21st Century Vision

American States Bypass Bush On Climate Change

The Guardian today reports that the America's north-eastern states are on the brink of a declaration of environmental independence with the introduction of mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions of the kind rejected by the Bush administration.

In the first regional agreement of its kind in the US, nine states are expected to announce a plan next month to freeze carbon dioxide emissions from big power stations by 2009 and then reduce them by 10% by 2020.

The region stretches from New Jersey to Maine and generates roughly the same volume of emissions as Germany.

Pennsylvania and Maryland have signed on as observers to the regional initiative and are considering joining it at a later date.

On the other side of the continent, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona are exploring similar agreements, representing a clear break between state governments and Washington over global warming.

The north-eastern pact is less ambitious than the Kyoto accord, which freezes emissions at the 1990 level and imposes a 7% reduction by 2012. The plan will initially only apply to power stations with an output of more than 25 megawatts, of which there are about 600 across the region, but it could later be extended to large manufacturing plants. The states are New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island and Delaware. Some states will need to ratify the agreement in their state legislatures, but that is not expected to be a significant obstacle.

The Bush administration withdrew from the Kyoto protocol on climate change in 2001, and restated its opposition at the G8 summit at Gleneagles in July, arguing that its mandatory emissions targets would devastate the US economy.

In July, Washington signed a separate pact with Australia, Japan, China, India and South Korea, which did not fix emissions targets but instead set out to encourage the private sector of green technologies and their transfer to industrialising countries.

Perhaps one of our tasks now is to stop attacking the Bush administration for not taking the measures they should but rather to work with the American states and people who are taking their own measures. They need encouragement and we should work with them and particularly through the American United Nations Association.

A Leading American Condones Assassination

While Governments from Washington to London are looking at how they can suppress religious fundamentalists who advocate violence, it is clear that the United States has bred one of its very own. Pat Robertson the Christian fundamentalist broadcaster has called for the assassination of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chevz who has openly won a democratic election and withstood and American inspired coup.

Today, Venezuela's vice president accused religious broadcaster Pat Robertson on Tuesday of making "terrorist statements" by suggesting that American agents assassinate President Hugo Chavez.

Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said Venezuela was studying its legal options, adding that how Washington responds to Robertson's comments would put its anti-terrorism policy to the test.

"The ball is in the U.S. court, after this criminal statement by a citizen of that country," Rangel told reporters. "It's huge hypocrisy to maintain this discourse against terrorism and at the same time, in the heart of that country, there are entirely terrorist statements like those."

What is the British Government’s attitude to the Robertson outburst? Do they say that it is an internal matter for the US? Or would they consider this in the same light as an Islamic terrorist call to arms, an act of proclaimed terrorism that should be contained?

How we treat people like Pat Robertson will show the world how even handed we are in tackling incitement to violence of all kinds. We cannot attach one form and turn a blind eye to another.

The US & Antopersonnel Mines

The United States, which has not manufactured antipersonnel mines since 1997, will make a decision in December whether to begin production of a new antipersonnel mine called Spider. The Pentagon has requested a total of $1.3 billion for development and production activities for another new antipersonnel mine called the Intelligent Munitions System, with a full production decision expected in 2008. 

Human Rights Watch said that these developments are the result of the Bush administration’s landmine policy announced in February 2004 under which the U.S. abandoned its long-held objective of joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which comprehensively prohibits the use, production, trade or stockpiling of antipersonnel

“We are beginning to see the bitter fruit of the new Bush administration landmine policy,” said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms division. “The U.S. appears well on the way to resuming production of antipersonnel mines. Renewed export and renewed use of these inhumane weapons may not be far behind.” 

The United States has not exported antipersonnel mines since 1992 and has not used them since 1991 in the Gulf War.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that a new U.S. proposal for an international prohibition on export of landmines that do not self-destruct will pave the way for the resumption of U.S. export of antipersonnel mines that do self-destruct. A self-destructing mine blows itself up after a set period of time.

“Any future production, trade or use of antipersonnel mines would put the United States squarely at odds with the emerging international consensus against the weapon, and would draw strong criticism from its closest allies,” said Goose. 

A total of 145 countries have joined the Mine Ban Treaty and another eight have signed but not yet ratified. This includes every member of NATO, as well as Japan, Australia and other key military allies. With very few exceptions, nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on all antipersonnel mines at some point in the future. Even many states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty have stopped production, trade and use of the weapon. 

The US & Antipersonnel Mines!

The United States, which has not manufactured antipersonnel mines since 1997, will make a decision in December whether to begin production of a new antipersonnel mine called Spider. The Pentagon has requested a total of $1.3 billion for development and production activities for another new antipersonnel mine called the Intelligent Munitions System, with a full production decision expected in 2008. 

Human Rights Watch said that these developments are the result of the Bush administration’s landmine policy announced in February 2004 under which the U.S. abandoned its long-held objective of joining the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, which comprehensively prohibits the use, production, trade or stockpiling of antipersonnel

“We are beginning to see the bitter fruit of the new Bush administration landmine policy,” said Steve Goose, director of Human Rights Watch’s Arms division. “The U.S. appears well on the way to resuming production of antipersonnel mines. Renewed export and renewed use of these inhumane weapons may not be far behind.” 

The United States has not exported antipersonnel mines since 1992 and has not used them since 1991 in the Gulf War.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that a new U.S. proposal for an international prohibition on export of landmines that do not self-destruct will pave the way for the resumption of U.S. export of antipersonnel mines that do self-destruct. A self-destructing mine blows itself up after a set period of time.

“Any future production, trade or use of antipersonnel mines would put the United States squarely at odds with the emerging international consensus against the weapon, and would draw strong criticism from its closest allies,” said Goose. 

A total of 145 countries have joined the Mine Ban Treaty and another eight have signed but not yet ratified. This includes every member of NATO, as well as Japan, Australia and other key military allies. With very few exceptions, nearly every nation has endorsed the goal of a global ban on all antipersonnel mines at some point in the future. Even many states not party to the Mine Ban Treaty have stopped production, trade and use of the weapon. 

Being Honest About Foreign Policy

In the website Open Democracy, Laura Sandys writes that the UK can no longer forge foreign policy as it has done for generations. The fact that we are now a multi ethnic society means that we have to listen to our different communities and create a more inclusive and global foreign policy. Unfortunately she does not think our politicians are doing that at the moment. This is part of her article.

First, the great British government’s support for jihadist “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan in the 1980s had some serious, unforeseen implications. There may have been good cause to support resistance to Soviet occupation of the country; but if the government and foreign-policy elite today admitted that it provided arms, funding and training to people like Osama bin Laden, this would involve honestly accepting some responsibility for the growth of radical Islamism.

Second, Britain has for many years been a close ally of Saudi Arabia, whose funding and promotion of madrasas across the Muslim world have played a role in fostering such radicalism. The Egyptian government that has been arresting and torturing secular and Muslim democrats for decades has also been a beneficiary of British support. The blockage to progress in such countries has pushed many disenfranchised young people towards more militant groups, with results like the 23 July attacks in Sharm al-Sheikh.

Third, Britain chose to support and participate in the invasion of Iraq in 2003. No government minister will accept a link between this policy and the London bombs, but nor can they prevent others from making and (in some cases) exploiting such a link. In any case, it would be naïve to think that Iraq had no impact on what happened in London.

The government may be unable to make this “leap of the obvious”, but British citizens can at least ask one thing of it: start counting the Iraqi dead. The United States administration clearly won’t, but Britain’s government should be brave and confident enough to publish the numbers of those who have died on Britain’s watch. This is not to say that Britain is directly responsible for all Iraqi deaths, but an internationally-minded country with an understanding of global citizenry has a basic duty to count the human cost.

This is a matter of being civilised, not one of nationality or religion. There are almost 200,000 British Iraqis – Muslim, Christian, Jewish. Britain should register deaths among their families in Amara or Basra, as well as those of the brave British troops who are trying to keep the peace.

Fourth, there is an urgent domestic truth. Unemployment, deprivation and injustice affect millions of people in Britain; they are not unique to the Muslim community but do impact very severely on it. These social problems never justify any crime, never mind acts of terror. But the government should recognise that it could do far more to address the issue of Muslims’ social exclusion.

Thinking forward

If the British government started telling the truth on these matters and met the Muslim community halfway, it could have an enormous psychological benefit. Such transparency would reveal politicians’ understanding that British foreign policy is not conducted in a domestic vacuum, and help build recognition across the society – including within the Muslim community itself – that foreign policy is complex and always has unforeseen repercussions.

This is where, for all successive British governments’ self-satisfied celebration of “multiculturalism” and successful integration of racial and religious minorities, they have got it so wrong. The very diversity of Britain today requires policymakers to look at their decisions through the eyes of all British citizens. This makes foreign policy in particular more difficult and challenging, but that is what political leaders are there for.

Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims, along with the country’s various other communities, are helping Britain to become a country with a developing sense of global citizenship. This is exciting and positive, but it needs its leaders to recognise that they can no longer govern Britain through a white, middle-class prism – and its citizens to realise that stoicism is not enough if we want to solve problems and not simply react to them.

See full artcile ...

Terror & Democracy

Visit the debate ….

Could democracy be the ultimate antidote to terrorism? In the face of violence, how should democratic values be put into action? openDemocracy writers present their views - join the conversation in the forum to add yours.

This debate is an extension of arguments presented by openDemocracy in the run up to the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid in March this year. To access the online forum discussion from this earlier period of debate, which is hosted on the Summit site, please click here.

Visit the Open Democracy site for an interesting and lively debate about how democracies should respond to the presence of terrorism.

Peace Week – Open Faith Houses

The events below are well worth advertising and ensuring that as many people know about it as possible. It represents people coming together to try to understand each other and live in a spirit of tolerance. That spirit is needed more than ever know by not just individuals but nation states as well.

The Enfield Peace Alliance is arranging for different faith houses to be open in the Borough during Peace Week, 12^th – 18^th September to welcome visitors and to help us discover about each other and build bridges etc. between our faith communities.  The idea was envisaged before the recent tragic events in London but seems all the more important now.

We are welcome to visit the following Faith Houses which will be especially open on the following evenings:       

Monday 12th                         Cockfosters & N. Southgate Synagogue Old Farm Avenue, Southgate, N14 5QR

Tuesday 13th                         Hindu Tamil Association Temple Church Lane, Edmonton N9

Thursday 15th                       Our Lady & St George Catholic Church, 45 London Road, Enfield, EN2 6DS

Friday 16th                             Sachkhand Nanak Dham Darshan Darbar 335 Fore Street, Edmonton N9 0NU (a 

                                                  multi-faith temple based on modern-day Sikh prophet)

Saturday 17th                        Edmonton Islamic Centre 198 Fore Street, The Angel, Edmonton N18 2J (may   

                                                 be afternoon opening)

Sunday 18th                           Palmers Green Mosque Muslim Mosque Community Education Centre, 2-4pm                                                          Oakthorpe Road, Palmers Green N13

Terror's Greatest Recruitment Tool

Naomi Klein recently wrote an article for The Nation which has been reproduced in today’s Guardian. Here is some of that article with a link to the whole article at the end.

Hussein Osman, one of the men alleged to have participated in London's failed bombings on July 21, recently told Italian investigators that they prepared for the attacks by watching "films on the war in Iraq", La Repubblica reported. "Especially those where women and children were being killed and exterminated by British and American soldiers ... of widows, mothers and daughters that cry."

It has become an article of faith that Britain was vulnerable to terror because of its politically correct anti-racism. Yet the comments attributed to Osman suggest another possible motive for acts of terror against the UK: rage at perceived extreme racism. And what else can we call the belief - so prevalent that we barely notice it - that American and European lives are worth more than the lives of Arabs and Muslims, so much more that their deaths in Iraq are not even counted?…………………………..

Into this explosive environment has stepped Tony Blair, determined to pass off two of the main causes of terror as its cure. He intends to deport more people to countries where they will likely face torture. And he will keep fighting wars in which soldiers don't know the names of the towns they are levelling. (To cite just one recent example, an August 5 Knight Ridder report quotes a marine sergeant pumping up his squad by telling them, "these will be the good old days, when you brought ... death and destruction to - what the fuck is this place called?" Someone piped in helpfully, "Haqlaniyah.")………………..

The Islamic Human Rights Commission received 320 complaints of racist attacks in the wake of the bombings; The Monitoring Group, a charity that provides assistance to victims of racial harassment, has received 83 emergency calls; Scotland Yard says hate crimes are up 600% from this time last year. And last year was nothing to brag about: "One in five of Britain's ethnic-minority voters say that they considered leaving Britain because of racial intolerance," according to a Guardian poll in March.

This last statistic shows that the brand of multiculturalism practised in Britain (and France, Germany, Canada ... ) has little to do with genuine equality. It is instead a Faustian bargain, struck between vote-seeking politicians and self-appointed community leaders, one that keeps ethnic minorities tucked away in state-funded peripheral ghettoes while the centres of public life remain largely unaffected by seismic shifts in the national ethnic makeup. Nothing exposes the shallowness of this alleged tolerance more than the speed with which Muslims deemed insufficiently "British" are being told to "get out" (to quote the Conservative MP Gerald Howarth).

The real problem is not too much multiculturalism but too little. If the diversity now ghettoised on the margins of western societies - geographically and psychologically - were truly allowed to migrate to the centres, it might infuse public life in the west with a powerful new humanism. If we had deeply multi-ethnic societies, rather than shallow multicultural ones, it would be much more difficult for politicians to sign deportation orders sending Algerian asylum seekers to torture, or to wage wars in which only the invaders' dead are counted. A society that truly lived its values of equality and human rights, at home and abroad, would have another benefit too. It would rob terrorists of what has always been their greatest recruitment tool: our racism.

See full Article in The Nation ……

Food crisis 'runs across Africa'

With attention on food shortages in Niger, aid agencies say a vast "hunger belt" is stretching across Africa.

People across Africa are affected, from Niger in central Africa to Somalia on the Indian Ocean seaboard. Latest reports from the Famine Early Warning Systems Network say over 20m people are at risk from food shortages.

The broad cross-section of international aid agencies says that urgent action is required in seven countries across Africa.

The dramatic TV pictures from Niger may have pricked the conscience of some donor countries, but a broader look at the continent shows much wider need.

The Famine Early Warning network, made up of a variety of aid agencies including the aid arm of the US government, USAid, says no fewer than seven African states are facing food emergencies. These are mostly on the fringes of the Sahara desert and stretch from Niger, through Chad and Sudan, to Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia.

See full BBC story …..

Robin Cook Spoke For Us All

With Robin Cook’s death, there dies a resounding voice that saw the folly of the British Government’s policy towards Iraq and the devastating consequences that this policy is having in the world and on the streets of our own cities. Here are reproduced excerpts from an article that Robin Cook wrote for the Independent last March. You can access the full article below ……

A fitting way to mark the anniversary would be to drive a stake through the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and bury it where it cannot be disinterred to justify another unilateral military adventure. The new Bush doctrine claimed the right to make war on any country that could be a potential threat some years down the road. Iraq has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that intelligence cannot provide evidence reliable enough to justify war on such a speculative basis.

In truth, we would have made more progress in rolling back support for terrorism if we had brought peace to Palestine rather than war to Iraq, but President Bush's promise that he would give priority to peace in the Middle East has become another of the commitments given before the invasion and broken in the year after it.

Iraq has become the defining issue of this parliament and Tony Blair has honestly admitted it will be remembered as the most divisive decision of his second term. It has alienated our key allies in Europe. It has undermined the principle of collective security through the UN, which a previous Labour government helped design to provide a multilateral world forum. And it has set back dialogue with the Muslim world and given a boost to the fundamentalists.

On this first anniversary it seems only too likely that the judgement of history may be that the invasion of Iraq has been the biggest blunder in British foreign and security policy in the half-century since Suez.

See full article …