it invaded and then occupied while claiming it wanted to bring freedom and democracy there. But on one level, this is the only outcome that makes sense, as a denial of basic due process is now a core, defining US policy in general. The Obama administration not only continues to imprison people without charges of any kind, but intended from the start to do so even if their plan to relocate Guantanamo onto US soil had not been thwarted by Congress. At the end of 2011, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which codifies the power of indefinite detention even for US citizens, and - after an Obama-appointed federal judge struck it down as unconstitutional - continues vigorously to fight for that law. And, of course, the power to assassinate even its own citizens without a whiff of due process or transparency - the policy that so upset Afghan officials when it was proposed for their country - is a crowning achievement of the Obama legacy. It's hardly unusual, of course, for the US government self-righteously to impose principles on the world which it so flamboyantly violates. Indeed, such behavior is so common as to barely be worth noting. Just this week, President Obama managed with a straight face to defend Israel's attacks on Gaza with this decree: "there's no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders." As Liliana Segura, Jemima Khan and Reason's Mike Riggs all quickly noted, this pronouncement came from the same man who has continuously rained down missiles on the citizens of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and other countries. Meanwhile, UN Ambassador Susan Rice took to Twitter last night to denounce changes to a draft UN resolution that condemns "extrajudicial killing" - even as her own nation and its closest Middle East ally continue as the global leaders of this practice. Still, there's something particularly revealing about the US demanding that the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq abandon any commitment they are attempting to develop (albeit quite selectively) to basic due process rights and instead imprison anyone the US wants imprisoned - even in the absence of evidence of their guilt and even in the face of judicial findings that their detention is without evidence and unlawful. As it turns out after all, the US is indeed spreading its core values to those two nations, though those values have nothing to do with freedom and democracy except to the extent that they are the primary impediments to achieving it.© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited Glenn Greenwald is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, constitutional lawyer, commentator, author of three New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, and a staff writer and editor at First Look media. His fifth and latest book is, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, about the U.S. surveillance state and his experiences reporting on the Snowden documents around the world. Prior to his collaboration with Pierre Omidyar, Glenn’s column was featured at Guardian US and Salon. His previous books include: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics, A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, and How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, a George Polk Award, and was on The Guardian team that won the Pulitzer Prize for public interest journalism in 2014. Share This Article

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1298

� ConservativeUnderground.com > General > General Discussion > Could the Queen really dissolve Parliament now? View Full Version : Could the Queen really dissolve Parliament now? Rockntractor02-09-2011, 09:27 PMThinking the unthinkable is what constitutional lawyers are paid to do. Many are now saying that with the daily revelations about improper expenses claims from beleaguered MPs the Queen should step in and dissolve Parliament � against the Government�s wishes � forcing a general election to compel MPs to stand for immediate re-election after a scandal on the scale of that of the pre 1832 rotten boroughs. Trust has now been destroyed. It can, so the argument runs, be rebuilt only by a neutral third party, the Queen, and not by a self-interested and wholly discredited cabal of politicians. Could the Queen really dissolve Parliament in that way or is it unthinkable? A few weeks ago, I represented the Government of Fiji before the Fijian Court of Appeal. The court rejected the argument that the President had emergency powers allowing him to dissolve Parliament outside the terms of the Constitution. Interestingly, the court drew a distinction between the Crown prerogative of the English Crown and the President of a republic who, the Court said, had only the specific and limited powers given to him by the written Constitution. But the UK does not have a written constitution. Some maintain it should. In the absence of a written constitution the Queen still has the so-called personal prerogatives. One of them is the power to dissolve Parliament. There is no �law� that prevents the Queen from dissolving Parliament. But there is an important constitutional convention that enables the Prime Minister alone to decide the timing of a dissolution and general election and to advise the Queen. It has from time to time been suggested that the Queen has a personal discretion in the matter and that her discretion can, in fact, be exercised despite prime ministerial advice to the contrary. There is limited support for this view. But it is very old. In November 1834, the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne had to appoint a new Commons leader and a new Chancellor (who by long custom, must be drawn from the Commons), but the only candidate that Melbourne felt suitable to replace Lord Althorp as Commons leader was Lord John Russell, who William IV (and many others) found unacceptable due to his Radical politics. William claimed that the ministry had been weakened beyond repair and used the removal of Lord Althorp as the reason for the dismissal of the entire ministry. With Lord Melbourne gone, William chose to entrust power to a Tory Sir Robert Peel. However, since 1834 there has been no exercise of the personal prerogative in relation to dissolving Parliament. The prevailing view is, therefore, that a constitutional convention now prevents it. The question is whether or not the Queen could act in defiance of that convention. This, in turn, raises the issue � rarely addressed � of the effect of a constitutional convention. Anyone speaking and writing about conventions is faced with a problem. Conventions are closely related to law but they are not themselves law. Courts have never had to decide the legal effect of a constitutional convention because conventions do not determine legal rights. Occasionally, courts such as the Canadian Supreme Court in the 1980s have been willing to define the scope of a particular convention (in that case which Canadian body should ask the UK to pass the necessary legislation to give effect to Canada�s break with the UK) but they have only ever done so extra-legally. A constitutional commission would have been able to do precisely the same thing. The short answer to whether the Queen would ever do the unthinkable and dissolve Parliament contrary to the Government�s wishes is that there is, almost certainly, no legal impediment to her doing so. But the constitutional objections against such a course would be likely to prove overwhelming unless there were some constitutional crisis. It is, though, ironic that at the start of Gordon Brown�s short honeymoon with the British public one of his first acts was to seek to whittle down the royal prerogatives almost to vanishing point. It was, like his handing over of interest rate variations to the Bank of England at the start of the Blair era, an initially popular move since lawyers of a republican bent have always distrusted the possibility of discretionary powers unregulated by Act of Parliament. Yet that is the difficulty with the present crisis. The mounting public anger at the lack of transparent and accountable self-regulation by MPs cries out for the exercise of discretionary sovereign power. The last thing the public wants is a Parliament-driven solution to a problem created by the very MPs who constitute Parliament and many of whom have the strongest possible interest in a �solution� that will not serve the public interest.http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6329207.ece I side tracked another thread today mentioning the Queen of England and whether she had power over Canada,the queen of England is still the queen of Canada. This is the article and issue I was remembering. First mention in thread. http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=36719&page=7 Novaheart02-09-2011, 10:01 PMWouldn't it all depend on whether she has the support of the military or the people? Rockntractor02-09-2011, 10:11 PMWouldn't it all depend on whether she has the support of the military or the people? I don't know why this caught my interest but it did. From what I can tell if the government were to go against the constitution she can step in and dissolve the government of either the UK or Canada. I assume this would be to help the people. Sonnabend02-09-2011, 10:33 PMThe short answer is a flat NO. Only once before has a vice regal used that power, and the chaos that ensued left a mark that will never be forgotten. Non story. Rockntractor02-09-2011, 10:40 PMThe short answer is a flat NO. Only once before has a vice regal used that power, and the chaos that ensued left a mark that will never be forgotten. Non story. It came up today in a question as to whether The queen holds any power over Canada. PoliCon02-10-2011, 12:47 AMIt came up today in a question as to whether The queen holds any power over Canada. They do still recognize her as sovereign. Rockntractor02-10-2011, 12:55 AMThey do still recognize her as sovereign. That is the way I understand it. PoliCon02-10-2011, 01:03 AMShe's constitutional monarch for: United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1347

With France bearing down, key rebel in Mali splits from Islamists Latest News A prominent member of Ansar Dine, an Islamist militant group that recently overran northern Mali, announced that he and his fighters were breaking with the group. By Peter Tinti, Correspondent Malian troops man an observation post outside Sevare, some 400 miles north of Mali's capital, Bamako, Thursday, Jan. 24. One wing of Mali's Ansar Dine rebel group has split off to create its own movement, saying that they want to negotiate a solution to the crisis in Mali, in a declaration that indicates at least some of the members of the Al Qaeda-linked group are searching for a way out of the extremist movement in the wake of French airstrikes. Mali: enchanted land, challenging times Jerome Delay/AP View Caption About video ads of Bamako, Mali — In an apparent sign of internal conflict among one of the Islamist rebel groups controlling northern Mali, a prominent Ansar Dine member, Alghabass Ag Intallah, told the Associated Press Thursday that he and his men were breaking from the group "so that we can be in control of our own fate."The split suggests that at at least some of the fighters within Ansar Dine’s ranks have changed their posture since the start of French air strikes in central and northern Mali. With French air power and ground units weighing in on the side of the Malian government, the momentum of the conflict has shifted away from the once-surging Islamist forces. But it remains to be seen how many fighters will follow Mr. Ag Intallah away from Ansar Dine and what future role they might play in a conflict that has become increasingly factionalized. A fabled city of the Sahara: How much do you know about Timbuktu? "We are not terrorists. We are ready to negotiate," Ag Intallah told AP. "We are neither AQIM or MUJAO," referencing Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO is its acronym in French). "We are a group of people from the north of Mali who have a set of grievances that date back at least 50 years." That Ag Intallah has now decided to part ways with Ag Ghali and claims his group is comprised of only Malian nationals suggests he may be trying to distance himself from the foreign jihadis and local extremist groups that have garnered the attention of the international community.French radio RFI reported Thursday that Intallah's new group will be called the Islamic Movement for the Azawad, and specified that his men are willing to fight against what remains of Ansar Dine. Formed in 2011 and led by veteran ethnic Tuareg powerbroker Iyad Ag Ghali, Ansar Dine rose to prominence in 2012 fighting alongside the MNLA, a secular, ethnic-Tuareg separatist group in northern Mali. The initial success of the rebellion was accelerated by a military coup that toppled Mali’s elected government in the south. With the Malian army in disarray, both groups swept through northern Mali to gain control of a vast desert expanse roughly the size of France. Most analysts at the time believed that the MNLA was the stronger Tuareg faction, but Ansar Dine quickly marginalized its separatist allies of convenience by linking up with AQIM and other jihadist groups to gain control of northern Mali. Mr. Ag Ghali has transformed himself several times over the years as rebel leader, hostage negotiator, even member of the Malian government. He is believed to have been “radicalized” as Mali’s envoy to Saudi Arabia where he may have been ejected by the Saudi government for suspected contacts with radicals. He now advocates the spread of an uncompromising interpretation of sharia law in Mali. Regional mediators, particularly the neighboring nation of Burkina Faso, had long asserted that Ansar Dine – thought to be the most moderate and indigenous of the rebel factions in northern Mali – could be negotiated with. But when the Islamist rebels pushed southward and attacked the central Malian town of Konna just days before scheduled meetings with negotiators in early January, France quickly launched air strikes to stem the rebel advance.According to Andrew Lebovich, an analyst based in neighboring Senegal, "The offensive toward Konna that began earlier this month made it impossible to deny Iyad [Ag Ghali]'s close cooperation with AQIM and MUJAO, making any kind of political solution significantly more difficult."Ag Intallah, who hails from the same Tuareg tribe as Ag Ghali, comes from an important political family in the region of Kidal. His decision to throw his support behind Ansar Dine earlier last year was a considerable setback for the MNLA, who sought to isolate Ag Ghali and Ansar Dine as a fringe movement. Think you know Africa? Take our geography quiz. Can Mali use surge of patriotism to heal its political divides? No terrorist 'safe haven' in North Africa? That's a tall order.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1367

U.S. lawmakers greet Iran nuclear deal with skepticism and restraint Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticizes nuclear deal Abir Sultan / AFP/Getty Images Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, in Jerusalem, has denounced the preliminary international deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Some members of the U.S. Congress may be torn between a desire to back President Obama and long-standing support for Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, in Jerusalem, has denounced the preliminary international deal on Iran’s nuclear program. Some members of the U.S. Congress may be torn between a desire to back President Obama and long-standing support for Israel. (Abir Sultan / AFP/Getty Images) Richard Simon WASHINGTON — Obama administration officials began efforts Sunday to sell the interim agreement with Iran as key members of Congress signaled skepticism but a willingness to allow the deal to proceed.Amid Israeli denunciations of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a "bad deal," U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry argued that the agreement would improve Israel's security because extensive new inspections would give the United States and its allies far more information than before on Iran's activities. The six-month preliminary deal would pause Iran's nuclear enrichment program and roll back some elements of it in return for the easing of some economic sanctions."None of this is based on trust. It's not a question of trust. It's a question of having the verification and the intrusive inspections," Kerry said on CNN, in one of several television appearances as he made the rounds of Sunday morning interview programs. Critics should compare the plan with the available alternatives, not with a hypothetical ideal outcome, Kerry added."This negotiation is not the art of fantasy or the art of the ideal. It's the art of the possible," Kerry said in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "If you didn't do what we're doing, they would be marching forward" with the nuclear program and "moving closer to a weapon."President Obama and Kerry hope to dissuade Congress from imposing any new sanctions on Iran while the next round of negotiations proceeds. New sanctions could cause the Iranians to withdraw from talks, officials have warned.Despite strong attacks on the deal from the Israelis and some conservative groups in the U.S., initial reaction from Capitol Hill indicated that the administration may achieve that goal, at least for now. The administration expects opposition from many Republicans and can count on the support of most Democrats. One key group being lobbied by both sides is Jewish Democrats and those with large numbers of Jewish constituents, who may be torn between a desire to back Obama and long-standing support for Israel.White House officials held a 45-minute conference call with a group of Jewish members of Congress on Sunday, stressing the potential benefits of the deal."It's tough for all of us who are strongly pro-Israel to be at odds with the views of our Israeli allies," said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), one of those who took part in the call. He suggested Congress would approve sanctions that would take effect if negotiations for a permanent deal fail."Even among the best of allies, you're going to have differences," Schiff added. "This deal has to be compared to the alternative" of Iran's being able to pursue its nuclear program without restraint."I hope that Congress will work with the administration to strengthen our hand during the course of the next six months and work in unison and not at odds with each other," he said.Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) issued a statement also suggesting that Congress would pass additional sanctions on a standby basis.Menendez criticized the deal, saying it would give Iran too much relief from sanctions in exchange for relatively little rollback of its nuclear program. But he did not suggest any immediate action that might undermine the agreement."I expect that the forthcoming sanctions legislation to be considered by the Senate will provide for a six-month window to reach a final agreement before imposing new sanctions on Iran, but will at the same time be immediately available should the talks falter or Iran fail to implement or breach the interim agreement," he said.Among Republicans, some, including Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark)., who is running for the Senate, compared the deal to then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler in Munich, Germany, in the run-up to World War II.House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Fullerton) called for toughening sanctions. "We just feel more pressure needs to be brought on Iran rather than make this deal and take the pressure off of Iran," Royce said in an interview on Fox News.House Speaker John A. Boehner, however, issued a notably mild statement that expressed doubts about the deal but did not propose any immediate steps that might try to undo it."The interim deal has been and will continue to be met with healthy skepticism and hard questions," Boehner (R-Ohio) said. "Iran has a history of obfuscation that demands verification of its activities and places the burden on the regime to prove it is upholding its obligations in good faith while a final deal is pursued." Boehner stressed the need to "preserve the strong international sanctions regime" until a final deal can be negotiated. But his statement said nothing about imposing new sanctions on Iran immediately.And some Democrats offered more full-throated praise. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, both of whom have long records of supporting Israel, lauded the deal.Levin called it "a realistic, practical way to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months while we seek a long-range diplomatic end to Iran's nuclear weapon ambition."Feinstein called the agreement "a giant step forward" and said it "should not be undermined by additional sanctions at this time."Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said simply: "It is a choice between a pause or imminent war. I choose a verifiable pause."Opponents of the deal moved quickly to try to stymie it."I don't see any likelihood that this is going to sell well in Congress," Danielle Pletka, vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, said in a call Sunday with reporters."Once you start to lift sanctions, even minimally, it is a breach, a hole in the dike, and everything goes flowing back in," Pletka said. "That is absolutely what the Iranians are calculating."Administration officials say that sanctions could be ratcheted back up if Iran fails to negotiate a final agreement, she said, but "we are already seeing Asian businessmen, Chinese in particular, headed toward Tehran to make deals. So every picture you see of the Iranians smiling, that's the reason."Still, Pletka said she saw "very, very significant hurdles to getting Iran legislation passed with substantial enough majorities to withstand a presidential veto."Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said he thought the deal fell short. "Nine thousand centrifuges continue to spin," he said in an interview.But he, too, said "the president will be able to block" any immediate move toward toughening the sanctions. The best move for those concerned about the deal would be to support additional sanctions that would go into effect if the administration fails to produce a final agreement satisfactory to Congress, he said."Our position in these negotiations will be much stronger if the Iranians know they have got to agree to something so that Congress passes a resolution delaying or eliminating the application of massive additional sanctions," he [email protected] Iranian Nuclear Program Nuclear deal with Iran is only 'first step' of difficult climb U.S.-Iran thaw began with months of secret meetings

