Former U.S. ambassador in Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza joined the protest action in Taksim square in Istanbul on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the “Khojali Massacre” on February 26, yesterday.
“I know about the action in Taksim, and I’m joining it,” Matthew Bryza declared.
The protest action in Taksim square on February 26 brought together about 300 000 people, mostly representatives of Azerbaijani and Turkish youth. Activists carried posters declaring “We are all Azeri”.
Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan announced the report prepared by the high-level panel on Global Sustainability on Tuesday.
The high-level panel was set up by the initiatives of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Giving information about the panel, Babacan said that the panel had 22 members, adding that the panel initiated its activities in August 2010. He said that throughout this period, many meetings were held and study groups were established.
The panel launched its report “Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing” on January 30, 2012 in Addis Ababa.
Noting that more than three billion people in the world were faced with hunger problem and the existing development models were not sustainable, Babacan said that if countries did not take any measures, the world would not be a habitable place after a while.
He noted that biological diversity was diminishing and climate changes were seen in the world today. He added that this negative course could be stopped by the right policies and decisions.
Poverty should be reduced, inequality in economic growth and income distribution should be fixed, said Babacan, adding that the deterioration in income distribution was set as a big problem in the world by the report, however, Turkey and Brazil were the only two countries that were not in this situation.
According to the report, 20 million more people in the world were under hunger threshold since 2000, and also every year 5.2 million hectares of forest were being destroyed, said Babacan.
Babacan said that 20 percent of the people in the world could not use electricity and 884 million people could not reach clean water resources.
Noting that initiatives for sustainable development were not enough, adding that additional measures should immediately be taken.
The report makes recommendations in 56 areas, said Babacan, adding that women rights should be strengthened, gender equality should be provided, reaching primary education should be completed by 2015, governments and business world should work together, young entrepreneurs should be supported, women should be more active in economic life, energy productivity should be spread, and the share of renewable energy resources should be increased.
AA
ROBERT WRIGHT
Late last week, amid little fanfare, Senators Joseph Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and Robert Casey introduced a resolution that would move America further down the path toward war with Iran.
The good news is that the resolution hasn’t been universally embraced in the Senate. As Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports, the resolution has “provoked jitters among Democrats anxious over the specter of war.” The bad news is that, as Kampeas also reports, “AIPAC is expected to make the resolution an ‘ask’ in three weeks when up to 10,000 activists culminate its annual conference with a day of Capitol Hill lobbying.”
In standard media accounts, the resolution is being described as an attempt to move the “red line”–the line that, if crossed by Iran, could trigger a US military strike. The Obama administration has said that what’s unacceptable is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. This resolution speaks instead of a “nuclear weapons capability.” In other words, Iran shouldn’t be allowed to get to a point where, should it decide to produce a nuclear weapon, it would have the wherewithal to do so.
By itself this language is meaninglessly vague. Does “capability” mean the ability to produce a bomb within two months? Two years? If two years is the standard, Iran has probably crossed the red line already. (So should we start bombing now?) Indeed, by the two-year standard, Iran might well be over the red line even after a bombing campaign–which would at most be a temporary setback, and would remove any doubt among Iran’s leaders as to whether to build nuclear weapons, and whether to make its nuclear program impervious to future American and Israeli bombs. What do we do then? Invade?
In other words, if interpreted expansively, the “nuclear weapons capability” threshold is a recipe not just for war, but for ongoing war–war that wouldn’t ultimately prevent the building of a nuclear weapon without putting boots on the ground. And it turns out that the authors of this resolution want “nuclear weapons capability” interpreted very expansively.
The key is in the way the resolution deals with the question of whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium, as it’s been doing for some time now. The resolution defines as an American goal “the full and sustained suspension” of uranium enrichment by Iran. In case you’re wondering what the resolution’s prime movers mean by that: In a letter sent to the White House on the same day the resolution was introduced, Lieberman, Graham and ten other senators wrote, “We would strongly oppose any proposal that recognizes a ‘right to enrichment’ by the current regime or for [sic] a diplomatic endgame in which Iran is permitted to continue enrichment on its territory in any form.”
This notwithstanding the fact that 1) enrichment is allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty; (2) a sufficiently intrusive monitoring system can verify that enrichment is for peaceful purposes; (3) Iran’s right to enrich its own uranium is an issue of strong national pride. In a pollpublished in 2010, after sanctions had already started to bite, 86 percent of Iranians said Iran should not “give up its nuclear activities regardless of the circumstances.” And this wasn’t about building a bomb; most Iranians said Iran’s nuclear activities shouldn’t include producing weapons.
Even Dennis Ross–who has rarely, in his long career as a Mideast diplomat, left much daylight between his positions and AIPAC’s, and who once categorically opposed Iranian enrichment–now realizes that a diplomatic solution may have to include enrichment. Last week in a New York Timesop-ed, he said that, contrary to pessimistic assessments, it may still be possible to get a deal that “uses intrusive inspections and denies or limits uranium enrichment [emphasis added]…”
The resolution plays down its departure from current policy by claiming that there have been “multiple” UN resolutions since 2006 demanding the “sustained” suspension of uranium. But the UN resolutions don’t actually use that term. The UN has demanded suspension as a confidence-building measure that could then lead to, as one resolution puts it, a “negotiated solution that guarantees Iran’s nuclear program is for exclusively peaceful purposes.” And various Security Council members who voted on these resolutions have made it clear that Iranian enrichment of uranium can be part of this scenario if Iran agrees to sufficiently tight monitoring.
Indeed, that Iran’s right to enrich uranium could be recognized under those circumstances is, Hillary Clinton has said, “the position of the international community, along with the United States.” If the Lieberman-Graham-Casey resolution guides US policy, says George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, that would “preclude” fulfillment of the UN resolutions and isolate the US from the international coalition that backed them.
The Congressional resolution goes beyond the UN resolutions in another sense. It demands an end to Iran’s ballistic missile program. Greg Thielmann of the Arms Control Association notes that, “Even after crushing Iraq in the first Gulf War, the international coalition only imposed a 150-kilometer range ceiling on Saddam’s ballistic missiles. A demand to eliminate all ballistic missiles would be unprecedented in the modern era–removing any doubt among Iranians that the United States was interested in nothing less than the total subjugation of the country.”
On the brighter side: Maybe it’s a good sign that getting significant Democratic buy-in for this resolution took some strong-arming. According to Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now, the resolution got 15 Democratic supporters only “after days of intense AIPAC lobbying, particularly of what some consider ‘vulnerable’ Democrats (vulnerable in terms of being in races where their pro-Israel credentials are being challenged by the candidate running against them).” What’s more, even as AIPAC was playing this hardball, the bill’s sponsors still had to tone down some particularly threatening language in the resolution.
But, even so, the resolution defines keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapons “capability” as being in America’s “vital national interest,” which is generally taken as synonymous with “worth war.” And, though this “sense of Congress” resolution is nonbinding, AIPAC will probably seek unanimous Senate consent, which puts pressure on a president. Friedman says this “risks sending a message that Congress supports war and opposes a realistic negotiated solution or any de facto solution short of stripping Iran of even a peaceful nuclear capacity.”
What’s more, says Friedman, the non-binding status may be temporary. “Often AIPAC-backed Congressional initiatives start as non-binding language (in a resolution or a letter) and then show up in binding legislation. Once members of Congress have already signed on to a policy in non-binding form, it is much harder for them to oppose it when it shows up later in a bill that, if passed, will have the full force of law.”
No wonder Democrats who worry about war have the “jitters.”
Robert Wright is a senior editor at The Atlantic and the author, most recently, of The Evolution of God, a New York Times bestseller and a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.
www.theatlantic.com, FEB 21 2012
By Alexei Anishchuk | Reuters
MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia warned Israel on Wednesday that attacking Iran would be a disastrous and played down the failure of a U.N. nuclear agency mission to Tehran, saying there is still a chance for new talks over the Iranian atomic programme.
“Of course any possible military scenario against Iran will be catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations,” Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov told a news conference.
It was one of Russia’s starkest warnings against resorting to force, an option Israel and the United States have not ruled out if they conclude that diplomacy and increasing sanctions will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.
“I hope Israel understands all these consequences … and they should also consider the consequences of such action for themselves,” Gatilov said. “I hope a realistic approach will prevail, along with a sensible assessment.”
Russia, China as well as many allies of the United States are concerned that any military action against Iran could engulf the Middle East in wider war, which would send oil prices rocketing at a time of global economic troubles.
Iran has threatened to retaliate for any attack, or even if it feels endangered, by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the conduit for Gulf oil exports crucial to the global economy, and hitting Israel and U.S. interests in the Middle East.
Tehran has refused to stop sensitive nuclear work such as uranium enrichment despite four rounds of U.N. sanctions and a slew of additional measures imposed by the United States and the European Union, which fear Tehran is seeking nuclear weapons.
The Islamic Republic says its efforts to produce nuclear fuel are solely for electricity generation.
IAEA-IRAN TALKS GO NOWHERE
The failure of two days of talks between Iran and senior International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials, who were refused access to a military site where they believe Iran tested explosives of use in nuclear weapons, dimmed the chances of Western powers agreeing to renew broader negotiations with Iran.
A warning from Iran’s clerical supreme leader on Wednesday, hours after the Tehran talks concluded, that no obstacle would derail Iran’s nuclear course added to tensions.
Gatilov suggested that Iran should be more cooperative but there is more room for diplomacy. He said Iran’s discussions with Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, frozen for a year, could still be revived.
“Iran and IAEA should boost their dialogue in order to rule out the … possibility of the existence of military dimensions in the Iranian nuclear programme. We hope that this dialogue will be continued,” he said.
“I think we still have opportunity to continue diplomatic efforts, to renew the six-nation talks.”
Russia, which built Iran’s first nuclear power plant, has often stressed the need for talks and that too much coercive pressure on Iran is counterproductive, a stance that has prompted concerns Moscow has helped Tehran play for time.
Last week, Russia said global powers must be serious about proposing solutions Iran might accept, warning that Tehran’s desire for compromise was waning as it moved closer to being technically capable of building atomic weapons.
(Reporting by Alexei Anishchuk; Writing by Steve Gutterman; Editing by Mark Heinrich)
news.yahoo.com, 22 Feb 2012
BOB ADELMANN
When Hollywood film director James Cameron (Avatar, Titanic, Terminator) announced that he was moving to New Zealand, preppers, fiscal doomsayers, and alarmists had a field day in deciphering his motives for moving, ultimately deciding that Cameron was moving so that he is better able to weather the massive monetary upheaval that is upcoming or he is escaping U.S. taxes and regulations.
Marc Slavo, as an example, suggested ulterior motives other than those stated by Cameron: “While the move for the Canadian-born Cameron may initially be perceived as a rejection or denouncement of American policies and ideals … [he] may have ulterior motivations as evidenced by where he’s planning on moving and what he’s planning on doing once he gets there.”
The Associated Press reported that Cameron successfully applied to buy 2,500 acres of farmland and he “intend[s] to reside indefinitely in New Zealand and [is] acquiring the property to reside on and operate as a working farm.” Slavo is skeptical in light of Cameron’s lack of need to be working at all, having made in excess of $250 million last year, according to Salon magazine.
And Slavo is not persuaded that Cameron’s real reason is to be closer to the New Zealand headquarters of Weta Digital, which won an Oscar for its special effects in the movie Avatar. Nor is he persuaded that Cameron wants to be there solely to direct the sequel to Avatar scheduled to begin later this year. Slavo instead is thinking that Cameron knows that “farmland is one of the only reasonable physical assets to hold in the event of a major crisis,” and that Cameron’s disclosure on his New Zealand application for citizenship was simply cover.
Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones at Inforwars.com are of the same mind as Slavo:
If you think that Hollywood director James Cameron’s decision to leave America and move his entire family to a farm in New Zealand is simply to provide his kids with a “strong work ethic,” as Cameron claims, think again….
Cameron’s decision fits the trend of wealthy Americans pulling their money out of the country and reinvesting it to buy land in the southern hemisphere, escaping spiraling tax rates and protecting themselves against the potential for widespread social dislocation.
When John Malone, chairman of the board of Liberty Media with a personal net worth of $4.5 billion, reported that he had purchased a significant piece of property along the Quebec border, he explained in an interview with the Wall Street Journal his real motivation:
WSJ: What are the biggest risks for Liberty Media right now?
Malone: The concerns really tend to be much more macro: Is America going to make it, rather than are we going to make it? It’s pretty hard. If the country doesn’t make it, do any of us make it?
WSJ: What are you doing to protect against the weak American economy?
Malone: Well, my wife, who is very concerned about these things, moved all her personal cash to Australia and Canada. She wants to have a place to go if things blow up here….
We have a retreat that’s right on the Quebec border. We own 18 miles on the border, so we can cross. Anytime we want to we can get away.
As Slavo explained, Malone is not a tin-foil hat weirdo believing in things that go bump in the night: “He may not look like a doom and gloomer, but it sounds like he’s considered the possibility of a complete collapse in the United States of America. Otherwise, why suggest that if something were to happen, he could get away?”
Two years ago Brian Knowlton, writing in the Wall Street Journal, noted the paradigm change taking place even then among wealthy Americans increasingly frightened about the economic and social situation in the country. He quoted Jackie Bugnion, director of American Citizens Abroad (ACA): “What we have seen is a substantial change in mentality among the overseas community in the past two years. Before, no one would dare mention to other Americans that they were even thinking of renouncing their U.S. nationality. Now, it is an openly discussed issue.”
One of the reasons given for considering renunciation is the increasingly onerous rules invading privacy and personal finances. The Patriot Act has made it more difficult for Americans living abroad to keep accounts with international banks. If those banks cannot verify an American address, the accounts are closed. Daniel Flynn, an American citizen who lives in Belgium, wrote a letter to the ACA:
It seems the new anti-terrorist rules are having unintended effects. I was born in San Francisco in 1939, served my country as an army officer from 1961 to 1963, have been paying U.S. income taxes for 57 years, since 1952, have continually maintained [my] federal voting residence, and hold a valid American passport. [And yet my bank] said that the new anti-terrorism rules required them to close our account because of our address outside the U.S.
Another American living in Canada had the same problem. Kathleen Rittenhouse said, “I did not know that the Patriot Act placed me in the same category as terrorists, arms dealers and money launderers.”
The United States is the only industrialized country that requires citizens to pay income taxes on earnings abroad that are also being taxed by the country where they live. Some are calling this, properly, double taxation and are sick of it. And the IRS began investigations into foreign accounts, calling it a “voluntary offshore disclosure program,” that threatens the privacy and financial security of those with legitimate offshore accounts. Joe Field, a partner in a law firm in Hong Kong that caters to American citizens seeking to renounce their U.S. citizenship, says his firm is experiencing an “exponential increase” in the number of American citizens wanting to get out. He said:
Many people who looked to America as the protector now see America is bent on coming after them. We’re getting a whole new class of client who is someone who says, “I want to go into the [IRS] disclosure program and as soon as I complete it, expatriate.”
Their numbers are likely to increase as a loophole allowing wealthy Americans to move their monies and wealth offshore closes at the end of the year. Americans with a net worth of at least $2 million will have to buy their way out of the country by paying hefty exit fees and taxes, even on assets that have unrealized gains. The loophole allows them until the end of the year to give away up to $5 million without the fee being applied, saving enough in taxes to pay the fee that is levied.
And then there are those who are just disappearing altogether without a fare thee well. John Gaver, editor of Action America, wrote that there is a “vast and increasing number of wealthy US citizens who are just ‘dropping out’ — taking all of their wealth and leaving the US without renouncing. They just disappear off the US tax rolls and appear on some other country’s tax rolls.”
The number disgusted with how America treats its successful citizens continues to grow. As Bugnion of ACA notes, “It is a sad outcome, but I personally feel that we are now seeing only the tip of the iceberg.”
www.thenewamerican.com, 03 FEBRUARY 2012
THE VIDEO EVERYONE NEEDS TO SEE, BUT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS… THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD BANK, JAMES WOLFENSOHN, MAKES STUNNING CONFESSIONS AS HE ADDRESSES GRADUATE STUDENTS AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY. HE REVEALS THE INSIDE HAND OF WORLD DOMINATION FROM PAST, TO THE PRESENT AND INTO THE FUTURE. THE SPEECH WAS MAS MADE JANUARY 11TH, 2010. THE NEXT 19 MINUTES MAY OPEN YOUR MIND TO A VERY DELIBERATE WORLD.
HE TELLS THE GRAD STUDENTS WHAT’S COMING, A “TECTONIC SHIFT” IN WEALTH FROM THE WEST TO THE EAST. BUT HE DOESN’T TELL THE STUDENTS THAT IT IS HIS INSTITUTION, THE WORLD BANK, THAT’S DIRECTING AND CHANNELING THESE CHANGES.
WOLFENSOHN’S OWN INVESTMENT FIRM IS IN CHINA, POISED TO PROFIT FROM THIS “IMMINENT SHIFT” IN GLOBAL WEALTH.
