The Salon II

Israel as Apartheid South Africa?

2009-04-28T10:24:00.000-07:00

So, we all saw the drama of the last Durban II conference in Geneva, because some countries wanted to cast Israel as a racist, Apartheid-generating state. Those statements were excessive for sure, but not entirely without basis. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to read this piece from Tony Karon that I recommend to you:

Rootless Cosmopolitan - By Tony Karon:

"In a remarkable interview last November, the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert cautioned that unless it could achieve a two-state solution quickly, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished”. The reason, he said, was that Israel would be internationally isolated. “The Jewish organisations, which are our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”"

Starsky & Hutch, Sarkozy & Bush?

2007-12-30T14:59:00.000-08:00

(written in October 2007, x-posted on African in America)

There has been much talk around the MSM and the blogs, especially the francophone ones, about the new relationship between France and the United States, since the election of President Nicolas Sarkozy in France. Only last weekend, here in the US, several talk shows and Sunday forums continued to comment on this new affinity between the leaders of the two countries. From Bill Maher, to the France 2 journal (on PBS), to Chris Matthews on his show, to Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition – his guest was “French doctor” and French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner – all marveled and/or sneered at the apparent 180 turn of France, and the – really unfortunate – apparent similarities between the policy and ideology positions between the two. I will therefore not spend too much time going over this again (some may argue I already have).

I must however note that there is one particular policy-setting method, long-mastered in the US, which Sarkozy seems to have borrowed, and implemented dexterously from Bush: I call it “bill packing”. Sarkozy is trying to overhaul the immigration policies of the mighty French Republic, land of welcome… well not so much anymore. In fact Sarkozy has been adamant it seems, to rethink the whole concept of immigration in France. We’ll talk about the oddness of his policy another time. But on this particular legislation, Sarkozy has proposed a total package, making it extremely hard, even for those opposed to him, to object to the law altogether. He has packed the bill with elements that pander to his far-right/center-right base – like the requirement of DNA testing to prove the paternity of the children that accompany immigrants, while also attempting to pander the immigrant rights groups, by including a measure to – this is a first in the history of France – create statistics on the ethnic/racial diversity of France. I was watching a program called “Arret sur Info” (“Pause on the News”), on 3A TeleSud, the French/African channel dedicated to Africa and the French-Caribbean, and the topic was this new legislation; the activists opposing DNA testing – like the representative of CRAN – were contrived in their remarks, because they had to be extremely careful to only reject those specific amendments, while the person defending the bill – Christophe Nana, a Frenchman of Cameroonian origin – had the easier task of simply pointing out all the positives, and the irrefutable leaps forward, that are ALSO included in the bill. Add to bill packing a majority in Parliament, the appointment of the two or three first ethnic minority cabinet members, and you have a recipe for near absolute rule by an arrogant and self-important man, who seems adamant to transform France into the US-redux. This man’s fascination with the US reminds me that the French have never really gotten over their Napoleon “grandeur” complex, and that Sarkozy is simply the latest form of that.

Do not get me wrong: Ségolène Royal would not have been much better. She is also self-important. The difference, however, is that she supports other issues, that include a reduction in the powers of the all powerful French “King-President” – which, one might argue, is not such a bad thing. But Royal would have imposed her vision in much the same way as Sarkozy, should she have had the same majority in Parliament. It seems to be the new attitude in this generation of political elites in France: I am right, I know that I am right, you’re wrong, we’ll do it my way, and if I can help it, I won’t give you any viable avenue to even attempt to prove me wrong, before I do it my way. Napoleon tried that, and we know what happened to him. Bush is still feeling the effects of that. I don’t know why Sarkozy would want to follow such dismal beacons…

I wonder…

This is why I miss John Paul II

2006-09-14T12:12:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger: "Muslim religious leaders have accused Pope Benedict XVI of quoting anti-Islamic remarks during a speech at a German university this week.

Questioning the concept of holy war, he quoted a 14th-Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only 'evil and inhuman' things.

A senior Pakistani Islamic scholar, Javed Ahmed Gamdi, said jihad was not about spreading Islam with the sword.

Turkey's top religious official asked for an apology for the 'hostile' words.

In Indian-administered Kashmir, police seized copies of newspapers which reported the Pope's comments to prevent any tension.

A Vatican spokesman, Father Frederico Lombardi, said he did not believe the Pope's comments were meant as a harsh criticism of Islam."

From the blogosphere...

2006-08-15T22:47:00.000-07:00

A short, simple and honest piece on present day imperialism:

blog.myspace.com/tcooo:

"With the United States and Britain running Iraq and Afghanistan; while anxiously waiting for Fidel Castro to die so they can meddle in Cubas business, I would say imperialism is alive and well. My main concern is not where Britain and the United States are currently exerting their powers, but rather where they will go next. I remember in Bushs first presidential run, in a debate against Al Gore, he was asked what would he do different from what Bill Clinton did. His reply was that he wouldnt have send the troops to Haiti (In 2004 Clinton send troops to Haiti to restore President Aristide's government to power after a coup) and he would not have sent troops to Africa (Clinton also send troops to Rwanda). Bush did not stay truth to his word; in 2004 he sent troops to Haiti to keep the peace after the so-called resignation of Aristide. Aristide later denied he resigned and blamed the United States for kidnapping and shipping him to the Central African Republic. So if he did not keep his word about Haiti, who is to say, he will keep it about Africa.

I think it is safe to say the United States wont go to Africa to offer help where it is needed like the Democratic Republic of Congo. I cant help but to wonder however, if the Bush administration won't soon come up with a plan to go to Africa under the disguise of helping the continent, when their real intentions will be to get more or total control over Nigerias oil. What if Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice were nothing but pawns in the Bushs administrations schemes? What if not to make it look like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were raging war against the browner people of the earth, they added a little diversity. We know now that apart from lying to the United Nations, Powell did not really play any major role in the Bush administration. As a matter of fact, his best advice to the administration that more troops were needed in Iraq was ignored. To be blunt Powell was not much more than a puppet or as Bookman said in Stepping Razor, You went from a strong Black man to George Bushs little slut.

So please tell me if I am being paranoid. Can you see the United States in Nigeria soon? Is that too far fetched? I mean Nigeria have all the elements. They have lots of oil. They have a large Muslim population, so the United States could always justify their actions by saying it is the global fight against Islamist terrorist threat. I really do hope I am too paranoid, but knowing the pain the greed for gold, diamond and free labor have caused Africa in the past, I am concern what pain her oil may cause her."

I wonder...

Breaking News: Another temporary patch

2006-08-12T04:02:00.000-07:00

As if there hasn't been enough temporary fixes to conflicts in the Middle East, here comes another imperfect, and very pro-Israeli UNSC resolution:

UN calls on Israel, Hizbollah to stop fighting | World News | Reuters.co.uk:

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council adopted unanimously on Friday a resolution calling for an end to fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah and authorising up to 15,000 new peacekeepers to enforce it.

The vote capped weeks of anguished negotiations on a plan to halt the war that began when Israel attacked Lebanon after the July 12 abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah guerrillas in a cross-border raid. Hizbollah then rained rockets on northern Israel."

And it's not even like it is really making a difference on the field. The Lebanese government is hesitant to accept it, and Israel is almost ignoring it, as it organized further strikes this saturday, on Lebanese territory:

JERUSALEM -- Long columns of Israeli tanks, troops and armoured personnel carriers streamed over the Lebanese border early today as Israel pressed ahead with its military offensive, hoping to inflict as much damage as possible on Hezbollah before a proposed ceasefire deal comes into effect.

Israeli officials said the military would push forward with the expanded offensive, ordered yesterday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, despite a UN Security Council resolution that calls for an end to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

The campaign will continue at least until tomorrow when Olmert will bring the resolution to his government for discussion, said Gideon Meir, a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, adding Olmert intends to urge the cabinet to approve it.

The resolution authorizes the deployment of 15,

I am sorry to repeat myself, but I must scream: DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DOUBLE-STANDARDS, DOUBLE-STANDARDS!!! I am not a defender of Hizbollah, because I do not believe in religious fundamentalism, in any form, and Islamic fundamentalist practices are something that I abhore. But I also see Tzahal and the other Shin Bet, Mossad and the Israeli government, as being every bit as fanatic, and every bit as responsible for the current situation. Israel is always portrayed in the media, as a democratic state (which it is), that is oh so liberal, and oh so benevolent (which could not be further from the truth). Everybody seems to forget that it is a state created on the premise that a piece of INHABITED land, was theirs by a God-given right. In this context, and considering that Israel has "chronical invasionitis", I cannot help but see that Hezbollah is, in this particular case, justified, or at the very least, IMHO, at par with Israel.

And all this activity in Lebannon, is masking the other big Israeli incursions, this time in Gaza, Palestine. I say it like that (Gaza, Palestine), because it seems as though Israel has been working these past 30 years to exhaust the Palestinians into abandoning their hopes for statehood, so Israel can get bigger territory. This is, of course, a personal impression. That said, it seems the only logical explanation for the policies that encouraged the implantation of kibbutz-colonies all over Palestinian territories. It made no other sense strategicaly, as they were putting some of their own population at obvious risk, in the middle of hostile, occupied land. However it did give them an excuse to invade and/or retaliate, every single time there was the smallest attack from the occupied Palestinians. All this gives me the impression that the dream of Eretz Israel dies hard really hard. I was thinking about this, and then I found this piece (granted, by pretty liberal people), and I really, really wonder...

Moreover, I find it rather interesting that when the Palestinians or the Lebanese militant groups attack civilians, everybody is offended, but when Tzahal kills civilians, everybody lets them get away with calling it collateral damage. Furthermore, when the groups finally leave the civilians alone, and kidnaps soldiers, all hell breaks loose. What are these people to do to get back their dignity, and at least some of their land? Because you know Israel is never going to give in peacefully...

In any case, Terror as a weapon, whether carried-out by an organised group, or a recognized state, is still Terrorism, and should be equally punished. Colonization, whether by the prejudiced Europeans in the past 500 years, or by the formerly-oppressed Jews in the past 50, is still colonization, and should be equally punished. Kidnapping of civilians (or anyone), whether by Arab militants, or by Israeli soldiers, is criminal, and should be equally punished. And if Israel says it does not kidnap innocent civilians, only people with blood on their hands, the Arabs can make the very same arguments about the Tzahal soldiers they have kidnapped, and it will be equally ridiculous.

Conservatives and... YouTube!

2006-08-11T21:04:00.000-07:00

You have got to love our friends in the right-wing, here in the US. And who would have thought that my favorie site right now, YouTube, would be the source of yet another blunder by our oh so conservative groups out there?:

Al Gore YouTube Spoof Not So Amateurish : SF Indymedia: "Aug. 4, 2006 — - A tiny little movie making fun of Al Gore, supposedly made by an amateur filmmaker, recently appeared on the popular Web site YouTube.com.

At first blush, the spoof seemed like a scrappy little homemade film poking fun at Gore and his anti-global warming crusade.

In the movie, Gore is seen boring an army of penguins with his lecture and blaming global warming for everything, including Lindsay Lohan's thinness.

But when the Wall Street Journal tried to find the guy who posted the film 'Al Gore's Penguin Army' -- listed on YouTube as a 29-year-old -- they found the movie didn't come from an amateur working out of his basement.

The film actually came from a slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

On perspective... and the brink of World War III

2006-07-17T12:07:00.000-07:00

It seems somewhat surreal, yet not really surprising. The round-up speaks for itself: Hamas, Hezbollah and Israel are are up to their little lethal games again; Iran is promising support to Syria if it were invaded by Israel; Israel is threatening preemptive strikes against nuclear sites in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan have evolved into unpredictable quagmires; North Korea is threatening a second Korea war, Japan is considerng preemptive strikes; the desolation in Sudan/Darfur, Somalia, Congo and other African countries, has left Africa vulnerable to many crises; Nature is not giving us a break, with hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and a second tsunami in Indonesia today; We are not giving nature a break with global warming; etc, etc, etc... World War III, anyone?

Newspapers from my country - Congo - often have so much to cover with the internal chaos, that the International pieces tend towards perfunctory platitudes. Imagine my surprise at reading this article from Le Potentiel[fr] on the new crisis in the Middle East. The author comments on the fact that since Arabs are the ones suffering the greater amount of casualties, World leaders at the G8 treated the question with much less than if Israel was the one suffering the greater number of deaths, the US would probably already be on the ground, as they value Israeli lives more than Arab lives.

Here, in the United States, it has become suicidal for any politician to express even the smallest blame towards Israel. As a result of decades of Israeli/Jewish political influence on US politics, the perspective of the average American is VERY biased in favor of Israel. That is not true outside ot the US. I used my country's newspaper because in Congo, there is no particular love lost for the Lebanese, and/or Arabs in general. The average Congolese tend to resent the fact that Lebanese families own a great portion of the food and electronics market in their country, and the fact that some Lebanese business-owners treat their workers in a very racist way. But despite this, they still sympathize with the Lebanese in this conflict, because there seems to be a fundamental injustice in the situation.

At the end of the day, the whole crisis comes down to the conflict between the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of the Holy land, that we know as Palestinians and Israelis. It is all a matter of perspective. If one wishes to defend Israel, one points out the fact that she is surrounded by Arab and Islamic countries, that do not - let's say - particularly like them. If one wishes to defend the Palestine - and yes I said Palestine - and the Palestinians, one points out that the very process of the creation of the very Jewish state of Israel (Arab Israelis are second-class citizens), on a territory that was inhabited, resulting in a refugee crisis, was the root cause of what we are now living.

Do not get me wrong, I am not one of those who thinks that the State of Israel should disappear. Most of the young Israelis know no other country as home. I am a big proponent of the right of the land: you are born there, it's your home. But I want the almighty UK, to admit that the current crisis is as much the fault of their ill-conceived plan of relocation of the Jews - that they did not want by the way - to the Holy land, as it is the fault of the reaction to that by the Palestinians.

I do not, and indeed will never, caution terrorism. But I find it curious that for once that instead of attacking civilians, the militant movements (Hamas and Hezbollah) attacked soldiers, the response by the Israelis is to fall in the trap of an all out war. And worse: Israel attacks the entire country of Lebanon, and kills civilians, in punishment for a militant group's actions. In other words, they are frightening the Lebanese people into rejecting Hezbollah, the one group that succeeded in kicking Israel out of South Lebanon 6 years ago. Isn't that the very essence of terrorism?

The Israeli government, Hezbollah, Hamas... terrorist organizations. Their victims: The Jewish and Arab populations of the Middle East. The one contry that has the leverage to change the situation: The United States, by adopting a more even-handed approach to the conflict. Until the US politicians start thinking of justice and equity, instead of campaign dollars, there is very little hope of this mess not ending in World War III.

From our friends AlterNet:The Sodomy Squadron...

2006-07-04T09:03:00.000-07:00

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: The Sodomy Squadron:
(Posted by Melissa McEwan at 8:03 AM on July 4, 2006.)

"Pam Spaulding uncovered the existence of the real movers and shakers behind the radical homosexual agenda: The Sodomy Squadron.

...Washington's America is no longer the America of today. The Judeo-Christian compass that once guided our leaders and citizens has been displaced. A new moral order, one fueled by hedonism and a mutated form of individualism, has taken its place. Translation: Christians have become strangers in their own country.

...If one digs deeper into the cultural psyche of America, he will find that Christianity no longer sets the standard for proper human behavior. The Sodomy Squadron has been flying high, for the Supreme Court has deemed sodomy a fundamental right, the Federal Marriage Amendment was DOA, and Massachusetts strong-armed the Catholic Church into ceasing its adoption program when it demanded that a Catholic agency allow same-sex couples to adopt children under the care of the Roman Catholic Church.

Who could disagree? Christians really have become strangers in America. All they've got anymore is a Christian president with an almost exclusively Christian cabinet whose biggest supporters are conservative Christians to whom he panders relentlessly, including appointing two openly Christian justices to the Supreme Court, an almost entirely Christian Congress, who starts each day's session with a prayer, guaranteed freedom of religion, money that says "In God We Trust," a pledge of allegiance that describes us as "one nation under God," television networks who will accept advertising from conservative religious groups but not liberal political groups, schools who are incorporating a religious belief into science classes, gays being denied marriage in order to protect its "sanctity," women denied access to emergency birth control for no legitimate health reasons but because some religious people have a problem with it, Catholic communities being built in Florida, Museums of Creationism springing up, laws still on the books that respect Christians' holy day (like in Indiana, where you still can't shop for a car or buy booze on a Sunday), and churches not required to pay taxes.

Do the math, people. That adds up to total domination of The Sod Squad!"

Are you kidding me!?!?!

2006-06-01T13:35:00.000-07:00

EVery once and a while, I read a story online that is - to me - so outrageous, that it makes me jump out of my shoes. Today, it was this particular story:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Ethics lessons for US Iraq troops:

"US-led troops in Iraq are to undergo ethical training in the wake of the alleged murder of civilians in Haditha.

For the next 30 days, they will receive lessons in 'core warrior values', a military statement said.

Correspondents say Haditha, where US marines are suspected of massacring up to 24 Iraqi civilians, could have a huge effect on US public opinion.

The Iraqi prime minister has condemned the suspected massacre, adding he would conduct his own investigation"

Are you kiding me? Does the United States government, the great professional lecturer on human rights worldwide, have its head so far down in the sand, that it cannot even own up properly to its own (well its soldiers') misdeeds? Talk about a double standard!!

Let us, for a second imagine a case where Saddam Hussein's troops committed some massacre in Kuwait; and now let us imagine that our friend Saddam would come out and say that he recognizes that there is a bit of an issue, and that his soldiers would go through sensitivity training, or an ethics review course. Do you know how fast the United States would be outraged?

Why is it that the United States government is so blind to the common human nature of their soldiers. Why is it that the United States refuses to admit that its soldiers, like soldiers everywhere, sometimes let their position of total military supremacy get to their head? Is it a resurgence of the concept of "manifest destiny"? In other words, American soldiers are so much better morally than the rest of us heathens, and there are such exemplary human beings, that they could never commit massacres on purpose.

This was an attitude very much prevalent during the Vietnam war, and this is what led to John Kerry getting so much flac for denouncing their actions there. The US government is so blindly protective of its own soldiers, that they opposed the International Criminal Court, because they were scared that their soldiers would be judged unfairly, by anyone but Americans. The underlying assumption here, seems to be that US soldiers never really misbehave, and that the ICC would just invent charges to hurt the US' image.

Really? After Abu-Ghraib and the sham of a trial that ensued, which saw some lowly soldiers be reprimanded, and no officers even threatened, we can easily understand why the US wants to judge its own soldiers. But it is not surprising really. The United States has for a long time accustomed us to double standards: between Cubans and Haitians at the US border, between Hugo Chavez and the Saudi Royal family (and we can see which of the two is more democratic), between Arab and Jewish Palestinians... sorry, between Israelis and Palestinians, etc.

To this list the Bush administration has added double standards between Black and White New-Orleanians after Katrina, between conservative and liberal faith-based initiatives, between Muslim (even the legitimate ones) and Christian faith-based initiatives, and apparently - although this particular one, I have no independent confirmation, between conservative and liberal churches when it comes to IRS assessments of non-profit status compliance. Should I continue? No I think I have made my point.

Ethics training? I wish Kim Jong Il could say that he was going to give ethics training to his troops, and the officials in his regime. Does the US government realize that it has lost so much credibilty in the International arena, that such a statement is given as little credence as "Baghdad Bob"?

Ethics training? Are you kidding me?

Breaking News

2006-04-25T02:42:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Opposition calls off Nepal strike:

"Nepal's seven-party opposition alliance says it is ending weeks of protests after King Gyanendra agreed to its demands to reinstate parliament.

The alliance has chosen former Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala to head a new government.

The king's announcement follows weeks of unrest by opponents to his absolute rule. At least 14 people have died.

However Maoist rebels, behind a 10-year insurgency, rejected the deal and vowed to continue blockading the capital.

KP Situala, a spokesman for the opposition alliance, said it had 'called off the general strike and protest', and that planned demonstrations would become a victory celebration instead."

Misplaced priorities

2006-04-19T01:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a story that has gone through all the major news networks, and not in an entertainment segment:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Cruise plays down 'placenta plan': "Hollywood actor Tom Cruise has played down reports that he plans to eat the placenta of his new baby.

The War of the Worlds star was quoted in GQ magazine saying he thought the placenta and umbilical cord would be 'very nutritious'.

But in a subsequent interview with Diane Sawyer on US television, he made light of the comments."

Who gives a damn!?! I mean it is sick if it is true, but who cares? When people are dying for the daily comforts in the West, the West chooses to focus on... Tom Cruise? Where is the world going?

Opinion: Progressiste et mondialiste... (fr)

2006-04-18T04:35:00.000-07:00

Il est assez facile de prôner le "Laissez-faire", lorsque l'on est de classe moyenne, ou de classe haute, surtout – mais pas seulement – dans un pays développé. Evitons toute méprise : Je suis personnellement convaincu qu’une certaine dose de libéralisme (comme on l'entend en Français) est cruciale dans le processus d’accroissement des revenus, dans quelque pays que ce soit. Mais le fait est que même dans le monde occidental, le « Laissez-faire » a montré ses limites, et ses abus. Non seulement il semble promouvoir l'idée de la loi du plus fort (ou plus précisément, la survie du plus fort), mais il a aussi eu comme conséquence, la création artificielle d’une classe de défavorisés quasi-perpétuels. Je ne souscris point a cette notion que tous les défavorisés le sont parce qu'ils sont paresseux, qu'ils refusent de travailler, ou qu'ils recherchent une sécurité sociale excessive. Ce sont des arguments de nantis. Il y a beaucoup de gens entreprenants, travailleurs, et intelligents qui subissent les revers nécessaires pour que la minorité dirigeante puissent enfler leurs revenus (et ici je parle plus particulièrement des USA), et qui se retrouvent sans autre voie de sortie que la Sécu, et la soupe populaire, lorsque ceux-ci existent.

Le tout revient en fait, je crois, au type de société que l'on veut créer:

1) Une société qui encourage l'entreprise privée et l'ouverture des marchés, mais prend les mesures nécessaires pour que toutes les couches de la population aient les mêmes opportunités, et les mêmes chances de réussite, quels que soit leur race, leur sexe, et/ou leur condition sociale. Ce type de société aurait un gouvernement démocratique, qui aurait comme attributions prioritaires, de prendre des mesures pour la protection de l'environnement, la sécurité, l'ordre public, la garantie de l'éducation, une garantie de la survie (nourriture, et habitat), et assurer la participation du pays, de manière intégrale dans le concert des nations. Ce type de société utiliserait la force du marché pour améliorer les conditions de vie des populations, toutes les couches comprises. Ceci implique une politique de mondialisation qui ne soit pas mono directionnelle, dans tous les domaines (pas seulement l’économie). Ceci implique aussi un certain niveau de redistribution des revenus. Ce type de société prend aussi sérieusement en compte la nécessité de pallier aux réalités sociales négatives, créées par les affres de l’Histoire (racisme, xénophobie, génocides, apartheid, népotisme, etc.), et qui sont des sources d’inégalités préjudiciables à de nombreuses populations. L'économie fonctionnerait ainsi pour servir les aspirations, les besoins des humains.

2)Une société qui repose entièrement sur l'entreprise privée, et l'ouverture sélective des marchés, et qui considère comme déjà acquis que tous les participants au marché sont à un niveau égal d'accès aux opportunités, et aux chances de réussite (donc pas besoin de mesures palliatives, comme la discrmination positive). Ce type de société veut minimiser le rôle des élus du peuple, et du gouvernement dans le contrôle de l’économie, et donne un rôle prédominant à l'entreprise privée, et à la multinationale (des institutions puissantes, mais non-démocratiques, et sans réels devoir civiques dans certains pays), dans l'édification même de la société. Cette société privilégie ainsi (c'est ce que je vis aux USA) la croissance du PIB, le profit maximum, la consommation de masse, leur corollaire de la réduction la plus forte des coûts de production, et donc la baisse continuelle et inévitable des salaires pour les ouvriers, et la diminution continuelle des services sociaux de base gratuits et de qualite (ecoles, hopitaux, etc). Dans cette société, la valeur de l'être humain est déterminée, presque uniquement, par sa contribution au PIB; le développement et le progrès sont mesurés par le PIB. Les "garanties sociales" sont basées sur des plans de retraite, des assurances, le tout garanti par des investissements dans le marché de la bourse, sans autre forme de protection. Dans cette société, l'être humain est donc a la merci du marché, et vit donc presque uniquement pour servir et "accroître l’économie".

Personnellement je choisirais le premier modèle de société ; et je suis bien conscient que le fait être en faveur de ce modèle de société, me le fait être voir avec des œillères. Mais la grande raison pour laquelle je soutiens le premier modèle (qui est une sorte économie sociale de marché), est que j'ai la ferme conviction que le travail ne devrait pas être une fin un soit, mais un élément générateur d'une plus grande capacité d'autodétermination, permettant ainsi à l'être humain d'avoir les moyens de jouir effectivement de sa vie - plus ou moins - comme il/elle l'entend. Le second modèle ne permet pas cela. Il n’y a pas ici de vacances d’1 mois garanties, de vrais congés paternité/maternité, ou encore de réelle représentation des employés. Tel que je vis le « Laissez-faire » ici aux USA, les seuls qui peuvent réellement se targuer d’être capables de réellement jouir de leurs vies, sont les CEO (PDG), et les hauts dirigeants des grandes entreprises. C'est cette classe dirigeante qui se transforme de plus en plus en suzerains d'un nouveau système féodal. Et le reste des gens, les « serfs », vivent pour la retraite. Et tout cela ne m'inspire aucune confiance, surtout quand je vois ce que ces suzerains sont entrain de tripatouiller dans mon pays, le Congo (Mais ça c'est une autre affaire). Je crois que la plupart des êtres humains aimeraient vivre dans un système qui ne les considère pas comme ayant perdu leur valeur intrinsèque, et leur valeur sociale, parce qu’ils ne produisent/travaillent pas, ou parce qu’ils sont ouvriers d’usine ; un systeme qui integre les principes de la declaration universelle des droits de l’homme dans le fonctionnement de la societe. Est-ce trop demander ? Peut-être.

Je suis moi-même de classe moyenne, et Congolais. Je rejette cette notion qui veut que tous les "progressistes"/altermondialistes soient des "riches bourges" et pathologiquement hypocrites. Il y en a beaucoup bien sur, je vous l'accorde. Mais il y en a aussi beaucoup qui ne sont pas de la gauche caviar. Je n'ai rien contre la consommation de masse, ou la Star Ac, ou le Coca (mis a part le fait qu'il me fait gagner du poids). Oui j'utilise un cellulaire (d'ailleurs étant congolais, et le coltan étant obtenu chez moi de manière peux éthique, je crois que c'est mon droit le plus absolu :)). Je ne vois rien de mal à utiliser cet ordinateur japonais, pour communiquer avec vous sur la toile mondiale qui est le web. Le problème est loin d’être le principe de la mondialisation; d'ailleurs celle-ci est presque aussi vieille que le monde. Elle s'est juste intensifiée récemment. Le problème est de s’assurer de "quelle mondialisation" nous voulons. Le colonialisme, l'esclavage et le nazisme étaient eux aussi, a leur manière, des formes de mondialisation. Je n'ai aucune envie - vous me comprendrez - d'avoir ni l'un, ni l'autre. Je veux une mondialisation qui améliore non seulement les comptes bancaires des nantis partout dans le monde, mais la condition sociale des masses. En d’autre termes, je veux une « mondialisation durable et équitable ». Je sais bien que la présomption est que l’être humain est « fondamentalement bon », et que les gens prendront sûrement soin des plus démunis, par des initiatives privées. Bien que je veuille avoir foi en la nature humaine, mon expérience personnelle (génocide Rwandais, dictature de Mobutu, la Françafrique, Union Minière du Haut-Katanga, le régime de George W. Bush, etc.) tend a me prouver le contraire : Concentrez le pouvoir, et ceux qui le détiennent en abusent plus efficacement. Une mondialisation basée sur le libéralisme « a la main invisible », sans réels garde-fous, reviendrait a remettre les clés du pouvoir planétaire aux grands PDG, et ne me semble pas la base la plus appropriée pour une « mondialisation durable et équitable ». Ce n’est la bien sur que mon humble, et insignifiante opinion.

New shellings in Palestine

2006-04-11T03:48:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israeli shell kills girl in Gaza:

"'The IDF [Israel Defence Forces] does not target civilians,' a military spokesperson said.

'We regret any damage or injuries to innocent civilian Palestinians, but we do target terrorists who try to injure and kill Israelis.'
"

Back in Africa, a lecturer, who was definitely pro-terror tactics, once asked me what the difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber, and an Israeli (well he did not say Israeli, but that is what he meant) soldier, was. According to this guy, both are fighters in the cause of the freedom of their people, both are devout patriots, both have loved ones, both have an embattled nation to defend, and both are CONVINCED that the locations they are ordered by their superiors to target and/or hit, contribute in LEGITIMATELY weakening the other side. And the person to go on saying that both fighters have committed their lives - literally - to the defense/liberation of their country, thus both can reasonnably expect to die as a result of their "career choices". The lecturer finally said: "There are only 2 differences: death comes faster for one of the two, and at a predetermined date; and secondly, the West has decided that one is more legitimate because they are supposedly a recognized state".

I immediately proceeded to eagerly make the argument that suicide bombers purposedly target unarmed civilians, and that it is universally seen as a fondamentally illegitimate and morally flawed tactic of warfare. And I stand by that point. But then again, when one is talking about Arab Palestinians, launching Kassam rocket attacks on - internationally considered as - illegal settlements on their land, I am not sure I could make that argument. Just because one side has more money, more allies, more weapons, and a strategic position in the region, does not make them any more right, or more entitled to respect, security, sovereignty, freedom and self-determination than the other side. So if one side - in this case Israel - can minimise the death of the innocent civilians they kill as "collateral damage", why can't the Palestinian kassam launchers make the same argument?

I am personally for a "2 viable states" solution, but ultimately it is nobody's responsibility but that of all Palestinians, both Arab and Jewish, to realize that they cannot survive in any peaceful way, without each other's support. I am firmly against suicide bombers, but I am just as strongly against the Israeli indiscriminate invasions of the West Bank and Gaza, with the collateral infrastructure destruction, and more importantly loss of life.

A Palestinian friend, who studied at Ramallah Friends School, pointed out the irony of how one of his classrooms, built with USAID funds, was later destroyed by a US-built mortar shell... a bomb, is a bomb, is a bomb. Israel has no more - and to be fair, no less - legitimacy in that land than the State of Palestine. If the Israelis occupies the Palestinians, the latter have the right to defend themselves by the means available to them (minus the suicide bombers, and direct attacks on civilians). I always wonder how Hoosier from the Whitewater valley would react, if the US federal government decided to give back to the Miami Indians, without fair negotiations, accomodations or compensation, their ancestral lands... It would be civil war, with the Hoosiers in the position of the Palestinians... I wonder...

Giorgius Caesar, Imperator Augustus?

2006-04-11T03:44:00.000-07:00

Every sunday, I have made a point of taking advantage of my Grand-father's - it's a long story - HBO subscription, to watch "Real Time with Bill Maher", arguably the most entertaining, and informative political/satirical debate show on TV. This last sunday, aside of finding out that Sen. Joe Biden was probably my new LOVE in the Democratic Party, I also had the pleasure of hearing an interview of the author of "The American Theocracy", Kevin Phillips. The erudite, and former Republican strategist, made the claim - and I believe it's in the book too - that the United States was over-reaching dangerously. The United States is making key mistakes that other Empires before this one had made, in an overly ambitious - and frankly arrogant and self-centered - attempt at spreading their particular understanding of government, and "civilization". It is a sentiment that I had felt before, without being able to put my finger on exactly what it was. Then I read this:

BBC NEWS | Americas | Planning the US 'Long War' on terror: "It sounds eerily like the Cold War - and that is no mistake.

The 'Long War' is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years."

If I am getting this right, the Bush administration, in a very familiar way, has taken it upon itself to single-handedly engage the entire planet in a cold-war-lengthed, but in practice much warmer conflict. Not that I like terror - in any form, and from any source - but, how arrogant can the US government be? It was not enough that they - and the USSR - held the entire planet hostage, and made the rest of us, from the so-called "peripheral countries", pay the price of their squirmishes. No it wasn't enough. Now we are forced to accept to be virtually "ruled" by the superpower. It is the return of "Rome"... hence the title of this post.

Do not get me wrong. As staunchly as I disagree with the Bush administration's policies, I do not claim that they have the exclusivity of this domineering attitude; they have just perfected it. No US administration has ever been as forceful in their imposition of an ultra-conformity to a war effort, at the planetary level. Why do I say that? In that very same article of the BBC that we quote above, it is said that:

"But I would like to see to the number of troops in the Middle East cut to a fraction of the current 300,000, by at least a half."

The US military is planning a big increase in the role of special forces, the smaller, specially-trained teams able to speak local languages - including Arabic - deploy rapidly and work with the armies of other nations.

It is now settled: The United States military has taken the option to deputize at will, the military forces of any country that they so please. No need for the UN, or Interpol, to take any action on a foreign land - they have proven that in Iraq. The United States can simply coerce, intimidate, blackmail or entice in various ways the governments of other countries to put their armed forces, military bases, (and oil fields, but that is another story) at the United States' disposal; we are going to see the first case of a super-power deputizing armies of the world, since... Napoleon! And Rome before him!

The Bush administration is so convinced that their understanding of the American way, is ALWAYS the right way for every living soul, that they are hellbent on imposing it. At least during the cold war, the rest of us had the illusion of being independent for a little while. Now even those illusions are beginning to fade away. In fact they started fading way after September 11, when Bush made the famous "you're either with us, or against us" speech. President Bush had made it clear then that he believed he was leading the enlightened forces, fighting the good fight, with God on his side. When leaders start claiming divine support - which not so far from divine right monarchy - I get very scared. It is a position that gives the leader the impression that his/her "blessed and noble" ends justify all means. This is when arrogance, and a sense of infallibility, and righteousness tends to settle in.

In the US's case, Bush has the self-righteousness, and Rumsfeld has the arrogance and the sense of infaliibility. People made a mistake when they compared these two to Hitler and Himmler. That's not it at all: It's Ceasar and his main centurion. Those that evoked the Imperial presidency were right on the money. They want to rule, theywant a rubber-stamp Congress, and they want to increase their grip on the forces of the world. They have began to develop the "paranoia of the powerful" that has it that the world is out to get them, and they have therefore developped their "premptive strikes" theory. Giorgius Caesar? you bet !

Something really cool!

2006-04-11T03:39:00.000-07:00

CNN.com - Italy arrests Mafia 'supremo' - Apr 11, 2006:

"ROME, Italy (AP) -- Italy's reputed No. 1 Mafia boss, Bernardo Provenzano, has been arrested in Sicily, the ANSA news agency has reported, citing prosecutors.

Provenzano, Italy's most wanted man, went on the run more than four decades ago and is believed to have taken over the Sicilian Mafia after the 1993 arrest of former boss Salvatore 'Toto' Riina in Palermo.

As recently as last month, Provenzano's former lawyer was quoted as telling an Italian newspaper that the elusive man was dead.

'I think he (Provenzano)'s dead, and has been dead for several years,' Salvatore Traina was quoted as telling Rome-based daily La Repubblica."

BBC NEWS | Americas | US rally backs illegal migrants

2006-04-10T14:23:00.000-07:00

FYI

BBC NEWS | Americas | US rally backs illegal migrants: "Tens of thousands of people have taken part in a rally in the US city of Dallas in support of the 11 million illegal migrants in the country.

They called on the Congress to approve a provision allowing the immigrants to stay in the US legally.

On Friday, the US Senate failed to reach agreement on a compromise deal that would allow illegal immigrants to apply for US citizenship.

On Monday, pro-immigrant groups plan nationwide rallies on the issue."

And

BBC NEWS | Americas | Crowds rally for US immigration: "Huge numbers of people across the US are taking part in rallies supporting some 11.5 million illegal immigrants.

Hundreds of thousands are gathering in several cities, including Atlanta, Washington, Los Angeles and New York.

Unions, civil rights groups, schools and churches want Congress to approve a provision allowing undocumented workers to remain in the country.

President George W Bush backs a guest-worker scheme but faces stiff opposition within his Republican party."

It just goes to show that not all USAmericans are prejudiced, and not all USAmericans are irrealistic about this immigration situation. I am proud of the country where I live because of them. They are the ones defending the ideals that the country was founded on, and they continue to give me hope in the potential for good that there is in the USA. Be blessed people!

The politics of Fiji

2006-04-10T13:43:00.000-07:00

Even in the - so-called - "paradise" areas of this world, men will be men, and petty political intrigues will still muck the waters for the rest of the people:

Qarase calls Ganilau to clear the Air: "The Prime Minister is today calling on the National Alliance Party to clear the air and admit that it is allegedly making deals behind closed doors to team up with the Fiji Labour Party.

Laisenia Qarase said it is now evident that Ratu Epeli Ganilau and Mahendra Chaudhry are making deals to form the next government, but do not want the issue to be made public.

However the National Alliance Party has rubbished claims by the Prime Minister labelling it as childish and naive.

NAP party Leader Ratu Epeli Ganilau said that Qarase's comments are invalid as the SDL will have to share preference with the Labour party anyway, as required under the law."

World election roundup

2006-04-10T12:35:00.000-07:00

Why it is that the United States, where I live, do not have elections on Sunday like most of the World, will always buggle my mind. I mean it makes sense: it's a holiday, everybody has no excuse not to go vote, and they have the time to stand in line longer, so their vote is counted... but then again, some here don't want those votes counted, do they... but that is not our topic today. No. This is: since it was a Sunday, yesterday, I thought it a good idea, to do a little round-up of the major elections that took place last Sunday.

The two most dramatic ones were in Peru (for the radical views of the front front-runner), and in Italy (due to the abrasive and insulting tone of the electoral campaign). In Peru, it seems front-runner Ollanta Humala is assured a spot in the run-off elections. The other two candidates seem tied for the second spot in that elections:

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Peru faces presidential run-off

"A nationalist ex-army officer has a narrow lead in the first round of Peru's presidential election but the race looks set for a run-off vote.

With 59% of the votes counted, Ollanta Humala leads with 28% of the vote, with conservative Lourdes Flores in second place with 26%.

Former President Alan Garcia is close behind with 25% of the vote so far."

Ollanta Humala seems to be akin to Hugo Chavez, in terms of ideology and policies: a radical turn to the left, with redistribution of wealth, and limitations to the power of multi-nationals on the Peruvian territory. Latin America has been taking a turn to varying degrees of the centre-left/left, in recent elections, with the moderates Lula da Silva in Brasil, Michele Bachelet in Chile, Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, Tabari Vasquez in Uruguay, the more radical Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Although this trend has not strongly affected the economic relationship with the very capitalist United States (at least not yet), the United States has been dramatizing the change as a catastrophe for Latin America. The United States simply has a bit of a difficulty seeing its "hegemony" challenged in their own backyard - especially when this implies an increasing support for embattled communist Cuba, and its leader, the US nemesis Fidel Castro. There is a - IMHO, positive - change, and challenge, in Latin America. The people seem to be eager to find a third way, that allies revenues from natural resources, international trade, social empowerment and a more equitable income distribution. Sounds very good to me. But the Chavez of this world need to be careful not to drift towards authoritarianism, because the same people-power that put them there, may take them down just as fast... but that is another story.

In Italy, we have another story. PM Silvio Berlusconi has been around for a long time. In fact he has the longest-running government of Italy since Mussolini! But he is also a - alleged - crook, a media-mogul, and a billionaire, who controls most of the Italian media, and is said to run Italy like a mafia boss. He has spent this campaign vilifying his mild-mannered, centre-left opponent, former EU commission president Romano Prodi, and calling all left-wing voters "communist", in a ploy to divert the attention from his own abismal government record. On the other hand, Mr Prodi has been calling Berlusconi a drunkard, and the two have had very uncivil electoral debates on national TV. It seems the two were out to confirm evert stereotype of the restless, passionate Italian, even Mr Prodi who is more known for his calm, and his moderation. The result? Well, it's a tie so far:

BBC NEWS | Europe | Election cliffhanger grips Italy:

"Italy's general election is turning into an extremely close race, with early results pointing to a slender lead for PM Silvio Berlusconi.

Mr Berlusconi's centre-right coalition may narrowly retain control of both houses of parliament, according to projections from the Nexus pollsters.

Earlier, exit polls pointed to a narrow lead for his centre-left challenger, Romano Prodi.

Polling stations closed at 1500 (1300 GMT), after two days of voting."

There was also an election in Hungary, the first-round of the Parliamentary elections, and the Socialists seem well under way to maintain their ruling position in the parliament as well:

EuroNews : Hungary's ruling Socialists lead in election first-round:

"In Hungary, the stage is set for a fierce second round in the country's parliamentary election. With 99 percent of papers counted after weekend polls, the ruling Socialists of Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany are ahead with about 43.3 percent of the vote.

Former Prime Minister Viktor Orban's opposition conservative Fidesz party edged ahead initially due to increased support in rural areas, but is now trailing behind on 42 percent. Smaller parties the Free Democrats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum have crossed the five percent threshold needed to secure seats in parliament.

The presence of the Democratic Forum in any future parliament could complicate negotiations about forming a ruling coalition. The party has recently distanced itself from Orban's Fidesz. The new government will have to grapple with a growing budget deficit, rising unemployment and much needed reforms of the health and education sectors. The second round is scheduled for April 23."

That's it for today's round-up, see you next Monday!

It was about time, no?

2006-04-10T12:29:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Europe | France to replace youth job law:

"French President Jacques Chirac has announced that the new youth employment law that sparked weeks of sometimes violent protests will be scrapped.

He said it would be replaced by other measures to tackle youth unemployment.

Millions of students and union members have taken to the streets over the last month in protest against the law, which made it easier to fire young workers.

Union and student leaders said it was a 'great victory' but it is not clear if protests set for Tuesday are still on."

Il etait temps, non?

2006-04-10T12:24:00.000-07:00

RFI | France | Chirac décide de «remplacer» le CPE:

"C’est l’Elysée qui a annoncé que le contrat première embauche (CPE) était «remplacé» par un autre «dispositif en faveur de l’insertion professionnelle des jeunes en difficulté». Le président de la République, qui avait, avant cette annonce, réuni notamment Dominique de Villepin, Nicolas Sarkozy, les présidents des groupes UMP à l’Assemblée et au Sénat, Bernard Accoyer et Josselin de Rohan, a repris la main en indiquant lui-même quelle était l’issue choisie.

Le Premier ministre est néanmoins intervenu tout de suite après pour expliquer cette décision. Il a constaté que les «conditions nécessaires de confiance et de sérénité n’étaient pas réunies pour permettre l’application du CPE», après plus de dix semaines de manifestations et de désordre. S’il n’est pas abrogé mais remplacé, le CPE n’en est pas moins mort. Dominique de Villepin qui a déclaré avoir proposé cette solution au président de la République, a dû renoncer à une mesure dont il avait pourtant fait le symbole de sa détermination politique."

Je n'arrive toujours pas a comprendre comment cela a pris autant de temps. Dans un pays comme la France, pioniere de la democratie Occidentale, le tolé du peuple aurait du ammener une reaction beaucoup plus tot. Toute personne qui étudie le systeme politique Francais, AMHA, sait qu'il a toujours été tres difficile de changer les lois en France, surtout si ces changements vont vers un affaiblissement du contrat social. Je ne pense pas que ce soit une affaire de "l'exception francaise", mais plutot une manifestation de l'instinct de survie. Toute personne qui vit sur des acquis sociaux, tend a les défendre, si tant est que l'alternative que l'on lui propose semble etre un rabaissement irrémediable des dits acquis.

Le CPE, tout inspiré de changement qu'il puisse etre, preludait pour beaucoup des changements sociaux radicaux, a l'americaine, qui n'inspirait pas confiance a des Francais qui ont l'habitude des garanties d'emploi, et des vacances acquises lors du front populaire. Pour beaucoup, le CPE predit des changements drastiques d'ordre culturels et philosophiques de la societe, qui effraient, et pour lesquels la population n'est pas prete. Ceci dit, pour que la France reste competitive, il semblerait qu'il faille des changements. C'est un jeu d'equilibriste; et il semblerait tout simplement que Mr de Villepin ait un temps soit peu perdu le sens de cet equilibre, et trop fait pencher cette balance cruciale qu'est le contrat social, versla droite economiquement ultra-liberale... Esperons que les nouvelles propositions presentées au Parlement aujourd'hui seront plus appropriées aux réalités actuelles des Francais.

Chavez II? On verra...

2006-04-10T12:20:00.000-07:00

RFI - Pérou - Présidentielle : un nationaliste au second tour:

"Tous de rouge et blanc vêtus, aux couleurs nationales, des centaines de Péruviens se sont réunis, dimanche 9 avril, devant le siège du parti nationaliste Union pour le Pérou (UPP), pour fêter la victoire de leur leader. Selon les sondages sortis des urnes et les premiers résultats officiels, le candidat Ollanta Humala, arriverait en tête du premier tour de l’élection présidentielle. L’Institut de sondage Apoyo indique ainsi que le représentant d’UPP obtiendrait 30,2% des votes, devançant de cinq points ses concurrents. «Il faut prendre ces résultats avec humilité», soulignait le représentant nationaliste, s’adressant à la foule mêlant des drapeaux du Pérou et ceux, multicolores, du Tawantinsuyo, l’empire des Incas. Ovationnés, le commandant de l’arme à la retraite depuis 2004 et sa femme Nadine ont longuement salué, le sourire aux lèvres.

Anti-système, le discours nationaliste prônant notamment la révision des contrats des entreprises transnationales minières ou encore la préférence aux industries nationales a ainsi séduit les Péruviens, qui rejettent en masse le monde politique traditionnel et espèrent «changer» leur pays."

J'aime bien ce Monsieur pour l'instant. On verra bien ce qu'il ferra s'il devient President, mais il semble avoir ce simple bon sens dont manquent beaucoup de politiciens de nos jours, et un sens - du moins en apparence - des besoins des plus demunis du pays. Il serait aussi le premier descendant des Incas a diriger le Perou depuis des lustres. Et il est de ceux qui sont prets a remettre en cause l'hegemonies etatsunienne dans le continent Americain... c'est pas plus mal, non?

Brokeback again...

2006-04-10T12:19:00.000-07:00

After the whole controversy over Wal-Mart selling DVDs of Brokeback Mountain, the movie is in another controversy:

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | US prison bans gay cowboy movie: "A US prison officer is to be disciplined for showing the gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain to inmates.

Correctional authorities in Massachusetts said the film was unsuitable for a prison setting because of its 'sexually explicit scenes'.

A spokesman said the officer failed to follow guidelines requiring films to be vetted for violence, nudity or sex.

Brokeback Mountain is about two men who meet and fall in love while wrangling sheep in Wyoming in the 1960s.

'Graphic' scenes

'It was not the subject matter,' said Diane Wiffin, of the Massachusetts Department of Correction.

'It was the graphic nature of sexually explicit scenes.'"

People, it's a movie! Let it go, folks!

How predictions for Iraq came true

2006-04-09T16:54:00.000-07:00

The piece below about Iraq, by a BBC World Affairs editor, is a must read, for anyone who is rying to understand where the whole Iraq campaign went VERY wrong:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | How predictions for Iraq came true:

"It was a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, three years ago. I was interviewing the Saudi Foreign Minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in the ballroom of a big hotel in Cairo"...

Very instructive piece.

Crisis in Palestine

2006-04-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

The following article addresses the impending humanitarian crisis in Palestine, after the decision by Israel to close all the access points to Gaza. Will these two cousin-people ever end their family feud?

The Least of My Brothers: Gaza on verge of disaster

Hope in the Middle East

2006-04-04T10:14:00.000-07:00

One more in the camp of equity, II. It seems there is some change in the situation of women in Kuwait. They are running for office, and voting for the first time, in arguably the most conservative region of the world. It is to be celebrated:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Kuwaiti women vote for first time: "Polling is taking place in a Kuwaiti council by-election in which women are allowed to vote for the first time.

Two women are also among eight candidates running for the seat in the Salmiya district, south of the capital.

The 28,000 eligible voters, 60% of whom are women, are voting in segregated polling booths, a condition demanded by Islamist and tribal MPs.

Women were granted equal political rights last year and will vote in full legislative polls in 2007."