Oil is not a commodity, Barack Obama is the most militarily aggressive president in decades, May Day, Our right to protest is under attack, We say NO to Libya trying Saif Gaddafi...
Enrique Ferro
Oil is not a commodity
Umberto Mazzei
This reminder is pertinent because of the build up of an international uproar over the returning of Argentina to the helm of Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales (YPF), the former state oil company. It was previously controlled by Repsol, a company registered in Spain, but whose majority of shareholders are not Spanish. Repsol bought the controlling interest in YPF during Menem’s privatization scramble. YPF operates 32% of Argentina’s oil production and 23% of Argentina’s gas. There are other companies operating in Argentina, like Chevron, Petrobras and Occidental. The following table illustrates how YPF production fell under Repsol.
Argentina expropriated 51% of YPF shares with overwhelming support of public opinion and the political environment. The decision is coherent with an old legal principle that considers any goods underground to be a public property. A public law applied by Rome, Byzantium, the Spanish Empire, the Chinese Empire or the Popular Republic of China, Russia, Tsarist or Soviet, the Ottoman Empire. It is a legal approach accepted in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America today. The exception is the United States, where you are supposed to own your piece of land down to the core of Earth...
The international oil picture
There are threats concerning international oil supply that make the Argentinean government measure a timely and justified one. This perception is shared by the Argentinean political class, its business community and the public in general. There was approval also in most of Latin America, with the notable exception of Mexico’s President Calderón, who later was scolded by the Mexican Congress for interfering in a bilateral issue.
Calderon’s argument was that Argentina’s example that could scare away foreign investment in the region. He is, at least, uninformed. It is high economic growth and vast local resources which attract investment and South America meets both requirements. It is today the region receiving most capital investment, so much that Brazil has had to set limits.
In Buenos Aires, the discordant note is given by a part of the press that prefers to play the role of political opposition, instead of news reporting. Those journals highlight the threats made by the PP government or the PSOE leaders, which are the same thing. It is a paradox, but if any one wants to read the furious threats to Argentina by Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission or by Karel de Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade, it is in those Argentinean newspapers that those may be found. The European press is more concerned with the success of Marine Le Pen in France, Sarkozy’s busy suspense or Spain's fiscal troubles, because the European public does not care much about Repsol’s profits.
The invasion of Afghanistan is not alien to the oil issue. It was intended to allow Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik oil, which is located north of Afghanistan and close to China, to be pumped to Pakistani ports. It also helped to encircle Iran, another country that sells oil to China.
The civil war in Sudan has the same matrix. China was buying oil from Sudan and Chad. Sudan's oil is located in the south and Chad's oil comes out through Darfur, in South-West Sudan. In 2003, an armed rebellion in Darfur used religious and tribal differences in Sudan to ask for a separate state. Oil rich South Sudan became a sovereign state recognized by "Western Democracies" as used to be said, or the "International Community" as is said today.
In South America, Brazilian state company, Petrobras, discovered, in 2007, huge oil and gas offshore fields in Santos Basin, on the continental shelf, at 200 / 300 miles off the coast. The Tupi field is already in production and it has reserves of about 8 billion barrels of light crude oil and there is natural gas as well. Other fields are in an exploratory phase but are known to have higher amounts of oil and gas. As a comeback, in 2008, the U.S. reactivated the Fourth Fleet, that was created in 1942 to monitor the South Atlantic and disbanded in 1950, for lack of enemies in the zone. The pretext is drug traffic ... perhaps traffickers use the Graf Spee.
Oil supply’s uncertain future
With the pretext that Iran could be making a nuclear weapon, because it acquires the nuclear scientific knowledge to which it is entitled by the Non Proliferation Treaty, the United States unilaterally banned Iranian oil from international trade. The aim is to weaken Iran before attacking it to control its oil, as was done with Iraq. The Iranian oil embargo most have been planned long ago, because 4 million barrels a day of oil supplies can not be put away without compensating with more oil from elsewhere; or there would be an economic collapse. The plan was, plausibly, to occupy Libya - who sold oil to China - and supply Europe, which is dependent on Iranian oil. The rest of the missing oil could be procured by pumping up Saudi flows, as usual.
The plan didn’t work because Gaddafi did not flee, as assumed by British Foreign Minister William Hague, but chose to stay and fight. The war on Libya took a 1.3 million bb/d from the market. Saudi Arabia promised to compensate by pumping as much extra oil, but could not. For 10 months, NATO bombed and spent billions to impose chaos; even now, there are disruptions of Libyan supply, which after the war only reached 500,000 bb/d.
Since 1974, there is not much technical detail about Saudi wells. What is known comes from a US Senate inquiry with Aramco managers, which showed that in 1974, Aramco already faced Production increases "to save the world economy", did not come from new wells, but from simply opening the valves on existing ones. That procedure increased the presence of water and gas in the oil and there was need to build special plants to separate them. There was also need to inject large amounts of water, to compensate falling pressure. Since 1974 no new oil fields were discovered, so it is probable that in recent "salvages" the method remained the same.
Conclusion
This may be the right moment to recall what Mexican President Lazaro Cardenas said over a drop in oil revenue after his oil nationalization: "Better a modest income that benefits the country and its workers than one that enriches foreigners abroad with fabulous profits"
Barack Obama is the most militarily aggressive president in decades
- 30 April 2012
- Glenn Greenwald
- USA and the War on Terror
Most Democrats are perfectly aware of Obama's military aggression. They don't support him despite that, but rather, that's one of the things they love about him.
Salon
29 April 2012
Peter Bergen, the Director of National Security Studies at the Democratic-Party-supportive New America Foundation, has a long Op-Ed in The New York Times today glorifying President Obama as a valiant and steadfast “warrior President”; it begins this way:
THE president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.
Just ponder that: not only the Democratic Party, but also its progressive faction, is wildly enamored of “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.” That’s quite revealing on multiple levels.
Bergen does note that irony: he recalls that Obama used his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to defend the justifications for war and points out: “if those on the left were listening, they didn’t seem to care.” He adds that “the left, which had loudly condemned George W. Bush for waterboarding and due process violations at Guantánamo, was relatively quiet when the Obama administration, acting as judge and executioner, ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009, during which at least 1,400 lives were lost.”
To explain the behavior of “the left,” Bergen offers this theory: “From both the right and left, there has been a continuing, dramatic cognitive disconnect between Mr. Obama’s record and the public perception of his leadership: despite his demonstrated willingness to use force, neither side regards him as the warrior president he is.”
In other words, progressives are slavishly supportive of “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” because they have deluded themselves into denying this reality and continue to pretend he’s some sort of anti-war figure.
That’s not unreasonable speculation, but I ultimately don’t believe that’s true. Leaving aside Bergen’s over-generalization — some factions on “the left” have been quite vocal in condemning Obama’s actions in these areas — most Democrats are perfectly aware of Obama’s military aggression.
They don’t support him despite that, but rather, that’s one of the things they love about him. After years of being mocked by the Right as Terrorist-coddling weaklings, Obama — strutting around touting his own strength — lets them feel strong and powerful in exactly the way that Bush and Cheney’s swaggering let conservatives prance around as tough-guy, play-acting warriors.
Rather than ignore this aggression, Democratic think tanks point with beaming pride to the corpses piled up by the Democratic Commander-in-Chief to argue that he’s been such a resounding foreign policy “success,” while Democratic pundits celebrate and defend the political value of his majestic kills.
Yesterday on his MSNBC morning show, Chris Hayes conducted an excellent, two-part discussion of Obama’s escalated civilian-killing drone attacks, with a heavy emphasis on the innocent people, including numerous children, who have been killed. He showed a harrowing video clip of a Yemeni man’s anguish as he described the pregnant women and children killed by Obama’s 2009 cluster bomb strike; featured the U.S. drone killing of 16-year-old American citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki in Yemen; and interviewed human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who described the 16-year-old Pakistani boy he met at a meeting to discuss civilian drone deaths and who, a mere 3 days later, had his own life ended by an American drone.
Later that day, Hayes tweeted this: “A bit taken aback by the ugliness that drone conversation seems to bring out in some people.”
What he meant was the avalanche of angry Twitter attacks from steadfast Obama loyalists who gleefully defended the drone program, mocked concerns over civilian deaths, and insisted that he should not be covering such matters because they may harm Obama in an election year (of course, it’s not only the President’s followers, but, as Hayes noted, the President himself who is quite adept at finding humor in his drone attacks).
Contrary to Bergen’s generous belief that progressives are deluding themselves about Obama’s militarism, many are fully aware of it and, because it’s a Democrat doing it, have become aggressively supportive of it. That, without a doubt, will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies: transforming these policies of excessive militarism, rampant secrecy and civil liberties assaults from right-wing radicalism into robust bipartisan consensus (try though they might, not even progressives will be able to turn around and credibly pretend to object to such things the next time there is a GOP President).
Now, there is one element of delusion to Democratic support for Obama’s militarism, and it plagues not only his most ardent supporters but also Bergen’s Op-Ed.
Most Democratic praise for “Obama’s foreign policy successes” fails even to acknowledge, let alone condemn, the thousands of innocent people whose lives have been extinguished by his militarism. These deaths simply do not exist in their world.
When you force them to address it, they’ll simply dismiss it away with the military terminology first popularized by Timothy McVeigh (that’s just “collateral damage”) and then quickly return to the Bush-era mantra of mindlessly invoking the word “Terrorism” to justify whatever violence the U.S. Government commits.
They see themselves, and especially their leader, as so righteous and noble that incidents like this and this and so many others are blissfully kept far away from their consciousness because the reality of what they support cannot be reconciled with their self-perception; that, more than anything, is what explains the bitterness directed at Hayes yesterday: he publicized facts which they desperately prefer be hidden, not just from others but from themselves.
Thus, Bergen — who has spent the last several years dutifully defending in Democratic journals Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and escalated drone war – writes almost 2,000 words hailing Obama’s spectacular foreign policy achievements. And not once do the words “civilians” or “innocent” appear.
There is no mention — zero — of the numerous innocent civilians who have been killed by the policies of militarism Bergen celebrates. They simply do not exist. Bergen — who has previously claimed, contrary to substantial evidence, that civilian deaths from drones in Pakistan are overstated — here does not even acknowledge their existence.
As usual, the deaths of numerous innocent foreigners from American drones and bombs and missiles, including children, is the unspeakable, irrelevant truth about American militarism.
It’s certainly not surprising that some think tank “terrorism expert” like Bergen finds civilian deaths at the hands of American militarism to be too insignificant to note, let alone to interfere with his giddy veneration. But the fact that so much of the Democratic Party, including its progressive faction, now follows suit is telling indeed.
One last point: for the full eight years of the Bush administration, Bush, Cheney and scores of other political and media supporters of their militarism who had not served in the military were routinely derided by Democrats and progressives as “chickenhawks” (an accusation, which, with some caveats and modifications, I supported). What happened to that?
Now we have a President whom Bergen hails as “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” despite having not served a day in the military, and hordes of non-military-serving Democrats who cheer him as he does so.
Similarly, George Bush was mercilessly mocked for declaring himself a “war President,” yet here is Bergen — writing under the headline “Warrior in Chief” — twice christening the non-serving Obama as our “Warrior President.” Did the concept of chickenhawkism, like so many other ostensible political beliefs, cease to exist on January 20, 2009?
THE BEAUTIFUL MAY DAY
May Day unity on display: Hundreds of thousands rally worldwide (FESTIVE PHOTOS)
http://rt.com/news/russia-may-day-march-339/Speaking of democracy: Crackdown in the US, Canada, Germany... Presidents Medvedev and Putin heading the march in Moscow...
‘General strike’ to hit the US on MAY DAY
http://rt.com/usa/news/general-strike-us-ows-329/Our right to protest is under attack
We need greater clarity on when the use of 'kettling' is permitted before people's freedom to protest is severely curtailed
-
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 1 May 2012 10.00 BST
- Article history
The Arab spring last year and the current struggles in Bahrain and Syria highlight the vital nature of collective public protest as the precursor and mainstay of any sensible form of effective democracy. The UK is always quick to contrast these situations with the right to peaceful protest that is said to exist here, and to admonish regimes that do not exercise restraint – most recently at the Bahrain Grand Prix. For too long, however, we have overlooked and become anaesthetised to the inroads in our own backyard.
It is important to reflect upon and review the limitations that are frequently imposed on the exercise of the ordinary citizen's right to protest. This has particular resonance in the runup to the Olympic Games when such concerns may surface once again. Connections between human achievement on the field and the human condition off the field are not difficult to understand. The patronage of sport cannot be divorced from the abuse of human rights where such a connection can be established.
The approach to protest, however, over the last three decades has become increasingly intolerant and intrusive, exemplified by the manhandling and ejection of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang in 2005 for half a heckle at the Labour party conference in Brighton. The Labour government introduced all kinds of restrictive legislation that gave powers of stop and search in extensive "sterile" zones designated by police, on the pretext of preventing terrorism. These measures are in addition to all the other regulations about giving notice of numbers, duration and location. Beside the regulatory framework has been the steady development of specialist units, such as the Territorial Support Group, trained to operate in highly visible protective gear with long and short shields and with batons, often alongside the mounted division. Their deployment has been notable as far back as the anti-racist marches and the death of Blair Peach in 1979, through the industrial struggles under Thatcher, the poll tax disturbances, and the more recent G20 and Climate Camp demonstrations.
A distinctive disincentive to the collective public voice, however, comes from the introduction of a tactical option which can and has impacted dramatically upon the freedom of movement of ordinary peaceful protesters and even accidental bystanders. Both can now expect the real risk of incarceration for long periods of time, eight or nine hours, without basic facilities, should they be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They need have done no wrong and committed no offence. Presence is all that is required. The tactic has become known progressively as "corralling", "containment" or "kettling".
Early examples of this surfaced during the miners' strike in 1984 and can be witnessed on original footage used in the film The Battle for Orgreave by Yvette Vanson. Since then there have been a number of refinements and adaptations for the urban environment and it is now a standard procedure employed on a number of marches and rallies over the last 15 years. It is supposed to be an action of last resort, only used in exceptional circumstances, and only in a necessary and proportionate manner.
This has been challenged as a matter of principle in the courts on a number of occasions. Ultimately, last month it was endorsed at the highest level in Europe, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, as a legitimate power circumscribed by a number of necessary factors which then render the lawfulness of each decision to contain as case or fact specific. Put shortly it depends on the circumstances.
While this flexibility may be of considerable assistance to the police, it provides no reassurance or certainty to the public.
The case itself (Austin and others), stemmed from the 2001 Mayday demonstration and is of interest because it concerned four applicants, none of whom had committed or threatened to commit any offences. One was a woman demonstrator with a young child left at a creche, another happened to be shopping in the Oxford Street area and two worked locally. All were prevented from pursuing their legitimate activities for six to seven hours. The majority of legal opinion in the judgment took the view that there was no deprivation of liberty although there was a serious restriction on freedom of movement. It was considered that this was no more than proportionate and necessary in the circumstances to prevent injury or damage.
Quite what level of actual or perceived violence triggers a need to impose containment is indeterminate. Quite what the threshold is that has to be crossed to convert a restriction into a deprivation of liberty is entirely unclear. Quite how officers on the cordons are to ascertain who to release, if anyone at all, is totally arbitrary and confused. Quite how anyone among a crowd of thousands is informed about duration and exit strategy is left to chance. Quite how the distress, anxiety and humiliation caused to ordinary citizens is balanced against the risk of disorder or damage caused by others cannot be readily calibrated.
One logical ramification of this doctrine is that a perfectly peaceful crowd maybe contained for hours to prevent a merger with others perceived to pose a threat.
These dilemmas are in urgent need of resolution for the benefit of all. They have been raised and examined by a cross-party parliamentary committee in 2011 but the parameters have yet to be defined. In the absence of transparency most individuals will think twice about exercising this fundamental right and there will have been a significant erosion of freedoms we hold dear.
• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/01/right-to-protest-under-attack
SYRIA, BEWARE!
In
what should be the final death-blow to the notion that NATO air power
combined with undisciplined and in some cases genocidal mobs supplied
with NATO weaponry on the ground can effectively ‘protect’ a civilian
population it has become clear that fifty-three people were summarily
executed by the rebels in the garden of the Mahari hotel in Sirte.
Ironically the bodies were found by Peter Bouckaert,
emergencies director at Human Rights Watch. Some of the bodies had
their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot. In addition,
some of the bodies had bandages over serious wounds, suggesting they had
been treated for other injuries prior to being executed, a stark
reminder of the earlier murderous rampage of the rebels through the Abu
Saleem hospital in Tripoli.
Ironically the bodies were found by Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch. Some of the bodies had their hands bound behind their backs when they were shot. In addition, some of the bodies had bandages over serious wounds, suggesting they had been treated for other injuries prior to being executed, a stark reminder of the earlier murderous rampage of the rebels through the Abu Saleem hospital in Tripoli.
For Sirte is a modern day Guernica, there is not such a big difference between NATO and the Condor Legion. After all the two supported vicious killers and rebels, didn't they?
http://youtu.be/gb5ycl6H4ig
|
petition
We say NO to Libya trying Saif Gaddafi
|
|||||
|
The New Libyan government insists on trying
Saif in Libya where he will not be given a fair trail. Saif has not been
granted access to a lawyer or family members. Also...See More
|
 |
||||
PETITION: We say NO to Libya trying Saif Gaddafi
To: The United Nations, The Internationa; Criminal Court
WE
DEMAND FREEDOM and FULL AMNESTY FOR SAIF AL ISLAM QADHAFI, ABDULLAH AL
SENUSSI AND ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS. We will not allow a witch hunt of
former Libyan officials by the New Libyan Authorities.
The arrest of Religious leaders, Professors and tv personalities,
proves these arrests are politically motivated to elimate political
apponents and Qadhafi loyalists. The violence in Libya started with the
Libyan Transitional Government (NTC) who took up arms to overthrow the
legitimate government of Libya. The video above, taken at the start of
the Libyan protests proves this was not an innocent uprising but an
armed aggression. The continued violence in Libya between the different
military factions vying for power proves this movement has little to do
with freedom or democracy.
We demand all travel bans and sanctions are removed against all
members of the Qadhafi family, Qadhafi Associates and Previous Regime
Loyalists.
We demand Freedom of speach for the remaining members of the
Qadhafi Family. We will not allow the NATO Alliance to hide their crimes
by silencing the remaining family members.
We demand the ICC to Investigate the murder of Muammar and Mutassim Qadhafi and bring all involved to justice.
We demand a public inquiry into the evidence given by ICC
prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo in justifying the ICC arrest warrants for
Muammar Qadhafi, Saif Al Islam Qadhafi and Abdullah Al Senussi. These
arrests warrants were politically motivated.
We appeal to The United Nations, The European Union, The African
Union, The International Criminal Court, the World Governments and
International Human Rights Organizations, to pressure the Libyan
Transitional Government (NTC) to ensure that the rights of Saif Al Islam
Qadhafi, Abdullah Al Senussi and all political prisoners are protected
in full compliance with International norms and to intervene immediately
to protect all political prisoners.
We demand a stern warning to New Libya that if any harm comes to
political prisoners in Libyan custody, those responsible will be held
accountable.
We demand that all political prisoners access to speak to their
familys and are granted the right to choose their own legal counsel.
Should any trial for any poltical prisoner occurs, we demand the
trial follows the principle of International law and is not subject to
the death penalty. We will not allow the Libyan Transitional Government
(NTC) to assassinate who they perceive to be political apponents.
We demand a stop for the attempt to extradict the Qadhafi Family,
Baghdadi al-Mahmudi Mahmoud, and any Qadhafi Regime Members by The
Libyan Transitional Gevernment (NTC) back to Libya. They will face
persecution based on their political affiliation.
Any trial against the Qadhafi family and Qadhafi Regime members
will not be a fair trial before a Libyan Tribunal because it is not
impartial. It would neither respect nor uphold the fundamental
principles of Libyan Law or International Law as has been proven with
the treatment of Political Prisoners currently detained in Libya.
The Libyan Transitional Government (NTC) has failed to follow
Libyan and International laws by holding political prisoners without
charge for more than forty-eight hours. Saif Al Islam Qadhafi has been
detained for 5 months without charges.
The Libyan Transitional Government (NTC) have denied Saif Al Islam
Qadhafi access to legal counsel which is a violation of both Libyan Law
and International Law. The New Libyan Authorities have refused to have
Saif Al Islam Qadhafi the right to speak to their families.
The United Nations and The International Criminal Court must apply
all and every legal means available to ensure that The Libyan
Transitional Government (NTC) upholds both its National and
International legal obligations in accordance with.
THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyw99hieunE&feature=uploademail
http://www.countercurrents.org/tutu030512.htm
Justice Requires Action To Stop Subjugation Of Palestinians
By Desmond Tutu
02 May, 2012
The Tampa Times
A quarter-century ago I barnstormed around the United States encouraging Americans, particularly students, to press for divestment from South Africa. Today, regrettably, the time has come for similar action to force an end to Israel's long-standing occupation of Palestinian territory and refusal to extend equal rights to Palestinian citizens who suffer from some 35 discriminatory laws.
I have reached this conclusion slowly and painfully. I am aware that many of our Jewish brothers and sisters who were so instrumental in the fight against South African apartheid are not yet ready to reckon with the apartheid nature of Israel and its current government. And I am enormously concerned that raising this issue will cause heartache to some in the Jewish community with whom I have worked closely and successfully for decades. But I cannot ignore the Palestinian suffering I have witnessed, nor the voices of those courageous Jews troubled by Israel's discriminatory course.
Within the past few days, some 1,200 American rabbis signed a letter — timed to coincide with resolutions considered by the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA) — urging Christians not "to selectively divest from certain companies whose products are used by Israel." They argue that a "one-sided approach" on divestment resolutions, even the selective divestment from companies profiting from the occupation proposed by the Methodists and Presbyterians, "damages the relationship between Jews and Christians that has been nurtured for decades."
While they are no doubt well-meaning, I believe that the rabbis and other opponents of divestment are sadly misguided. My voice will always be raised in support of Christian-Jewish ties and against the anti-Semitism that all sensible people fear and detest. But this cannot be an excuse for doing nothing and for standing aside as successive Israeli governments colonize the West Bank and advance racist laws.
I recall well the words of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in which he confesses to his "Christian and Jewish brothers" that he has been "gravely disappointed with the white moderate … who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom. ..."
King's words describe almost precisely the shortcomings of the 1,200 rabbis who are not joining the brave Palestinians, Jews and internationals in isolated West Bank communities to protest nonviolently against Israel's theft of Palestinian land to build illegal, Jewish-only settlements and the separation wall. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand as relentless settlement activity forecloses on the possibility of the two-state solution.
If we do not achieve two states in the near future, then the day will certainly arrive when Palestinians move away from seeking a separate state of their own and insist on the right to vote for the government that controls their lives, the Israeli government, in a single, democratic state. Israel finds this option unacceptable and yet is seemingly doing everything in its power to see that it happens.
Many black South Africans have traveled to the occupied West Bank and have been appalled by Israeli roads built for Jewish settlers that West Bank Palestinians are denied access to, and by Jewish-only colonies built on Palestinian land in violation of international law.
Black South Africans and others around the world have seen the 2010 Human Rights Watch report which "describes the two-tier system of laws, rules, and services that Israel operates for the two populations in areas in the West Bank under its exclusive control, which provide preferential services, development, and benefits for Jewish settlers while imposing harsh conditions on Palestinians." This, in my book, is apartheid. It is untenable. And we are in desperate need of more rabbis joining the brave rabbis of Jewish Voice for Peace in speaking forthrightly about the corrupting decadeslong Israeli domination over Palestinians.
These are among the hardest words I have ever written. But they are vitally important. Not only is Israel harming Palestinians, but it is harming itself. The 1,200 rabbis may not like what I have to say, but it is long past time for them to remove the blinders from their eyes and grapple with the reality that Israel becoming an apartheid state or like South Africa in its denial of equal rights is not a future danger, as three former Israeli prime ministers — Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and David Ben Gurion — have warned, but a present-day reality. This harsh reality endured by millions of Palestinians requires people and organizations of conscience to divest from those companies — in this instance, from Caterpillar, Motorola Solutions and Hewlett Packard — profiting from the occupation and subjugation of Palestinians.
Such action made an enormous difference in apartheid South Africa. It can make an enormous difference in creating a future of justice and equality for Palestinians and Jews in the Holy Land.
Desmond Tutu, winner of the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize, is archbishop-emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa.
Cuba May Be the Most Feminist Country in Latin America
Page Two | By LUISITA LOPEZ TORREGROSA | May 1, 2012, 11:38 am 19 CommentsNEW YORK — Cuba may just be the most feminist country in Latin America.
It ranks No. 3 in the world when it comes to the political participation of women in Parliament, according to a United Nations survey on women in politics. And it’s the only nation in Latin America to rank in the top 20 in the World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report 2011.
In sheer numbers and percentages, Cuban women’s advance is notable. Cuba has a high number of female professional and technical workers (60 percent of the total work force in those areas) and in Parliament (43 percent), as well as high levels of primary, secondary and tertiary education enrollment, according to the Gender Gap report.
In contrast, Brazil, the region’s economic behemoth, ranks 82nd overall in the world, according to the report, though it moved up three places last year with improvements in women’s wages, estimated earned income and the election of a female head of state, President Dilma Rousseff.
What explains Cuba’s record?
Sarah Stephens, the director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, a Washington-based advocacy and research organization that focuses on Cuba and U.S.-Cuba relations and opposes the U.S. embargo, is working on a report on the status of women in Cuba. “Cuban women tell us that they feel lucky to have come of age since 1959,” she says. “Before 1959, women comprised only 5 percent of university graduates and only 12 percent of the work force, often holding menial jobs.”
Today, she says, women make up 41 percent of the Communist Party, half of the island’s work force, the majority of students in high schools and universities, 60 percent of university faculties and the majority of provosts and department heads (but not presidents). And women hold top portfolios in ministries and in key provincial positions.
“Fidel Castro called for women’s rights as a ‘revolution within a revolution’ and this commitment became tangible through changes in legislation and policy,” Ms. Stephens says.
But, that said, “women within the system argue strongly for what remains to be done, and they criticize the gaps between rhetoric and practice,” Ms. Stephens says. “Women speak to us about a ‘gender paradox’ in Cuba — a nation legally committed to equality but harnessed to a historic structure of patriarchy.”
Going forward, in the more market-oriented economic restructuring that will lay off thousands of state workers, women fear they will lose their jobs and will not find non-state employment in jobs traditionally held by men, Ms. Stephens says.
“Women also worry that the aging of Cuba’s population will increase family burdens, and hence women’s burdens,” she says. “As the reforms to the economic model take place, and Cuba stops, for example, lunch programs at work, more food will need to be prepared at home, and that will land on women.”
Politically, there’s a glass ceiling, Ms. Stephens says. “It’s evident by looking at Cuba’s most senior leadership around President Raúl Castro.”
My Page Two column shows how women’s advances across Latin America are surpassing the United States and matching Europe.
--
“They have succeeded in dominating us more
through ignorance, than through force”.
Simon Bolivar
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed" - Steve Biko