G8 Actions Begin

Huge pre-G8 anti-poverty protest

• EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) -- Tens of thousands of protesters clad in white streamed through the cobbled streets of Scotland's medieval capital of Edinburgh Saturday, demanding that the leaders of the world's richest nations act to better the lives of the poorest.
  The "Make Poverty History" marchers said the world must no longer tolerate the extreme poverty that blights the lives of millions in Africa and elsewhere.
  They planned to form a huge human bracelet around Edinburgh later Saturday as they kick off a week of anti-poverty activism.
  The marchers want to send a peaceful but powerful message to politicians gathering for the summit of the G8 group of rich countries at the nearby Gleneagles resort next week.
  "We're not here to march for charity; we are here to march for justice," said Walden Bello, of the advocacy group Focus on the Global South.
  The demonstrators urged the G8 leaders to heed Prime Minister Tony Blair's call to erase Africa's debt, pony up for a massive boost in aid and eliminate trade barriers that make it difficult for impoverished nations to sell their goods overseas.
  The march coincided with the Live 8 global music marathon to raise awareness of African poverty. Hundreds of musicians were taking to 10 stages around the world Saturday in cities ranging from Johannesburg to Philadelphia, Berlin to Barrie, Canada.
  There are shows in all the G8 countries -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia -- as well as in South Africa, where former President Nelson Mandela was expected to address the crowd. A tenth, all-African show was being staged in southwest England.
  The atmosphere in Edinburgh was festive, with an African percussion band playing and some demonstrators wearing masks depicting the faces of G8 leaders including President Bush, Blair and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
  However, about 150 anarchists and anti-globalization protesters dressed in black joined the march, many wearing hoods or covering their faces with bandanas. Some had T-shirts bearing the anarchist symbol of the letter "A" inside a circle; one had a placard that said "No nation, no order."
  Some pushed over a barricade and charged a line of police before running away down side streets. One activist threw a bottle, while another tipped over a refuse bin. Police described the incident as a minor disturbance and said no one had been arrested.
  Organizers had expected more than 100,000 people but police said they had no immediate crowd estimate.
  Britain's two main Roman Catholic leaders headed the procession and Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Catholics, read a message from the Vatican. He said Pope Benedict XVI urged those in rich countries to bear the burden of reducing debt for the poor and call on their leaders to fight poverty.
  "His Holiness prays for the participants in the rally and for the world leaders soon to gather at Gleneagles, that they may all play their part in ensuring a more just distribution of the world's good," said the message from Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano. He conveyed the pope's "ardent hope that the scourge of global poverty may one day be consigned to history."
  The marchers jammed streets in Edinburgh's ancient center and its modern commercial districts. Some banged drums or blew whistles as they walked. Police were out in force but had little to do.
  At a rally before the march began, tens of thousands turned the Meadows, Edinburgh's main park, into a sea of white, the anti-poverty movement's trademark color.
  Some of the Edinburgh marchers carried banners bearing religious imagery such as crosses while others espoused a socialist viewpoint.
  "Make Capitalism History," read one group's red T-shirts; "Make Bush History," said another. Many placards bore the messages "Drop the Debt" and "Trade Justice."
  Thandiwe Letsoalo, who traveled from Soweto, South Africa, for the march, lost two daughters to HIV-related illnesses and is caring for eight grandchildren and two unemployed sons on a small pension.
  "The G8 leaders have to increase aid but ensure that the governments they are giving aid to are not corrupt so that the money can trickle down to the people," she warned.
  
  

LIES - Eric's New 'BUSH FLASH'

LIES

• We Were Right They LIED!!
  
  
• After Downing Street It's Important To Remember The LIES!!!
  

For anyone who can use it….. Stan Goff - Retired - U.S. Army Special Opps

The Reality Of War

7/1/2005

• JULY 2 – ANOTHER NATIONAL ANNIVERSARY“BRING ‘EM ON”
• By Stan Goff
  

• On July 2, 2003, George W. Bush, caught up in his own bluster, uttered the words, “Bring ‘em on,” in response to a reporter’s question about the dismaying frequency of a supposedly vanquished foe in Iraq.
  On that day, only 65 American troops had been killed since May, when George W. Bush was flown onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln to deliver a victory speech, backgrounded by a huge sign that stated, “Mission Accomplished.”
  A lot has happened since them.
  Most significantly, no mission has been accomplished, and the Iraqi resistance apparently accepted his challenge to “Bring ‘em on.”
  Over 1,748 American corpses who used to be fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, grandsons and grand-daughters, nieces and nephews, friends and neighbors, have been flown out of Iraq. Most estimates are that more than 15,000 Americans have been wounded, many severely. And the human cost for Iraqis themselves – death, grief, and pain – is currently incalculable but certainly measured in the hundreds of thousands.
  It’s easy to talk trash from the White House, where its chief resident has attended one funeral while in office – that of the Pope. No dead soldier’s family has had him cross its threshold.
  No one seems inclined to get publicly personal about the President these days. This is a mean, punitive administration, as even its former employees can attest, like Valerie Plame and Paul O’Neill. Many people are intimidated by Bush’s vile-tempered coterie, for which John Bolton has almost become a proud icon – though they refer to this kind of viciousness as “strength.” Nasty, catty bureaucrats, who kiss-up and kick-down.
  Among the exceptions who have not been intimidated by Bush & Co. seem to be veterans themselves and the families of the military. We don’t intimidate easily and we do take things very personally. Bush and his cabinet are offensive people, even at a personal level.
  We are offended by the schoolyard challenge of “Bring ‘em on,” and we grow more offended with each passing day. During his publicity stunt at Fort Bragg earlier this week, some of us gathered to call out the names of the dead, and while he said – again from the comfort and security of his presidential office and his privileged private-school upbringing – “We have to stay the course,” a different “we” gave 1,744 names to “the course,” and wondered aloud why anyone would want to stay on it.
  A former military police Sergeant who served in Iraq, Kelly Dougherty, was asked what she thought about staying the course, and she said, “Staying the course when you are driving home is a fine idea. Staying the course when you are on a runaway train seems like a very bad idea.” She is now a member of a growing organization called Iraq Veterans Against the War.
  The Downing Street memos are just the latest in a trail of evidence (for those who didn’t already know) showing that this administration was bent on the conquest of Iraq – not to destroy weapons or liberate anyone, but to plant permanent bases there – while Bush was still telling the public he’d made no such decision. But the other evidence is that they were planning it even before they came into office, and that September 11 was just the “Pearl Harbor” they needed to put their plans on fast track.
  The notion that a group this cynical can be compelled to transform the occupation of Iraq into anything except what it is – a mission of bald conquest and a catalyst for social disorder and civil war – is the expectation that a pig will lose its appetite for table scraps. Most Iraqis, responding to independent polls, have said that the occupation is the biggest cause of the violence that wracks Iraq, and that they want to see the occupation ended immediately
  Many veterans and military families now agree. On the anniversary of that offensive remark, “Bring ‘em on,” we say again – and say it clearly – Bring Them Home Now!
  
• -30-
  
• Stan Goff is retired from the U.S. Army, where he served with various Special Operations units, and worked in eight conflict areas, beginning with Vietnam. He is the author of Hideous Dream – A Soldier’s Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti (Soft Skull Press, 2000), Full Spectrum Disorder – The Military in the New American Century (Soft Skull Press, 2004), and Sex & War (to be released February 2006, Soft Skull Press). He is a member of Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out, and a consultant with Iraq Veterans Against the War ( www.ivaw.net ). He is on the coordinating committee of the Bring Them Home Now! Campaign, www.bringthemhomenow.org .
  
• [permission to reprint widely granted]

For The 4th [2] Independence[?] Day

• The Stain of Torture
  
• By Burton J. Lee III
• Post Friday, July 1, 2005; A25
  

• Having served as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps early in my career and as presidential physician to George H.W. Bush for four years, I might be expected to bring a skeptical and partisan perspective to allegations of torture and abuse by U.S. forces. I might even be expected to join those who, on the one hand, deny that U.S. personnel have engaged in systematic use of torture while, on the other, claiming that such abuse is justified. But I cannot do so.
  It's precisely because of my devotion to country, respect for our military and commitment to the ethics of the medical profession that I speak out against systematic, government-sanctioned torture and excessive abuse of prisoners during our war on terrorism. I am also deeply disturbed by the reported complicity in these abuses of military medical personnel. This extraordinary shift in policy and values is alien to my concept of modern-day America and of my government and profession.
  The military prides itself, as do physicians, on being professional in every sense of the word. It fosters leadership and discipline. When I served as White House physician, my entire professional staff was drawn from the military, and they were among the best and most competent people I have met, without qualification.
  The military ethics that I know absolutely prohibit anything resembling torture. There are several good reasons for this. Prisoners should be treated as we would expect our prisoners to be treated. Discipline and order in the military ranks depend to a large extent on compliance with the prohibition of torture -- indeed, weak or damaged psyches inclined toward torture or abuse have generally been weeded out of the military, or at the very least given less responsibility. In addition, military leaders have long been aware that torture inflicts lasting damage on both the victim and the torturer. The systematic infliction of torture engenders deep hatred and hostility that transcends generations. And it perverts the role of medical personnel from healers to instruments of abuse.
  Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment -- frequently based on military and government documents -- defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military's traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.
  Our medical code of ethics requires us to oppose torture wherever it is inflicted, for any reason. Guided by this ethic, I served as a volunteer with the international group MEDICO in 1963, taking care of people who had been tortured by the French during Algeria's civil war. I remain deeply affected by that experience today -- by the people I tried to help and could not, and by their families, which suffered the most terrible grief. I heard the victims' stories, examined their permanently broken bodies and looked into faces that could not see me because of the irreparable damage done not only to their senses but also to their brains. As I have studied reports of torture throughout our troubled world since then, I have always found comfort in knowing that at least it did not occur here, not among Americans.
  Now that comfort is shattered. Reports of torture by U.S. forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees. These new guidelines distort traditional ethical rules beyond recognition to serve the interests of interrogators, not doctors and detainees.
  I urge my fellow health professionals to join me and many others in reaffirming our ethical commitment to prevent torture; to clearly state that systematic torture, sanctioned by the government and aided and abetted by our own profession, is not acceptable. As health professionals, we should support the growing calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and demand restoration of ethical standards that protect physicians, nurses, medics and psychologists from becoming facilitators of abuse.
  America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. It does not show understanding, power or magnanimity. It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.
  
• The writer is a former physician to the president to George H.W. Bush and a board member of Physicians for Human Rights. He will take questions today at 12:30 p.m. on
• http://www.washingtonpost.com
  
• © 2005 The Washington Post Company
  
  

For The 4th, Independence[?] Day

Posted on Fri, Jul. 01, 2005

• Patriotism, pain and pride
• 93 years and 6 wars later, author's words still ring with truth

• PETER S. CANELLOS Boston Globe
  

• When the American literary lion William Dean Howells turned 75 in 1912, New York's superintendent of libraries asked him for some words of wisdom that could be read to children. Howells chose a subject that bristles with tension even now, 93 years later, as a vastly different United States prepares to celebrate its own birthday.
  

• "While I would wish you to love America most because it's your home, I would have you love the whole world and think of all the people in it as your countrymen," Howells wrote. "You will hear people more foolish than wicked say `Our country, right or wrong,' but that is a false patriotism and bad Americanism. When our country is wrong she is worse than other countries when they are wrong, for she has more light than other countries, and we somehow ought to make her feel that we are sorry and ashamed for her."
  

• There has been talk of sorrow and shame in Washington over the past month as members of Congress weigh in on the future of the Guantanamo Bay prison, where hundreds of enemy combatants picked up in Afghanistan are being held without normal legal protections. Some have claimed mistreatment, though the most disturbing allegations have not been proved.
  A growing chorus of Democrats, and some Republicans, are calling for closing the prison, arguing that it is, as Howells might put it, an island of sorrow or shame. But others, such as House Armed Services Committee chairman Duncan Hunter, Republican of California, stressed that Guantanamo inmates are treated quite well compared with prisoners in other countries, pointing out the horrors of prison camps maintained by Japan and the former Soviet Union in decades past. He suggested the enemy combatants even enjoy better conditions than they would in their native countries.
  "They've never been treated better and they've never been more comfortable in their lives," Hunter told a group of journalists two weeks ago, offering as a prop a plate of oven-fried chicken, one of the entrees served to inmates at Guantanamo.
  Meanwhile, the commander in Iraq, Gen. John Abizaid, took issue last week with critics of the Iraq war, arguing that some of the doubts being expressed by Washington politicians were undermining the troops. While acknowledging the necessity of debating the war, Abizaid suggested the stakes are different with troops in the field, that every expression of outrage in Washington harms the morale of soldiers in Iraq and thereby helps the enemy.
  The questions of whether the United States should hold itself to higher standards than the rest of the world, and whether those who seek to do so are helping the country or hurting it, have popped up in more or less the same form since the early days of the republic, when sentiment for war routinely swelled and receded like waves on a beach.
  The Howells precept is intriguing because he was noted both for his patriotism and his opposition to the Spanish-American War. His stance stemmed from his belief that the government and the press had misled the American people about the extent of Spanish aggression.
  The Spanish-American War had been over for 13 years when Howells offered his words of wisdom to New York's children, but critic Adam Gopnik of The New Yorker magazine believes the war was in Howells' mind when he stressed the patriotic necessity of dissent.
  Susan Goodman and Carl Dawson, authors of "A Writer's Life," a new Howells biography, suggest in their book there is no clear evidence of what, if anything, prompted his ruminations on patriotism.
  Most likely, he was not striking out for any particular cause but merely offering a disinterested observation, as 19th-century men of letters were expected to do on important occasions.
  Reading Howells' words now, six wars later, what is striking is not the extent to which Americans disagree about their country, but how much patriotism they share.
  Almost no one, left or right, would disagree with Howells' claim that the United States has "more light than other countries." People disagree only on whether the greater light is immutable or must be fed, like a fire, through conflict and dissent.
  After 229 years, America's strength is in neither her faith nor her dissent. It is that both sides in her greatest disputes believe they are upholding her ideals. There can be no better proof of the force of American patriotism, or greater assurance of its endurance for decades to come.
  
• Peter S. Canellos is the Boston Globe's Washington bureau chief.

PRESS RELEASE: "DECLARATION OF IMPEACHMENT" Veterans For Peace

• PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  
• CONTACT: David Cline: 201-876-0430 daoudc@aol.com
  
• Mike Ferner 419-729-7273 mike.ferner@sbcblobal.net
  

• VETERANS GROUP ISSUES DECLARATION OF IMPEACHMENT
  AND ANNOUNCES PETITION TO REMOVE PRESIDENT BUSH
  St. Louis A national veterans organization today issued a Declaration of Impeachment and announced
  it is beginning an online petition to remove President Bush from office for crimes committed during the
  invasion and occupation of Iraq.
  Using the same language as the original “Declaration of Independence, Veterans For Peace cited many
  of the same reasons to remove George Bush that Thomas Jefferson cited to separate from King George of
  England. And in a modern version of the signing of the Declaration, VFP announced the posting of its
  online impeachment petition.
  The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all
  having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny, Jefferson wrote, and then added the
  famous litany of abuses charged against the king that VFP said is unchanged today:
  
• ?? He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  
• ?? He has deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury transport(ed)
  us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  
• ?? He has constrained our fellow Citizens to become the executioners of their friends
  and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands
  
• ?? He is at this time transporting large Armie to compleat the works of death,
  desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy
  scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a
  civilized nation.
  A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit
  to be the ruler of a free people.
  
• VETERANS FOR PEACE, INC.
  216 S. Meramec Avenue St. Louis, MO 63105
• (314) 725-6005
  
• vfp@igc.org
• www.veteransforpeace.org
  
• The veterans Declaration of Impeachment came to the same conclusion as Jeffersons Declaration of
  Independence, when it declared it is the Right of the People it is their duty, to throw off such
  Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
  VFP President, Dave Cline, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, said, You bet it's our right and our
  duty! Today's tyrant named George may have little regard for the Constitution, but as members of the
  military we took an oath to uphold that document. George Bush has repeatedly violated not only the
  Constitution but federal law, by invading and occupying Iraq. In our system the remedy for such high
  crimes is clear: he must be impeached.
  Emphasizing the gravity with which Veterans for Peace takes the impeachment of George Bush,
  Cline concluded by quoting the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence: And for the support of
  this Declaration we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
  To sign the online petition, or to read the Declaration of Impeachmentand VFP's documented
  case for removing George Bush, go to:
• http://www.veteransforpeace.org
  
• Veterans For Peace is a national organization founded in 1985, with 123 chapters across the
  country.
  ####
  Below is the text of the VFP impeachment petition that will be posted online
  www.veteransforpeace.org and circulated in person
  I want my representative in the U.S. House of Representatives to vote to impeach President Bush for the
  high crimes listed on the reverse of this signature page, and have the case prosecuted and tried in the U.S.
  Senate. Signatures on this petition will be delivered to the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and to
  the ranking Democrat on the Committee.
  Name Address City State Zip
  ******************************************************
  http://www.veteransforpeace.org
  Declaration of Impeachment
  Issued by
  Veterans For Peace
  July 4, 2005
  Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are
  instituted to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But
  “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
  Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
  foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
  seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
  …all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
  sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
  accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…design(s) to reduce
  them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
  Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
  …The history of the present King (George) of Great Britain is a history of repeated
  injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
  Tyranny…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
  § He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
  harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
  § He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
  § He has…deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…transport(ed)
  us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
  § He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging
  War against us…
  § He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death,
  desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely
  paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  § He has constrained our fellow Citizens…to become the executioners of their friends
  and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
  A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant,
  is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
  We, therefore…do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People…solemnly
  publish and declare, That these…Free and Independent (People)…are Absolved from
  all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between
  them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved…And for the
  support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes
  and our sacred Honor.”
  (Note: Except for the first two lines above and words in parentheses, this Declaration is quoted directly from the
  original Declaration of Independence.)
• www.veteransforpeace.org
  
• ******************
  
• James Starowicz
  
• USN '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In-Country '70-'71 COMNAVFORV
  
• "We, having dutifully served our nation, do hereby
  affirm our greater responsibility to serve the cause
  of world peace by applying the concept of engaging
  conflict peacefully, without violence."
  Veterans for Peace, Inc.

Declaration of Impeachment, from Veterans For Peace

• Declaration of Impeachment
  
• [Please Click On 'Link' or 'Title' for National Press Release and Further Information]
• Issued by Veterans For Peace,
• July 4th, 2005

• Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are instituted to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.But“…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is theRight of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations…design(s)to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.…The history of the present King (George) of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishmentof an absolute Tyranny…To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.§ He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officersto harrass our people, and eat out their substance.§ He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.§ He has…deprive(ed) us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury…transport(ed) us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences§ He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us…§ He is at this time transporting large Armies…to compleat the works of death,desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.§ He has constrained our fellow Citizens…to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.A (President) whose character is thus marked by every act which may define aTyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.We, therefore…do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People…solemnly publish and declare, That these…Free and Independent (People)…are Absolved from all Allegiance to the (Bush Administration), and that all political connection between them and (this Administration), is and ought to be totally dissolved…And for the support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
• (Note: Except for the first two lines above and words in parentheses, this Declaration is quoted directly from the original Declaration of Independence.)
• www.veteransforpeace.org

