Informazione
Il Coro Partigiano Triestino
PINKO TOMAŽIČ
Invita i cittadini ad intervenire alla
Partenza del corteo ore 17.30
Tržaški partizanski pevski zbor
PINKO TOMAŽIČ
Ob zaključku programa bo kulturno združenje “ IL PANE E LE ROSE” podelilo prvo državno nagrado za pesništvo odporništva.
Sul tema del genocidio dei Rom da parte del nazi-fascismo, in italiano sono disponibili i libri di Giovanna Boursier.)
NASCE LA MASTEL CARD
Cari lettori, segnatevi sul calendario la data di oggi. Questo è un giorno importante per tutti gli italiani e per noi di dementemastella. Siamo orgogliosi di potervi presentare in anteprima mondiale la prima carta di credito emessa da un blog: la MastelCard.
Si tratta di un prodotto innovativo, giovane e dinamico che permetterà a coloro che la richiederanno di usufruire di tutti, ma proprio tutti i privilegi del Ministro, gratis e senza spese di spedizione! Verrà distribuita in tre versioni: Basic, Gold e Platinum.
Basic:
Volo Roma-Milano con Airbus presidenziale + biglietto per il GP di Monza senza che ci sia nè danno erariale, nè dolo o colpa grave: 0 euro, con MastelCard.
Tenere in vita un surrogato di giornale : ricevi 1.331.000 euro (da dividere con il resto della famiglia), con MastelCard.
In più per ogni 1000 euro che sottrarrete ad un contribuente, in regalo per voi il divertentissimo gadget anti-intercettazione per il vostro cellulare.
Gold:
Tutti i vantaggi della Basic
Minacciare la Rai per far andare in onda quello che ti pare, quando ti pare: 0 euro, con MastelCard Ricevere la pensione da giornalista senza aver scritto nessun articolo e dopo meno di un anno di lavoro: 0 euro, MastelCard Richiedi la tua MastelCard Gold e partecipa al concorso "
Platinum:
Tutti i vantaggi della Gold
Fare il sindaco nella vostra città con Forza Italia ed essere eletti in Senato con l'Unione: 0 euro, con MastelCard Sei appartamenti sul Lungotevere: a 1/3 del prezzo di mercato, con MastelCard Trasferire il magistrato che indaga su di te: 0 euro, con MastelCard Speciale servizio "IndultoFacile (TM)". Hai amici o amici di amici responsabili del crack Parmalat o di altri reati finanziari? Allora questa è la carta che fare per te: richiedi il servizio IndultoFacile allo sportello della banca più vicina e falli tornare tutti in libertà.
La MastelCard è una carta personalizzabile. Scrivete tra i commenti l'uso che ne vorreste fare; cercheremo di venirvi incontro.
INIZIATIVA A GRAVINA 26 E 28 GENNAIO
Mer 23 Gen 2008 8:12 am
A Lecce. A partire dalle ore 18.00 - Iniziativa No War con assemblea, sit-in, banchetti raccolta firme proposta di legge di iniziativa popolare su trattati internazionali, su basi e servitù
militari.
Tania Noctiummes and Jean-Pierre Page
Daily News (Sri Lanka)
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
http://www.dailynews.lk/2007/10/10/news27.asp
Louise Arbour, former prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, today United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, arrives in Colombo today.
Contrary to the prudence required by an official of a multilateral organisation like the United Nations, she has already proclaimed her intention to press the Government of Sri Lanka to open a field office under her authority to "protect" the citizens of Sri Lanka, implying that the Government of Sri Lanka is not capable of protecting its own citizens!
Does Louise Arbour consider Sri Lanka to be a "failed State", a dangerous concept of the Bush Administration?
This postulate was relayed in an international campaign by representatives of the so-called civil society whose links and political objectives are those of their donors - Western Governments and NGOs, both international and Sri Lankan, who receive their funds primarily from these same Governments.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other NGOs such as INFORM in Sri Lanka suggest that such an office "could act as a neutral body" to monitor human rights in the country. They say "national mechanisms don't work". It is not surprising that under these conditions, the LTTE itself has promoted and welcomed the visit of Louise Arbour.
It is important therefore to re-situate this diabolical project within the context of the profound changes taking place within the United Nations System at the behest of the United States and its partners. Restructuring of the UN Centre for Human Rights has transformed it from a secretariat of the multilateral body - the Human Rights Council - into a highly politicised Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, which is increasingly substituting itself for the Human Rights Council and its organs.
None can deny that there is a need to transform the United Nations and the international architecture into a system that represents genuine and greater - not less - multilateralism But that is not the case today Why? In the eyes of the US Administration and its partners, the survival of the multilateral system has become an anachronism.
Its aim now is to transform the organisation into a tool that serves its vision of global supremacy, to gain legitimacy for its preventive wars and its so-called action against terrorism, as well as to promote the rules of the market and guarantee private property.
Under the guise of "freedom to live in dignity," the former Secretary-General of the United Nations insisted "We must move from an era of legislation to an era of implementation".
Through his notion of "responsibility to protect potential or actual victims of massive atrocities," he legitimised foreign intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign States: "if national authorities are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, then the responsibility shifts to the international community to use diplomatic, humanitarian and other methods to help protect the human rights and well-being of civilian population.
When such methods appear insufficient, the Security Council may out of necessity decide to take action under the Charter of the United Nations, including enforcement action, if so required."
Under the multilateral vision, the human rights special procedures mechanisms such as Special Rapporteurs were created to exercise a protection or monitoring function from outside the country with due respect for State sovereignty.
Today, Louise Arbour's mission is to impose upon countries that seek to defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity, a human right field office that would de-legitimise national mechanisms, while at the same time de-legitimising the multilateral system!
Why does Arbour not advocate opening human rights field offices in the United States or in the European Union countries, where it is now an established fact that the CIA has opened secret prisons on the Guantanamo model?
Attempts by the United States and its allied to instrumentalise the United Nations in this field is not new Within the United Nations, the process began with the creation of the highly politicised Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and re-structuring of the former Centre for Human Rights.
The Centre functioned as a secretariat to service the human rights multilateral organ - the Commission on Human Rights and to provide advisory services and technical assistance to Governments - at their request - to establish or strengthen national institutions to carry out protection functions.
An insidious transformation is taking place within that Office turning it into an instrument of direct intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign States through a rapidly growing implantation of field offices essentially staffed by individuals paid by rich donor countries or private institutions.
Arbour's vision implies new organs, new procedures, new methods of work, and a new type of staff that has more in common with diplomatic mercenaries than with international civil servants!
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has effectively turned into an intelligence-gathering arm in the name of "humanitarian intervention;" A greater human rights field presence during times of crisis would provide timely information to United Nations bodies and, when necessary, draw urgent attention to situations requiring action."
This logic contributes to legitimising and systematising foreign intervention in all domains, if necessary, by force, "preventively and with the full range of available instruments."
Such a vision could definitely emasculate the General Assembly of its supreme authority.
An illustration is the obsessive reference to subcontracting of UN programmes and activities, including research, and to 'strategic partnerships' with non-State actors of the so-called civil society and the private sector (transnational corporations) as newfound sole authorities. This is also true for human resources within the UN System.
New recruits will serve the political interests of the major financial and military contributors; flexibility and precariousness in staff contracts will facilitate rapid deployment in the service of the new interventionist vision.
Heads of field offices have "the discretion, the means, the authority and the expert assistance that they need to manage an organisation which is expected to meet fast-changing operational needs in many different parts of the world."
Managers may take unilateral decisions to establish, in a selective and arbitrary manner, "strategic partnerships" with non-State actors of the so-called civil society, NGOs, and the private sector. The political implications will be apparent in the sensitive field of 'intelligence gathering' under the guise of protecting the human rights of civilians!
The radical break that Louise Arbour is ardently advocating requires the elimination of the remaining values, principles, and ethics that are linked to the multilateral system and which constitute obstacles to the deployment of the new organisation, as envisioned by the US and its allies.
More than 60 years after the founding of the United Nations, the United States and its partners want to substitute for the common vision held by peoples and States emerging from the victory over fascism, a unilateral and grotesque interpretation of the threats and challenges faced by the world, and actions that must be taken.
Member States are being pressured to adopt "a new security consensus that whatever threatens one threatens all," and accept that "threats which each region of the world perceives as most urgent are in fact equally so for all."
According to the multilateral concept of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security are any forcible action by one State against another, against its national sovereignty, its territorial integrity or political independence, the right of people to self-determination and freedom.
It include wars of external aggression, the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation, as well as armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements.
However, under the vision promoted by Louise Arbour, matters that fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States will be considered threats to international peace and security. 'New threats' will include civil violence, organised crime, terrorism, proliferation, small arms and light weapons, weapons of mass destruction, poverty, deadly infectious disease, environmental degradation!
Under the guise of "freeing the world from want," the Western powers are seeking to legitimise the imposition of conditionalities on poor and weaker developing countries so as to force upon them the single economic model thereby accelerating the process of capitalist globalisation with the accompanying devastation that we are witnessing.
Developing countries are pressured to strengthen so-called 'governance,' combat corruption, reduce the State role in the economy and society except those that stimulate private investment, increase the role of the private sector and civil society, provide legal and other guarantees for their activities, including property rights: conditions that already form part and parcel of the controversial structural adjustment programmes of the rich countries and their notorious international financial institutions.
In return, the rich countries will reward developing countries with "increased development assistance, a more development-oriented trade system and wider and deeper debt relief."
Yesterday, peoples, nations and States were united in the promotion of common values and principles. Today, Louise Arbour's vision is to unite member States around a manicheistic vision.
Thirty-seven years ago, the Declaration on principles of international law friendly relations and co-operation among States, which further defined the Charter of the United Nations, proclaimed that "States have the duty to co-operate with one another, irrespective of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in the various spheres of international relations, in order to maintain international peace and security and to promote international economic stability and progress, the general welfare of nations and international co-operation free from discrimination based on such differences."
Today, instead of cooperation between sovereign States, unilateral humanitarian intervention often under cover of the United Nations - in the name of defence of human rights has become the rule.
From now on, regional arrangements will be replaced by the tenebrous "international community or relevant regional actors and organisations," with the right to intervene wherever and whenever in accordance with a political agenda.
From now on, local disputes will be replaced by "whatever threatens one threatens all". From now on, pacific settlement will be replaced by "other methods or the full range of available instruments" Member States and the United Nations will be reduced to less than nothing.
If we should allow victory of unilateralism over multilateralism, NATO intervention against former Yugoslavia, the armed US aggression against Afghanistan, its aggression and occupation of Iraq will retroactively gain legitimacy.
So will the establishment by the Security Council of ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, of which Louise Arbour was the Prosecutor! All that is illegal will become legal; Lies will become truth.
Will Sri Lanka become another target?
Accepting the opening of a United Nations human rights field office in Sri Lanka will be accepting a project which is, in essence, a diabolical one.
DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER LOUISE ARBOUR?(La ex procuratrice del TPIY dell'Aia continua, in altra veste e con modalità appena diverse, la sua opera di demolizione di Stati sovrani: come sempre, per ottenere la loro ri-colonizzazione imperialistica, non si disdegna la difesa del banditismo terrorista-etnico in nome dei "diritti umani"...)Begin forwarded message:From: deshapremiyo @...Subject: Sri Lanka need not yield to international lawDate: January 18, 2008 9:47:23 PM GMT+01:00Sri Lanka need not yield to international law
– PNM tells Louise Arbour
(LankaTruth: 18th January 2008 23:40 S.L.T )
Sri Lankan Nation need not yield to so-called international law that would be brought against sovereignty of the Motherland states Patriotic National Movement.
PNM makes this observation in a statement issued against a statement made by Ms. Louise Arbour, U.N. High Commissioner for human rights regarding human rights situation in Sri Lanka. In its statement PNM points out that Ms. Louise Arbour has launched diplomatic terrorism against Sri Lanka.
The full text of the PNM statement:
"We believe that the whole Sri Lankan Nation should pay its attention to the serious statement made regarding Sri Lanka recently by Ms. Louise Arbour , head of U.N. High Commission for human rights.
In the relevant statement she had stated that violations by any party could entail individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law. She had emphasized that this law would be seriously effective on those in positions of command. She had said this emphasizing that according to international law all rights of civilians should be defended.
From this statement of Louis Arbour it is clear what agenda the western imperialist forces have conspired to carry out in Sri Lanka. We, from the very beginning, have indicated what plans Louise Arbour and her kind had aimed to be implemented in Sri Lanka when they tried to exaggerate the human rights situation in the country to the world and made various statements. What western imperialism and Louise Arbour and her kind want today is to deny to the Sri Lankan Nation the opportunity to bring about a final defeat to the murderous separatist terrorists, who are helpless and confined to a small area in Wanni and Killinochchi. In order to fulfill this villainous aim Louise Arbour and her kind put forward the so-called human rights issues.
In the statement we quoted above Louis Arbour directly threatens the political and military leaders who are involved in taking measures for national security. What she says in diplomatic language is that if anyone takes steps to liberate Wanni and Killinochchi they would be branded as war criminals and brought before international law. This is clearly a threat. It is terrorists who carry out threats. Hence, Louie Arbour has unleashed diplomatic terrorism against Sri Lankan state. Louise Arbour has unleashed this terrorism on behalf of murderous, separatist tiger terrorism.
The process of solving the internal issues of Sri Lanka is decided by the majority of its inhabitants. Any government that has come to power with people’s mandate is responsible in implementing the law of the land all over the country without any hindrance. It is presently done through legitimate armed forces. One of its tasks is to destroy the world’s most ruthless terrorist organizations that has proved to be an obstacle in implementing law and order in the country. It is the prerogative of the Sri Lankan government to fulfill this task. No organization or country in the world has the right to challenge this right in any manner. Louis Arbour and her kind should understand this. If they don’t comprehend this of their own, it is necessary to emphasize, that the day the patriotic masses in this country take action to close all offices that belong to various organizations of the UNO would be not very far away.
The administrators, military chiefs and all inhabitants in this country give allegiance only to law of this country. Sri Lankans don’t have to abide by a so-called international law that is brought up against the sovereignty of the country. None in Sri Lanka would be cowed down by the idiotic threats of Louise Arbour and her kind who are grief stricken at the defeats their tiger pals have been inflicted with. It is unfortunate for the UNO that Arbour and her kind have not been able to comprehend this.
However, it is the responsibility of all patriotic forces in this country to ‘nip in the bud’ the “diplomatic terrorism” Louise Arbour and her kind have attempted to unleash. We call upon all patriotic mass organizations to be alert to this threat and rally to defeat such attempts. We also call upon all responsible officials of the UNO in Sri Lanka, considering the safety of the employees of the UNO and its assets, to refrain from making such utter foolish statements that would enrage the people in this country. We would like to emphasize, by threatening with international law, Louise Arbour and her kind would never get the opportunity to reverse the struggle being carried out to create the atmosphere to implement the law of the land in every inch of the Sri Lankan soil and it is from Sri Lanka that they would get this latest experience. "
Fu l'unico statunitense a conquistare il titolo dopo la storica sfida
nel 1972 con il russo Boris Spassky, in piena guerra fredda
Addio Fischer, scacchista ribelle
si era ritirato in Islanda
turistica nello Stretto di Hormuz... non è mai esistito: il sonoro che accompagna il video
statunitense è stato artefatto di proposito dagli strateghi di Washington. Per chi ha seguito
le vicende jugoslave, una simile falsificazione è solo deja vu...
L'unica cosa vera, in questa vicenda, è che navi da guerra USA percorrono con dispotica
arroganza i mari di paesi molto lontani da casa loro. Con quale diritto? IS)
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/iran_0124/
Pentagon faked Iran boat 'attack'
Anti-war group demands investigation of U.S. war provocation
By Sara Flounders
Published Jan 17, 2008 1:38 AM
The Bush administration has been caught red-handed in manufacturing evidence of a
"provocation" off the Iranian coast on Jan. 6, in which five small Iranian open-air
speedboats were alleged to have threatened three massive U.S. guided missile warships.
The U.S. Navy now admits that audio and videotape given to the media and widely
publicized had been spliced together.
What is most ominous in all this is that no major U.S. politician or institution, or any
international body, has denounced this dangerous and deceptive move, nor have they
called for an inquiry or investigation. Neither the U.S. Congressnow in sessionnor any
of its committees, all of them now controlled by the Democratic majority elected on an
anti-war vote, took action.
With almost half the U.S. Navy hovering off the coast of Iran, this war provocation must be
challenged and confronted.
The media is giving wall-to-wall coverage to both Democratic and Republican politicians
campaigning in primary elections. Each of these politicians could and should be
confronted on where they stand on this Pentagon fraud and what steps they personally
plan to take to pursue the matter.
The corporate media in the U.S., which gave the story days of coverage, should also be
challenged.
The Stop War on Iran Campaign has taken the first steps. It has begun an emergency alert
and petition to demand a full investigation of this war provocation and the illegal war
games that the U.S. Navy has been staging in the Persian Gulf. The goal is to prevent
President George W. Bush and the Pentagon from using this scenario or another staged
operation to launch an attack on Iran.
The Stop War On Iran Campaign has also urged rank-and-file Navy personnel on U.S.
ships in the Gulf and officers to reveal what they know of U.S. war preparations and past
war games in the region.
Manufacturing a war crisis
For three days before Bush departed on an eight-day trip to the Middle East, the media
were full of denunciations of Iran by Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and top
generals and Navy commanders, all denouncing Iran for a "dangerous provocation" and "a
threat to world peace" based on this phony incident.
On arriving in Israel, even as the story was unraveling, Bush again threatened Iran and
ominously warned that "all options are on the table to protect our assets."
The U.S. Navy has now admitted that the video of the "incident" between the U.S. warships
and the Iranian patrol boats was heavily edited and that the threatening voice on it
warning "You may explode" may not have belonged to any Iranian sailors. Yet this video
was the basis for the latest threats against Iran.
Who manufactured this video? Who spliced together completely different sound and video
footage? Who signed off on it? Who distributed it to all the major media? It was viewed and
commented on at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
This is hardly the first time that a manufactured U.S. crisis has launched a war.
On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary of State and former Gen. Colin Powell presented satellite
photos to the United Nations to prove that Iraq was developing weapons of mass
destruction. This false charge, endlessly repeated, became the justification for the U.S.
bombing, invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq.
Before the first Gulf War in 1991, photo images of Iraqi units supposedly massed on the
Saudi Arabia border for an invasion also turned out to be totally fraudulent.
Manufactured evidence was also used in the famous Gulf of Tonkin incident, when North
Vietnamese Coast Guard boats supposedly attacked two U.S. destroyers off the coast of
Vietnam in August 1964. This fraud provided the justification for a congressional
resolution authorizing the escalation of the U.S. war against Vietnam.
This latest fabrication comes after a National Intelligence Estimate from 16 top U.S. spy
agencies publicly reported that Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since at least
2003, nor does it possess any nuclear weapons.
This NIE Report exposed to the world a rift within the top levels of the U.S. military and the
ruling class, where there is concern that the Bush/Cheney push for a wider war involving
Iran would boomerang.
The attempt by the administration to suppress the NIE Report and the fact that it was
publicly released are signs of just how overstretched and conflicted the U.S. government is
as it faces massive popular resistance in both Iraq and Afghanistan, along with growing
instability in Pakistan.
Even after the NIE Report, Bush's threats on Iran continued unabated. But the U.S. charge
of a Jan. 6 Iranian "provocation" began to unravel by Jan. 9 and soon turned into a
miniscandal.
Iran charged that the U.S. footage was a "bad fake" and that the audio and video were not
even synchronized. Iran's Revolutionary Guard released its own four-minute video clip
showing its two- and three-person, clearly unarmed speed boats asking the U.S. warships
to identify the number on their ship and their reason for being in the area. A U.S.-
accented voice responded by giving the number of his ship and claiming to be operating
in international waters.
Blog commentaries asked the obvious question: Why in the U.S. Navy's video was there no
ambient background noise of water, wind and motors as the small open Iranian boats
supposedly made threats to "explode" the warships? This and other discrepancies
discredited the U.S. story.
By Jan. 10 the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet in Bahrain cast doubt on the earlier U.S. version of the
incident. "There is no way to know where this [radioed threat] exactly came from. It could
have come from the shore ... or another vessel in the area," Lt. John Gay told the French
Press Agency. Some media speculated the message was from "a prankster."
But none of the corporate media have even once asked what this deadly array of U.S.
warships is doing in the narrow waters off the coast of Iran that are vital to shipping. This
is the real issue.
U.S. warships violate international law
The largest and deadliest ships in world history, armed and in attack mode, with targets
already selected, are now off the coast of Iran. This is international lawlessness on a grand
scale.
Contrary to what the corporate media claim, the conduct of the vast U.S. armada in the
Gulf is in explicit and continual violation of international law and United Nations treaties.
According to a Jan. 15 article by Kaveh L. Afrasiabi in Asia Times OnLine, there is no
"international water" in the Strait of Hormuz. The two-mile-wide inbound traffic lane
there is within Iran's territorial waters.
Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgiff claimed that the U.S. ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian
territorial waters." This is impossible. Even a voice from one of the U.S. ships says, "I am
engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law," making it clear that the
commanders recognized that they were inside Iranian waters. Peaceful transit through
passageways is permitted, according to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The U.S. has refused to sign this international treaty, along with countless other
international agreements, yet it invokes its right to avail itself of convenient parts of the
UNCLOS treaty, such as transit for its giant warships through the territorial waters of other
countries. On the other hand, the U.S. Navy flagrantly violates the provisions that
explicitly prohibit actions like the continual war exercises, nor does it bring its
submarines to the surface as required.
U.S. position slipping
Bush's visits to the Israeli apartheid state and to the occupied Palestinian West Bank
confirm that the U.S. president has no solutions and no proposals even worth coverage in
the corporate media. U.S. credibility is at an all-time low throughout the Arab world. On a
world scale there is a drastic decline in the ability of U.S. imperialism to influence events
or impose its colonial solutions.
Even in the United Arab Emirates, Bush's lecture on democracy to a gathering of oil-rich
feudal monarchs, their political appointees, wealthy corporate investors, and police and
military functionaries aroused only a perfunctory scattering of applause. By all accounts
his efforts to rally support for a U.S.-led Arab alliance to financially squeeze and isolate
Iran flopped.
Throughout the region, U.S. puppet rulers fear their own masses and fear standing too
close to Bush. For imperialism and for the thin strata of corrupt rulers in the area, the war
in Iraq is a disaster. And the war in Afghanistan is in serious disarray. The U.S. alliance
with the Pakistani military is in crisis. Israel, Washington's one totally dependent and
usually dependable military outpost, proved unable to destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon or
even to defeat Hamas by starving and surrounding Gaza.
While each of the many ships in the U.S. armada has the deadly power to destroy entire
cities with one launch, the political, diplomatic and economic position of the U.S. is
slipping faster than the dollar. This can drive U.S. imperialism to ever more drastic
adventures and desperate measures. It is also what silences large sections of the U.S.
ruling class and top political leaders of both parties.
The world movement for human progress and all opponents of endless U.S. wars must be
on full alert at the possibility of a new, deadly military offensive. They must continue to
expose this phony incident off the coast of Iran and confront the U.S. war makers.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this
entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@...
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@...
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php