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1383

Armed Forces Day Is an Important Occasion for the Nation’s Military Robert F. Dorr - May 20, 2011 The latest types of tanks from the year 1939 rumble past the Capitol in the Annual Army Day Parade in Washington, D.C. The tanks were preceded by 20,000 soldiers and veterans, who paraded past the U.S. Capitol in the Annual Army Day Parade, which marked the 22nd anniversary of America's entry into World War I. Thousands braved a heavy downpour to view the parade. LIbrary of Congress photo Sharing Options: Sections: Military History Topics: Defense Wide Labels: U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy On Saturday, May 21, the nation is scheduled to celebrate Armed Forces Day, an occasion that is often overshadowed by the better-understood Memorial Day events that come little more than a week later. On Armed Forces Day, military bases around the United States will show their people, equipment and methods to the American public they support. In an era of demanding military commitments around the world, fewer bases will hold open-house events than in years past, but Americans will flock to the shows that are held. Best-known and most attended of these events is the Joint Forces Open House and Air Show to be held at Joint Base Andrews, just outside Washington, D.C. The Andrews event will open Friday, May 20, for Department of Defense personnel and their families as well as school-sponsored children. The event will be open to the general public May 21-22 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The base is expecting 100,000 visitors on Saturday alone – a huge number, but smaller than in previous years because of security precautions. Long before airfields had fences, gates, or guards, those who fly to defend the nation enjoyed displaying their skills and equipment to the citizens they protect. In the earliest days of aviation, many airfields were little more than pastures with unpaved runways. Military air pioneers took to the sky in flimsy, fabric-covered biplanes while anyone living nearby was encouraged to observe. In 1910, citizens brought picnic lunches to watch Orville Wright demonstrate an aircraft at Fort Myer, Va. One of several predecessors of Armed Forces Day was Army Day, first celebrated on May 1, 1928. That day, Army installations held demonstrations for the public, including air shows. Beginning in 1929, Army Day was changed to April 6, a date coinciding with the U.S. entry into the Great War, later called World War I. Army Day became a nationwide observance to draw public attention to national defense and bring Americans to open house events. Robert F. Dorr (right) and his brother Larry stand with a B-29 Superfortress at the first Armed Forces Day open house, Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., May 20, 1950. Photo by Lawrence G. Dorr, Sr. Navy Day had a spot of its own on the calendar, on Oct. 27 of each year. Between the world wars, veterans’ groups urged each service branch to create a day to honor the founding of their particular service. The Navy League urged Navy leaders to celebrate their service’s achievements – and display them to the taxpayer – on Oct. 27. There was some confusion as to how to choose a date, and it was eventually decided to pick the birthday of President Theodore Roosevelt, who had been an assistant secretary of the Navy and supported a strong Navy as well as the idea of Navy Day. A second reason for picking Oct.r 27 was a 1775 report on that date issued by a special committee of the Continental Congress favoring the purchase of merchant ships as the foundation of an American Navy. Army Day, Navy Day and similar Coast Guard and Marine Corps events were postponed during World War II, but were replaced by public displays held to sell war bonds. One of the largest military shows ever held in the U.S. took place on the Washington Monument grounds over a two-week period in July 1943. The event exposed the public to thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks, planes, and guns, all transported to the center of the nation’s capital. A P-51B Mustang fighter was displayed in the grass across the street from the Department of Commerce. A B-24 Liberator appeared on the Monument grounds. There were impressive flyovers by warplanes. “Unification” – called “jointness” today – was a buzzword in the postwar era. As military leaders had promised during the war, a Department of Defense was created in 1947, and the Air Force became an independent service branch on Sept. 18 of that year. In 1948 and 1949, public events were held on Air Force Day, on Aug. 1 – for those two years only. On Aug. 31, 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of an Armed Forces Day to replace Army, Navy, and Air Force days. There was irony in the timing of Johnson’s call for “unification.” At the time, Air Force generals seeking the B-36 bomber were locking horns in a furious inter-service battle with Navy admirals who wanted a new aircraft carrier. The first “joint” public day was celebrated on May 20, 1950 – weeks before the outbreak of the Korean War – with parades, shows, and open houses around the country. The theme for that day was “Teamed for Defense,” which expressed the unification of military service branches under one government department. The largest show was held at Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., which has no runway today but was a busy airfield then. The Bolling show enabled the public to see the newest the military, including the Air Force, had to offer. Among equipment shown to the public was a C-54 Skymaster transport used in the Berlin Airlift the previous year and a B-50 Superfortress bomber, part of the nation’s evolving strategic nuclear force. There were also speeches and parades. In peace and war, Armed Forces Day has been held every year since 1950 on the third Saturday in May. By Robert F. Dorr Robert F. Dorr is an author, U.S. Air Force veteran, and retired American diplomat who...

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1400

Human Rights Groups critical of Russian 'foreign agents bill' By Ken Hanly Jul 15, 2012 in Politics - A new bill passed by the Russian parliament requires NGOs(Non-government Organizations) that receive foreign funding to be registered as foreign agents. Human rights groups have been critical of the legislation. The Russian State Duma(Parliament) approved a bill, nicknamed "the foreign agents bill" that would label NGOs that are politically active and funded from abroad as foreign agents. The bill passed with overwhelming numbers in spite of criticism by human rights groups. The final tally was 374 for the bill, 3 against and one abstention. Supporters of the bill claim that it will give more information to Russian citizens about foreign-funded NGOs. They point out as well that other countries lncluding the U.S. have had similar legislation for years. Many Human Rights groups both in Russia and elsewhere are very critical of the bill. For example Lyudmilla Alexeyeva head of the Moscow Helsinki group said: "They may close us down if they want,”... "As a founder and chairman of the Moscow Helsinki Group, I declare that the Moscow Helsinki Group will not get registered as a foreign agent under any circumstances." Alexeyeva said that the group would not accept foreign donations once the bill was passed into law. She said her group would be forced to lay off staff and also carry out fewer projects. She also said that some NGO's would simply shut down since they would not be able to survive on Russian donations alone. The Moscow Helsinki group was able to survive even through the Soviet era. Another NGO called Memorial said the aim of the bill was to label opponents of the government as enemy hirelings. The Committee Against Torture said it would refuse to register as a foreign agent unless forced to do so by the courts. Even a group of UN experts called upon the government not to pass the bill. One group Fair Russia did not take part in the voting on the bill but a member of the group said that the bill would split Russian society. The member noted that under the bill he would become a foreign agent since he collected donations from over a thousand foreign citizens to help victims of the recent flood in the southern Krasnodar region. Activists from the liberal Yabloko party protested the new bill. Party leader Sergey Mitrokhin said that the repressive law is attempting to humiliate people who work for foreign-funded NGOs. Mitrokhin insists that the Russian government will never fund organizations that champion human rights or fight against corruption, and Russian business will not do so either. Such organizations depend upon the generosity of foreigners to survive. While there is little doubt that there are some foreign funded NGO's whose primary role is to advance the agenda of foreign interests others are trying to advance human rights, stop torture, and help flood victims. These groups support and strengthen universal values. Russia, ngos, foreign agents More news from foreign agents

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1477

These are funny days to be a conservative in the western world. The mainstream of our ideology, as confused as it so often can be, has been taken over by many of our ideological foes. Just two short years ago a new conservative age was being touted across the world, as conservatives swept to power at all levels of government in many countries. The re-election of Bill Clinton, and the elections of Britain’s Tony Blair and France’s Lionel Jospin seem to have put the stake in those grand pronouncements of conservatism for the ages. With the exception of Jospin, who has moved ever so slightly away from some of his socialist tents after he was elected, several of the left were elected pretending to be conservatives or running on conservative platforms to one degree or another. England saw the rebirth of Labour under its leader Tony Blair, who ran his party to the right of the Tories and was rewarded with a massive majority. Blessed with the advantage of budget cuts already performed by his predecessors and thereby avoiding any unpleasantness with his constituency, Blair has continued on the right even to the point of irking the unions with some of his intentions. In Canada the Liberals ran, on all things, their fiscal responsibility. Although they managed to come back with a greatly reduced majority, they successfully stole the centre-right ground away from the misnamed Progressive Conservative Party. Only the populist western-based Reform Party managed to outgun them successfully for the label of conservative. And in the United States Bill Clinton, despite his impeccable leftist credentials, is seen as a "New" Democrat. It was Clinton, after all, who signed a welfare reform bill. He has, as have Blair and Jean Chr�tien of Canada, stolen the middle ground away from the Republicans. Compared to previous Democrat presidents he's a Barry Goldwater. So where does this leave conservatives? It means it’s time for them to be conservatives…real conservatives. For too long our movement has been under the control of one kind of collectivist or another. Whether the so-called moderates who preach government intervention in our lives for their worthy causes, religious conservatives who want Christians in China to be free but not people in North America, or populist conservatives who rant against the free market. Michael Oakeshott, a philosopher and historian, described two ideas of government that have been in contention for centuries. The first, rooted in ancient Greece, is the state as civil association. On this view, the state's job is to help people live their own lives according to their own ideas, imposing no goals of its own on its citizens. Contrasting with that is the idea of the state as enterprise association. On this view the state has aims of its own (to raise the income of all its subjects, say, to establish economic equality among them, to conquer neighbouring lands, to glorify God): government directs the enterprise in order to achieve these goals. The first view puts individuals at the centre, the second society. From the first view comes classical liberalism -- and from that the constitution of the United States (as it was understood until the 1920s). From the second comes socialism, and many varieties of modern conservatism. The Economist, September 20, 1997 It is time for the consistent conservative. The conservative whose philosophy is based on a rational philosophy, not one based on tradition or faith. The conservative who is more concerned with their principles then the principal in their war chest. The conservative who is more concerned with freedom than their free parking spots. More concerned about individualism than the individuals who donate huge sums of cash. One cannot make large-scale changes in society with those changes occurring in all other aspects of society. Those changes often break down the values people hold in exchange for new ones. Without sounding like the sometimes blindingly optimistic and pseudo-libertarian Wired magazine, I posit that society is in the early stages of a new revolution based on information one that heralds a shift in values. Hardly a new prediction right? The problem with this stand is that no one knows where it will end up. In hindsight we know where the industrial revolution has led us, but the huge jumps forward have yet to even be conceived, much less planned for. This revolution, part-Objectivist and part-libertarian in nature, promises to change the very functioning of society much like the Industrial Revolution. A new mindset is slowly creeping its way into our collective consciousness, and it is the belief in liberty It was a mindset that was once a conservative mindset. For whatever reason, conservatism has moved away from championing liberty to the unenviable task of fighting for the same ground as liberals. We’re championing values that are collectivist in nature thanks to conservatives who pin their politics to tradition and faith. They cede reason without ever knowing its power. The movement must begin to move back to its roots, back to the championing of liberty. A movement which once proclaimed freedom from the state and society as its ultimate goal. Not the values which are popular in the mainstream, but the ones which led to the creation of the freest nation on Earth. The old conservatism of the United States is the benchmark for all conservatives no matter where they may be. That liberty is best expressed in the ethos of capitalism. It is the freest form of human interaction ever to be put into play. It only works because it is a system that at its roots recognizes individual human rights, from freedom of choice to private property. And if conservatives do not champion capitalism, "they stand for and are nothing; they have no goal, no direction, no political principles, no social ideals, no intellectual values, no leadership to offer anyone." (Ayn Rand, Conservatism: An Obituary). Conservatives have to reassess what it is that they stand for or we will continue to fight the left over what degree of statist intervention we prefer in our lives, and we will lose many times in that scenario. If conservatives are to "conserve" anything, it is the movement itself. It can only do that by once again championing capitalism, freedom and individualism. Current Issue Archive Main | 1998 Musings - ESR's blog E-mail ESR

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1545

Some final reminders for voters In addition to myriad election races on today’s ballot, voters will be asked to decide the fate of three questions relating to the state constitution. The editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat recommends that you vote no on all three. Question 1, known as CACR 13, would create a constitutional prohibition against an income tax. While readers are well aware of our opposition to an income tax, we think the discussion engendered by the political debate every few years has proved fruitful for voters. This year, for example, both gubernatorial candidates have been forced to address funding the needs of the state while promising to veto an income tax.Long term, we hold out hope that at some point those discussions will offer a solution to New Hampshire’s onerous and regressive property tax burden, sans an income or sales tax. Additionally, we think it is poor policy for voters to restrict the options of future legislatures with artificial limits. Question 2, known as Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 26, also deserves a no vote. Simply put it is an attempt by the Legislature to meddle in the affairs of the New Hampshire court system. CACR 26 is an attempt by House Speaker Bill O’Brien’s wing of the state Legislature to put a hand in the justice system’s cookie jar. CACR 26 follows on the heels of the establishment of a House Committee on the Redress of Grievances which was set up to do an end run around the courts, thus voiding the notion of three coequal branches of government — legislative, judicial and executive. It is also worth noting that CACR 26 is being opposed in a bipartisan fashion by the likes of former Republican governor Steve Merrill and former New Hampshire high court justice Joseph Nadeau, a Democrat.The bottom line is that New Hampshire has a stellar reputation for vetting judicial nominations. Under the leadership of those such as former Chief Justice John Broderick, the court has also been innovative in coming up with ways to better serve the public during very trying financial times (http://tinyurl.com/court-innovation). The final constitution-related question on the ballot reads: Shall there be a convention to amend or revise the constitution?Again the editorial board here at Foster’s Daily Democrat urges a no vote.Simply put, there is no wave of pressing issues that requires an open-ended constitutional convention. New Hampshire has a track record of focusing on specific issues that address specific needs and bringing a limited number of questions to the voters. This process gives voters an ability to focus their energies and not be steamrolled by a slew of changes that could easily come out of a constitutional convention. Some of these past issues which have come out of New Hampshire’s more limited approach to proposing constitutional amendments include an eminent domain provision in 2006 in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo versus New London decision and an unfunded mandate provision passed in 1984. Voters with long memories will recall how thoroughly these and other proposed changes were vetted by voters.Our fear is that a constitutional convention is free to run amok, creating a deluge of unneeded proposals. Put another way, the current system of a few proposals at a time has worked well, so we encourage voters to say no to Questions 3. ***For readers who would like to see the entire text of these questions or examine sample ballots, go to http://tinyurl.com/sample-ballots

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1560

The real reasons for Republicans’ lack of success in 2012 By Frank Donatelli Print Oct. 26, 2012: Spanish language election campaign signs promoting President Barack Obama hang on the windows at Lechonera El Barrio Restaurant in Orlando, Fla. Hispanics supported President Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney by almost 3-to-1 and put Republicans on notice they must take real steps to win over the nations largest minority group if they want to win the presidency again. (AP) The 2012 election can only be seen as a bitter disappointment for conservatives and the Republican Party. An incumbent well to the left of center with limited job approval ran for reelection burdened by high unemployment and huge budget deficits – and won. In these situations, the losing candidate always comes in for their share of the blame, and Governor Mitt Romney certainly wasn’t a perfect candidate, nor was his campaign error-free. But the reasons for Republicans’ lack of success this year go far deeper than our candidate’s personal appeal. First, the Obama campaign did a first rate job of targeting and turning out their voters in battleground states. Their ground game was as good as advertised. Through a judicious use of state-of-the-art social media systems and technology, Obama won virtually every important state by razor thin margins. The campaign ignored red states and focused its energy and resources to leverage a very narrow popular vote majority into a convincing victory in the Electoral College. Republicans are getting better but need to work harder to match Democrats’ modern online voter ID tools and expertise. Second, Republicans were unable to convince voters that they had a clear set of alternative policies that would produce significantly better economic results for the country than Obama’s record, which featured little economic growth or job creation and huge budget deficits. This was thought to be the GOP’s strongest argument, but it didn’t move the electorate nearly enough for Romney to win. The task was complicated by the willingness of many voters to blame former President George W. Bush rather than the man in charge for the past four years for our poor economic circumstances. Also, the (very) slowly improving economic numbers convinced a plurality of voters that the economy was actually getting better rather than worse. Obama argued that he was doing the best anyone could under the circumstances. Much of the mainstream media bought his argument completely. When Romney announced his 12 million job creation goal, very achievable by historic standards, most in the media scoffed and immediately pronounced it unattainable. We are learning to settle for less because government continues to perform so poorly. Thus did the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression become the Gold Standard for presidential leadership and economic policymaking. We need to redouble our efforts to explain in the clearest possible terms why limited government, including proper tax and regulatory policies, leads to prosperity while big government does just the opposite. Third, it is undeniable that the GOP has serious institutional weaknesses that must be addressed and soon. Young voters last supported the Republican nominee in 1988 – a quarter century ago. They supported the Obama administration again this year despite the huge deficits they will ultimately pay for and a lack of real economic opportunity the past four years. Mitt Romney actually did worse than John McCain among Hispanics, the fastest growing ethnic group in the country. Romney can be faulted here for moving sharply in a nativist direction in the primaries and then spurning the chance to work with Senator Marco Rubio to produce a GOP version of the “Dream Act.” The result was that Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado were won by Obama for the second consecutive election. Unless Republicans come to grips with the immigration issue, more states will become unwinnable, including Arizona and even Texas. There is no more urgent priority for Republicans than to aggressively compete for Hispanic support. Finally, the gender gap remains as big as ever. Republicans continue to have problems with moderate suburban moms and single women – even though many of these voters agree with their economic message. It is a dubious strategy for any candidate to speak so insensitively and cavalierly about why women who are victims of violent assault cannot be trusted to make their own health and medical decisions. Republicans need a new agenda to focus attention on strengthening the multiple roles women uniquely fulfill in our society – as wife, as mother and caregiver, and as breadwinner, sometimes the only breadwinner for her family and children. Our goal should be to identify with the overlapping challenges many women face and to develop policies to make it easier for modern women to achieve these multiple economic and social objectives. It is said that we learn far more in defeat than victory. That’s why these next few months will be crucial as Republicans consider the future of their party. A longtime Republican political activist, Frank Donatelli is executive vice president and director of federal public affairs for McGuireWoods Consulting LLC, and serves as counsel with McGuireWoods LLP. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain tapped Frank to serve as deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, where he coordinated the RNC’s fundraising and organizing activities directly with the McCain-Palin presidential campaign. Frank is the former chairman of GOPAC, an organization dedicated to educating and electing a new generation of Republican leaders. He previously served as Political Director for President Ronald Reagan.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1598

Home>OpEd: Make Kim Davis volunteer with LGBTQ groups You are not logged in. OpEd: Make Kim Davis volunteer with LGBTQ groups Read More: American prison complex, Kim Davis Recently, Kim Davis was sent to jail for refusing to issue marriage certificates to couples in the State of Kentucky in protest of the Supreme Court ruling deeming same-sex marriage constitutional. While Davis did break a law, that does not mean that we should be so quick to throw an orange jumpsuit on the perpetrator. Incarceration should not be the immediate response, instead accountability and education should be at the center of disciplinary action. OpEd submitted by Tyler Keylon During her relatively short stint in jail, Davis was reported to have only read the Holy Bible. This makes sense, as our correctional facilities don’t typically provide a library of rehabilitative resources relevant to crimes – in this case, literature on the history of LGBT people in the United States and their relationship with the State. Davis didn’t receive counseling or diversity training in jail, helping her to better understand how her misguided hatred of the LGBT community put her in her cell. So what is really happening while the insubordinate clerk is sitting in jail? The frothing-at-the mouth fascist fringes of the GOP (led by former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee), are positioning Davis into a symbol of resistance against the so-called War on Faith and Christianity. By placing Davis in a way which politically distances herself from the ever-changing melting pot we call society, the LGBT community is furious that their rights are continually being infringed upon by our elected traditional-valued officials and even our fellow democrats I propose that alternative measures be taken to hold Davis accountable for her lawless actions as Clerk, ensuring that justice is truly served. Instead of incarcerating her for not following the law as directed by the Supreme Court, we should actively seek punishment alternatives that will promote rehabilitation. It is clear that incarceration has not fixed a thing, but instead has created a media fiasco that the more right wing radical candidates in the 2016 Presidential Race will use to their advantage, hoping to gain more attention and ultimately more votes later on.. It is clear that Davis must be impeached from her position, because of her inability to perform the duties that she promised to fulfill when she was elected to office. If Davis is not held fully accountable and she is allowed to stay in her current position, it will highlight another failure by the State to hold discriminatory individuals accountable for their actions stemming from personal prejudiced beliefs and values. After being impeached, I would argue that Davis should perform community service, preferably at a local shelter catering to the homeless LGBT population. I believe that by being up close and personal with the face of poverty specific to LGBT, this will remind Kim Davis of the real social consequences of discrimination against those in the LGBT communities. Marriage inequality in the eyes of the Law have arguably led to the homelessness that the LGBT community faces today, therefore it is important for those serving the public to be well-educated, dispassionate, reasoned and comfortable in working with the so-called “undesirable” aspects of our society. Working with LGBT-friendly social service organizations can be a reminder to Davis and fellow anti-equality supporters that marital discrimination is a slippery slope that can easily lead to a domino effect of social and cultural degradation. Rather than continuously contributing to the marginalization of the LGBT community, Davis and fellow discriminatory supporters will instead be given the opportunity to provide a helping hand to those in need. This is not forcing an individual to change their thoughts and beliefs, but actually to help educate the masses about concepts of change while reminding individuals that they are not the only person that exists in this world. What is being suggested is a new method of holding lawbreakers accountable for their actions without the use of jails and prisons. It is time that we recognize the failures of the United States Criminal Justice System while simultaneously introducing new methods of governing the governed. Classical forms of discipline and punishment are clearly not remedying the persistent problems with prejudice and discrimination, therefore there is no reason that these conversations shouldn’t be had in our social and cultural circles. The amount of tax dollars that are funneled into our failing Criminal Justice System can be rerouted into social services that cater to communities in need throughout the United States. Hatred is not a crime, but a feeling that should be seen as a social problem to be discussed and worked through. Incarceration is not an accurate method of rehabilitation, and there is no reason that an individual with passionate beliefs should be jailed. The right wing has blown the entire situation out of proportion in the name of their own agenda – the Davis charade was merely a media circus to attain votes and maybe squeeze some extra dollars out of the public through a pity Kickstarter campaign. Together we can work hand-in-hand to ensure the acceptance and recognition of all communities through these alternative measures of rehabilitation, or else we will continue to see Davis’ around the globe exercising their powers in oppressive ways. Several GOP candidates think Ted Cruz is too soft on gay marriage (For the record, Cruz has been endorsed by the National Organization for Marriage, which should settle the question of his credentials.) Mayoral candidate inspired by Kim Davis vows to “eradicate” gays by throwing them all in jail, September 18, 2015 Straight men everywhere are making out with each other to spite Kim Davis, Thank you Kim Davis! Public support for equality over religious freedom jumps after KY county clerk debacle, September 15, 2015 Prev Virginia Pride 2015 in photos Next VA Pilot: Norfolk County Clerk at center of Virginia same-sex marriage suit was the reverse of Kim Davis

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1679

A New Round of Fear-mongering The fear-mongering campaign has resumed. As if following a set pattern of behavior, PM Sharon and Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz are promising that Israel is facing a threat to its survival. Once more the finger is being pointed at Iran. Reuven Pedatzur Feb 11, 2002 12:00 AM The fear-mongering campaign has resumed. As if following a set pattern of behavior, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz are promising that - lo and behold - Israel is facing a terrible threat to its very survival. Once more the finger is being pointed at Iran. In a series of well-orchestrated declarations, senior members of the defense establishment are explaining how great this danger is. "Iran's program for arming itself with non-conventional weapons and the capability of its army's long-range missiles are definitely a threat to Israel's survival," the chief of staff stated at a session of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Once more, Israel's upper defense echelons are building up needless tensions in the region and are fueling a dangerous process that they might not be able to control once it gets underway. Although Iran is a bitter, determined enemy, the chief of staff and the cabinet ministers are mistakenly failing to distinguish between terrorist acts in which the Iranians are involved and Iran's attempts to arm itself with non-conventional weapons. When the chief of staff links the possibility of an Iranian missile attack on Israel with the Iranian regime's support of Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority and when he states categorically that these actions pose a threat to Israel's survival, he is not only stretching the truth - he is also insulting common sense. Although Iranian involvement in terrorism in the region is a source of concern and inflicts damage, it cannot be seen as posing a threat to Israel's survival. On the other hand, a nuclear weapon in Iran's hands could present a serious danger, if Israel follows a wrong-headed policy. Thus, Israel should seek to establish a demarcation line between these two kinds of threats. Moreover, nothing has actually changed in Iran's operational capability recently. Chief of Staff Mofaz is keenly aware that, even if the Iranians possess missiles capable of hitting Israel (such as the Shihab-3 missile), they will not fire them unless they have a very good reason to do so. Thus, why does he felt obliged to argue, in declarations well covered by the media, that "Israel has a defense capability and `another capability' that can be used against Iran"? Beyond the misleading impression such a declaration makes (Israel does not have the capacity for intercepting missiles with a range of 1,300 kilometers, which is the Shihab-3's range), that statement unnecessarily escalates the already tense situation in the region. The use of the - very broad - allusion to Israel's "other capability" constitutes a waste of deterrent potential. When remarks by the Iranian defense minister are used to prove that Israel is threatened, this behavior can certainly be called manipulation. Rear Admiral Ali Shamkhani has explained, in simple terms, that Iran will retaliate if Israel attacks it the way it attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Apparently, the chief of staff and the upper echelons of Israel's defense establishment are trying not only to jump on the bandwagon of America's war on terror but also to set the pace of the bandwagon's progress. Instead of staying on the sidelines, continuing to clandestinely supply the Americans with intelligence data on Iran's armament plans and to wait for American President George W. Bush to make good on his promise to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program, Mofaz and other defense leaders are stubbornly trying to position Israel as a combatant, threatening to spearhead this campaign. Thinking simplistically on this issue, the prime minister and the chief of staff tend to believe that, the greater the tension in the region, the greater will be Israel's standing in the American administration's eyes. To the credit of the senior members of the Israel Defense Force's Military Intelligence division, it must be said that the assessments they submit to the politicians are devoid of any tones of panic or saber-rattling. Although they admit that they cannot predict the precise time when Iran will become a nuclear power, they stress the rational component in the Iranian regime's behavior. The problem is that the chief of staff uses these thoughtfully balanced intelligence evaluations to throw the Israeli public into a panic. What Sharon and Mofaz fail to understand is that, in order not to miss an historic opportunity and in order to enable the Americans to neutralize Iran's armament plans, they must restrain their urge to wave the scarecrow of a "threat to Israeli survival" whenever their policies enter a dead-end street. Sometimes, saber-rattling declarations create a dangerous dynamic. Instead of threatening the Israeli public with a basically non-existent danger to national survival, the chief of staff should be broadcasting a message of calm. By doing so, he would be contributing to the cooling down of tensions in the Middle East, even if that contribution might make things somewhat difficult for him in the next debate that he will soon be initiating - the need for a larger defense budget. Reuven Pedatzur Haaretz Contributor Reuven Pedatzur Send me email alerts for new articles by Reuven Pedatzur Reuven Pedatzur NEW! Send me email alerts for new articles by Reuven Pedatzur

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1682

EU reform will not be easy: Merkel German Chancellor Angela Merkel has signalled she is willing to work with Britain on reform of the European Union, but warned it will not be "a piece of cake". After talks with Prime Minister David Cameron at 10 Downing Street, Mrs Merkel said that the two leaders shared "a lot of common ground" on the need for change in the way the EU works and indicated that she wants action to stop freedom of movement rights being abused for benefit tourism. The Chancellor was given the red-carpet treatment on her one-day visit to London, addressing both Houses of Parliament in the Royal Gallery of the Palace of Westminster and taking tea with the Queen at Buckingham Palace, prompting one German reporter to remark that she was being received as "the Queen of Europe". In a speech which will be closely scrutinised for evidence of Berlin's willingness to co-operate with David Cameron's plans to renegotiate Britain's membership ahead of an in/out referendum in 2017, Mrs Merkel left no doubt that Germany wants the UK to stay in the EU. Germany sees Britain as an "important ally" in the work of changing the European Union for the better, she told MPs and peers, adding: "We need a strong United Kingdom with a strong voice inside the European Union." Mr Cameron said: "I want Britain to be a positive player in a reformed European Union and I know that Angela wants a strong Britain in that reformed European Union. "My objective is clear - I want to be able to say to the British people, in a referendum that will take place by the end of 2017, that we've sufficiently reformed the EU that they should vote to stay in it. But be in no doubt, it will be an in/out referendum." Issues to be addressed included the protection of the interests of non-euro members of the single market as the eurozone integrates, as well as "excessive interference and meddling by European institutions in our national life", said Mr Cameron. Mrs Merkel said: "All these issues need to be addressed openly and candidly. I believe in this. It's not a piece of cake, it's going to be a lot of work, but we've already worked quite hard on other issues. "If one wants Britain to remain in the EU - which is what I want - and if one at the same time wants a competitive Union that generates growth, one can find solutions." In an address delivered partly in English and partly German, Mrs Merkel offered a staunch defence of the EU's record in delivering "almost half a century of peace, freedom and prosperity" and said that the 28-nation bloc - battered by the economic crisis and the instability of the euro - can still serve as "a model for other regions of the world". The German chancellor put forward no concrete proposals for reform of the EU's rules, but accepted the need to deal with "mistakes" in the policy of free movement of EU citizens and said that "unnecessary red tape" from Brussels needs to be subject to regular reviews and scrapped when it is holding the continent back from competing globally. And, in comments which appeared to offer encouragement to the Prime Minister's hopes of securing sufficient reform to allow him to campaign for continued EU membership, Mrs Merkel made clear that she accepts the need for the European Union to change and suggested that differences between London and Berlin may amount to no more than "details". "Our ideas of how the future European Union ought to look like may vary on the details but we, Germany and Britain, share the goal of seeing a strong, competitive European Union join forces," she said. Europe's politicians need " courage to bring about a change for the better", she said, adding: "We must renew Europe in keeping with the times so that it may fulfil its promise of peace, freedom and prosperity also for future generations." With "a strong United Kingdom with a strong voice inside the European Union", she said, " we will be able to make the necessary changes for the benefit of all". Mrs Merkel's visit to London comes at a time when the Prime Minister is coming under pressure to spell out what powers he hopes to repatriate from Brussels in the renegotiation promised if Conservatives win next year's election. But she made clear after their 90-minute lunch that they had discussed in general terms the need for growth and jobs in Europe, rather than grappling with the "technicalities" of the precise treaty changes Britain will seek. She joked that her speech would disappoint both those who hoped it would "pave the way for a fundamental reform of the European architecture which will satisfy all kinds of alleged or actual British wishes" and those who expected she would "deliver the clear and simple message that the rest of Europe is not prepared to pay almost any price to keep Britain in the European Union". Mrs Merkel said that abuse of freedom of movement was "just as much of a headache for us in Germany as it is for the British people". She suggested that changes were needed either to national laws or to the EU's definition of freedom of movement in order to prevent an "onslaught" of migrants seeking access to the generous social security systems of countries like the UK and Germany. But she insisted that the right must be upheld, telling parliamentarians: "A Europe without borders is one of the greatest achievements of European unification. All member states, all citizens benefit from this. "But it is also true that, to maintain and preserve this freedom of movement and gain acceptance for it from our citizens, even today, we need to muster the courage to point out mistakes and tackle them." In a highly personal speech, Mrs Merkel said that as a former citizen of socialist East Germany she was a "living witness" to the possibility of "change for the better" and recalled the pleasure of her first trip to London within months of the fall of the Berlin Wall. She paid tribute to British troops who have served in Germany, and said that Germany was "grateful" to the UK and its other European partners for placing their trust in it following the Second World War and "the break in civilisation" represented by the Holocaust. Speaking in the anniversary year of the outbreak of the First World War, she said: "This is a special year of commemoration for Britain, where you remember your dead, your losses and the untold suffering that Germany brought through these wars to you. "As German chancellor, I bow my head before the victims of these horrible wars." Mrs Merkel - who also met Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Labour leader Ed Miliband - was only the third representative of the German government to be invited to speak to both Houses of Parliament since the Second World War, following chancellor Willy Brandt in 1970 and president Richard von Weizsaecker in 1986. Commons Speaker John Bercow said the rare honour was "amply justified", describing the German chancellor as "Europe's anchor, the essential force for stability at a time of immense turmoil and potentially catastrophic change". She will host Mr Cameron on a return visit to Germany in just a couple of weeks' time, when he joins her to open a trade fair in Hanover. Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said: "Chancellor Merkel's remarks have confirmed that David Cameron's approach to Europe just isn't working. "He's lost control of his party and, as a result, he's losing influence with other European leaders. "The gap between what Chancellor Merkel was offering, and what his eurosceptic backbenchers are demanding remains as wide as ever." cosmick 10:43am Thu 27 Feb 14 Dont talk about the war. mimseycal 8:37pm Thu 27 Feb 14 cosmick wrote… Why? Should we perhaps pretend it never happened? [quote][p][bold]cosmick[/bold] wrote: Dont talk about the war.[/p][/quote]Why? Should we perhaps pretend it never happened? dogandgun 2:59pm Sat 24 May 14 In this context there were TWO wars and we don't pretend they never happened. Every year there is a REMEMBRANCE day in November commemorating both wars and the many who have made the supreme sacrifice in conflicts since then. Over the coming four years 8000 British schoolchildren will be visiting the battlefields and cemeteries of WW1 We should remember the wars. However we should also be quite clear about the fact that the wars were initiated by the Germany of the early 20th century which is quite a different proposition from blaming the Germany of the 21st century.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1738

Picking and Choosing Enemies in Afghanistan Hedieh Mirahmadi President, World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE) It has been rumored that Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has reached out to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar - leader of the Hizb-e-Islami Party in Afghanistan and a declared terrorist. Hearing such news, it is right to question just how far the U.S. will go in its attempts to engage warlords as a strategy to bring sustainable stability and security to Afghanistan. Though arguably useful in the struggle to defeat Communism in Afghanistan in the late 1980s and early 1990s, cultivating warlords like Hekmatyar who were actually global jihadists is what gave us Al Qaeda. And therein lies the problem. We cannot ignore the ideological underpinnings of our enemy and empower them to fight us another day. The question is how do we tell the difference between a warlord and a global jihadist. In Afghanistan, people use the term "warlord" to describe someone who ruthlessly dominates a locality and extracts often exorbitant revenue from bribes in exchange for just about anything -- security, business, drug dealing, or arms trade. However, not all warlords are global jihadists. Some are just in it for the money. In the case of Hekmatyar, it's easy to tell which camp he is in: Combining dangerous anti-American sentiments with a radical Islamist ideology is an obvious threat to American national security today and every day into the future. And so at a minimum, US policy of engagement must distinguish between radical Islamists and criminals motivated by money and not ideology. These distinctions are critical to determining with whom peace is possible because while the latter may be reformed -- or at least brought into the political process -- the former are our sworn enemies who will never surrender. It's also important to distinguish between the two because empowering the forces of radical Islamism is how we alienate the local population and turn potential friends into fighters. When the tribal leaders and local populace are victimized by radical Islamists and neglected by the local government too long, they, too, become a source of aggression. For example, take the recent events in the northern frontier provinces of Pakistan. Though scantily reported by world news agencies, Islamist extremists are brutalizing the local Muslim population and defiling the indigenous culture. Using a tactic popularized by Ansar Islam back in 2002 when they resettled from the caves of Tora Bora to the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq, Islamist fighters in Pakistan have exhumed the corpses of Muslim holy figures and hung their bodies in the city square. These are revered religious figures of Pashtun culture and such blasphemy is correctly attributed to the "Taliban," which is a catchall term for the jihadi fighters. There has also been a rash of killings of traditional Sunni tribal leaders in the area -- with reports of up to 120 people murdered -- because they won't cede to radical Islamist demands for control of their communities. As a result of the inter-community battles and the failure to provide basic security to its citizens, the Pakistani government is left with very few allies in this territory. And here is another complication. In war torn regions like Afghanistan and lawless areas like the FATA, Islamist radicals are easily incorporated into the local power structure because they establish order out of chaos and create a semblance of security with a draconian application of "Shariah" justice. I place the word Shariah in quotes because the Islamist radicals have hijacked this word in much the same way they have hijacked Islam, resulting in a horrific abuse of the entire concept of Shariah and an utter contradiction to the true intent and implementation of Islamic law. By understanding the social and ideological influences in the region, the U.S. and its allies can devise strategies and aid programs that ensure we are supporting indigenous leaders with whom we have a set of shared values. We must provide aid and security only to those with whom we have a mutual interest in improving the lives of their communities. This is the only way to ensure that hard-earned US tax dollars are used to fulfill the promise of hope rather than worsening the cause for despair. And if the overarching objective of U.S. policy is to prevent further terrorist attacks against America, rather than just expedite an exit strategy, seeking to partner with the leader of the Hizb-e-Islami Party is clearly not the way. We must pick and choose our enemies wisely. Warlord Afghanistan Ansar Islam Pashtun Pakistan