Amputees win medals and respect in Ethiopia

Ethiopian Winners

• Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

• Twenty LSN-Ethiopia survivor-clients and staff participated in a sports competition for people with disabilities from May 9-14, 2005. Delegation Leader and Ethiopia Network Director Bekele Gonfa spurred the LSN team to victory, with an impressive 34 medals -- 14 gold, 10 silver, and 10 bronze. Hosted by the Addis Ababa Sports Federation for the Disabled, the competition featured participants from 28 organizations and allowed survivors the opportunity to interact and socialize with many other people with disabilities from throughout Ethiopia. Events such as this sports competition are extremely important as they showcase the abilities of people with disabilities. Sports at the competition included soccer, volleyball, basketball, athletics, weightlifting, table tennis, and tug of war. The LSN team won a majority of the medals available in the athletic competitions and the hotly contested tug-of-war event.
  Landmine survivors earn medals and pride in Ethiopia.LSN Ethiopia Outreach Workers Yonas Fekadu and Asamnew Negash coordinated the participation of the LSN team. “The greatest fun in the competition was the tug-of-war event,” said Fekadu. “Most of our competitors were leg-amputees, many competing on one leg. The ground was very muddy, making it great fun for the competitors and spectators as we slipped and slid in the mud.” “The athletics competition was the most exciting part of the competition,” said Negash, “because LSN staff and survivors won most of the medals!” Samuel Abebe, an above the knee amputee and LSN survivor-client, was given a special award for being Sportsman of the Year. Abebe competed in the 100-, 200-, and 400-meter races, javelin, and weightlifting competitions. Abebe won gold medals in all events except javelin, where he won the silver.
  The LSN Ethiopia team at the sports event in May.In addition to organizing LSN-Ethiopia’s participation, Outreach Workers Fekadu and Negash also competed well in many events. Fekadu participated in the 20-meter race, javelin, and shot put, and won the shot put gold medal. Negash competed in the 100-, 200-, and 1500-meter races, javelin, and shot put. He won 2 gold, 1 silver, and 1 bronze medal. Said Network Director Bekele Gonfa after the competition, “I am so pleased with the success of LSN’s team, but more than that, I am glad that LSN-Ethiopia has been able to encourage survivors to participate in so many different sports. I hope we can assist survivors in their training so that they may be part of the 2008 Paralympic Team for Beijing.”

Going For The Gold

Nguyen Hoa Hoc-Javelin


LSN-Vietnam Network Director Nguyen Hoa Hoc competed in a local sports tournament for people with disabilities from May 17-18, 2005. Over 300 people with disabilities competed in wheelchair racing, swimming, badminton, athletics and other sports. This tournament served as the qualifier for the national competition for people with disabilities to be held in Hanoi in July. Mr. Hoc competed in the shot put, javelin, and discus competitions, and won a gold medal in each. “I like competing in those sports because I have been active since I was a child. I can do many of the things I did before the accident, and I can practice by myself whenever I have extra time,” said Hoc. He was extremely excited about his success at the regional level, and is eagerly training for the national competition in Hanoi. “There is nothing that makes me happier than standing on the highest level of the podium and receiving a gold medal and flowers, because with that medal, I also earn the respect of my community. My level of happiness doubles as I compete successfully at the higher levels of competition.” Sports have played an important role in Mr. Hoc’s life. Before becoming the Director of LSN-Vietnam, Hoc opened a sports club for people with disabilities in the Quang Tri province. The club members practiced sports and played games together, building friendships and improving their health. “Sports is my medicine,” says Hoc. “It is a comprehensive activity for individual recovery, and helps to keep me and other people with disabilities healthy. I loved sports as a boy, often skipping school to play sports, and still love participating in sports today.”
In 2003, Mr. Hoc competed in the ASEAN ParaGames against people with disabilities from all over Asia, where he won a silver medal in the wheelchair weightlifting event and a bronze medal in the javelin.

The China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s $18.5-billion bid has put Unocal back into headlines...

Taliban Fighter

• The Afghan War as a “Loss Leader”
  

• The China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s $18.5-billion bid has put Unocal back into headlines, a company whose pipeline politics, many suspected, may have been behind Washington’s Afghan War.
  Certainly, the official story of hunting down terrorists in Afghanistan made no sense. Why expect Osama bin Laden or any other high-ranking member of Al Qaeda to sit and wait until US troops arrive nearly a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks? Any intelligent leader of a clandestine organization would have left the country long before October 7, 2001, the beginning of the US invasion. Apparent irrationality of the Afghan War, in terms of effectively fighting terrorists, fueled the suspicion. However, if Washington had been after pipelines in Afghanistan, the last thing it should have done was to attack the country, destroying what little stability its weak state had maintained. So, the idea of a pipeline war doesn’t make sense either.
  If neither pipelines nor bin Laden was the point of the Afghan War, what was?
  The invasion was, first and foremost, Washington’s reassertion of power and prestige, necessary because the 9/11 attacks put big holes in them, showing that even the Pentagon itself – the headquarters of the biggest military in the world – was not invulnerable to attacks. Afghanistan was simply the most convenient target among all countries – reportedly about sixty – in which Al Qaeda was said to have its cells. It was poor, it was diplomatically isolated, it was politically fragmented, and its military force was weak. What better country to invade?
  Besides, the main prize that the George W. Bush administration was after was not Afghanistan but Iraq. By now, we know that “barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq – even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks” ("Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11,” CBS, 4 Sep. 2002). Therefore, it is best to regard the Afghan War as a “loss leader” in marketing terms, a grand opening sale to draw American suckers into Washington’s supermarket of wars.
  Moreover, warriors do not need to seize any resource such as fossil fuels to make war economically productive. War itself is a big industry, a very profitable enterprise for friends of a war-making government. Even NGOs, which are ostensibly non-profit and humanitarian, can get a piece of action, too, after the target country’s government crumbles. Fat grants to pay for their directors’ salaries and aid workers’ wages make them addicted to disasters.
  Destruction and construction are both big businesses – sharp arrows, along with big tax cuts for the rich and bubble-inducing low interest rates, in the quiver of an empire in deflationary times. Remember the fear of deflation before the sharp rise in oil prices (cf. Kenneth Rogoff, “Escape from Global Deflation: A Commentary,” Nihon Keizai Shimbun, July 17, 2003; and Matthew Davis, “Fighting Deflation in the U.S. and Japan,” NBER, 29 Jun. 2005)?
  The best war of all in the history of the United States, from the point of view of the power elite, must be the Gulf War, as allies like Japan and Saudi Arabia practically financed the whole venture and US casualties (not counting the victims of the Gulf War syndrome) were very low. Riyadh and Tokyo’s refusal to loosen purse strings for the ongoing Iraq War, forcing US taxpayers to foot the bill, may have done as much damage to Washington’s prospect of winning the war as guerrillas and terrorists in Iraq.
  Considering all this, I’d say, block the Unocal deal. Beijing, one of the largest customers of US government bonds, might get motivated to dump the dollar, monkey-wrenching war finance.
  

• STAN’S NOTE: 17 killed yesterday in Afghanistan in one chopper shoot-down. Higher per capita death rate in Afghanistan than in Iraq the last three months.
  One of the ironies of yesterday’s presidential bombast at Fort Bragg was the continuing claim that the US is involved in a “War on Terror” in which the entire world is a battlefield, and that killing Iraqis is somehow protecting the US from another 9-11. Bin Laden opposed Saddam almost as much as he opposed Bush. Now Saddam is in jail, and Bush is trapped in an unwinnable war that is degrading the US military, undermining US prestige, and mobilizing an entire region against the US. Osama bin Laden is certainly delighted with the progress “on the ground,” as the pundits have taken to saying. I would refer readers back to my own hypothesis that this whole thing is bin Laden’s trap.

Protesters stage rally against war - Fayetteville NC

Staff photo by Steve Aldridge
Jacob Liever, 9, left, and his sister, Charlee, 6, light luminarias in the shape of a peace sign under the Market House during Tuesday's rally against the war in Iraq.

• Published on: Wednesday, June 29, 2005
  
  
• [If not receiving in HTML there are Audio Links at article site]
  

• Protesters stage rally against war
  
• 
  
• By Julia OliverStaff writer
  
  
• As the nation's largest Army post prepared to host its commander in chief Tuesday, a little blue house in Haymount gathered protesters.
  Bumper stickers on cars at the curb read "Impeach Bush" and "Bush lied. People died." A yellow banner in the yard read: "Bring them home now."
  The 20 or so people milling around the Quaker House were former soldiers, parents and grandparents. They had no plans to watch President Bush's speech from Fort Bragg.
  "I've heard it all before, and I didn't believe it the first 10 times," said Chuck Fager, who runs the Quaker House, an organization that helps conscientious objectors.
  Instead of watching the president on national television Tuesday night, the protesters met downtown. Sheltered in the Market House from a steady rain, they were about 50 strong by rush hour. They carried signs, lit candles in the shape of a peace symbol and read the names of the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq.
  The protesters came from Raleigh, Richmond and homes in Fayetteville. Many had military connections.
  
• AUDIO
• Stan Goff talks about Bush coming to Fort Bragg (Low bandwidth)
• Goff says Bush using soldiers as stage props (Low bandwidth)
• Goff talks about reception protesters are given in Fayetteville (Low bandwidth)
  
• Stan Goff, who retired as a master sergeant from the Special Forces and has a 22-year-old son serving in Iraq, found Bush's visit to a military base offensive. He said Bush was manipulating the people who had suffered most in the war.
  "He's going to come down here and use them as his personal stage props when they could be home with their families," Goff said.
  Charlie Anderson, a former hospital corpsman in the Navy and now an organizer for Iraq Veterans against the War, agreed. He compared Tuesday's speech venue to Bush's announcement from the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003 that the war had ended.
  Several drivers rounding the Market House circle honked and waved at the protesters. One laid on his horn and displayed his middle finger.
  Around 6 p.m, about an hour into the vigil, a soldier approached the group and began arguing with some people holding signs.
  Staff Sgt. Isaac Hubbard, who is 27, suggested that instead of protesting the war, they lobby against it in Congress. He said public disagreement with U.S. policy is often used as propaganda by insurgents.
  
  "When we do stuff like this, it only fuels the problem even more," he said.
  The argument was civil and ended peacefully.
  "We're not here to question your character," Goff told Hubbard.
  Fager said a man on his way home from a friend's funeral in Arlington National Cemetery also confronted the group. The man had heard about the protest on talk radio, Fager said, and told the protesters they were dishonoring soldiers.
  Organizers said they chose a downtown venue for the vigil to avoid criticizing soldiers, whom they support. A recent Observer poll showed that half of Cumberland County residents found war protests insulting in a military town.
  Anderson, who came from his home in Virginia Beach, Va., said Tuesday afternoon that he hoped to read the names of five soldiers in his unit who were killed in Iraq in March and April.
  "All of them were good kids," he said.
  "Their hearts were in the right places. They shouldn't have ever been sent there in the first place."
  
• Staff writer Julia Oliver can be reached at oliverj@fayettevillenc.com or 323-4848, ext. 280.

Another Karl Rove production - Bush speaks with troops as his stage props

Reality In Iraq, Reality In WAR
6/28/2005

• Another Karl Rove production - Bush speaks with troops as his stage props
• http://stangoff.com/index.php?p=143
  
• My opening remarks for the press conference at Quaker House, Fayetteville, NC, organized in response to George W. Bush’s speech on June 28, 2005, at Ft. Bragg:

• I retired out of 3rd Special Forces ten years ago, right up the road here when the out-processing one-stop was still over by the Main PX. My son’s first assignment after jump school was there in the 82nd Airborne Division, and it was with them that he went to Iraq the first time.
  Dozens more soldiers and hundreds more Iraqis have been killed over the past couple of weeks… and not just killed – crippled, burned, blinded, amputated, consigned to colostomy bags and medication for their rest of their lives, and countless others will be driven a little bit mad by their experience. And we have no idea how many will be damaged by the ticking time-bomb in their bodies that is depleted uranium.
  Not only are the troops suffering, but the families of those who are on their second and third deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are living with unremitting fear, and I am one of those families. My grandson has seen his father for only a few months of his two and a half years.
  Yet, tonight the President of the United States is going to come here to Fort Bragg and tell everyone in the country that this war is making people safer. In fact, since the Bush administration opportunistically used the terrible shock of 9-11 to advance what we now know to have been a pre-determined agenda, the number of terror attacks in the world has dramatically increased.
  Let me say this very clearly, because the empirical evidence is very clear. Bush’s war has not made anyone safer. It has, however, destroyed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and according to international polls, the United States is now held in lower public esteem in the world than China.
  The United States is already suffering higher casualties than we were at the same stage of the Vietnam War. So, okay, Iraq is NOT Vietnam. It could, in fact, get worse. Rumsfeld is now telling us that the war could last for 12 more years.
  And just two years ago George Bush pulled his little airplane stunt on the USS Abraham Lincoln, and had a big MISSION ACCOMPLISHED sign as his backdrop.
  Tonight he will use a captive audience of soldiers, who he commands, and who will be ordered to smile and cheer and shout hooahs at the appropriate points in this latest Karl Rove production, and I find that offensive. More than offensive, it is obscene.
  I find it offensive that the very people he would send to death, disfigurement and despair in the service of this administration’s lengthening list of lies, are now required, – when they could be home tonight with the loved ones they have missed so much in the last two years – to serve as stage props so George W. Bush can add one more bit of cheerleading hype, one more publicity stunt, to his resume. And in Iraq, every time the poll numbers spook the White House, they add one more so-called counter-offensive, each promising that there is light at the end of this tunnel, and each dispatching more military sedans to the homes of those who wait to hear the terrible news that someone they loved is no longer in the world.
  George W. Bush is using troops as props, but he doesn’t show up for the funerals of the troops who have been killed in his war. This is about as clear as things get.
  This publicity stunt is an obscenity. It is an insult to the intelligence of the nation, that is now waking to the reality that this war had nothing to do with 9-11, nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nothing to do with liberation, but everything to do with establishing permanent military bases on the earth’s biggest oil patch.
  Americans are waking up, and members of Congress who let themselves be stampeded into this war need to put their wind meters back out, because while Bush doesn’t have to run for anything again, every member of the House of Representatives and a third of the Senate are running in 2006. Americans are waking up, and they are in a very bad mood about this war, and as Bob Dylan once sang, it don’t take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I’ll tell my Democrat right now from the platform, if he doesn’t fight to bring them home now, I’ll vote a Republican who says he or she will. People are dying, and we will not respect on election day those who sat on a fence while the coffins arrived at Dover, and the cries of pain echoed off the walls at Landstuhl and Walter Reed.
  Bush says if we declare a withdrawal date, the insurgents will wait us out. But we haven’t even declared the *intention* to leave Iraq – in fact, it looks like we are building permanent bases there – and the Iraqi resistance seems to be growing stronger, more sophisticated, and more audacious with every day. This could not be happening if the resistance did not enjoy substantial popular support. And if our presence strengthens the resistance, how is this better than having them “wait the US out"?
  WE, who wasn’t all of us after all, WE… had no business in Iraq in the first place. That’s why this administration doctored evidence, attacked its critics, purged its own public servants, intimidated the press, and repeated 9-11 and Iraq in the same breath like a never-ending mantra for months, in order to get the American public to acquiesce to this crime.
  Bush will get up there tonight and say that this is the first anniversary of newly-won Iraqi sovereignty.
  But sovereignty is defined as supreme and independent political authority. How can anyone make the claim of independence, when they live in the Green Zone surrounded by foreign troops and a occupation authority that has veto power over any political action, the ability to order any press closed, and the ability to arrest and indefinitely detain that country’s citizens without showing cause? How can any country be sovereign, when its entire security apparatus is under the control of a foreign military? There is no sovereignty in Iraq… any more than there was an al Qaeda connection or yellow cake uranium.
  The Iraq Sovereignty Scam was a Bush election-year stunt. And tonight is a publicity stunt. It is an offensive publicity stunt, using our troops as his personal stage props. He couldn’t deliver this phony missive from the White House and leave these people alone to spend precious time with their families?
  Don’t sell us any more fake milestones, George Bush, that major combat is over, that Saddam is captured so the resistance will stand down, that sovereignty exists under a military occupation, that a constitution is being written under the careful eye of the US Ambassador, or that the insurgency is in its last throes, as Dick Cheney continues to insist in the face of all this blood and fire.
  Here are our milestones. They are numbers.
  500 is a milestone, when we count returning bodies. 1,000 is a milestone. We will soon enough see 2,000, after 250 more families blanch at the sight of a military sedan pulling up in front of their houses.
  Our milestones are names, like Abu Ghraib, like Fallujah, like the Downing Street memo.
  Can even the most careful journalist continue now to award the presumption of honesty to this administration? If we had half the analysis of the Michael Jackson trial devoted to the Downing Street memos, there would already be an impeachment under way.
  Bush will stand up there tonight and talk about brave soldiers, and he damn well better say something nice after what he has put them and their families through. What he won’t say, though, is that the bravery of the troops has nothing to do with whether that bravery should be placed in the service of an immoral, illegal, and un-winnable war.
  There were plenty of brave soldiers who went to Vietnam, but it didn’t change the outcome. We don’t have to question the character of these troops to question the character of the commander-in-chief. In fact, there is something obscene about people like George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld riding around in limos and expensive clothes issuing orders like they are playing Risk, when the folly and criminality of those orders are felt as consequences on the bodies and spirits of soldiers and their families, and on the countless bodies of the Iraq people.
  He damn well better say something nice, because just the other day, we watched not just our sons but our daughters killed in clusters, and when I saw that news report, I thought of the same thing I have thought of every day when I get on the internet and review the day’s news about this war.
  I think about his cavalier little aside to the press two years ago, when he said, “Bring ‘em on!”
  He said it. And they did. They brought it on. And we say, “Bring ‘em home… and do it now.”

Gold Star Moms Open Door To Non-Citizens

• The group's president, Judith Young, said, "This change to our constitution was the right thing to do"
• Gold Star moms open door to non-citizens
  
• DALLAS, Texas (AP) -- A group for mothers whose children died in war voted Monday to allow non-U.S. citizens to join, after coming under criticism for denying membership to a Filipina mother whose son was killed in Afghanistan.
  The 1929 charter of American Gold Star Mothers had prevented foreign citizens from joining. Earlier this year, the organization's 12-member executive board voted against changing the rule.
  That prevented Ligaya Lagman, of Yonkers, New York, from joining, although she is a legal resident and her son, 27-year-old son Army Staff Sgt. Anthony Lagman, was a U.S. citizen. After hearing about her interest in joining, New York Gov. George Pataki and other lawmakers urged the group to change its rules.
  "Quite simply, the loss a mother endures when her son or daughter makes the ultimate sacrifice for our nation -- is no less honorable or admirable because of her citizenship status," Pataki said Monday.
  The change was approved unanimously Monday during the American Gold Star Mothers' annual convention in the Dallas area.
  "This change to our constitution was the right thing to do, but we had to make the change the right way," said Judith Young, the group's new president.
  More than 140 military service members who were not U.S. citizens have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Legal residents who are not citizens have long served in the U.S. military.
  
• Find this article at: http://tinyurl.com/ahesf

Iraq: The Carve-Up Begins

In the driving seat: with so much clear profit at stake, the question of who owns Iraq's biggest natural resource is hotly contended / Getty

• Iraq: The carve-up begins
• http://snipurl.com/ftyy
• Tom Burgis Thursday 23 June 2005
  
• As the costs of the Iraq occupation spiral, British and American oil companies meet in secret next week to carve up the country's oil reserves for themselves. Tom Burgis reports
  
  
• The Iraq war has so far cost America and Britain £105billion. But the financial clawback is gathering pace as British and American oil giants work out how to get their hands on the estimated £3trillion worth of oil.
  Executives from BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil and Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old firm, are expected to congregate at the Paddington Hilton for a two-day chinwag with top-level officials from Iraq's oil ministry. The gathering, sponsored by the British Government, is being described as the "premier event" for those with designs on Iraqi oil, and will go ahead despite opposition from Iraqi oil workers, who fear their livelihoods are being flogged to foreigners. The Met will be on hand to secure the venue ahead of the conference.
  "This is a networking opportunity for UK businesses involved in Iraqi oil," explained Dr Hussain Rabia, managing director of the consultancy Entrac Petroleum Ltd. "We have the moral support of the UK government. They're bringing the guys over from Iraq, offering them visas. We expect all the big oil companies to be there," he said.
  Delegate numbers are described as "confidential". Shell spokesman Simon Buerk would not confirm that a representative of the company would be attending, but said he "wouldn't be at all surprised if they were".
  "We aspire to establish a long-term presence in Iraq," he said. "We have been helping the [Iraqi] Ministry of Oil and engineers with training."
  Those who have purchased their £1,200 tickets can expect access to executives from Iraq's oil ministry, including Salem Razoky, the director general of exploration.
  But Iraqi oil workers are furious about the conference. "The second phase of the war will be started by this conference carving up the industry," said an outraged Hasan Juma'a, head of the Iraqi General Union of Oil Employees. "It is about giving shares of Iraq to the countries who invaded it - they get a piece of the action as a reward. The British government will back this action in order to pay its debt in Iraq."
  Hasan, who represents 23,000 skilled oil workers, fears that deals struck at the conference will see profits from Iraq's massive oil reserves - the second richest in the world - lining the pockets of multinational corporations at the expense of the Iraqi people.
  Previous form suggests his concerns are well founded. Under the initial wage table drawn up by Paul Bremer's provisional Baghdad government in September 2003, oil workers were to receive a minimum monthly pay packet of £25. After a threatened union strike, it was raised to £38. And, Hasan insists, "Iraqi oil workers are good enough to rebuild without any need of help. "
  Greg Muttitt, a researcher with Platform, an independent environmental think thank, agrees. "The decisions on how to carve up Iraq are being made behind closed doors in Washington, London and Baghdad.
  "This conference is a key part of the plan to help multinational companies get stuck in once those arrangements are in place. It's a corporate feeding frenzy - they're not writing the recipes, they're tucking in their napkins."
  Yahia Said, an Iraqi research fellow in global governance at the London School of Economics, commented:
  "Iraq's oil is very cheap to extract. In the lack of transparency and with Iraq under occupation, people suspect oil companies are up to foul play. But those companies wouldn't yet dare sign a contract under the present government because it lacks legitimacy. But the oil companies are eyeing each other - this conference is like a dating game."
  As such, a spokesperson for British governmental body UK Trade & Investment insisted that "no contracts will be awarded" at the conference. "Although we believe that British and other companies can play a key role, it will be up to the Iraqis, through their elected representatives to decide whether there is a role for them or not."
  But the British government's position is in line with that of conference organisers, who point to Iraq's current oil output, which is stalled at 1.8million barrels per day, less than a third of what it could be.
  "We all want to reconstruct Iraq," argued Rabia. "You can have all the demos you want, but 70 per cent of people in my country don't have sanitation. It's 45 degrees there now. I've listened to a lot of people and there's no way you can reconstruct without people from the UK and the US, and their money."

U.S. TOUR OF DUTY

Amazaing Disgrace

• "Amazing Disgrace":
• The Betrayal of Soldiers and their Families
• http://www.ustourofduty.org/
  
• U.S. Tour of Duty is a series of live events featuring stirring performances by popular entertainers, and heartfelt speeches by Iraq veterans, military family members, policy experts, and activists.
  
• "Amazing Disgrace: The Betrayal of Soldiers and their Families," a work-in-progress documentary about patriots who contend they have been deceived and dishonored, is screened at the events. The film reveals tragedies of modern warfare and its aftermath previously concealed by the media and Bush administration, and includes academics, activists, performers, and ordinary Americans who insist on holding their government accountable for its duplicity. Soldiers and their relatives call for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq, and demand reparations for Iraqis. The firsthand accounts of Iraq veterans and military families, when combined with the analyses of policy experts and religious leaders, cannot be ignored or dismissed. U.S. Tour of Duty begins in April while a 30-minute version of "Amazing Disgrace" is completed, and shooting continues for a feature-length version.
  
• Visit Site and View 'Trailer" of Work in Progress Documentary as Tour Travels:
• http://www.ustourofduty.org/
• Banner At Right Will Also Lead You To Site!
  

Conduct Of The UN Before and After 2003 Invasion

• Published on Saturday, June 25, 2005
• by CommonDreams.org http://tinyurl.com/9p738
• Mirror URL: http://tinyurl.com/bw59r
  
• The Conduct of the UN Before and After the 2003 Invasion
  
• by Hans Von Sponeck
• Testimony given to the
• World Tribunal on Iraq http://tinyurl.com/clyf3
• June 24, 2005
  
  
• In discussing UN involvement before and after the 2003 invasion of US, UK and other coalition forces into Iraq, a clear distinction has to be made between the policy makers and the civil servants expected to carry out the policies, i.e., between member governments in the UN Security Council and the UN Secretariat.
  If this is done, it quickly becomes clear that primary responsibility for the human catastrophe in Iraq lies with the political UN, with those member governments in the UN Security Council who had the power to make a difference. The failure of the Council to make a humanitarian, ethical and legal difference is much more monumental than is commonly known. There is not only the betrayal of the Iraqi people but also the betrayal of the UN Charter and the betrayal of the international conscience.
  Why is this so?
  World leaders were hiding behind the curtain of the UN Security Council to premeditate their betrayal before and after the illegal war of 2003. There can be no more doubts, the facts are present, that the US and UK governments were actively pursuing regime change by force at a time when the world was made to believe that international law, peaceful solutions to the conflict and the protection of the Iraqi people, were part of the US and UK governments' approach. They were not. Once the asymmetrical war was over, it also became clear to the international public that those who carried out this war had reached higher heights of irresponsibility by fighting this war without a strategy for peace.
  The objective was to maintain a strangle-hold on Iraq. Means of 'disarray' and 'deception' were deployed to justify the end of 'domination'. Iraq's armed forces were sent home. Civil servants were retired without evidence of wrong doing, simply because they had belonged to the Baath Party. New laws, the Transition Authority laws (TAL) were introduced by decree. These laws tried to re-colonize Iraq economically and institutionally and create dependence even in such areas as agriculture by banning local seed stocks in favour of genetically modified seeds to be imported from the Unites States. The ensuing Iraqi opposition and chaos left the occupying powers stymied and bewildered.
  How did the UN Security Council and the UN Secretariat react to these bilateral aberrations?
  Over a decade, the UN Security Council condoned what two permanent members, the US and the UK, were doing to pursue, first, their Iraq containment policy and later their regime replacement agenda. This amounted to nothing less but the de facto bilateralization of the Security Council. The rhetoric of the Iraq debates in the Council showed that there was an abundance of awareness of the evolving humanitarian crisis in Iraq. At the same time there was a severe shortage of political will to take timely steps to redress this situation.
  It was known to all members of the Security Council that the linkage between disarmament and comprehensive economic sanctions meant that the people of Iraq were made to pay a heavy price in terms of life and destitution for acts of their government. It was known to all members of the Security Council that the inadequacy of the Council's allocations for the oil-for-food programme and the bureaucracy with which this humanitarian exemption was implemented worsened the chances of survival of many Iraqis. It was known to all members of the Security Council that the refusal by the Council to allow the transfer of cash to Iraq's central bank needed to run the nation, to pay for training, installation of equipment and institution building, encouraged the Government of Iraq to increase illegal means to obtain cash.
  It was known to all members of the Security Council that the establishment of the two no-fly-zones within Iraq had little to do with the protection of ethnic and religious groups but a lot with destabilization. All members of the Security Council were aware that following 'Operation Desert Fox' in December 1998, the US and the UK governments, giving their pilots enlarged rules of engagement, used Iraqi airspace as training grounds, eventually in preparation for war. The Security Council had access to air strike reports when such reports were prepared by the UN in Baghdad and therefore all members of the Security Council knew of the destruction of civilian life and property. Yet, the Security Council did not ever debate the legality of the no-fly-zones to challenge two of its members that they maintained these zones without a UN mandate.
  All this was known.
  With rare exceptions, members of the Security Council allowed the Council to become a convenient tool for the pursuit of bilateral policies. There was ample experience in the Council concerning the danger of misuse of consensus resolutions as demonstrated by the handling of resolutions 687 (1991) and 1284 (1999) by the United States and the UK governments. This did not deter members of the Council from going along with yet another consensus resolution, 1441 (2002). The likelihood of misuse by individual members of the Council of provisions such as 'material breaches' and 'serious consequences' to justify military invasion should have prevented the adoption of such a resolution.
  The UN Secretariat acquiesced when the US and UK, two founding members of the UN, insisted in the Security Council on an economic sanctions regime that caused a human tragedy. The UN Secretariat remained mute when these same governments dropped out of the international community to unilaterally mount an illegal invasion into Iraq. The UN Secretariat did not react even at this critical time when the very foundation of the institution was threatened. Dr. Hans Blix, chief UN arms inspector, had reported progress in verifying Iraq?s lack of WMD and was pleading for more time to complete the inspection process. The UN Secretariat should have used this to confront the two governments about their war plans but chose not to do so. Without protest, the UN Secretariat withdrew in March 2003 the UN arms inspectors.
  The UN Secretariat could not have prevented the long planned decision to go to war. The sheer seriousness of the violation of international law by two member countries and the sidelining of a world body created to prevent wars represented a challenge for the UN civil service to show that, ultimately, conscience was superior to obedience.
  Since the illegal invasion of Iraq, there has not been a debate in the Security Council about the fundamental disregard by the coalition forces of existing conventions created to ensure that the occupation armies act in accordance with the Hague and Geneva Conventions to which they are parties. Looting and burning of the national museum and the national library, the damaging of archeological sites and the humiliating treatment of civilians by the US armed forces, provoked no protest in the Security Council. The Security Council watched impotently when the soul and ethos of Iraq was attacked. The detention of political figures for indefinite periods and the unimaginable brutality and sadism with which detainees were treated not just in Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca but also in other prisons were not subject of Security Council concern. Carpet destruction of towns such as Al Fallujah, Tel Afar and Al Qaim did not ruffle the Security Council and lead to emergency meetings. There were no protests in the Council that CPA administrator Paul Bremer and other CPA officials represented an allegedly liberated and sovereign Iraq at major international meetings such as the World Economic Forum in Amman and the WTO in Geneva. The Security Council took no note that the assignment of a human rights rapporteur for Iraq was abruptly terminated by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva following the illegal war. The Security Council agreed in 2003 to the continuation of payments by the UN Compensation Commission even though it had earlier agreed to discontinue the entertainment of claims.
  The Security Council did play an important role in the preparations for an interim Iraqi administration and elections but ultimately succumbed to US heavy handedness in deciding the details of the process.
  In the history books of the United Nations the handling of the Iraq conflict by the Security Council will be recorded as a massive failure of oversight responsibility.
  The history books should also record that the voice of the people replaced the UN Security Council as the international conscience. This voice must not relent in its demands that the US and UK Governments, bilaterally, as national administrations, and multilaterally, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, are accountable to their people and to the world community for their wrongdoing against Iraq, before, during and after the illegal war.
  It is a crime in many countries to leave the scene of an accident without helping the victims. This also applies to the responsibility of the international community to help the Iraqi victims. Conscience, compassion and a sense of responsibility are powerful reasons to stay involved. There must be involvement at two levels: Iraq and UN reforms.
  Political leaders urge that we should look forward. This we must. However, a look forward receives legitimacy only when it is linked to accountability for the past. This applies to nations, communities, individuals - to everyone, particularly to those in power. The forthcoming trial of Iraq?s former President Saddam Hussein acknowledges his accountability for past crimes against his people. The same applies to crimes against humanity committed by those who maintained economic sanctions with total disregard for the human costs, who fought a silent war in the no-fly-zones, who invaded Iraq, who abused, maimed, tortured and killed its people. The dock of the court room for Iraq has to have more than one chair! Law and justice, need it be stressed, are not only for the losers.
  There are thousands of unnamed Iraqi fathers, mothers and children who are victims of the failure to prevent war and destruction in Iraq. Let them be the stark reminders of our responsibility to keep the debate alive at least until the terms of accountability are met.
  In summary, Iraq remains 'unfinished business' for the international peace movement and responsible citizens everywhere. The challenge is to address three major issues:
  
• 1. The United Nations has failed in preventing unjust economic sanctions, an illegal war and carnage under occupation.
  This means that in the short term, the peace movement must persevere in their demands that those responsible be brought to justice. It must not be forgotten that what was done in the name of 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'human rights' represents a travesty of the meaning of 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'human rights'
  In the medium term, the peace movement must forcefully contribute to the debate on UN reforms to create a structure which is protected against misuse. This involves much more than the enlargement of the Security Council.
  
• 2. The international peace movement, too, has failed in preventing unjust economic sanctions and an illegal war.
  In the short term, the peace movement should take this as an important opportunity to carry out a self-critical review why this failure occurred and what factors contributed to this failure.
  The dangers looming on the political and socio-economic horizon are horrific. The reaction of the peace movement, in the medium term, must be to leave turf battles and institutional or personal ambitions behind to facilitate significantly better organized responses to international crises. Only combined commitment and a joint strategy offer a chance to make a difference.
  
• 3. As individuals who understand and cherish the ethos of the UN Charter, who believe in peace and justice for all, who are abhorred by what has happened in Iraq before, during and after the illegal war, we must first and foremost work on ourselves to become equipped for the tasks ahead. Beyond this obligation, we have to remain, in the words of Dag Hammarskjoeld, the UN's second secretary general, 'conscious of the reality of evil and the tragedy of individual life, and conscious, too, of the demand that life be conducted with decency.'
  
• Former United Nation's Assistant Secretary-General Hans von Sponeck joined the UN Development Program in 1968, and worked in Ghana, Turkey, Botswana, Pakistan and India, before becoming Director of European Affairs. Serving thirty-six years with the organization, his last post succeeded Denis Halliday as UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq and administrator of the Oil-for-Food program in October 1998. Sponeck resigned in February 2000, in protest of the international policy toward Iraq, including sanctions.