Post Realism 3

Bush Calls for Reforming the United Nations!

Wael Nawara

Yes. It is true. This is not a joke or a make-blieve post or a wishful-thinking sort of article. Bush on Tuesday (23 Sep 2008), called for the reform of the United Nations!

Jay Allbritton: Sep 24th 2008 12:49 AM

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/24/bush-calls-on-united-nations-to-reform/

During President Bush's farewell speech to the United Nations Tuesday, he called on the UN to reform. Despite running what many critics refer to as the most secretive administration in American history, Bush called on the UN to "open the door to a new age of transparency, accountability, and seriousness of purpose."

The UN didn't exactly extend Bush a rousing ovation. According to the Associated Press, the President received "less than 10 seconds of polite applause at the end of [the] speech".

I think Bush will be remembered as the President who made a mockery of the United Nations. In 2003, ordered the invasion of Iraq despite a Security Council refusal to approve it. President Bush also had his own sideshow act on global warming. Instead of working with the international community and signing the Kyoto Protocol, ratified by 172 countries, he insisted on opposing international constraints aimed at curbing carbon emissions. In 2004, on the wake of the Tsunami disaster, Bush was accused of trying to undermine the United Nations by setting up a rival coalition to coordinate relief.

Under Clinton Administration, the United States of America was one of only 7 nations (joining China, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Qatar and Israel) to vote against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998. But the Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002 under the Bush administration. The U.S. opposition to the ICC was in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.
In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. The Bush administration then went requesting states around the world to approve bilateral agreements requiring them not to surrender American nationals to the ICC !

The U.S Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (ASPA), which was signed into law by President Bush, which prohibits U.S. cooperation with the ICC; allowing the U.S. to "invade the Hague, Netherland, seat of the ICC" by authorizing the President to "use all means necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. personnel (and certain allied personnel) detained or imprisoned by the ICC, in addition to punishment for States that join the ICC treaty: refusing military aid to States' Parties to the treaty (except major U.S. allies), etc.

Why does the U.S. Oppose Development of an "International Justice System"?

The United Nation's Security Council is already flawed. The five permenant members of the Security Council are: the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China. Britain and France are close allies of the United States, although France sometimes votes against the United States' wishes. These permenant members have "Veto Powers" which can stall any Security Council resolution which "any of them" does not like! The U.S., in this position, already has a disproportionate influence on the United Nations and on the Security Council decisions. An influence it has often used to prevent even symbolic gestures of "International Justice" to be made against Israel for instance.

On Sept. 10, 1972, for the second time in its UN history, the U.S. its veto, this time —to shield Israel. (Source: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html)

That veto, as it turned out, signalled the start of a cynical policy to use the U.S. veto repeatedly to shield Israel from international criticism, censure and sanctions.

Washington used its veto 32 times to shield Israel from critical draft resolutions between 1972 and 1997. This constituted nearly half of the total of 69 U.S. vetoes cast since the founding of the U.N. The Soviet Union cast 115 vetoes during the same
period.

The initial 1972 veto to protect Israel was cast by George Bush [Sr.] in his capacity as U.S. ambassador to the world body. Ironically, it was Bush as president who temporarily stopped the use of the veto to shield Israel 18 years later. The last such veto was cast on May 31, 1990, it was thought, killing a resolution approved by all 14 other council members to send a U.N. mission to study Israeli abuses of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Then President Bill Clinton came along and cast three
more.

I believe that George Bush [Sr.] had realized the importance of having a balanced approach in the Middle East region, to be able to act in situations such as the first Gulf War with some Arab backing. Ironically, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, brough about a decade of positive progress in the Palestinian Front. Oslo accords were signed in 1993 and the few years that followed saw hope and optimism.

In my view, this hope and optimism was brought about by this slight change of policy on the U.S. part. Blind support of Israel undermined U.S. credibility as a "broker", but most importantly, it had given Israel the comfort that it can get away with murder with U.S. shielding it from International blame. This unconditional backing created a monster. And that "monsterous" approach, in my view, sabotaged Israel's ability to co-exist peacefully in the region. Israel became like a bully whose mum was the headmistress of the school. When bad behavior goes unchecked for years, it develops into bad attitude, which stays with one for life, a life marked by repeated offences and jail time. Eventually, when the mother is no longer there to protect the now-grown-up bully, the poor bully finds it hard to adjust to the real world which no longer forgives such misconduct.

I believe that the U.S. policy of undermining the United Nations and opposing development of International Justice institutions such as ICC, also works against U.S. best interests. Only when an effective International Justice System is developed, can the world be a more safe place. The United States needs to play a strong role in that process, which can never be successful if the U.S. refrains from supporting it, or worse, work to undermine it.

Senator Obama wrote an article last year which was published in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007, where he said:

America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

I have only one word to say in response to that:

Amen.

Isratine or a Swiss Cheese State

Is a Two-State

Solution still Viable?

The "Fringe" program of the "LibDems' Fall Conference" had a number of extremely interesting "topical" sessions. One of them was about Palestine, with the question "Is a two-state solution is still viable?" as a title.

The panel of this "debate" included One Palestinian Author, an Israeli Dissident who tried to Break Gaza's Blockade with a boat filled with humanitarian aid, a British MP (from Scotland) who had visited the occupied territories and Israel recently and an Israeli diplomatic diplomat, with a moderator of course from LibDems!

I will have to write about this session in detail later, but the conclusion of the debate had confirmed my growing fears, that a two-state solution was no longer, in fact since the 80's, viable, and we may be looking at a one-state solution, a democratic state, whereby Israel will be no longer a Jewish State.

In fact, I remember that in one of my articles in Al Masry Al Youm of the series "Against God-State" about Muslim Brothers "Religious State", I made a statement, that Israelis are facing the same challenge like Muslim Brothers, for either Israel to be a Democratic State, or a Jewish State, for the two can not happen together, same as "Muslim Brothers" alleged "Islamic State", it is either an Islamic State, or a "Democratic State", but the two can not happened simulateneously!

http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/article2.aspx?ArticleID=85256

• إن الخيار الإخواني الذي يطرح نفسه علي الإخوان اليوم في مفترق طرق تاريخي، يشبه إلي حد كبير الخيار الإسرائيلي الذي يتعين علي الشعب الإسرائيلي أن يتخذه، فإسرائيل التي تدعي أنها دولة ديمقراطية، هي دولة دينية علي أرض الواقع، لأنها تعطي حق المواطنة لأي يهودي في العالم مهما كان مكان مولده، بينما تنكر حق المواطنة والعودة للفلسطينيين الذي ولدوا وآباؤهم وأجدادهم علي نفس الأرض التي تحكمها إسرائيل اليوم، ويصبح علي إسرائيل أن تختار، إما أن تكون دولة يهودية أو تكون دولة ديمقراطية لأن النقيضين لا يجتمعان علي سلم المواطنة بنفس المنطق الذي ذكرناه. والإخوان أيضاً عليهم أن يعلنوا بكل صراحة، هل يؤمنون بالهوية المصرية كأساس للمواطنة، وبالديمقراطية كأساس للحكم، أم يؤمنون بالطائفية والهوية الدينية كأساس للمواطنة، وبالإرشاد الإلهي كأساس للحكم وسن القوانين والسياسات ...

Israel has stalled and stalled and out-smarted every negotiator by imposing Settlements and changing maps and borders on daily basis, but it has done so to its own detriment. The Israeli negotiator was "too smart" for Israel's own good. Now, what the palestinians are left with, if any, is the corpse of a state, devoured from every vital organ or resource necessary for survival, such that a two-state solution has become impossible. Now the reality is, we have Palestinians caged in an aparheid setting, similar to what had happened in South Africa for decades and we all know how that ended.

This is the thing, you can not "deceive" the land. You can not violate the order of geography and expect that things will just eventually work out! They won't! If Israel wants a two-state solution, and I would very much think that they can not face the Israeli voter with a one-state solution now, since it will mean the end of Israel as a "Jewish" state, something which the Israeli public has never been prepared to accept, then Israeli negotiator, must work very hard NOW to try to give a new package which includes land, water and economic solutions to the Palestinian Negotiator, so that a two-state solution is possible again.

Again, this may require some huge sacrifices which no Israeli government is prepared to give, simply because the Israeli public has not been prepared for these options.

We always make fun of the "Green Book" prophet of the desert, sitting in his fancy tent and issuing prophecies. This time one of his prophecies starts to make sense. The Prophecy of "Isratine" ! Which is becoming more reasonable than a Swiss Cheese State of Palestine with a manufacturer's health warning label marked, "Expired - Long Time Ago".

Who are these People

نسبة 89% من المشاركين
يرون أن البرلمان المصري
لا يمثل المصريين

انتهى التصويت اليوم في الاستطلاع الذي أجريناه حول البرلمان المصري، وإن كان يمثل المصريين بحق أم لا، وقد صوت 89% من المشاركين بأن البرلمان المصري لا يمثل بحق المصريين، بينما رأى 8% أنه يمثل المصريين في بعض الأحيان، ورأى حوالي 1.3% أن البرلمان المصري يمثل المصريين في معظم الأحيان.


وقد قمنا بإجراء هذا الاستطلاع في محاولة لفهم المشاعر المتناقضة التي أحاطت بحريق مجلس الشورى، وطرحنا السؤال على أحد المواقع على الإنترنت وروجنا له من خلال العديد من مجموعات الفيس بوك.

وكان السؤال ببساطة هو:

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

بينما كانت الإجابات المتاحة هي:

نعم. تقريباً دائماً

نعم. في بعض الأحيان

لا. تقريباً أبداً

لا أعلم.


Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People?
هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟


Yes, almost always ..نعم في معظم الأحيان 2 (1%)

Yes, sometimes ... نعم، في بعض الأحيان 14 (8%)

No, almost never ... لا، تقريباً أبداً 139 (89%)

I do not know ... لا أعلم 1 (0%)


Votes so far: 156
Poll closed


و الأمانة العلمية تقتضي أن نقول أن النتيجة ليست دقيقة للأسباب التالية:

• أن قطاع كبير من المصريين لا يستخدمون الإنترنت
• أن الترويج للاستطلاع ربما كان في دوائر معارضة
• أن حجم العينة صغير 156
• يمكن للبعض أن يصوت مرتين من خلال جهاز آخر


ولكنني أرى أن هذه النتيجة معبرة بصورة عامة عن رأي المصريين، وعلى سبيل المثال فإن من شاركوا في انتخابات مجلس الشعب لعام 2005 لم يتجاوزوا 23% من الناخبين،بما يعني أن 77% من المصريين امتنعوا عن التصويت ولم يختاروا من يمثلهم في مجلس الشعب، وبالتأكيد فمن ضمن ممن صوتوا (23%) هناك نسبة ليست راضية عن نتيجة الانتخابات أو أداء المجلس لأسباب مختلفة، وبالتالي فإن يأتي 89% من المصوتين ليعلنوا أن البرلمان المصري لا يمثل المصريين، فهذا أمر ليس مستغرباً، وربما يفسر بوضوح ردود فعل الشارع المصري تجاه حريق مجلس الشورى.

لمتابعة نتيجة الاستطلاع بعد إقفاله، نرجو الرجوع للموقع:

http://weekite.blogspot.com

Final Hours in the Poll: Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People ? o.o.o

آخر يوم في استطلاع رأي حول البرلمان المصري

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

في محاولة لفهم المشاعر المتناقضة التي أحاطت بحريق مجلس الشورى، قمنا بطرح استطلاع رأي على الإنترنت

هل البرلمان المصري يمثل بحق المصريين؟

Does the Egyptian Parliament Truly Represent the People?

والإجابات المتاحة

Possible Answers

Yes, almost always ..نعم في معظم الأحيان

Yes, sometimes ... نعم، في بعض الأحيان

No, almost never ... لا، تقريباً أبداً

I do not know ... لا أعلم

Only 20 Hours left to vote

Participate Now

شارك الآن

http://weekite.blogspot.com/

What do Politicians do? ooo

Nick Clegg's** Speech

to Bournemouth 2008 Rally

Sat, 13 Sep 2008

During his speech at the Liberal Democrat opening night rally in Bournemouth Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg set out bold plans to fix the political system of the UK, which LibDems believe to be broken and outdated. In his speech, he attempts to answer a question from a ten-year-old girl: "what do politicians do?"

Hello everyone, welcome to Autumn Conference 2008. Thank you very much to Dorothy and Henry for their speeches.

When we decided to talk about democracy tonight I immediately remembered a primary school I visited in Sheffield recently. I was trying to explain to the pupils how Westminster works and what it means to be an MP. I talked about elections, about making decisions on grand matters of state...that kind of thing... And a little girl put up her hand and said:

"But what is it that you do?"

She had that look on her face that only children can do - my eldest son does it all the time. Earnest. Innocent. Deadly.

The thing was, although she probably didn't realise it, she had a real point. What do politicians do?

Frankly, what we do in Parliament probably isn't a million miles away from what that little girl sees in the playground every day. We jump around and shout at each other like children. But worse behaved.

I don't know how many of you have spent much time in Parliament, but I'm sure the MPs and Westminster staff here will back me up.

The place is obsessed with pointless procedures and rules that make no sense in the modern world.

Take my first committee room debate. I was new to Parliament, and I had been under the impression that outside of the big, set pieces in the main debating chamber, I could skip the "Rt Hon Member for such and such" stuff and call people by their names. Not their first names - obviously. Just a bit of "Mr this", "Mrs that" - 1950s style. Big mistake. Ann Widdecombe, was chairing the debate. She stood up. She screeched at me...

"Please refrain immediately from calling people by their names..."

"Mr Clegg".....?

Even the cafes in Westminster have silly rules. There's a sort of coffee shop-cum-bar arrangement in the Commons where you can go if you're an MP. Or if you're a Peer that used to be an MP. But not if you're a peer that wasn't. And if you're an MP you can take three guests. But if you're an MP's spouse you can only take one.

Keeping up?

And down the corridor there's a very ordinary canteen where anyone who works in Westminster can get lunch. Except temps. Temps can't have lunch at lunchtime because they're temps. And this is the place where we legislate on workers' rights.

I could go on all night with these kind of stories - don't even get me started on who can use the lifts. But I don't just want to carp about the silliness of Westminster. Because this stuff matters - it matters a lot.

What is left of "the Mother of Parliaments" when you take away the wigs, the rods, the cat-calls and the jeers?

Not a lot. Just broken politics. We know that every time there's a vote in Parliament, it's not the argument that wins. It's the Government. Labour was elected with the support of 22% of Britain's voters. And in 11 years they have been defeated just three times.

Three times. One of which was a vote on whether or not MPs should all go home early. That's not accountability. It's not democracy. It's got to end.

This is broken politics. Westminster is home to a political class sheltered from reality and shielded from an increasingly alienated society. Its rules are designed to keep out real protest, real emotion, the hardships endured by real people.

Earlier this year I met fifty retired Gurkha soldiers who had been refused the right to live in Britain. They felt so let down, so dejected, that they surrendered their long service and distinguished conduct medals to me as a symbol of protest.

They were awarded these medals after risking their lives for this nation. Just imagine what it means to give up something so hard-won, so treasured, so meaningful.

I was ashamed of the government that day. Ashamed that any veteran of our British Army could be so mistreated he would want to return his medals. I wanted to take one of these medals into the Chamber, for the Prime Minister to see it for himself.

Because those medals convey more strongly than words ever could their sense of betrayal. But I was told it was impossible. The same rule book that concerns itself with knee breeches and silver buckles forbids anyone taking a "prop" into a debate.

You can dismiss this silly rule as trivia. You can dismiss every one of the thousands of rules. But you can't dismiss what they add up to.

When I look at that medal it has even more meaning for me now than before. It tells me you shouldn't look for freedom of expression in parliament. You should look in village halls, in kitchens, in staff rooms. Anywhere where you can have real debate.

Britain needs a real change if we're going to mend our broken politics. And you can be sure the Conservatives won't ever offer it. Because they are waiting for their "go".

David Cameron thinks that two parties take it in turns to run this country. Neither is willing to change the system because it's that very system that returns them to power every few elections.

British politics has become like a giant dance of the hokey cokey. David and Gordon skipping round in circles, hand in hand. Taking it in turns, left foot in, right foot out, left foot out, right foot in.

You see, while Labour and the Conservatives purport to be the greatest of enemies, when it comes to keeping power, they are actually the best of friends. And let's face it the Prime Minister needs all the friends he can get.

You see there are friends, there are enemies. And then there are Cabinet colleagues. And then - there are party whips.

Poor Gordon - he must know its bad - he's even been jilted by his beloved Darling.
Do you know David Cameron has already held conversations with "the security people" about measures he'll need to take "once" he's in Number 10? How's that for arrogance?

Here's a man who'll speak fondly of "hardworking families" but has no actual plans to help them. A man who - with recession looming - puts millionaires first. A man who hopes that soundbites can fix the economy.

The best George Osborne can offer is that Gordon has failed to "save for a rainy day". Apparently George would "fix the roof while the sun is shining". What is this? Just William? The Secret Seven?

If you want real solutions for Britain's economy are you really going to call this bunch of Conservative Cowboys? There's only one man who can be trusted with our economic future, and it's Vince Cable.

And there's only one party that can be trusted with our political future, and it's the Liberal Democrats. In 2001, for the first time in election history, more people stayed at home than voted for the party that took power.

The same happened in 2005. It's not right. It's up to us to change that, and I know we can. We can do things differently to make our country better.

And that's what I told that little girl in Sheffield when she asked me what politicians do. I told her that the job of a politician is to give a voice to the voiceless. Maybe it sounded a bit sentimental for an 8 year old's taste. But even if it's cheesy, it's true.

Our Government just isn't listening. It keeps the public at arms length with layers of confusing, impersonal and inefficient bureaucracy. Faceless Britain. Where form-filling and paper pushing have become a national sport.

I could at least understand it if the computerised bureaucracy replacing human face-to-face contact was doing the job properly.

But when it comes to Government IT systems, the computer can't even say no. The Department's lost the file.

Is it really a surprise that millions of people feel powerless? This sense of helplessness - of not being able to control your own life - is a blight on our society.

It breeds anger, cynicism and fear. It creates hopelessness. Frustration. It is fertile breeding ground for extremism.

This is broken politics. This is not the society that I want to live in. This is not the society I want my children - any of our children - to live in. This is not a Liberal Britain.

But we - we together - can change it. We can rock the establishment. We can shake-up the system so that Whitehall doesn't control our lives. We can put power back in the hands of those who know best.

Let's give patients, parents and pupils power.

Let's give school and hospital staff a say over the services they provide each day. Let's give communities control. Where Liberal Democrats are in power locally this is already happening. You heard it earlier tonight from Dorothy.

In Liberal Democrat controlled Kingston any 100 local people can call in any council decision. In Sheffield within days of winning power we announced new community panels to take power from the town hall down into the hands of the people who count.

Imagine that. Real control. Real accountability.

Liberal Democrats trust people.

That's why I'm announcing today that over the next nine months we'll be knocking on one million doors across the nation. Listening, connecting, and engaging with people.
I want us to reinvent community politics for a new generation. The Liberal Democrat vision is shaped by the experiences of real people. Which is why only the Liberal Democrats will bring down the faceless state.

We will protect the front line services at the heart of communities across the country. We will redirect billions of pounds of tax payers' money by making central Government accountable for every penny they spend in our name. We will protect the privacy of British individuals by scrapping the preposterous and expensive ID card scheme.

We are the only party committed to taking the price tag off power - capping donations, slashing party spending and keeping politics clean.

And - we will reform the voting system so that each and every person counts.

Only the Liberal Democrats can reunite people and politics. Because we do it up and down the country every day.

Our councillors make change happen. Our councils give power and money back to the communities they serve. Our MPs stand up for people when the system lets them down. Our MEPs are the difference between a Europe that tackles climate change and one that turns a blind eye.

Liberal Democrats - make no mistake we are already a party of power.

And this week we will set out our blueprint for a freer, fairer Britain.

******************

Source:

http://www.libdems.org.uk/home/nick-cleggs-speech-to-bournemouth-2008-rally-658381;show

******************

** Nick Clegg is the elected leader of the LibDems.

******************

Comments:

- What do politicians do in Egypt?

* You mean apart from sending ex-police chiefs to kill ex-wives in x-countries?

When they are not busy drafting corrupt "anti-monopoly" laws which will only protect their turfs and possibly double their profits, profiteering or really racketeering from monopolized commodities?

What do politicians do in Egypt?

Politicians in Egypt come in three kinds really ... the opposition kind ... often ending up in jail, like Ayman Nour ... and the NDP unkind, which has obtained "a permit to exploit the people" from the regime ... for and on behalf of the regime itself ... the third kind ... is the harmless opposition or independent kind ... minding its own business ... often busy in interpreting dreams and singing the praises for Mubarak and his regime ...

... and that's about it ... that is what politicians do in Egypt ...

LibDems - Bournemouth Sep 2008

- مين يجيبللي حبيبي؟

* ما تقوم تفز إنت تجيبه !

يقام المؤتمر السنوي لحزب الليبراليين الديمقراطيين LibDems or Liberal Democrats في مدينة بورنموث الساحلية في الجنوب الانجليزي. وقد دعى الحزب شبكة الليبراليين العرب للمشاركة. المؤتمر رائع وضخم وفعاليته كثيرة جداً ومتعددة، لا يمكن المشاركة فيها كلها، حيث يوجد حوالي 10 محاور متوازية قوامها ورش عمل، وحلقات نقاش، وأنشطة تدريبية، وندوات في مختلف القضايا، تعقد في مركز المؤتمرات بقاعاته المتعددة علاوة على قاعات 5 فنادق قريبة من المركز.

التنظيم رائع وبسيط في نفس الوقت، لم أنبهر فقط بالمحاضرين والخبراء وصناع السياسات، بل انبهرت أكثر بالمواطن البريطاني العادي، الذي يشارك في صنع حياته ومستقبله، ويدافع عن حقوقه وحرياته بصورة نشطة، وليس على طريقة "مين يجيبلي حبيبي"!.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference

Liberal Voices

NAL on Nile TV!

The Network of Arab Liberals (NAL) has been a project in the making for about two years. Finally, in July 2008, NAL was launched in Cairo, the Internal Charter was ratified by the General Assembly of the founders, a President, Mr. Mohamed Tamaldou (Morocco) was elected, and an Executive Board was also elected.

The conference, which was sponsored by Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF), also included a workshop about the Role of the Liberal Opposition Parties in the Arab World. We were approached by an editor from Nile TV to record an interview about the conference, NAL and about the "Role of Opposition Parties" in the "Arab World" and in Egypt. Mrs. Amira Abdel Fattah, Regional Program Coordinator, FNF, and myself, from NAL were hosted in the show.

Thanks to NAL's program officer, Ms. Cynthia Farahat, we have a clip to show of that interview.

Press here to see Clip 1 and Clip 2 of that video on YouTube.com ... or watch it here: