Archive AAW Statements - AAWFrance .org

INVITE Journée AAW PORTES OUVERTS 22 nov 2008

2008-11-02T01:52:00.000-07:00

AMERICAINS CONTRE LA GUERRE - France
Dans le cadre de la Semaine de La Solidarité International
du 14 au 23 novembre Val de Marne/ Conseil Général Direction de la Jeunesse

AAW VOUS INVITE au

"JOURNEE PORTES OUVERTES"
Thème: "N'ayez pas peur, Venez rencontrer les états-uniens pour la PAIX"

Samedi le 22 novembre, 2008 à IVRY sur Seine
Salle St. Just, 24 rue St. Just
10h à 22h
Métro: Mairie d'Ivry

Eric Schultz et le TENTET IVRY/VITRY le 22 novembre 2008

Matin : rencontre de public, dialogue
Après-midi :

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

"Jazz dans la tradition africaine américaine" - Ensemble d'élèves en formation professionelle soutenu par les conservatoires d'Ivry et de Vitry: 6 soufflants, 4 section rythmique

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

Soir: Buffet Campagnard pour AAW et leurs amis, PARTY TIME !!!!!
Cet événement est gratuit et ouvert au public

Leonard Peltier, Activist

2008-07-31T01:41:00.001-07:00

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.

AAW supports Czech hunger strikers

2008-05-09T23:05:00.000-07:00

AAW supports Czech hunger strikers, Jan Tamas and Jan Bednar, anti-USA missile site militants.

Americans Against the War has sent the following message to Jan Tamas and Jan Bednar militants who will be going on a hunger strike to protest the deployment of a U.S.A missile defense radar site in the Czeck Republic.

Scroll down to read Mr. Tamas's reasons for the hunger stike.

Dear Jan Tamas
Dear Jan Bednar

Please know that Americans Against the War - France totally supports your efforts to stop deployment of a U.S.A. missile defense radar site in the Czech Republic.

aawfrance.org

Hunger strike in the Czech Republic against US National Missile Defense project

Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:00:46 +0200

Dear friends,

We are writing to you to inform you of a very serious issue facing the
Czech Republic and Europe as a continent "EURO" the plan of the current US
administration to install two new military bases in Central Europe as
part of National Missile Defense system of the USA.

For nearly two years we have been involved in a non-violent struggle to
prevent our government from participating in this dangerous project.
However, in spite the fact that two thirds of Czechs oppose this project
our government continues the negotiations with the US government and is
nearing to signing the treaty at the beginning of June. In fact, the
treaty was supposed to be signed by US secretary of state Condoleezza
Rice and the Czech government on May 5. The date has now been postponed
by one month, but the plan remains the same.

Therefore with a couple of friends in the Humanist movement we have
decided to start a hunger strike against this plan. My friend Jan Bednar
and I have started the hunger strike on Tuesday May 13 and we would like
to ask for your support.

We know that there are many people, political parties and organizations
across Europe and the world who disagree with the armament projects of
the current US administration. We believe that you are one of them.
Therefore we would like you to join us in this nonviolent protest.

There are groups in Italy, Germany, Hungary, Spain, United States,
Netherlands, Australia, United Kingdom, Denmark and other countries
already holding events to support our hunger strike, to show solidarity
and to express their opposition to the US Missile Defense project. Most
of them have set up permanent tents where they are collecting signatures
under the online petition www.nonviolence.cz against the radar and some
are even on solidarity hunger strikes themselves. They are in touch with
local media and are informing them about their activity and the dangers
of the missile defense system.

We believe that by acting together we have a possibility to stop this
project. The position of our government is very weak and so strong
international opposition can make them change their position on this
issue. So your help is of importance.

If it is not possible for you to establish a permanent presence
somewhere in your town or city, but still want to support us, please
send us a letter expressing your support and please send letter of
protest to Czech embassy, your government, European parliament, etc.

It is very important that media gives space to our protest.

Thank you for any kind of support and letâEURO(tm)s stop this project together!

Jan TamÃ¡Å¡, jan.tamas@humanisti.cz, +420 776 785 839

Humanist movement
Czech Republic

PETITION: Support Jimmy Carter

2008-04-18T04:26:00.000-07:00

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:

LIBEREZ MUMIA

2008-04-17T11:56:00.001-07:00

FREE MUMIA
Please join AAW and ~80 national and international organizations demonstrating to free Mumia on
Saturday April 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm at
the Place de l'Hotel de Ville,Paris.
Metro Hotel de Ville

The Mumia trial update. April 14, 2008
On March 27, 2008 the U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia reaffirmed the conviction of Mumia Abu-Jamal for the murder of a Philadelphia policeman but stated that he should have a new sentencing hearing. Thus, while the former Black Panther Party spokesman and death row inmate for 25 years has been removed death row for today, this decision makes it possible for him to return.
After previously rejecting his request to present evidence of his innocence, the Court turned down Mumia's request for a new trial thus upholding the 2001 ruling by a federal district judge who ordered a new hearing on the sentence, but limited the choice to life imprisonment without parole ... or execution.
His original 1982 trial and 1995 appeal hearing were such grotesque shams that many in the United States and abroad rallied to support a new trial for the world-renowned radical journalist who has become the symbol of the struggle against the racist legal system which still rages in the United States.
Jeff Mackler of the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal declared that the March 27th decision was a travesty of justice, adding that they'd been hoping that the Third Circuit would order an entirely new trial based on the claim of racial discrimination in jury selection.
TOGETHER, LET'S SAVE MUMIA
Americans Against the War - France. www. aawfrance.org

LIBEREZ MUMIA
Rassemblement
le Samedi 19 Avril à 14:30
Place de l'Hotel de Ville

Venez nombreux au ressemblement pour reclamer la liberation de Mumia Abu Jamal, ex-porte parole de Black Panthers, condané par une justice raciste, prisonier dépuis 25 ans dans les couloirs de la mort des Etats Unies, symbole et hero d'un peuple qui n'a jamais baissé les bras malgré l'esclavage et l'injustice subie dans un systeme qui s'apparante en cruauté et exploitation de l'etre humain à celui de l'appartied Sud Africain.
Les Americains Contre La Guerre - France
Dernieres nouvelles du Process de Mumia par le Collectif Unitaire National de Soutien à Mumia Abu-Jamal.

http://agitlog.zeblog.com/308068-ensemble-sauvons-mumia-abu-jamal/

"La Cour d'Appel Fédérale de 3ème circuit (Philadelphie - Pennsylvanie - USA) vient de rendre son jugement : le procès de 1982 à l'issue duquel Mumia Abu-Jamal a été condamné à mort était entaché de racisme. La Cour reconnaît ainsi que les droits constitutionnels de l'accusé n'ont pas été respectés. De ce fait, elle annule sa condamnation à mort mais confirme sa culpabilité.
Les juges, par deux voix contre une, se prononcent pour un autre procès avec constitution d'un jury qui devra à nouveau statuer sur la sentence. Contrairement à ce qu'annonce de nombreuses dépêches de presse, Mumia Abu-Jamal n'est toutefois pas définitivement à l'abri d'une nouvelle condamnation à mort, ni d'un enfermement à vie.
Et dans l'attente, il ne quittera pas le couloir de la mort !
L'avocat de Mumia Abu-Jamal, Maître Robert R. Bryan, nous a déclaré que cette décision était une demi-victoire qu'il fallait, par la mobilisation internationale, transformer en victoire en rendant justice et liberté à son client.
Dans cette situation, le Collectif Unitaire National (80 organisations françaises) appellent à l'organisation de manifestations de soutien dans toute la France, et ce sous toutes les formes"

A CALL FOR JUSTICE: Monsanto & Co must pay

2008-04-15T00:44:00.000-07:00

A CALL FOR JUSTICE: Monsanto and Company must pay

Seven European associations have signed a statement in support of the Vietnamese Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin and their association VAVA. Several other organizations are joining the appeal and the Danish Vietnamese association has adopted a parallel statement.

We the undersigned in calling for justice for the victims of the chemical Agent Orange, adopt the statement made by the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin 25 February 2008.

On February 22nd, 2008, in New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the March 19, 2005 judgment of the U.S District Court dismissing the lawsuit of Vietnam's Agent Orange victims against the companies who manufactured this deadly chemical.

This is an irrational, biased and unfair decision which does not respond to the reality faced every day by the Vietnamese victims whose suffering is caused by Agent Orange/Dioxin.
The U.S. chemical companies' production and supply of toxic chemicals for U.S forces' use in the Vietnam War continues to cause deadly and long lasting consequences to human health and ecosystems in Vietnam. The U.S chemical companies knew very well that their products were harmful to human health before they were used in Vietnam.

They have ignored the truth and evaded liability for their crimes committed not only against Vietnamese victims, but also against victims in other countries involved in the Vietnam War.
The demands of the victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin are completely legitimate. The Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin have no other option than to continue their fight for justice, and we support their appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Meanwhile we shall campaign to gain stronger support from the whole human community,, including that of the American people.
We ask people of conscience the world over to stand side by side with us in demanding that the producers of these lethal poisons fulfil their legal, spiritual and moral responsibilities for the consequences that they have caused.

The pain suffered by the victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin in Vietnam is the common pain of humanity.
The struggle for justice must prevail.

Signed by:
Association Belgique- Vietnam (Belgium)
Association d’amitié franco-vietnamienne–AAFV (France)
Associazione Nazionale Italia-Vietnam (Italy)
Association Suisse- Vietnam-Vereinigung Schweiz-Vietnam (Switzerland)
Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society (United Kingdom)
Freundschaftsgesellschaft Vietnam (Germany)
Al Burke, Stockholm 2002 Conference co-ordinator (Sweden)

Other endorsments (first list, France ):
Americans Against the War-France (AAW)
Association Républicaine des Anciens Combattants (ARAC)
Comité français du village de Van Canh
Enfants du Monde-Droits de l’Homme
Echanges Provence Asie du Sud-Est Vietnam (EPASEV)
Mouvement de la Paix-France
Mouvement contre le Racisme et pour l’Amitié entre les Peuples (MRAP
Union générale des Vietnamiens de France (UGVF)
Union générale des jeunes Vietnamiens de France (UJVF
Union générale des Etudiants vietnamiens en France (UEVF)
Vietnamitié
__._,_.___

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

2008-04-09T05:53:00.001-07:00

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

Cinq Ans de Trop [Five Years Too Many APJ

2008-03-10T04:01:00.000-07:00

Cinq Ans de Trop
Five Years Too Many

Alertés en 2002 par les agissements militaires des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan, et
consternés par l’imminence d’une incursion armée en Irak, plusieurs états-unisiens de Montpellier et ses alentours se sont associés pour fonder “Les Américains pour la Paix et la Justice” (APJ).

Le samedi 15 mars, l’APJ sera présente sur la Comédie pour une veillée de
protestation à l’occasion de la cinquième année de la guerre et l’occupation de l’Irak.

L’aggression illégale déclenchée par l’administration Bush a pu s’amplifier grâce aux membres du Sénat et de la Chambre de Répresentants qui se sont pliés à cette politique au nom de la “guerre contre le terrorisme”. A présent, la grande majorité des citoyens se prononce contre la guerre, et certains candidats à l’office de Président en prennent leurs distances.

En tant que citoyens et électeurs, les membres de l’APJ sont déçus de la politique affichée par les candidats Démocrates, Mme Hillary Clinton et M. Barack Obama. Nous avons formulé un appel à ces aspirants de bien vouloir préciser leur politique, de se rendre compte de la dévastation faite au peuple et au pays d’Irak, de s’engager dans un plan de retrait avec un calendrier, de penser aux réparations, et d’assurer des soins aux jeunes conscrits américains éprouvés physiquement et moralement par ce service militaire.

La guerre s’enlise et se répand en dépit de la désapprobation croissante aux Etats-Unis et partout dans le monde, y compris - dès le début - la France. Espérons que cette cinquième rassemblement “Non à la Guerre en Irak” puisse être le dernier.

De 15h à 18h, Place de la Comédie, Montpellier
Les Américains pour la Paix et la Justice www.americansforpeaceandjustice.org
Contact: 04 67 60 35 16

Israel unleashes terror on Gaza

2008-03-06T22:17:00.000-08:00

Israel unleashes terror on Gaza
by Matthew Cookson

Israel unleashed terror on the Palestinian people of the Gaza Strip last week, when it launched a military operation including airstrikes.

It claimed it was attempting to stop the Hamas Islamist movement firing rockets into Israel, but its real aim is to crush the Palestinian people’s resistance to their oppression.
Israel murdered over 100 Palestinians, the majority civilians, in the five day assault and injured over 350 people. In contrast, only three Israelis died, including two soldiers and one civilian.

As Israel “withdrew” from Gaza on Monday of this week – just as US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was about to arrive for a two-day visit – its leaders were already pledging further attacks on Gaza.

Prime minister Ehud Olmert said, “We are in the midst of a combat action. What happened was not a one off event.”

Amjad Shawa, Palestinian NGO network coordinator for Gaza, and Mona el-Farra, a doctor at Al Awda hospital in Jabalia refugee camp, spoke to Socialist Worker on Monday of this week.
“These have been very difficult days,” said Amjad. “A huge number of people have been killed, including women, children and disabled people. Many NGOs have been destroyed, such as those that supply medical relief.

“It was a massacre, with no mercy shown towards the children. They were killing our beautiful youth every day. “People went three days without water during the attack. The 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip were already suffering from the Israeli siege that began in 2006. Fuel shortage
“Now it’s getting worse. We are spending most of the day without electricity. There is a shortage of fuel to operate water wells and run ambulances.

“Any new military operation will increase our problems. The Palestinians are facing a catastrophe.”

Mona said, “Last Saturday the hospital received 69 injured people. These casualties were more than the capacity of the hospital’s beds and two operating theatres. Many of the injured had to lie on the floor. We had to evacuate some of the injured people to another hospital. Some were left to bleed until they died because of a lack of resources.
There is little electricity in the Gaza Strip – blackouts are now the rule. The ministry of health is advising people to boil drinking water, as there is no chlorine to treat it. The health of people is deteriorating. On Monday everyone in Gaza went to funerals of those killed in the assault. The Israeli operation did not stop.”

The attack on Gaza is the latest part of the US and Israel’s plans to destroy Hamas. This month’s issue of Vanity Fair magazine reveals how George Bush was outraged when Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006.

He launched a plan to get the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement to prepare a coup against Hamas. This was foiled after clashes that led to Hamas taking control of Gaza in June last year.

“It looks like what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted by Hamas before it could happen,” said David Wurmser, a former adviser to US vice-president Dick Cheney.

“Israel uses the excuse of Palestinian rocket attacks,” said Mona. “But it is trying to hide the fact that the occupation is continuing. Israel stopped directly occupying Gaza in 2004, but it is still controlling our lives by remote control.

“This is a disproportionate war between an army and a people’s resistance. It is the Palestinian people’s right to resist occupation.”

Amjad said, “Israel killed children in its attack. Were they firing rockets from Gaza? No – they were killed because they were Palestinian, because of their identity and nationality.”
Protests

Amjad and Mona are both calling for people in Britain and other countries to show solidarity with the people of Gaza by joining protests, such as the 15 March World Against War demonstrations.

Amjad said, “We are hoping that the people who value justice will act to help us. We need help to get hope for those who are losing some of it every day. People in the prison of Gaza feel alone. And we need to feel that people in Britain are with us.

“Please show your solidarity with the people in Palestine by joining protests in your country. Show Israel that the Palestinians are not alone and that you are against its crimes. Protest for our children and infants.”

Mona said, “Protests against Israel’s attacks are important. They make us feel that we are not alone.”

HANDOUT/KOUCHNER

2007-09-20T04:40:00.000-07:00

BEATING THE WAR DRUMS

Remember 2003? The US, hell bent on war, concocts the lie that Iraq is a "threat", insisting that it possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's denials are ignored by the US, knowing that Iraq cannot do the impossibleand prove a negative. France, represented by President Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, is admired around the world for upholding the UN Charter and condemning the drive to an unprovoked war of aggression.

It is now four and a half years into a brutal US occupation, the horror of which continues today. Years of US bombings, mass slaughter, torture, rape, suffering and misery. One million dead Iraqis. Four million refugees. No weapons of mass destruction.

September 2007. The US, hell bent on war, concocts the lie that Iran is a "threat", insisting that it wants to make a nuclear weapon. Iran's denials are ignored by the US, knowing that Iran cannot do the impossible and prove a negative. The similar feature of this latest manufactured "crisis" is that Iran is portrayed as a villain and a threat, based on no evidence, while the US brandishes its own real weapons and openly threatens Iran with attack.

Unlike the US, Iran has attacked no other country. Iran has occupied no
other country. Iran has threatened no other country. Iran is not bombing
and killing civilians daily. Iran does not think it has the right to dominate the world. The US insists that Iran should stop all uranium-enrichment, despite the fact that Iran's right to engage in this activity is guaranteed under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Teheran insists it only wants to master nuclear technology in order to produce electricity, but Iran is not to be permitted to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes because that does not meet with the approval of the US, an aggressive superpower getting away with both hypocrisy and murder on a global scale.

On 27 August, sixteen days only after his hot-dog lunch with George W. Bush, the newly-minted President Sarkozy declared "there is a catastrophic choice – between an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran". This utterly false "choice" not only is devoid of morality but also ignores the fact that there is no legal reason whatsoever to attack Iran. Rather than confronting the real threat of war by the aggressor, the United States, the French president accepts a future bombing of Iran, the victim, as legitimate. On 16 Sept, the Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, spoke in the same vein by saying "We must prepare for the worst – the worst is war".

It is astonishing that these repugnant statements should have been made in the name of France, the nation which gave the world the declaration on the rights of man, the nation which not so long ago took a moral and independent stand against aggression.
If the possession of nuclear weapons is what truly concerns Nicolas Sarkozy and Bernard Kouchner, they do not explain why they speak of the non-existent nuclear capacity of Iran but remain mute about (1) the existing nuclear arsenal of the US, the most militarily aggressive state in the world; (2) the existing nuclear arsenal of Israel, the most rapacious state in the world, and (3) the existing nuclear arsenal of Pakistan, the most unstable state in the world. The absurdity and hypocrisy is there for all to witness. One may legitimately conclude that their concern has nothing, in fact, to do with nuclear weapons, but everything to do with stepping into the shoes of Tony Blair and his former foreign minister Jack Straw, George W's two ex-poodles.

The world remembers with admiration the moral courage displayed by President Chirac and Dominique de Villepin when they so fully represented the French people's abhorrence of war by refusing to endorse the US attack on Iraq. Some observers had predicted a change in French foreign policy with the arrival of a new president, but few imagined that the change would be so extreme and so noxious.

It is both tragic and deeply disturbing that France, the nation reputed for its tradition of commitment to human rights, should now be aligning itself with the most warmongering US administration in history.

19 September 2007

Americans Against the War - France
www.aawfrance.org

REBUTTAL of BERNARD KOUCHNER's article in the IHT

2007-08-29T02:53:00.001-07:00

REBUTTAL of BERNARD KOUCHNER's article in the IHT
This is a a rebuttal written by one of our active AAW members to which AAW gives it's stamp of approval:

I note that nowhere does Kouchner use the word "occupation" preferring, as he does, "the American presence". The US/UK attack on Iraq was an "intervention".

Some of his statements:
"What can be said about Iraq today? It is a "democratic" country..." Why the quotation marks around "democratic" - Freudian slip?

"Iraq is being ripped apart by a storm of hatred and violence". No, it WAS ripped apart in 2003 by a storm of hatred and violence.

"I went to listen to the candid views of its people ... in order to get a feel for what they think." Not the reason for his visit. Are we to believe that the French Foreign Minister was sitting in the quai d'Orsay scratching his head, wondering how the people felt? and had to go there to get a "feel"?

"The Iraqis have been isolated for too long and feel abandoned by the international community." Seeing as the "international community" means the US and those who support its actions, one can hardly look upon F-16 bombings, mass slaughter, torture, rape, imprisonment and all the rest as isolation and abandonment. The Iraqis would no doubt welcome a bit of the latter.

"I also went to Iraq because I wanted to mark France's return to a place that is vitally important to our future and to that of our children." OUR future and OUR children. No comment.

"Although the invasion ended a brutal dictatorship, the methods used to build a secure and democratic Iraq have failed." Kouchner knows that the aim of the invasion had nothing to do with security or democracy. And the "methods" being used to force the Iraqis to submit to US control were and are of the most brutal kind.

"Yes, France can help to provide a fresh look. ... it can do so because we are the allies - sometimes troublesome, as true friends are - of the Americans." No need for "a fresh look". As such a good ally, Kouchner can push his friends to end the occupation.

"France can help by working with the United Nations and the European Union in the cause of peace." Just as France, together with the UN and EU, are all working for peace in Palestine and Lebanon.

"Iraq's neighbors must also play a credible part in the search for a solution." diplomese for the US line: it's the fault of Syria and Iran.

"The process begun in May in Sharm el-Sheikh is positive; the practical arrangements it provides for must be implemented right away, especially the three working groups that will be dealing with the crucial issues of energy, refugees and security." In that order.

"The dream of an Iraq at peace with itself is not beyond reach. Much effort, clear-headedness and conviction can make it a reality - provided we all have the courage to get the job done." Get the job done. Kouchner knows what "the job" really means but he'll never spell it out, any more than US politicians will.

"If we shy away from this, we can expect the worst." The worst for whom??? It's already the worst for the Iraqi people.

Too many absurdities here - far too many to cover in one letter.

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran

2007-08-29T02:47:00.001-07:00

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.

Middle East Peace Process by Clare Short

2007-07-09T03:39:00.000-07:00

Middle East Peace Process
Clare Short, Birmingham, Ladywood
26th June 2007

at Westminster Hall

I tabled this debate because I visited recently the Palestinian occupied territories with a
delegation organised by War on Want. It consisted of War on Want
staff, myself, and Rodney Bickerstaffe, the former general secretary
of Unison. I am grateful for the opportunity to report on our
findings, and I hope that the Minister will take account of them.

I have previously visited the west bank and Gaza on a number occasions
in the late 1980s and early 1990s, at the time of the first intifada—a
Palestinian uprising involving peaceful disobedience or, at worst,
children throwing stones at soldiers. Despite the injuries inflicted
on children by the Israeli army, the intifada was full of hope, and it
led to the negotiation of the Oslo peace accord and the return of
Yasser Arafat to Palestine. I was hopeful at that time that a
two-state peace—Israel and Palestine—was possible, that the new
Palestinian state would be based on 1967 boundaries with East
Jerusalem as its capital, and that there would be a negotiated
settlement on Palestinian right of return. Those are the three
essential components of a negotiated peace. I was hopeful; but it is
now impossible to believe that there will be such a peace. Instead, I
fear that unless we change policy, we face the prospect of years and
possibly decades of bloodshed and conflict.

I have followed developments in the middle east carefully over many
years, and I was well aware before my recent visit how bad things are
for the Palestinian people. Nevertheless, I was deeply shocked by
Israel's blatant, brutal and systematic annexation of land, demolition
of Palestinian homes, and deliberate creation of an apartheid system
by which the Palestinians are enclosed in four bantustans, surrounded
by a wall, with massive checkpoints that control all Palestinian
movements in and out of the ghettos.

The Israelis are clearly and systematically attempting to take the
maximum amount of land with the minimum number of Palestinians. As
things stand, Israel has taken 85 per cent. of historical Palestine,
leaving the remaining 15 per cent. for Palestinian ghettos. More
shocking than that is that the international community, including the
UK and the EU, does nothing to require Israel to abide by
international law, despite all the claims made about European support
for human rights and international law.

During its visit, the delegation spent a day with the UN Office for
the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is the agency
responsible for humanitarian emergencies. It briefed us on the way in
which the wall, the closures, the settlements and the separate system
of settler roads were imprisoning the Palestinians. It published a map
in the Financial Times to mark the 40th anniversary of the occupation,
which is available for all to see.

The delegation spent the second day of its visit with the Israeli
Committee Against House Demolitions, an organisation that I greatly
admire. The committee took us on a tour of East Jerusalem and showed
us how the combination of formal and informal settlements, and
systematic house demolition, was encircling East Jerusalem and how
that constrained, displaced and ethnically cleansed the Palestinian
population. When we were with ICAHD, we witnessed a house demolition.
A massive machine with "Volvo" emblazoned on its side destroyed a
substantial house that was built by a Palestinian family on their own
land and in territory that belongs to the Palestinians under
international law—formally, it is occupied territory.

Women relatives of the occupants quietly wept at the side of the road.
Later, a young man was held back by his friends—he wanted to throw
himself at the soldiers who were protecting the demolition, to do
something about the destruction of his family home. The representative
of ICAHD, a young Israeli, said that the demolition was, of course, a
war crime. The point about that is that under the Geneva convention,
an occupying power is not entitled to impose new laws or to settle in
occupied territory. Houses are being demolished because Palestinians
do not have permits to build, even on their own land. However, Israel
is not entitled to introduce such a permit system. It never gives a
permit to build a house, or after a house has been built. When
Palestinian families expand, they must live somewhere, but Israel will
never issue a permit because of its determination to drive
Palestinians out of East Jerusalem.

According to ICAHD, Israel has demolished 18,000 Palestinian homes in
the way I described since 1967. Each demolition was a war crime. More
shocking than that is the fact that no action is taken to force Israel
to adhere to international law. Later, the delegation visited a family
whose house had been demolished and rebuilt by volunteers from
ICAHD—Israelis and Palestinians worked together to rebuild a home for
a Palestinian family. ICAHD is committed to acts of peaceful civil
disobedience in order that international law is upheld. The family
said how grateful they were to once again have a home. A Palestinian
who works for ICAHD said that his house had been demolished four
times. He said that most Palestinian homes in Jerusalem were subject
to demolition orders, so everyone lives with the fear and insecurity
that when they arrive home, they might find that their home has been
destroyed. He said that when the Israelis arrive to demolish a
person's house, they give them 15 minutes in which to collect their
family and belongings.

Normally, people refuse to co-operate. The ICAHD worker told me that
in such a situation, the demolition people use tear gas. He told me
that he stood there, with his wife fainting and his children crying
while their property was being thrown out of their house on to the
ground. He said that it made him feel like a useless man who could not
even protect his family in their home, and that three possible courses
of action passed through his mind. First, full of hate and anger, he
thought about obtaining a suicide vest and destroying his own life and
that of others. Secondly, he thought about whether he could get out of
Palestine and Jerusalem, being unable to bear the pressure being put
on him and his family, but that would be to co-operate in the
ethnic-cleansing that he opposed. Thirdly—he said that this kept him
sane—he said he thought about working for ICAHD to rebuild the
demolished homes in peaceful civil disobedience.

I understand that ICAHD has given a pledge to rebuild all the
demolished homes in this, the 40th year of the occupation, and
that—poignantly—an American holocaust survivor is funding the work. I
hope that all people of good will will support ICAHD financially and
politically in that endeavour. Importantly, the organisation brings
radical Israelis and Palestinians together and creates a space for
hope in an otherwise hopeless situation.

The delegation's third day was hosted by the Grassroots Palestinian
Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, which is War on Want's partner in
Palestine. We were briefed about how the closures have destroyed the
Palestinian economy—that has subsequently been underlined by a World
Bank report—and also how more and more Palestinians are forced to work
for the Israeli settlements to produce agricultural products and other
goods that are exported largely to the European market, to which trade
agreements give Israel privileged access. Illegal settlements using
Palestinians as cheap labour is another element of the new apartheid
system in which the EU and the UK fully collude.

The delegation went to visit the Jordan valley with a representative
of the Grassroots Palestinian Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign. The
situation there is truly terrible. All fertile land near the river has
been confiscated by Israel, supposedly for security purposes under the
Oslo peace accords. In the remaining territory, there are occasionally
settlements, some of only one person, which lead to Palestinian
families being removed from their land for security reasons. There are
acres of plastic greenhouses that are organised and worked by settlers
and which are strategically located over water sources. They grow
organic herbs and other agricultural produce for the European market
and yet, when we visited a totally impoverished nearby Palestinian
village, we found that there was no school and, that day, no water—the
one tap in the village gave no water. The impoverished Palestinians
must buy water by the bucket from the settlers.

We visited farming families whose relatives had lived on the land in
the Jordan valley for generations to grow crops, herd sheep and goats,
and to make cheese. They were being threatened and moved constantly as
new settlements of only one or a few people brought in the army, which
claimed that they had to move for security reasons. We stopped to talk
to another family who had a compound at the side of the road. A house
bought for their son and his family on their own land had been
demolished, and their aubergine crop was rotting in a heap in front of
the house because they could not get it to market.

There is terrible poverty and abuse of human rights in the Jordan
valley. The people there are being grossly neglected. I appeal to the
Minister, the Department for International Development and all the
humanitarian and non-governmental organisations to do more in the
Jordan valley—it is in a terrible situation, and more could be done to
bring instant relief.

My conclusion is pessimistic, and the prospect of a two-state solution
is being destroyed. Instead, we are allowing a new, brutal apartheid
regime to be created with the Palestinians being confined to ghettoes
and used as cheap labour by the settlers. The Hamas takeover in Gaza
is not the cause of the problem, but the consequence of it. The
refusal of the UK and the EU to provide aid to the Palestinian
Authority following the Hamas election victory has helped to create
the problem. The arming of Fatah by US and Israeli forces to enable it
to fight Hamas in Gaza made the takeover inevitable. Now it seems that
efforts are to be made to offer money and inducements to President
Abbas to accept the monstrous ghettoes as the promised Palestinian
state. As Uri Avnery, the great Israeli peace campaigner, said, they
want him to act as a quisling, and that will not bring peace.

In conclusion, the situation in the Palestinian territories is deeply
distressing and depressing, and the Government and the EU are
colluding in that oppression and the building of a new apartheid
regime. In particular, Israel has privileged access to the EU market
under a trade treaty that, like all EU trade treaties, contains human
rights conditions. I hope that the Minister will explain why those
conditions are not invoked to insist on Israeli compliance with
international law. That is a big lever, and Israel would be frightened
of losing access to the EU market. I wish that we would make use of
that for everyone's benefit.

I fear continuing bloodshed and suffering, and further destabilisation
of the middle east. The situation in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian
territories is fuelling the anger of the Muslim world, which is acting
as a recruiting sergeant for the ugly ideology of Osama bin Laden and
those who advocate similar ideas.

It is in the interests of the people of Israel, the Palestinians and
the wider middle east that there should be a two-state solution to
bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that possibility
is being thrown away by Israel, which is determined constantly to
expand its borders in total breach of international law. The UK and
the EU are, sadly, colluding in that, and the consequences are causing
terrible suffering, and endangering the future. I truly hope that our
new Prime Minister will reconsider that policy, and that the
Opposition parties will reconsider and bring pressure to bear to bring
the situation back from the brink and to ensure that the centrepiece
of UK policy is a just peace and Israeli compliance with international
law.

The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the right
hon. Lady for initiating this debate and for her comments. I also
thank her for her eye-witness account of the illegal activities of the
Israeli defence forces and others in demolishing houses along the
route of the wall, the barrier or fence, where it incorporates
Palestinian land illegally. I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady
that that not only breaks international law but generates huge
resentment, not just in Palestine but throughout the region. We have
constantly urged the Israelis not to do that, and it is ironic that
lawyers in Israel have given Palestinians their redress only about the
route of the wall. Sometimes that route has been altered as a
consequence of legal action that Palestinians have taken, especially
in and around Jerusalem.

The right hon. Lady's point about generating sympathy for Osama bin
Laden and al-Qaeda is prescient, and we ignore such warnings at our
peril. I take her message about the Jordan valley needing the
attention of the Department for International Development. I, too, was
shocked when I saw the extent to which so much of the Palestinian
economy on the west bank has collapsed. I shall come to Gaza in a
moment.

This is one of those times in history when, from an appalling tragedy
of Palestinians killing Palestinians in Gaza, one hopes that the
Israelis and everyone else will take a real step forward, remove the
barriers on the west bank, and allow people to trade properly. The
right hon. Lady referred to a crop of aubergines that were rotting in
the field, and we have heard such stories so many times.

I understand, as I am sure can everyone, why Israel has built
barriers, and I know why it has built the wall. On my last visit but
one, I went to see some old lefties—I do not know how to describe
them—in a kibbutz up on the old Jerusalem road. Very reluctantly, they
told me that life had become easier since the barrier was built
because they were not worried about their kids going out, as suicide
bombers were finding it much harder to come in from Nablus and other
towns. I tried to argue then, and I argue now, that they will find
ways of getting in and killing innocent citizens, because resentment
will continue to build up unless the core issue is tackled.

Clare Short: I simply want to say that, ugly and regrettable as the
wall is, if it were on the 1967 boundary it would be one thing, but it
is taking great swathes of Palestinian land and dividing communities
from their land. That was found to be illegal by the International
Court of Justice, and there is no excuse for it.

Dr. Howells: The right hon. Lady is absolutely correct. I was quite
shocked even to discuss with Labour Ministers in Israel some time ago
their unwillingness to build tunnels, for example, to join cantons
together. It is hard to believe that a viable state, albeit small,
could emerge from such a geographical configuration. It is difficult
to see how it could work. We must keep pressing the Israelis.

I do not agree with the right hon. Lady about sanctions—she did not
refer to sanctions, but I have heard people talk about them. She
referred to withdrawal of the preferential trade agreement with the
EU. It is a fair subject for debate, although I am sceptical about
making such moves, but that is my subjective assessment. It is a
subject that should be discussed, and it is widely discussed
throughout Europe. I tend to feel that there is already so much
tension and there are so many difficulties that I am not sure that
that would advance the cause of peace.

If the right hon. Lady will allow me, I shall say something about
Gaza, because we share her deep concern about what has happened there.
It is a tragedy, and it underlines the urgent need to maintain
international engagement and the current political processes.

We are also concerned, as is the right hon. Lady, about the welfare of
Alan Johnston, the BBC journalist, whose family must be going through
the most dreadful time. We condemn the release of the latest video,
which can only add further distress to his family and friends. We urge
his captors, as I know does the right hon. Lady, to release him
immediately. There should be a general release of captives on both
sides— Corporal Shalit, the soldiers who were kidnapped by Hezbollah,
the councillors and elected parliamentary representatives of the
Palestinian people. Now is the time to make such moves, and I hope
that after the disaster in Gaza there will be a sense that this
historic opportunity should not be missed, and that misery should not
be heaped on the existing misery.

I also extend our thanks to the Egyptian Government for initiating the
meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday between President Mubarak and
King Abdullah of Jordan, whom I had the privilege of speaking with
just last week. He brought to the situation a sharp series of
observations, which the right hon. Lady complemented today, and he
understands the gravity of the situation. If the west bank
statelet—that group of cantons—fails, one wonders where the conflict
will spread to next. Jordan, with its huge Palestinian population,
would be in grave danger, and King Abdullah is well aware of that. He
was at Sharm el-Sheikh, as were Prime Minister Olmert and President
Abbas.

We welcome Prime Minister Olmert's statement that he will work, with
President Abbas as a true partner, towards the establishment of a
two-state solution and the implementation of the road map. There are
some positive aspects, but I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is
a pretty bleak picture. It is as bleak as I can ever remember it, but
the decision by Prime Minister Olmert to transfer the withheld
revenues is probably a positive step forward, and we look forward to
the implementation of the commitments to increase freedom of movement
and expand trade connections in the west bank. Such actions are not
rocket science; they can easily be done and they could make a big
difference, if only to that family about whom the right hon. Lady
spoke, with their crop of aubergines.

Such actions are vital to the Palestinian people, and they have helped
to improve the humanitarian and economic situation, which is critical.
We welcome Prime Minister Olmert's pledge to ensure the continued
supply of humanitarian aid to Gaza. As the right hon. Lady knows, we
have earmarked funding for that project. It does not address the
central issue that she has raised today, but there is an immediate
humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which the international community must
address. It is important that the international community works
together to help all Palestinian people.

President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad's Government have our full
support, and we share their aim of restoring security and improving
the economic and humanitarian situation. We continue to work with all
people, including President Abbas, who are dedicated to a peaceful
resolution of the conflict.

The right hon. Lady did not mention this point, because time is always
limited in such debates, but President Abbas, among others, has said
that there ought to be an international peacekeeping force in Gaza
certainly, if not on the west bank. I can see the right hon. Lady
shaking her head, and one cannot imagine who would donate the troops
to such a force. They would have to fight their way in, there would be
bloodshed and mayhem on a huge scale, and quite frankly, I cannot see
the idea coming off.

To reinforce what the right hon. Lady said, we must understand the
gravity of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, address it and at the same
time, urge Israel as
hard as we possibly can to think again about its policy of
incorporating Palestinian villages and land within the confines of
that wall. As she said, the Israelis have a perfect right to defend
themselves, and if they want to build a wall, it is up to them, but it
ought to be along the agreed frontier—such as it is—that was defined
in 1967. It ought not to encroach on Palestinian territory.

It is important that we receive such reports in the House. In so many
ways, that is what such debates are for—so that we are reminded
constantly of the reality of what can sometimes look like great,
strategic trends and events on the world stage. However, for the
family whom the right hon. Lady described so vividly, the reality is
that their lives have been shattered. Many other families' lives have
been, too. I have always considered myself to be a friend of the
Palestinian people and the Israeli people. I was brought up in a home
in which the dreams of everybody who was interested in the subject
were about people living alongside each other peacefully, not even in
separate states.

I shall not apportion blame; I have been around too long for that. I
have seen the successive invasions of Israel, and what the Israelis
have done in an attempt to head off what they perceive as threats to
the Israeli heartland, which has usually meant extending territory. My
message to the Israelis is simple; if they are to live in peace side
by side with their neighbours, the Israelis must help them become
viable states with economies that can live in a competitive world.
They need the education, skills, infrastructure and wherewithal to do
all that, but most important, they need the self-respect and dignity
that we enjoy as members of sovereign states.

Clare Short: May I press the Minister to reconsider his view on
Israeli access to the EU market? If we invoked the human rights
conditionality in that treaty, we would have a lever with which to
press Israel to do what he calls for. Does not our failure to use that
leverage mean that we are colluding in the breach of international
law? Will he reconsider his position on that point?

Dr. Howells: I certainly do not believe that we are colluding in any
shape or form. I was going to come to that point, but with respect to
the right hon. Lady, "colluding" is certainly the wrong word to use. I
know that she chose that word very carefully, but I do not think that
it is the right one. I can speak only subjectively from my meeting
with other European Ministers. She, too, met her counterparts from the
EU and other nations many times. There is at one extreme a sense of
hopelessness, which she also described today in a very grim analysis
of the situation. I am at the other extreme. I keep telling myself
that we have material to work with, and that it is a very small part
of the world. What is Gaza? Ten miles wide, and at the most, 35 to 40
miles long. It has a wonderful beach on the Mediterranean, and I
remember vividly the first time I ever walked on it, thinking, "Why is
this a poor part of the world? Why haven't people here got any jobs?"
It seemed mad to me.

The right hon. Lady expressed the hope that my right hon. Friend the
new Prime Minister would take the issue by the scruff of the neck and
try to do something with it. She knows that he has been very
interested for a very long time in trying to work with the Israelis
and the Arab countries in the area to do something about that economy
and that infrastructure. I disagree with her about the effect of that
general sense of good will towards Israel and Palestine—the desire
throughout Europe that there should be a good outcome, and peace and
prosperity in the future. In the end, we disagree about whether
applying a screw to the Israelis on the question of human rights
compliance would achieve a great deal.

We should at every possible opportunity engage the Israelis on human
rights and on compliance with their undertakings, which, as a
consequence, enable them to enjoy access to the European market. We
should talk to them about that, but I have a feeling that there are
already far too many strictures on all sides to add another one. It
would just create more tension, and we should try to build on what we
have, aim for the high ground and figure out how we can get there by
engaging with both sides.

List of DEMS ABROAD

2007-07-05T00:15:00.001-07:00

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

RIVIERA

Samantha Timmerman pisatimm@compuserve.com

SOUTHWEST

Meredith Wheeler mw@meredithwheeler.org

STRASBOURG

Susan Vaillant svaillant@evc.net

PARIS

Chair Joe Smallhoover joe@smallhoover.net
Vice-Chair Connie Borde daf@demsfrance.com
Vice-Chair Anna Marie Mattson ammattson@wanadoo.fr
Vice-Chair Tom O’Neill tom.oneill@noos.fr
Secretary Katharine Chassaing echassaing@noos.fr

Counsel Meredith Gowan Le Goff meredith.legoff@wanadoo.fr
Voter Registration Louise Meyers vote-fr@democratsabroad.org
Young Dems George Shanztek jorgito.sol@gmail.com
Press Coordinator Anna Marie Mattson ammattson@wanadoo.fr

Italy

Country Officers

Chair - Anthony Sistilli
chair@democratsabroad.it

Vice Chair - Jo-Ann White
vicechair@democratsabroad.it

Secretary - Maria Lassila
secretary@democratsabroad.it

Treasurer - Randall Abney
treasurer@democratsabroad.it

Counsel - Peter Alegi
counsel@democratsabroad.it

Chapter Chairs

Rome Chair - Lisa Finerty
chair.rome@democratsabroad.it

Milan Chair - Maria Lassila
chair.milan@democratsabroad.it

Bologna Chair - Liz Kaplan
chair.bologna@democratsabroad.it

Florence Chair - Jo-Ann White
chair.florence@democratsabroad.it

Spain

Chairperson

chair-es@democratsabroad.org

Barcelona

madriddemsabroad@msn.com

Madrid

bcndemsabroad@yahoo.com

Germany

Chair:

chair-de@democratsabroad.org

DA Germany Officers

Vice Chair: Susan Haug
Secretary: Shari Temple dag-secretary@dems-abroad.org
Treasurer: Ron Schlundt
Council: Andy Hoffman

Berlin Chair: Michael Steltzer chair@demsinberlin.de
Frankfurt Chair: Beverly Seebach da-frankfurt@dems-abroad.com
Goettingen Chair: Ben Sandidge
Heidelberg Chair: Charles Keene da-heidelberg@dems-abroad.com
Kaiserslautern Chair: Sudie Nolan-Cassimatis da-kaiserslautern@dems-abroad.com
Munich Chair: Randy Caldwell da-Munich@Dems-Abroad.org
Stuttgart: Dennis O'Donohue da-stuttgart@dems-abroad.com

Iran-contra affair

2007-05-23T01:02:00.000-07:00

Iran-contra affair

Iran-contra affair, in U.S. history, secret arrangement in the 1980s to provide funds to the Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained by selling arms to Iran. The Iran-contra affair was the product of two separate initiatives during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. The first was a commitment to aid the contras who were conducting a guerrilla war against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The second was to placate “moderates” within the Iranian government in order to secure the release of American hostages held by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and to influence Iranian foreign policy in a pro-Western direction.

Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983–85) and John Poindexter (1985–86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo.

In early Nov., 1986, the scandal broke when reports in Lebanese newspapers forced the Reagan administration to disclose the arms deals. Poindexter resigned before the end of the month; North was fired. Select congressional committees held joint hearings, and in Dec., 1986, Lawrence E. Walsh was named as special prosecutor to investigate the affair. Higher administration officials, particularly Reagan, Vice President Bush, and William J. Casey (former director of the CIA, who died in May, 1987), were implicated in some testimony, but the extent of their involvement remained unclear. North said he believed Reagan was largely aware of the secret arrangement, and the independent prosecutor's report (1994) said that Reagan and Bush had some knowledge of the affair or its coverup. Reagan and Bush both claimed to have been uninformed about the details of the affair, and no evidence was found to link them to any crime. A presidential commission was critical of the NSC, while congressional hearings uncovered a web of official deception, mismanagement, and illegality.

A number of criminal convictions resulted, including those of McFarlane, North, and Poindexter, but North's and Poindexter's were vacated on appeal because of immunity agreements with the Senate concerning their testimony. Former State Dept. and CIA officials pleaded guilty in 1991 to withholding information about the contra aid from Congress, and Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary under Reagan, was charged (1992) with the same offense. In 1992 then-president Bush pardoned Weinberger and other officials who had been indicted or convicted for withholding information on or obstructing investigation of the affair. The Iran-contra affair raised serious questions about the nature and scope of congressional oversight of foreign affairs and the limits of the executive branch.

See B. Woodward, Veil (1987); T. Draper, A Very Thin Line (1991).

The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2007, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

2007-05-23T00:30:00.000-07:00

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

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

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”
Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51” and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon.

The subject of the document is entitled “National Continuity Policy.”

It defines a “catastrophic emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.”

This could mean another 9/11, or another Katrina, or a major earthquake in California, I imagine, since it says it would include “localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies.”

The document emphasizes the need to ensure “the continued function of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government,” it states.

But it says flat out: “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.”

The document waves at the need to work closely with the other two branches, saying there will be “a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government.” But this effort will be “coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial
branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.”

Among the efforts coordinated by the President would ensuring the capability of the three branches of government to “provide for orderly succession” and “appropriate transition of leadership.”

The document designates a National Continuity Coordinator, who would be the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Currently holding that post is Frances Fragos Townsend.

She is required to develop a National Continuity Implementation Plan and submit it within 90 days.

As part of that plan, she is not only to devise procedures for the Executive Branch but also give guidance to “state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

The secretary of Homeland Security is also directed to develop planning guidance for “private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators,” as well as state, local, territorial, and tribal governments.

The document gives the Vice President a role in implementing the provisions of the contingency plans.

“This directive shall be implanted in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 USC 19), with the consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved.”

The document also contains “classified Continuity Annexes.”

AAW endorses Boycott of Rolling Stones Concert

2007-05-21T02:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-05-16T22:10:00.000-07:00

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.

If you are simply looking for a little more information about registering yourself as a Conscientious Objector, check out this fact sheet.
Contact your elected representative
Let your elected representatives, including members of Congress and George W. Bush, know what you think about the war.

INFORMATION FOR SUPPORTING G.I.s AND YOUNG PEOPLE CONSIDERING CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO WAR

Counsel for GIs seeking discharge for reason of conscience:

The GI Rights Hotline provides advice to GIs on how to work through conscientious objection (C.O.) legalities. Each branch of the military has its own set of rules on C.O. discharges, and proper legal and other advice is essential to navigate the processes for a release.

The GI Rights Hotline for free advice and counsel can be reached at:
1 800 FYI 95GI (1 800 394 9544)

Outside the U.S. call 215-563-4620 or email : girights@objector.org

This group can also be connected with at www.objector.org
(Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors or CCCO), 215-563-8787 or info@objector.org

Counsel to those who have enlisted but not yet reported:

The military commonly uses Delayed Enlistment Program (DEP) to sign up young people while still in high school or too young to actually enlist. Most young people think that once they have signed up in the DEP that they cannot get out. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. It is relatively easy to get out of a DEP agreement. If you know of someone who has signed up but
changed their mind and not reported, have them call the American Friends Service Committee-Denver office at 303 623 3464. Once they take the induction physical, swear the oath of enlistment, or climb on the bus to report it becomes much more difficult to get out....so don't do any of these things without seeking advise first.

CO Counseling prior to enlistment in the military:

The Roaring Fork Peace Coalition has a video tape from Veterans for Peace entitled How to Be a Conscientious Objector to War. rfpc@sopris.net

American Friends Service Committee www.afsc.org

Center on Conscious and War www.nisbco.org

Central Committee For Conscientious Objectors www.objector.org
Washington Truth in Recruiting www.watir.org

Veterans for Peace www.veteransforpeace.org

Many churches have offices for conscientious objector support including
offering to serve as depositories of C.O. personal files:

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society, Wash, DC
American Baptist Church, Board of National Ministries, Valley Forge, PA
Southern Baptist Executive Committee, Nashville, TN
Church of the Brethren, Office of Brethren Witness, Elgin, IL
Episcopal Church, Registrar for Conscientious Objectors, NY, NY
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Commission on Church and Society, Chicago, IL
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), Friends General Conference (contact local meetings)
Friends United Meeting, Peace Board, Richmond, IN
Mennonite Central Committee, U.S. Peace Section, Akron, PA
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Office of State Clerk, Louisville, KY
Roman Catholic Church (contact your local diocesan Peace and Justice office)
Unitarian-Universalist Association, Registry of Conscientious Objectors, Boston, MA

Many other religious and faith bodies have supported C.O.s in prior wars. As with Christianity, many branches of Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim communities and many others have common
beliefs in non-violence. So if your faith tradition is not listed, don't assume it would not support C.O.

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

2007-05-05T07:14:00.000-07:00

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 opposition au candidat à l'élection présidentielle Nicolas Sarkozy

2007-05-05T05:53:00.000-07:00

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 Day in the USA: A Forgotten History

2007-04-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

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.

Was this a Pro-War Vote ?

2007-03-24T03:26:00.000-07:00

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

The Supplemental spending bill proposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi funds
the war. It gives Cheney and Bush roughly another $100 billion. And
you can be quite sure they will spend it as they choose, which may
include attacking Iran. In fact, a measure in the bill requiring Bush
to get Congress's approval before attacking Iran (an attack that would
violate the US Constitution and the UN charter) has been removed.

The bill also requires Iraq to turn much of its oil profits over to
foreign corporations. This illegally rewards the Bush and Cheney gang
for their illegal war.

Beyond that, the bill does a number of things to nudge Bush in the
direction of limiting the war, but most of them are for show.

This bill pretends to ban torture. Torture was always illegal. The
framers of our Constitution sought to leave such practices behind in
England. The US is a party to international treaties banning all
torture. Nonetheless, the last Congress, the Republican Congress,
banned torture, and Bush used a signing statement to announce his
intention to ignore the ban. Now Pelosi wants credit for pretending to
ban torture again. You cannot ban torture under a dictator who has
publicly announced that he will ignore your bans. You can only end
torture by ending the pretense that there is not a dictator living in
the Vice President's house.

The bill also intends to pretend to limit how many days a soldier or
Marine can be kept in Iraq. The Republican Congress did this in 2003,
and Bush threw it out with a signing statement.

Some previous presidents had used signing statements, but never to
announce their intention to disobey the law. And in many cases,
including the two I've just mentioned, we know that Bush has in fact
disobeyed those laws.

And don't imagine that Nancy Pelosi is unaware of this. She's a step
ahead of you. She's included in the bill a right for the president to
waive the restrictions. So, this time, no signing statement will be
needed. Instead we'll get a waiver. I'm sure that'll make the soldier
on his or her third tour of Iraq feel better when they're told that
they're going to stay a little longer this time. In polls last year our
troops in Iraq said they wanted to all come home last year.

What else does the Pelosi bill do? Well, it requires Bush to report
periodically that progress is being made, and then at sometime next
year, depending on what Bush claims, it requires at least some troops to
move to Afghanistan. Congressman Obey says that's where the war should
be. The bill says nothing about bringing anyone home, and nothing about
leaving no permanent bases in Iraq. In fact, it includes so many
loopholes - for protecting bases, protecting other troops, training
Iraqis - that most US troops will be able to stay in Iraq forever.

That doesn't sound like much of an anti-war bill. It gets worse. The
two most disturbing things about the bill to my mind are the way it
treats the president and the way it throws in unrelated benefits in
order to bribe various congress members to support it. The bill asks
Bush to report on progress in Iraq. A reporter asked Pelosi if there
was any mechanism for determining whether Bush tells the truth. Pelosi
replied that she was sure he would.

There's that pretense again, that everything-is-normal
it-can't-happen-here pretense.

The bill also includes many measures that could easily be addressed in
other bills, many of them worthwhile and long overdue, including aid to
veterans, Katrina victims, farmers. The dishonesty involved in packaging
a war bill this way was made clear when Congressman Obey yelled at
military mother Tina Richards that she needed to support this bill or
she would be opposing health care for veterans. In the last Congress,
Obey declined to support a bill to provide health care to veterans.

Barbara Lee's amendment takes a different approach, one that does not
involve micromanaging the war or funding it. The amendment would
restrict spending to withdrawing troops. We have a list of which
members are saying they will vote No on the supplemental unless it has
Lee's amendment:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/19669

These are our heroes. These are the only members of Congress who are
genuinely acting in support of our troops.

If Pelosi's bill passes and survives in a recognizable form following a
conference committee, Bush has promised to veto it. But there's a
decent chance he'll "signing statement" it instead. He wants the money,
and he knows Pelosi won't fight for the toothless restrictions in the
bill if he deletes them with a signing statement. To do so, she would
have to call him a criminal.

Instead, she's already saying that if her bill does not pass, she'll
have to support one the Republicans like, one with no limitations at
all. But it is not true that she'll have to do that. She can support a
bill like Lynn Woolsey's or Dennis Kucinich's or Jerrold Nadler's or Jim
McGovern's and pressure conservative Democrats to join the rest of her
caucus.

She will be compelled to do so by public opinion if the Progressive
Caucus stands strong.

Voting for her war bill would only encourage her to come back with a
worse one once it fails. And if Lee's amendment gets a vote and
progressives vote for it, that will not be seen as any excuse for then
turning around and voting to fund the war.

The groups that have not recognized any excuses for voting for this war
bill include United for Peace and Justice, Progressive Democrats of
America, US Labor Against the War, After Downing Street, Democrats.com,
Peace Action, Code Pink, Democracy Rising, True Majority, Gold Star
Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Backbone Campaign, Iraq
Veterans Against the War, Voters for Peace, and disgruntled former
members of MoveOn.

The public is already seeing through the charade. The Pelosi bill will
be remembered as the pro-war vote, the vote in which the Democrats
bought and became owners of the war, unless the Progressive Caucus stops
it. Those who stop it will be our heroes and will have earned the power
to lead the way toward a better bill. We are going to remember who
votes No, who votes Yes, who votes Present, and who does not vote. This
one is going to be carved in stone for posterity. This is the vote you
get elected in order to make.

GLOBAL CALLS

2007-03-22T00:54:00.001-07:00

GLOBAL CALLS FOR ACTION in 2007

IRAN - 2007

Don't Attack Iran Petition

IRAQ - March 2007, 4th year US in Iraq

GUANTANAMO - January 11, 2007

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

MUMIA ABU JAMAL - December 9, 2006

CALLS FOR ACTION in US in 2007

PETITION: Tell Amazon to Treat Carter's Book Fairly

FOR Active Duty, Reserve, and Guard personnel

Appeal for Redress

IMPEACHMENT - Nationwide Day of Protest -April 28, 2007

CALLS FOR ACTION in EUROPE in 2007

IRELAND - March 24, 2007

ITALY -U.S. Citizens for Peace & Justice - Rome
U.S. Embassy, Rome, Italy
Tuesday, March 20, 4:30-6:30pm
_____________________________________________________________________

French Anti-War Event

2007-03-18T02:38:00.000-07:00

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

TROUPES AMERICAINES HORS D’IRAK
US GO HOME

Dans un contexte international et régional caractérisé par l’hégémonie impérialiste américaine et devant le désastre provoqué par l’occupation américaine de l’IRAK :

- Des centaines de milliers de victimes civiles Irakiennes (Plus de 650.000, selon les derniers rapports de l’ONU) et plus de deux millions de réfugiés.
- Une destruction systématique des infrastructures vitales pour la population
- Une guerre civile fomentée par une politique de division institué depuis la constitution imposée par l’occupant
- Des milliers d’hommes et de femmes emprisonnés arbitrairement, des exécutions sommaires et des crimes impunis commis par l’armée d’occupation.
Nous organisons un :

Meeting de soutien au peuple irakien
Le 23 Mars 2007 à La Bourse de Travail de Paris.
3, rue Château d’eau. Métro République.
Avec la Participation de George GALLOWAY

Sous les mots d’ordre suivants :
- Contre la guerre et l’occupation
- Pour un retrait immédiat de toutes les forces d’occupation de l’Irak
- Pour le droit du peuple irakien à la résistance contre l’occupation
- Pour le droit des irakiens à l’autodétermination, à la paix et à la souveraineté
- Pour la création d’un tribunal international pour juger les responsables des crimes de guerre en Irak.

Les Premiers signataires :
Rencontre Culturelle Euro-Arabe – Union des Travailleurs Immigrés Tunisiens Pidf (UTIT) – Agir contre la guerre – Association des Tunisiens en France (ATF) – Association Des Travailleurs Maghrébins en France (ATMF) - Convergence des causes – Appel Franco-Arabe – Les Indigènes de la république – Forum Social Iranien – PCOT – La Gauche Communiste du PCF- Fédération des Tunisiens Citoyens des deux Rives (FTCR)- Commission arabe des droits de l’homme - Elkarama.

Pour la création d’un tribunal international pour juger les responsables des crimes de guerre en Irak.

LIBBY - GUILTY !

2007-03-07T00:44:00.000-08:00

See NBC Video

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

The 1st AAW French Fries Award

2007-02-21T10:10:00.000-08:00

Nominations are now officially closed
and our judges are deliberating on the winners of the coveted Golden Fry,
or, as we say in French, La Frite d’Or.

AAW France is planning a special Paris Event to commemorate the lamentable 4th year anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq. Rather than marching on the streets, we thought it would be better to engage in a bit of satirical street theater.

So with tongue in cheek we are going to hold a French Roast...

The 1st AAW French Fries Awards
Saturday March 17, 2007

With a special Walter B. Jones Award

Walter B. Jones is the congressman who is best known for leading the effort to have french fries renamed "freedom fries" in House cafeteria menus as a protest against French opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Congressman Jones (R-NC) has now done an about-face concerning the Iraq War, he regrets his "freedom fries" initiative and more importantly he was a co-sponsor on the recent House bill, Resolution 63, opposing the surge or escalation of troops in Iraq and was one of 10 Republicans to vote their opposition to Bush.

The 1st AAW French Fries Awards is a Traveling Show
By popular demand we will be performing in 2 places on Saturday

1st Performance : 1p.m. to 3p.m. (in both English and French)
Place: parvis Centre Pompidou-Beaubourg
Metro/RER : Rambuteau or Châtelet Les Halles

This 1st and original event is an "all-American" sponsored event.
Americans Against the War France (AAW France) and
Americans for Peace and Justice (APJ) Montpellier

2nd Performance : 3p.m. to 5p.m.
Place: Trocadéro, parvis de la Droit de l'Homme
Metro: Trocadéro

AAW France is a co-sponsor of this larger event with
Le Mouvement de la Paix , MRAP and other French groups

US Citizens : your presence at these events is vitally important.

We ask that you to make an effort in terms of dress to make a visual impact, the press will be there. Style: Over-the-Top, the more outrageous the better ! On the day, we will need volunteers and lots of audience participation, noise-makers,

This is the 1st AAW French Fries Awards Ceremony
Let's make it the last.

Stay tuned to this website for the latest news.

To Ambassador Ronald Spogli,Florence, February 12, 2007

2007-02-16T15:58:00.000-08:00

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

Distinguished Ambassador,

As US citizens in Italy, we write to ask you to put an end to our Embassy's meddling in Italy's political affairs.

Your letter, signed by four other ambassadors and designed to put pressure on the Italian government to continue its participation in the war in Afghanistan, was an unheard of and unacceptable interference by the US Embassy in the democratic process of this country, as well as being offensive to the great majority of Italians who, as shown in the opinion polls, have expressed their desire that Italian troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan in accordance with Art. 11 of the Constitution which declares that Italy repudiates war as a means of resolving international conflicts.

A few days later, the US Embassy committed a second serious blunder. It addressed to US citizens in Italy a letter warning of the potential dangers for those of us intending to demonstrate in Vicenza on February 17, together with Italian citizens, against the creation of a US megabase, the largest offensive base abroad. This demonstration is described as "anti-American" in the letter, which advises us to stay away from the city from 16 to 18 February so as to avoid becoming "targets of anti-American demonstrators".
The contents of the letter do not correspond to reality, they disseminate fear and ignorance, and insult the intelligence of the Americans in Italy and the democratic reality of Italian society.

First of all, the February 17 demonstration is not anti-American; it is a protest against the US government's request to build a new US megabase in the vicinity of Vicenza's city centre, a city recognized by UNESCO as part of humanity's cultural heritage. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Vicenza and of Italy as a whole do not want yet another US base (there are already about 20 US military installations in the country). On 2 December 2006, some 30,000 people demonstrated in Vicenza against the base - a colorful and peaceful march in which US citizens from Florence and Rome participated without experiencing any "anti-American" incidents whatsoever. Indeed, our presence there was much appreciated.

To distribute a letter to US citizens saying that they incur dangerous risks in Italy because of a political demonstration is a barely veiled attempt to discourage or indeed to silence those who wish to express their disapproval of the Bush administration's policies of war and occupation.
As Ambassador, you do of course represent the Bush and Cheney administration. However, the last mid-term elections in the USA demonstrated that this government no longer represents the majority of the population, especially as concerns foreign policy and war. US society is sick of militarism and increasingly our compatriots are saying: Enough!

At the demonstrations against the bases, in Vicenza, Camp Darby, Aviano, Sigonella, at the anti-war demonstrations in Italy, in so many other countries as well as the USA (were the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Washington and other US cities on January 27 dangerous "anti-Americans"?) people are protesting not against the American people but against the violence of the war and military occupation, not just in Iraq (more than 655,000 dead since the start of the war) but also in Afghanistan and Palestine. They protest against the military takeover of the land and the economy, against the presence of foreign bases with their stocks of nuclear weapons and depleted uranium. Amnesty International demands the closing down of Guantanamo and all secret prisons and a halt to the secret CIA flights (as in the Abu Omar case), as well as an end to the practice of torture and the violation of human rights. Are these demands "anti-American"? They ask for another world, with a new culture of peace and global justice.

We, US citizens in Italy, like millions of our compatriots in the USA, oppose the policy of waging wars abroad and the abrogation of civil rights at home, pursued by the Bush and Cheney administration while serious social problems are ignored. In the USA we have the worst health system in the western world, with some 50 million people not covered by any medical insurance. We have the highest number of prisoners in the world (we represent 5% of the global population and have 25% of the world's prisoners), with more than 4,000 on Death Row. We demand funds not for the armed forces but for health, schools, the environment, jobs, urban renewal, public transport, and solidarity with the rest of the world.

Forty years ago during the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King said "We are at a point in our lives when each of us needs to act so that our country survives its own folly. All those with human convictions must decide what form of protest is most appropriate for them, but we must all protest". He added “There comes a time when silence is treachery.”
We, US citizens in Italy, will be in Vicenza on February 17 because for us the demonstration against the base and against wars is also a show of support to the majority of US citizens who want to see a change of direction in US foreign and domestic policy.

We therefore ask you to send a further letter to our compatriots in Italy to say that the February 17 protest in Vicenza, far from demonstrating "anti-Americanism" - a sentiment not widely shared in Italy and especially not amongst those who are for peace – is in fact a fine example of the exercise of fundamental democratic rights, in which US citizens in Italy are invited to participate and will participate.

YOURS IN PEACE
US Citizens Against the War (Florence) comiraqusa@yahoo.it
US Citizens for Peace and Justice (Rome) info@peaceandjustice.it
http://www.peaceandjustice.it

P.S. We take this opportunity to recall that the case of the murder in Baghdad of the Italian agent Nicola Calipari and the attempted murder of Giuliana Sgrena is not yet closed. We ask that the full cooperation of our government be extended to the Italian legal authorities.

Abolish the Death Penalty, February 2, 2007

2007-02-02T04:45:00.000-08:00

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

More than 3,000 prisoners sit on Death Row in America, awaiting the day when they will be electrocuted or poisoned to death by lethal injection. Mumia Abu Jamal is perhaps the best-known resident of Death Row. Like the prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, he has never had a just trial. Unlike the unfortunates languishing in those 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 policeman, even though the evidence did not show his guilt), the trial judge was biased against him, and he had inadequate legal representation. Nevertheless, he was convicted and sentenced to death. Many other Death Row inmates have similar stories, and numbers have been put to death with the evidence used to convict them proven false after they have already been killed.

During the 25 years Mumia 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, for the death penalty to be abolished.

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 so many people on Death Row), a battery of lawyers and officials from Philadelphia charged Paris and St. Denis with a “crime of denial” and demanded (unsuccessfully) that the honors bestowed upon Mumia be withdrawn.

Americans Against the War (AAW) France salutes France for having abolished the death penalty and salutes the cities of Paris and St. Denis for taking such principled actions. AAW calls upon those concerned about the rights of all prisoners to:

Write to elected officials in countries having the death penalty and demand its abolition

Write to American Congressional representatives demanding the overturning of the Military Commissions Act, which legalizes torture and rescinds habeas corpus and other long-held prisoners' rights

Write to the Mayor of Philadelphia urging a new and just trial for Mumia

Write to Mayors Bertrand Delanoe and Didier Paillard thanking them for their support of Mumia Abu Jamal.

Americans Against the War France
www.aawfrance.org

en français: Abolir la peine de mort

2007-02-02T04:38:00.000-08:00

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

Plus de 3000 prisonniers sont dans les couloirs de la mort en Amérique, attendant le jour où ils seront électrocutés ou empoisonnés par injection mortelle. Mumia Abu Jamal est peut-être le plus connu d’entre eux. Comme les prisonniers de Guantanamo et d’Abu Ghraib, il n’a jamais été jugé de façon équitable. Certes - et contrairement aux malheureux qui languissent dans ces geôles barbares (dont le seul tort est pour la plupart de s’être trouvés au mauvais endroit au mauvais moment) -, Mumia a eu un procès. Mais les témoins ont retourné leurs vestes sous la pression de la police (il est déclaré coupable du meurtre d’un policier, bien que sa culpabilité n’ait pas été prouvée), le juge n’était pas impartial, et l’avocat qu’on lui a assigné d’office n’a pas été à la hauteur, ce qui est souvent le cas des afro-américains comme lui. Il a donc été condamné à mort. Son histoire ressemble aux histoires de plusieurs autres personnes incarcérés dans les couloirs de la mort, dont plusieurs ont été exécuté, les témoignages contre eux s’étant révélés faux après leur exécution.

Voilà 25 ans que Mumia Abu Jamal croupit derrière les barreaux à Philadelphie et que le monde entier est interpellé par ses articles, livres et essais radiodiffusés où il parle avec passion de ce qui se passe dans les couloirs de la mort, des conditions inhumaines des prisons, du racisme, des horreurs de la guerre en Irak, de la régression des libertés en Amérique. Des milliers de personnes dans tous les pays se sont mobilisées pour demander sa remise en liberté, un procès convenable, la commutation de sa condamnation à mort, l’abolition de la peine de mort.

Parmi les quelque vingt-cinq villes de par le monde qui ont rendu hommage à sa résistance sans faille contre l’injustice, Paris a décerné le titre de Citoyen d’honneur à Mumia et à Saint-Denis une rue de la ville porte son nom. Parce que ces marques de reconnaissance stigmatisent un système judiciaire capable de maintenir 3 000 personnes dans les couloirs de la mort, une armée d’avocats, de policiers et d’élus de Philadelphie ont déclaré Paris coupable d’ « apologie du crime » et ont exigé (en vain) que les marques d’honneur décernées à Mumia soient nulles et non avenues.

Nous, Américains contre la guerre (AAW) France, remercions la France d’avoir aboli la peine de mort et saluons les villes de Paris et de Saint-Denis d’avoir agi en vertu de principes justes. AAW appelle tous ceux qui sont concernés par les droits des prisonniers :

- d’écrire aux élus des pays où sévit encore la peine de mort pour demander l’abolition de celle-ci
- d’écrire aux représentants du Congrès des Etats-Unis pour exiger l’annulation de l’Acte des commissions militaires qui légalise la torture, fait fi de l’Habeas Corpus et d’autres droits fondamentaux
- d’écrire au maire de la ville de Philadelphie pour que Mumia bénéficie d’un procès équitable
- d’écrire à Bertrand Delanoë, maire de Paris, et à Didier Paillard, maire de Saint-Denis, pour les remercier de s’être joints à la défense de Mumia Abu Jamal.

Americans Against the War (AAW) France
www.aawfrance.org

Bush Says Surge/ January 27, 2007

2007-01-27T04:56:00.000-08:00

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 longer the U.S. stays in Iraq, the worse the situation becomes for the Iraqi people, the U.S. troops, Americans stateside, and the peoples of the Middle East, while those who benefit are Bush and Co and their corporate cronies.

Americans Against the War calls upon:
The people of France to demand that their government urge the U.S. to pull out of Iraq now, and that it cease threatening Iran

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.

Americans Against the War (France)
www.aawfrance.org

Cessons la guerre /January 27, 2007

2007-01-26T06:43:00.000-08:00

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.

Plus les Américains restent en Irak, pire est la situation pour le peuple irakien, pour les troupes américaines, pour les citoyens américains, pour les peuples du Moyen Orient, au bénéfice du gouvernement Bush et les corporations auxquelles il est étroitement lié.

Les Américains Contre la Guerre demande :

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 » .

Rejoignez AAW samedi 27 janvier entre 15 et 17 heures à La Fontaine St Michel, place St. Michel, pour faire cesser la guerre et demander le retrait immédiat des troupes.

Américains contre la guerre
www.aawfrance.org

AAW Letter in support of Jimmy Carter ,January 15, 2007

2007-01-20T04:32:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-12-10T03:45:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-29T00:17:00.001-08:00

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.

Vote Against War

2006-11-29T00:11:00.000-08:00

Vote Against War
November 7, 2006

George Bush calls himself the War President, and indeed he has relentlessly waged a war in Iraq that has claimed more than 650,000 lives. But despite his unprecedented powers, he didn’t do it alone. Hundreds of senators and members of Congress voted him funding—$339,970,200 has been spent thus far—for this illegal war and occupation, and granted him supra-legal war powers, including the right to authorize torture and allow spying on his own citizens.

Americans Against the War (AAW) France calls on all those going to the polls today to vote only for candidates who are categorically against the ongoing war and occupation of Iraq and who vehemently oppose military intervention in Iran. If no such candidate is in the running, then AAW calls on voters to abstain.

That way candidates and elected officials will get the message: Americans want the war ended now; we don’t want to be involved in any other illegal wars of intervention; we want the war coffers to go toward improving schools, health care, housing; we want justice and human rights restored; and we want the war profiteers—the Bush cabinet and their corporate cronies—behind bars.

* VOTE ONLY FOR ANTIWAR CANDIDATES

* ABSTAIN IF NONE IS IN THE RUNNING

* TELL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHY YOU VOTED AS YOU DID

Sanctions against Israel

2006-11-09T09:30:00.000-08:00

SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL

The trampling of the self-determination of peoples is at the heart of this war, another farce of colonial history. The Western powers want to destroy and “save” at the same time, and what is worse, they are convinced that they can succeed. More than a thousand Lebanese are dead, a third of them children, and the defenders of Israel’s “right to self-defence” are still considered “peace partners.” The Lebanese government proposes their plan for a cease-fire with the immediate agreement of Hezbollah, and France, the US and Russia cover up their ears and trumpet louder the advantages of their own projects. The Lebanese unite around their national resistors, the only ones to keep Israel from winning its war of aggression, and the “international community” evokes the famous Resolution 1559 or the disarming of the resistors, even as far as promising with great emotion and condescendence its “UN forces” to sit on Lebanese land and replace the Lebanese resistance.
The Resolution 1559, rejected by the Lebanese government from the beginning, has never been in the interest of the Lebanese people. Nevertheless, the Hezbollah agreed this week to have the Lebanese army deployed in the South if only Israel would leave Lebanon. The message is clear: no one in Lebanon wants this war.
But Palestinians are also being massacred daily with impunity, and this for too long. No lasting peace will see the day as long as Israel refuses to respect its own borders and the UN Resolutions that concern Israel, notably 242 and 338, which call for the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967.
“We are not asking you to participate in the war. But you have the means and the influence to impose the Lebanese peace plan,” declared the President of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri to the Ministers of the Arab League August 7, 2006. His words reflect the depth of the current drama. The “international community” feeds the fire on one side, with a financial and moral support of Israel without which Israel could never continue its aggression. On the other side, it plays fireman.
What to do, then, to stop the massacres in Lebanon and Palestine? One answer is so simple, yet apparently so difficult to conceive: stop supporting Israel.

Sanctions contre Israël

Au cœur de cette guerre est le mépris de l’autodétermination des peuples, encore une farce de l’histoire coloniale. L’Occident veut détruire et « sauver » au même temps, et ce qui est pire, il se convainc qu’il réussisse. Plus que mille Libanais morts dont un tiers les enfants, et les avocats de « l’autodéfense d’Israël » restent des « partenaires de paix ». Le gouvernement libanais propose son projet de cessez-le-feu avec l’accord immédiat du Hezbollah, et la France, les Etats-Unis et la Russie couvrent les oreilles et crient plus fort les avantages de leurs propres projets. Les Libanais se réunissent autours de leurs résistants nationaux, seuls à faire échouer l’agression des Israéliens, et la « communauté internationale » évoque la fameuse Résolution 1559 ou le désarmement des résistants, jusqu’à promettre avec beaucoup d’émotion et condescendance les « forces de l’ONU » pour remplacer sur terre libanaise sa propre résistance.
La Résolution 1559, rejetait par le gouvernement du Liban dès le départ, n’a jamais était dans l’intérêt du peuple libanais. Malgré cela, le Hezbollah s’est mis d’accord cette semaine pour que l’armée libanaise se déploie dans le sud si seulement Israël quittait le Liban. Le message est clair : personne au Liban ne veut cette guerre.
Mais les Palestiniens aussi sont massacrés quotidiennement avec impunité, et ceci depuis longue date. Nulle paix durable ne verra le jour tant qu’Israël refuse de respecter ses frontières et les Résolutions lui concernant, notamment 242 et 338, qui demandent le retrait des israéliens des territoires palestiniens occupés depuis 1967.
« Nous ne vous demandons pas de participer à la guerre. Mais vous avez les moyens et l’influence nécessaire pour imposer le plan de paix libanais, » a déclaré le président du Parlement libanais Nabih Berri aux ministres de la Ligue arabe le 7 août 2006. Ses mots reflètent le profondeur du drame actuel. La « communauté internationale » nourrisse le feu d’un côté, avec un soutien financier et moral à Israël sans quoi l’Israël ne pourrait jamais continuer ses agressions. De l’autre côté, elle joue au pompier.
Alors que faire pour empêcher ces massacres au Liban et en Palestine ? Une réponse est si simple et pourtant si difficile à concevoir : arrêter de soutenir Israël.

Archive AAW Statements - AAWFrance .org

INVITE Journée AAW PORTES OUVERTS 22 nov 2008

Leonard Peltier, Activist

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

AAW supports Czech hunger strikers

PETITION: Support Jimmy Carter

LIBEREZ MUMIA

A CALL FOR JUSTICE: Monsanto & Co must pay

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

Cinq Ans de Trop [Five Years Too Many APJ

Israel unleashes terror on Gaza

HANDOUT/KOUCHNER

REBUTTAL of BERNARD KOUCHNER's article in the IHT

Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran

Middle East Peace Process by Clare Short

List of DEMS ABROAD

Country Officers

Chair:

DA Germany Officers

Iran-contra affair

Bush Anoints Himself as the Insurer of Constitutional Government in Emergency

AAW endorses Boycott of Rolling Stones Concert

How do I register as a Conscientious Objector?

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

Petition opposition au candidat à l'élection présidentielle Nicolas Sarkozy

May Day in the USA: A Forgotten History

MAY 1, 2007

May Day in the USA: A Forgotten History

by Michael Thomas

Was this a Pro-War Vote ?

GLOBAL CALLS

French Anti-War Event

LIBBY - GUILTY !

The 1st AAW French Fries Award

To Ambassador Ronald Spogli,Florence, February 12, 2007

Abolish the Death Penalty, February 2, 2007

en français: Abolir la peine de mort

Bush Says Surge/ January 27, 2007

Cessons la guerre /January 27, 2007

AAW Letter in support of Jimmy Carter ,January 15, 2007

Kofi Annan's last address to US

MCKINNEY'S FULL REMARKS ON BUSH IMPEACHMENT BILL

Justice for Mumia Abu Jamal, Justice for Prisoners in Iraq

Vote Against War

Sanctions against Israel

SANCTIONS AGAINST ISRAEL

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