Companies still in Burma should put up or get out

No one likes to say so, but ethics is hit or miss in the business community.

Last October, while the Burmese military junta was suppressing protests by Buddhist monks against rising fuel costs, World Report named five Canadian companies doing business with the regime: CHC Helicopter Corporation (Richmond, BC), Ivanhoe Mines (Vancouver), Jet Gold Corp (Vancouver), Leeward Capital Corp (Calgary), and Taiga Consultant Ltd (also Calgary). The Burma Campaign for Human Rights and Democracy in Burma still lists those companies on its dirty list. The Bank of Nova Scotia remains the only Canadian company to have either pulled out or made a principled decision not to become involved.

Folks dreaming of a Democratic victory in the US elections this year may recall that at that time, John McCain introduced a bill in the Senate to ban Chevron from continuing to hold a minority stake in the Yadana gas field in southern Burma. So Republican-style conservatives do not object to telling the lean mean private sector where to get off.

While French President Sarkozy indicated that he did not want Total, the main company behind the Yadana project, to increase its activities, France moved to protect investments the company had already made. French officials insisted that EU sanctions should not hurt Total's operations.

Revenues from gas, $2 billion in 2006, provide the largest source of income for the Burmese military. Most of that gas originates from Yetagun and Yadana.

Both India and China are keen to get their hands on Burma's oil and gas and both have invested in developing infrastructure there. There was some early suggestion, in the wake of Cyclone Nargis that the Chinese might prevail on the Burmese to let in UN relief workers. But neither the government nor its companies had any discernible effect.

According to der Spiegel, "India is also looking for military help from Burma to control its unruly minorities in its remote north-east corner.

EU governments banned Burmese imports of precious metals, gemstones and timber and restricted banking and financial transactions involving Burmese authorities or companies. But the failed to prevent the Burmese generals from using the world's leading global network for cross-border financial transfers, Swift. Swift has its headquarters in Belgium.

Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten, a couple of professors at the Schulich School of Business in York University, Toronto suggest that now is the time for any companies still doing business in Burma "to start rolling up their sleeves."

Companies involved in Burma argue that they can benefit ordinary people more by investing there than divesting. Crane and Matten suggest now is the time to demonstrate some concrete proof that their business links can bring positive social benefits to the Burmese people.

They identify Caterpillar (USA), China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), Daewoo International Corporation (Korea), Siemens (Germany), Gas Authority of India (GAIL), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Hyundai (Korea), and Total (France) as companies still having operations in Burma. (The International Trade Union Confederation) Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

PhotoPhormations, "Banished in Burma," Cultural Survival Quarterly, Issue 32.1, April 1, 2008.

Attacks on indigenous people outside of Rangoon go largely unreported by the media. This 12-page pdf presents a collection of photos taken in the Karen state in 2007 along with a written introduction.

The Mon, Shan, Karen, and Karenni people are particularly targeted by the the Tatmadaw (the Burmese military). The Free Burmese Rangers train groups to provide medical relief, counselling, and aid to the internally displaced.

See the photos, read the intro =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thomas Friedman, The democratic recession, NYT, May 7, 2008.

The term “democratic recession” was coined by Larry Diamond, a Stanford University political scientist, in his new book “The Spirit of Democracy.” And the numbers tell the story. At the end of last year, Freedom House, which tracks democratic trends and elections around the globe, noted that 2007 was by far the worst year for freedom in the world since the end of the cold war. Almost four times as many states — 38 — declined in their freedom scores as improved — 10.

What explains this? A big part of this reversal is being driven by the rise of petro-authoritarianism. I’ve long argued that the price of oil and the pace of freedom operate in an inverse correlation — which I call: “The First Law of Petro-Politics.” As the price of oil goes up, the pace of freedom goes down. As the price of oil goes down, the pace of freedom goes up.

“There are 23 countries in the world that derive at least 60 percent of their exports from oil and gas and not a single one is a real democracy,” explains Diamond. “Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria are the poster children” for this trend, where leaders grab the oil tap to ensconce themselves in power.

Bourque calls this "High Oil Fosters Petro Dictators." This is not "market failure." It's market dysfunction, i.e., the market operates according to principles which make it, far from an "invisible hand" that inevitably guides us in directions we need to go; on the contrary, we may need for the market's invisble hand to be slapped from time to time. Left alone, the market will provide all the motivation necessary for corruption and other forms of criminal behaviour.

There are some other caveats that need to be made here. Several NGOs employ very subjective methodology without the kind of challenge that once was traditional in academic circles. Freedom House is one; Transparency International, another.

Amnesty International was once open to the criticism that they directed their campaigns against say non-OECD countries. That has changed. But a similar systemic criticism of TI's bias against small time corruption compared to the blind eye it turns toward multi-billion dollar corrption in the US raises questions about where else.

I call these "methodological" because they are pervasive. Like attitudes, they reproduce themselves in human organizations where they are then able to grow like compound interest.

Definitions of democracy remain contested, all the more since the critical US/EU sabotage of the Hamas election (2006). Much remains to be seen in the wake of the Maoist victory in Nepal. Liberal (capitalist, shock) democracy is clearly just one kind. Freedom is great, but greed is not good.

So identifying Russia, Venezuela, Iran and Nigeria as dictatorships while the US, UK, Israel and Turkey are lauded as democracies raises serious questions among the spectators who stand to lose the most from these prejudices--not because we own them but because we are subjected to them. All the signs indicate that our grand children will bleed to preserve them.

Meanwhile, what about Kazakhstan? Equatorial Guinea? Saudi Arabia? Turkmenistan is about gas more than oil, but then so is Russia.

Americans like to be able to say things like "there is no more disgusting leader in the world today than Mugabe." But what does that give you? It provides one of the chief apologists for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the Iraq disaster (to mention just a few) with some undeserved moral altitude.

Welcome to the ditch, Thomas. The time may be coming for the US to learn a little humility. It has never been an American virtue. It may just be that the world needs humility from the US even more than it needs democracy.

Read the rest of Friedman's argument =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wade Boese, "US Joins Others Seeking Nuclear Export Criteria," Arms Control Today, May 08.

The United States recently gave up its campaign to convince other nuclear suppliers to prohibit certain sensitive nuclear exports. It has now joined an alternative effort to adopt criteria to strictly limit such transactions, although Canada and a few other countries have objected to some aspects of the initiative.

A week after the Feb. 4, 2004, revelation of the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear black-market network, President George W. Bush proposed several initiatives to curb the spread of nuclear material and technology. (See ACT, March 2004.) One of those proposals urged suppliers not to transfer uranium-enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies to states without existing facilities for those purposes. Both capabilities can be used to produce nuclear fuel as well as nuclear weapons, but Bush argued that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

Although not all of them are currently operating, enrichment and/or reprocessing facilities exist in 15 countries: Argentina, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Of those states, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands have not developed nuclear weapons or are not under suspicion of covertly pursuing such arms.

[...]

Canada, as well as South Africa reportedly to a lesser extent, have objected to the black box approach, arguing that it conflicts with an NPT provision allowing countries to acquire and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Both countries have significant uranium deposits and are eyeing the option of trying to profit more from developing the capacity to enrich the uranium for sale as nuclear fuel rather than simply exporting uranium.

...Canada’s well-known opposition to the US black box approach casts doubt on whether it will again support extending the moratorium [by the G8 on enrichment and reprocessing technology transfer.]

Read the whole article =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

GEO-4 and the dualism of journalistic balance, October 30, 2007.

On the World Report blog, texts identified as "Features" have formed the basis for the World Report broadcast. That will change now that the broadcast has moved to a 30-minute format.

It had already begun to change last October when I opened the pre-recorded format up to voices in addition to my own in the form of interviews, webcasts and recordings of press conferences. (World Report evolved from a live format in which I had appeared as a regular contributor and was interviewed in real-time by the host of Nelson Before Nine. But that's another story.)

This text didn't make it onto the blog because I wasn't sure whether to transcribe the other voices or just leave them out.

At issue was a question about the relation between the text and the broadcast which I have since resolved. So this text is out of sequence, but it presents several issues of continuing concern.

The text introduces a non-dualistic view of journalistic balance. The recordings from the GEO-4 press conference remind us that, important as climate change is, it is far from the only important environmental issue facing the planet.


Feature

Let's begin with a quotation.

“...the world’s population has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available...humanity’s footprint is 21.9 hectares/person, while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person...”

That's from a report just published by the UN Environmental Program called Global Environmental Outlook, or GEO. Actually, it's the fourth in a series, so it's called GEO-4.

Maybe it will seem strange that this report got me to thinking about our membership drive here at Kootenay Coop Radio. It's coming up in just a few weeks. We kicked off our membership drive last spring with a panel of KCR spoken word programmers talking about independent media.

I remember expressing myself then on the media's treatment of the climate change issue.

jlt: We live in an environment where the obfuscation--just as one example of media failure--where the obfuscation of industrial groups on climate change has led to roughly, almost a 30 year delay in action on climate change. And that's a massive failure. And it's a failure that we can't afford. We can't afford to have another one.

I had to wonder—was it really 30 years ago? What did people really think about climate change back then? Could I be exaggerating?

So I did a little research. GEO-4 traces its lineage back through three earlier GEO reports in 1997, 1999 and 2002, a Rio+10 conference in Johannesburg and the milestone Rio conference itself in 1992.

Most significantly, the launch GEO-4 report in 2007 was timed to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the launch of Our Common Future, the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, aka the Brundtland Report. GEO-4 uses the Brundtland Report as a reference point to assess progress in addressing key environment and development issues.

Twenty years ago, in 1987, Brundtland commented on climate change at length and concluded that quote “the risks of global warming make heavy future reliance upon fossil fuels problematic.” endquote

This was not an extreme position or marginal issue even then.

[Brundtland: The burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent the loss of vegetative cover, particularly forests, through urban industrial growth, increase the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. The pre-industrial concentration was about 280 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air by volume. This concentration reached 340 in 1980 and is expected to double to 560 between the middle and the end of the next century. Other gases also play an important role in this greenhouse effect, whereby solar radiation is trapped near the ground warming the globe and changing the climate. After the reviewing the latest evidence on the greenhouse effect in October 1985 at a meeting in Villach, Austria, organized by the WMO, UNEP, and ICSU, scientists from 29 industrialized countries of the global south, concluded that climate change must be considered a plausible and serious probability. They further concluded that many important important economic and social decisions are being made today on major water resource management activities such as irrigation and hydro power, drought relief, agricultural land use, structural designs and coastal engineering projects and energy planning, all based on the assumption that past climatic data without modification are a reliable guide to the future. This is no longer a good assumption. The key question is how much certainty should governments require before agreeing to take action. If they wait until significant climate change is demonstrated, it may be too late for any countermeasures to be effective against the inertia stored by then in this massive global system. The very long time lags invliveed in negotiating international agreements on very complex issues involving all nations have led some experts to conclude that it's already late. No nation has the political mandate or the economic power to combat climatic change alone."

Going even farther back, the October 1976 issue of Foreign Affairs, the very moderate quarterly publication of the US Council on Foreign Relations, published a famous article on the “soft energy path” by physicist Amory Lovins under the title, “Energy Strategy: The road not taken?” Lovins states clearly that only the exact date of “irreversible changes in global climate” is in question.” That's more than 30 years ago.

Achim Steiner, the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, introduced the report to a press conference last week.

Steiner: At the same time as all these changes are occurring and we are faced with a phenomenon such as global warming and accelerating loss of biodiversity unprecedented extinction crises as some scientists refer to it, land degradation on unprecedented levels, the prospect of 1.8 billion people by 2025 being in severely water-constrained parts of the world. As all this is unfolding, we are actually undermining the very systems that we need in order to cope with that change. And the report points in many instances to examples of how ecosystems and their capacity to sustain and also their ability to absorb these changes and these shocks are in fact being undermined by the very trends and activities that we have attributed to individual examples of environmental degradation.

The loss of biodiversity is now at a point where 30% of all non-amphibians are threatened with extinction. Somewhere around 25% I think or 20% of mammals and 12% of birds--I would have to look at the exact statistics now. These are numbers that should make us pause for a moment. We are talking here about one-tenth, one-quarter of a group of species being threatened with extinction. We also have--and this is why I was particularly interested in inviting Professor Jeffrey Sachs to join us here--an increasing demonstration of how environmental degradation and change is forcing people into responses that ultimately put them also into conflict with each other.

We released a few months ago, a post-conflict assessment report on the Sudan which tried to draw the linkages between a long-term change in weather patterns--particularly in terms of rainfall, a significant movement south over the last 50 years of desert boundaries and arid, semi-arid land boundaries, essentially forcing communities to move under a situation of growing populations and vastly expanding livestock numbers into a situation where in Darfur today at least one of the drivers of conflict has been that environmental change.

Steiner was joined at the press conference by Jeffrey Sachs, Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University.

Sachs: Actually this is the main, true geopolitics of our age, not the geopolitics we sometimes hear. But sustainable development is at the very center of the true geopolitics of the world, whether we're going to have peace, whether we're going to have viable economies, whether we're going to be able to get on top of critical problems like climate change. And no one should ever believe that this is about the poor. This is about every place. And we know in the United States for example we're now suffering a very severe drought all through the South--both the Southwest, which has been in drought for many years, and the Southeast which is in a particularly severe drought now. We know in Australia that there's a mega-drought the likes of which have not been seen in modern times. And it's fundamentally changing the economics and the politics of that country. It's also the case though that when these shocks hit the poorest places in the world, people die in much larger numbers and much more rapidly. And it's in the poorest places in the world where adverse climate shocks can trigger violence and war. And it's not just one thing; it's not just climate change. It's deforestation. It's great stresses on the biodiversity through overfishing, overhunting, over-harvesting. It's pollution--both indoor and outdoor pollution. It's multiple stressors. What's happened is that the world's economy and population have grown so fast that our institutions lag way behind the ability to address the impact of the society on the physical environment. Smf the message from this is that implementation is essential and life-saving and critical for global security, nothing less.

How did the media get played on the climate change issue?

I see no evidence of a conspiracy, or of government arm-twisting. But there is clearly at work a dualistic concept of journalistic balance.

The CBC is better than most at presenting what is sometimes called “the other side” or “both sides of the story.”

The operative image is of blind justice holding the scales--a balance with two pans for weighing evidence—innocent or guilty, right or wrong, good or evil, with us or against us.

But many situations in the real world require more than a single dimension.

I think of the guy in the gym who spends nearly 5 minutes just standing on top of a big exercise ball.

Or a skier carving turns down a black-diamond slope.

When we talk about balance in our diets, some try to classify foods in a dualistic way as either yin or yang—or alternately as acid or alkaline. But most of us go beyond dualism to balance the right mix of protein, fat and carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients.

When we talk about a balanced diet—or the balance of nature, or a balance of power—we are talking about balances that includes many more than two.

These more complex models of balance provide closer approximations of the natural scatter one finds in real situations, including people's positions on real issues of the day. The dualism of right and left doesn't cut it. Neither does for and against.

But news organizations surviving on reduced budgets and driven by imperatives of the marketplace—when they depart from the standard propaganda line at all—will run matching forit and againstit interviews so they can appear righteous--and balanced--in their presentation of “both sides.”

In such a context, interests with enough desire and money can buy the PR power to appropriate an entire side—or roughly 50%--of a manufactured debate.

News organizations are sitting ducks for corporate propaganda that seeks its share of a pie that is only going to be cut into two pieces at most.

This is what happened for 30 years with the good-science versus bad-science debate about climate change.

Today, the dualistic model of journalistic balance is being used again to shape a new debate. Is climate change an environmental problem or an economic one?

What is the solution? Carbon markets and techological innovation or strict emission controls and a carbon tax?

In reality, the environmental and economic viewpoints map just a fraction of the territory. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the Inuit leader who was nominated this year for the Nobel Peace Prize, speaks convincingly for the view that climate change is a crisis in cultural identity—a position that applies to sub-Saharan Africa and small island cultures as well as to the Arctic.

And that's not all. Last winter (Feb 4 2006), CBC's show Canada's Next Great Prime Minister featured five youthful finalists competing to demonstrate why they should be chosen to lead the country. The judges were Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, John Turner and Kim Campbell.

Asked what they saw as Canada's most serious security challenge, all five contestants answered "terrorism." Yet it can be and is plausibly argued that the consequences of climate change that have already happened are more serious than all the damage caused by terrorism in all of history.

I would have to say that the nearly unabated progress of climate change of the last 30 years has exposed a failure of political will in the most developed countries—warmed and comforted by a media failure rooted in the dualistic concept of balance.

The greatest risk may come from the dualism in our political system which fosters the illusion that solutions to large, many-sided challenges such as those documented in GEO-4, will be solved by deciding between Democrats and Republicans, a dualism imperfectly replicated in Canada by Conservatives and Liberals.

We could be another 30 years deciding between a carbon market and a carbon tax and no closer to a real solution. Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

B. Raman, "Sino-Tibetan contacts to resume," Raman's Strategic Analysis

Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, Secretary to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, issued the following statement at Dharamsala, the headquarters of His Holiness in Himachal Pradesh, on May 2,2008:

"His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Special Envoy Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari and Envoy Kelsang Gyaltsen will arrive in China on May 3, 2008 for informal talks with representatives of the Chinese leadership. During this brief visit, the envoys will take up the urgent issue of the current crisis in the Tibetan areas. They will convey His Holiness the Dalai Lama's deep concerns about the Chinese authorities' handling of the situation and also provide suggestions to bring peace to the region. Since the Chinese leadership has indicated, publicly as well as in briefings given to foreign governments, its position on the continuation of the dialogue, the envoys will raise the issue of moving forward on the process for a mutually satisfactory solution to the Tibetan issue. "

Annexed for background information is a chronology of the past history of contacts between the representatives of His Holiness and the Chinese authorities. This has been prepared and updated periodically by the Dharamsala office of His Holiness. (2-5-08)

The chronology covers five periods of dialogue between China and Tibet:

• Hopes and Suspicions (1978-1987)
  
• A Row over the Internationalisation of the Tibet Issue (1987-1990)
  
• Stalemate in Dialogue (1990-1993)
  
• Confrontation (1994-2001)
  
• Renewed Contacts (2002- )
  

For the whole post, including the chronology =>

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyonbe2@gmail.com)Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Bridge of Return

[For those in or near Montréal. -jlt]

Featuring Ilan Pappe, Ali Abunimah, Roland Chrisjohn and more...

May 2nd - May 4th: Bridge of Return
Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) 10th Anniversary Conference during the 60th year of ethnic cleansing in Palestine

FRI: "Zionist Apartheid and the One Country Solution"
SAT: "Native Solidarity from Here to Palestine"
SUN: "Boycott, Direct Action and Movement Building"

Full Schedule: http://www.sphr.org

*This Friday, May 2nd* Prof. Ilan Pappe and Ali Abunimah
7pm - Keynote Presentation: "Zionist Apartheid and the One Country
Solution" Opening Address by Rezeq Faraj
(McGill U. Leacock Building Room 132. 855 Sherbrooke Street W.)

Prof. Ilan Pappe was born in Haifa to German-Jewish parents who had fled Nazi persecution in the 1930s. He graduated from the Hebrew University in 1978, and obtained his D.Phil. from the University of
Oxford in 1984. He was the Academic Director of the Research Institute for Peace at Givat Haviva from 1993 to 2000, and is currently teaching at the University of Exeter in Britain. His early books dealt with Israeli policy in 1948, a subject he has returned to in his latest book, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine".

Ali Abunimah, a writer and commentator on Middle East affairs is the co-founder of Electronic Intifada. Abunimah makes the radical argument that what is needed is one state shared by Palestinians and Israelis in his book, One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. His articles have appeared in The New
York Times, The Financial Times, The Jordan Times, Lebanon's Daily Star and Ha'aretz, among others. He was born in the United States and grew up in Europe. Both of his parents are originally from Palestine and he currently lives in Chicago.

Rezeq Faraj was born in Palestine before the 1948 Nakba and creation of the State of Israel. He grew up in the Dehiesha refugee camp near Bethlehem where family members still live. In 1966, after a stay in Europe, Rezeq Faraj arrived in Canada. After 28 years in teaching, he retired in March 2003. Rezeq Faraj is the author of the book, Palestine: le refus de disparaître. He is the co-founder of Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU) in Montreal.

*Saturday, May 3rd* Dr. Roland Chrisjohn, Laith Marouf and Jamila Ghadar
7pm - Plenary: "Native Solidarity from Here to Palestine"
(Concordia U., Room H-937, 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.)

Dr. Roland Chrisjohn is a member of the Oneida Nation of the Confederacy of the Haudenausaunee (Iroquois). He received his Ph. D. in 1981 from the University of Western Ontario in Personality and Psychometrics, and obtained certification as a Clinical Psychologist in 1986. He has been involved in indigenous affairs in Canada for over 30 years, participating in a variety of ways in different aspects of
the struggle. He has worked with Aboriginal young offenders, women's organization, prisoner's associations, family and children services, and suicide intervention programs. He has written more than 50 articles on a variety of subjects, and is author of The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada (Theytus Press, 1997). Dr. Chrisjohn is currently working on one book on Racism in Canada and another on Suicide.

Laith Marouf majored in Political Science at Concordia University in Montreal where he held the office of VP Internal at the Concordia Student Union (2001). He is currently the Chapter Coordinator at SPHR-National and also is the Executive Producer of CKUT's "Under the Olive Tree" - eastern Canada's only Palestinian community radio show. Since visiting the Grassy Narrow Blockade on Ojibway land in the winter of 2003, he has traveled as a media activist to Native communities across Canada.

Jamila Ghadar is a founding member of SPHR at McMaster University. She has been a vocal member of her Arab community in London, Ontario. She also was among members of SPHR who mobilized in support of Six Nations struggles.

*Saturday, May 4th* Prof. Margaret Aziza Pappano, Prof. Salem Valley,
Dana Olwan, and Adam Hanieh
5pm - Closing plenary: "Boycott, Direct Action and Movement Building"
(Concordia U., Room H-110 , 1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.)

Prof. Margaret Aziza Pappano is an Associate Professor of English at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; her specialty is medieval literature. In 2006 she visited the West Bank as part of the institute, "Connecting Dearborn and Jerusalem," sponsored by the Center for Arab American Studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

Prof. Salem Valley is a South African activist and a former regional executive member of the high school South African Student's Movement (SASM). He is the chairperson of the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Anti-War Coalition in South Africa. Vally is currently a visiting scholar at the School of Social Sciences at York University in Toronto.

Dana Olwan (PhD '09 ) is national chair of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights and is an active member of the SPHR chapter on her campus. She is currently teaching in the English Department at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. She is a 5th year PhD student in the English Department

Adam Hanieh is a graduate student at York University, Toronto, and co-author of Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel's Detention of Palestinian Children (Pluto Press, 2004). His research interests include the political economy of neo-liberalism, and Middle East politics. He is currently active with the Coalition Against Israeli
Apartheid.

Full Schedule: http://www.sphr.orgRecommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Busy time for Afghanistan, Headlines for the week of April 21-28, 2008.

Not long ago Russia offered help to NATO in Afghanistan. That story broke a couple of weeks ago. It was the week Dick Cheney was in the Middle East preaching the gospel of nonviolence. That's like the Marquis de Sade preaching chastity.

NATO claims control over ¾ of Afghanistan. NATO spokesperson Mark Laity said on Wednesday (AFP Apr 23 08) dismissed the “perception” that violence is spreading in Afghanistan, saying that most of the insurgency's attacks occur in just 25% of the country.

Meanwhile, this weekend in Kabul, Afghan President Hamid Karzai survived an assassination attempt amid a hail of rockets and bullets during the nation's biggest annual military parade. The event was meant to showcase the Afghan army's growing strength. Among the dead were a 10-year-old child and a member of parliament.

Tanker trucks blown up in Pakistan

The Taliban have begun targeting Torkham. Back on March 20, a convoy of 40 oil tankers supplying NATO forces was destroyed in a series of explosions in a parking lot at Torkham.

Danes and Dutch close embassies in Afghanistan

Danish and Dutch Foreign Ministry officials announced on Wednesday [Reuters 23 April 2008] that both countries have moved all the staff from their embassies in Kabul to secret locations because of concern about security.

The Danes have also moved staff out of its embassy in Algeria since Danish newspapers reprinted an old cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad earlier this year as a protest against a plot to murder the cartoonist

The Netherlands has also moved its embassy in the Pakistani capital Islamabad to a hotel because of concern about security following the release of an anti-Koran film, entitled Fitna, by a Dutch anti-immigration lawmaker named Geert Wilders.

Dutch public still divided over Afghanistan

“According to a poll by Maurice de Hond, 49 per cent of respondents oppose the Dutch engagement in Uruzgan, while 46 per cent support it. Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism.” (Angus Reid Apr 23 08)

Musharraf and China

On Monday (Apr 14 08, see Bhadrakumar Apr 19 08), Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf urged Chinese and Russian to help in stabilizing Afghanistan during an address to students at Beijing's Tsinghua University.
Musharraf

“expressed the hope that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could play a role in stabilizing Afghanistan. He added, 'If the SCO can come along, then we would need to ensure that there is no confrontation with NATO.' SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as full members and Iran and Pakistan as 'observers' “

Bhadrakumar also refers to “the sensational revelation by erstwhile Northern Alliance leaders about their ongoing contacts with the Taliban.” See also =>

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Energy Probe springs into action

Energy Probe seems recently to have sprung into action, especially Lawrence Solomon who has made himself a force to be contended with. In a nutshell, Solomon takes on Wikipedia and the infamous enviro-weenies in order to oppose nuclear, advocate for clean coal, revive the fear of "freezing in the dark" and say things like "This risk of blackouts would also be impossible in a free market, competitive grid."

"The real climate Martians," by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, April 26, 2008.

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. “Do you really believe in Martians?” I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington event. The answer was “No.” Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. Full story =>

"Europe's coal renaissance," by Lawrence Solomon, National Post FP Comment, April 24, 2008.

Coal is back, despite -- and perhaps also because of -- attempts to beat it back. Full story =>

"Hide your name on Wicked Pedia," by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, April 19, 2008.

Apparently, there is a very good and practical reason to maintain anonymity in Wikipedia. Full story =>

"Don't deny yourself," National Review Online, April 22, 2008.

"One size fits all solutions — whether a Kyoto Treaty or a rush to renewable energy or a crash program to install compact fluorescent light bulbs — is fundamentally anti-environmental." A Q&A with Deniers author, Larry Solomon. Full story =>


"Climate change not a done deal," by Mike Hawryluk, pgcitizen.ca, April 20, 2008.

"I believe every literate person in the world should read the 40 columns of Mr. Solomon" comprising his climate change series. Full story =>

"A time to deny," by Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, April 18, 2008.

"I have met very few people who have strong convictions about global warming. In their bones, they don't believe the end of the world is nigh." A Q&A with Deniers author, Lawrence Solomon. Full story =>


"The new dissidents: review of The Deniers," by Kenneth P. Green, The American, April 17, 2008.

"Reading The Deniers, however, has strengthened my resolve." Full story =>


Deniers is ranked Canada's top environmental book by Amazon

In its second week of release, The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud And those who are too fearful to do so, by Lawrence Solomon, ranked #1 as Canada's bestselling book on the environment.

On Friday, April 18, Lawrence Solomon will make an appearance as guest speaker of the Capitol Hill Book Forum, at the invitation of The Cooler Heads Coalition.

The Deniers: review by David Forsmark, FrontPageMagazine.com, April 17, 2008.

"Most enviro-weenies with whom you're apt to argue trumpet Al Gore's "consensus" and go straight to name-calling. While The Deniers answers that larger point very well, it is also a handy reference for those who try to argue specific science, as it is logically laid out and puts real science conveniently at your fingertips." Full story =>

"Wikipedia's zealots," by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, April 13, 2008.

If you have read a climate change article on Wikipedia -- beware. Full story =>



"Winning the debate: The Deniers," by George Gilder, Health Status.com, April 7, 2008.

"The book is fascinating and even profound on the flaws of computer modelling, the irrelevance of consensus to science, the crippling effects of excessive specialization, and the mounting evidence of a coming cooling trend." Full story =>


"Europe's banana republic," by Lawrence Solomon, National Post FP Comment, April 11, 2008.

Thanks to a banana plant import from Iceland and a solar-powered commercial greenhouse, Greenland has just produced its first banana crop. Full story =>


"Waterfront Toronto considers selling naming rights to public parks, spaces," by Canadian Press, April 7, 2008.
"I don't think this should be a decision for governments. I think it's something that should go to a referendum, and let citizens within municipalities decide what their comfort level is." -- Larry Solomon Full story =>


"Apocalypse now?" by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, March 29, 2008.

The peaceful atom is safe compared to Hiroshima. The Cold War gave governments a rationale they could use to absolve the commercial nuclear industry of the risks that would otherwise have prevented its entry into society. Full story =>

Blogs by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, March 25, 2008.

Taking the temperature on climate change: public support for global warming, by some measures, is overwhelming. By other measures, public support more resembles lip-service. As, for example, when the public is asked to put its money where it's mouth is. Full story =>


Natural gas firms crave the spotlight by Tyler Hamilton, Toronto Star, April 1, 2008.

With all the talk of building new nuclear power plants and expanding the use of renewable power and conservation programs in the province, the natural gas sector is looking for a little love these days. But Norm Rubin of Energy Probe said he is concerned with the "huge uncertainties" related to the future price of natural gas and its availability. Supply of conventional natural gas has been declining in North America, while plans for liquefied natural gas plants have failed to deliver because of problems in finding overseas gas supply. Full story =>.

"A simple lesson with a powerful reach," CBC Radio, March 28, 2008.

Energy Probe's Norm Rubin joined CBC Radio One's Here and Now program
recently to talk about Earth Hour. Norm hoped that Earth Hour would open people's eyes to how changing energy-use patterns can help the environment.

"Most of us energy and environment wonks were first triggered by something simple, mostly as kids," says Norm. "And Earth Hour could do that for a bunch of future activists -- even if Anthropogenic Global Warming turns out to be wrong!" For Here and Now show listings, see here =>



"Smart bulbs save the environment," by Norman Rubin, Toronto Star Letter to the Editor, March 22, 2008.

Re: Switching off incandescents: a no-brainer?

"Some Star readers might still dislike fluorescent bulbs, or government bans on incandescents, but they shouldn't be misled by confused arguments." Norm Rubin Full story =>

"Nuclear power making comeback," by Lauren Krugel, Sudbury Star, March 15, 2008.

The nuclear industry has a dismal record of keeping projects on budget and on schedule and once plants are built, they're prone to breakdown, warns Norman Rubin of the Energy Probe think tank.

"There are two kinds of nuclear generating stations in the world. There are the future theoretical ones, which are wonderful. And there are the real world ones which break your heart and destroy your wealth and run the risk of leaving you in the dark if you actually depend on them,'' he said. Full story =>


"Ontario's roadmap," by Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider, March 10, 2008

Energy Probe admonishes the nation and Ontario in particular to pay heed to the risks surrounding nuclear power. Taxpayers in Ontario, it says, are footing the multi-billion bill to refurbish two nuclear plants there a process that is now 60 percent complete and which will add 1,500 megawatts of capacity. The group also says that large and centralized facilities use imported fuel from outside the province that leaves open the question of where to bury the radioactive waste. More of the province's finite resources, it concludes, must be directed to solar and wind. Full story =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

The West has never known what to do with shit.

Our first choice has been to throw it "away." A very competitive second choice is to wrap it in a flag and vote for it.

Reuters' Planet Ark today reports on a study by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Reuters paraphrases one of its conclusions,

"Industrial livestock production also hurts the environment through the huge amounts of animal waste these facilities produce. Large amounts of manure carry excessive nutrients and farm chemicals into surface waters, causing dense growth of plants and the death of aquatic animals due to lack of oxygen."

All that nitrogen down the river. We appear to prefer petrochemicals (mainly coal and natural gas) as feedstocks for our nitrogen fertilizers. Go figger.

Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, gives the following breakdown:

"In the US, agriculture is directly responsible for well over 10 percent of all national energy consumption. Over 400 gallons of oil equivalent are expended to feed each American each year. About a third of that amount goes toward fertilizer production, 20 percent to operate machinery, 16 percent for transportation, 13 percent for irrigation, 8 percent for livestock raising, (not including the feed), and 5 percent for pesticide production. This does not include energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retailers, or cooking" (Museletter #159 Jul 05).

Read the Reuters story =>

Read the report's Executive Summary =>

Read the whole report =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

UN slaughter continues in Haiti and elsewhere

Canadians tend to be a little sentimental about the UN, especially peacekeeping, Lester Pearson and all. However, back in early 2007 when we were belatedly debating whether the Canadian mission in Afghanistan should stress peacekeeping over combat, World Report cited abundant documentation of violence against unarmed and nonviolent civilians by UN peacekeepers in Haiti. I called it "the new peacekeeping." The symbol for me was a white-coloured light armoured vehicle with a gun mounted on the top and the UN symbol on the side.

A second piece the next week, on the occasion of International Women's Day, elaborated on the role that MINUSTAH was playing in the hunger that led some Haitians to eat mud cakes to stay alive and the impact that was having on women in Cite Soleil. That was March 2007.

It's still going on, as this report by Seth Donnelly makes clear. Donnelly is a Bay Area High School social studies teacher and a member of the Haiti Action Committee.

"On Saturday, April 11th, a little past 3 p.m., a MINUSTAH (UN) soldier, Nigerian Cpl. Nagya Aminu, was shot and killed in downtown Port-au-Prince. While this killing was widely reported in the international media, what followed the killing was not.

"In the immediate aftermath of the killing, at approximately 3:30 p.m. that same afternoon, MINUSTAH troops launched a massive assault on Haitian vendors at the open-air sidewalk market near the main Cathedral in downtown Port-au-Prince - the area where the soldier had been killed."

It's too early for a complete accounting of the mayhem and death that resulted from this assault. Donelly's article does spot the tip of the iceberg.

As he says, "This kind of massive assault by MINUSTAH troops on the civilian population has happened many times before, such as the notorious attack on the people of Cite Soleil on July 6th, 2005."

Nor is Haiti the only place where the UN has been responsible for assaults on the civilian population.

Stephen Lewis's remarks at the 10th Annual V-Day Celebrations, New Orleans, 12 April 2008 bring us up-to-date on the UN's failure to act against sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa).

He refers to Eve Ensler's ground-breaking piece for Glamour magazine and urges the UN Secretary-General to "pull out all the stops":

"If the secretary-general were to exercise real leadership against sexual violence instead of falling back – as his advisers have suggested – on statements and rhetoric and fatuous public relations campaigns, he could turn things around. What in God’s name is wrong with these people whose lives consist of moving from inertia to paralysis?"

A piece of the puzzle missing from both Lewis and Ensler's accounts are allegations dating back to 2005 that the troops in UN peacekeeping force in the DRC (MONUC) "have been involved in widespread sexual misconduct, including rape and child prostitution." That part of the story has simply disappeared, possibly the result of a successful, if fatuous, PR campaign.

Meanwhile, Donnelly concludes,

"It is time for the international human rights community to face squarely what has happened in Haiti: a US-backed coup in 2004 that ousted a popular, democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and a subsequent UN occupation (MINUSTAH) authorized by the rich nations on the Security Council. Under this occupation, some 9,000 military and police officers from different countries - ranging from Jordan and Sri Lanka to China and Brazil - are charged with keeping the "peace". These forces have been accused by many in Haiti of targeting Aristide supporters. Indeed, the occupation serves to consolidate the anti-democratic qualities of the coup. Until the international human rights community starts to pay attention to what is happening in Haiti and join in solidarity with the Haitian people, more egregious human rights violations will be perpetrated in the name of "peacekeeping" operations."

The real problem almost certainly extends well beyond Haiti, but Donnelly provides contact information for MINUSTAH, President Rene Preval , and the Haitian Ministry of Justice. It's a good place to start, though considering Canada's role, action closer to home would also be appropriate.

Contact:
UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH)
Tel: 011-509-244- 0650/0660
FAX: 011-509-244- 9366/67
Or, Fax Office of Secretary General (New York): 212-963-4879

President Rene Preval
Send a fax to 206-350-7986 (a US number) or email to avokahaiti@aol.com
Your letter will be hand-delivered to the Presidential Palace in Haiti.

Haitian Ministry of Justice
Tel: 011-509-245- 0474Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Jimmy Carter, "Pariah diplomacy," New York Times, April 28, 2008.

Recommended by Sam Bahour at ePalestine

ATLANTA - A counterproductive Washington policy in recent years has been to boycott and punish political factions or governments that refuse to accept United States mandates. This policy makes difficult the possibility that such leaders might moderate their policies.

Two notable examples are in Nepal and the Middle East. About 12 years ago, Maoist guerrillas took up arms in an effort to overthrow the monarchy and change the nation’s political and social life. Although the United States declared the revolutionaries to be terrorists, the Carter Center agreed to help mediate among the three major factions: the royal family, the old-line political parties and the Maoists.

In 2006, six months after the oppressive monarch was stripped of his powers, a cease-fire was signed. Maoist combatants laid down their arms and Nepalese troops agreed to remain in their barracks. Our center continued its involvement and nations — though not the United States — and international organizations began working with all parties to reconcile the dispute and organize elections.

The Maoists are succeeding in achieving their major goals: abolishing the monarchy, establishing a democratic republic and ending discrimination against untouchables and others whose citizenship rights were historically abridged. After a surprising victory in the April 10 election, Maoists will play a major role in writing a constitution and governing for about two years. To the United States, they are still terrorists.

On the way home from monitoring the Nepalese election, I, my wife and my son went to Israel. My goal was to learn as much as possible to assist in the faltering peace initiative endorsed by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Although I knew that official United States policy was to boycott the government of Syria and leaders of Hamas, I did not receive any negative or cautionary messages about the trip, except that it might be dangerous to visit Gaza.

The Carter Center had monitored three Palestinian elections, including one for parliamentary seats in January 2006. Hamas had prevailed in several municipal contests, gained a reputation for effective and honest administration and did surprisingly well in the legislative race, displacing the ruling party, Fatah. As victors, Hamas proposed a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah as president and offered to give key ministries to Fatah, including that of foreign affairs and finance.

Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, and the elected Palestinian government was forced to dissolve. Eventually, Hamas gained control of Gaza, and Fatah is “governing” the Israeli-dominated West Bank. Opinion polls show Hamas steadily gaining popularity. Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions. (A recent poll of Israelis, who are familiar with this history, showed 64 percent favored direct talks between Israel and Hamas.)

Similarly, Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. Here again, United States policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks, contrary to the desire of high Israeli officials.

We met with Hamas leaders from Gaza, the West Bank and Syria, and after two days of intense discussions with one another they gave these official responses to our suggestions, intended to enhance prospects for peace:

• Hamas will accept any agreement negotiated by Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel provided it is approved either in a Palestinian referendum or by an elected government. Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshal, has reconfirmed this, although some subordinates have denied it to the press.

• When the time comes, Hamas will accept the possibility of forming a nonpartisan professional government of technocrats to govern until the next elections can be held.

• Hamas will also disband its militia in Gaza if a nonpartisan professional security force can be formed.

• Hamas will permit an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinian militants in 2006, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, to send a letter to his parents. If Israel agrees to a list of prisoners to be exchanged, and the first group is released, Corporal Shalit will be sent to Egypt, pending the final releases.

• Hamas will accept a mutual cease-fire in Gaza, with the expectation (not requirement) that this would later include the West Bank.

• Hamas will accept international control of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, provided the Egyptians and not the Israelis control closing the gates.

In addition, Syria’s president, Bashir al-Assad, has expressed eagerness to begin negotiations with Israel to end the impasse on the Golan Heights. He asks only that the United States be involved and that the peace talks be made public.

Through more official consultations with these outlawed leaders, it may yet be possible to revive and expedite the stalemated peace talks between Israel and its neighbors. In the Middle East, as in Nepal, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the founder of the Carter Center and the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28carter.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"Right to Enter Campaign meets with Blair Calls on Quartet to take concrete steps to solve the denial of entry issue," April 27, 2008.

Press Release

Quartet Representative Tony Blair met with representatives of the Campaign for the Right to Enter on 17 April to discuss the obstacles that foreign passport holders encounter when they seek to enter or reside in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), and their likely impact on the Quartet’s efforts to revive Palestinian economic life.

Campaign member Charles Shammas explained that “contrary to international law, Israel continues to exercise its control over entry and residency in an arbitrary, capricious and political manner that seriously harms Palestinian economic, social and cultural life.”

In the past two years, hundreds of Palestinians with foreign passports and other foreign nationals have been denied entry into the oPt. Many others have been denied permits to stay in the oPt and expelled. Israel’s failure to act on the overwhelming majority of family reunification applications since 2000 directly affects at least half a million people whose families remain separated or under threat of separation. Vital health, educational, religious and social services are handicapped and disrupted. Business investment is deterred or thwarted. Families are forced to relocate outside the oPt just to stay together.

Campaign members drew Mr Blair's attention to the futility of attempting to attract investment in the oPt while the ability of investors’ to directly manage and oversee their investments and the ability of Palestinian institutions and businesses to recruit and retain the human resources needed for development remains uncertain and subject to Israel’s political discretion. The upcoming May investor’s conference in Bethlehem, part of the Quartet's current efforts to stimulate foreign investment in the Palestinian economy, is likely to be confronted with such critical questions by participants who will only be able to attend the 3-day conference under an exceptional arrangement with Israel.

Despite the repeated calls of states whose nationals have been denied entry to the oPt Israeli authorities have persistently failed to establish a transparent, internationally lawful policy on which foreign nationals wishing to enter or maintain their presence in the occupied Palestinian territory can rely. The Campaign stressed the need for a comprehensive solution for the broad spectrum of foreign nationals that are vulnerable to arbitrary exclusion or expulsion.

The Campaign urged the Quartet to begin receiving, compiling and reviewing data on Israel’s exercise of control over entry, residency, and family unification in the occupied Palestinian territory. “To have any hope of success, the Quartet should start sending clear signals that the arbitrary exclusion and expulsion of foreign passport holders from the oPt, like Israel’s other abusive restrictions on movement and access, violates Israel’s treaty obligations to the states represented in the Quartet, is contrary to the UN Charter, and thus directly concerns the Quartet itself” Shammas concluded.

For more information please contact:
Rasha Mukbil, Campaign Coordinator
+970-59-817-3953, info@righttoenter.ps, www.RightToEnter.psRecommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

"US is one of the 'central pillars' of Indian foreign policy," Bernard Gwertzman interviews Bruce O. Riedel, Council on Foreign Relations.

Formerly a leader of the non-aligned movement, India under the influence of its Congress Party and the main opposition BJP is now seeking closer relations with the US. Both Clinton and Bush administrations recognized India as an emerging regional power, possibly a global one.

"There is certainly a possibility that a new administration may try to strengthen the nonproliferation parts of it, and might, particularly if the Democrats are elected, try to revive the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty [CTBT]. But the first step there of course would be for the United States to ratify the CTBT. I don’t think we could go to the Indians and ask them to do something that we haven’t done so far....The Indian economy is now growing at about 9 percent ... India will soon have the world’s largest oil refinery in Jamnagar by Reliance Industries....It will be able to process virtually every kind of oil from around the world from heavy to light, making it really one of the most attractive refineries for oil in the world. It will not be dependent upon a certain kind of oil to come to it...."

Read the whole interview =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Anand Gopal, "Bid to slay Karzai exposes security mess," IPS, April 28, 2008.

On Sunday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai escaped an assassination bid while attending a military parade in Kabul. A member of parliament and a 10-year-old child were among the dead. A spokesman for the Taliban said the fighters wanted to show they can infiltrate such high security events.

In the past week, three reports have independently warned of a worsening security situation this year.

A Kabul-based security specialist released a study suggesting that insurgent attacks jumped by almost 40 percent in the first months of 2008 compared to the analogous period last year; a non-governmental organisation (NGO) reported that insurgent attacks against NGOs doubled compared to early 2007; and, a European-based think thank announced that an eventual defeat of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is a realistic possibility.

Read the rest =>
Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Uri Avnery, "The military option," April 26, 2008.

WAR WITH Syria? Peace with Syria?

A big military operation against Hamas in the Gaza strip? A cease-fire with Hamas?

Our media discuss these questions dispassionately, as if they were equivalent options. Like a person in a showroom making a choice between two cars. This one is good, and so is the other one. So which should one buy?

And nobody cries out: War is the height of stupidity!

CARL VON CLAUSEWITZ, the renowned military theorist, famously said that war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. Meaning: war is there to serve policy and is useless when it does not.

What policies did the wars in the last hundred years serve?

Ninety-four years ago, World War I broke out. The immediate cause was the assassination of the Austrian heir apparent by a Serbian student. In Sarajevo they showed me how it happened: after a first attempt on the main street had failed, the assassins had already given up hope when one of them came across the victim again, by sheer accident, and killed him. After this almost accidental killing many millions of human beings lost their lives in the following four years.

The assassination served, of course, only as a pretext. Every one of the belligerent nations had political and economic interests that pushed it into the war. But did the war really serve these interests? The results suggest the opposite: three mighty empires - the Russian, German and Austrian - collapsed; France lost its standing as a world power beyond all hope of recovery; the British Empire was mortally wounded.

Military experts point to the shocking stupidity of almost all the generals, who threw their poor soldiers again and again into hopeless battles, which achieved nothing but slaughter.

Were the statesmen any wiser? Not one of the politicians who started the war imagined that it would last so long and be so horrible. In early August 1914, when the soldiers of all the countries marched into the war with merry enthusiasm, they were promised that they would be home "before Christmas".

No political aim was achieved in that war. The peace agreements that were imposed on the vanquished were monuments of unbridled imbecility. It can be argued that the main result of World War I was World War II.

Read the rest =>Recommend this Post

More =>

Sphere: Related Content