"...because love of truth is alwyas accompanied by humility. Real genius is nothing else but the supernatural virtue of humility in the domain of thought." -- from the essay Human Personality by Simone Weil

"....to adore "The Great Beast" is to think and act in conformity with the prejudices and reactions of the multitude to the detriment of all personal search for truth and goodness."

-- Plato, Republic, Book VI --

Kurds in Iran: A letter from the Kurdistan Congress of North America

Letter from Kurd North American Congress
-PEN Kurd.org

In the past years, the Iranian despotic regime has been busier than ever before murdering Kurdish human rights activists. Sadly enough, the Kurdish activists are put on trial in an orchestrated court with very limited access to legal representatives or without any legal counsel at all. Recently, the Iranian Revolutionary Court in Kermanshah sentenced another Kurdish activist, a twenty- seven year old Ms. Zaynab Jalalian to death. Sarcastically, in the matter of minutes, she was tried before the Court without a legal representation and was given death sentence for being an “Enemy of God.” After her sentence was read to her, she asked the Court if she could say good-bye to her mother. Her appeal was denied and she was not allowed to see her mother. Since her arrest in May 2008, Ms. Jalalian had been under constant physical-psychological torture and humiliation.

According to the Iranian judicial authorities, she was an enemy of God, because she was a Kurdish activist and struggled for the most basic human rights that have been suppressed by the Iranian state- the same state that was among the first 48 nations that on December 10, 1948 adopted the Declaration of Human Rights. Ironically today, while still a signatory to the same covenant, Iran executes activists and advocates who strive to promote the same rights. While we are concerned about Ms. Jalalian’s fate we realize that she is not alone in this fate -- there are about a dozen more Kurdish prisoners who are put on death row for promoting Kurdish human rights in Kurdistan-Iran. They include Ali Haydarian, Anwar Hosain Panahi, Arsalan Awlyaie, Farhad Chalesh, Farhad Vakili, Farzad Kamangar, Fasih Basamani, Habiballa Lotfi, Hiwa Botimar, Ramazan Ahmed, Rostam Narkia, and Sherko Marafi.


Showing no regard for international norms and human dignity, Iran has been stubbornly murdering and imprisoning Kurdish activists. Perhaps Iran assumes that it can suppress the “just struggle” of more than ten million Kurds whose only claim is to have their own cultural and political identity within Iran. Without any doubt, such an assumption would lead Iran to a deeper internal disharmony and alienation. The motto that “there is no difference between Persians and non-Persians” has never held the truth while other ethnicities have been prevented from practicing their native cultures/languages. Therefore, it is time for the Iranian authorities to review their sectarian political culture and try to adapt a form of government that represents all ethnicities in Iran, and free all human rights activists. Members of the ancient Kurds have been struggling for centuries to preserve their national identity; hence, the Iranian theocrats should not think that they would be able to silence them. Instead of resorting to a military solution, it would be wise for the Iranian authorities to amend Iran’s Constitution where all ethnicities are equal before the law and their unique identities are recognized and respected.

The Beatles, Dear Prudence

"...those who most often have occassion to feel that evil is being done to them are those who are least trained in the art of speech." - Simone Weil, from the essay Human Personality

Who's who in Iran
Conflict and Protest
--bbc.co.uk--
20:13 GMT, Friday, 19 June 2009 21:13 UK


Ali Khamenei -- Ayatollah Khamenei is believed to back President Ahmadinejad Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the country's most powerful figure. He appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the 12 members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president's election. Khamenei was a key figure in the Islamic revolution in Iran and a close confidant of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic. He was later president of Iran from 1981 to 1989 before becoming Supreme Leader for life.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- President Ahmadinejad was previously the mayor of Tehran. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been Iran's president since 2005, was actively involved in the Islamic revolution and was a founding member of the student union that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. But he denies being one of the hostage-takers. He became the first non-cleric to be elected president since 1981 when he won a run-off vote against former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in elections in June 2005. He is a hard-liner both at home - where he does not favour the development or reform of political institutions - and abroad, where he has maintained an anti-Western attitude and combative stance on Tehran's nuclear programme. Much of his support comes from poorer and more religious sections of Iran's rapidly growing population, particularly outside Tehran.


Mir Hossein Mousavi-- Unusually for Iran, Mousavi's wife campaigned alongside him. The 68-year-old former prime minister stayed out of politics for some years but returned to stand as a moderate. Mir Hossein Mousavi was born in East Azerbaijan Province and moved to Tehran to study architecture at university. He is married to Zahra Rahnavard, a former chancellor of Alzahra University and political advisor to Iran's former President Mohammad Khatami. One of his closest associates and backers in this election was Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former President of Iran who now heads two of the regime's most powerful bodies: the Expediency Council (which adjudicates disputes over legislation) and the Assembly of Experts (which appoints, and can theoretically replace, the Supreme Leader).


Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani-- Rafsanjani has dominated Iranian politics since the 1980s. Described as a "pragmatic conservative", he is part of the religious establishment, but he is open to a broader range of views and has been more reflective on relations with the West. Mr Rafsanjani was president for eight years from 1987 and ran again in 2005. He lost to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the second round. He has been openly critical of the president since then. He is still a powerful figure in Iranian politics as he heads two of the regime's most powerful bodies: the Expediency Council (which adjudicates disputes over legislation) and the Assembly of Experts (which appoints, and can theoretically replace, the Supreme Leader). He is also a wealthy businessman.


The Reformists-- Mohammad Khatami is a long-time friend and adviser of Mir Hossein Mousavi. The Iranian reform movement is a political movement led by a group of political parties and organizations in Iran who supported Mohammad Khatami's plans to introduce more freedom and democracy. In 1997, Khatami was elected president on a platform of greater freedom of expression, as well as measures to tackle unemployment and boost privatisation. However, much of his initial liberalisations were stymied by resistance from the country's conservative institutions. He initially stood for election in 2009 but later stood aside and lent his support to Mir Hossein Mousavi. Other key reformist figures include Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hadi Khamenei, Mohsen Aminzadeh, and Mostafa Tajzadeh.


The Revolutionary Guard and the Army-- The Revolutionary Guard have influence in Iran's political world. The armed forces comprise the Revolutionary Guard and the regular forces. The two bodies are under a joint general command. Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) was set up shortly after the revolution to defend the country's Islamic system, and to provide a counterweight to the regular armed forces. It has since become a major military, political and economic force in Iran, with close ties to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former member. The force is estimated to have 125,000 active troops. It boasts its own ground forces, navy and air force, and oversees Iran's strategic weapons. The Guards also have a powerful presence in civilian institutions and are thought to control around a third of Iran's economy through a series of subsidiaries and trusts.


The Militias-- The Basij serve as an auxiliary force. The Revolutionary Guard also controls the Basij Resistance Force, an Islamic volunteer militia of about 90,000 men and woman with an additional capacity to mobilise nearly 1m. The Basij, or Mobilisation of the Oppressed, are often called out onto the streets at times of crisis to use force to dispel dissent. There are branches in every town.


The Clerics-- Conservative clerics play an important part in political life in Iran, Clerics dominate Iranian society. Only clerics can be elected to the Assembly of Experts, which appoints the Supreme Leader, monitors his performance and can in theory remove him if he is deemed incapable of fulfilling his duties. The Assembly is currently headed by Iran's former President Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is described as pragmatic and conservative. Former President Mohammad Khatami accused the clerics of obstructing his reforms and warned against the dangers of religious "despotism". Clerics also dominate the judiciary, which is based on Sharia (Islamic) law. In recent years, conservative hardliners have used the judicial system to undermine reforms by imprisoning reformist personalities and journalists and closing down reformist papers.

Jundallah- It was founded in 2002 to defend the Baluchi minority in the poor, remote and lawless region of south-east Iran. Its leader, Abdolmalek Rigi, denies the group has either foreign links or a separatist agenda. In an interview in October 2008, he said the group - also known as the People's Resistance Movement - was not interested in trying to break away from Iran. It simply wanted the state to respect the human rights, culture and faith of the Baluchis. The Baluchis in Iran - and their brethren across the border in Pakistan - see themselves, rather like the Kurds, as a nation without a state. But in predominantly Shia Iran, the issue is complicated by the fact that they are Sunni Muslim.

Russia policeman jailed for death of Kremlin critic

11:40 GMT, Friday, 11 December 2009
-- bbc.co.uk --


Yevloyev was considered a thorn in the side of former Ingush President Zyazikov
A Russian court has sentenced a policeman to two years in jail for the killing of the owner of a website critical of the Kremlin. Magomed Yevloyev died from a gunshot wound sustained while travelling in a police car in the restive southern Russian region of Ingushetia.

Mr Yevloyev's supporters say his death was deliberate. The police have always insisted it was an accident. His Ingushetiya.ru. website reported on abductions and killings in the region. His family have criticised the involuntary manslaughter sentence of police officer Ibragim Yevloyev - who was not related to the victim - as too light.

The court in the Ingush town of Karabulak said the officer, a former bodyguard for the local interior ministry, would serve his sentence in a low-security prison settlement. "This is a peculiar farce and we can say that no-one has been punished, neither the masterminds nor the perpetrators," Musa Pliyev, a lawyer for the victim's family, was quoted as telling Moscow Echo radio after the verdict.

Thorn in the side

Magomed Yevloyev was arrested and later shot after getting off the same flight as the local, Kremlin-backed leader, in the region's main city Nazran in August 2008. Kaloi Akhilgov, a lawyer close to his website (now Ingushetia.org), said at the time that Mr Yevloyev had been taken away in a car and shot in the temple. Local police reports said Mr Yevloyev had tried to seize a policeman's gun when he was being led to a vehicle. A shot was fired and he was injured in the head.

Opposition leaders said at the time the killing was part of Russia's policy of "open genocide" towards the Ingush people. Mr Yevloyev was considered a thorn in the side of then Ingush President Murat Zyazikov, a former KGB general. His website reported on alleged Russian security force brutality in Ingushetia, an impoverished province of some half a million people, mostly Muslims, which is now more turbulent than neighbouring Chechnya. The area is plagued by a low-level insurgency, with regular small-scale ambushes against police and soldiers.

The text of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, delivered Thursday in Oslo, Norway, as provided by the White House:


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Distinguished Members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:


I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the forced used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this Prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies and failed states have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: It merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak, nothing passive, nothing naive in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaida's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other people's children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates — and weakens — those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention — no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries — and other friends and allies — demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo or repression in Burma — there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests — nor the world's — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — and condemnation without discussion — can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action — it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination, an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are, to understand that we all basically want the same things, that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities — their race, their tribe and, perhaps most powerfully, their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their faith in human progress — must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naive, if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago: "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Where Does US Military ‘Aid’ to Colombia Go?
Written by John Lindsay-Poland
Monday, 07 December 2009
Source: Fellowship of Reconciliation and upsidedownworld.org

The United States continues to assist Colombian military units that have reportedly violated human rights, a review of recently released State Department documents shows. FOR obtained the list of 353 Colombian military and police units that the United States approved for aid in 2008-09 and 2009-10. US law requires the State Department to review all foreign military units proposed for assistance and exclude those with histories of gross human rights abuses.

According to US officials who spoke to FOR, military aid this year is concentrated in three geographic “bands”: in a long band across southern Colombia, from Meta, Tolima and Huila departments – where the Army-FARC war is focused – west to Buenaventura on the Pacific coast; in the southwestern state of Nariño; and in the northern Montes de Maria area.

The United States continues to fund military units reported to have committed large numbers of civilian killings, including the macabre practice known as “false positives,” in which civilians executed by the army are reported as guerrillas killed in combat. This includes the Codazzi Engineering Battalion of the 3rd Brigade, which operates in Valle and Cauca states and reportedly killed 12 civilians in 2007 and 2008. The battalion’s commander during this period was Coronel Elmer Peña Pedraza, a graduate of the School of the Americas. The Colombian Prosecutor General is investigating nearly 2,000 cases of extrajudicial killings reportedly committed by the army since 2002.

A good deal of current assistance is to increase Colombian military training capacity. Twenty different military training centers and schools, for everything from infantry and special operations to aviation and officer training, are approved for US assistance this year, as well as two police training centers. Colombian officials have stated that the military base agreement signed with the United States on October 30 will strengthen Colombia’s military training program and help it to sell training to other nations, despite the Colombian military’s history of systematic human rights violations.

The United States is also assisting Colombian intelligence units. For the fourth year in a row, three regional army intelligence units in Medellín, Bogotá and Villavicencio have been approved for assistance, despite histories of abuse and scandal. The 6th and 7th Regional Military Intelligence Units have produced specious reports accusing human rights defenders, university professors, and community leaders in Medellín and in the southern department of Caquetá of being members of the FARC guerrillas. On December 3, FOR and Human Rights First wrote a letter to Assistant Secretary of State Arturo Valenzuela urging suspension of US assistance to these units.

The concentration of US aid in Nariño and Cauca is of special concern, given the escalation of violence and reports of military-paramilitary collaboration in the area. In those two states, the United States supports the 19th Mobile Brigade, 23rd Brigade, 6th Mobile Brigade, and battalions in the 29th and 3rd Brigades, as well as police units from both states and Barbosa municipality.

On August 26, armed men killed 12 A’wa indigenous people in a remote settlement of Tumaco, Nariño in the jurisdiction of the 23rd Brigade. Human Rights Watch said “Initial reports suggest that members of the Army may have massacred these people.” The commander of the US-assisted 23rd Brigade, two-time SOA graduate Colonel Joaquín Hernández, said that his troops did not participate in the massacre.

The United States is also funding units that operate in the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, specifically the 11th Mobile Brigade and its counter-guerrilla battalions. US officials have long asserted that the 17th Brigade, which has nominal jurisdiction in San José de Apartadó, does not receive funding, in part because of its history of violations against members of the community. However, in the last year a new task force that combines army units has been formed to patrol an area that includes San José. The 11th Mobile Brigade is reportedly part of the task force.

The United States no longer vets assistance to a number of brigades in the oil-rich areas bordering Venezuela, which had been a focus of assistance from 2002 to 2007. The 30th Brigade in Norte de Santander, approved for assistance in 2007, was implicated in the most prominent cases of “false positives,” by which poor young men in Bogotá barrios were recruited for work and claimed shortly after as guerrillas killed in combat in Norte de Santander. The 18th Brigade in Arauca and 16th Brigade in Casanare received training and other assistance especially as part of an oil pipeline protection initiative, which has apparently expired. But the US still assists the 5th Mobile Brigade, which operates in Arauca and to which eight extrajudicial killings have been attributed, according to the Colombia Human Rights Coordination.

In addition, the United States finally suspended assistance to the Pigoanza and Magdalena battalions in the Ninth Brigade, operating in Huila state, with among the worst records for killing civilians in Colombia. In 2007 and 2008 alone, the two units reportedly committed 51 extrajudicial killings. US aid flowed to the two battalions in 2005, 2006, and 2007. However, the United States continues to assist the Ninth Brigade’s support battalion and its command staff, to whom the two battalions report. The Colombian Supreme Court ruled recently that commanders are responsible for abuses committed by their subordinates. And judicial investigations into most of the killings reportedly committed by the two US-assisted battalions have not advanced.

In Meta, the state with one of the worst problems of “false positives” in 2006 and 2007, the United States supports the 28th Brigade, 4th Mobile Brigade, and the 9th Mobile Brigade, and has for most years since 2000. In fact, the United States supports most of the army’s mobile brigades, which have been a focus for the counterinsurgency war.

The United States also approves aid to all six Colombian regional air bases, including the base in Palanquero where the United States will be increasing its presence, despite base personnel’s involvement in the 1998 attack in Santo Domingo, Arauca, in which 17 adults and children were killed by cluster bombs.

The US Congress reduced funds for the Colombian military in 2007, and the response appears to be to suspend aid to many of the worst units. But aid is still flowing to many military units with histories of abuse, and there is to date no accountability for US complicity in violations committed by units that were formerly trained by the United States.

Australia hands back sacred land to Aborigines
16:33 GMT, Wednesday, 9 December 2009
--bbc.co.uk--

The government of Australia's Northern Territory has handed back sacred land to a local Aborigine tribe. The Emily and Jessie Gaps Nature Park, near Alice Springs, is significant for the Eastern Arrernte people as they have a strong attachment to the land. The park contains totems of a race of ancient giant caterpillars, to which the people traces its origins. The park will still be open to the public. The authorities have reached over 30 similar land use deals.

The BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney says the park has great spiritual and cultural significance because it tells the story of how the caterpillars once shaped the land. There are economic benefits to the handover too, our correspondent says. Under a joint management plan, the land will be leased back to the authorities and will continue to be a nature park. The park is already a popular tourist site and some Aborigines work there as tour guides or rangers.

Brazil's police accused of routinely killing suspects

21:48 GMT, Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Brazilian police are accused of "extrajudicial executions"

Police in Brazil's two biggest cities, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro, routinely commit unlawful executions, Human Rights Watch has alleged. The New York-based group says a two-year investigation found evidence that officers often covered up such killings as justified self-defence. Authorities in Rio, due to stage the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, are under pressure to reduce violence. But officials argue the police face often well-armed drug gangs.

Human Rights Watch says a detailed study of 51 cases showed there was credible evidence that police in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro shot alleged criminals and then reported that the victims had died in shootouts while resisting arrest.

Post mortem reports showed that 17 of these victims had been shot at point-blank range, the HRW report said. "The 51 cases do not represent the totality of potential extrajudicial killings, but are indicative of a much broader problem," HRW said. Human Rights Watch says government statistics also indicate the scale of the problem. Police in Sao Paulo and Rio states have killed more than 11,000 people since 2003, while over the past five years there were more police killings in Sao Paulo (2,176) than in South Africa (1,623), which has a higher murder rate.

