• CONCERT at 4pm,
  
• Eric Schultz, conducteur avec le TENTET IVRY/VITRY
  

• Millane KANG, chanteuse de jazz
• the Balsac Crew, US Beat Boxers

Support Leonard Peltier

On Wednesday June 25 Agir Contre La Guerre (ACG) called to demonstrate in support of Leonard Peltier, indigenous rights activist imprisoned for 30 years after an unfair trial. He has been called a Native American Mandela.

Leonard Peltier, Activist

Leonard Peltier -- a great-grandfather, artist, writer, & indigenous rights activist -- is a citizen of the Anishinabe and Dakota/Lakota Nations who has been unjustly imprisoned since 1976.

A participant in the American Indian Movement, he went to assist the Oglala Lakota people on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the mid-70s where a tragic shoot-out occurred on June 26, 1975. Accused of the murder of two agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Peltier fled to Canada believing he would never receive a fair trial in the United States.

On February 6, 1976, Peltier was apprehended. The FBI knowingly presented the Canadian court with fraudulent affidavits, and Peltier was returned to the U.S. for trial.

Key witnesses were banned from testifying about FBI misconduct & testimony about the conditions and atmosphere on the Pine Ridge Reservation at the time of the shoot-out was severely restricted. Important evidence, such as conflicting ballistics reports, was ruled inadmissible. Still, the U.S. Prosecutor failed to produce a single witness who could identify Peltier as the shooter. Instead, the government tied a bullet casing found near the bodies of their agents to the alleged murder weapon, arguing that this gun had been the only one of its kind used during the shootout, and that it had belonged to Peltier.

Later, Mr. Peltier’s attorneys uncovered, in the FBI’s own documents, that more than one weapon of the type attributed to Peltier had been present at the scene and the FBI had intentionally concealed a ballistics report that showed the shell casing could not have come from the alleged murder weapon. Other troubling information emerged: the agents undoubtedly followed a red pickup truck onto the land where the shoot-out took place, not the red and white van driven by Peltier; and compelling evidence against several other suspects existed and was concealed.

At the time, however, the jury was unaware of these facts. Peltier was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive life terms. He is currently imprisoned at the U.S. Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

PETITION:
Support Jimmy Carter: US Needs to Talk to Hamas

Former President Jimmy Carter, predictably, is being denounced for meeting with the exiled leader of Hamas in Syria on April 18, 2008.

Carter's critics are wrong. Talking to Hamas, which won the January 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, is a necessary part of creating peace. As Carter himself said, "There's no doubt in anyone's mind that, if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, that Hamas will have to be included in the process."

Please sign our petition -- co-sponsored by "A Just Foreign Policy" -- to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain asking them tosupport former President Carter and support talks with Hamas:

A CALL FOR JUSTICE: Monsanto and Company must pay

STOP THE WAR
Results of five years of War on Iraq:

Deaths
1,173,743 Estimated number of Iraqis killed by US troops :
3,970 Official number of U.S. military personnel sacrificed

Iraqi War Refugees
2.2 million Iraqis have fled mainly to Syria and Jordan. Another
2.2 million are displaced within Iraqi borders. According to the U.N., this is the highest number of displaced persons the Middle East since 1948 when Israel occupied Palestine.

Ordeal of Iraqi children
Estimations published by The United Nations Children's Fund in 2007:
2 million Iraqi children lack adequate nutrition and face serious illnesses
One third of children are cut off from outreach health services.
60% of children lack reliable access to safe drinking water.
Hundreds of children have lost their lives to violence.
Thousands have fallen into poverty after losing their main family wage-earner.

An estimated cost of at least $1.2 trillion
Higher taxes, drastic cuts in social services and recourse by banks to quick-money, sub-prime, real estate ventures are some of the ways the cost of this war has impacted the American people.

Americans Against the War-France / www.aawfrance.org

Arrêtez la Guerre
Les conséquences de cinq années d'occupation de l'Irak:

Morts
1 173 743: nombre estimé d'irakiens tués,
3 970: nombre officiel de soldats étatsuniens.

Réfugiés irakiens
2,2 millions principalement en Syrie et en Jordanie et
2,2 millions déplacés en Irak. D'après l'ONU, c'est le plus grand déplacement de population depuis l'occupation Israélienne de la Palestine en 1948.

Le Calvaire des enfants irakiens
Estimations de L'UNICEF pour l'année 2007:
2 millions d'enfants souffrent de malnutrition et de maladies graves.
Un tiers des enfants est privé de soins sanitaires et médicaux.
60% d'enfants sont privés d'eau potable.
Des centaines d'enfants sont morts à la suite d'actes de violence et
Des milliers d'enfants se trouvent dans la misère après la perte des parents.

Un coût estimé à au moins $1,2 billion (1.200,000,000,000)
L' augmentation des impôts et une dégradation systématique des services sociaux font parties des lourdes conséquences subies par la population des Etats-Unis

Américains Contre la Guerre-France www.aawfrance.org

Israel unleashes terror on Gaza
by Matthew Cookson

BEATING THE WAR DRUMS

Study:
US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran
Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday August 28, 2007
Go to original here

The United States has the capacity for and may be prepared to launch without warning a massive assault on Iranian uranium enrichment facilities, as well as government buildings and infrastructure, using long-range bombers and missiles, according to a new analysis.

The paper, "Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East" – written by well-respected British scholar and arms expert Dr. Dan Plesch, Director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) at the University of London, and Martin Butcher, a former Director of the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) and former adviser to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament – was exclusively provided to RAW STORY late Friday under embargo.

"We wrote the report partly as we were surprised that this sort of quite elementary analysis had not been produced by the many well resourced Institutes in the United States," wrote Plesch in an email to Raw Story on Tuesday.

Plesch and Butcher examine "what the military option might involve if it were picked up off the table and put into action" and conclude that based on open source analysis and their own assessments, the US has prepared its military for a "massive" attack against Iran, requiring little contingency planning and without a ground invasion.

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

Nuclear weapons are ready, but most unlikely, to be used by the US, the UK and Israel. The human, political and environmental effects would be devastating, while their military value is limited.

Israel is determined to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons yet has the conventional military capability only to wound Iran’s WMD programmes.

The attitude of the UK is uncertain, with the Brown government and public opinion opposed psychologically to more war, yet, were Brown to support an attack he would probably carry a vote in Parliament. The UK is adamant that Iran must not acquire the bomb.

The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.
When asked why the paper seems to indicate a certainty of Iranian WMD, Plesch made clear that "our paper is not, repeat not, about what Iran actually has or not." Yet, he added that "Iran certainly has missiles and probably some chemical capability."

Most significantly, Plesch and Butcher dispute conventional wisdom that any US attack on Iran would be confined to its nuclear sites. Instead, they foresee a "full-spectrum approach," designed to either instigate an overthrow of the government or reduce Iran to the status of "a weak or failed state." Although they acknowledge potential risks and impediments that might deter the Bush administration from carrying out such a massive attack, they also emphasize that the administration's National Security Strategy includes as a major goal the elimination of Iran as a regional power. They suggest, therefore, that:

This wider form of air attack would be the most likely to delay the Iranian nuclear program for a sufficiently long period of time to meet the administration’s current counterproliferation goals. It would also be consistent with the possible goal of employing military action is to overthrow the current Iranian government, since it would severely degrade the capability of the Iranian military (in particular revolutionary guards units and other ultra-loyalists) to keep armed opposition and separatist movements under control. It would also achieve the US objective of neutralizing Iran as a power in the region for many years to come.

However, it is the option that contains the greatest risk of increased global tension and hatred of the United States. The US would have few, if any allies for such a mission beyond Israel (and possibly the UK). Once undertaken, the imperatives for success would be enormous.
Butcher says he does not believe the US would use nuclear weapons, with some exceptions.

"My opinion is that [nuclear weapons] wouldn't be used unless there was definite evidence that Iran has them too or is about to acquire them in a matter of days/weeks," notes Butcher. "However, the Natanz facility has been so hardened that to destroy it MAY require nuclear weapons, and once an attack had started it may simply be a matter of following military logic and doctrine to full extent, which would call for the use of nukes if all other means failed."

Military Strategy

The bulk of the paper is devoted to a detailed analysis of specific military strategies for such an attack, of ongoing attempts to destabilize Iran by inciting its ethnic minorities, and of the considerations surrounding the possible employment of nuclear weapons.

In particular, Plesch and Butcher examine what is known as Global Strike – the capability to project military power from the United States to anywhere in the world, which was announced by STRATCOM as having initial operational capability in December 2005. It is the that capacity that could provide strategic bombers and missiles to devastate Iran on just a few hours notice.

Iran has a weak air force and anti aircraft capability, almost all of it is 20-30 years old and it lacks modern integrated communications. Not only will these forces be rapidly destroyed by US air power, but Iranian ground and air forces will have to fight without protection from air attack.

British military sources stated on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" from March 2003. It continued this focus even though it had infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
Global Strike could be combined with already-existing "regional operational plans for limited war with Iran, such as Oplan 1002-04, for an attack on the western province of Kuzhestan, or Oplan 1019 which deals with preventing Iran from closing the Straits of Hormuz, and therefore keeping open oil lanes vital to the US economy."

The Marines are not all tied down fighting in Iraq. Several Marine forces are assembling in the Gulf, each with its own aircraft carrier. These carrier forces can each conduct a version of the D-Day landings. They come with landing craft, tanks, jump-jets, thousands of troops and hundreds more cruise missiles. Their task is to destroy Iranian forces able to attack oil tankers and to secure oilfields and installations. They have trained for this mission since the Iranian revolution of 1979 as is indicated in this battle map of Hormuz illustrating an advert for combat training software.
Special Forces units – which are believed to already be operating within Iran – would be available to carry out search-and-destroy missions and incite internal uprisings, while US Army units in both Iraq and Afghanistan could mount air and missile attacks on Iranian forces, which are heavily concentrated along the Iran-Iraq border, as well as protecting their own supply lines within Iraq:

A key assessment in any war with Iran concerns Basra province and the Kuwait border. It is likely that Iran and its sympathizers could take control of population centres and interrupt oil supplies, if it was in their interest to do so. However it is unlikely that they could make any sustained effort against Kuwait or interrupt supply lines north from Kuwait to central Iraq. US firepower is simply too great for any Iranian conventional force.
Experts question the report's conclusions

Former CIA analyst and Deputy Director for Transportation Security, Antiterrorism Assistance Training, and Special Operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism, Larry Johnson, does not agree with the report’s findings.

"The report seems to accept without question that US air force and navy bombers could effectively destroy Iran and they seem to ignore the fact that US use of air power in Iraq has failed to destroy all major military, political, economic and transport capabilities," said Johnson late Monday after the embargo on the study had been lifted.

"But at least in their conclusions they still acknowledge that Iran, if attacked, would be able to retaliate. Yet they are vague in terms of detailing the extent of the damage that the Iran is capable of inflicting on the US and fairly assessing what those risks are."

There is also the situation of US soldiers in Iraq and the supply routes that would have to be protected to ensure that US forces had what they needed. Plesch explains that “"firepower is an effective means of securing supply routes during conventional war and in conventional war a higher loss rate is expected."

"However as we say do not assume that the Iraqi Shiia will rally to Tehran – the quietist Shiia tradition favoured by Sistani may regard itself as justified if imploding Iranian power can be argued to reduce US problems in Iraq, not increase them."

John Pike, Director of Global Security, a Washington-based military, intelligence, and security clearinghouse, says that the question of Iraq is the one issue at the center of any questions regarding Iran.

"The situation in Iraq is a wild card, though it may be presumed that Iran would mount attacks on the US at some remove, rather than upsetting the apple-cart in its own front yard," wrote Pike in an email.

Political Considerations

Plesch and Butcher write with concern about the political context within the United States:

This debate is bleeding over into the 2008 Presidential election, with evidence mounting that despite the public unpopularity of the war in Iraq, Iran is emerging as an issue over which Presidential candidates in both major American parties can show their strong national security bona fides. ...

The debate on how to deal with Iran is thus occurring in a political context in the US that is hard for those in Europe or the Middle East to understand. A context that may seem to some to be divorced from reality, but with the US ability to project military power across the globe, the reality of Washington DC is one that matters perhaps above all else. ...

We should not underestimate the Bush administration's ability to convince itself that an "Iran of the regions" will emerge from a post-rubble Iran. So, do not be in the least surprised if the United States attacks Iran. Timing is an open question, but it is hard to find convincing arguments that war will be avoided, or at least ones that are convincing in Washington.
Plesch and Butcher are also interested in the attitudes of the current UK government, which has carefully avoided revealing what its position might be in the case of an attack. They point out, however, "One key caution is that regardless of the realities of Iran’s programme, the British public and elite may simply refuse to participate – almost out of bloody minded revenge for the Iraq deceit."

And they conclude that even "if the attack is 'successful' and the US reasserts its global military dominance and reduces Iran to the status of an oil-rich failed state, then the risks to humanity in general and to the states of the Middle East are grave indeed."

Larisa Alexandrovna is managing editor of investigative news for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories. Contact: larisa@rawstory.com

Muriel Kane is research director for Raw Story.

DEMOCRATS ABROAD
http://www.democratsabroad.org/about/contact.php )

chair@democratsabroad.org; counsel@democratsabroad.org; secretary@democratsabroad.org; treasurer@democratsabroad.org; vice-chair@democratsabroad.org; gswanrat@loxinfo.co.th; mgowanlegoff@democratsabroad.org; boleary@democratsabroad.org; cborde@democratsabroad.org; lgibbons@democratsabroad.org; tmorelli@democratsabroad.org; ed@democratsabroad.org; newsletter@democratsabroad.org; demsabrd@bellatlantic.net; pressofficer@democratsabroad.org; webeditor@sympatico.ca

France

Iran-contra affair

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency
By Matthew Rothschild

http://progressive.org/mag_wx051807
May 18, 2007

AAW endorses Boycott of Rolling Stones Concert in Israel

Dear Rolling Stones,

The Palestinian arts community received in disbelief media reports of your upcoming performance in Israel, at a time when Israel continues
unabated with its colonial and apartheid designs to further dispossess, oppress,
and ultimately ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their homeland. If
the news is accurate, we strongly urge you to cancel your plans to perform
in Israel until the time comes when it ends its illegal occupation of
Palestinian territory and respects fundamental human rights as well as
the relevant precepts of international law concerning Palestinian rights to
freedom, self-determination and equality.

Performing in Israel at this time is morally equivalent to performing
in South Africa during the apartheid era. We all remember how leading
Rolling Stones musicians played a prominent role in enforcing a cultural
boycott of apartheid South Africa in the 1980's, and participated in recording
the timeless song, Sun City, which had a singular influence on raising
public awareness about apartheid and its injustices. As Archbishop
Desmond Tutu, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights Prof. John Dugard, and
South African government minister Ronnie Kasrils have repeatedly declared,
Israel has created a worse system of apartheid than anything that ever
existed in South Africa.

Indeed, Israel's policies throughout its illegal military occupation of
Palestinian territory, which have surpassed their South African
counterparts, include house demolitions; Jews-only colonies and roads;
uprooting hundreds of thousands of trees; indiscriminate killings of
civilians, particularly children; incessant theft of land and water
resources; denying freedom of movement to millions under occupation,
cutting up the occupied Palestinian territory into Bantustans, some
entirely caged by walls, fences and hundreds of roadblocks. Sixty years
since the Nakba, Israel's planned campaign of ethnic cleansing against
the Palestinian people, and 40 years into its military occupation of
Palestinian and other Arab territory, Israel has consistently and
relentlessly violated basic human rights and relevant precepts of
international law with utter impunity. Moreover, Israel's war of
aggression against Lebanon last year caused more than one thousand
civilian deaths, not to mention massive destruction to infrastructure
anddecimation of entire residential neighbourhoods.

The resounding failure of the international community to date in ending
Israel's occupation, collective punishment, and other forms of
oppression was what prompted Palestinians to appeal to international
civil society to bear its moral responsibility to put an end to injustice,
just as it did against apartheid South Africa. To this end, Palestinian
civil society has almost unanimously called for boycott, divestment and
sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it fully complies with
international law and recognizes the fundamental human rights of the people of
Palestine. A specific call for cultural boycott of Israel was issued
last year, garnering wide support. Among the many groups and institutions
that have heeded the Palestinian boycott calls and started to consider or
apply diverse forms of effective pressure on Israel are the Church of
England; the US Presbyterian Church; a group of top British architects; the
British National Union of Journalists in the UK; the Congress of South African
Trade Unions (COSATU); the South African Council of Churches; the
Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) in Ontario; Aosdana, the Irish
state-sponsored academy of artists; celebrated authors, artists and intellectuals led by John Berger; and Palme d'Or winner director Ken
Loach. Is it too much, then, to expect conscientious artists like the Rolling Stones to similarly uphold the values of freedom, equality and justice for all by supporting the growing boycott against Israel?

We appeal to your moral principles and your record of standing up for
human rights and human dignity. We sincerely hope that you shall cancel
this ill-conceived and particularly harmful concert in Israel.
Sincerely,
Americans Against the War - France
www.aawfrance.org

Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
www.pacbi.org
info@boycottisrael.ps

How do I register as a Conscientious Objector?

Unfortunately, the United States Military does not allow private citizens to register for Conscientious Objector (CO) status until a draft is called. However, you can record your desire for CO status by sending a letter stating the beliefs (be they spiritual, religious or personal) or life experiences that would preclude you from serving in the military, to the offices of Selective Services (check www.sss.gov for appropriate office).

If you or someone you know currently is serving in the military and is looking for a way out due to conscientious objections, the Center on Conscience & War can help provide all the answers and information. If you have any questions or concerns about obtaining CO status, contact:

• The Center on Conscience & War (800-379-2679, www.nisbco.org) and a representative will talk you through the process.

• GI Rights (800-394-9544, http://girights.objector.org) who provide information to servicemembers about military discharges, grievance and complaint procedures, and other civil rights.

Royal Accuses Rival of Apology to Bush on Iraq; Sarkozy Denies It

New York Times
April 27, 2007

By ARIANE BERNARD
PARIS, April 26 — Ségolène Royal, the Socialist candidate in the
French presidential election on May 6, accused Nicolas Sarkozy, her
conservative opponent, on Wednesday of having "apologized" to
President Bush for France's decision not to back the United States
militarily in Iraq.

Mr. Sarkozy's campaign team called her words "lies."

"I am not for a Europe that aligns with the U.S.," Ms. Royal said on
France 2 television. "I have never been, and will never, go apologize
to President Bush for the position of France on the issue of refusing
to send our troops to Iraq."

The interviewer noted that Mr. Sarkozy's official position was that he
had supported President Jacques Chirac's opposition to the war and to
French participation in military operations in Iraq.

"Yes, well, listen," Ms. Royal responded. "He still did this."

Mr. Sarkozy's team issued a strongly worded statement on Thursday
morning, repeating his position that the war in Iraq was a mistake and
that he backed Mr. Chirac's decision to refuse to send French troops.

The statement called for Ms. Royal to "stop using lies and personal
attacks to preserve the dignity and qualities of the presidential
debate."

Ms. Royal repeated her criticism on Thursday evening, telling TF1
television, "He may have changed his posture, but I think all the
French were shocked by his move when he visited George Bush,
denouncing French arrogance and apologizing for the French position."

While in the United States in September, Mr. Sarkozy, then the
interior minister, sought to distance himself from what he considered
France's clumsy method of diplomacy, but he repeated his opposition to
the war. He met with President Bush at the White House and they posed
for a photo, which prompted much commentary in the French news media.

"We know that a meeting was negotiated," Arnaud Montebourg, a
spokesman for Ms. Royal, said in an interview. "This showed that in
exchange, he had made verbal concessions showing he separated himself
from French diplomacy."

Asked if the Socialist Party had any evidence that Mr. Sarkozy had
"apologized" for not sending troops to Iraq, he replied: "These are
facts. How do you want Mr. Bush to shake the hand of a leader without
some sort of opening on his part?"

The battle between Mr. Sarkozy, who received 31 percent of the vote on
Sunday in the first round of the presidential election, and Ms. Royal,
who got 26 percent, is intensifying.

Mr. Sarkozy's opponents have often emphasized his perceived affinity
for the United States. In January, a Socialist Party pamphlet called
him an "American neoconservative with a French passport."

Petition en opposition au candidat
à l'élection présidentielle Nicolas Sarkozy

Voir ici

Nous les membres du mouvement international anti-guerre – et plus
généralement membres de la vaste majorité des citoyens du monde qui
reconnaissent les conséquences désastreuses de l'invasion de l'Irak
menée par les États-Unis et ses alliés – souhaitons faire entendre
notre opposition au candidat à l'élection présidentielle Nicolas
Sarkozy et exprimer notre espoir que la population française le
rejettera lors du scrutin du 6 mai prochain.

Contrairement à Sarkozy, nous avons admiré l'opposition de la France à
l'invasion menée en 2003. Sarkozy a certes accusé le Premier ministre
Dominique de Villepin, alors ministre des Affaires étrangères, d'«
arrogance » quant à son intervention à l'ONU, devenue célèbre depuis,
mais nous avons apprécié sa voie dissidente à l'encontre du manque de
respect dont les États-Unis et la Grande-Bretagne ont fait preuve à
l'égard de cette institution internationale. Contrairement à Sarkozy,
nous pensons que toutes les nations doivent se soumettre au droit
international, y compris aux lois relatives aux droits de l'homme et à
l'immigration. Nous pensons que les personnes responsables de crimes
contre l'humanité, qu'il s'agisse de génocide ou de la pratique
systématique de la torture, devraient être assignées en justice ; à
l'inverse de Sarkozy, qui a nié et minimisé les crimes commis aussi
bien par le colonialisme français que par le régime de Vichy, et ce à
plusieurs reprises, dans le but d'attirer à lui les voix des
sympathisants du leader d'extrême droite Jean-Marie Le Pen.
Contrairement à Sarkozy, nous pensons que le maintien des libertés
civiles et d'une presse libre et indépendante est un élément vital
pour s'assurer que les nations démocratiques vivent en paix les unes
avec les autres. Nous nous opposons à son utilisation de la propagande
et de la désinformation, et son instrumentalisation de la peur. De
tels outils furent déjà utilisés par les États-Unis et la
Grande-Bretagne afin de créer un soutien artificiel à une guerre
illégale.

Le monde n'a pas besoin d'un autre George Bush, ni d'un autre Tony
Blair. La défaite de Silvio Berlusconi a été une victoire pour nous
tous, aussi bien que pour le peuple italien. Nous espérons que la
population française fera entendre un « Non » vigoureux à
l'impérialisme américain et ses affidés le 6 Mai, et récoltera une
nouvelle fois l'admiration du monde.

[Depuis sa rédaction, cette lettre ouverte a reçu des signatures en
provenance de plus de vingt pays et de cinq continents. « L'élection
de Sarkozy constituera un désastre encore plus grand à l'étranger
qu'en France », c'est en ces termes que s'est exprimé Jean Bricmont,
un des signataires de la pétition et auteur de nombreux ouvrages et
articles sur les relations internationales (notamment « 11 septembre
2001 : La fin de la fin de l'histoire », écrit en collaboration avec
Noam Chomsky et Naomi Klein). D'autres signataires de cette pétition
ont explicitement mis en avant les dangers que constituent le «
nationalisme » et « l'intolérance » propres au discours de Nicolas
Sarkozy, de même que le soutien dont il bénéficie de la part de
l'extrême droite. Beaucoup citèrent les affinités qu'il entretient
avec George W. Bush et mirent en garde contre le fait que s'il était
élu, il mettrait en oeuvre un programme de politique internationale
appuyant les intérêts de ce dernier. « La France doit maintenir une
politique indépendante », a affirmé Rex Rumakiek, membre de
l'organisation Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific.
Les personnes qui se considèrent membres du mouvement global
anti-guerre se sont vues proposer l'option de mentionner leur
affiliation à une organisation, ou de rester indépendants à cet égard.
Un grand nombre choisit cette dernière option, toutefois d'autres
signataires de la pétition se sont identifiés comme membres
d'associations pacifistes et de défense des droits de l'homme.
Celles-ci incluent notamment : Action Wednesdays Against the War, New
York; Amicale Marocaine des Handicapés; Aktionsbündnis für einen
gerechten Frieden in Palästina, Allemagne; Al-Awda, The Palestine
Right to Return Coalition (PRRC); Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and
Diasporas Initiative, College of Ethnic Studies, San Francisco State
University; Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition; Brussels
Tribunal; Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), GB; Collectif
judéo-arabe et citoyen pour la paix, France; Focus on the Global South
(FOCUS); GDO'ya Hayýr Platformu (Mouvement d'opposition aux OGM ),
Turquie ; Forum Social Grec; International Jewish Solidarity Network;
Küresel BAK (Coalition Globale pour la Paix et la Justice), Turquie;
Les Cultures Onlus – Lecco, Italie; Kilusan para sa Pambansang
Demokrasya (KPD, Mouvement pour la démocratie nationale), Philippines;
Movement for a Democratic Society; Movimento pela paz, (Mouvement pour
la paix), Portugal; Yeni Kıbrıs Partisi (Nouveau Parti de Chypre);
Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP), Australie; Cagddas
Gazeteciler Dernegi (ÇGD, Progressive Journalists Association),
Turquie; Proyecto Guerrero Azteca Por la Paz; Right of Return
Congress; Scottish Centre for Nonviolence; Stop the War Coalition of
Sydney, Australie; Students for a Democratic Society (SDS); The Peace
Party, GB; Wrekin Stop War, GB;
Des membres de syndicats, parmi lesquels SETCa de Belgique et GSOC/UAW
des États Unis, ont également soutenu la pétition, aussi bien que des
sympathisants de partis comme les Greens, la LCR (Ligue communiste
révolutionnaire) et le PCF (Parti communiste français)]

MAY 1, 2007

May Day in the USA: A Forgotten History

by Michael Thomas

Every year on May 1st, for over a century, workers around the world have marked Labor Day with rallies and speeches, picnics and celebrations, demonstrations and riots. Traditionally, these May Day events have provided a primary occasion for workers, especially in Europe, to collectively express their unity, their enthusiasm, and their commitment to social change. Today, the United States stands virtually alone among the industrialized nations in officially ignoring the historical and political significance of May Day for the Labor movement.

When Americans do look past the occasional rites of spring, our responses are usually dominated by fearful Cold War images of May Day riots in Europe or tanks and mobile missile-launchers parading before the Kremlin. Few Americans realize that the seemingly foreign celebrations of labor held worldwide on May 1st actually commemorate historical events here in the United States.

During the late 19th century, while corporate power was growing at an unprecedented rate, American workers faced a political and legal system that failed to recognize even the most basic rights of workplace safety, community sanitation, and child protection, let alone the right to organize and strike. On May 1st, 1886, the American Federation of Labor declared a national strike to demand an eight-hour work day and 350,000 workers across the country responded.

In particular, the city of Chicago was virtually paralyzed; railroads, stockyards, and other businesses were forced to close. Two days later, police fired randomly into crowds of fleeing strikers, killing four and wounding many more. Angry workers began to call for armed retaliation.

The next day, when police attempted to disperse a peaceful rally in Haymarket Square, a bomb was tossed into their midst, wounding nearly 70 officers, some mortally. Again firing randomly into the crowd, police wounded another 200 citizens, killing many. With no clues as to the source of the bomb, police arrested eight revolutionary labor leaders, seven of whom had not even been present in Haymarket at the time. In the absence of any evidence linking them to the bomb, the "Chicago Eight" were tried solely on the basis of their political beliefs. All eight were sentenced to death; most were eventually executed.

News of the trial electrified labor groups everywhere; protests were held around the world. In 1889, the Socialist International declared May 1st a day of demonstrations, and since 1890 these have been held annually worldwide by a variety of labor movements, in many cases eventually forcing official recognition of the holiday. Soon, labor advocates in the United States, too, pressed for a national holiday recognizing workers. Although by the 1890s, May 1st was already being celebrated as Labor Day in some states, other states celebrated in early September.

Proponents of the September date emphasized that this filled a long gap between the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving holidays. Presented thus, flanked between patriotic celebrations of national origin and family unity, this Labor Day was obviously attractive to business and government leaders opposed to labor militancy, and had the additional advantage of being as far away as possible from the "subversive" May Day, while still promising good summer weather for outdoor festivities. Thus, the first Monday in September received official recognition.

Nevertheless, neither labor militancy nor public interest in May Day celebrations showed any signs of abating. May Day rallies were held, for example, in New York City's Union Square every year since 1924. And soon, the simple displacement of Labor Day was no longer deemed a sufficient tactic; conservatives began renaming May Day itself in an effort to finally erase its unsettling symbolism from the American consciousness.

In 1947, amidst the anti-Communist Cold War hysteria, the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars renamed May 1st "Loyalty Day" and a joint session of Congress later made the pronouncement official. Loyalty Day was explicitly designed as a weapon against leftist labor tendencies, and specifically the American Communist Party, by encouraging citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the State. The right of citizens to join legal political parties of their own choosing without harassment was apparently not an American value to be celebrated on this holiday.

During the 1950s, Loyalty Day flourished at the expense of traditional May Day events. For example, the Loyalty Day parade in New York City, one of the largest in the nation, was designed to lure citizens away from the long-standing Union Square rallies and to distract attention from the Communist Party march on the same day. Ten years later, however, the association of such parades with support for the American war in Vietnam led to a drastic decline in public participation across the land. Nevertheless, despite this waning interest, these conservative holidays actually succeeded in their objective; for if Loyalty Day has now been all but officially forgotten, so too has the historic significance of May Day.

The tragic irony is that this historic memorial to American labor, which continues to inspire workers abroad, has been largely forgotten by workers at home. Mention a Labor Day picnic in May to most people today and they will assume that you have misplaced your calendar. Sadly, what has really been lost, or should I say stolen, is a powerful symbol of the historical struggle by average working Americans for freedom and democracy.

OUTQUOTES:

Few Americans realize that the seemingly foreign celebrations of labor held worldwide on May 1st actually commemorate historical events here in the United States.

In the absence of any evidence linking them to the bomb, the "Chicago Eight" were tried solely on the basis of their political beliefs. All eight were sentenced to death; most were eventually executed.

In 1947, amidst the anti-Communist Cold War hysteria, the U.S. Veterans of Foreign Wars renamed May 1st "Loyalty Day" and a joint session of Congress later made the pronouncement official. Loyalty Day was explicitly designed as a weapon against leftist labor tendencies, and specifically the American Communist Party, by encouraging citizens to reaffirm their commitment to the State.

Why the Progressive Caucus Should Vote No on War Money
by David Swanson; March 23, 2007
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12403

GLOBAL CALLS FOR ACTION in 2007

IRAN - 2007

• Don't Attack Iran Petition
  

• The Troops Out Now Coalition (TONC)
• March on the Pentagon, March 17, 2007
  
• Global Call Iraq Campaign
• The Declaration of Peace
  

• Witness Against Torture
• Amnesty International - Guantánamo Bay - a human rights scandal
  

• Comité Mumia Saint-Denis
• Le collectif unitaire national de soutien à Mumia Abu-Jamal
• USA: Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Amnesty International calls for retrial

• PETITION: Tell Amazon to Treat Carter's Book Fairly

• Appeal for Redress

• IMPEACH07 - April 28, 2007
• MARCH on WASHINGTON - January 27, 2007 , UFPJ
• Impeach for Peace, After Downing Street
• WorldCantWait

Friday, March 23, 2007
Time : program from 6pm
Place : Bourse de Travail de Paris, 3, rue Chateau d'eau, 75003
Métro: République

See NBC Video

Arianna Huffington discusses the Libby verdict with Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough. They pull no punches! CALL for CHENEY IMPEACHMENT !

Florence, February 12, 2007
To Ambassador Ronald Spogli
US Embassy, Rome

Abolish the Death Penalty, Justice for Mumia Abu Jamal, Justice for Prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo
February 2, 2007

Abolir la peine de mort
Justice pour Mumia Abu Jamal
Justice pour les prisonniers en Iraq et à Guantanamo
2 février 2007

Bush Says Surge
The People Say Purge Bush,
End the War, Bring the Troops Home Now
January 27, 2007

Bush’s latest escalation of the war in Iraq—the deployment of 21,500 more troops that he euphemistically refers to as a “surge”—has met with overwhelming condemnation from such diverse sectors as the members of the US military, capitals around the world, homes across America, Congressional offices in Washington, D.C. With 655,000 Iraqi civilians slaughtered, per an exhaustive study published in The Lancet, 3,059 U.S. troops brought home in body bags, and the carnage in Baghdad increasing each day to terrifying levels, those who didn’t understand finally do: from day 1 this war has been a grave injustice perpetrated on the Iraqi people, but it’s not too late for the Americans to end the madness and bring the troops home now. Demanding just that, thousands of people from all corners of America will be gathering on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, January 27. That same day, in Paris, from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. at the Fontaine St. Michel, Americans Against the War (AAW) France will be coming out in solidarity with the demonstrators in Washington as well as those in towns across America and around the world.

Given the groundswell of opposition, one might think Bush would have reconsidered this recent escalation. After all, even significant members of his own party and several of his top generals have denounced it. Increasing numbers of soldiers who must confront the Iraq morass on a daily basis are against their country’s precarious presence and murderous actions there. Some 8,000 have gone AWOL, the Defense Department reports, many believing the actual number to be considerably higher. In November, the Washington Post has just revealed, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said the U.S. should remove its troops from Baghdad and let the Iraqis take over. A recent BBC World Services survey reveals that 75 percent of the 26,000 people polled in 25 countries disapprove of Bush’s Iraq campaign.

So why is Bush persisting in this war and occupation that has brought nothing but death, destruction, and misery to the Iraqi people, that has cost U.S. citizens loss of liberties and erosion of their economy (cost so far of the war is a staggering $360,583,127,860), that has lasted longer than America’s involvement in World War II?

• Oil contracts. In the next few weeks the Maliki government is expected to sign the U.S.-drafted hydrocarbon law, which will allow foreign corporations to gain control of Iraq’s oil reserves and will lock the country into such an arrangement for 30 years. Bush needs to insure the corporations of a certain stability in Iraq—at least until their contracts are signed.

• Further destabilization. Shia militia are “ethnically cleansing” Iraq, aided and abetted by U.S. troops, which is causing Sunnis to flee to Syria and Jordan and prompting Sunnis in Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to feel obligated to materially support their beleagured co-religionists in Iraq. Sunni militia, for their part, are murdering Shiites, also aided and abetted by the U.S. The overall effect on the region is a dangerously increased level of destabilization, which Bush could subsequently use as a pretext for waging a wider campaign, with further U.S. and Israeli incursions in quest of yet more control of oil flow, greater hegemony.

• Clearing the path for an attack on Iran. U.S. threats against Iran are increasing. Two nuclear battleships are in the region, poised to strike Iran at any given moment, and some battle-ready troops are already on the ground. With the Middle East in chaos, Bush believes that a U.S./Israeli attack on Iran, most likely with nuclear weapons, would be met with little opposition in the region, leaving the path open to neutralize the country and take over its oil reserves.

• The citizens of the U.S. to tell their elected representatives they will vote for them only if:
• They demand an immediate end to the war on and occupation of Iraq, with all foreign corporations being forced to leave and reparations paid for the destruction of the country
• They condemn the threats against Iran and refuse to support an attack against that country
• They call for the Patriot and Military Commissions acts to be scrapped
• All like-minded people to join AAW on Saturday, January 27, between 3 and 5 p.m. at the Fontaine St. Michel, Place St. Michel, to demand that the war be ended and the troops brought home now.
  

Cessons la guerre
Demandons le retrait immédiat des troupes
January 27, 2007

La dernière escalade de la guerre en Irak préconisé par Bush—l’envoi de 21.500 hommes supplémentaires que celui-ci qualifie d’une « vague » -- a été condamné aussi bien par certaines capitales mondiales, une grande partie de la population américaine, et les bureaux du Congrès à Washington. Après la mort de 655.000 civils irakiens (selon une étude approfondie du journal The Lancet), 3059 soldats américains tués, et le carnage à Bagdad qui augmente de jour en jour pour atteindre des niveaux terrifiants, ceux qui n’ont pas compris commencent à comprendre enfin. Cette guerre est d’une grave injustice envers le peuple irakien, et ce depuis le premier jour. Cependant il n’est pas trop tard pour mettre fin à cette folie et retirer les troupes. C’est précisément ce que vont demander des milliers d’Américains à Washington ce samedi 27 janvier. Ce même jour, à Paris, de 15 à 17 heures à la Fontaine St. Michel, AAW (Américains Contre la Guerre) exprimeront leur solidarité avec les manifestants de Washington, d’autres villes américaines, et ailleurs dans le monde.

Etant donné l’ampleur de l’opposition, on aurait pu imaginer que Bush réexamine sa décision. Après tout, même des membres influents de son propre parti et plusieurs de ses généraux réputés l’ont dénoncée. Un nombre croissant de militaires qui doivent faire face quotidiennement au marasme irakien sont opposés à la présence précaire et aux actions meurtrières de leur pays. Quelques 8000 ont déserté, d’après le Ministère américain de la Défense, un chiffre inférieur à la réalité d’après d’autres. Le Premier Ministre Nuri al-Maliki, d’après une révélation toute récente du Washington Post, aurait demandé au mois de novembre aux Américains de retirer leurs troupes de Bagdad et laisser la conduite des affaires aux Irakiens. Un sondage effectué par la BBC World Services révèle que 75 pourcent des 26,000 personnes interrogées dans 25 pays désapprouvent la campagne de Bush en Irak.

Pourquoi alors Bush continue-t-il de poursuivre une guerre et une occupation qui n’a apporté aux peuples irakiens que mort, déstruction, et misère, qui a couté aux citoyens des E.U. la perte deleurs libertés et l’érosion de leur économie, qui a coûté aux contribuables américains 360,583,127,860 de dollars et a duré plus longtemps que la participation américaine dans la seconde guerre mondiale ?

• Les contrats pétroliers. Dans les semaines à venir on s’attend à la signature par le gouvernement Maliki de la loi sur les hydrocarbures rédigée par les Américains donnant le contrôle des réserves irakiennes aux corporations étrangères durant 30 ans. Bush doit être capable d’assurer une certaines stabilité dans ce pays… tout au moins jusqu’à la signature des contrats.

• Une déstabilisation accrue. La milice chiite nettoie « ethniquement » l’Irak, aidé et encouragé par les troupes américaines, amenant les Sunnites à fuir en Syrie et en Jordanie et incitant ceux d’Egypte, de Jordanie, du Koweït et d’Arabie Saoudite à soutenir matériellement leurs coreligionnaires d’Irak. Les milices sunnites en font autant et avec le même soutien des Américains. Le résultat : un niveau dangereusement accru de déstabilisation dont Bush pourrait se servir comme prétexte pour une campagne militaire plus étendue, avec des incursions américaines et israéliennes afin de mieux contrôler l’approvisionnement de pétrole et se procurer davantage d’hégémonie.

• La voie libre pour une intervention armée en Iran. Les menaces américaines contre l’Iran vont croissantes. Deux porte-avions nucléaires se trouvent au large des côtes de la région, prêts à intervenir en Iran ; des troupes se trouvent déjà sur place. Avec le Moyen Orient dans un état de chaos, Bush considère certainement qu’une attaque israélo-américaine, probablement avec des armes nucléaires, ne rencontrerait que peu d’opposition dans la région, laissant la voie libre à la neutralisation de ce pays et au contrôle de sa production pétrolière.

• au peuple français d’exiger de son gouvernement qu’il fasse pression sur les Etats-Unis pour quitter l’Irak immédiatement, et pour arrêter de menacer l’Iran.

• aux citoyens américains d’informer leurs élus qu’ils leur donneront leurs voix :

• S’ils exigent la fin immédiate de la guerre et l’occupation de l’Irak, l’évacuation de toute corporation étrangère et des indemnités de réparation pour la destruction de ce pays.o S’ils condamnent les menaces contre l’Iran et refusent de soutenir une intervention armée contre ce pays.

• S’ils appellent à la révocation des lois « Patriot » et « Military Commissions » .

AAW Letter in support of the book, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid written by former US President, Jimmy Carter.
Letter sent to the Carter Foundation, January 15, 2007:

Dear Jimmy Carter:

With respect to your book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, we applaud
your tireless quest for justice. We have been appalled by the fact
that Israel, unlike any other nation, has been exempt from virtually
all criticism and we are inspired by your courage in helping to break
that taboo. It is unfortunate that the American pro-Israel lobby and
much of the American media fail to comprehend that Israel's
ultimate survival is inevitably linked to justice for the Palestinians.
In particular, we defend your use of the word "apartheid". Desmond
Tutu has also associated the Israeli occupation with apartheid. In
2004, Ronnie Kasrils, South Africa's intelligence minister, and a Jew,
visited the Palestinian territories to assess the effect of Israel's
assault on the West Bank. "This is much worse than apartheid," he
said. "The Israeli measures, the brutality, make apartheid look like a
picnic. We never had jets attacking our townships. We never had sieges
that lasted month after month. We never had tanks destroying houses.
We had armoured vehicles and police using small arms to shoot people
but not on this scale."

Please be assured that Americans around the world who
have bothered to study the Middle East situation, including Americans of
Jewish background, stand with you in your principled position.

Mark Cramer
Writing on behalf of Americans Against the War-France, an association
of Americans living in France

Kofi Annan's last address to US on American soil before his tenure as United Nations Secretary-General
RAW STORY
Monday December 11, 2006

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL ADDRESS AT THE TRUMAN PRESIDENTIAL MUSEUM & LIBRARY
Independence, Missouri, 11 December 2006

Thank you, Senator [Hagel] for that wonderful introduction. It is a great honor to be introduced by such a distinguished legislator. And thanks to you, Mr. Devine, and all your staff, and to the wonderful UNA chapter of Kansas City, for all you have done to make this occasion possible.

What a pleasure, and a privilege, to be here in Missouri. It?s almost a homecoming for me. Nearly half a century ago I was a student about 400 miles north of here, in Minnesota. I arrived there straight from Africa ? and I can tell you, Minnesota soon taught me the value of a thick overcoat, a warm scarf? and even ear-muffs!

When you leave one home for another, there are always lessons to be learnt. And I had more to learn when I moved on from Minnesota to the United Nations ? the indispensable common house of the entire human family, which has been my main home for the last 44 years. Today I want to talk particularly about five lessons I have learnt in the last ten years, during which I have had the difficult but exhilarating role of Secretary-General.

I think it?s especially fitting that I do that here in the house that honors the legacy of Harry S Truman. If FDR was the architect of the United Nations, President Truman was the master-builder, and the faithful champion of the Organization in its first years, when it had to face quite different problems from the ones FDR had expected. Truman?s name will for ever be associated with the memory of far-sighted American leadership in a great global endeavor. And you will see that every one of my five lessons brings me to the conclusion that such leadership is no less sorely needed now than it was sixty years ago.

My first lesson is that, in today?s world, the security of every one of us is linked to that of everyone else .

That was already true in Truman?s time. The man who in 1945 gave the order for nuclear weapons to be used ? for the first, and let us hope the only, time in history ? understood that security for some could never again be achieved at the price of insecurity for others. He was determined, as he had told the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco, to "prevent, if human mind, heart, and hope can prevent it, the repetition of the disaster [meaning the world war] from which the entire world will suffer for years to come." He believed strongly that henceforth security must be collective and indivisible. That was why, for instance, he insisted, when faced with aggression by North Korea against the South in 1950, on bringing the issue to the United Nations and placing US troops under the UN flag, at the head of a multinational force.

But how much more true it is in our open world today: a world where deadly weapons can be obtained not only by rogue states but by extremist groups; a world where SARS, or avian flu, can be carried across oceans, let alone national borders, in a matter of hours; a world where failed states in the heart of Asia or Africa can become havens for terrorists; a world where even the climate is changing in ways that will affect the lives of everyone on the planet.

Against such threats as these, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. We all share responsibility for each other?s security, and only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves .

And I would add that this responsibility is not simply a matter of states being ready to come to each other?s aid when attacked ? important though that is. It also includes our shared responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity ? a responsibility solemnly accepted by all nations at last year?s UN summit . That means that respect for national sovereignty can no longer be used as a shield by governments intent on massacring their own people, or as an excuse for the rest of us to do nothing when such heinous crimes are committed.

But, as Truman said, "If we should pay merely lip service to inspiring ideals, and later do violence to simple justice, we would draw down upon us the bitter wrath of generations yet unborn . " And when I look at the murder, rape and starvation to which the people of Darfur are being subjected, I fear that we have not got far beyond "lip service". The lesson here is that high-sounding doctrines like the "responsibility to protect" will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively ? by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle ? are prepared to take the lead.

And I believe we have a responsibility not only to our contemporaries but also to future generations ? a responsibility to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us, and without which none of us can survive. That means we must do much more, and urgently, to prevent or slow down climate change . Every day that we do nothing, or too little, imposes higher costs on our children and our children?s children.

My second lesson is that we are not only all responsible for each other?s security. We are also , in some measure, responsible for each other?s welfare . Global solidarity is both necessary and possible.

It is necessary because without a measure of solidarity no society can be truly stable, and no one?s prosperity truly secure. That applies to national societies ? as all the great industrial democracies learned in the 20 th century ? but it also applies to the increasingly integrated global market economy we live in today. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalization while billions of their fellow human beings are left in abject poverty, or even thrown into it. We have to give our fellow citizens, not only within each nation but in the global community, at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

That is why, five years ago, the UN Millennium Summit adopted a set of goals ? the "Millennium Development Goals" ? to be reached by 2015: goals such as halving the proportion of people in the world who don't have clean water to drink; making sure all girls, as well as boys, receive at least primary education; slashing infant and maternal mortality; and stopping the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Much of that can only be done by governments and people in the poor countries themselves. But richer countries, too, have a vital role. Here too, Harry Truman proved himself a pioneer, proposing in his 1949 inaugural address a program of what came to be known as development assistance. And our success in mobilizing donor countries to support the Millennium Development Goals, through debt relief and increased foreign aid, convinces me that global solidarity is not only necessary but possible.

Of course, foreign aid by itself is not enough. Today, we realize that market access, fair terms of trade, and a non-discriminatory financial system are equally vital to the chances of poor countries. Even in the next few weeks and months, you Americans can make a crucial difference to many millions of poor people, if you are prepared to save the Doha Round of trade negotiations. You can do that by putting your broader national interest above that of some powerful sectional lobbies, while challenging Europe and the large developing countries to do the same.

My third lesson is that both security and development ultimately depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law .

Although increasingly interdependent, our world continues to be divided ? not only by economic differences, but also by religion and culture. That is not in itself a problem. Throughout history human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learnt from each other. But if our different communities are to live together in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity, and our shared belief that human dignity and rights should be protected by law .

That is vital for development, too. Both foreign investors and a country?s own citizens are more likely to engage in productive activity when their basic rights are protected and they can be confident of fair treatment under the law. And policies that genuinely favor economic development are much more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard .

In short, human rights and the rule of law are vital to global security and prosperity. As Truman said, "We must, once and for all, prove by our acts conclusively that Right Has Might." That?s why this country has historically been in the vanguard of the global human rights movement. But that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles, including in the struggle against terrorism. When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused.

And states need to play by the rules towards each other, as well as towards their own citizens. That can sometimes be inconvenient, but ultimately what matters is not convenience. It is doing the right thing. No state can make its own actions legitimate in the eyes of others. When power, especially military force, is used, the world will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose ? for broadly shared aims ? in accordance with broadly accepted norms.

No community anywhere suffers from too much rule of law; many do suffer from too little ? and the international community is among them. This we must change.

The US has given the world an example of a democracy in which everyone, including the most powerful, is subject to legal restraint. Its current moment of world supremacy gives it a priceless opportunity to entrench the same principles at the global level. As Harry Truman said, "We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please."

My fourth lesson ? closely related to the last one ? is that governments must be accountable for their actions in the international arena, as well as in the domestic one .

Today the actions of one state can often have a decisive effect on the lives of people in other states. So does it not owe some account to those other states and their citizens, as well as to its own? I believe it does.

As things stand, accountability between states is highly skewed. Poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign assistance. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people, working through their domestic institutions.

That gives the people and institutions of such powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests, as well as national ones. And today they need to take into account also the views of what, in UN jargon, we call "non-state actors". I mean commercial corporations, charities and pressure groups, labor unions, philanthropic foundations, universities and think tanks ? all the myriad forms in which people come together voluntarily to think about, or try to change, the world.

None of these should be allowed to substitute itself for the state, or for the democratic process by which citizens choose their governments and decide policy. But they all have the capacity to influence political processes, on the international as well as the national level. States that try to ignore this are hiding their heads in the sand.

The fact is that states can no longer ? if they ever could ? confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, we need to enlist the help of these other actors, both in working out global strategies and in putting those strategies into action once agreed. It has been one of my guiding principles as Secretary-General to get them to help achieve UN aims ? for instance through the Global Compact with international business, which I initiated in 1999, or in the worldwide fight against polio, which I hope is now in its final chapter, thanks to a wonderful partnership between the UN family, the US Centers for Disease Control and ? crucially ? Rotary International.

So that is four lessons. Let me briefly remind you of them:

First , we are all responsible for each other?s security.

Second , we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity.

Third , both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law.

Fourth , states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

In fact, it is only through multilateral institutions that states can hold each other to account. And that makes it very important to organize those institutions in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.

That applies particularly to the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Developing countries should have a stronger voice in these bodies, whose decisions can have almost a life-or-death impact on their fate. And it also applies to the UN Security Council, whose membership still reflects the reality of 1945, not of today?s world.

That?s why I have continued to press for Security Council reform. But reform involves two separate issues. One is that new members should be added, on a permanent or long-term basis, to give greater representation to parts of the world which have limited voice today. The other, perhaps even more important, is that all Council members, and especially the major powers who are permanent members, must accept the special responsibility that comes with their privilege. The Security Council is not just another stage on which to act out national interests. It is the management committee, if you will, of our fledgling collective security system.

As President Truman said, "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world." He showed what can be achieved when the US assumes that responsibility. And still today, none of our global institutions can accomplish much when the US remains aloof. But when it is fully engaged, the sky?s the limit.

These five lessons can be summed up as five principles, which I believe are essential for the future conduct of international relations: collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism. Let me leave them with you, in solemn trust, as I hand over to a new Secretary-General in three weeks? time.

My friends, we have achieved much since 1945, when the United Nations was established. But much remains to be done to put those five principles into practice.

Standing here, I am reminded of Winston Churchill?s last visit to the White House, just before Truman left office in 1953. Churchill recalled their only previous meeting, at the Potsdam conference in 1945. "I must confess, sir," he said boldly, "I held you in very low regard then. I loathed your taking the place of Franklin Roosevelt." Then he paused for a moment, and continued: "I misjudged you badly. Since that time, you more than any other man, have saved Western civilization."

My friends, our challenge today is not to save Western civilization ? or Eastern, for that matter. All civilization is at stake, and we can save it only if all peoples join together in the task.

You Americans did so much, in the last century, to build an effective multilateral system, with the United Nations at its heart. Do you need it less today, and does it need you less, than 60 years ago?

Surely not. More than ever today Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functionning global system through which the world?s peoples can face global challenges together. And in order to function, the system still cries out for far-sighted American leadership, in the Truman tradition.

I hope and pray that the American leaders of today, and tomorrow, will provide it.

Thank you very much.
_____________________________________________________________________

McKinney's Full Remarks on Bush Impeachment Bill
December 08, 2006
By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent

US Rep. Cynthia McKinney today became the first US Congresswoman to introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, as well as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

Atlanta Progressive News has obtained the following remarks prepared by the Congresswoman, and has learned she was not allowed to read them on the US House Floor. The remarks are expected to become part of the Congressional Record but will not be available on thomas.loc.gov until next week.

The remarks are reprinted here in full:

Mr. Speaker:

I come before this body today as a proud American and as a servant of the American people, sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout my tenure, I've always tried to speak the truth. It's that commitment that brings me here today.

We have a President who has misgoverned and a Congress that has refused to hold him accountable. It is a grave situation and I believe the stakes for our country are high.

No American is above the law, and if we allow a President to violate, at the most basic and fundamental level, the trust of the people and then continue to govern, without a process for holding him accountable, what does that say about our commitment to the truth? To the Constitution? To our democracy?

The trust of the American people has been broken. And a process must be undertaken to repair this trust. This process must begin with honesty and accountability.

Leading up to our invasion of Iraq, the American people supported this Administration's actions because they believed in our President. They believed he was acting in good faith. They believed that American laws and American values would be respected. That in the weightiness of everything being considered, two values were rock solid: trust and truth.

From mushroom clouds to African yellow cake to aluminum tubes, the American people and this Congress were not presented the facts, but rather were presented a string of untruths, to justify the invasion of Iraq.

President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Rice, portrayed to the Congress and to the American people that Iraq represented an imminent threat, culminating with President Bush's claim that Iraq was six months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Having used false fear to buy consent, the President then took our country to war.

This has grave consequences for the health of our democracy, for our standing with our allies, and most of all, for the lives of our men and women in the military and their families--who have been asked to make sacrifices--including the ultimate sacrifice--to keep us safe.

Just as we expect our leaders to be truthful, we expect them to abide by the law and respect our courts and judges. Here again, the President failed the American people.

When President Bush signed an executive order authorizing unlawful spying on American citizens, he circumvented the courts, the law, and he violated the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Once the program was revealed, he then tried to hide the scope of his offense from the American people by making contradictory, untrue statements.

President George W. Bush has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; he has failed to ensure that senior members of his administration do the same; and he has betrayed the trust of the American people.

With a heavy heart and in the deepest spirit of patriotism, I exercise my duty and responsibility to speak truthfully about what is before us. To shy away from this responsibility would be easier. But I have not been one to travel the easy road. I believe in this country, and in the power of our democracy. I feel the steely conviction of one who will not let the country I love descend into shame; for the fabric of our democracy is at stake.

Some will call this a partisan vendetta, others will say this is an unimportant distraction to the plans of the incoming Congress. But this is not about political gamesmanship.

I am not willing to put any political party before my principles.

This, instead, is about beginning the long road back to regaining the high standards of truth and democracy upon which our great country was founded.

Mr. Speaker:

Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush, along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice, should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res.1106 in the House of Representatives.

To my fellow Americans, as I leave this Congress, it is in your hands to hold your representatives accountable, and to show those with the courage to stand for what is right, that they do not stand alone.

Thank you.
____________________________________________________________________

Justice for Mumia Abu Jamal, Justice for Prisoners in Iraq
November 29, 2006

Like the prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, Mumia Abu Jamal is a man behind bars who has never had a just trial. Unlike the unfortunates languishing in those Iraqi prisons of torture —most of whom are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time—Mumia did have a trial. But witnesses changed their testimony under pressure from the police (Mumia was convicted of killing a cop, though evidence overwhelmingly shows he didn’t do it), and he had inadequate legal representation. Nevertheless, he was convicted and sentenced to death. During the more than 20 years he has been behind bars in Philadelphia, he has inspired people all around the world with his passionate articles, books, and radio essays decrying the situation of those on death row, prison conditions in general, racism, the horrors of the war in Iraq, the loss of freedom in America. Thousands from around the world have risen to his defense, calling for him to be freed, for him to have a fair trial, for the sentence of death to be commuted.

Twenty-five cities worldwide have honored Mumia for his indefatigable stand against injustice. Paris made him a Citizen of Honor, and St. Denis named a street after him. Enraged by this recognition (it calls into question the legal system that erroneously sentenced him, the barbaric U.S. prison system that keeps some 3,000 people on Death Row), a battery of lawyers and officials from Philadelphia is currently in France charging Paris and St. Denis with a “crime of denial” and ordering that the honors bestowed upon Mumia be withdrawn.

Americans Against the War (AAW) France salutes the cities of Paris and St. Denis for taking such principled actions, and salutes France for having abolished the death penalty. AAW calls upon those concerned about the rights of all prisoners to:
• Write to the Mayor of Philadelphia urging a new and just trial for Mumia
• Write to elected officials in countries having the death penalty demanding its abolition
• Write to American Congressional representatives demanding the overturning of the Military Commissions Act, which legalizes torture, rescinds habeas corpus and other long-held rights
• Write to Mayors Bertrand Delanoe and Didier Paillard thanking them for their support of Mumia Abu Jamal.

SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL