Monday, June 8, 2009
Obama administration envoy George Mitchell is traveling to the Mideast. Rep. Donna Edwards recently returned from Gaza.
As Obama was traveling to Cairo, the Palestinian group Hamas, which won the most recent Palestinian election, sent a letter to President Obama through the feminist peace group CODEPINK, which just had a delegation in Gaza. Here is the text of the letter:
His Excellency President Barack Obama,
President of the United States of America.
June 3rd 2009
Dear Mr. President,
We welcome your visit to the Arab world and your administration's initiative to bridge differences with the Arab-Muslim world.
One long-standing source of tension between the United States and this part of the world has been the failure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It is therefore unfortunate that you will not visit Gaza during your trip to the Middle East and that neither your Secretary of State nor George Mitchell have come to hear our point of view.
We have received numerous visits recently from people of widely varied backgrounds: U.S. Congressional representatives, European parliamentarians, the U.N.-appointed Goldstone commission, and grassroots delegations such as those organized by the U.S. peace group CODEPINK.
It is essential for you to visit Gaza. We have recently passed through a brutal 22-day Israeli attack. Amnesty International observed that the death and destruction Gaza suffered during the invasion could not have happened without U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S.-taxpayers' money.
Human Rights Watch has documented that the white phosphorus Israel dropped on a school, hospital, United Nations warehouse and civilian neighborhoods in Gaza was manufactured in the United States. Human Rights Watch concluded that Israel's use of this white phosphorus was a war crime.
Shouldn't you see first-hand how Israel used your arms and spent your money?
Before becoming president you were a distinguished professor of law. The U.S. government has also said that it wants to foster the rule of law in the Arab-Muslim world.
The International Court of Justice stated in July 2004 that the whole of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are occupied Palestinian territories designated for Palestinian self-determination, and that the Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal.
Not one of the 15 judges sitting on the highest judicial body in the world dissented from these principles.
The main human rights organizations in the world, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have issued position papers supporting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and compensation.
Each year in the United Nations General Assembly nearly every country in the world has supported these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Every year the Arab League puts forth a peace proposal based on these principles for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Leading human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch have also stated that Israel's siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment and therefore illegal under international law.
We in the Hamas Government are committed to pursuing a just resolution to the conflict not in contradiction with the international community and enlightened opinion as expressed in the International Court of Justice, the United Nations General Assembly, and leading human rights organizations. We are prepared to engage all parties on the basis of mutual respect and without preconditions.
However, our constituency needs to see a comprehensive paradigm shift that not only commences with lifting the siege on Gaza and halts all settlement building and expansion but develops into a policy of evenhandedness based on the very international law and norms we are prodded into adhering to.
Again, we welcome you to Gaza which would allow you to see firsthand our ground zero. Furthermore, it would enhance the US position; enabling you to speak with new credibility and authority in dealing with all the parties.
Very Truly Yours,
Dr. Ahmed Yousef
Deputy of the Foreign Affairs Ministry
Former Senior Political Advisor
to Prime Minister Ismael Hanniya
Monday, June 8, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Cynthia McKinney Announces New Organization
Which way forward for the Black Left? The path leads in the same direction it always has: agitation, organization, and confrontation with Power. Cynthia McKinney chose a Harlem church to announce formation of DIGNITY, to bring the Black body politic back from its current comatose state. "Dignity is attempting to show real change is possible" - if people fight for it. "We want to organize networks so that we can relay information quickly to a large number of people."
Cynthia McKinney Announces Formation of DIGNITY
the editors
Former congresswoman (D-GA) and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney addressed a packed house at St. Mary’s Church, in Harlem, on Sunday, May 31. Also sharing the podium were Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberley, of Black Agenda Report, Nellie Bailey, Harlem Tenants Council, Prof. Anthony Monteiro, of the African American Studies Department, Temple University, and writer/activist Mae Jackson. The event was titled, “Which Way Forward for the Black Left?”
” We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.”
Thank you all for being here.
On Thursday, General Taguba spoke to journalists and said that the photos currently being withheld by President Obama show rape. On Friday, he went even further and said that he saw video of U.S. soldiers raping and sodomizing detainees. From the first batch of photos that were released, we know that detainees were also murdered. In your name and mine.
But some of us here in the U.S. are not shocked or surprised that this kind of behavior could occur. For those of us who have our eyes open, the gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.
We remember the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Kwame Touré. We remember George Jackson, Soledad and Attica. We remember the American Indian Movement, the Puerto Rican Independistas, the Chicano Movement, and we remember the FBI. We know about Area A in Chicago and we’ve heard the San Francisco 8 recount for us their experiences of torture at the hands of law enforcement. We’ve heard them tell how 30 years later, the very same people who tortured them showed up on their doorsteps to re-arrest them for crimes they did not commit.
So when General Taguba verifies that torture, rape, and murder were used by U.S. service men and women, we cannot be surprised.
When we see Dick Cheney say that torture worked, we in this audience, are not surprised.
The gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.”
When we hear that Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown who allowed the San Francisco 8 prosecution to move forward is rumored to want to be the Governor of California, and expects our votes to win, we are not surprised.
Or that Gavin Newsome, current mayor of San Francisco who is abetting the ethnic cleansing of the last remaining black neighborhood in that city wants to be Governor and expects black, brown, and progressive white votes, we are not surprised.
So, when yet another young man is gunned down by the police, be it Oscar Grant in Oakland or Omar Edwards in New York City, and the policy doesn’t change to stop it. We shouldn’t be surprised.
The authorities have proven that they will do everything and more if the people let them get away with it.
Our President has breathed new life into the Democratic Party. But the fact is, our precious breath, that gives that Party life, is killing us.
Glen Ford, Roy Singham, Dedon Kamathi of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party, and I all came together earlier this year, to not only lament the present, but to change the future. We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign, that there was power in organization. That there was hope in mobilization. And that victory was possible in implementation. We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.
There will be some who will maintain that this country, founded as a settler state, never had any dignity since it rested on taking and not sharing land that belonged to someone else.
” We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign.”
After deep engagement in slavery, the take-over of whole countries, denial of self-determination, and endless war and occupation, still others would say that our country has certainly lost whatever dignity it might have been able at one time to earn.
And after Abu Ghraib, dignity is no longer possible.
For about ten years, I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose. I now see the same fate awaiting the Progressive community even as we witness ongoing war, even ramping up the war machine during the greatest transfer of wealth out of black and brown communities by the wholesale theft of people’s homes.
Bait and switch schemes, whitewashing, and red herrings shouldn’t be left for the people alone to decipher as they are also trying to save themselves from drowning. Some of us know what’s going on and we’re organizing Dignity in order to inform and then stop it.
We are tired of watching politicians acknowledge our pain, win office, and then go about their business adding more to the existing pain.
We can change the policies only by changing the nature of the debate that leads up to the selection of our policymakers. That means that we must have a way to get our message out independent of CNN, FOX, the New York Times, Clear Channel, or Public Radio. People must know in advance what the issues are, what the possibilities of policy are, and be informed, correctly, not only in slick Madison Avenue style campaigns designed to mislead. We need media of our own.
” I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose.”
And finally, we need actions that serve as a wake-up call to all of our elected officials that for a critical number of us, and Glen just happens to believe that we have the right number of people supporting us in general now, business as usual is over.
We have brains, we have brawn, and we’ve got guts. But is that enough?
We’ve learned from our neighbors to our South, from Mexico, Cuba, and Haiti; Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua that we don’t have to settle for less than what we need from politics.
And I’m tired of feeling trapped in the politics of self-abnegation. If people in other parts of the world can do it, then we must be able to do it, too. That remains to be seen, however.
So, Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.
Dignity will show that just voting for special interest politicians who reflect special interest political parties in new faces is not enough.
It is clear that some people are satisfied with that, but we demand more.
Honestly, I called Glen, ready to give up, saying that I’ve done what I could do. And Glen, then Dedon, then Roy, and so many others across our country said, no. People began contacting me personally, as if they could sense what I was feeling. They started adding comments on our youtube videos, and I know many people are talking among themselves, expressing disappointment in whispered tones with the direction so far of the Obama Administration.
” Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.”
I was saddened to read a message from Cindy Sheehan saying that she won’t run against Pelosi next election. That’s a big blow to us and I hope she will reconsider.
Who was it that said the race goes not to the swift but to he who can endure?
I’m willing to try one more thing, one more time. And Dignity is our effort to endure; to deliver a much-needed victory to the people. Before it’s too late.
Please support us with your money, your brain, and your time.
Please be sure to sign in. In the days ahead, we will contact you. You all have networks. We want to organize networks so that we can relay information quickly to a large number of people.
Because of your contributions today, Dignity soon will have an internet presence and a weekly television show. We intend to have a distribution mechanism so that our supporters can place our television show on cable access stations across the country; we want to be on the radio, and we also want to be in the faces of the people who got our votes or have authority over our tax dollars and who continue to disappoint us.
We are not abused spouses turning the other cheek for another slap in the face. We are individuals who know that this country can be better because we still have faith in the good will and the values of the American people.
Help us organize Dignity, and with dignity, we will stand up for our rights!
For more information on DIGNITY, contact Ms. McKinney at hq2600@gmail.com
Cynthia McKinney Announces Formation of DIGNITY
the editors
Former congresswoman (D-GA) and Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney addressed a packed house at St. Mary’s Church, in Harlem, on Sunday, May 31. Also sharing the podium were Glen Ford and Margaret Kimberley, of Black Agenda Report, Nellie Bailey, Harlem Tenants Council, Prof. Anthony Monteiro, of the African American Studies Department, Temple University, and writer/activist Mae Jackson. The event was titled, “Which Way Forward for the Black Left?”
” We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.”
Thank you all for being here.
On Thursday, General Taguba spoke to journalists and said that the photos currently being withheld by President Obama show rape. On Friday, he went even further and said that he saw video of U.S. soldiers raping and sodomizing detainees. From the first batch of photos that were released, we know that detainees were also murdered. In your name and mine.
But some of us here in the U.S. are not shocked or surprised that this kind of behavior could occur. For those of us who have our eyes open, the gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.
We remember the Black Panther Party, Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Kwame Touré. We remember George Jackson, Soledad and Attica. We remember the American Indian Movement, the Puerto Rican Independistas, the Chicano Movement, and we remember the FBI. We know about Area A in Chicago and we’ve heard the San Francisco 8 recount for us their experiences of torture at the hands of law enforcement. We’ve heard them tell how 30 years later, the very same people who tortured them showed up on their doorsteps to re-arrest them for crimes they did not commit.
So when General Taguba verifies that torture, rape, and murder were used by U.S. service men and women, we cannot be surprised.
When we see Dick Cheney say that torture worked, we in this audience, are not surprised.
The gritty streets of America are filled with the experience of unarmed black and brown men being beaten, raped, sodomized, and even murdered by terroristic agents of the state.”
When we hear that Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown who allowed the San Francisco 8 prosecution to move forward is rumored to want to be the Governor of California, and expects our votes to win, we are not surprised.
Or that Gavin Newsome, current mayor of San Francisco who is abetting the ethnic cleansing of the last remaining black neighborhood in that city wants to be Governor and expects black, brown, and progressive white votes, we are not surprised.
So, when yet another young man is gunned down by the police, be it Oscar Grant in Oakland or Omar Edwards in New York City, and the policy doesn’t change to stop it. We shouldn’t be surprised.
The authorities have proven that they will do everything and more if the people let them get away with it.
Our President has breathed new life into the Democratic Party. But the fact is, our precious breath, that gives that Party life, is killing us.
Glen Ford, Roy Singham, Dedon Kamathi of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party, and I all came together earlier this year, to not only lament the present, but to change the future. We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign, that there was power in organization. That there was hope in mobilization. And that victory was possible in implementation. We agreed to found an action organization and to call it Dignity.
There will be some who will maintain that this country, founded as a settler state, never had any dignity since it rested on taking and not sharing land that belonged to someone else.
” We decided that while our movement was nascent, coming out of my Power to the People campaign.”
After deep engagement in slavery, the take-over of whole countries, denial of self-determination, and endless war and occupation, still others would say that our country has certainly lost whatever dignity it might have been able at one time to earn.
And after Abu Ghraib, dignity is no longer possible.
For about ten years, I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose. I now see the same fate awaiting the Progressive community even as we witness ongoing war, even ramping up the war machine during the greatest transfer of wealth out of black and brown communities by the wholesale theft of people’s homes.
Bait and switch schemes, whitewashing, and red herrings shouldn’t be left for the people alone to decipher as they are also trying to save themselves from drowning. Some of us know what’s going on and we’re organizing Dignity in order to inform and then stop it.
We are tired of watching politicians acknowledge our pain, win office, and then go about their business adding more to the existing pain.
We can change the policies only by changing the nature of the debate that leads up to the selection of our policymakers. That means that we must have a way to get our message out independent of CNN, FOX, the New York Times, Clear Channel, or Public Radio. People must know in advance what the issues are, what the possibilities of policy are, and be informed, correctly, not only in slick Madison Avenue style campaigns designed to mislead. We need media of our own.
” I went around the country proclaiming the black body politic to be at first moribund, then comatose.”
And finally, we need actions that serve as a wake-up call to all of our elected officials that for a critical number of us, and Glen just happens to believe that we have the right number of people supporting us in general now, business as usual is over.
We have brains, we have brawn, and we’ve got guts. But is that enough?
We’ve learned from our neighbors to our South, from Mexico, Cuba, and Haiti; Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua that we don’t have to settle for less than what we need from politics.
And I’m tired of feeling trapped in the politics of self-abnegation. If people in other parts of the world can do it, then we must be able to do it, too. That remains to be seen, however.
So, Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.
Dignity will show that just voting for special interest politicians who reflect special interest political parties in new faces is not enough.
It is clear that some people are satisfied with that, but we demand more.
Honestly, I called Glen, ready to give up, saying that I’ve done what I could do. And Glen, then Dedon, then Roy, and so many others across our country said, no. People began contacting me personally, as if they could sense what I was feeling. They started adding comments on our youtube videos, and I know many people are talking among themselves, expressing disappointment in whispered tones with the direction so far of the Obama Administration.
” Dignity is attempting to show that real change is possible.”
I was saddened to read a message from Cindy Sheehan saying that she won’t run against Pelosi next election. That’s a big blow to us and I hope she will reconsider.
Who was it that said the race goes not to the swift but to he who can endure?
I’m willing to try one more thing, one more time. And Dignity is our effort to endure; to deliver a much-needed victory to the people. Before it’s too late.
Please support us with your money, your brain, and your time.
Please be sure to sign in. In the days ahead, we will contact you. You all have networks. We want to organize networks so that we can relay information quickly to a large number of people.
Because of your contributions today, Dignity soon will have an internet presence and a weekly television show. We intend to have a distribution mechanism so that our supporters can place our television show on cable access stations across the country; we want to be on the radio, and we also want to be in the faces of the people who got our votes or have authority over our tax dollars and who continue to disappoint us.
We are not abused spouses turning the other cheek for another slap in the face. We are individuals who know that this country can be better because we still have faith in the good will and the values of the American people.
Help us organize Dignity, and with dignity, we will stand up for our rights!
For more information on DIGNITY, contact Ms. McKinney at hq2600@gmail.com
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Letter to Obama from the Japanese Communist Party
Shii calls on Obama to display initiative in initiating international talks aimed at banning nuclear weapons
Japanese Communist Party Chairperson Shii Kazuo on April 28 met Jim Zumwalt, charge d'affaires ad interim in U.S. Embassy Tokyo and handed him a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama calling on him to take the initiative in starting international negotiations aimed at abolishing nuclear weapons.
April 28, 2009
The text of the letter is as follows:
The President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am writing this letter to you, on behalf of a political party that has worked resolutely for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, hand in hand with the people of Japan, the only A-bombed nation, which suffered untold disasters.
I was deeply impressed to read your speech delivered on April 5 in Prague in which you said, "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." For the first time, the United States, the biggest nuclear-weapon state in the world, put forward its national goal of "a world without nuclear weapons," namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.
You also said in the speech, "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." You made clear to the world for the first time as U.S. president that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an event that has a bearing upon human morals and talked about the U.S. having a responsibility to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
You added in the speech, "To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends." By so saying, you called on all nations to cooperate for establishing "a world without nuclear weapons," and stressed that "voices for peace and progress must be raised together."
That you made such official declarations as a U.S. president is of historic significance for both humanity as a whole, and the people of the world's only A-bombed country in particular, which I heartily welcome.
However, I beg to differ with you when you said in the speech: The goal of a world without nuclear weapons will not be reached, "perhaps not in my lifetime." I cannot agree because nuclear-weapon states have never engaged in negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons as their common goal, and therefore, we cannot set a timeframe in advance for how long it takes, as this is a task no one has ever tackled.
After its establishment, the first United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted on January 24, 1946 decided, in response to the proposal by six countries including yours, and with the support of all the member countries, that the United Nations will work for the "elimination of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction." But in the 63 years since then, the nuclear-weapon states have not even called for negotiations for their elimination, not to mention entering into such negotiations.
By demonstrating the initiative for "a world without nuclear weapons," you will open up the door to a challenge that no one has ever undertaken. It might take long to proceed from a call for negotiations to their actual opening, and then to reach agreement. This is an historic undertaking that demands "patience and persistence" as stressed in your speech. But it is only by taking the leadership in starting this undertaking that your speech in Prague will exercise its real power to bring about progress and world peace. Consequently, I strongly request that you take the initiative for starting international negotiations for the conclusion of an international treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In your speech in Prague, you promised to take "concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons." These include starting negotiations for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, pursuing the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons. I believe that these concrete steps can have a positive and constructive significance when they are tackled together with the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons.
Having seen these kinds of negotiations on partial measures, I am convinced that the whole process has proved that "a world without nuclear weapons" cannot be achieved only through these measures in the absence of the objective of abolishing nuclear weapons themselves. Indeed, this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled all over the world.
As an illustration, we cannot forget that the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water (Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, PTBT) concluded in 1963, banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, but that it actually legitimized underground nuclear tests, and, in the end, triggered a massive nuclear arms race.
The same holds true for the regime of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is a discriminatory treaty unprecedented in history because it allows the five powers to possess nuclear weapons while imposing on non-nuclear-weapon states an obligation of non-possession. The Japanese Communist Party is of course against an increase in the number of nuclear-weapon states for any reason, but it has at the same time criticized the discriminatory inequality of the treaty.
The international community accepted such inequality only because the nuclear powers pledged that they would make sincere efforts for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the existence of this treaty has not prevented new nuclear-weapon states or those planning to go nuclear from coming into existence. To be candid with you, underlying this is the fact that the nuclear powers have not been true to their pledge in the last 39 years since the NPT entered into force.
Above all, it is regrettable that the previous U.S. government and other countries disaffirmed in the 2005 NPT Review Conference "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" that had been agreed upon in the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Mr. President, you stated in the Prague speech, "(the NPT regime) could reach the point where the center cannot hold." We have to stress that underlying your fear is the fact that the nuclear-weapon states have maintained the said attitudes for the last 39 years.
The way out of this danger will come when the nuclear-weapon states adopt an attitude of sincerity and responsibility for the elimination of nuclear weapons. We must stress that only when they tackle the task of eliminating nuclear weapons, will they obtain the political and moral power to dissuade other countries from pursuing nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that the nuclear-weapon states confirm the "unequivocal undertaking" towards the elimination of nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
As regards the Japan-U.S. relationship, the JCP's basic policy is to turn it from the present one of domination-subordination to one of equal footing. Our firm belief is that only under an equal relationship can we develop real friendship between our two peoples. On this mutual relationship, there are many differences of opinion between your government and our party. Nevertheless, I dared to focus, and wanted to convey our opinion, on one point, the task for all humanity, namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The only guarantee against nuclear weapons being used is to create "a world without nuclear weapons." You raised this major goal to the world. Let me repeat once again that I welcome your statement, and hope that the spirit of your statement will be given full play in world politics. I would like to conclude my letter with a wish for the friendship between the United States and Japan to develop.
Sincerely yours,
Kazuo Shii
Chairperson of the Executive Committee
Japanese Communist Party
Member of the House of Representatives, National Diet
Japanese Communist Party Chairperson Shii Kazuo on April 28 met Jim Zumwalt, charge d'affaires ad interim in U.S. Embassy Tokyo and handed him a letter to U.S. President Barack Obama calling on him to take the initiative in starting international negotiations aimed at abolishing nuclear weapons.
April 28, 2009
The text of the letter is as follows:
The President of the United States of America
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama,
I am writing this letter to you, on behalf of a political party that has worked resolutely for the elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, hand in hand with the people of Japan, the only A-bombed nation, which suffered untold disasters.
I was deeply impressed to read your speech delivered on April 5 in Prague in which you said, "I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." For the first time, the United States, the biggest nuclear-weapon state in the world, put forward its national goal of "a world without nuclear weapons," namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.
You also said in the speech, "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." You made clear to the world for the first time as U.S. president that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an event that has a bearing upon human morals and talked about the U.S. having a responsibility to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
You added in the speech, "To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends." By so saying, you called on all nations to cooperate for establishing "a world without nuclear weapons," and stressed that "voices for peace and progress must be raised together."
That you made such official declarations as a U.S. president is of historic significance for both humanity as a whole, and the people of the world's only A-bombed country in particular, which I heartily welcome.
However, I beg to differ with you when you said in the speech: The goal of a world without nuclear weapons will not be reached, "perhaps not in my lifetime." I cannot agree because nuclear-weapon states have never engaged in negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons as their common goal, and therefore, we cannot set a timeframe in advance for how long it takes, as this is a task no one has ever tackled.
After its establishment, the first United Nations General Assembly resolution adopted on January 24, 1946 decided, in response to the proposal by six countries including yours, and with the support of all the member countries, that the United Nations will work for the "elimination of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction." But in the 63 years since then, the nuclear-weapon states have not even called for negotiations for their elimination, not to mention entering into such negotiations.
By demonstrating the initiative for "a world without nuclear weapons," you will open up the door to a challenge that no one has ever undertaken. It might take long to proceed from a call for negotiations to their actual opening, and then to reach agreement. This is an historic undertaking that demands "patience and persistence" as stressed in your speech. But it is only by taking the leadership in starting this undertaking that your speech in Prague will exercise its real power to bring about progress and world peace. Consequently, I strongly request that you take the initiative for starting international negotiations for the conclusion of an international treaty for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
In your speech in Prague, you promised to take "concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons." These include starting negotiations for a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, pursuing the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and a new treaty that verifiably ends production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons. I believe that these concrete steps can have a positive and constructive significance when they are tackled together with the goal of elimination of nuclear weapons.
Having seen these kinds of negotiations on partial measures, I am convinced that the whole process has proved that "a world without nuclear weapons" cannot be achieved only through these measures in the absence of the objective of abolishing nuclear weapons themselves. Indeed, this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that there are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled all over the world.
As an illustration, we cannot forget that the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water (Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, PTBT) concluded in 1963, banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, but that it actually legitimized underground nuclear tests, and, in the end, triggered a massive nuclear arms race.
The same holds true for the regime of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This is a discriminatory treaty unprecedented in history because it allows the five powers to possess nuclear weapons while imposing on non-nuclear-weapon states an obligation of non-possession. The Japanese Communist Party is of course against an increase in the number of nuclear-weapon states for any reason, but it has at the same time criticized the discriminatory inequality of the treaty.
The international community accepted such inequality only because the nuclear powers pledged that they would make sincere efforts for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the existence of this treaty has not prevented new nuclear-weapon states or those planning to go nuclear from coming into existence. To be candid with you, underlying this is the fact that the nuclear powers have not been true to their pledge in the last 39 years since the NPT entered into force.
Above all, it is regrettable that the previous U.S. government and other countries disaffirmed in the 2005 NPT Review Conference "an unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals" that had been agreed upon in the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Mr. President, you stated in the Prague speech, "(the NPT regime) could reach the point where the center cannot hold." We have to stress that underlying your fear is the fact that the nuclear-weapon states have maintained the said attitudes for the last 39 years.
The way out of this danger will come when the nuclear-weapon states adopt an attitude of sincerity and responsibility for the elimination of nuclear weapons. We must stress that only when they tackle the task of eliminating nuclear weapons, will they obtain the political and moral power to dissuade other countries from pursuing nuclear weapons. I sincerely hope that the nuclear-weapon states confirm the "unequivocal undertaking" towards the elimination of nuclear weapons in the 2010 NPT Review Conference.
As regards the Japan-U.S. relationship, the JCP's basic policy is to turn it from the present one of domination-subordination to one of equal footing. Our firm belief is that only under an equal relationship can we develop real friendship between our two peoples. On this mutual relationship, there are many differences of opinion between your government and our party. Nevertheless, I dared to focus, and wanted to convey our opinion, on one point, the task for all humanity, namely the elimination of nuclear weapons.
The only guarantee against nuclear weapons being used is to create "a world without nuclear weapons." You raised this major goal to the world. Let me repeat once again that I welcome your statement, and hope that the spirit of your statement will be given full play in world politics. I would like to conclude my letter with a wish for the friendship between the United States and Japan to develop.
Sincerely yours,
Kazuo Shii
Chairperson of the Executive Committee
Japanese Communist Party
Member of the House of Representatives, National Diet
Friday, May 29, 2009
Bail Out the Press?
As newspapers drop like flies all across the United States, I can't help but wonder why I majored in print journalism at the University of Maryland.
What was I thinking? Didn't I realize that the Internet would dig the grave of the newspaper? This is what many of my professors said, especially during the last couple of years at the college (I graduated in May 2008). The answer was to be flexible and multifaceted. We were told that we would have to understand online journalism as well as print journalism if we were to make it in the field.
I have long been a fan of the Internet, so much so that you will hardly ever catch me reading a clunky old newspaper. People say the newspaper is more intimate and versatile; I say it's too thick, too messy, and too confusing for someone who wants to browse the headlines quickly and pick and choose what's worth my time. I don't like to jump pages or see ads or get newsprint on my fingers. It's a matter of style; I would rather read the online versions of those newspapers or choose from the wide array of current events coverage that only the Internet can offer.
However, I understand the importance of print newspapers, which function both as the foundation of most of the accurate, detailed day-to-day reporting in the United States and as the tool of the less technologically equipped. I do not want to see their total demise.
What I would like to see is a change - a revolution even. I approve of many solutions put forward by Free Press, whose website provides an essential body of information that explains what has gone wrong with our press and how to make it right. The fundamentals are pretty clear: We need to diversify and decentralize our media in order to foster balanced and local coverage of important events affecting all sectors of society. We need to end the for-profit model of news and seek to provide news coverage just as our society provides police officers and fire fighters (a public service, if you will). This does not imply government control - only government support - and as much as people fear anything resembling a "government-owned media," I would offer that the government has always provided some financial or other support to media, whether it be better postage rates for magazines or public broadcasting licenses. We need not fear any government involvement.
The point is that the people control the media. We don't allow the media to control us. I will add on to this entry later.
What was I thinking? Didn't I realize that the Internet would dig the grave of the newspaper? This is what many of my professors said, especially during the last couple of years at the college (I graduated in May 2008). The answer was to be flexible and multifaceted. We were told that we would have to understand online journalism as well as print journalism if we were to make it in the field.
I have long been a fan of the Internet, so much so that you will hardly ever catch me reading a clunky old newspaper. People say the newspaper is more intimate and versatile; I say it's too thick, too messy, and too confusing for someone who wants to browse the headlines quickly and pick and choose what's worth my time. I don't like to jump pages or see ads or get newsprint on my fingers. It's a matter of style; I would rather read the online versions of those newspapers or choose from the wide array of current events coverage that only the Internet can offer.
However, I understand the importance of print newspapers, which function both as the foundation of most of the accurate, detailed day-to-day reporting in the United States and as the tool of the less technologically equipped. I do not want to see their total demise.
What I would like to see is a change - a revolution even. I approve of many solutions put forward by Free Press, whose website provides an essential body of information that explains what has gone wrong with our press and how to make it right. The fundamentals are pretty clear: We need to diversify and decentralize our media in order to foster balanced and local coverage of important events affecting all sectors of society. We need to end the for-profit model of news and seek to provide news coverage just as our society provides police officers and fire fighters (a public service, if you will). This does not imply government control - only government support - and as much as people fear anything resembling a "government-owned media," I would offer that the government has always provided some financial or other support to media, whether it be better postage rates for magazines or public broadcasting licenses. We need not fear any government involvement.
The point is that the people control the media. We don't allow the media to control us. I will add on to this entry later.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
On Hate
Some say the world will end in fire.
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate,
To say that for destruction ice,
Is also great,
And would suffice. -Robert Frost
I don't know why I chose to start this entry with one of my favorite poems. What I do know is that I, like Mr. Frost, associate the end of the world quite closely with the concept of hatred. If there is any thing I stand against (and look to solve), it is hatred.
If you, like me, are fortunate enough to pass your days with loving souls and gentle spirits, you may not often see hate manifest itself. All you have to do is turn on FOX News or read through enough anonymous comments posted on Internet message boards; you will see hate. You might even feel hate as a response. But I would hope that you rise above it.
I was never raised to hate. Even now I can honestly say that I have forgiven all the individuals who have done me the most harm. I am fortunate to also say that not much harm has been done to me in my 22 years. I say this with caution because I know that I have only begun to be tested by the world.
I don't bring up this topic as a personal manner. I wish to call out this ugly monster for what it is: insidious, self-serving, ignorant, and counterproductive. No amount of hatred or response to hatred will ever move humanity in a direction toward peace, justice, and community.
I believe Malcolm X, also known as Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabbazz, recognized this late in his life. I mention him because his birthday passed this week (he would have been 85), and I just recently finished reading his famous autobiography. I would also call myself a great admirer of X, despite his 12 years of promoting separatist religious dogmatism.
Various anecdotes in his autobiography have inspired me not to form exclusive groups based on race, religion, or other arbitrary divisions, but to understand the reasons why such groups form and how they can be transcended. I am talking about building a human family. I strongly believe that had Malcolm survived, he would have been at the forefront of this effort in his later years. He was one of the few Afro-American leaders of his time with a global Black consciousness. African leaders highly respected both his pride and his forthright assessment of apartheid and repression in the United States. His words and deeds also galvanized the Muslim World far beyond Africa.
I admit he had his shortcomings, but I object to the mainstream (read "white") association of Malcolm X with hate. He could indeed be characterized as a hateful and angry man (he once said he was the angriest black man in America); he could be dismissed for being a part of the Nation of Islam alone or for spending the majority of his ministry referring to whites as "devils." Yet the essence of who he was and what he did for fellow blacks and for America went far beyond his harshest words. He stood up to the white man at a time when doing so meant fire hoses, beatings, imprisonment, and even death, and he spoke for (and with) arguably the most oppressed people in the United States: ghetto-dwelling blacks. An oppressed, brutalized people cannot be expected to go straight from centuries of pain to speedy resolution. Indeed many white people understood and respected Malcolm's rage. Some even offered to join his organization or insisted they would do so if they were black.
And as for his effect on the black community, Ossie Davis, who gave Malcolm's eulogy, put it succinctly by calling Malcolm the most shining example of black manhood.
He indeed was a man and would not allow himself or any of his black brothers and sisters to be treated as anything else. As for whites, even after he softened his prejudiced views he maintained the highest of standards. I will never forget Alex Haley's report of his press conference in 1964, when he announced the founding of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). He was asked if white people were allowed to join. His response: "If John Brown were alive, maybe him."
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate,
To say that for destruction ice,
Is also great,
And would suffice. -Robert Frost
I don't know why I chose to start this entry with one of my favorite poems. What I do know is that I, like Mr. Frost, associate the end of the world quite closely with the concept of hatred. If there is any thing I stand against (and look to solve), it is hatred.
If you, like me, are fortunate enough to pass your days with loving souls and gentle spirits, you may not often see hate manifest itself. All you have to do is turn on FOX News or read through enough anonymous comments posted on Internet message boards; you will see hate. You might even feel hate as a response. But I would hope that you rise above it.
I was never raised to hate. Even now I can honestly say that I have forgiven all the individuals who have done me the most harm. I am fortunate to also say that not much harm has been done to me in my 22 years. I say this with caution because I know that I have only begun to be tested by the world.
I don't bring up this topic as a personal manner. I wish to call out this ugly monster for what it is: insidious, self-serving, ignorant, and counterproductive. No amount of hatred or response to hatred will ever move humanity in a direction toward peace, justice, and community.
I believe Malcolm X, also known as Al-Hajj Malik al-Shabbazz, recognized this late in his life. I mention him because his birthday passed this week (he would have been 85), and I just recently finished reading his famous autobiography. I would also call myself a great admirer of X, despite his 12 years of promoting separatist religious dogmatism.
Various anecdotes in his autobiography have inspired me not to form exclusive groups based on race, religion, or other arbitrary divisions, but to understand the reasons why such groups form and how they can be transcended. I am talking about building a human family. I strongly believe that had Malcolm survived, he would have been at the forefront of this effort in his later years. He was one of the few Afro-American leaders of his time with a global Black consciousness. African leaders highly respected both his pride and his forthright assessment of apartheid and repression in the United States. His words and deeds also galvanized the Muslim World far beyond Africa.
I admit he had his shortcomings, but I object to the mainstream (read "white") association of Malcolm X with hate. He could indeed be characterized as a hateful and angry man (he once said he was the angriest black man in America); he could be dismissed for being a part of the Nation of Islam alone or for spending the majority of his ministry referring to whites as "devils." Yet the essence of who he was and what he did for fellow blacks and for America went far beyond his harshest words. He stood up to the white man at a time when doing so meant fire hoses, beatings, imprisonment, and even death, and he spoke for (and with) arguably the most oppressed people in the United States: ghetto-dwelling blacks. An oppressed, brutalized people cannot be expected to go straight from centuries of pain to speedy resolution. Indeed many white people understood and respected Malcolm's rage. Some even offered to join his organization or insisted they would do so if they were black.
And as for his effect on the black community, Ossie Davis, who gave Malcolm's eulogy, put it succinctly by calling Malcolm the most shining example of black manhood.
He indeed was a man and would not allow himself or any of his black brothers and sisters to be treated as anything else. As for whites, even after he softened his prejudiced views he maintained the highest of standards. I will never forget Alex Haley's report of his press conference in 1964, when he announced the founding of the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU). He was asked if white people were allowed to join. His response: "If John Brown were alive, maybe him."
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Susan Boyle Gives Us Hope
If you don't know who Susan Boyle is (which is highly unlikely), please read this article in the Guardian.
And watch this video that has now been viewed by over 20 million people worldwide.
I personally dislike prime-time talent shows because they tend to promote shallowness and celebrity-worship. When my friend played the video of Susan Boyle on "Britain's Got Talent" for me a few days ago, I expected the usual comedic gaff but was instead shocked by one of the most powerful and beautiful voices I had ever heard. Millions of people are admitting they falsely prejudged her voice based on her looks; I, on the other hand, prejudged her singing voice based on her talking voice because I have been around long enough to realize that good vocal chords have nothing to do with good looks. This minor point aside, the story of Susan Boyle is one of cynicism supplanted by hope. I believe that when that packed audience stood to applaud Ms. Boyle with tears streaming down their cheeks after rolling their eyes at her just moments before, they were responding not just to her performance, but also to new-found feelings of hope and inspiration. The world - from Great Britain, to Japan, to the United States, and everywhere in between - could use some hope in the midst of what has proved to be the most devastating economic crisis in modern times.
We want to believe that a 47-year-old unemployed, single woman from an obscure corner of Scotland can become a star overnight (and indeed she has already, whether she wins or not). We want to believe that despite all appearances, there IS light at the end of the tunnel. There IS hope. I can't help but remember the recent election of Barack Obama and how the world responded to it as if it were a revolution in and of itself. A black man in a white-dominated world beat the odds and became president of the richest and most powerful country on earth. And just over the past week, an ordinary woman in a high-class world of lipstick and liposuction broke the hearts of millions.
These events are certainly not enough to put food on the table for millions of families, end bloody military occupations, or provide jobs and medical care (these aren't the words of a cynic but of a realist), but when I think of how my heart fluttered when Ms. Boyle hit her high note, I remember how important a smile is to ease the burden of human suffering. It has helped to ease my own pain and has inspired me to pursue my own dreams regardless of the odds stacked against me. I imagine it has already done the same for millions and will do so for millions more. Music is the language of the soul, and the world has shown in its recognition of this beautiful performance (and the "dream" that echoes from it) that it still has one.
And watch this video that has now been viewed by over 20 million people worldwide.
I personally dislike prime-time talent shows because they tend to promote shallowness and celebrity-worship. When my friend played the video of Susan Boyle on "Britain's Got Talent" for me a few days ago, I expected the usual comedic gaff but was instead shocked by one of the most powerful and beautiful voices I had ever heard. Millions of people are admitting they falsely prejudged her voice based on her looks; I, on the other hand, prejudged her singing voice based on her talking voice because I have been around long enough to realize that good vocal chords have nothing to do with good looks. This minor point aside, the story of Susan Boyle is one of cynicism supplanted by hope. I believe that when that packed audience stood to applaud Ms. Boyle with tears streaming down their cheeks after rolling their eyes at her just moments before, they were responding not just to her performance, but also to new-found feelings of hope and inspiration. The world - from Great Britain, to Japan, to the United States, and everywhere in between - could use some hope in the midst of what has proved to be the most devastating economic crisis in modern times.
We want to believe that a 47-year-old unemployed, single woman from an obscure corner of Scotland can become a star overnight (and indeed she has already, whether she wins or not). We want to believe that despite all appearances, there IS light at the end of the tunnel. There IS hope. I can't help but remember the recent election of Barack Obama and how the world responded to it as if it were a revolution in and of itself. A black man in a white-dominated world beat the odds and became president of the richest and most powerful country on earth. And just over the past week, an ordinary woman in a high-class world of lipstick and liposuction broke the hearts of millions.
These events are certainly not enough to put food on the table for millions of families, end bloody military occupations, or provide jobs and medical care (these aren't the words of a cynic but of a realist), but when I think of how my heart fluttered when Ms. Boyle hit her high note, I remember how important a smile is to ease the burden of human suffering. It has helped to ease my own pain and has inspired me to pursue my own dreams regardless of the odds stacked against me. I imagine it has already done the same for millions and will do so for millions more. Music is the language of the soul, and the world has shown in its recognition of this beautiful performance (and the "dream" that echoes from it) that it still has one.
Friday, April 17, 2009
It's Colombia with an "O"
"People always say there are no good guys in Colombia. There are good guys; they just aren't armed.
- Lisa Haugard, LAWG
A lot of people want to call it "Columbia" after British Columbia or the District of Columbia, but COLOMBIA is a much different place. In many ways it defies description, which is probably why it has taken me almost two weeks since my visit to two of its major cities to post a single blog entry
No matter what a country offers, the basis of its greatness revolves around its citizenry, and I must say that Colombians are among the most hospitable, friendly, and fun-loving people I have met. Of course, I did not have a chance to introduce myself to the various armed groups patrolling the streets; I am talking about the vast majority who believe (at least relatively speaking) in peace and nonviolence. These are the silent revolutionaries. They might be black, white, or somewhere in between. They may be poor or rich (though it's less likely that they'd be rich because the rich are profiting from the chaos). They may dwell in the countryside or the cities.
The point is that peacemakers are everywhere. They occupy each and every country brandishing their briefcases and pruning forks, spreading their message of harmony and cooperation. Despite their mild-manners and lack of deadly weapons, they couldn't be more frightening to all those interested in maintaining the status quo. This is the situation in Colombia. This is probably why peacemaking groups such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation have been spied on by the right-wing government and its cronies. This is why the government and the paramilitaries are so hell-bent on forcing young men into military service. They feel they must stomp out the promise of peace wherever it lies.
Their actions reveal the strength of nonviolence. The peace lovers far outnumber the warriors. War survives on propaganda and the authority of the state and its institutions, but I believe it will all come crashing down one day. The people of Colombia give me hope on that front. They struggle tirelessly against one of the most militarized systems in the world, and they do it without perpetuating that same system. They're Colombians - with an "O" - give them the respect they deserve.
- Lisa Haugard, LAWG
A lot of people want to call it "Columbia" after British Columbia or the District of Columbia, but COLOMBIA is a much different place. In many ways it defies description, which is probably why it has taken me almost two weeks since my visit to two of its major cities to post a single blog entry
No matter what a country offers, the basis of its greatness revolves around its citizenry, and I must say that Colombians are among the most hospitable, friendly, and fun-loving people I have met. Of course, I did not have a chance to introduce myself to the various armed groups patrolling the streets; I am talking about the vast majority who believe (at least relatively speaking) in peace and nonviolence. These are the silent revolutionaries. They might be black, white, or somewhere in between. They may be poor or rich (though it's less likely that they'd be rich because the rich are profiting from the chaos). They may dwell in the countryside or the cities.
The point is that peacemakers are everywhere. They occupy each and every country brandishing their briefcases and pruning forks, spreading their message of harmony and cooperation. Despite their mild-manners and lack of deadly weapons, they couldn't be more frightening to all those interested in maintaining the status quo. This is the situation in Colombia. This is probably why peacemaking groups such as the Fellowship of Reconciliation have been spied on by the right-wing government and its cronies. This is why the government and the paramilitaries are so hell-bent on forcing young men into military service. They feel they must stomp out the promise of peace wherever it lies.
Their actions reveal the strength of nonviolence. The peace lovers far outnumber the warriors. War survives on propaganda and the authority of the state and its institutions, but I believe it will all come crashing down one day. The people of Colombia give me hope on that front. They struggle tirelessly against one of the most militarized systems in the world, and they do it without perpetuating that same system. They're Colombians - with an "O" - give them the respect they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)