worldwebjournal.com

USA legalisieren Guantanamo-Unrechtssystem

2012-01-03T22:20:00.000-08:00

Merkel, Sarkozy, Cameron und die gesamte EU stehen in der Pflicht zum Protest

US-Präsident Obama unterschrieb ein vom Kongress verabschiedetes "Anti-Terror-Gesetz", das zur willkürlichen Entführung und Einsperrung von Terrorverdächtigen ermächtigt. Ohne Richter und ohne Befristung. Obama hatte zu Beginn seiner Präsidentschaft das Gegenteil versprochen, für geordnete Prozesse zu sorgen und das Schandlager Guantanamo/Kuba zu schließen, in das die Bush-Regierung Menschen aus Kriegsgebieten verschleppt hatte. Jahrelang Kontaktsperre, Verhöre, Folter, Demütigung - und vielfach vollkommen Unschuldige, die im Chaos der Kriege irgendwelchen US-Soldaten "terrorverdächtig" erschienen. Opfer der Angst, Inkompetenz und einer Supermacht, die Menschenrechte vermeintlicher Feinde mit Füßen tritt.
Obamas Zusicherung, dass er niemals erlauben werde, dass dieses Gesetz gegen "Amerikaner" angewendet werde, ist Eingeständnis des faschistoiden Geistes, der sich mit diesem Gesetz einmal mehr in den USA durchgesetzt hat.
Die Gegner Obamas werden frohlocken, dass er sein Versprechen nun tatsächlich gebrochen hat, denn er hätte sein Veto einlegen können, aber sie verweigerten ihm die Auflösung Guantanamos und machten das Gesetz. Und immerzu die Drohung mit dem Staatsbankrott.
Die Schmach des Friedensnobelpreisträgers Obama ist zugleich die Schmach eines parlamentarischen Systems, in dem sich die Machtspielchen von Parteien und Personen gegen die fundamentalen Interessen des Staates richten und zulasten der Menschenrechte gehen.

Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die EU müssen jetzt gegen dieses Gesetz protestieren - und der Protest muss sich eben auch gegen die Kräfte richten, die dieses Gesetz auf den Weg brachten. Einmischung ist geboten, zumal dieses Gesetz keine bloß "innere Angelegenheit" der USA ist. Wer schweigt, stimmt in diesem Fall zu. Das darf nicht sein.

Markus Rabanus >> Diskussion

The Nobel Peace Prize 2011

2011-10-07T18:01:00.000-07:00

The Nobel Peace Prize 2011 was awarded jointly to Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Leymah Gbowee and Tawakkul Karman "for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women’s rights to full participation in peace-building work".

Nuclear-Free Future Awards 2011 an Caldicott und Stockinger

2011-04-10T11:33:00.000-07:00

Der diesjährige Nuclear-Free Award wurde an Dr. Helena Caldicott (Australien)und Heinz Stockinger (Österreich) verliehen. Die Festveranstaltung war zugleich Abschluss des IPPNW-Kongress "25 Jahre nach Tschernobyl"

weiterführende Infos >> www.Nuclear-Free.com und www.Tschernobylkongress.de
weitere >> Fotos

Resolution No.1973: Security Council authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya

2011-03-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

17 March 2011 –The Security Council today effectively authorized the use of force in Libya to protect civilians from attack, specifically in the eastern city of Benghazi, which Colonel Muammar Al-Qadhafi has reportedly said he will storm tonight to end a revolt against his regime.
Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for the use of force if needed, the Council adopted a resolution by 10 votes to zero, with five abstentions, authorizing Member States “to take all necessary measures… to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamhariya, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.”

The abstentions included China and Russia, which have the power of veto, as well as Brazil, Germany and India.

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties, the Council established a no-fly zone, banning all flights – except those for humanitarian purposes – in Libyan airspace in order to help protect civilians. It specifically calls on Arab League states to cooperate with other Member States in taking the necessary measures.

The Arab League last weekend requested the Council to impose a no-fly zone after Mr. Qadhafi was reported to have used warplanes, warships, tanks and artillery to seize back cities taken over in what started out a month ago as mass protests by peaceful civilians seeking an end to his 41-year rule.

The resolution further strengthens an arms embargo that the Council imposed last month when it unanimously approved sanctions against the Libyan authorities, freezing the assets of its leaders and referring the ongoing violent repression of civilian demonstrators to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Council called on Member States today to ensure strict implementation of the embargo, including through inspection of suspect ships on the high seas and of planes going to or from Libya, deplored the flow of mercenaries into Libya whom, according to media reports, Mr. Qadhafi has recruited.

Demanding an immediate ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against and abuse of civilians, and condemning the “gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances and summary executions,” the Council noted that the attacks currently taking place may amount to crimes against humanity.

ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has already opened an investigation into Mr. Qadhafi, some of his sons and members of his inner circle for such crimes in repressing peaceful protesters. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said Mr. Qadhafi lost his legitimacy when he declared war on his people.

Mr. Ban spoke with Libya’s Foreign Minister Musa Kusa by phone yesterday and, through him, urged the authorities to immediately halt the violence against civilians.

In its resolution, the Council condemned acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel, and the head of the UN agency entrusted with promoting the right to freedom of expression today urged the authorities to respect human life and ensure that citizens are not denied their rights, notably the right of children to education in a safe environment.

UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Director-General Irina Bokova reiterated her previous call to the Government to respect freedom of expression and ensure that journalists can carry out their duties freely without fear of intimidation or attack.

The UN World Food Programme (WFP), meanwhile, has boosted aid delivery to people fleeing the violence in Libya with the provision of more than 15,000 daily hot meals cooked in a transit camp along Libya’s border with Tunisia. Some 300,000 people, mainly migrant workers, have fled over the borders to Tunisia and Egypt in the past month.

Over the past week, WFP and its partner humanitarian organizations have been running the two largest food distribution points in Choucha transit camp on the Tunisian border. The centre hosts between 15,000 and 18,000 people, mainly Bangladeshis and African migrant workers, waiting to depart for their home countries.

Egypt's victory for human dignity

2011-02-11T12:18:00.000-08:00

A historic day. And done with courage, perseverance and peaceful means.

Jetzt werden dort und überall viele lernen müssen, miteinander zu reden, mit denen sie und worüber sie vorher nicht reden wollten.
>> Diskussion

"Doomsday Clock" moves one minute away from midnight

2010-01-14T17:57:00.000-08:00

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Adjusts Clock From 5 to 6 Minutes Before Midnight; Encouraging Progress Seen Around Globe in Both Key Threat Areas: Nuclear Weapons and Climate Change.

NEW YORK CITY///January 14, 2010///Citing a more "hopeful state of world affairs" in relation to the twin threats posed by nuclear weapons and climate change, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of its famous Doomsday Clock one minute away from midnight. It is now 6 minutes to midnight. The decision by the BAS Science and Security Board was made in consultation with the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates.

BAS announced the Clock change today at a news conference in New York City broadcast live at http://www.TurnBackTheClock.org for viewing around the globe. The new BAS Web platform allows people in all nations to monitor and get involved in efforts to move the Doomsday Clock farther away from midnight.

In a statement supporting the decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock, the BAS Board said: "It is 6 minutes to midnight. We are poised to bend the arc of history toward a world free of nuclear weapons. For the first time since atomic bombs were dropped in 1945, leaders of nuclear weapons states are cooperating to vastly reduce their arsenals and secure all nuclear bomb-making material. And for the first time ever, industrialized and developing countries alike are pledging to limit climate-changing gas emissions that could render our planet nearly uninhabitable. These unprecedented steps are signs of a growing political will to tackle the two gravest threats to civilization--the terror of nuclear weapons and runaway climate change."

Created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted only 18 times prior to today, most recently in January 2007 and February 2002 after the events of 9/11. By moving the hand of the Clock away from midnight--the figurative end of civilization--the BAS Board of Directors is drawing attention to encouraging signs of progress. At the same time, the small increment of the change reflects both the threats that remain around the globe and the danger that governments may fail to deliver on pledged actions on reducing nuclear weapons and mitigating climate change.

The BAS statement explains: "This hopeful state of world affairs leads the boards of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists--which include 19 Nobel laureates--to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock back from five to six minutes to midnight. By shifting the hand back from midnight by only one additional minute, we emphasize how much needs to be accomplished, while at the same time recognizing signs of collaboration among the United States, Russia, the European Union, India, China, Brazil, and others on nuclear security and on climate stabilization."

The statement continues: "A key to the new era of cooperation is a change in the U.S. government's orientation toward international affairs brought about in part by the election of Obama. With a more pragmatic, problem-solving approach, not only has Obama initiated new arms reduction talks with Russia, he has started negotiations with Iran to close its nuclear enrichment program, and directed the U.S. government to lead a global effort to secure loose fissile material in four years. He also presided over the U.N. Security Council last September where he supported a fissile material cutoff treaty and encouraged all countries to live up to their disarmament and nonproliferation obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty..."

Lawrence Krauss, co-chair, BAS Board of Sponsors, foundation professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics departments, associate director, Beyond Center, co-director, Cosmology Initiative, and director, New Origins Initiative, Arizona State University, said: "The time to begin to free ourselves from the terror of nuclear weapons and to slow drastic changes to our shared global environment is now. We encourage scientists to fulfill their dual responsibilities of increasing their own, as well as the public's understanding of these issues and to help lead the call to action. We urge leaders to fulfill the promise of a nuclear weapon-free world and to act now to slow the pace of climate change. Finally, we call on citizens everywhere to raise their voices and compel public action for a safer world now and for future generations. Even though we are encouraged by recent developments, we are mindful of the fact that the Clock is ticking."

Stephen Schneider, member, BAS Science and Security Board, professor of environmental biology and global change, Stanford University, co-director, Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and senior fellow, Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, said: "We can no longer prevent global warming--it is upon us. Rapidly melting polar icecaps, acidification of the oceans, loss of coral reefs, longer droughts, more devastating wildfires, and sea level rise that threatens island nations and seacoasts everywhere are clear signs of change in Earth's climate. Disruptions of the monsoon seasons in India and China already threaten crop yields resulting in more frequent and severe food shortages than in the recent past... If we continue ‘business as usual' our habitat could be disrupted beyond recognition, with consequences for our way of life that we cannot now foresee. Without vigorous and immediate follow-up to the Copenhagen conference and well-conceived action we are all threatened by accelerating and irreversible changes to our planet..."

Jayantha Dhanapala, member, BAS Board of Sponsors, president, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and chair, 1995 UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Conference, said: "In the saga of human history civilizations have been threatened both by natural causes and by man-made folly. Some have survived by making the necessary rational responses to the challenges. Others have gone under leaving only their ruins. Today it is the entire planet that stands imperiled by the danger of nuclear weapons and the real risk of climate change inexorably threatening our ecosystem. Both impending disasters are within our capabilities to remedy. The opportunity must be seized now out of a recognition that these are global dangers that transcend national boundaries."

Pervez Hoodbhoy, member, BAS Board of Sponsors, professor of high energy physics, and head, Physics Department, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan, said: "We may be at a turning point, where major powers realize that nuclear weapons are useless for war-fighting or even for deterrence. Threats to security are more likely to come from economic collapse, groups bent on terrorizing civilians, or from resource scarcity exacerbated by climate change and exploding populations, rather than from conflict between nuclear-armed superpowers. Against these new threats, nuclear weapons are a liability because their possession by a few countries stimulates desire in other countries and complicates things immensely."

Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: "The emerging trends in international cooperation will provide a basis for collaborative problem-solving for a safer world. But a handful of government officials, no matter how bold their vision, will not be able, on their own, to deal with the threats to civilization that we now face. Leaders and citizens around the world will need to summon the courage to overcome obstacles to nuclear security and climate protection. That is why we have created TurnBackTheClock.org to allow citizens around the world a means by which to get involved and to inspire leaders to take action."

RECOMMENDED ACTION STEPS

The BAS statement outlines the need for action on the following:

Developing new nuclear doctrines that disavow the use of existing nuclear weapons, reduce the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and remove them from the day-to-day operations of their militaries;
Finishing the job of consolidating and securing military and civilian nuclear material in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere and continuing to eliminate the excess;
Completing negotiations, signing and ratifying as soon as possible the new U.S.-Russia treaty providing for reductions in deployed nuclear warheads and delivery systems;
Upon signing of the treaty, immediately embarking upon new talks to further reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States;
Completing the next review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in May 2010 with commitments to weapons reduction and nuclear nonproliferation by both the nuclear haves and have-nots;
Implementing multinational management of the civilian nuclear energy fuel cycle with strict standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, including eliminating reprocessing for plutonium separation;
Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency's capacity to oversee nuclear materials and technology development and transfer;
Adopting and fulfilling climate change agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through tax incentives, harmonized domestic regulation and practice;
Transforming the coal power sector of the world economy to retire older plants; and
Vastly increasing public and private investments in alternatives to carbon-emitting energy sources, such as solar and wind, and in technologies for energy storage, and sharing the results worldwide.
ABOUT BAS AND THE CLOCK

Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists subsequently created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 as a way to convey both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). The decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 19 Nobel Laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.

CONTACT: Patrick Mitchell, (703) 276-3266 or pmitchell@hastingsgroup.com.

EDITOR'S NOTE: A full replay of the news event will be available on the Web at http://www.TurnBackTheClock.org http://www.thebulletin.org

Shark Angels

2010-01-14T17:33:00.000-08:00

Shark Angels - on Shark Finning from Shark Angels on Vimeo.

Grand Ayatollah Monazeri against nuclear weapons

2009-11-13T18:30:00.000-08:00

The iranian Grand Ayatollah Monazeri made a Fatwa against weapons of massdestruction.

President Medvedev - Berlin Speech

2009-11-09T14:38:00.000-08:00

Speech of President of Russian Federation D.Medvedev at Celebrations Marking the 20th Anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s FallDMITRY MEDVEDEV: Dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr President, Mayor of Berlin, ladies and gentlemen,

I am very happy to be with you today and take part in the celebrations in a free and united Berlin.

Today, as we profess the rules of free and open cooperation, as we overcome current difficulties and resolve the problems engendered by the crisis, we understand just how significant the events of 20 years ago were. It was precisely then that the Berlin Wall was demolished, a wall that symbolised a confrontation between people, between close friends. The wall did not simply divide one country – as we understand today it divided all of Europe.

Of course we must not forget that her fall was predetermined, prepared by the transformations that were then gaining strength in the Soviet Union, in other states.

The role of the Soviet Union in Germany's peaceful reunification really was crucial. These events brought freedom and progress to Europe and became pivotal for the fate of the entire world.

We must remember that the process of German reunification was associated with the attitudes of vast numbers of people and, of course, with the position adopted by the Soviet leadership at that time. As a result, families were reunited, people could finally see each other, the iron curtain was dismantled, and borders were eliminated.

Today, neither the Soviet Union nor East Germany exist on the map, but millions of people who lived, worked and brought up their children during that time still do. And we highly value the fact that the 20 years since these events has been a special period for relations between Russia and Germany, a period for constructing new partnerships and establishing very respectful relations.

Our peoples had the historical courage to transcend memories of things past and achieve a historic reconciliation after World War II. They were reasonable enough to preserve the achievements of modern Europe.

Here in Berlin I would like to say that we all hope that this period of confrontation has become a thing of the past. Today's transition to a new multipolar world is very important for most countries, for all European countries and the entire world. And a unifying agenda is very important for everyone, as the planet continues to respond to the most dangerous threats: economic and regional ones, and our common fight against terrorism and crime.

I hope that we have all rejected divisive barriers which separated us in the past.

Today, dear friends, we would like to work on this agenda together, think about our children, our future, our common Europe. This is very important for Russian citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear Berliners, I wish you success, prosperity and all the best.

http://www.russische-botschaft.de

WorldpeaceAward 2009: Barack Obama

2009-10-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

Announcement
The Norwegian Nobel Committee

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

Diskussionen.de

Ayatollah Monazeri about Iran

2009-08-26T18:26:00.000-07:00

Grand Ayatollah Monazeri in response to the letter written by 293 of enlightened thinkers and intellectualsIn the name of God

Only the patient will be paid back their reward in full without measure (A verse from the Holy Quran)

Honorable and Dear Brothers and Sisters, Enlightened Thinkers,
With greetings and blessings; In response to the letter of 88/6/1 and with gratitude and appreciation for the heroism and resilience of the dear people of Iran , I say that I have proposed ways of easing the crisis. It appears, however, that their Excellencies have isolated themselves and shut their eyes and ears for their own worldly aims. But while resistance still lives in the hearts of many and some still endure torture and prison, I am not hopeless. I still hope that more than this faction of the system that has languished and endured will survive and that before it is too late, the Islamic Republic can be salvaged.

Islam is the pure religion of the divine and according to it, freedom of thought and speech are undeniable. Of the nature of acceptance of religion, the Koran states: religion is not accepted through force. Religion must be accepted through logic and reason. According to the tradition of the Prophet of Islam and his progeny (his infallible successors) that with full freedom and the absence of any fear, the people must have the right to criticize and protest. The greatest injustice to Islam is the oppression of the people under the banner of an Islamic government.

I hope that the leaders who have strayed from the right path return and that they return the people’s stolen rights. I hope that they compensate the damages, that they free the innocent, and that they not embarrass the Islamic court any more with this propaganda trial. Or at least, I hope they have the bravery to announce that this government is not a Republic and is not Islamic and that no one has the right to protest or criticize.

I hope that in this holy month of Ramadan, God save us from our mistakes and continue to offer his holy guidance.

Hossein Ali Montazeri
August 26, 2009

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

2009-08-06T22:04:00.000-07:00

Scientists and engineers bear a heavy burden of responsibility to society for the creation of nuclear weapons.

The immense destructive power of these weapons was demonstrated on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in over 2,000 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests on the lands of indigenous peoples.

Thermonuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities, countries and civilization. They could end intelligent life on Earth.

Humanity has been warned again and again of the perils of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

We recall the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued on July 9, 1955. The Manifesto warned, “Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”

Human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a dangerous and unacceptable mix. We rely upon human theories concerning nuclear weapons, such as the theory of nuclear deterrence, at our peril.

Since Nagasaki, humankind has been spared nuclear war far more by good fortune than by sound planning. This good fortune will not be possible to maintain indefinitely – particularly, as is foreseeable, if nuclear weapons continue to proliferate and fall into the hands of non-state extremist groups.

Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our responsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us and much of the life on our planet. The era of nuclear weapons must be brought to an end. A world without nuclear weapons is possible, realistic, necessary and urgent.

Therefore, we the undersigned scientists and engineers, call upon the leaders of the world, and particularly the leaders of the nine nuclear weapons states, to make a world free of nuclear weapons an urgent priority.

We further call on these leaders to immediately commence good faith negotiations, as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, with the goal of achieving a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Finally, we call upon scientists and engineers throughout the world to cease all cooperation in the research, development, testing, production and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.

www.inesglobal.com August 6th, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW BEGINNING

2009-04-07T23:55:00.000-07:00

Cairo University, Egypt June 4, 2009

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) END 2:05 P.M. (Local)

Discussion

Carter Center Congratulates Bolivia on Peaceful Referendum; Urges Progress to Continue

2009-01-27T04:34:00.000-08:00

Carter Center International Electoral Observation Mission; Press Release No. 2

The Carter Center congratulates the Bolivian people for the peaceful exercise of its civic obligations during the constitutional referendum held on Jan. 25. The Center's political mission visited more than 100 polling stations and did not witness any act of violence or intimidation that would affect the voting of the citizens. The mission appreciates the willingness of political and social leaders in the three departments they visited to share their visions and concerns regarding the process and the future of Bolivia.
As stated in a Jan. 21 press release, the Carter Center's mission had a limited role and did not attempt to carry out an exhaustive observation. Nevertheless, in its final report to the National Electoral Court of Bolivia (CNE) and the Bolivian and international communities, the mission will issue some observations and recommendations based on the field observation in the country.
The Carter Center has followed the political process of negotiating a text for the new Constitution since 2007. At the invitation of the national government, The Carter Center appointed a representative, Mr. Alejandro Nató, in La Paz in September 2007, to assist in conflict management training and relations with mass media. Mr. Nató also participated in the observation of the National Dialogue during October 2008.
The Carter Center is aware of the arduous process in drafting the Constitution over the last two years. After witnessing the National Dialogue last October, the modifications approved by the National Congress, and the convocation of the popular referendum for Jan. 25, 2009, the Center was pleased to accept the invitation of the CNE to observe the referendum to approve the constitution. Under the accord signed with the CNE, the Center sent a small mission to observe the prevailing political climate and the citizens' vote during the referendum, in accordance with the Electoral Code.
At the polling stations visited, the members of the mission found party poll watchers observing the vote, especially in Tarija and Santa Cruz. We are pleased to verify that, in spite of the high polarization in the country, these poll watchers supporting both the NO and the YES options were congenial and cooperative. We also found effective citizen control and responsible conduct of election workers in all three departments, carrying out their civic duties and rights in the installation of the electoral tables, the vote, poll closing, and counting of the results.
The mission congratulates the CNE for incorporating new safety measures in the voting process. It also recognizes that there remain essential tasks for the CNE in the short and medium term. In particular, it is important for the CNE to conduct a thorough review of the voter registration process and update the voter's list before the elections in December 2009. In the medium term, the CNE should improve the systematization of voter registration and coordinate with the National Police and Civil Registry to comprise the voter's list. In the upcoming days, we will make specific recommendations in our report to the CNE.
We recognize that as of today and under the supreme authority of the new Constitution, Bolivia will have to develop new institutions and elaborate the corresponding juridical framework. The good faith of the political actors and the support of citizens are essential to achieve these tasks.
It is indispensable that Bolivians overcome poverty and social exclusion. With this aim, national and regional leaders should enter into an effective dialogue and consensus-building process, with full respect to human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
During private meetings with high-level political actors carried out by the mission in the three departments visited, we found a more moderate climate and a greater disposition to dialogue about specific problems than is suggested by public discourse. Disputes are instead concentrated in the control and distribution of fiscal revenues and the respective rights and authority of the various government levels.
The transition initiated with the new Constitution requires minimum agreements for its regulation, for the development of a new framework of the State, and for the prevention of power vacuums.
The Carter Center reaffirms its commitment to Bolivian democracy and remains at the disposition of its social and political leaders to contribute to the process of transition and implementation of the new Constitution.
Waging Peace. Fighting Disease. Building Hope."
A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization, The Carter Center has helped to improve life for people in more than 70 countries by resolving conflicts; advancing democracy, human rights, and economic opportunity; preventing diseases; improving mental health care; and teaching farmers in developing nations to increase crop production. The Carter Center was founded in 1982 by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalynn, in partnership with Emory University, to advance peace and health worldwide.
http://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/bolivia_012709.html

President Obama’s Inaugural Address

2009-01-20T13:04:00.000-08:00

20 January 2009

President Obama’s Inaugural Address
“Today we gather because we have chosen hope over fear,” president says

(begin transcript by http://www.america.gov )

REMARKS OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Washington, D.C.

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you’ve bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose our better history, to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg, Normandy and Khe Sanh.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions, greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions, that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them — that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity, on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers … Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass, that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve, that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself, and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow, to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service, a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job, which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends — honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility — a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence — the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed, why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

“Let it be told to the future world ... that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive ... that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”

America, in the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
(end transcript by http://www.america.gov )

Diskussionen.de

href="http://www.worldwebjournal.com/">www.worldwebjournal.com

Ban Ki-moon calls on Israel and Hamas

2009-01-13T15:46:00.000-08:00

Middle East

2009-01-01T22:45:00.000-08:00

"Readiness to combat" makes no peace.

Jim Wurst: UN Sets Ground for Future Disarmament Battles

2008-12-31T04:27:00.000-08:00

The UN General Assembly committee dealing with nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament issues ran a wait-and-see session in October 2008, with progress perhaps stymied by the upcoming presidential transition in the United States. The session, which ended four days before the U.S. election, debated and voted on 58 resolutions. Under the umbrella of nuclear disarmament, the committee usually considers numerous drafts on specific issues-such as operational status, security assurances, and nuclear-weapon-free zones-and three comprehensive, omnibus drafts each year.

Each session, countries or groups of countries present draft resolutions on a broad range of disarmament issues, including nuclear, biological, chemical, and space issues; conventional arms such as land mines and cluster munitions; as well as on the machinery by which the United Nations debates these issues, such as the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD). After three weeks of debate on the issues and the drafts, each draft is considered with the goal, usually unrealized, of adopting resolutions by consensus. The majority of drafts on nuclear issues usually pass with large majorities.

Three omnibus drafts on nuclear disarmament were introduced in the Disarmament and International Security Committee, also known as the First Committee, by the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), the Nonaligned Movement (NAM), and Japan. There were slight changes in the language of previous years; nearly all of the additional phrases focused on the nuclear-weapon states' responsibility to eliminate their arsenals under the Article VI disarmament provisions of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NAC, comprised of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden, continued its annual practice of presenting a draft reaffirming the international community's commitments to the NPT and the decisions taken by its nearly 190 states-parties at its once-every-five-years review conferences. In introducing the draft, Ambassador Leslie Gumbi of South Africa said, "The NAC continues to view these issues of nuclear disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation as being inextricably linked, and wishes to stress that both therefore require continuous and irreversible progress."

The text entitled "Towards a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament Commitments" had the most changes of the three omnibus drafts. Paragraphs were added elaborating on the responsibilities of states-parties to the NPT and the preferred outcome for the remainder of the current NPT review process. For the last two years, states-parties have been preparing for the next treaty review conference in 2010 and will hold their final preparatory session in April.

One addition, for example, calls on the nuclear-weapon states to "accelerate the implementation of the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament" agreed to at the 1995 Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 Review Conference. These measures, in particular the 13 practical steps agreed to in 2000 and a 1995 resolution calling for a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, have for the most part stalled. The 13 steps include negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT), which is stuck in the deadlocked CD, and cuts in strategic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons. More broadly, the United States and France have been walking back from the 2000 commitments, calling them out of date and "suggestions" rather than commitments. Another addition called on the 2009 preparatory committee meeting to "identify and address specific aspects where urgent progress is required" to reach a nuclear-weapon-free world.

The resolution spearheaded by Japan and a range of co-sponsors from developed (Canada, Germany, Switzerland) and developing (Chile, Paraguay) countries was entitled "Renewed Determination Towards the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons." It contained a few new elements that highlight the responsibilities of the nuclear-weapon states, in particular the United States and Russia. One calls on the nuclear powers to "undertake reductions...in a transparent manner" and to increase transparency and confidence-building measures. Another addition calls on the United States and Russia to pursue "the conclusion of a legally binding successor" to START, which expires at the end of 2009. As usual, the bulk of the resolution focused on the range of treaty-based commitments by the nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon states required for the elimination of nuclear weapons. It was less explicit than the NAC draft in calling for a nuclear-weapon-free world, which is one reason the Japanese text has traditionally gained greater support in the voting.

Although the votes were mostly on track with last year, the NAC resolution did show a bit more progress in swaying abstainers. The 2008 vote was 141 to five, with six abstentions; in 2007 the same five voted no (France, India, Israel, North Korea, and the United States), but 13 had abstained. The movement from abstention to yes this year came from Australia and some NATO countries, including Greece, Hungary, and Poland. There was also a slight shift on the Japan-led draft. In 2007, three countries voted no: India, North Korea, and the United States. This year, those three were joined by Israel. The abstentions shifted from 10 last year to six this year.

The third draft, the NAM comprehensive text on "Nuclear Disarmament," contained every nuclear disarmament initiative endorsed by the group of developing countries. These include no-first-use and de-alerting of nuclear weapons, the creation of an ad hoc committee on disarmament at the CD, the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), the negotiation of a "non-discriminatory, multilateral...and verifiable" FMCT, and a halt to qualitative improvements in nuclear weapons. Similar to the other two, this year's version has a couple of additions, each designed to sharpen the focus on the elimination of nuclear weapons. The 2008 vote was 104 to 44 with 21 abstentions, following the pattern of last year. Because the NAM draft goes far beyond generally agreed treaty language, it has the least success in gathering positive votes.

The United States voted against all three resolutions. In explaining its vote against the NAC draft, the U.S. representative said that although Washington supports the NPT, the keystone to the NAC draft, it could not support some of the elements, so it voted no. The Bush administration has not supported U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and maintains that parts of the 1995 and 2000 NPT commitments have been superseded by events. China abstained on the "Renewed Determination" text while voting in favor of the other two, saying the draft has elements that were "not feasible in current circumstances," without elaborating on which elements were not feasible.

As much as a trend can be read into the debate, it is that the non-nuclear-weapon states are sharpening their argument ahead of the third and final preparatory session for the 2010 NPT Review Conference: that the success of the NPT cannot be separated from real progress in nuclear disarmament.

Last year, the most dynamic resolution was on the operational status of nuclear weapons. The key line "calls for further practical steps to be taken to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status." Co-sponsored by Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland, the text walks a fine line between calling for meaningful actions and not too greatly offending non-nuclear NATO countries. In its second year, there was little debate because the draft changed little. The vote was about the same as well. There were 134 yes votes and three votes against: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. China and Russia abstained. In total, 32 countries abstained, largely NATO members and states applying for NATO membership. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States made a joint statement after the vote, saying they "disagree with the basic premise" of the resolution. They said their weapons "are subject to the most rigorous command and control systems" and "the relationship between alert levels and security is complex, and not reducible to such simple formulaic responses."

armscontrol.org PR

Cluster Munitions Convention Leaders Voted 2008 "Arms Control Persons of the Year"

2008-12-29T04:46:00.000-08:00

(Washington, D.C.) Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre and his ministry's Director-General for Security Policy and the High North Steffen Kongstad garnered the highest number of votes in an online poll to determine the "2008 Arms Control Person of the Year." Nine other individuals and institutions were nominated by the Arms Control Association.
Dissatisfied with the pace of global efforts to control the use of cluster munitions, Støre announced in 2006 that his country would convene an effort to create an international ban on the weapons. The Oslo process led to the negotiation of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which 94 countries signed in December 2008. Kongstad led Norway's crossdepartmental effort and was added as an award recipient after many voters wrote in his name.
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions is the most important new humanitarian arms control treaty of the still-young century and Norway's Støre and Kongstad deserve great praise for their leadership," said Jeff Abramson, conventional weapons analyst with the Arms Control Association.
"Working with other countries and a dedicated coalition of civil society leaders and cluster munitions survivors, their actions spurred meaningful progress to bar indiscriminate weapons that have killed or maimed tens of thousands of noncombatants," Abramson added.
Cluster munitions are bombs, rockets and artillery shells that release smaller submunitions over a broad area, often injuring civilians during conflict or afterwards when initially unexploded devices later detonate when disturbed. For more information on cluster munitions and the Convention on Cluster Munitions see http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_12/CCM.
"The purpose of the 'Arms Control Person of the Year' poll is to highlight the positive contributions of key figures around the globe in reducing the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association.
Other top vote-getters were the lead U.S. negotiator dealing with North Korea and a group of four former U.S. officials who have called for progress on moving toward a nuclear weapons free world.
Christopher Hill, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was nominated "for persistently maintaining a difficult dialogue with North Korea on steps leading to its eventual denuclearization, potentially preventing the resumption of its plutonium production for nuclear weapons."
Former Secretaries of State George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and former Sen. Sam Nunn were included "for their catalytic January 2007 and 2008 op-eds in The Wall Street Journal calling for renewed U.S. leadership on practical steps 'toward a world free of nuclear weapons.'"
The online poll was open between Dec. 16-28, 2008. For the list of all 2008 nominees, see http://www.armscontrol.org/2008personofyear.

armscontrol.org/pressroom/2008personofyear

Obama in Chicago

2008-11-04T02:50:00.000-08:00

Diskussionen.de

Obama in Berlin: "World free of nuclear weapons"

2008-07-24T23:22:00.000-07:00

(wwj)

Wikinews: US will remove 'terror' tag on North Korea

2008-06-26T13:13:00.000-07:00

Fulfilling a pledge of fairness, United States president George W. Bush announced Thursday that the United States will soon remove North Korea from a list of countries seen as 'sponsoring terrorism' in the world.

The announcement was made as a 'reward' to North Korea for turning over all documents related to its controversial nuclear program. Pyongyang turned over to China documents related to its plutonium core and waste activities.
Pyongyang finally turned over documents and plans of its nuclear enrichment facilities in Yongbyong.
North Korean state television also announced that the state will televise the demolition of the cooling tower of the Yongbyong nuclear facilities on Friday.
Mr. Bush called the North Korean action as a positive step with no illusions. He also said that the act truly pleased him and it's just the first step towards repairing North Korea's relation and status with the world community.
The president added that in response to the act, he will lift the trade sanctions under the Trading With the Enemy Act.
The White House will also inform the U.S. Congress that in 45 days, the State Department will remove North Korea from a list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
The United States reminded North Korea that it still has some requirements to complete in order for the country to be completely removed from its diplomatic and economic isolation.
Pyongyang remains obliged to answer questions such as the degree of its uranium enrichment and proliferation that possibly benefited Syria.
The United Nations sanction sponsored by the United States issued on February 13, 2007 also demanded for a complete accounting of the alleged half a dozen units of nuclear bombs, the real number and its actual location.

U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley downplayed any heightened expectations from North Korea and branded the latest act as a mere "stepping stone."
Hadley warned that the process remains delicate and there will still be "definite consequences," if North Korea fails to fulfill its end of the bargain.
Meanwhile, Japan expressed 'unease' over the decision of the United States to remove North Korea from the 'terror' list claiming that there is still a need to resolve issues about the kidnapping of Japanese nationals by agents of Pyongyang.

FAS: Cost of "War on Terror" Since 9/11

2008-06-23T13:42:00.000-07:00

"With enactment of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R.
2764/P.L. 110-161) on December 26, 2007, Congress has approved a total of about
$700 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid,
embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the
9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter
terror operations; ..." >> more >> FAS.org

SIPRI YEARBOOK 2008

2008-06-10T18:57:00.000-07:00

Armaments, Disarmament and International Security
SIPRI’s annual compendium of data and analysis of developments in security and
conflicts, military spending and armaments and non-proliferation, arms control
and disarmament

As shown in the new edition of the SIPRI Yearbook:
• Armed conflicts are far more complex and intractable than is often thought and the traditional
classification of conflicts is breaking down.
• Military spending, arms production and international arms transfers are all on the rise:
world military spending totalled $1339 billion in 2007, a real-terms increase of 6% since 2006;
arms sales by the 100 largest arms-producing companies in 2006 increased by 8% in nominal
terms over 2005;
international transfers of major conventional weapons were 7% higher over the period 2003–
2007 than in 2002–2006.
• While 8 states possess almost 10 200 operational nuclear weapons, many arms control and nonproliferation
agreements are faltering or making little progress.
• Efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—nuclear, biological or
chemical—are increasingly focused on individuals and non-state groups, rather than states.
In response to these challenges, there is growing urgency around the globe to bring new life and a
mainstream momentum to arms control. There are new leaders in the UN, France, Germany, Japan,
Russia, the UK and, from January 2009, the USA—who will find it politically possible to take
concrete action on the arms control and disarmament front. Encouraging technological developments
allow greater certainty in the monitoring and verification of arms control agreements.
‘The movement to reinvigorate arms control efforts must stake common ground across the political
divides of right and left, “doves” and “hawks”, nationalists and internationalists, hope and fear,’ said
Gill. A global consensus on arms control and disarmament must include both nuclear and non-nuclear
weapon states and be supported by think tanks and other non-governmental organizations.
‘Voices from across the political spectrum are coming to recognize again the value of arms control in
the face of looming threats to humankind,’ said Gill, ‘Although we face tremendous obstacles, a new
window of opportunity is opening to realize constructive progress on arms control and disarmament. It
is clearly in the interest of citizens and governments alike to take pragmatic and positive steps in the
right direction.’

In SIPRI Yearbook 2008, SIPRI reports that
• There were 14 major armed conflicts in 2007. With the breakdown of the traditional classification
of conflicts, new approaches to conflict resolution are needed. Violent groups should be integrated
into political processes, not marginalized.
• 61 peace operations were conducted in 2007, two more than in 2006 and the highest number
since 1999, and the number of personnel deployed to such operations reached an all-time high of
169 467. With this growth, the crucial pre-mission phase of a peace operation deployment is
becoming more complex.
• World military spending totalled $1339 billion in 2007, corresponding to 2.5% of world GDP and
$202 per capita. This is a real-terms increase of 6% since 2006 and of 45% since 1998. The factors
driving increases in world military spending include aspiration to global or regional power status,
actual or potential conflicts, and the availability of economic resources.
• Global arms production is increasing. Arms sales by the 100 largest arms-producing companies
(the ‘SIPRI Top 100’) amounted to $315 billion in 2006, an increase of 8% in nominal terms over
2005. US companies dominate the Top 100, both numerically and financially, with West European
companies some way behind.
• International transfers of major conventional weapons over the period 2003–2007 were 7%
higher than in 2002–2006. The 5 largest arms suppliers for the period 2003–2007—the USA,
Russia, Germany, France and the UK—accounted for about 80% of the volume of transfers.
• Russia’s new-found self-confidence, supported by revenue from its natural resources, is allowing it
to assert itself more on the international stage. However, Russia appears eager to maintain
cooperative relations with the West and is unlikely to risk challenging it too forcefully.
• The role of export controls in supporting the main multilateral non-proliferation treaties is now
supplemented by the important role that they play in implementing decisions of the UN Security
Council on particular countries (such as Iran or North Korea).
• Experts widely agree that another influenza pandemic is on the horizon, jeopardizing global health
and security.

When will the West answer Medvedev's proposals?

2008-06-06T05:50:00.000-07:00

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - While in Berlin, Dmitry Medvedev has made so many proposals to the West, that it would be very rude to turn them down. It will be interesting to see how long the West ponders over them and which it will accept.

In brief, Medvedev suggested a pause on Kosovo, on NATO's extension (one more step to the East and relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all), and on new U.S. missile defense elements in Europe. He said that the Russian views should not be tailored to the Western positions, that the UN and the OSCE should not be replaced with other forums, and proposed a universally binding international security agreement on the template of the Helsinki-2 accords.

His proposals will not be accepted as a package, and the West is not likely to give a prompt reply. Moreover, many Europeans are impeded by a blinkered understanding of the recent change of power in Russia. They cannot see that Medvedev is Vladimir Putin's successor, rather than opponent.

The new Russian president's first trip to the West was bound to attract comment, and Medvedev could not but be compared with his predecessor. This is only natural. But these comparisons were made against the background of Putin's speech in Munich on February 10, in which he outlined Russia's grievances. That speech scared the West quite a bit.

Thus, on the eve of his first visit to Berlin, Medvedev was expected to show renewed "liberalism," "restraint," and "gentleness," all the features which Putin had lost by the time he gave his Munich speech (these are all statements from British, German, and American newspapers). It is difficult to say where the West got such "confidential information," not only about the contents of Medvedev's speech but also about his tone.

Nor was it very well informed. Speaking before almost 700 German businessmen, politicians, and public figures, Medvedev set forth in detail the very same ideas Putin had so emotionally voiced in Munich. Indeed, it is difficult to find any differences between the two speeches. In Munich, Putin said "the use of force may be considered legitimate only if a decision is made by the United Nations, and the latter should not be replaced with either NATO, or the European Union (EU)." In Berlin, Medvedev spoke about "attempts to justify NATO's existence by 'globalizing' its mission, which infringes on the UN Security Council's prerogatives, and by inviting new members."

Moreover, Putin said that "NATO's expansion is a serious provocation, which is reducing the level of mutual trust. It is fair for us to ask in plain terms - against whom is this expansion directed?" This sounds much more liberal than Medvedev's warning that if NATO expands any further, "relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all," and "the price of this will be high."

Putin said that Russia has "the privilege to conduct an independent foreign policy." Medvedev recalled that "our approaches should not be tailored to Western positions," and that we "are seeking truly equitable relations and nothing more than that."

One gets the impression that though many people understand that the era of "Yeltsin's mellowness" has gone for good, they cannot - or will not - accept it. They are trying to subject Russia to some kind of a check-up, to find out who it will make friends with and who it will oppose.

These people seem to think that Winston Churchill's dictum that Britain has neither friends nor enemies, but interests, should not apply to anyone but Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Australia or Canada. They forget that no country has a monopoly on pragmatism.

The business part of the meeting went without a hitch. After all, Germany and Russia enjoy a special relationship going back as far as Peter the Great. For centuries the two countries have had an unwritten agreement under which Germany helps Russia with technologies in exchange for access to its mineral riches. Today, that relationship is as strong as ever. Germany is Europe's biggest consumer of Russian energy, and Russia has always been its most reliable supplier. Today, oil and gas amount to 70% of Russian exports to Germany. Metals and alloys account for another 15%, and timber comes next. Ninety percent of German exports to Russia are machines and equipment, metal ware, chemicals, and electrical equipment.

Asked by a German newspaper what advice he would give to Frau Merkel at the talks with Medvedev, Andreas Schockenhoff, Germany's envoy on German-Russian relations, replied that he would suggest inviting the Russian president to attend the annual security conference in Munich, which is traditionally held in February.

That is a good idea. Medvedev has had his say. Maybe in Munich the Europeans will give him their answer.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Russian president calls for binding European security treaty

2008-06-05T20:46:00.000-07:00

BERLIN, June 5 (RIA Novosti) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on Thursday for a legally binding European security treaty to be signed at an all-European conference.
"I am convinced that without addressing all of our concerns in a frank and fair way we will be unable to make any headway in building a Greater Europe," he said, speaking in Berlin after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel during his first European trip since being sworn into office on May 7
He also added that "organizations operating in the Euro-Atlantic region" could also join it.
He said a new security arrangement should be based on "pure" national interests, not skewed by ideological motives.
The president also said that without cuts in military spending it would be impossible to raise sufficient resources to deal with such global challenges as climate change, illegal migration, and global poverty.
He also said that NATO's further eastward expansion would harm the bloc's relations with Russia, but there would be no confrontation.
Medvedev urged NATO to halt its enlargement and missile defense plans in Europe, adding that it was critical to break the vicious circle of unilateral actions.
He also said earlier on Thursday that Russia was alarmed by "narrowing trends of mutual understanding in Euro-Atlantic policies."

Russia and the EU are to start talks on a new wide-reaching strategic partnership agreement at a summit later this month.

10 arguments against the US radar

2008-06-04T18:09:00.000-07:00

Infos from www.nezakladnam.cz

There is no substantial difference between a radar base and a missile base. They are two integral parts of the same system and they can’t be separated either technically or politically. The whole system can be used both in defense and in offense.
If our country plays host to this extraordinarily powerful and technically advanced U.S. radar base, we will become a tool of the unilateral U.S. foreign policy, which is aimed at military hegemony and the so-called war against terrorism. This war has thusfar succeeded only in increasing terrorism, destroying Iraq, destabilizing the region and giving rise to the prisons at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
Our membership in NATO places no obligation on us to accept the radar base. The construction of the radar base is a unilateral action of the United States.
The base will not make us more secure. On the contrary, it will place us in greater danger. At the present time, the Czech Republic has no enemies among states. And missiles and radars are not effective in combatting terrorism.
Just as in the case of a missile base, the Czech Republic would have no say in what happens at a U.S. radar base on our soil or what would truly be installed there. The base would be completely under the control of U.S. Air Command in Europe.
Such a base whether with radar or missiles will increase international tension, particularly in relation to Russia, and intensify an international arms race, which could spark a serious conflict.
Such a base is a potential target for attack. In the event of a conflict between states which own medium-range ballistic missiles, a radar base would be a first priority target.
The construction of more bases threatens to spark new cycles of armament around the world. In developing countries, this results in the deepening of poverty for already desperate populations. In Europe, it could mean the end of state ensurance of social security.
The effects of such a high-power radar system on nearby residents are not known. The only similar systems are located in remote and unpopulated areas.
Effective defense against the threats of terrorism and war requires a decrease in international tension. New bases, which increase tension, will certainly not help in this regard.

Barack Obama effectively clinches Democratic nomination

2008-06-03T20:57:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama has reportedly achieved enough Democratic Party delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination to become the Presidential candidate to face Republican Senator John McCain in the November 2008 United States elections. Obama will be the first black candidate ever to stand for the United States presidency with the backing of a major political party.

While Obama needed another 40 primary delegates coming into Tuesday's final two primaries to secure the nomination with the required 2,118 total, he was considered to be likely to achieve this through the primaries in Montana and South Dakota. However, due to the superdelegates that have gone in favor of Obama, he has achieved the needed count ahead of today's primaries. According to two anonymous Clinton campaign officials, the New York Senator believed that Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, had done enough to win the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has denied reports that she will concede the Democratic Party of the United States primary campaign to Barack Obama during a speech tonight in New York City.

The Associated Press first reported that two campaign officials stated she would announce her concession tonight. In a statement to the press, Clinton's campaign commented in two sentences: "The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening."

Interviewed on CNN today, Clinton's campaign manager Terry McAuliffe called reports of concession "100 percent incorrect," but stated on NBC's Today that once Obama reached the crucial delegate count of 2,118, Clinton would congratulate him and "call him the nominee". She also told NBC that, "until someone has that magic number, we're going to continue to fight for literally those 17.5 million people."

On Monday, former President Bill Clinton was quoted as saying that "this may be the last day I'm ever involved in a campaign of this kind. I thought I was out of politics, till Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to be able to go around and campaign for her for president." President Clinton's aides later downplayed the statement.

The decision not to terminate Clinton's campaign officially was observed to give her a bargaining and leverage tool with Obama on various matters, up to and including the possibility of Clinton being Obama's vice presidential candidate. Speaking on conditions of anonymity, a Clinton campaign official stated that all Clinton campaign staff would be paid through June 15.

Called the "comeback kid" for her ability to come from behind to win states when the primary campaign showed Obama beginning to take both delegate and popularity leads, Clinton had campaigned late into Monday night for the chance of still taking a final come-from-behind victory in the final two primary elections. But today, Obama took the nomination ahead of the time frame analysts had predicted.

The Barack Obama campaign website has reported that there are 31.5 more delegates required before Obama receives the nomination.

A news report released by the Boston Globe has claimed that the Clinton Campaign is indicating that "she [Clinton] will gracefully exit the stage and won't take her fight to the convention." Sources close to Clinton hinted that if asked, she would be willing to serve as Obama's running mate. +wikinews+

Human rights group alleges U.S. prison ships

2008-06-03T20:03:00.000-07:00

The British branch of human rights organization Reprieve has accused the United States government of using naval military ships to detain in secret and interrogate alleged terror suspects. The United States swiftly denied the allegations. Clive Stafford Smith, founder and director of Reprieve, said, "the U.S. administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."

According to Reprieve, prisoners such as the Australian David Hicks, and the American John Walker Lindh were imprisoned on naval ships stationed off the coasts of both Somalia and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Reprieve also noted that "prisoners have been interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations."

According to the United States Navy, some ships have been used for short term prisoner housing, but denied they were prisons. "We do not operate detention facilities on board Navy ships. Department of Defense detention facilities are in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay." said Navy Commander Jeffrey D. Gordon from the Pentagon. Gordon did acknowledge that it was a matter of public record that some individuals had been put onto the ships in question "for a few days", in what he labelled the 'initial days of detention'.

Among the United States ships named by Reprieve as having served as prison ships were the USS Peleliu and the USS Bataan, both of which are amphibious assault ships. Also named was the USS Ashland, a dock landing ship. Reprieve stated that its assessment was based on evidence from sources in the U.S. military, the Council of Europe and from testimony received from former detainees at the the U.S. prison camps in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

On Monday, Reprieve said it would publish details of its research later this year, in a full report on the alleged activities of the U.S. military. The organization went on to claim that the United States was imprisoning as many as 26,000 foreign detainees in secret prison facilities, including land-based prisons. Gordon was quoted as calling Reprieve's comments "inaccurate and misleading." +wikinews+

Artic Robbery

2008-06-02T17:54:00.000-07:00

Denmark, Canada, Norway, Russia, and the United States met there on May 27-29 to discuss a legal division of the Arctic.

Territory extension without permission from the United Nations is not legal. And without legitimacy.

Russian Announcement of Intention to Send More Military Forces into Abkhazia

2008-05-31T12:16:00.000-07:00

Press Statement Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC May 31, 2008

The United States is dismayed by Russia's Defense Ministry announcement on May 31 that it intends to send more military forces, including railroad construction troops, into the Georgian region of Abkhazia without the consent of the Georgian Government. This announcement is particularly difficult to understand in light of Georgia's forthcoming statement at the UN Security Council on May 30 that it was suspending UAV flights over Abkhazia, as well as the constructive efforts by President Saakashvili and others to invigorate the Abkhazia peace process. We have expressed our concerns to the Russian government and are in touch with the Georgian government about this latest announcement of a Russian military buildup.

SECRETARY-GENERAL WELCOMES ADOPTION OF CONVENTION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

2008-05-30T22:02:00.000-07:00

The following statement concerning the adoption of the Convention on cluster munitions was issued today by the Spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

The Secretary-General is delighted that the strong calls to address the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions have been answered with the adoption today of this new Convention. He welcomes this successful outcome of the Dublin Diplomatic Conference and congratulates everyone who contributed to the process.

A broad-based coalition of States, international organizations and civil society has brought about a new international standard that will enhance the protection of civilians, strengthen human rights and improve prospects for development.

The United Nations will provide its full support and is ready to assist in the implementation of the responsibilities under this Convention. The Secretary-General has accepted depositary functions under the Convention, which he urges all States to sign and ratify without delay, and he looks forward to its rapid entry into force.

Secretary Rice and Palestinian President Abbas

2008-05-04T11:13:00.000-07:00

Joint Press Availability with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Ramallah
May 4, 2008

View >> Video

PRESIDENT ABBAS: In the name of God the Merciful and the Compassionate, I welcome Dr. Rice and I thank her for her commitment to exert all efforts and utmost efforts to make the year 2008 the year of peace and for her relentless efforts and persistence to transform the vision of President Bush from a vision into a clear, political and peace track.

Today we talked in depth with Dr. Rice about all issues, the final status issues, Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, water and prisoners. And we reiterated that the Roadmap and the Arab Peace Initiative and the vision of President Bush and all international resolutions form the basis for the solution of these cases in order to end occupation -- Israeli occupation that started in 1967, and the establishment of a Palestinian state, an independent state, and Jerusalem as its capital alongside the State of Israel.

We reiterated today to Dr. Rice the need for Israel to abide by and the need to freeze all settlement activities including natural growth activities and to remove all illegal settlement posts. And this is what the Quartet has called for as well as the opening of Jerusalem based institutions and to return to the situation as it was before the 20th of September 2000 and the release of the prisoners, the lifting of the checkpoints. And all of these are issues that are part of the first phase of the Roadmap.

And in this occasion we salute the decision by the Quartet that was issued two days ago about settlements and settlement posts -- outposts, as well as Dr. Rice’s statements on this issue. In our turn, we reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and the one weapon and one authority, and we thank the U.S., the EU and the Arab countries for all their support in this field.

And I mention this because yesterday we saw that the Palestinian security forces were deployed in Jenin and after Annapolis, and after that we hope to redeploy our forces in all other areas in the West Bank. And we reiterate for everyone that the weapon will only be a unified weapon, and there will be no legitimate weapon and arms except under the authority. And anyone who violates this will be held accountable and will be pursued. And we will not allow anyone to obstruct the security forces, the Palestinian security forces from undertaking their duties and tasks.

As on the Gaza Strip, we reiterate and we support the efforts exerted by Egypt for a truce. And we have called for that several times and repeatedly in order to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip and lift the siege, and in order to provide the people with the basic needs as well as water and electricity.

On this occasion we reiterate the need to stress that Gaza and the West Bank are one unified entity. And, therefore, we call up on Hamas to withdraw back from its coup and to accept immediately -- and we are ready for that, to accept the calling for immediate Presidential and legislative elections and, therefore, we repeat our -- what we mentioned earlier, that we are ready to go for early Presidential and legislative elections.

We confirm our commitment to the Peace process and our continuous efforts and negotiations, particularly with the Israeli side. Tomorrow I will meet with Prime Minister Olmert as well as Abu Alaa will be meeting with the Secretary of State, Israeli Minister Tzipi Livni and to discuss negotiations as well as discuss daily issues, which are also important, that we need to follow up on.

I point out to the London conference also, and I thank all the countries that have reaffirmed their commitment to support the Palestinian National Authority. And we noticed that the fruits of this support has started to be felt on the grounds at the security level or at the economic level as well. And we look forward positively and with hope to the Investment Conference in Bethlehem that will be held soon this month.

And thank you again. We welcome you again, and we thank you Dr. Rice. And we welcome you here in Ramallah.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Mr. President. And thank you for welcoming me yet again to Ramallah for our very important discussions about how to move the Annapolis process forward on all three tracks, first of all, the improvement of life for Palestinians and their daily lives. I had a very good discussion this morning with Prime Minister Fayyad and with Defense Minister Barak about the efforts that are being made in places like Jenin. And I congratulate you on the deployment of Palestinian security forces there. For the people of Jenin to be able to experience a secure environment and for the people of Jenin who recognize that the authority of the Palestinian -- you and the Palestinian Government of Prime Minister Fayyad are indeed in Jenin and providing them that security. We hope, of course, to continue to improve the opportunities around the West Bank for people to have economic opportunity in a secure environment.

We also talked about the Roadmap obligations. And I think that the work that General Fraser is doing, which is very systematic in helping us not just to track whether Roadmap obligations are being met but whether or not there is a real effect on the lives of people from, for instance, movement and access improvements that are being made. And so we’re trying not just at quantity but also quality of improvements. And I've had a chance to talk with you and your team about that, but I expect to be in constant discussion with the Israelis and with you about Roadmap obligations.

We’ve also had an opportunity to talk about the situation in the negotiations. I'll meet later on with your chief negotiator, Abu Alaa, and Prime Minister Tzipi Livni in Israel. The last time that we had a chance to meet, I was impressed with the seriousness, with the depth of their discussions. I think it is a good thing that they are not in front of the cameras every day to say what was said, because any negotiation that is going to be held in good faith is, by its very nature, going to be something that is confidential so that sides can -- the sides can share their views and their ideas in an atmosphere of trust and confidentiality.

But I think it’s also important that it be understood that these are the first really serious discussions on all of the core issues that have taken place between the parties for almost seven years. This is very painstaking work. It is labor intensive work. But it is necessary work, because the President -- President Bush believes very strongly that the time has come for the establishment of a Palestinian state, subject of course to Roadmap implementation. But that is why we’re working so hard on the Roadmap simultaneously with the negotiations. And we continue to believe that it is an achievable goal to have an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis by the end of the year and by the end of President Bush’s term.

So thank you again, Mr. President, for having me here. I want to say that the meetings in London were very good meetings. You have the support of the international community. That is very clear. And you have the support of the American administration and, indeed, the American people. Thank you.

QUESTION: Dr. Rice, I'm from Palestinian TV. I arrived two hours ago from Jenin and the checkpoints are unbearable. From Jenin to Ramallah there are thousands of vehicles waiting at checkpoints, and it is very tragic on the route from Jenin to Ramallah. And this has been very difficult to come here. The Presidency -- the term of President Bush is coming to an end, and until now we do not see that the peace agreement is being realized. And the settlement activities is one of the most important things that we need to see frozen. What do you think about that?

President Abbas, do you think that peace agreement is possible for the year 2008? And is there really any progress made on negotiations?

SECRETARY RICE: On checkpoints, I think I mentioned that one of the things that we’re looking at is how to look at the qualitative impact of certain improvements to movement and access not just the quantitative decision to remove this or remove that. And I do know that there are efforts particularly given the focus on Jenin for (inaudible) security forces and for economic progress there to look in an integrative fashion at issues of checkpoints and movement and access, and I believe that General Fraser will be raising those issues, as well as Tony Blair when he here, as to how to improve movement and access in Jenin, which is a project in the sense that we’d like to improve the general situation in Jenin but is no means the last place that movement and access and economic progress has to be made.

As to settlements, the United States continues to hold with you that settlement activity is contrary to Roadmap obligations and continues to raise with the Israelis the importance of creating an atmosphere that is conducive to negotiations of the final status agreement. And that means doing nothing, certainly, that would suggest that there is any prejudice of the final terms for final status negotiation. And the United States will consider nothing that is done to have prejudiced the final status negotiations. The best way to handle all of this, of course, is to get an agreement because we need to have a Palestinian state and Israeli state. We need to know what belongs in each of them. And then the parties, the two states, can pick up state-to-state relations, which is what we’re all aiming for by the end of the year.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We are racing with time in our negotiations. It’s like marathon negotiations. We know that the time is very short, but the negotiations that we are conducting are almost on a daily basis, almost on an hourly basis whether with the Israeli side or, as you've noticed, mostly with the American administration because everybody is showing a serious commitment towards that.

If we did not have hope that we would achieve something for our people and for the region, we would not have exerted any efforts, because then the efforts would be wasted. But we have hope and we hope that we will achieve what we aspire to as soon as possible during this year.

QUESTION: Yes, a question for both of you, please. For Secretary Rice, did you raise the qualitative nature of roadblocks in any of your discussions with Prime Minister Olmert and Defense Minister Barak?

And to President Abbas, do you think the United States is doing enough on the roadblock issue and also on the wider issue of settlements to lean on the Israelis to abide by their obligations?

SECRETARY RICE: Ann, I raised the issue of qualitative improvements not just quantitative metrics with both, and I have had since a discussion of it with Defense Minister Barak because, of course, a lot of this falls in his area of responsibility.

And as to the question of what we will be able to do to address these qualitative issues, I think that this agreement, that we’d go back and take a look at ways to really have a clear sense of what the qualitative effect is, that is the significance of any improvement and movement – on movement and access -- for the lives of Palestinian people. So yes, I raised it in both of the earlier (inaudible) discussions with Defense Minister Barak.

QUESTION: (Off-mike)

SECRETARY RICE: He’s agreed to -- it was the first time that I had raised this issue, and so it will be now a discussion as to how to carry out that concern or how to address that concern.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We are convinced that the American administration is very serious in its efforts. And the evidence to that is that the American administration has given us three generals to discuss security issues only, in addition to the other senior officials that are engaged in this process under the auspices of the Secretary of State and President Bush. And if this indicates anything, it indicates seriousness, complete seriousness because the U.S. wants to see a resolution by the end of this year. And these efforts that are being exerted are only indications and real indications of this commitment.

QUESTION: Mr. President, you’ve said in the past that until now there was not one single letter written in an agreement that you're trying to reach with the Israelis. Six months have elapsed and, until now, we have nothing in writing. Do you believe that in the next six months a chapter will be returned in this agreement? I do not know how you view this. Are you worried? Are you anxious about the lack of progress in this area?

Madame Secretary, you just came out of a meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Barak concerning the checkpoints that, according to the Palestinians, are very irritating. I know part of this question was asked, but I didn’t get an answer from you. Is there any promise from the Israeli side to lift any checkpoint, especially the key checkpoints that are basically suffocating the Palestinian life?

And concerning the expansion of the joint settlements, do you have any promise from the Israelis about they would agree to their Roadmap obligations when it comes to settlement activities? Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: It is my intention to continue to raise Roadmap obligations until the parties have met them. And there are Roadmap obligations on the Palestinian side as well that I've raised to see if we can move those along. But I understand that the settlements are a problem. That's why in American policy it has been called out as particularly problematic for the atmosphere of the trust that is needed to move forward on a whole host of issues. So, yes, I've spent a good deal of time on that issue.

And in terms of checkpoints and any specific checkpoint, this is why I've raised the question or we’re raising the question of really looking at the qualitative impact. Could you have a better result by some particular easing at a particular checkpoint? How much really do roadblocks relating to easing? And of course, then taking into account the variable security dimension of this for the Israelis.

So I think it is fair to say that there are real security issues involved here. And so with the combination of improved Palestinian security forces, and I think we will see in Jenin, it’s not without a lot of work on everybody’s part, first and foremost the Palestinian government under President Abbas but also international help, American assistance, the training that the Jordanians have provided by improving Palestinian security forces, by improving movement and access in ways that actually then relate to economic commercial activity, can you really make a major dent, a major impact on how the West Bank operates. That’s really what we are doing.

Look, we are trying to come back from a six-and-a-half almost seven year period from the time the day the Intifada began to now to try to not just improve life on the West Bank but to begin to return it to something that approximates a normal life for the Palestinian people. And it takes some time to deal with the effects of the Intifada, but a lot of it has to do with responsible actions by the Palestinian government and the Palestinian Authority which are really now place. And because of that, I think you are going to see improvements on the West Bank. The Israelis will also really have to do their part.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We said that was true, that I said not one single letter has been written yet. But all the core issues are being discussed and negotiated in depth and in very clear details. I don’t think that we -- if we find a solution, if we come to an agreement, we will not need six months to write it. If we are thinking about drafting an agreement, then we will have completed 90 percent of the negotiations and, thus, the drafting of the agreement will not be difficult. The most important thing is to reach the agreement in order to draft the agreement itself.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we’ve heard a lot about the issues that you are raising with the Israelis in terms of their commitments when it comes to the Roadmap obligations from the settlements, to roadblocks, etc. What are you raising with the Palestinians? Because it does make it sound like the Palestinians are doing their end of the bargain and that the pressure is mostly on the Israelis? Is that a correct assessment?

SECRETARY RICE: No. In fact, I've said before there is work to do on both sides. We talked, for instance, about -- if you remember in the Roadmap there are certain obligations about the consolidation of security forces and their proper training and their proper direction. There are some issues that have to be dealt with in terms of the proper staffing of the command and planning elements that will help the Palestinian security forces to be really capable. There are some lists that I've heard Palestinians have asked for certain kinds of equipment, but then there are certain lists that have not been passed over.

I mean, this is pretty nitty-gritty work to be quite fair. And there are obligations that need to be met on both sides. And I've found both Prime Minister Fayyad and Defense Minister Barak very willing to look at where there may be bottlenecks in the two bureaucracies to getting some things done. They may sometimes sound like minor issues when we actually go through the lists, but I can assure you that these bottlenecks or the roadblocks make it difficult to keep moving forward. And so there are obligations that we’ve discussed on both sides.

QUESTION: Actually, I still have a question for President Abbas on -- you say that -- you said before that an agreement can be reached perhaps in the next few months before the end of the year. But short of actually reaching the agreement, what else can be qualified as a success if you don’t actually reach this agreement?

PRESIDENT ABBAS: We want to reach an agreement. We want to achieve success. We need full agreement. This is the intention of all the relevant and concerned parties whether on the Palestinian side or the Israeli side or the American side and the Europeans. The intent is to reach an agreement for all the core issues, and this is what we want. If we cannot achieve that, then we should think of the steps that we should take. We do not want from now to think about failure. We do not want to set up ourselves for failure. We let us focus on success. And if we fail, then we go back to our leadership, to the people and see what next steps could be taken.

2008/T14-5
Released on May 4, 2008

2008-05-03T18:28:00.000-07:00

Condoleezza Rice about Middle East

2008-04-30T20:28:00.000-07:00

Remarks at Opening Dinner of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Jewish Committee
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Capital Hilton
Washington, DC
April 29, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you, very much. Well, first of all, thank you, Richard Sideman, for that really elegant and wonderful introduction, very touching introduction. And I want to thank you for your leadership of this proud and great organization.

For more than a century, the American Jewish Committee has been a tireless advocate for tolerance, for pluralism, and for respect for human dignity. You have defended these values – the values of your community – against bigotry and against anti-Semitism. And you have promoted these values by fostering dialogue and understanding peoples of all faiths.

So I want to commend the American Jewish Committee for your long, distinguished role in strengthening the foundations of American life. You have helped this nation, our nation, to lift itself a little closer to those great and enduring ideals for which we strive so mightily. I want to thank you for that.

Since 1948, the American Jewish Committee has also worked to strengthen the common bonds we share with the citizens of Israel, and it is an honor to be with you tonight in commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel’s founding. (Applause.) President Bush and I will be going to Jerusalem next month to participate in Israel’s official celebration, and I can tell you that it is a trip that I am really looking forward to personally.

Honored members of the diplomatic corps, members of the Israeli Government and parliament, ladies and gentlemen:

America’s commitment to Israel is unwavering, but let us not forget that 60 years ago, the issue was still very open to debate. On May 12, 1948, President Truman summoned his chief advisors into the Oval Office. The administration was divided, and the mood was tense. At one point, Truman’s secretary of state told him that he would vote against him in the upcoming election if he backed the creation of Israel. Now I've said a lot of candid things to President Bush -- (laughter) -- that's not one of them.

But two days later, the decision was made. David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence in Tel Aviv. And eleven minutes later -- eleven minutes later, the United States of America became the first nation in the world to recognize the Jewish state of Israel. (Applause.)

For 60 years now, American administrations – Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative – have differed over many, many things, but one thing unites our government: We are committed to the freedom, the well-being, and the security of our democratic ally, Israel.

I still remember my first time visiting Israel: It felt like coming home to a place that I had never been. And every time I return, and as I look upon the land where Israelis have made the desert literally bloom, and as I drive past the aging hulks of Israeli tanks, which recall the dear cost that generations of Israeli patriots have paid for their nation’s survival, as I see all of these things, it is clear to me that a confident Israel can achieve things that many think impossible.

Confidence defines Israel’s pioneer spirit, but I know how Israel’s confidence is tested day in and day out when it comes to issues of security. I remember all-too-well the awful days of 2001 and 2002, when Israelis feared that every bus ride, every night out, was another Passover massacre waiting to happen. And I know the heartbreak and the anger that all Israelis feel as they watch today the terror of rockets raining down on towns like Sderot and Ashkelon.

Many times, as I fly into Israel, and it has been many times, I think of a story that President Bush tells. This was before he became president, and it was on a visit to Israel, and he was taken up in a helicopter to see the country from above. He talks about how he looked out on a people so resolute and yet a country so vulnerable and he decided then and there that America’s enduring commitment to Israel’s security would be absolutely unshakeable on his watch. And I think we have kept that promise. (Applause.)

When Israel was besieged by terror in 2001 and 2002, it was the United States that insisted that Israel had the right to defend itself. When people used to say, and we now forget that they did, “Well, you see, one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter”, it was the United States that said: No, that is wrong. No, the intentional murder of innocent people is wrong, and you cannot hug Hezbollah and Hamas and say that you are fighting al-Qaida.

And when the president of Iran proclaimed his desire to, quote, “wipe Israel off the map”, it was the United States that arranged a $30 billion security package to help Israel defend its homeland against any threat. (Applause.)

Now, we are in another phase. And let me be very clear, we have a vital interest in peace between Israelis and Palestinians. But I want also to be very clear about the following: We will defend against any action, as we always have, that would compromise Israel’s security.

Our commitment to Israel’s security has given Israel the confidence to work with us and with responsible Palestinians, and with friends in the region, to begin creating real conditions for peace. Israel has a long and venerable tradition of holding itself to the highest standards of justice, and of working magnanimously to seize any opportunity to live in peace with its neighbors.

This may be such a moment. There's an opportunity now to advance the historic and long-held aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. This will require difficult, painful sacrifices, by both sides. But these are choices that Israel can and should make confidently. Israel can be bold in the pursuit of peace – for America is fully behind her, and fully committed to her security.

Now, I do not deny that there are deeply troubling events and situations in the region. The situation in Gaza, for instance, is a horror. The situation in Gaza brought on by Hamas, that holds the Palestinian people hostage in that land, and the hope and dreams of decent Palestinian people hostage with them. A Hamas that uses Gaza as a firing ground against decent and innocent Israeli citizens, so certainly, it is a time of trouble. And I don't deny that Gaza and other situations make the present moment complicating and -- complicated and challenging. But when, ladies and gentlemen, has the Middle East ever been uncomplicated and unchallenging?

I believe that we have a chance now to reach agreement this year on the basic contours of a peaceful Palestinian state subject to the fulfillment of Roadmap obligations. My confidence in this is not blind optimism or willful naiveté. We’ve been through too much for that to be the case. It is based instead on my firm belief that we have the right vision for ending this conflict. We are supporting reasonable and responsible Palestinians in an unprecedented effort to realign their society around the values of non-violence. And a new democratic spirit is enabling them to do it.

Violent extremists, you see, can no longer hide in the shadows, destroying all prospects for peace without beginning to bear consequences for their actions. They are being forced and will be forced to make fundamental choices they have refused to make. That choice is very clear: Either you are a terrorist group, or you are a political party – but you cannot be both. (Applause.)

Unfortunately, until now, Hamas is making its choice, and it is choosing violence. They are refusing to renounce violence, refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist, and refusing to respect all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel. But perhaps of deepest concern, the leaders of Hamas are increasingly serving as the proxy warriors of an Iranian regime that is destabilizing the region, seeking a nuclear capability, and proclaiming its desire to destroy Israel.

The problem here is not a failure to communicate. It’s not a failure to talk. Indeed, how can any government negotiate with a group that sees every agreement, every truce, not as a compromise to advance peace, but as a tactic to later advance war? No, the only responsible policy is to isolate Hamas and defend against its threats, until Hamas makes the choice that supports peace.

We are on the right course. What America and Israel need now is will and courage – both in our national defense, and at the negotiating table – to advance our vision of peace in the face of violent enemies. The legitimate Palestinian government of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad has the will to fight terrorism. I believe that they have the desire to govern effectively. But they do not yet have the capability, and these responsible leaders deserve our support. They need also the support of the international community. And frankly, they need most the support of their fellow Arabs, who must show Israel – now, not later – that they believe that it has a rightful place in the Middle East.

Ladies and Gentlemen: This is a trying time. But it is no time to despair. This is a time for bold and courageous leadership.

I was very honored and, indeed, very privileged to know Ariel Sharon, a man who loved Israel deep, deep into his soul. I’ve had the privilege of working with his successor, Ehud Olmert, who is a great leader for Israel. And as I’ve worked with these leaders, I recognized that the love for Israel runs very, very deep. But Ariel Sharon was a special kind of person, and I once visited his farm. You know the famous farm. And he said to me, “I want to introduce you to my sheep.” (Laughter.) I said, “Fine,” and we went out and we met his sheep. I am from the city. I had never seen a sheep up close and personal. (Laughter.)

A few days before he was stricken, we were talking on the phone about something, and he said to me, “How are you doing?” And I said, “Fine. How are your sheep?” He said, “They miss you.” (Laughter.) Somehow, I thought, all right, that’s a true friend. (Laughter.)

But it reminded me, too, of another time that we talked. And it was just before Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, and he told me that he gone out to talk with Israeli settlers in Gaza. And of course, he was the father of that movement. He went to one family and he explained to them why it was important to share the land. And this man said, “Let me show you something.” And he showed Sharon the mezuzah above their house, and he told Sharon, “You personally put that mezuzah there. You personally told us that it was good for the state of Israel for us to settle here, and now you tell me that we have to leave for the good of the state of Israel.” He was deeply pained by that, I have no doubt. I could see it even as he told the story. But that is what great leaders do: They make hard decisions confidently for the sake of peace and for the sake of their people.

Difficult decisions are coming. Difficult decisions will have to be made. But Israelis have waited too long for the security they desire and they deserve. Palestinians, quite frankly, have waited too long for the dignity of an independent state. And we have all waited long enough for peace. So let us hope and pray that we will wait no longer. Let us secure for all time, what David Ben-Gurion called, and I quote, “the legacy of a small nation, which has endured great sufferings and tribulations, but which is, nevertheless, great and eternal in spirit, vision, faith and virtue.”

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: First let me say thank you, Madame Secretary, for such a thoughtful and moving address. You have moved us all and you have given us much to think about, and our hopes and prayers go with you as you continue on your labors.

I should tell you now that the Secretary has agreed to answer some questions and, consequently, I’m going to be calling on people to ask such questions. If I can see them, I’ll try.

Harold. Harold Tanner.

QUESTION: I’m looking for the microphone, but I can’t see it. My voice carries but (inaudible.)

MODERATOR: I’ll repeat it, Harold, in case there’s a question. Okay.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, (inaudible) there was an interview with former President Carter expressing a difference of opinion with you about what was said about his trip to the Middle East. Do you care to comment on that?

SECRETARY RICE: Harold, before I do, I want to recognize somebody who has just come in, if you don’t mind. I see Annette Lantos here. (Applause.) Tom’s great partner in life. We miss him, Annette, but I want to just tell you a little story. I wrote Annette and Charity, her granddaughter, a card about it.

Tom gave me a plant when I was National Security Advisor, so this was maybe five, six years ago. And this plant did not bloom. It was quite beautiful, but it did not bloom. This year, for the first time, it bloomed, Annette.

As to the question concerning former President Carter, look, I have made clear that the United States believed and communicated to President Carter that this was a trip and a meeting -- let me say it that way -- with Hamas that would not be helpful to our policies in the Middle East, that would serve to give Hamas a platform from which to say that they were legitimate because a former President of the United States was meeting with them, and that it would, in fact, not be a good thing from the point of view of a peace process that is relying on negotiations between responsible Palestinian leaders who have, by the way, renounced violence and believe in a negotiated solution, in favor of those who continue to rely on violence, continue to say that Israel doesn't have the right to exist, and by the way, continue to abrogate and to set aside all negotiated agreements that the Palestinians have signed over the last more than a decade. And I don’t know how that could have been any clearer.

So I don’t want to continue this argument, but I just want to restate the policy of the United States. I don’t see the point of trying to bring into peace negotiations people who are clearly determined to destroy the foundation for peace. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: I’ll call on David Harris.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, in the travels of the American Jewish Committee, we have admired the key role of the United States in helping to forge an international consensus with regard to Iran, the subject you addressed, in adopting the first UN Security Council resolution followed by the three sanctions resolutions. We also applaud the work of the Department of Treasury internationally.

But at the same time, those who are concerned about Iran’s nuclear ambitions fear that these efforts are not keeping pace with Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile technology. Could you share with us, perhaps, some additional thoughts tonight on whether you think, in fact, not only can we keep pace but we can outpace and ensure a peaceful outcome which prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, thank you. Well, the first point that I would make is that when you go to these meetings, everyone says, well, it would be terribly destabilizing and tragic, indeed, if Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon. And I mean other states with whom we speak. And that seems to be a consensus, and it is on that basis that we have worked with particularly the Russians, the Chinese and the three European countries to try to forge a coalition of states that will carry the international banner against allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

But of course, this is going to require extremely -- not just coordinated, but more intensive diplomatic activity. The fact is the Iranians have continued to defy the international community despite the series of sanctions that have been put there. They’ve continued to defy despite the fact -- and they continue to say, well, it’s just the United States or it’s just the West. Well, these are Security Council resolutions, which means that they have the entire world’s imprimatur.

But while the Security Council resolutions are very important, so, too, are the efforts that we are undertaking, which you referenced, David, that are using the Security Council, in a sense, umbrella, a concern, but really are outside of the Security Council. And those are sanctions that the Treasury Department -- designations that the Treasury Department makes of Iranian entities, individuals, groups, in order to prevent Iran from using the international financial system to move its ill-gotten gains from terrorism and from proliferation. And we made designations, for instance, of the Qods Force. We made designations of the Revolutionary Guard. You can believe that we’re going to continue to make designations because we believe, as my colleague Hank Paulson said, that it’s really hard to know who you’re doing business with when you do business with Iran. And that is the point that we are making increasingly to commercial entities, to banking and financial centers. You may think that you’re doing “legitimate business” with Iran, but you know, over time, the IRGC and the Qods Force is more and more involved in these issues. And therefore, we’re really trying to mobilize the international community to recognize what kind of state Iran is and what kinds of measures it requires.

We are also -- not in connection with the nuclear issue but in connection with what the Iranians are doing in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in Lebanon and, as I mentioned earlier, in supporting Hamas in the Gaza Strip, I think we have to be more active in calling to people’s attention the nefarious activities that Iran is engaged in against reasonable states in the region and against our common security interests. Particularly, recently in Iraq, we had a kind of interesting circumstance; the Iraqi Government reclaimed Basra in the south from elements of Jaish al-Mahdi, associated with Muqtada al-Sadr, trained and equipped by Iran. Now, I think that that has gotten people’s attention. It certainly had people’s attention at the Neighbors’ meeting that I recently attended.

So it is a process of continuing to try to push on as many fronts as we possibly can, but it is also to be very clear that the United States is prepared to defend its interests and defends its friends in the region. And it is one reason that the Gulf Security Dialogue that Bob Gates has been leading on the defense side, that the security assistance packages that we’ve put together for not just Israel but for other important states in the region, that this is a signal that the United States is in the region to stay and will defend its interests. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: (Inaudible.) I can barely see.

QUESTION: Secretary, I’m wondering what analysis you could give us of the possibility or -- and the desirability of, as they say, peeling off Syria’s allegiance to Iran to the West.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes. Well, if I thought it could be done -- look, we’d be prepared to try to deny Iran friends and allies? Absolutely. But I have to say I think Syria behaves like Iran’s sidecar. The fact is that Syria is the problem in Lebanon. The fact is that we still do not have real satisfaction when it comes to foreign fighters in Iraq. And you know we have tried. We went out of our way to invite Syria to the Annapolis peace conference. It was hoped that that might give a glimpse of a Syria that might engage in more responsible behavior. We, of course, now know, too, that Syria was involved in building a covert nuclear reactor, well hidden, and after being destroyed great efforts to cover the whole thing up. And so -- and one also, of course, has to speak of the internal policies of Syria, which are quite brutal.

So it’s hard to see that there is a Syrian regime that is receptive to those approaches. But if, in fact, it can be done, if Syria and -- Israel and Syria wish to pursue peace, the United States is never against peace. It should be pursued if it can be -- if it can be achieved. It’s just that, at this point, it’s been difficult to see Syrian behavior that is -- has the prospect of being more stabilizing in the region rather than the destabilizing behavior that we’re seeing. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Bob (inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, we applaud your efforts to bring about the agreement with the Palestinians. Thank you for that effort.

As time moves on in your discussions, it is more and more stated that if there is an agreement, that it’ll be an agreement for the shelf, an agreement to be postponed in executing, and that that will bring about a great deal of frustration and therefore might not be a constructive accomplishment. I would appreciate your addressing that, if you would.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, thank you. I’m glad that you mentioned this because I’ve heard the argument that what we are perhaps creating is a shelf agreement. And we have never thought of it that way. I think that the Annapolis formula really demonstrates that we expect things to proceed on parallel tracks. First of all, you obviously need to improve conditions for the Palestinians on the ground. And I’ve been working with the Israelis. We now are working on perhaps a more integrated way to take a part of the West Bank, put in Palestinian security forces, remove some of the obstacles to movement and access, get some of the Blair economic projects in and see if you can’t make life better in a part of the West Bank and see if you can spread that over time. We really do have to improve lives for the Palestinian people.

Secondly, we are very devoted to trying to make the Roadmap obligations be met. And again, in parallel, so that when there are movement and access issues that the Israelis address or when the Palestinians address certain institution-building issues like proper security forces that we’re helping to train, that then is moving you along. And then there is the third track, which is the negotiated peace. Now, my view is that tracks one and two, which frankly, we’ve tried before in the absence of a political horizon, those tracks are not going to move without the negotiations on the political settlement. And the political settlement is not going to move without changes on the ground and Roadmap obligations. They have to move together.

And ideally, and I see no reason that this would not be the case, if you pay attention to all three tracks going forward, you would arrive at a place where one could establish the Palestinian state, but you’d have to be absolutely sure that the Roadmap obligations had been met. And of course, it’s going to take some time to do all of the things that it would take to actually implement an agreement, no matter how quickly you want to implement it. It just takes time.

So, I don’t think of this as a shelf agreement. I think of all of these tracks moving simultaneously together to create the conditions for a Palestinian state and to create the terms on which a Palestinian state would be created. Because I don’t think that a shelf agreement is a very good idea. I think then, you do have the potential for frustration.

I should mention that there is a fourth track that we have been pressing very much to, and I press it every time I’m with my Arab colleagues. There are Arab states that openly, of course, have peace treaties with Israel. There are Arab states that conduct relations with Israel at various levels. And it was actually envisioned in both the Roadmap and in the Arab peace initiative that this would be a -- comprehensive, in the sense that the Arab-Israeli peace has to work, too.

Now, we have essentially reversed or, I should say, we have – rather than keeping the Roadmap in sequence, phase one, phase two, phase three, we’ve put them together in parallel tracks. I would argue that it is also important for the sequentiality that is envisioned in the Roadmap concerning Arab contacts with Israel and in the Arab peace initiative also begin to soften. Because nothing would be more useful to our efforts and to the efforts of the parties than to have Arab contact with Israelis and Arab support for Palestinians, because, ultimately, the Palestinians have to be assured that when they make difficult choices, the Arabs are going to back those choices. And if the responsible Arab states back those choices, it’s going to be difficult for the Hamases of the world to say very much.

On the other hand, I think Israelis need to have a horizon, too, that says when you make this peace it’s going to begin to normalize Israel’s place in the region. And so we are trying to move that peace along, too. And my friend and colleague, Tzipi Livni, has been tireless in pressing that forward, but I think that we will – we’re going to need to press that more. Everybody, rather than standing back and saying, well, I’ll wait until that happens or I’ll wait until that happens, everybody needs to come forward now. (Applause.)

MODERATOR: Okay. We’ll take one more question, please. (Inaudible).

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, first, I’d like to express (inaudible) for you. It means the world for us that you’re coming and share with us your vision for peace. Now, if we assume for a minute that there can be – that a peace will be arranged by Abbas and Olmert and the government, Abbas representing the more moderate side of the Palestinian, but we still have the issue of the Hamas which really controls the Gaza side and we are told that they are very popular in the Palestinian. So how do you see that – how – what is your vision of getting over the issue with Hamas and having Abbas regime really be in control of the entire Palestinian --

SECRETARY RICE: Yes, thank you. Well, the President’s vision has always been that responsible people – or let me put it this way – ordinary people want to live in peace, that the Palestinian mother really doesn’t want to see her child become a suicide bomber. She wants to see her child go to university. Yes, there are some extremes in every society, but you have to appeal to the broad base of people who just want to live a normal and better life. And the extremists right now appeal to hopelessness and they appeal to assaults on dignity as they see it. And they appeal to the sense that there is no future for Palestinians.

And the outline of the state or the definition of the state gives to those Palestinians who believe in the two-state solution, who believe in living side-by-side in peace and democracy with Israel, something to go to the Palestinians with and say, all right, yes, it represents compromise. It’s not the old – the old state on all the land and so forth. That’s not what it is. It represents a compromise. But it’s a state and it’s a future and it’s a hope and join in now to build that state and live side by side with Israel. And I believe if you’ve also had improvements on the ground and you’ve had the Palestinians building the institutions, that will be a powerful and compelling vision for Palestinians.

At that point, Hamas will have to make a choice: Are they going to really stand outside of not just the Palestinian consensus, but the Arab consensus? And it’s one reason that it’s been important this time to bring along, as a part of the Annapolis process, Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan and the Gulf states and Morocco and the North African states, to bring them along as a part of it, because ultimately, they will have to form the base of support so that it is a broad Arab consensus that that is the right answer to Palestinian aspirations.

Now, I think that the window of opportunity for that vision is not very large. I will tell you that I don’t see – well, let me put it this way -- increasingly, Palestinians who talk about a two-state solution are my age. And I’m not that old, but I’m a lot older than most of the Palestinian population. And what you don’t want is that the hopelessness and the vision of the extremists has no counter. Because we can talk about economic opportunity for the Palestinians; we’ve tried to build it. It’s hard in the absence of a state.

Israel has real security concerns that prevent real movement and access from taking place. It’s hard to talk about investment in the absence of a Palestinian state. And so these have to go together and there has to be an answer to the extremists. And it has to be that if you do renounce violence and you do accept Israel’s right to exist and you do agree that the agreements that have been signed ought to stay in place, then there’s going to be a future for you in a state.

The extremists that we are talking about now also have a different character than even in the ‘90s and in the beginning of the decade. And that is this belt of extremism that is Hamas and Hezbollah and the radicals in Iraq and the radicals even in places like – even – increasingly, even in places like Afghanistan that are united by a vision of intolerance, of death and destruction and, by the way, supported overwhelmingly by Iran and, to a certain extent, Syria, but particularly Iran, gives this conflict a regional dimension that it has not had before.

When you looked around that room at Annapolis, you saw a kind of coalition of states that both fear Iran and have come to understand that Iran is playing in troubled Arab waters. And I didn’t, three, four years ago talk very much about Iranian influence in Gaza. Now we do. And so there are many reasons to try to resolve this conflict now. I will be the first to say it’s hard; nobody is going to compromise Israel’s security, most especially the Israelis and most especially this President.

And I’ve never been one who says you get security through peace. That’s not the point. But you can have peace and security. I am not certain that in the long term, the region as a whole can have true security without peace. Thank you very much. (Applause.)

2008/339 Released on April 30, 2008

2008-04-28T20:13:00.000-07:00

IAEA criticises U.S. and Israel

2008-04-26T05:02:00.000-07:00

Press Release 2008/06

Statement by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei

25 April 2008 | The IAEA Secretariat was provided with information by the United States on 24 April claiming that the installation destroyed by Israel in Syria last September was a nuclear reactor. According to this information, the reactor was not yet operational and no nuclear material had been introduced into it.

The Agency will treat this information with the seriousness it deserves and will investigate the veracity of the information. Syria has an obligation under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA to report the planning and construction of any nuclear facility to the Agency.

The Director General deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the Agency in a timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts. Under the NPT, the Agency has a responsibility to verify any proliferation allegations in a non-nuclear weapon State party to the NPT and to report its findings to the IAEA Board of Governors and the Security Council, as required.

In light of the above, the Director General views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime.

New World Rules

2008-03-04T21:57:00.000-08:00

No "Worldpolitics" without Worldpermission.
The intellect must be sharper than all ammunitions. (msr)

design of death

2008-01-01T15:42:00.000-08:00

THE REAL NEW ORDER

1. No armies in foreign countries without UN permission.

2. No weapons in space or international seas without UN permission.

3. No weapons of mass destruction without UN control.

4. No "military alliances" outside of UN.

5. One-Man-One-Vote Worldwide.

6. One-Right-Worldwide Now.

7. No Order Without Law

UN once again calls for end to United States embargo against Cuba

2007-10-30T15:28:00.000-07:00

UN once again calls for end to United States embargo against Cuba
30 October 2007 - The United Nations General Assembly today once again urged an end to the commercial, economic and financial embargoes imposed on Cuba by the United States for nearly half a century.

For the 16th year in a row, the Assembly adopted a resolution – with an overwhelming 184 votes in favour – reiterating its call to all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures not conforming with their obligations to reaffirm freedom of trade and navigation.

Four States – Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau, US – voted against the resolution, while the Federated States of Micronesia abstained.

The 192-member body also called on States to repeal or invalidate such laws and requested the Secretary-General to report on the matter at the Assembly’s 63rd session.

Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque denounced the long-running blockade imposed on his country, calling it the main obstacle to the development and well-being of the Cuban people, and a “blatant, massive and systematic” violation of their rights.

“Anyone can understand the level of socio-economic development that Cuba would have attained had it not been subjected to this unrelenting and obsessive economic war,” he told delegates.

The US has not only ignored, “with both arrogance and political blindness,” the 15 resolutions adopted by the Assembly calling for the lifting of the blockade, but has over the last year adopted new measures, further tightening the sanctions, he added.

Reiterating that the embargo is a bilateral issue between his country and Cuba that should not come before the Assembly, US delegate Ronald Godard said that “Cuba’s problems derive not from any decision of the United States but from the embargo on freedom that the Cuban regime has imposed on its own people.”

Stating that the Cuban people are denied information, access to the outside world, the right to travel and opportunities to better their lives economically, he urged countries to oppose the Cuban government’s embargo on freedom – “the real cause of the suffering of the Cuban people.”

“Now more than ever we invite the Member States considering this resolution to reject the arguments of the Cuban government and focus on effecting a transition in Cuba that would restore its people’s fundamental rights,” he stated.

Kofi Annan Farewell Speech

2007-02-11T16:02:00.000-08:00