'Armed combat'

Human Rights Watch says that while some police killings are legitimate acts of self-defence, many others amount to "extra-judicial executions". The report argues that what is required is more effective policing, not more violence from the police. There was a chronic failure to hold officers to account for murder, it says, and the authorities should set up specialist units that are able to carry out proper investigations. "There's a system in place where police in many poor neighbourhoods are completely out of control. It's a system of toleration that basically relies on the police to police themselves and they don't do it," said Daniel Wilkinson, Human Right Watch's deputy director for the Americas. Reacting to the report, a Sao Paulo police statement said that every time someone dies following an armed confrontation with their officers an investigation is opened, and the results are sent to the judicial authorities.

They also pointed out that 50% of criminals involved in confrontations with police were arrested without being harmed, 33% escaped, and 17% were killed. Human Rights Watch says state officials in Rio have promised a considered response to the report. Authorities there have highlighted a new community-style policing approach which has been adopted in a small number of favelas or shanty towns, but critics says it needs to be much more extensive.

Officials also argue that critics do not take into account how officers must constantly take on violent drug gangs. "We have to deal with something few others face: armed combat with drug-traffickers who are equipped with heavy weapons coming from abroad," Rio's state public security director Jose Beltrame told the Associated Press in October. He was speaking after three police officers died when their helicopter was shot at and brought down in Rio de Janeiro during clashes involving police and drug gangs.

Iran nuclear scientist 'abducted by US'





18:04 GMT, Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Manouchehr Mottaki accused the US of abducting the scientist in Saudi Arabia

--bbc.co.uk--

Iran has accused the US of abducting one of its nuclear scientists who has been missing since June. Shahram Amiri disappeared in Saudi Arabia while on a Muslim pilgrimage. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told journalists the Iranians expected the US to return Mr Amiri, and asked the Saudis to co-operate too. Another Iranian official admitted on Tuesday that Mr Amiri was a nuclear scientist, something Tehran had not confirmed in previous announcements. "Based on existing pieces of evidence that we have at our disposal the Americans had a role in Mr Amiri's abduction," Mr Mottaki said. "The Americans did abduct him. Therefore we expect the American government to return him."

Mr Amiri worked as a researcher at Tehran's Malek Ashtar University, according to Iran's state-run Press TV channel. However, some reports said he had also been employed by Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, and had wanted to seek asylum abroad. Iranian officials had refused to confirm this until now. Mr Amiri was a nuclear scientist, news agency Mehr quoted a foreign ministry spokesman as confirming. "Riyadh has handed over Iran's nuclear scientist Amiri to America," Ramin Mehmanparast said. Washington has denied any knowledge of the scientist. The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of secretly developing nuclear weapons - a claim denied by Tehran.

US settles case with Native Americans after 13 years

17:32 GMT, Tuesday, 8 December 2009
--bbc.co.uk--

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the accord was a "historic development"
The US government has settled a long-running case over royalties owed to American Indians. Under the deal the interior department will share $1.4bn (£859m) among 300,000 tribe members as compensation. The tribes claim they have been cheated out of billions of dollars worth of natural resources since 1887. The agreement ends a case which has been running for 13 years. The secretary of the interior department said it would aid reconciliation. "This is an historic, positive development for Indian country," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said in a statement released by the department.

Contentious case

The dispute dates back to the 1887 Dawes Act, which seized Indian land - much of it rich in natural resources - and gave it to white-owned companies to exploit. Under the Act, the land was divided into plots and each Indian family was assigned a parcel of land, a concept alien to their culture in which all land belonged to the tribe. The idea was for them to be "compensated" for the use of their land, however disputes arose almost immediately, perpetuated as ever smaller parcels of land were inherited by new generations. Attorney General Eric Holder said the parties had tried to reach an agreement "many, many times". "But today we turn the page. This settlement is fair to the plaintiffs, responsible for the US, and provides a path forward for the future," he said. On its website the department for the interior said that the litigation had included hundreds of motions, dozens of rulings and appeals, and several trials. The agreement must be approved both by Congress and a federal judge.

pyramids around the world...
...courtesy of wiki...


Pyramid of Cestius- The pyramid was built about 18 BC–12 BC as a tomb for Gaius Cestius Epulo

Great Pyramid of Cholula- The Great Pyramid of Cholula, also known as Tlachihualtepetl (Nahuatl for "artificial mountain"), is a huge complex located in Cholula, Puebla, Mexico. It is the world's largest monument and largest Pre-Columbian pyramid by volume.

The Pyramids of Guimar- refer to six rectangular pyramid-shaped, terraced structures, built from lava stone without the use of mortar. They are located in the district of Chacona, part of the town of Güímar on the island of Tenerife in the Canary Islands.

Nubian Pyramids- The area of the Nile valley known as Nubia that lies within present day Sudan was home to three Kushite kingdoms during antiquity: the first with its capital at Kerma (2600–1520 BC), the second centered on Napata (1000–300 BC) and, finally, the kingdom of Meroë (300 BC–AD 300).

Pyramid of Hellinikon- located in the plain of Argolid, Greece. In the times of Pausanias, it was considered to be a tomb. Twentieth century researchers have suggested other possible uses.

Pyramids of Rock Lake Wisconsin- pyramids exist three miles (5 km) east of Rock Lake in a State Park called Aztalan State Park, on the Crawfish River in the town of Aztalan, Wisconsin

The Mystery of Bosnia's Ancient Pyramids

An amateur archaeologist says he's discovered the world's oldest pyramids in the Balkans. But many experts remain dubious

Smithsonian magazine, December 2009

Internet underground takes on Iran
11:30 AEST Thu Jun 18 2009168 days 13 hours 5 minutes ago
By Jack Hawke, ninemsn


Internet troublemakers Anonymous have set up a secure forum that allows Iranian internet users to dodge the country's online censorship. The website says its aim is to be "a secure and reliable way of communication for Iranians and friends". "Use it to discuss what is happening in Iran," the website says. The site also states it is not set up by Iranians themselves, nor a government agency. "We are simply the internet and we believe in free speech," it states.

Anonymous is the internet collective famous for "Project Chanology" — co-ordinated worldwide protests against the controversial Church of Scientology — and has ties with web imageboards such as 4chan and internet forums like Something Awful. As with Project Chanology, Anonymous members are planning on public protests outside Iranian embassies and consulates around the world to voice their opposition to internet censorship. The forum also has the backing of massive BitTorrent tracking site The Pirate Bay, which has changed its logo to "The Persian Bay" and linked through to the protest site. The Pirate Bay's three founders and a financier were recently convicted of violating copyright law in a Swedish court and ordered to pay $4.5 million in damages to several major entertainment companies. The forum was yet another way for Iranian internet users to give their views on the country's recent election results, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected last weekend.

The country has been in turmoil since the election result, with opposition protestors clashing with police and pro-government hardliners after accusations the poll was rigged. The government shut down sites such as Twitter and YouTube, and also blocked mobile phone calls and text messages. This triggered a reprisal from opposition supporters, who orchestrated to co-opt less web-savvy protestors in denial of service attacks (DDoS), which crash websites with a flood of traffic. Government websites, including President Ahmadinejad's personal site and blog, crashed as they were flooded with users marshalled through Twitter, Digg and other sources.

After being accused of blocking access to social networking and video-sharing sites, the Iranian government itself has come under cyber attack from opposition supporters. Unlike more traditional cyber attacks involving hardcore hackers, this post-election revolt relies on the common internet user to help take out government websites. A campaign has been orchestrated to co-opt less web-savvy protestors in denial of service attacks (DDoS), with government websites becoming flooded with users and ultimately crashing. Using sites like Twitter (despite being banned in Iran), Digg and other internet discussion forums, protesters have shut down official websites such as President Ahmadinejad's own site, cyber security blog Zero Day reports. The President's personal website is functioning again but his blog remains offline. The online attacks are reminiscent of those launched against Georgia's internet infrastructure during last year's Russian-Georgian conflict as well as a DDoS attack on CNN.com launched by Chinese "hacktivists".

Palestinian sympathisers were also accused of taking down Israeli websites earlier this year, and the FBI's cyber division thinks these sort of attacks pose the greatest threat to the US after nuclear weapons. Iran has been in upheaval since the re-election of President Ahmadinejad at the weekend, with opposition protestors clashing with police and pro-government hardliners after accusations the poll was rigged. In the wake of the election result, the government shut down sites such as Twitter and YouTube as well as blocking mobile phone calls and text messaging.

The US government asked Twitter to delay maintenance plans in order to allow Iranians to communicate while their government banned other media following elections, a US official said Tuesday. The official said the State Department had asked the social networking firm to delay shutting down its service to "highlight to them that this was an important means of communications... in Iran." The State Department official told reporters on the condition of anonymity that the Twitter service was all the more important because the Iranian government had shut down websites, cell phones, and newspapers. "One of the areas where people are able to get out the word is through Twitter," the official said. "They announced they were going to shut down their system for maintenance and we asked them not to."

Protestors in Iran on Monday used Twitter for battle cries and to spread word about clashes with police and hardline supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Messages posted on the micro-blogging service, some with links to pictures, streamed from Iran despite reported efforts by authorities there to block news of protests over Ahmadinejad's claim of having been fairly re-elected. Pictures of wounded or dead people that senders claim were Iranian protestors ricocheted about Twitter and wound up posted at online photo-sharing websites such as Flickr as well as on YouTube. A protestor was reportedly shot dead during clashes in Tehran as massive crowds of people defied a ban to stage a rally against the disputed re-election of Ahmadinejad.

The trouble flared after Ahmadinejad's defeated rival Mir Hossein Mousavi appeared in public for the first time since an election that has sharply divided the nation and triggered protests and rioting. The official said he did not know who at the State Department called Twitter but it was not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Journalism requires freedom even in aspects of counteracting and preventing terrorism; it should not be an instrument of authorities' propaganda." This was stated by Yuri Kazakov, former head of the state inspectorate for defence of the freedom of the press, and now an expert of the Fund in Defence of Glasnost and member of the Public Board on Complaints on Press, at the recent roundtable held in Moscow. "Journalism is a profession requiring a high degree of freedom; journalism shall not grow into propaganda, moreover - into special propaganda, especially when we talk terrorism with you," the expert believes. According to Mr Kazakov, self-censorship "is one of most disrespected and intolerable words for a journalist." "Self-censorship is a very bad version of censorship, which is provoked from within by external pressure, which forces us to be afraid of everything in the world and elude debates," he said.

Violence Begets Violence: Russia and Chechnya
-wiki-

The Alkhan-Yurt massacre was the December 1999 incident in the village of Alkhan-Yurt near the Chechen capital Grozny involving Russian troops under command of general Vladimir Shamanov. The villagers claimed approximately 41 civilians were killed in the spree, while the human rights groups confirmed and documented 17 incidents of murder and three incidents of rape. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), it was not an isolated incident, as Russian troops have been systematically looting villages and towns under their control.

The Grozny safe corridor shooting incident happened on December 3, 1999, when about 40 people fleeing the besieged Chechen capital Grozny were allegedly killed by Russian policemen. According to accounts from survivors, a refugee convoy consisting of about 50 people in seven or eight passenger cars and one bus marked with white flags, was heading towards the border with the Russian republic of Ingushetia, when they approached a federal roadblock near the village of Goity. One survivor described masked OMON[1] troops opening fire with automatic rifles from their position in the nearby forest without warning. The bus exploded as bullets pierced its gas tank. After the shooting, Russian soldiers gave first aid and painkillers to the handful of survivors and brought them to the hospital in Sleptsovskaya, Ingushetia, where they were interviewed by journalists.

The Novye Aldi massacre was a February 5, 2000, incident in which Russian federal forces summarily executed at least 50 civilians in the Novye Aldi (Aldy) suburb of Grozny, the capital of Chechnya. The killings occurred in the course of zachistka (a 'mopping-up' or cleansing operation), conducted several days after the end of the battle for the city. As a result of the killing spree up to 60 people were killed, numerous houses were burnt down, and civilian property was stolen by troops in an organized manner. The guilt of the Russian state in the Aldi murders was established by two judicial cases in the European Court of Human Rights several years later (Estamirov and Others v. Russia and Musayev, Labazanova and Magomadov v. Russia).

Komsomolskoye massacre occurred following the battle of Komsomolskoye of the Second Chechen War in March 2000, when large numbers of the Chechen rebel fighters were reportedly massacred by the Russian troops. Prominent in the incident was fate of the group of about 74 Chechen combatants who had surrendered on March 21, 2000 on the federal promise of amnesty, but almost all had either died or "disappeared" shortly after they were detained.

In the Staropromyslovski massacre Russian federal soldiers summarily executed at least 38 confirmed civilians during an apparent spree in Staropromyslovsky city district of Grozny, the Chechen capital, according to survivors and eyewitnesses. The killings went unpunished and publicily unacknowledged by the Russian authorities. In 2007, one case of a triple murder was ruled against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Mass Graves in Chechnya

Dozens of mass graves containing at least hundreds of corpses have been uncovered since the beginning of the Chechen wars in 1994. As of June 2008, there are reported to be 57 registered sites of mass graves in Chechnya. According to Amnesty International (AI), thousands of people are believed to be buried in unmarked graves with up to 5,000 civilians who disappeared since 1999 (the beginning of the Second Chechen War) remaining missing.[2] The largest mass grave to date was found in 2008 in the regional capital Grozny, containing some 800 bodies dating back from the First Chechen War in 1995. Russia's general policy to the Chechen mass graves is to not exhume them.

Serbia: Kosovo Independence Declaration Threatens World Order
Many countries with their own breakaway republics closely following case
12-01-2009

The International Court of Justice has begun hearing Serbia's case against Kosovo. Judges in The Hague have been asked by the U.N. General Assembly to rule on the legality of Kosovo's 2008 declaration of independence. Lawyers for Serbia argued that Kosovo's move not only challenged Serbia's sovereignty, but undermined international law. Harvard Law Professor Andreas Zimmermann is one of the lawyers arguing Serbia's case in court.

"With all due respect to the actors involved, it was certainly not helpful - to say the least - for the mediator appointed by the [U.N.] secretary-general to refer publicly to Serbia as a thief that had stolen Kosovo from the Albanian Kosovo population, as if Serbia did not have a valid title to the territory ever since 1913," Zimmermann said.

And even before that, say Serbia's lawyers, Kosovo had been the "historical cradle of Serbia," one of the "essential pillars of its identity."

But Kosovo Foreign Minister Skender Hyseni told the court it would be "inconceivable" to reopen negotiations with Serbia on Kosovo's future. He said that "would be highly disruptive, and could even spark new conflict in the region."

Ten years ago Belgrade attacked separatists in what was then its southern province, killing about 10,000 Kosovo Albanians and displacing close to a million more. NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days. The United Nations then set up a provisional government in Kosovo.

But when the region declared independence last year, which Serbia says violated the U.N. and thus international law, 63 nations recognized Kosovo's sovereignty. The United States and most European Union members are among them, although Russia and the U.N. Security Council are not.

Many of those countries will make their own arguments before the court during the next nine days. While judges are not expected to rule on the legality of Kosovo's move for months, many countries that have their own problems with breakaway republics are closely following this case.

Women's groups want long-term US presence in Afghanistan
By Karin Zeitvogel (AFP) – 3 hours ago

(picture:Birmingham 1963)

12-01-2009

WASHINGTON — Women's rights activists on Tuesday backed a US troop surge in Afghanistan but warned that hard-fought gains in women's rights will vanish without a long-term commitment to develop the country. "If the US left, women would be back in their burkas," said Esther Hyneman, a member of Women for Afghan Women (WAW), a rights group advocating for Afghan women in the United States and Afghanistan.

Her comments came just hours before President Barack Obama's long-awaited speech on Afghanistan, during which he was set to announce an accelerated deployment of 30,000 troops within six months to the war-torn country and a US drawdown to begin by July 2011.

While a troop surge would help to bring much-needed security to Afghanistan, "the platform on which everything else can be built," the United States must meet its pledge to Afghan women, said Afghan-American Masuda Sultan, who serves on WAW's board.

"When the fall of the Taliban happened, we said, 'Go to school, take jobs.' Afghan women risked their lives, they did it," said Sultan, who has moved back to Afghanistan and works as an adviser to the Finance Ministry in addition to her WAW advocacy work.

"We have a moral obligation to continue to follow through for Afghan women who have put themselves at risk over the last eight years," she told reporters.

Since the fall of the Taliban, Afghan women have made "modest" rights gains, said WAW's Sunita Viswanath.

Girls can go to school, women can work and serve in government, but the society and culture remain hostile to women, with women and underage girls still forced into marriage, sold or even handed over to another family as restitution for a crime.

Islamist insurgents destroy girls' schools in Afghanistan and the Afghan parliament has yet to approve a draft law on violence against women.

A UN report issued Monday said violence targeting women and girls is "widespread and deeply rooted in Afghan society" and not condemned by society and institutions."

"No real peace and national development are possible without the elimination of violence against women," added Zia Moballegh, acting country director for the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, at the launch of the report in Kabul.

In addition to restoring security, the United States needs to prod Kabul to undertake "painful political reforms to address the systematic problems Afghanistan has with its culture of impunity," Rachel Reid of Human Rights Watch told the news conference in Washington.

She cited the story of a young woman who, years after the fall of the Taliban, was gang-raped by the followers of a warlord in northern Afghanistan. The victim's family waged a long and difficult campaign to bring the men to justice, and they were eventually jailed -- only to be freed by President Hamid Karzai. Viswanath said without a long-term commitment from the United States and other countries, Afghan women "will be back in the dark ages." "America must make a long-term commitment to Afghanistan. Countries cannot recover overnight from 30 years of war, chaos, destruction, subjugation," she said. Afghans were waiting as eagerly as Americans to hear Obama's speech, said Sultan.

"The Afghan people have for the last several months been wondering if the US is going to remain committed to Afghanistan. They've been wondering if they should side with the local Taliban or with the Afghan government and international forces," she said.

Viswanath said that setting a three-year deadline for a troop drawdown could send the wrong message to Afghans. "Based on our experience on the ground, it's highly unlikely that in three years the country will be secure enough for the US to leave," she told AFP. "So this sounds to us like it isn't a statement of 'we're with the people of Afghanistan for the long-haul or committed to staying with you until you're able to secure and govern yourself'," she said.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.