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1797

Uncategorized Op-Eds High Stakes for Immigration We need outside-the-box solutions that both protect human rights and make economic sense. By Christine Gofreddo, January 2, 2012. Originally in OtherWords. Mariela Obregon Chavarria hoped to return to her native country of Nicaragua one day, but arriving in handcuffs and escorted by security officers wasn’t what she had in mind. After seven years living and working in the United States, Mariela was arrested and held in four different detention centers around the country for two months. When she was deported, her three-year-old son, a U.S. citizen, remained behind. Unfortunately, this situation isn’t unique. The Obama administration deports approximately 33,400 immigrants per month. More than half of them have no criminal convictions or only very minor ones, such as traffic violations. Many of these deportations stem from programs like Secure Communities, which facilitates information transfers between local police departments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Secure Communities endangers a broad section of society by creating disincentives for immigrants to report crimes or call the police. The stakes are high. Within the first six months of 2011, the federal government removed more than 6,000 parents of U.S. citizen children, leaving over 5,100 children in state care. Although the Obama administration claimed it would focus on deporting serious criminals, the program continues to expand and the number of deportees continues to rise. Nearly 300,000 people have been deported under Secure Communities alone. About 1,600 jurisdictions in 44 states and territories were participating in the program as of September. By 2013, ICE plans to have Secure Communities in operation from coast to coast. And what can we expect if one of the Republican presidential candidates takes office a little over a year from now? Newt Gingrich supports laws that encourage racial profiling. Both Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have called for deporting all undocumented people residing in the nation, regardless of whether they came as children or would be leaving children behind in foster care. Ron Paul wants to bring the troops back from Afghanistan and place them along the U.S.-Mexico border. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is celebrating his opposition to granting in-state college tuition to undocumented teens raised in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, federal authorities have mentioned the possibility of using remote-controlled customs kiosks at the U.S.-Mexico border. Clearly, politicians and officials are starting to think outside the box when it comes to immigration. The problem is, we need outside-the-box solutions that both protect human rights and make economic sense. Deportation disrupts the fabric of local economies. Furthermore, many U.S. policies leave people south of the border with few options but to migrate. So-called “free-trade” agreements like the pacts recently signed between the United States and Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, and those previously established with Mexico and Central American countries, place developing countries at an unfair disadvantage. For example, in Mexico, 1.3 million farm jobs were lost by farmers unable to compete with U.S.-subsidized agricultural exports. These deals encourage the creation of unstable, low-paying factory jobs. In Nicaragua, for example, workers in export-oriented factories make $160 a month, although the cost of living is estimated to be $430 a month. Reforming trade agreements like DR-CAFTA and NAFTA would allow more people to work in their home countries and not have to migrate to the United States to support their families. However, effective solutions must secure the rights of immigrants currently living and working in the United States as well as the roots of migration. Immigration policy reform must provide a pathway to citizenship for immigrants currently living and working in the United States. This would allow undocumented immigrants to stop living in fear of being deported and having their families torn apart. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2011, which incorporates parts of the DREAM Act that almost passed in 2010, is a good start. As the U.S. election heats up, immigration issues can’t be considered within a policy vacuum. Addressing the root causes of migration and focusing on providing legal options for undocumented immigrants will allow millions of people like Mariela both to support their families and lead honest, dignified lives. Christine Goffredo leads Witness for Peace delegations to Nicaragua for students and professionals interested in interested in the impact of “free trade” on the Central American nation, as well as the roots of migration. www.WitnessForPeace.orgDistributed via OtherWords (OtherWords.org) Tags: 2012 Elections, Free Trade, immigration, latinos, Nicaragua, presidential race, secure communitiesProjects: OtherWords No related posts.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1810

Mark L. Hopkins: Are we in a constitutional crisis? Sept. 17 is Constitution Day, and it is fitting that once each year we set aside a day of commemoration for this one-of-a-kind document that changed the way countries and people are governed all around the globe.So are we in a constitutional crisis? The answer is a resounding �YES.� However, it is not the kind of crisis envisioned by our tea party brethren, who think the present administration has turned the Constitution on its head.Texas Congressman Ron Paul said, �The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose, to restrain the federal government.� If what Ron Paul said was true, would the framers of the Constitution have written the clause in the Constitution which delegates to Congress the power �to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.� That is the �elastic clause.� It means that our government, as it is empowered by the Constitution, has whatever powers it chooses to create and administer.However, in truth, the Constitution is in crisis. But don�t worry, it was born in crisis. It was written in secret and in violation of the existing document, the Articles of Confederation, at a time when we didn�t even have a president. No one worried about that in 1789 since we had just defeated the greatest power in the world in mortal combat. Many of our founding fathers were skeptical that this new democracy, this government without precedent in the history of the world, could even exist for more than a few years. Benjamin Franklin was skeptical that it would work at all. Alexander Hamilton wondered whether Washington should be appointed king. Thomas Jefferson, our first secretary of state and third president, was not even sure of the constitutionality of his own Louisiana Purchase. It was a time of infinite crisis.The framers of the Constitution did not envision an all-powerful presidency. When they were writing our Constitution, they looked closely at the monarchies of Europe and decided they did not want a king like George of England or Louis the 16th of France. Instead, the powers of the government were centered in Congress and the framers designed a relatively weak presidency, an administrative post to carry out the will of Congress. Our Constitution can handle change. It has flexibility. As written, it is a set of principles not a code of laws. The framers of our Constitution did not know about DNA, airplanes, the atom, the germ theory of disease, the internal combustion engine, computers, antibiotics, satellites, and a whole list of other advancements. What they did know was that change was coming and that it would be constant. Any constitution would have to be capable of dealing with immense changes.If those who wrote the Constitution were alive today, they would be proud of their handiwork. We should be proud as well. Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers. He is past president of colleges and universities in four states and currently serves as executive director of a higher-education consulting service. Contact him at [email protected].

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1833

Syrians Protest in the Thousands, 24 Killed By Juan Cole | Jul. 2, 2011 | 3 Google +1 Send via email Protesters came out in rural towns such as Amouda and Deraa again on Friday, calling for the ouster of the Baath regime of Bashar al-Asad. Some reports estimated that hundreds of thousands of people came out to rallies. Homs and Hama also bulked large in these protests, apparently, though it is hard to be sure about numbers and significance because Syria has placed extensive restrictions on journalists. Human rights groups estimated that 24 persons were killed as the regime repressed the demonstrations. Meanwhile, as the US ratcheted up its financial sanctions on the regime, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that Syria “must reform.” Although Mrs. Clinton maintains that time is not on al-Asad’s side, two things would need to happen for the protests to effect major genuine change. First, they’d need to occur in much greater numbers in Damascus and Aleppo. People demonstrating in Laramie, Wyoming, would be unlikely to overturn the government in Washington, DC. Although there was a protest in the Qaboun district of Damascus on Friday, it wan’t very big. Second, there would have to be a significant split in the security forces, especially the officer corps. Either the generals would have to turn on Bashar or they would have to divide among themselves even more than they have already done. In the absence of enormous crowds in the streets of the capital and a split military, it will be very hard for the protesters to prevail. The USG Open Source Center rounds up Syrian reports of unrest online: ‘ Roundup of Syrian Web Reports on Unrest 1 Jul 11 Syria — OSC Summary Friday, July 1, 2011 The following is a roundup of reports from various Syrian opposition and pro-government news websites, highlighting reports related to the current unrest and military developments in Syria: All4Syria reports that Syrian Army tanks have deployed in new areas in the Idlib Governorate “on the eve of the planned ‘Jum’at Irhall’ (Departure Friday) protests.” The report says that widespread protests are expected today “now that Aleppo has entered the scene of protests and demonstrations.” The report also indicates that the people of Aleppo came out on extensive protests on 30 June. (Dubai All4Syria in Arabic — Website providing news from inside Syria and comments by both government and opposition figures, run by reformist Ba’th Party member Ayman Abd-al-Nur; URL: http://www.all4syria.org) All4Syria features a 30 June report, citing the press statement that was issued by US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who recently visited Syria on a fact-finding mission, refuting a report published by the official Syrian News Agency, SANA and picked up by the National Public Radio, NPR, that had quoted Kucinich as saying that “President Al-Asad enjoys much love and appreciation by the Syrians” and that he “cares very much about what is happening in Syria and is evidently seeking to create a new Syria.” The report highlighted Kucinich’s argument that SANA’s report was “mistranslated and does not reflect directly what he had said.” Al-Haqiqah also features a similar report under the headline “US Congressman Dennis Kucinich accuses Syrian media of distorting his remarks.” (Al-Haqiqah in Arabic, Website published by the opposition France-based Syrian National Council for Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation; URL: http://www.syriatruth.info ) All4Syria features an Agence France Presse, AFP, report citing remarks by NATO’s secretary general on 30 June in Vienna, saying that “NATO does not intend to intervene in Syria, but condemns the security forces’ actions with civilians.” All4Syria briefly highlights remarks made by Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the Islamic Republic, on 30 June, saying that “American and Israeli hands are behind the ongoing events in Syria.” The same report was picked up by Sham Press. (Damascus Sham Press in Arabic — Website affiliated with the Independent Media Group in Damascus, managed by Ba’thist journalist Ali Jamalu; URL: http://www.champress.net ) Al-Haqiqah cites an unnamed military source regarding “a tendency to begin the withdrawal of some army units from inside the cities within the next 48 hours.” The report cites a different unnamed political source, who confirmed this information and added that the withdrawal “would also be for political reasons, because the regime wants to give indications of good intentions to the opposition before 10 July, the date set for launching the national dialogue.” Sham Press publishes a report on 30 June that highlights, with photographs, the Syrian president and his wife’s 30 June meeting with a group of youth involved in the campaign of “Raising the Largest Syrian Flag.” The report cites some of the young organizers’ comments about the three and a half hour meeting, describing it as “candid and transparent” and stating that the president “listened to the campaign’s details,” “praised their active role,” and “promised to support their ideas.” The report also cites the campaign’s organizers as saying that “the project is novel and the idea is good, because it is a visual and real way to respond to the foreign conspiracy that seeks to undermine Syria, its national stances, and its leader.” A Sham Press report on 30 June cites “a senior military source” on a “highly accurate, bold, and brave operation” carried out by the Syrian special forces on the afternoon of 30 June “to liberate” some officers and soldiers, who “had been captured in an ambush by armed terrorist elements” two days ago in Jabal al-Zawiyah. The source added that the operation was concluded “without any loss of life.” Syria News on 30 June reports very briefly about the “return of 140 people from the Turkish camps to Jisr Al-Shaghur city” on 30 June. (Damascus Syria News in Arabic — A privately-owned news website, providing independent reporting on domestic issues; URL: http://www.syria-news.com ) A 30 June report on Syria News briefly cites an “informed” source on the railroad association’s decision to “suspend all its train journeys in Syria until 2 July for security reasons.” The Muslim Brotherhood website publishes a report about developments in Syria on 30 June. The report says that “thousands of Syrians” staged a protest in Aleppo, and that Syrian forces “stormed” more villages in northern Syria. The report indicates that protests “started again” in many Syrian towns and cities, and that students staged a demonstration in front of the Economy Department at Damascus University, and three were arrested. The report also features details about the opposition’s formation of a “national coordination organization aimed at making democratic national changes in Syria.” (Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in Arabic — Official website of the Muslim Brotherhood Group in Syria; URL: http://www.ikhwansyria.com/ ) ‘ Posted in Syria | 3 Responses | Print | 3 Responses fuster says: 2011.07.02 12:06 the BBC reports that many thousands turned out in Homs and Hama.(They’re not exactly Laramie.) It’s also reported that Assad fired the governor responsible for the area that includes Hama. That sounds a bit serious. anan says: 2011.07.03 03:44 It is good to see so many Arabs support freedom for the Syrian people and actually advocate international and Arab action to save them. It would have been good if they had shown similar concern between 2003 and 2008 when President Assad tried to kill as many Iraqi Security Forces as he could and helped many people who were trying to organize a genocide against the Iraqi people. President Assad sent many officers from his army [Brigadier Generals, Colonels, Lieutenant Colonels, Majors, Captains] to lead, organize and support the Iraqi resistance. Among the combat enablers President Assad sent were command and control, ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance], special forces, trainers, embedded combat advisers, logistics, equipment and money. Many Iraqi Army and Government of Iraq members spoke about this, but the international press ignored them. After all President Assad was only killing Iraqis and why would the world care about that? 18 thousand Iraqi Security Forces died. President Assad has the blood of many of them on this hands. And the blood of 4 and a half thousand MNF-I. Even if many around the world cheered President Assad and his Iraqi proxies on and celebrated the deaths of Iraqis, Iraqis have not forgotten President Assad’s crimes against the Iraqi people. [Even if Syria was only one of many countries that supported the “Iraqi resistance.”] After President Assad’s Iraqi proxies were defeated in 2007 and 2008, Assad flipped sides and pretended to be Iraqi’s friend with his fake smiles. Not that anyone was surprised. Fortunately the Iraqi people and Government of Iraq are far better human beings than President Assad. They have not responded in kind. If Iraqis wanted, they could make Syria burn in civil war and terrorism. Iraqis taking the higher road speaks volumes about the character of the Iraqi people. Today in their hour of need, many Syrians are asking for international help. Today Syrians want Iraq to grant sanctuary to Syrian refugees and for Iraq to help protect the Syrian people inside Syria. Many Iraqis ask why should they help Syrians when the Syrians organized the celebrated the deaths of Iraqis 2003-2005. What is the answer of the Syrian people? What is the answer of the tens of millions around the world crying for the Syrian people now while not saying a word about President Assad’s crimes against the Iraqi people? Michael says: 2011.07.03 04:38 Dear Mr Cole, I have been an avid reader of your column during four years working with a number of NGOs and then the UN in Iraq, and have always found it to be one of the (if not the) best informed/researched, and thus very useful indeed. 6 months ago I moved to Damascus, Syria, in order to take up a new position with an international construction company and have of course been following events here very closely, not least because my wife is Syrian and because we moved here with our kids. I have to admit that I was astonished by the one-sided reporting on the situation in the wider media, including (unfortunately) also your column. About a month ago I wrote a little report myself, given my previous incarnation as a humanitarian security professional/analyst, and in an effort to set the record straight. A bit outdated now I guess, but I nevertheless believe that most (if not all) of the arguments that I made then still hold true. Speaking of which, I just read the ‘comment rules’ on your site and realize that this is way too long, but have nevertheless copied and pasted my entire report here, in response to your latest post (and especially the comment that the protests would “need to occur in much greater numbers…” – see also my paragraph 7), and just in case it’s of interest. Mostly FYI, but up to you of course, if you would like to post some, none or all of it: Syria Unrest – Impressions from Damascus 1) While the overall picture remains somewhat murky, it would appear that the unrest in Syria unfolded in a number of distinct stages, as follows: – Initial demonstrations in Deraa in mid-March, when a number of families in the area demanded the release of a group of teenagers, who had reportedly been detained by the local authorities for spraying graffiti, presumably inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings. – A rather heavy-handed crackdown by the local authorities, which also led to a number of casualties. This was probably at least partly due to the fact that the authorities were genuinely surprised by and thus not accustomed to this kind of public dissent, something that was also alluded to in the president’s two speeches (and more so in the second one), following the uprising. – Tough talk by the government, nevertheless followed by a partial withdrawal of security forces from the area immediately affected, and hints at possible reforms. – A series of Friday demonstrations (always following prayers – the only time Syrians could congregate in larger numbers under the then emergency regulations), spreading to neighboring villages, and at times leading to further confrontations with the security forces, including casualties, followed by funeral processions and more demonstrations, interspersed with reform promises from the government, more often than not conveniently announced on a Thursday. – Despite these promises, culminating in the abrogation of the ’emergency law’ (a key demand of the initial protests), these ’concessions’ were summarily dismissed by the ’opposition’ as merely symbolic, and by end of March the demonstrations started to spread further, first to the coastal areas and specifically Latakia and Banyas, a number of Damascus suburbs, the Kurdish areas, Homs and the border areas to Lebanon. And while the initial call in Deraa was simply for the release of their relatives, for the (related) abrogation of the emergency law, against corruption and for reform in general, this slowly gave way to ’calls to topple the regime’. – By mid-April it apparently became clear to the government that whatever they were doing until then was not going to contain the situation, and so the army was called in, first into Deraa (and surrounding areas), followed by Banyas, Homs, and finally again the border areas to Lebanon. There were also similar operations reported in the affected Damascus suburbs. It should however be noted here that the army had already deployed to Deraa and Banyas much earlier, but at that time they were mostly used to cordon off the affected areas (i.e. from the outside), and not to go in ’in force’. – The beginning of the army’s crackdown saw a spike in reported casualties, followed by reports of house-to-house searches and mass arrests, and two weeks of relative calm. There were also reports that the army had again withdrawn from some of the areas, or at least partially. The lull was however short-lived and last weekend saw again reports of significant casualties across the country. 2) While the above sequence of events is probably not contentious, the government’s and the opposition’s narratives for what has been happening on the ground nevertheless differ widely, including the number of casualties caused, who the victims are, and who is doing the shooting, something that is not helped by the fact that independent media are not allowed into the affected areas. While recognizing that there are legitimate grievances and admitting shortcomings in the security forces’ response, the government now mostly blames the violence on armed gangs and Islamic extremists, who, using the demonstrations as a cover and pretext, are allegedly supported and directed from abroad, essentially spinning it all into one big conspiracy theory with the aim of toppling the regime. The opposition on the other hand blames the government’s heavy-handed crackdown, claiming that the security forces (including informal militias allied with the regime) are routinely firing at unarmed and peaceful protesters, with tanks allegedly even shelling residential areas. There are also reports of soldiers themselves being shot by their superiors for not obeying orders, of mass arrests and collective punishment, all in all invoking images from (and a narrative reminiscent of) recent conflicts across the region. 3) What an ’international’ (i.e. US/western-led) and concerted effort at regime change looks like is of course amply demonstrated by the recent war in Iraq, current events in Libya are probably best characterized as a ’half-hearted’ attempt, frequent inaction in response to similar situations across Africa illustrates the international community’s indifference in such cases, while Bahrain exemplifies the situation where the international community does not want to change a regime. Syria probably lies somewhere in between half-heartedness and indifference, but while this would not support the government’s notion of a full-blown conspiracy, there nevertheless appears to be ample anecdotal evidence of foreign meddling, including credible reports of weapons seizures at Syria’s borders and related communications equipment being found, implicating certain political quarters in Lebanon that resent Syria’s (past and current) involvement there, the regional Muslim Brotherhood, and high profile exiles, to name just a few, and that amid allegations of private financial backing from Saudi Arabia. The absence of a larger conspiracy does however not mean that other regional and global stakeholders are not seizing the opportunity as well, with the Syrian regime now visibly weakened (and preoccupied), to push their own demands and agendas, no matter how unrelated they may be. 4) There is no doubt that people have been and are (still) being killed (including by the security forces), and that others are being arrested, however, and similar to the government’s conspiracy theory, there also appear to be significant discrepancies between the opposition’s narrative and the purported facts. If the security forces were indeed firing randomly into hundreds or thousands of protesters, for the last two months, across multiple locations, and that (now) on pretty much a daily basis, the number of casualties would surely have to be higher. Also, this would not explain the number of security force members being killed or injured (with related images presented daily on Syrian prime-time TV), unless of course one subscribes to the opposition’s story of these frequently being shot by their own supervisors, something rather difficult to hide in a multi-ethnic conscript army, and on such a large scale. Similarly, neither mobile phone footage nor reports from independent witnesses that visited the affected areas after the army’s assault would seem to support the notion of damage consistent with the shelling of residential areas, or even the claim that utilities had been disconnected across the board. In this context, recent statements by (certain) opposition activist (as reported in the international media), that there may indeed be extremist elements mingling within the protesters, or that some may now have resorted to armed resistance in the face of the army’s crackdown, are noteworthy. There have also been claims (from various quarters) that armed elements may be provoking the security forces on purpose, and of others simply taking revenge, presumably for earlier killings. 5) However, the interesting point here is not so much what the opposition, or the government for that matter, are reporting, since both are obviously going to employ propaganda in order to support their respective positions, but rather the fact that the international media and by extension also the larger international community seem to have bought almost exclusively into the opposition narrative. Granted, everybody expects the regime to lie, and probably rightly so, but whenever there’s a statement from the opposition, be it a self-proclaimed eye-witness or human rights activist, then it is almost always taken for granted, or at least so it would appear to the casual observer. So when the regime claims that an armed mob attacked the security forces, killing two and setting a building on fire, it usually does not get reported, but when a single source witness claims that the security forces fired at unarmed and peaceful demonstrators, killing five, including a child, it invariably makes the headlines. Even if this is followed by the usual caution that “the information cannot be independently verified”, the end result is the same, i.e. the latter gets prominence while the former doesn’t. This is not to say that such a claim may not be true, however one should not forget that both sides are keenly aware that casualties, and in particular reports of peaceful demonstrators being killed by the security forces, are pretty much the only thing that will bring international pressure to bear. Therefore both sides have an incentive to fiddle with the facts and figures and, judging from the language used, both sides are probably doing just that. And with the opposition’s narrative almost exclusively based on such ‘eyewitness’ accounts, anecdotal evidence of some of these ‘witnesses’ not being where they claim to be, at times reportedly even calling from a different country altogether, of doctored images, and of images and footage allegedly/at times having been obtained elsewhere, are all noteworthy. 6) Consequently, major international news outlets like Al Jazeera or even Reuters are now seemingly leading the call for regime change. An example of this rather biased reporting would be a recent online article by an Al Jazeera journalist who had been detained for several days in Damascus, in which she describes what allegedly happened to her. While this is in no way meant to belittle her experience, nor to underestimate the Syrian security service’s propensity for heavy-handedness, there is no record of violence against foreign journalists and it is therefore simply not credible that she really thought that she might be shot when she was allegedly being blindfolded, something that her article clearly implies. Similarly, it is not credible that they would have taken her as a foreign journalist to a place where suspects were pleading for their lives while being beaten, and where others were chained to radiators in the corridor, for her to interview them, while marveling at the pools of blood that she was standing in. After all the Syrian security services may well be brutal but they are not that stupid. And in her account of having been found to be in possession of a “commercially available” satellite phone and internet hub (presumably the reason for her detention), she conveniently fails to mention that these items are (and always have been) prohibited in Syria, a fact that should be well known to a foreign journalist coming into the country, not least because it is exactly via these means that opposition activists currently send out their messages to the world. Whether these items should be banned or not is of course an entirely different matter, but similar to hashish being readily available and legal in certain places (and within limits), in other places possession of it will nevertheless lead to arrest or worse. In this context it is equally irrelevant whether the author just wanted to embellish her story for the reader’s benefit, or whether it was indeed meant to distort the picture, as frequently alluded to by the Syrian regime, again the end result is the same. 7) The exact numbers of demonstrators to date are impossible to verify, however they seldom appear to exceed a few thousand for a particular event, are more often than not in the hundreds, and thus probably represent less than a percent of the population. But whereas in most countries this would simply be taken as evidence that the vast majority does not sympathize or agree with the protesters’ demands, at least not to the extent that they would join them, in Syria’s case the ‘Western’ assumption, aptly supported by the opposition’s narrative, seems to be that nobody can be happy living under such a regime and that thus people that don’t protest, other than the ‘few’ linked directly to (and allegedly corruptly benefiting from) the regime, don’t do so only out of fear. This is not to say that there may not be people too afraid to protest (although the vast majority of Syrians certainly don’t seem to go about their daily business constantly looking over the shoulder, worried that the security forces might be creeping up on them), but even if they were to come out, it is doubtful that they would raise the number of demonstrators to anywhere near significant. And in the meantime, the mere assumption that the silent majority would otherwise also protest is at best patronizing, if not outright undemocratic in itself. Similarly, the fact that the few pro-regime demonstrations to date, which nevertheless drew vast superior numbers, were (of course) encouraged and facilitated by the regime, does not mean that the people did not join them willingly, driving around and waiving flags, and that in support of the president, and equally important, against what they see as others meddling in and endangering their country. A similar argument, by the way, can also be made about the recent Palestinian protesters crossing into the Israeli occupied Golan, who although probably encouraged (or at the very least not hindered) by the Syrian regime, nevertheless did so willingly and out of their own conviction, motivated by their desire to exercise their (perceived) right to return. 8) Having a closer look at the areas that have seen the vast majority of the protests so far is also instructive. Deraa and surroundings in the South, the affected suburbs of Damascus and Homs, as well as the city of Hama are all predominately if not exclusively Sunni, (mostly) poor and very conservative, and thus also known to be opposed to a lot of the regime’s more secular policies, including the recently reversed headscarf ban in public schools. It is probably worth mentioning here that while Syria is clearly a dictatorship and a police state, and in the international discourse usually (and rightly so) portrayed as such, it nevertheless is one of the religiously and culturally most liberal regimes in the region, and certainly much more so than Jordan and Egypt, for example, something that is more often than not conveniently forgotten. Both the Kurdish areas in the Northeast and the coastal areas on the other hand have a history of ethnic friction, in the latter case reportedly also including an alleged turf battle (between local Sunnis and Alawites) over who controls the local port facilities, and with Banyas itself being the birthplace and thus heartland of one of the most prominent exiles, Abdul Halim Khaddam, himself a former Syrian Vice President, a Sunni, and a would-(like to)-be contender for the top seat, should the current regime fall. Finally, the border areas to Lebanon, again mostly Sunni, are known for their smuggling activities, which frequently lead to confrontations with the local authorities. Other, smaller protests also took place elsewhere, including at universities in Damascus and Aleppo, but these reportedly only numbered in the tens, mostly consisted of students from the afore mentioned areas, and they were usually dissolved quickly, more often than not by bystanders, and not the security forces or pro-regime thugs, as portrayed in the international media. 9) Of course this is not to say that people in these areas do not have legitimate grievances or demands, but these issues are invariably interspersed with religious and ethnic motives, contrary to what is being claimed on related social networking sites, and they are certainly not as simplistic as portrayed in the international media. Freedom and democracy in this context is mostly reduced to the question of which group has the power to impose it’s will and values over the others, and not as a universal right for all, always invoked by whoever is not in power, and conveniently forgotten again once power has been attained. Therefore, decisions are frequently made based on ethnic and religious affiliation, as proscribed by a group’s preeminent leader, and not by individuals making a choice for themselves, as also evidenced in recent electoral events in neighboring Iraq. And while this may not sit well with the West’s current and rather rosy-eyed preoccupation with democratic change in the Middle East, the question of how democracy is to work in a society (as opposed to the regime itself) that does not permit its members to choose which studies or occupation to pursue, where to live, or even who to marry, and that especially if it is to espouse similar values to ours, is nevertheless worth considering. This is not to say that the regime in Syria is likely to introduce reforms that will invariably lead to its own downfall either, but then again, which Western politicians is knowingly going to introduce legislation that will surely see him/her voted out of office at the next poll? That being said, there’s of course ample room for reform short of the regime giving up the reigns of power, but that’s not exactly what the protesters are calling for, at least not anymore. 10) In this context it is also noteworthy that protests are almost exclusively organized around local mosques, with Friday prayers or funerals being the chief catalysts, and it is quite unlikely that social networking (via the internet) has anything to do with events on the ground, other than as a conduit to the outside world, i.e. for uploading mobile phone footage etc., with these sites presumably operated by others, and that mostly if not exclusively outside of Syria. Who or what these others are, and who they represent, is not entirely clear, but the way these protests have unfolded and transformed after the initial unrest in Deraa would seem to indicate that certain individuals and groups were well prepared for just such an eventuality, in the wake of the wider regional unrest, ready to use the occasion as a pretext to push their own agendas. The recent proliferation of self-proclaimed and here thereto unheard of Syrian ‘human rights’ activists and organizations is in this context equally noteworthy, as is the fact that during the initial month of the unrest thousands of unlicensed buildings went up almost over night, across the country, or reports of significantly increased/increasing petty criminality, with the authorities preoccupied elsewhere. The latter two issues, while clearly unrelated to the protests themselves, nevertheless nicely illustrate that others are more than willing to take advantage of the situation. 11) It is therefore probably not surprising that the Syrian regime, apart from blaming outside forces for instigating the unrest, has also warned that this would invariably lead to chaos, sectarian strive, and ultimately civil war. But while it is clearly in the regime’s interest to paint the picture as stark as possible in order to scare both the protesters and everybody else off the streets, and to justify it’s own rather heavy-handed crackdown, this does not in itself mean that the prediction is incorrect, nor that the regime would not feel compelled to counter this perceived threat. This is not to say that the opposition currently is widespread enough to endanger the regime, it clearly isn’t, but should the regime indeed fall, then it would certainly be everybody fending for him/herself, which in this region invariably means Sunnis pitted against Christians, Shias and Alawites, and Kurds against Arabs, similar to what we have recently seen in Iraq, albeit without the foreign occupation. But while some outside forces are probably willing to take this risk (with some like the Egyptian Islamic theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi even accepting the possibility of civil war publicly as a necessary evil in order to topple what he presumably sees as a heretic regime), since it won’t be them paying the price while nevertheless reaping the gains, or at least so they hope, and while the international community at large and the local demonstrators themselves appear largely oblivious to the dangers, one cannot really fault the regime for taking a different view. 12) The international community’s response to the situation has at first been muted, but the rhetoric has since changed, with increasing condemnation of the regime, accompanied by widening sanctions, although what exactly this is meant to achieve remains far from clear. But whatever their intentions (be it out of conviction (or lack thereof), out of a desire to change Syria’s stance vis-à-vis Iran and/or Israel, out of ignorance or mere animosity towards the regime, or simply because they had previously painted themselves into a corner, from which they now can’t get themselves out), given the increasing heat, combined with what appears to be a concerted media campaign, and that in the wake of Iraq and Libya, it is not surprising, if the Syrian regime and the population at large believe that they are at the receiving end of one big conspiracy. As outlined above this claim is probably widely exaggerated but this in and of itself does not mean that the regime does not believe it, with all the potential consequences that this may entail. What is more, and given the various constraints the regime currently finds itself in, the assumption here clearly seems to be that the aim of this conspiracy is to topple the regime itself, and not only to force it to change its stance. Against this background, current international action is unlikely to benefit either side. While certainly encouraging the opposition in their struggle it is not going to tilt the scales in their favor to the extent that they will be able to unseat the present regime, nor will it entice the regime to speed up reforms, which, pushed into a corner and under additional financial constrains, it will be even less inclined and able to do so, even if it wanted to. On the contrary, these measures will probably only serve to polarize the situation further, and the end result will in all likelihood be a hardening of fronts on all sides, which given the current state of affairs, can’t really be in international community’s interest. 13) In the meantime, the two week lull in reported (and probably factual) violence following the army’s crackdown was taken by many here as a sign that the government’s tactic was working, however, this optimism was somewhat short-lived, shattered by the violence that reportedly marred last weekend. Nevertheless, the fact that casualty numbers had dropped significantly in the wake of the crackdown, that (with the exception of last weekend) these casualties were now mostly constrained to areas where even opposition activist were claiming that the army was being confronted by armed resistance, that demonstrations nevertheless did continue, even in areas that had just seen the army’s crackdown, and that reportedly mostly incident free, could also be taken as a sign that the government’s crackdown was not targeting the demonstrators per se, and that they had thus learned from their earlier mistakes. Recent reports of opposition activists being released, even if others continue to be rounded up, and that probably in much larger numbers, are in this context also noteworthy. However, and even if one were to follow this line of argument, it wouldn’t be inconceivable that such a development wouldn’t be in the interest of the opposition, and that they would therefore only be motivated to further raise the stakes. 14) The main question then would not seem to be whether people are (still) being killed (however sad or shocking this in itself may be), or whether the government’s crackdown is ruthless, they are and it probably is, but rather how representative these protests are, whether they are really as innocent and peaceful as portrayed in the international media, what short of stepping down the regime would (now) have to do in order to appease them, and how far the regime is willing to go in order to suppress what it clearly sees as an existential threat. In the meantime, ordinary Syrians appear to be living from Friday to Friday, with reported weekend casualties (no matter whether one believes the actual numbers or not) taken as an indication of the overall trend, with lower numbers obviously seen as a success for the regime’s current tactics. Naturally, the regime has been claiming all along that it is gaining the upper hand, but while there were also recent comments from (certain) opposition activists (again as reported in the international media) that they may be failing to garner the critical mass required, the final outcome is nevertheless far from clear. Probably the best indicator that the tide may indeed be turning is the mood in Damascus itself, where people and traffic have been back out in force for the last three weeks (and especially weekends), whereas previously, although largely unaffected by the protests themselves, the streets, restaurants and shopping malls were half-empty, with people visibly worried. The timing of the international community’s hardening stance against this background would therefore seem to be even more curious.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1848

Obama, Romney back in Iowa this weekend UPDATED 1:04 PM CDT Nov 02, 2012 Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are planning campaign events in Iowa this weekend, KCRG-TV reported. Get KCCI's election app Get political stories, video and more on your smartphone. Saturday:Both candidates are expected to hold events in Dubuque Saturday.The Dubuque Telegraph Herald reports that Mitt Romney will hold a campaign rally around noon at Dubuque Regional Airport.Obama is expected to arrive in Iowa late Saturday afternoon. The event is planned at Washington Park at 700 Locust Street in Dubuque. Doors open at 2 p.m.The event is free and open to the public, but tickets are required for entrance. One ticket per person will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis. Sunday:Romney's campaign also announced he will hold a campaign event in Des Moines on Sunday at Hy-Vee Hall at Iowa Events Center. The rally is expected to start about 10 a.m.Tickets may be picked up at the Des Moines Victory Center at 2775 86th Street in Urbandale or online at www.mittromney.com/IA Look for updates on KCCI.com, KCCI-TV and our mobile website and apps.Monday:On Monday evening, the President will wrap up his campaign in Des Moines.The President will be joined by the First Lady and singer Bruce Springsteen.The event will be held in the East Village at 4:30 p.m.The campaign said the joint appearance is a nod to the state that put Obama on the path to the White House, when he won the Iowa Caucuses in 2008. obama romney campaign events iowa saturday politics iowa

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/1892

Your browser does not support iframes. Read a digital copy of the latest edition of the Los Alamos Monitor online. Columns Rural areas plagued by poverty After World War II, national defense provided the biggest economic boost. But today, the rural areas farthest from the metro areas struggle under century-old burdens of limited educational opportunities and substandard infrastructure, among other challenges. Those rural counties near cities or with natural amenities have tended to hold their own. Rural counties are plagued by what the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls “persistent poverty.” Residents of rural areas “earn substantially less” than metro residents. Sound broadly familiar? It should. But if this summary of rural economic problems doesn’t quite sound like New Mexico, that’s because the description is of Florida, Georgia, Alabama and parts of three other states, the territory served by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. The description is in “Wanted: Jobs 2.0 in the Rural Southeast,” in the current issue of EconSouth, a publication of the Atlanta Fed (frbatlanta.org). For New Mexico the article provides a useful summary, the type of overview we seldom get. It is close enough, overall, to provide insight, allowing for differences. With our double dip recession in place, we should take insight where we can find it. In the voting booth with PRC New Mexico is trying to fix utility and insurance regulation yet again. New Mexico’s Public Regulation Commission (PRC), created in 1996 to replace the previous, dysfunctional State Corporations Commission and the appointed Public Utilities Commission, has suffered its own dysfunction. So now we are voting on three proposed constitutional amendments (Amendments 2, 3 and 4), intended to fix the PRC. To be informed on these proposals, you must do more than simply read the ballot. The ballot contains only a sentence briefly describing each amendment, taken from the title of the legislation. That leaves a lot to your imagination. If you want to know what you are voting on, here’s some homework. The Legislative Council Service (www.nmlegis.gov/lcs) has prepared a detailed online publication describing the PRC, explaining the amendments, offering arguments for and against, and copying the full text of all the amendments (if you can’t find the publication, use your search engine). I recommend it. The League of Women Voters has briefer arguments in its voter guide. Amendment 2 proposes to require qualifications for future PRC commissioners. The presumption is that commissioners who regulate something as complex as utilities ought to have prior knowledge or experience. Click here to read more... Don't forget amendments, bonds You’ve probably decided by now how you’re voting on candidates at the top of the ballot, but how about farther down? Here are a few thoughts on some of those. Changes to the state Public Regulation Commission, long overdue, are in Amendments 2, 3 and 4, and deserve our support. Amendment 2, to increase qualifications and require continuing education for commissioners, is particularly important. Currently, the state doesn’t even require a high school diploma. Candidates in District 1 and a few sitting commissioners oppose this amendment. That’s because they know squat about utilities, energy, rates or any of the other complex issues that come before the PRC. As somebody who’s sat through rate hearings, I can say there’s nothing worse than watching inept commissioners pretend they understand technical language and issues and then stumble toward a decision. New Mexico has urgent business, and we don’t have time for on-the-job training. More on ballot questions As part of the ballot for the November election, Los Alamos voters are being presented with proposed changes to the Initiative, Referendum and Recall provisions of the Charter, and the process for future Charter amendments. We fully agree with the notion that changes to the Charter should only be made after thoughtful and deliberate consideration. The Charter Review Committee provided that analysis after months of open and respectful dialogue. We support the proposed changes and would like to offer our explanations for our concrete support. We begin by providing an explanation of the terms. A citizen initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of voters can require a public vote on a citizen proposed ordinance or charter amendment. A referendum is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of voters can require a public vote to repeal an ordinance enacted by the Council. Both initiative and referendum processes are sometimes called “citizen directed legislation.” A recall is a procedure by which voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before his or her term has ended. Just stop bullying Fifth grade is a tender age for children. New friends to make. New songs to learn. New dreams to fill future hopes. It really is a cute age. This world is often short on cute, but little girls in fifth grade manage to keep us in ample supply. Jasmine McClain of Chadbourn, N.C., always liked to do her hair up in pigtails. She loved to dance. She loved flowers and pink dresses. Ashlynn Connor of Ridgefarm, Ill., loved animals and wanted to be veterinarian. She was known to pick up stray cats and care for them. And at the ages of 10, Jasmine and Ashlynn each committed suicide. Ryan Patrick Halligan of Essex Junction, Vt., was 13 years old. He suffered from a learning disorder and always had to work harder to keep up with his classmates. His sister found him dead, having hanged himself in his bedroom. The list of child suicides is long and tearful. Megan Taylor Meier of Dardenne Prairie, Mo., three weeks before her 14th birthday. Jared Benjamin High of Pasco, Wash., 14 years old. Rachel Ehmke of Mantorville, Minn., 13 years old. Billy Lucas of Greensburg, Ind., 15 years old. Asher Brown of Houston, Texas, 13 years old. Seth Walsh of Tehachapi, Calif., 13 years old. Joel Morales of New York, 12 years old. Another take on charter amendments As someone who was elected to the County Council and served a four-year term, I am an unwavering supporter of representative government. People elect leaders with the hope that they will always act competently and in the best interest of the citizens. When that occurs, we enjoy representative government at its finest. When it doesn’t occur, however, a community can potentially suffer disastrous and enduring consequences. My experience on the County Council taught me several things: • that council members are not infallible or even necessarily above average in their critical thinking or brainstorming skills; • that the groupthink environment that comes from serving on a highly cohesive council does not always lead to the best decisions; • and that the highly insular nature of relying almost exclusively on Los Alamos County staff members or their hand-picked, contracted “experts,” many of whom do not even live in our community, often leaves County Council members relatively clueless about the actual desires of the majority of the citizens they serve. On CRC, just say no There have been several letters to the editor regarding the four ballot questions designed to amend sections of the Charter that concern Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. I urge voters to vote No on all four ballot questions for several reasons. The first is that council is required by law to present only legal questions to the voters. These four questions are not legal questions because each one was derived from a number of ordinances that were voted on as a group, not individually. This is in direct violation of the following sections of the Charter: 203.2.1 which describes the introduction of an ordinance, introduced in writing, and limited to a single subject; 203.2.2 which describes how the notice of the proposed adoption of an ordinance should be published and the contents of the publication; 203.2.3 which states that council may adopt the ordinance with or without amendment or reject it and the process the council must follow if the ordinance is amended; and 203.2.4 which states that unless otherwise provided in this Charter, every adopted ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the publication of the notice of its adoption or at any later date specified in the ordinance. A stance on PRC reform Toward the end of your ballot in this coming election is an opportunity to professionalize and streamline New Mexico’s dysfunctional Public Regulation Commission (PRC) by voting in favor of Constitutional Amendments 2, 3 and 4. This matters because no local, state or federal government agency directly affects more New Mexicans on a daily basis than the PRC. In addition to approving the prices New Mexicans pay for electricity, natural gas, water, and landline telephone service, the PRC also regulates every type of insurance — ranging from auto, property, life, and title insurance to health insurance. The PRC controls the cost and service of motor carriers (including taxis, moving vans, buses, shuttles, ambulances, and tow trucks); processes corporate registrations; regulates oil, natural gas, and hazardous liquid pipelines; and even oversees the State Fire Marshal’s office and ski lift inspections. As a result, the PRC has the broadest regulatory power of any state agency in the nation, yet the qualifications required of the five PRC commissioners are surprisingly low for such a powerful position. PRC commissioners are only required to be: 1) at least 18 years of age; 2) residents of the state for at least one year; and 3) not convicted felons. That is it. Debates a snooze? Open them up Last campaign season at this time, my neighborhood had erupted in yard signs, which advocated for an even split of Democratic and Republican candidates. Today, a few lonesome signs hint that voters aren’t as fired up about candidates, and they’re downright sick of this dreary, endless campaign. The debates perked things up a bit. Partisans could root for their guy, as they would in a boxing match, but the debates themselves are just one more reminder that our democratic process has been hijacked. Former Gov. Gary Johnson, campaigning for president as a Libertarian, has run a spirited race, as we expected him to, and he’s developed a following, despite being shut out of the debates by the two major parties and the networks. So the issues and our choices boil down to two well-worn views. Johnson has lately become a hero of the long crusade to open the debates after filing a complaint with the FCC and a lawsuit. He found the walls around the debates more difficult to scale than Mount Everest. Bullies, lawyers take stage SANTA FE – From early indications it will be Republican bullies vs. Democratic lawyers at the polls on election day, Nov. 6. For those of you who aren’t up for such excitement, absentee voting, which already has begun, or early voting, which begins October 20, may be the answer. We’ve already seen news that a poll watcher class for Republicans was held in Albuquerque in late September to teach volunteers methods of challenging potential voters. Democratic leaders charge that some of the methods discussed are not legal. The state party has sent an email throughout its system warning that Tea Party bullies will be at the polls intimidating voters. The Democratic Party asks that everyone receiving the email donate $25 to $100 or more for lawyers on the ground to fight efforts to steal elections from under our noses. How exciting. You don’t want to miss it. Will it be a David vs. Goliath fight? The bullies appear to be mere volunteers. They will be up against highly trained paid professionals. Okay, I’ve spent 160 words trying to get you excited about voting. Now, please humor me by reading the next 500 words about the serious choices on the back side of the ballot.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2090

Final statement Meeting of the North Atlantic Council at the level of Foreign Ministers held at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, on 7 December 2011 Issued on 07 Dec. 2011 | Last updated: 07 Dec. 2011 20:44 At the Lisbon Summit last year, NATO Heads of State and Government adopted a new Strategic Concept that guides us in ensuring the Alliance’s security in a changing world, against the full range of threats, with appropriate capabilities and a broadened network of partners. Our continuing efforts in Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere, as well as our successfully concluded operation in Libya, demonstrate NATO’s unique capabilities and our political will to take on difficult, but necessary missions. We pay tribute to the military and civilian personnel who have made and continue to make great sacrifices for our collective security. We acknowledge with appreciation the growing number of partners that contribute to NATO-led operations based on our shared interest in peace and stability. This year, NATO answered the United Nations Security Council’s call to protect the people of Libya, who at that time were under attack by their own government. Operation Unified Protector was a clear expression of our commitment to freedom and security. The operation was conducted effectively and with precision, involving many partners from the region and beyond, in a successful effort that saved countless lives. The future of Libya is now in the hands of the Libyan people. In a challenging economic climate, we remain determined to ensure NATO’s ability to meet the complex security challenges of the 21st century and to take forward the Alliance’s reform process. Recalling our commitments in the Strategic Concept and the Lisbon Summit Declaration, and looking ahead to the next Summit in Chicago in May 2012, we have on this occasion focused on some of NATO’s priorities. We condemn in the strongest terms the recent terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and express our sympathy to the victims and their families. We welcome the outcome of the recent Afghan-led Bonn Conference in support of a sovereign Afghanistan that engages with the International Community to secure its own future. We share the vision of a prosperous and democratic Afghanistan that lives in peace, while enjoying friendly relations with all of its neighbours. The commitment to an enduring engagement between Afghanistan and the International Community is vital to support the country through transition and beyond. We also welcome the results of the Istanbul Conference on “Security and Cooperation in the Heart of Asia” which added impetus to efforts towards strengthening regional security and cooperation. We highly value this regional process, which contributes to building greater confidence and cooperation with the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan. A secure and stable Afghanistan can only be envisioned in a secure and stable region. We expect regional partners to support these efforts through strict adherence to principles of good neighbourly conduct. The process of transition to full Afghan security responsibility by the end of 2014 is on track. Following President Karzai’s recent announcement of the second tranche of areas to be transitioned, Afghan forces will soon have the lead role, with appropriate International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) support, for providing the security for around 50% of the Afghan population. We discussed the need to define the milestones to chart progress on transition and ISAF’s move to a support role. Successful transition must be accompanied by further improvements in governance, including respect for human rights, strengthening the rule of law and intensifying the fight against corruption, as well as in development and civilian capacity building. The Afghan Government’s determined leadership and active engagement, together with the International Community’s continued commitment, are necessary to ensure lasting stability in Afghanistan. The Alliance remains committed, as part of a broad effort by the International Community, to support Afghanistan beyond the completion of country-wide transition by the end of 2014. We reaffirm the Alliance’s support for, and contributions to establishing the conditions for, an inclusive Afghan-led peace and reconciliation process. We have initiated discussion on NATO’s future role in Afghanistan post-2014 and we expect the Summit in Chicago to adopt the strategic plan which will provide key guidance in this regard. We have also discussed the further development, in consultation with the Afghan authorities, of NATO’s Enduring Partnership with Afghanistan, signed at the Lisbon Summit in 2010. The Council will continue to take this work forward in preparation for the Chicago Summit. We look forward to consulting with our partners tomorrow, whose support is critical to our joint endeavour in Afghanistan as transition proceeds. NATO remains strongly committed to working with regional actors, including with Pakistan. We express our deep condolences to the people of Pakistan for the regrettable incident and the loss of lives of Pakistani military personnel on 26 November 2011. We encourage Pakistan to join Afghanistan in participating in the investigation now underway. We remain committed to strengthening our partnership and cooperation with Pakistan, which will also serve to support the goal of a secure and stable Afghanistan in a secure and stable region. We condemn the recent violence against the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR). We reiterate our full support for KFOR, which continues to act carefully, firmly, and impartially to contribute to the maintenance of freedom of movement and a safe and secure environment for all people in Kosovo, in accordance with its United Nations mandate. We commend KFOR’s coordination with the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX). We urge all parties to exercise restraint and cooperate fully with all international actors on the ground to ensure freedom of movement without delay, including by removing roadblocks. We categorically reject the use of violence, including against KFOR, EULEX and other international actors. The Alliance and its KFOR Partners remain united, resolved, and resolute to support the development of a peaceful, stable, and multi-ethnic Kosovo. The present crisis requires moderation and dialogue to find a sustainable political solution. We welcome the agreement in principle reached between Belgrade and Pristina on 2 December 2011 on the EU-developed concept of integrated management for crossing points (IBM) as a constructive step forward. We call on both sides to implement the agreement expeditiously and in good faith. We stress that this agreement should promote the immediate restoration of freedom of movement in the northern part of Kosovo. We urge both sides to continue their constructive participation in the EU-facilitated talks in order to achieve sustainable solutions. We will continue to work with our partners, building on our Berlin partnership decisions of April 2011, to further enhance these partnerships with a view to the Chicago Summit and beyond. We reflected on our longstanding and mutually beneficial partnerships with many countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, including the strategically important Western Balkans region, and in the Mediterranean region, in the Gulf region, and around the globe that have supported NATO politically and operationally. We applaud the significant operational support provided to NATO by our aspirant partners the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia¹, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Georgia. We reaffirm our Open Door policy and our strong commitment to the Euro-Atlantic integration of our aspirant partners, in accordance with previous decisions taken at the Bucharest, Strasbourg-Kehl and Lisbon Summits. Democratic values, regional cooperation, and good neighbourly relations are important for lasting peace and stability. We welcome progress aspirant countries have made and we encourage them to continue to implement the necessary decisions and reforms to advance their Euro-Atlantic aspirations. Significant political developments have taken place this year in North Africa and the Middle East. Against this background and in accordance with our partnership policy, we have agreed to further deepen our political dialogue and practical cooperation with members of the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. We have also agreed to promote, on a case-by-case basis, our dialogue and cooperation with other interested countries in these regions. In the spirit of the Berlin partnership decisions, we have tasked the Council to develop proposals for consideration at the Chicago Summit. We stand ready to consider, on a case-by-case basis, new requests from countries in these regions, including Libya, for partnership and cooperation with NATO, taking into account that the Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative are natural frameworks for such requests. NATO’s activities would focus primarily on security and defence sector reform, while taking into account other international efforts. We recall the statement made by our Heads of State and Government at their Lisbon Summit, which reaffirmed that NATO-Russia cooperation remains of strategic importance. Despite differences on specific issues, including on Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and Russia’s commitments of 2008, we share common security interests and face common challenges. Our cooperation in the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) over the past year has developed in a number of areas. Afghanistan remains a priority and together we are supporting the Afghan Air Force and Ministry of the Interior through the NRC Helicopter Maintenance Trust Fund. Our joint work on counter-narcotics, as well as on fighting terrorism and piracy, is producing positive results. The NRC Cooperative Airspace Initiative, which focuses on information exchange and coordination against acts of air terrorism, will shortly become operational. We will continue to build on these achievements and look for opportunities to enhance and deepen such cooperation. We are also engaged in improving trust and transparency in defence transformation, strategy, doctrines, military posture and military exercises. We want to see a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia, and we will act accordingly, with the expectation of reciprocity from Russia. We look forward to discussing all these matters in the NRC, as well as missile defence. We remain convinced that transparency gained through missile defence cooperation would further strengthen NATO-Russia relations. We have made clear that NATO’s ballistic missile defence capability is defensive in nature and will not undermine Russia’s strategic deterrent. While we therefore regret recent Russian statements on possible measures directed against NATO’s missile defence system, we remain committed to exploring opportunities for missile defence cooperation with Russia, and welcome Russia’s readiness for continued dialogue with NATO. We reaffirm that, as we develop and deploy the NATO missile defence capability, we remain committed to exploring jointly with Russia the potential for linking current and planned missile defence systems in mutually beneficial ways. We remain committed to conventional arms control. We note the decisions in November 2011 of NATO CFE Allies to cease implementing certain CFE obligations with regard to the Russian Federation. These decisions were a considered response, in line with our previous statements, to the 2007 unilateral Russian “suspension” of its CFE obligations, which is not provided for by the Treaty. These decisions are reversible should the Russian Federation return to full implementation. We underscore that NATO CFE Allies will continue to implement fully their CFE obligations with respect to all other CFE States Parties. We remain prepared to work toward finding a solution to preserve, strengthen and modernize the conventional arms control regime in Europe, based on key principles and commitments. We reviewed progress in the implementation of the Lisbon Summit decision to develop a NATO ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability to provide full coverage and protection for all NATO European populations, territory and forces against the increasing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. It will operate under a NATO Command and Control system. Since the Lisbon Summit, several Allies have announced important contributions in support of NATO’s missile defence system. These contributions, both direct and through the United States European Phased Adaptive Approach, reaffirm the bond between our nations to defend one another. We noted with satisfaction that work is on track to develop political-military arrangements in order to declare an Interim Capability by the time of the Chicago Summit. In the Strategic Concept, we underscored our commitment to ensuring that NATO has the full range of capabilities necessary to deter and defend against any threat to the safety of our population and the security of our territory. Today, we reviewed the initial findings of, and provided guidance on, the work underway in the Deterrence and Defence Posture Review. We look forward to the completion of the review in time for approval at the Chicago Summit. At our meeting today we have reviewed progress in implementing the Lisbon Summit decisions, discussed key security challenges facing the Alliance, and agreed on further measures to enhance the Alliance’s operations and overall effectiveness. We look forward to the NATO Summit in Chicago, at which our Heads of State and Government will take further decisions to ensure that our Alliance remains an unparalleled community of freedom, peace, security and shared values. Russia-NATO relations

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2134

Meet Mmusi Maimane in Humansdorp on Monday Meet the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Mmusi Maimane (left), this Monday. With him is DA-member Gerald Prinsloo. Photo: SUPPLIED Multimedia · User Galleries · News in Pictures THE leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Mmusi Maimane, will hold a street meeting in Humansdorp this Monday.Maimane will be at The Point in Arcadia from 13:00 to 16:00. He will be joined by DA Mayoral candidates Elza van Lingen (Kouga) and Athol Trollip (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan). “We are very excited that Maimane and Trollip will be joining us in Humansdorp. We invite all our supporters to come and meet the DA leaders and hear what their vision is for a South Africa and a Kouga under DA governance,” says Van Lingen.The municipal election will be held on August 3 and will determine who will govern Kouga for the next five years.At present the ANC control the Council with 15 seats, with the DA being the official opposition with 14 seats.For more information, contact the DA office at 042 295 1851. Join the conversation!

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2146

19 September 2012 Mitt Romney's Palin-esque ignorance of Middle East politics Suggests that Palestinians are the aggressors and Israel is a state desiring no more than its own security. By David Wearing Print HTML In yesterday’s leaked video Mitt Romney gave two reasons for his view that the Israeli-Palestinian situation should be left unresolved indefinitely. First, the Palestinians reject peace and are committed to the destruction of Israel. Second, the Palestinians will never agree to the Israeli military presence that will be required in their future state to prevent Iranian infiltration via, for example, the Palestine-Jordan or Palestine-Syria borders. What will hurt Romney in electoral terms is his Palin-esque ignorance of the basics. The West Bank does not share a border with Syria, and the Palestine-Jordan border seems an unlikely site of Iranian infiltration given that Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and has neither an alliance nor warm relations with Tehran. Expect Romney’s opponents to feed this into the wider case that he is “not ready for prime time”. What should hurt Romney - but is unlikely to given the way discussion of this topic is framed in US politics - is his attempt to portray the Palestinians as the aggressors and Israel as a state desiring no more than its own security. The core of the issue, in reality, is the Israeli occupation and colonisation of Palestinian land in flagrant violation of international law, and Israel’s denial, for decades, of the Palestinians’ right to democratic independence in a fully autonomous state. The illegality of Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land – already widely understood in any event - was confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2004. In 2002, the Arab League offered Israel full recognition in exchange for its withdrawing from the occupied territories so that the Palestinians could establish their state there. The formula was agreed by the Palestinians, but rejected by Israel. Even Hamas, while formally opposed to such a settlement, has indicated (pdf) that it would accept it if ratified by the Palestinian people, who continue to favour the two-state solution. In any event, no one is stopping Israel from simply relinquishing the stolen land and withdrawing to its legal borders of its own accord. Romney’s remarks have been portrayed as a departure from the established consensus that the US must work towards a two-state settlement. But it’s unlikely that the Palestinians would perceive much difference between a Romney presidency and the last several administrations. Since the Oslo accords of the early-nineties, Israeli colonisation has grown significantly, while US policy has oscillated between placing no and not very much pressure on Israel to make marginal “concessions” on land. Putting rhetoric aside, the reality of the US position has been that Israel can take most or all of the territory it wants, and the Palestinians can have strictly limited autonomy on the remaining isolated patches. The only exception was a brief moment at the Taba talks in January 2001, when a more viable solution appeared possible, before Israel walked away. Romney says that "the idea of pushing on the Israelis to give something up to get the Palestinians to act is the worst idea in the world". However, at issue is not the Palestinians failure “to act” but Washington’s failure to “push on the Israelis to give something up” – specifically, the land it is illegally colonising. The so-called “peace process” has been moribund for a decade because neither George Bush nor Barack Obama were willing to challenge Israeli intransigence. In that context, Romney’s advocacy of “kicking the ball down the field” is no more than an endorsement of the current approach. Israel of course will be delighted with this. The Palestinians, less so. David Wearing is a postgraduate researcher on British foreign policy in the Middle East at the University of London. Find him on Twitter as @davidwearing. › If the Lib Dems want a coalition with Labour, they need to start work now Mitt Romney delivers a speech outside Jerusalem's Old City. Photograph: Getty Images Subscribe The Italian bank job: modern sins at ancient Monte dei Paschi Reading Speaking Out, I found myself agreeing with Ed Balls How do I join the Conservative Party? Subscription offer

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2153

MORE COLUMNISTS Resolutions of 2012 Zanu PF conference Resolutions ... Zanu PF leader Robert Mugabe addressing party conference No appointment of second Vice President No results as chaos mar Zanu PF elections Zanu PF MP evicts party from building Ministers challenged in Zanu PF primaries Zanu PF scrambles to hold primaries Zanu PF doomed after Mugabe: Nkala VP Mujuru next in line: Mutasa Mutasa takes stand in Madiro trial Zanu PF can't lose 'crucial' poll: Mugabe Zanu PF scrambles to paper schisms Zanu PF politburo tackles primaries Zanu PF chair up for Mugabe cow theft Zanu PF political ads target Tsvangirai ANC pledges Zanu PF election support Zanu PF orders campaign freeze What if Zanu PF wins in 2013? Zanu PF presses for Zim dollar, Biti resists Zanu PF courts youth, women vote Frugal Mugabe shakes off 'out of touch' tag Chihuri defends Zanu PF links Army chiefs at Zanu PF convention Mugabe targets decisive victory Mugabe fires Zanu PF for last hurrah Resolutions of the 2012 Zanu PF Annual National People’s Conference held in Gweru: The Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front held its 13th Annual National People’s Conference in Gweru, Midlands Province at the Gweru Convention and Exhibition Centre from 5th-9th December 2012. The conference was officially opened by the President and First Secretary, Cde R. G. Mugabe. Each District sent one delegate drawn from the Main Wing or Women’s League or Youth League. The rest of the delegates were drawn the provincial leadership upwards as well as the Zanu-PF Johannesburg District in South Africa. The conference received solidarity messages from ANC (South Africa), represented by Cde Jeff Radebe, member of the National Executive Council, Chama Cha Mapinduzi (Tanzania) was represented by its Secretary for External Relations, Dr Rose Asha Migiro, Frelimo (Mozambique) was represented by Cde Sergio Quantinho, member of the Central Committee. Politburo Member, Cde Theodore Quarter represented MPLA (Angola) while Swapo party (Namibia) was represented by Central Committee member, Cde Hilma Nican as well as from local affiliate organisations. 1. Party mobilisation Whereas the people’s revolutionary party is committed to safeguarding, defending, promoting, widening and deepening the ideals and values of Zimbabwe’s heroic liberation struggle for the benefit of all Zimbabweans today and in posterity; Impelled by the imperatives of Zimbabwe’s current “Chimurenga Moment” to indigenise the national economy, empower the indigenous population and its communities, develop and grow the economy to generate new wealth and income and to create employment opportunities especially for the youth who make up the majority of the economically active community; Noting that the GPA and the Inclusive Governme-nt, legally and constitutionally, ought to have come to their end after the expiry of the two years reckoned from the inception of the Inclusive Government ; Determined to defend Zimbabwe’s national sovereignty to ensure peace and the holding of free and fair elections in 2013; Resolutely opposed to the use of any form of political violence for electoral or any other purpose whether physical or otherwise and whether instigated or perpetrated by elements internally and externally inspired. Driven and guided by the imperatives of national unity, national cohesion and the wellbeing of all Zimbabweans; Committed to the promotion of regional and international solidarity among progressive forces; Aware of the geopolitical intrigues, plots, manoeuvrings and regime-change agendas of imperialist and neo-colonial forces to resolve their crippling economic crises by seeking to recolonise developing countries to exploit their natural resources under the guise of economic market reforms, democracy, good governance and human rights; Congratulating the party’s Midlands Province, the Midlands Development Association, consulting architects and engineers and their cooperating partners for the construction of the magnificent Gweru Convention and Exhibition Centre; Alarmed by the unrelenting covert machinations by Western imperialist forces and their proxies; Now therefore, Conference resolves; (a) To confirm the President and First Secretary, Cde R.G. Mugabe, as elected at the last congress to be the party’s Presidential candidate in the harmonised elections to be held in 2013.Advertisement (b) To direct all structures of the party to earnestly and immediately prepare for a resounding victory in the forthcoming elections by adopting a “Bhora Mugedhi”/ “Ibhola Egedhini” posture. (c) That the guidelines for the selection of party candidates for the conduct of primary elections must provide for free and fair primary elections in the spirit of the founding principles of Zanu-PF and to prohibit the imposition of candidates . (d) Exhorts every member of the party to be guided, instructed and bound by the vision, direction, ideals, values and the imperative for unity paying due regard to the enduring principle that we are our own liberators under the banner; “Iwe neni tinebasa”/“Wena lami silom’sebenzi”. (e) To urge the party to revive and develop a cadreship policy that nurtures a broad human resource base for deployment by the party and to introduce structured compulsory ideological programmes. (f) To call upon the party to develop innovative, robust and relevant mobilisation strategies to attract and maintain the support of women, youths, people with disabilities including encouraging organisations and associations for the young, professional and other special interest groups to affiliate with it. (g) To urge the party to continue working towards the realisation of 50-50 gender representation in all decision-making institutions. (h) To urge the party to make provisions for the adequate funding of all its programmes, including the impending primary elections and harmonised elections. (i) To discourage the use of money for personal political benefit. (j) To urge the party to utilise local talent and resources to identify projects for income generation and employment creation for the benefit of the party and the community. (k) Instructs the party to ensure that Government enforces the de-registration of errant NGOs deviating from their mandate. 2. National economy indegenising & empowerment. Whereas the fountain and foundation of sustainable economic development for the benefit of all Zimbabweans is the ownership of and control over the country’s God given natural resources by the indigenous population; Commending Zimbabweans for their revolutionary resilience, vigilance and total commitment which are now showing tangible evidence of irreversible success in all the 14 key sectors of the economy which are the target of the party’s indigenisation and economic empowerment thrust, most notably in the areas of agriculture mining and tourism sectors; Encouraged that at long last justice has prevailed following the clearance and endorsement of the unfettered sale of Zimbabwe’s diamonds by the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) notwithstanding the continuation of the illegal and evil economic sanctions imposed against Zimbabwe by the UK, US, EU and the White Commonwealth countries to the detriment of the wellbeing of ordinary Zimbabweans; Satisfied that through the historic Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment programmes, at least seven Community Share Ownership Trusts, namely, Chegutu-Mhondoro-Ngezi-Chivero-Zvimba in Mashonaland West, Marange-Zimunya in Manicaland, Zvishavane and Tongogara-Shurugwi in the Mildlands, Gwanda in Matabeleland South, Bindura in Mashonaland Central and Hwange in Matabeleland North have been launched and 148 Employee Share Ownership Trusts have been established; Noting that according to the United Nations Zimbabwe is among the top five countries with the highest sun intensity in the world, acknowledging the use and importance of solar energy; (a) That all the sectors of the economy must fully comply with the Indigenisation Act. (b) That all investment related laws that are in conflict with the Indigenisation Act are amended to align with the Indigenisation Act. (c) That De Beers be investigated for illegal mining operations carried out by the company in Marange under the guise of exploration. The investigation to establish the quantity of the diamond bearing soil scooped out of the Marange area and transported to South Africa as well as determining the actual value of the diamonds thus illegally smuggled out of the country. (d) To urge the party to spearhead the decriminalisation of mining operations undertaken by the gold panners (“makorokoza”) and implores Government to give them mining licences so that they operate lawfully. (e) To urge the party to spearhead the adoption of currencies of the BRICS countries and other emerging economies as legal tender in Zimbabwe alongside the US Dollar. (f) That the party should intensify and apply the community based cattle herd rebuilding intervention programme and the Zanu-PF cattle breeding project in all provinces. (g) That Government should prohibit the externalisation of the peoples’ bank deposits. (h) That the artisanal and small scale miners be incorporated into mainstream mining through support such as provision of equipment and training in modern mining. This will create massive employment. (i) That the party takes a leading role in the establishment of an Agricultural Commodity Exchange that should provide a vibrant market to drive the agriculture sector. (j) To urge the party to push for legislation for banks to lend to key sectors of the economy at affordable rates and to offer substantive real rates of return on deposits so as to mobilise and encourage savings. (k) To call upon Government to set a Zimbabwe’s Minerals Exchange as a vehicle to ensure that there is no external listing of Zimbabwe’s mineral assets. (l) To instruct Government to work out modalities for the re-introduction of domestic currency alongside the multi-currency system in order to address the current liquidity crisis and to enable our people to carry out their transactions. (m) That all export receipts should be banked in Zimbabwe with national local financial institutions. (n) Encourages Foreign Direct Investment to compliment domestic investment and calls upon Government to ensure that foreign investors do not fund their investments through local borrowings. (o) Applauds the party for intensifying the indigenisation and empowerment programmes as the basis of creating a new breed of employers who are conscious of the national interest to create wealth and provide more employment. (p) Recognising that the shortage of power is the single biggest inhibiting factor to economic growth and cognisant of our abundant coal reserves, coal bed methane deposits and Zimbabwe’s strategic position within the Southern African Power Pool and the growing demand for energy in the region, calls upon the party to spearhead the development of a power generation industry by promoting favourable investment opportunities in solar, ethanol, hydro, biogas and wind energy sectors. (q) To call upon the party to urge Government to promote nationwide utilisation of solar energy and to develop solar energy capacity. (r) To condemn the MDC formations for promoting neo- liberal, anti- people financial policies that have stunted agricultural production, starved funds to key economic enablers like water and sanitation, energy and the social services sectors and denied liquidity to the national economy. 3. Social services l Appalled by the rampant corruption in urban councils that are under the control of the MDC formations across the country and which have resulted in abominable service delivery, particularly in areas such as education, health, water, power and urban roads that have led to periodic outbreaks of cholera, typhoid and all manner of water borne diseases. Noting the acute food deficit across the country, especially in rural areas; (a) To call for the unconditional lifting of the illegal sanctions to facilitate the restoration and access to sound social services infrastructure. (b) To exhort the party to restore full service delivery after the elections. (c) Urges the party to ensure that Government through the responsible ministry and Government departments to attend to the construction and rehabilitation of roads in both rural and urban areas. (d) To direct the party to urgently take remedial measures to redress the rapid decline in the quality of the education system alongside the deterioration of national sport and recreational facilities. 4. Regional and international relations Encouraged by the growing spirit of regional solidarity within Sadc demonstrated by the continuous engagement and interaction through the forum of secretaries general of liberation movements in the region whose regular meetings have created new networking opportunities between and among the liberation movements and their countries; Alarmed by the escalating instability in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo and its geopolitical implications that threaten to destabilise the wider Great Lakes and Southern African regions; Concerned about the involvement of external players in the Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo and their wanton disregard of the sovereignty of the DRC in violation of international law; Disturbed by the continued abuse of multilateral institutions by NATO countries in pursuit of their neo-liberal unilateralism and foreign policy interests in search of elusive solutions to their crippling financial crises as exemplified by the Eurozone crisis that threatens to collapse the EU; (a) To express gratitude for the messages of solidarity conveyed to the conference and the unanimous condemnation of the illegal economic sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe. (b) To congratulate the Palestinian State for becoming an observer member state of the United Nations. (c) To call upon the United Nations to expedite the process of granting self determination to the Saharawi people. (d) To congratulate Dr Nkosazana Dhlamini -Zuma on her election as AU chairperson. (e) To congratulate Xi Jingin upon his election as Secretary General of the Chinese Communist Party. (f) To note the re-election of president Barack Obama and call upon him to repeal ZIDERA and unconditionally lift the illegal sanctions against Zimbabwe. 6. Media, science and technology Noting the strategic importance of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) and the comparative advantage of connectivity in political mobilisation and as critical tools for advancing the development of a knowledge based economy; Concerned about the widespread abuse of the social media by regime-change seeking countries for purposes of negative propaganda to fan disunity, hatred and engender instability; Dismayed by the continuing violation of international law which has undermined the GPA through the sponsorship of pirate radio stations by the British, American and Dutch governments that respectively sponsor SW Africa, Studio Seven and VOP; Encouraged by the party’s new thrust to apply ICTs in its internal management systems demonstrated by the introduction of its Electronic Card; (a) Condemns the American, British and Dutch governments, for violating international law and undermining the GPA guaranteed by Sadc and the AU, through sponsorship of pirate radio stations in aid of their political proxies with intention to effect illegal regime change. (b) Condemns EU, America and white Commonwealth countries for supplying ICT gadgets, such as cellphone, decoders, radios to communities to create conditions for the broadcast and spread of falsehoods to distort so as to undermine confidence in the electoral process and trigger Arab-style civil unrest. 6. Women’s Affairs Recognising the crucial role that women played during the liberation struggle and continue to do so and paying special tribute to past heroines, like Mbuya Nehanda; Cognisant of the leading role that the party continues to play in championing the cause of women towards the realisation of gender equality in all socio-economic and political spheres; Grateful for the role women play in sustaining livelihoods of families under the harsh and illegal economic sanctions imposed on our country by imperialist forces; Concerned by the ever increasing cases of gender based violence perpetrated against women ; Acknowledging that women continue to be under represented in positions of decisions making institutions; (a) That the party should spearhead and take the leading role in ensuring greater representation of women in all decision making institutions so as to attain the 50/50 ratio set by Sadc and AU in its protocols. (b) That the party calls on all its members to be involved in the campaign against gender based violence and commits to advocate for the deterrent punishments of perpetrators. (c) Calls upon the party to implement deliberate policies to empower the rural women so as to reduce their chores. (d) To adopt more systematic, sustainable, continuous education and training policies for women to facilitate their skills development and empowerment. (e) To urge the party to encourage young women, professional women and women in special interest groups to integrate and affiliate with the party. (f) Urges the party to develop and institute a mechanism for the utilisation of Community Share Ownership Trust and the Sovereign Wealth Fund facilitate value addition. 7. Youth Affairs Recognising that the youth constitute the majority of the population; Acknowledging that the youth are a significant national resource and play a pivotal role in the national economy; Noting that unemployment is a major concern and challenge negatively affecting the wellbeing of the youth; Cognisant that the youth represent the future leadership of the country in all spheres of society; lApplauding the adoption of a new Youth National Policy to be launched soon; (a) To reaffirm past resolutions that called for the acceleration of provision of land to youths and call for concrete steps for their full implementation. (b) To call for a deliberate policy advocating for a quota system in all leadership positions in both parliamentary and council seats for the youth. (c) To call for the appointment and deployment to strategic positions in Government, Diplomatic Services, Parastatals and state enterprises. (d) To call for speedy disbursement of youth empowerment funds to districts and wards by the responsible Government Ministry to facilitate the much needed development capital to the jobless youths. (e) To condemn the harassment and arrests of youth in small scale mining deemed to be illegal panners. 8. Religion, culture and liberations war gherirage Whereas the vagaries of cultural imperialism and Westernisation continue to threaten Zimbabwe’s heritage, values and traditions; Noting that the primacy of Zimbabwe’s cultural heritage is the moral basis of indigenisation and economic empowerment; Celebrating Zimbabwe as an African country, multi-cultural; multi-religious, multi-lingual and modern, whose strength lies in the unity of its people; Respectful of the institution and role of traditional leadership and aware of its historic function as the first line of defence in the struggle against colonialism, cultural imperialism and Westernisation; (a) That the party takes a leading role in identifying historic places and locations where major battles took place during the First and Second Chimurenga and to build shrines and museums at those places to commemorate and immortalise heroic sacrifices. (b) To urge the party to review and broaden the educational curriculum in primary and secondary schools to include the teaching of the history of the Liberation Struggle. (c) That the party should institute research programmes to design ways and means of protecting and enhancing the African cultural heritage. (d) That the party should promote the design and implementation of the teaching of a curriculum from Kindergatten to tertiary education to promote core values that underpin the African way of life. (e) That the party should promote cultural dialogue with religions of all faiths. (f) That the party should establish cultural centres from district to national level for cultural education and the holding of arts workshops. 9. Constitution-making process Whereas on September 15, 2008 the party signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA) with the two MDC formations whose main objectives included the making of a new constitution based on the views of the people and subject to a referendum within 18 months of the start of the process; And whereas a Select Committee (Copac) was set up in April 2009 under Article VI of the GPA to spearhead the Constitution Making Process and produce a draft constitution within 18 months after which there would be a referendum on the draft to be immediately followed by the holding of harmonised elections; Now therefore, Conference; (a) Deplores the delaying tactics employed by the MDC formations which have caused a constitution-making process that was supposed to take 18 months to last but has so far taken 44 months and is still going on with no certainty as to when it would be concluded. (b) Is outraged that the draft constitution produced by Copac on July 18, 2012 deviated in serious material respects from the views of the people expressed during the Copac outreach exercise and which are contained in the National Statistical Report. (c) Reiterates that any draft constitution emanating from the Copac constitution making process must adhere to and conform with the views of the people expressed during the Copac outreach exercise and repeated at the Second All Stakeholders’ Conference. (d) Calls upon the party to resist all attempts and machinations by some international forces and their local proxies to smuggle nefarious values and practices onto the proposed new constitution. (e) Implores the GPA parties to conclude the constitution making process before Christmas this year, failing which the Head of State and Government and Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces should in terms of the law issue the relevant Proclamation dissolving Parliament and fixing a date for the holding of the harmonised elections under the current Constitution.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2166

N.J. Assembly Budget chair says $400M windfall to be used for property tax rebates Claire Heininger/Statehouse Bureau Patti Sapone/The Star-LedgerAssembly Budget Chairman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden) in a 2008 photo. Greenwald today said lawmakers are looking to bring back the property tax rebates for those making up to $75,000. TRENTON -- Lawmakers today said they would immediately work on reviving property tax rebates for residents making $75,000 or less after Gov. Jon Corzine's surprise announcement to delay a vote on the state budget because of an unexpected windfall from the tax amnesty program. Assembly Budget Committee chairman Louis Greenwald (D-Camden) said lawmakers are looking to bring back the property tax rebates for those making up to $75,000, but could not immediately say how much the checks would be. Full Star-Ledger coverage of the N.J. budget Greenwald also said lawmakers want to retain property tax deductions next year for households making up to $200,000. The proposed $28.6 billion state budget calls for eliminating property tax deductions for those making $150,000 or more. Corzine today said the tax amnesty program has brought in at least $600 million, topping projections by $400 million. Votes on the state budget, proposed tax increases and an economic stimulus package were called off for today. Those votes will now take place next week. Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts (D-Camden), who vowed to use the money for property tax relief, said his caucus broke into applause when they heard news of the windfall this morning. All members of the Democratic-dominated Assembly are up for election this year. Senate President Richard Codey (D-Essex) in a statement said "This revenue boost will enable us to expand that relief to help hardworking middle class taxpayers who have also felt the pinch of a struggling economy." Assembly Republican budget officer Joseph Malone (R-Burlington) said the announcement was a stall tactic. "This may have been a Hail Mary," he said. "I just hope we don't do what we've always done and squander it." Malone said the extra money does little to change the state's dire fiscal situation. "It's once again a one shot," he said. "What happens after the one shot is gone?"

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2181

As G-20 Summit Closes, A Look At Its History June 19, 20123:00 PM ET As this year's G-20 Summit comes to an end, Robert Siegel talks to David Shorr, program officer and foreign policy specialist at the Stanley Foundation, about the summit's history and why it's so difficult for its members to reach a consensus. MELISSA BLOCK, HOST: From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Melissa Block at NPR West in California. ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST: And I'm Robert Siegel in Washington. The Group of 20 Summit in Mexico wrapped up today. It has produced a communique that mentions progress toward a European banking union and toward greater European economic integration. Those steps are seen as potential remedies for the eurozone crisis. The Group of 20, or G-20, grew out of the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. Its first summit was in Washington in the fall of 2008, an emergency gathering to address the financial crisis that was just engulfing the U.S. Well, since then, have the G-20 summits done anything to improve the world economy, and what about this summit? Earlier today, I spoke with David Shorr, a foreign policy specialist at the Stanley Foundation. He watches the G-20, and he was at this summit in Baja, California. And I asked David Shorr if we saw a communique pledging work toward global economic growth. Should we assume that anything positive would be done on the basis of that? DAVID SHORR: Well, the G-20 does have its own agenda, and has been working on some areas, but faces the problem that the major challenge to the global economy right now is regional and specific to Europe. So they had to deal with the urgent threat here but have been slogging along on some of their own issues in the time since that first summit. SIEGEL: For listeners who can't quite keep track of their G groups here, what is the significance of the G-20? Why do these 20 members meet? SHORR: When the financial crisis hit in 2008, President Bush knew that he had to convene a summit. It couldn't just be the old Western club of the G-8. Basically, the decision he made was to pull the G-20 that, prior to then, had really only been meeting among finance ministers. So it was reaching for an off the rack group. SIEGEL: The first G-20 Summit in Washington in November of 2008 was billed by many observers as Bretton Woods II - that was a reference to the 1944 conference that set up the postwar economic order. With hindsight, did it come close to that kind of leadership? SHORR: No. I think we probably all need to adjust our expectations. In this day and age, it's gotten harder to do Bretton Woods or to do a lot of things. No, it didn't quite live up to the Bretton Woods II billing. On the other hand, the leaders in that crisis moment of 2008-2009 deserve a lot of credit for helping avert an even bigger disaster. SIEGEL: But the very size of the G-20 - and its composition as opposed to the smaller Group of 8, let's say - is supposed to reflect the new realities of a world economy in which China and Brazil and India are much more important players. Does it make it a group too big to be effective? That is, can you imagine, hypothetically, a U.S.-German-Chinese summit that can actually make bigger decisions about growth and debt more easily than a gathering of all these countries? SHORR: I suppose. But then again, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a smaller combination of countries that we could reliably say will reach agreement a lot more easily than the bigger group. SIEGEL: You know, I read a quote from Professor Scheherazade Rehman of George Washington University when she was asked about what she expected from this G-20 Summit. And she said: I think you can expect very little in terms of anything grand or brand new, unless they sit down and reconsider seriously a new world order to tackle the financial crisis. And I doubt that's going to happen. But why, if say, in the post-war years leaders were able to get together and craft a world economic order? Why are they incapable of doing that today? SHORR: Oh, I think we see all around us that power and authority isn't concentrated the way that it used to be. There are more stakeholders. There are more spoilers. There are more players. And that simply makes it harder to do most things. SIEGEL: David Shorr, thank you very much for talking with us. SHORR: Thank you. SIEGEL: David Shorr of the Stanley Foundation. He is in Baja, California. He follows G-20 summits, writes about them, and he watched this one up close.

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2226

Letters: City Council says no to integrity Re "Filling up at public trough," Column, Oct. 30Bravo to Steve Lopez for expressing disgust at the L.A. City Council proposal to increase the limit on the value of gifts that council members can accept. It brings to mind my experience with Robert Mueller when he served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, when I was the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League in San Francisco.While Mueller — who would leave in 2001 to head the FBI — was in San Francisco, my staff and I met him for lunch to offer the ADL's assistance in tracking the white-power extremists active in the region. When the check came, I picked it up, but Mueller insisted on paying for himself. We're talking about a few dollars, but honesty and integrity don't have a price. This is a man I trusted; I'd like to be able to say the same about our council members, who should not accept gifts of any kind.Barbara H. BergenLos AngelesHurray for Lopez. There is only one way, if there really is a way, to rid our elected officials of corruptive influences, and it is certainly not to increase the value of gifts to council members. There is absolutely no place for gifts of any kind in a clean, honest government. All decisions on the part of an elected body (and the individual members thereof) should be based solely on the merits of the item being decided.Council President Herb Wesson says, "Times have changed and I think $150 is appropriate." Sorry, Mr. Wesson, but zero is appropriate. Folks like him who think otherwise should not be elected.Jim WeyantBig Bear City, Calif.ALSO:Letters: Religion in the workplaceLetters: From a surplus to deficitsLetters: Sebelius on the healthcare hot seat Los Angeles City Council

时政

2016-40/4033/en_head.json.gz/2232

Europe’s Choice: Populate or Perish If there is one thing the global economic crisis has highlighted, it’s the need to make choices—sometimes very difficult choices. At the June G-20 summit, for example, several European governments made it clear to the Obama Administration that they do not believe you can spend your way out of recessions. Unlike America, countries such as David Cameron’s Britain and Angela Merkel’s Germany have chosen the politically-risky but economically-brave path of austerity and public-sector spending cuts. In some instances, these measures may not be enough to prevent countries such as Greece and Portugal from sovereign-debt defaults. Still, the alternatives are ever-rising government debt-to-GDP ratios (which invariably prolong stagnation as has occurred in Japan since the 1990s) or attempts to simply inflate the debt away (thereby risking the terrible experience of 1920s Germany or America’s 1970s economic malaise). In the end, however, escaping the Great Recession’s effects is going to require more than spending cuts. The only long-term way out is economic growth. Here, however, much of Europe faces a problem that most non-European countries do not. The challenge is one of an overall population decline and an aging population. As stated in a 2006 IMF report, “The population of the 25-member European Union in coming decades is set to become slightly smaller—but much older—posing significant risks to potential economic growth and putting substantial upward pressure on public spending.” However one examines the statistics, the demographic picture for Europe—including Eastern Europe and Russia—is bleak. Statistically-speaking, the numbers of births per woman required merely to maintain a population’s size is 2.1 children. Not a single European country meets that figure today. Germany’s birth-rate, for instance, is 1.38. Italy’s is 1.41. Spain’s is 1.39. France and Britain are doing comparatively well at 2.0 and 1.94 respectively, but—you guessed it—Greece is the lowest in the EU. Nor is any consolation to be found in the aging statistics. In Belgium, the percentage of the population over 65 will increase from 16 percent to 25 percent by 2050. In 2007, a World Bank document stated that by 2050 approximately half of Spain’s population will be 55 or older. The reasons for these trends are many. The twentieth century’s two world wars tore large generational holes in Europe’s demographic landscape. Women are also having children later in life. There also seems to be a broad correlation between increasing material prosperity and diminishing population growth. Then there is the greater access to contraception from the 1950s onwards. But more subtle cultural factors may also be at work. For one thing, it’s striking how many Europeans are reluctant to discuss the subject of their population decline. This may owe something to an association of calls to have more children with the population policies of totalitarian regimes such as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Mussolini’s Italy, and Ceausescu’s Romania. Another factor may be many Europeans’ susceptibility to population-growth alarmism, as manifested in many European governments’ aggressive promotion of population-control in developing countries (which strikes some as verging on neocolonialism). At a deeper level, however, Europe’s declining birth-rate may also reflect a change in intellectual horizons. A cultural outlook focused upon the present and disinterested in the future is more likely to view children as a burden rather than a gift to be cared for in quite un-self-interested ways. Individuals and societies that have lost a sense of connection to their past and have no particular interest in their long-term destiny aren’t likely to be worried about a dearth of children. Here Europe’s generation of 1968—which promoted a radical rupture with the past and is intensely suspicious of anything that might broaden people’s outlooks beyond the usual politically-correct causes—has much to answer for. Immigration is one way for European countries to escape these conundrums. After all, it has proved to be one of America’s engines of economic growth and continues to help the United States avoid the population trap in which Europe now finds itself. For decades, Western Europe relied on immigration, especially from Islamic countries, for cheap labor, especially for those unpleasant jobs some Europeans prefer not to do. For the moment, however, increased immigration doesn’t appear to be an option for Europe. The policies of multiculturalism have failed and produced such deep fractures in many European societies that most European governments are presently reducing immigration from non-European countries. Is demography destiny? It need not be. Demography is only one variable among many. Moreover individuals and nations can make choices, and choices change our future. Sometimes circumstances, such as the global economy’s present problems, can provide the incentive and opportunity to break away from apparently unalterable paths. The clock, however, is ticking. The longer Europeans fail to address their demographic difficulties, the smaller becomes their room for maneuver, and the more likely Europe will be reduced to being a bit-player on the world’s political and economic stage. The loss would be not only Europe’s, but ours as well. Dr. Samuel Gregg is Research Director at the Acton Institute. He has authored several books including On Ordered Liberty: A Treatise on the Free Society (Religion, Politics, and Society in the New Millennium), his prize-winning The Commercial Society: Foundations and Challenges in a Global Age (Studies in Ethics and Economics), and Wilhelm Ropke's Political Economy. Read the entire article on the Acton Institute website (new window will open). Reprinted with permission.

时政