| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
I had the pleasure of being interviewed this week by Vipul Vyas of Skewz. Skewz is a great site that brings Liberals and Conservatives together, showing articles from both perspectives on a wide variety of subjects. My interview included thoughts on the evolution of the blogosphere, and then focused on the most current arguments against Obama. Links relevant to the subjects discussed are available in the following two posts:
Comprehensive Review of the Most Current, Hard-Hitting Arguments Against Obama
Obama and Odinga: Politico Called it an Unfounded Rumor - But Multiple Reports from 2006 Confirm It
The interview is available currently on the Skewz home page.
On Thursday I posted an article titled, "Comprehensive Review of the Most Current, Hard-Hitting Arguments Against Obama." One of the arguments this article discussed, regarded the Marxist, Raila Odinga, leader of the socialist "Orange Democratic Movement" of Kenya. Odinga is the self-admitted leader of a bloody coup. After his loss in the Presidential election in Kenya in 2007, his followers committed mass murder. My article cited two sources - the Washington Times, and a video available on Canada Free Press - to the effect that Obama had campaigned on behalf of Odinga in 2006. I asked:
American Liberals: given that Obama campaigned on behalf of Odinga - a Marxist, a murderer as the leader of the bloody coup attempt, and a leader of genocide - is it possible that Obama has the same values that you have; has the same goals for America that you have; is it possible that you can vote for such a man?
POLITICO: "NO REAL EVIDENCE" FOR OBAMA-ODINGA REPORTS
It so happened that later that day, Politico posted an article titled, "Cover this! Inside the nastiest '08 rumors." One of the 'rumors' they addressed was Odinga:
A third popular Obama "tip" has to do with Raila Odinga, the Kenyan prime minister and former opposition leader who claimed that Obama was a distant cousin.
The reports surfaced after a political crisis in Kenya in which many international observers believed the vote was stolen from Odinga. As the international community rallied behind the opposition, Obama spoke to Odinga briefly on the telephone.
The media has ignored stories about the relationship between the two men because there's no real evidence that one exists. But the story, which comes in many varieties, suggests that Obama campaigned for Odinga and funneled money to his campaign and that they're close allies.
Was it possible the Washington Times article had it all wrong?
MANY REPORTS CONFIRM THAT OBAMA GAVE SUPPORT TO ODINGA
I spoke to Mark Hyman, author of the Washington Times article, by phone. Hyman stated that Politico must not have done a Lexis/Nexis search to confirm or deny the statements made in Hyman's article, as had they done so, they would have seen reports to confirm the statements made by Hyman in that article.
I do not have a Lexis/Nexis account, so I did a Google news search.
From the Chicago Sun-Times, 8/29/2006:
Obama appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga -- a Luo running for president -- at stops on Saturday in his father's native district.
From Newsweek: 9/11/2006:
In South Africa, [Obama] scoffed at Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang's home remedies for AIDS. He blasted Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, whose schemes have made a violent mess of his country. And he hit the government in Khartoum for the genocide in Sudan. But his most unrelenting critique was of Kenya. He took the government to task for violating freedom of the press, lectured its citizens on the folly of tribalism and slammed government corruption in a nationally televised speech: "While corruption is a problem we all share, here in Kenya it is a crisis."
Prominent visitors have criticized Kenyan corruption before. But hearing the message from Obama was different. For he was seen not only as a fellow Kenyan standing up to power, but also as a Luo standing up to a Kikuyo--the dominant ethnic group to which President Mwai Kibaki belongs and against which Luo resentment runs deep. And worse, in the government's eyes, at least, he was seen as siding with the opposition--in particular with Raila Odinga, a powerful kingmaker and Luo whose Orange Democratic Movement has been a painful thorn in Kibaki's side. "It is very clear that the senator has been used as a puppet to perpetuate opposition politics," sniffed Kibaki spokesperson Alfred Mutua.
From Investors Business Daily, editorial, 7/18/2008:
Like Obama's father, Odinga was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya. His son, Raila Odinga, ran for president in 2006. That year, Obama traveled to Kenya and appeared with Odinga at rallies where he criticized the pro-U.S. government Odinga wanted to oust.
When he lost the election the next year, despite Obama's tacit endorsement, angry Odinga supporters crying fraud sparked riots that resulted in some 1,500 deaths. Amid his ancestral country's civil unrest, Obama took time out from the campaign trail to phone Odinga to voice his support.
From The Economist, 9/2/2006 (no link):
Predictably, Kenyan politicians jostled to bathe in Mr Obama's light. The senator did his best to divide time between government and opposition. The embattled president, Mwai Kibaki, had looked forward to being seen at last with a squeaky-clean politician. He was said to be mortified when Mr Obama informed him that Chicago television crews accompanying him had been "shaken down" for hefty bribes at Nairobi airport. And Mr Obama was made into something of a mascot by Raila Odinga, a populist who hopes to succeed Mr Kibaki in next year's elections.
Photos are available from Obama's trip to Kenya, showing Obama lending Odinga the support of his presence:
As confirmed by these multiple sources, Obama did lend the support of his personal presence to campaign appearances made by Odinga.
IS IT REASONABLE TO SAY THAT OBAMA "CAMPAIGNED FOR" ODINGA?
But as quoted above, The Economist states that Obama "did his best to divide time between government and opposition." Could it be that Obama even-handedly gave both sides his support? If that is the case, it would be inaccurate to say Obama "campaigned for" Odinga.
To examine this question, I used the site AllAfrica.com, which permits search and retrieval of articles from a number of local African publications. A subscription is required; I have saved pdf copies of the articles referenced here. These records show that Obama attacked President Kibaki, while working to boost Odinga. On his first full day in Kenya, Obama met with President Kibaki, and slammed Kibaki publicly:
The Nation, Aug. 26, 2006, reporting on events of Aug. 25th, 2006
US senator Barack Obama leaves the Nairobi State House escorted by President Kibaki and Health minister Charity Ngilu after the visiting senator held a meeting with the President yesterday morning.
What Kenya needs, he said, is a transparent government that encourages development and deals with what he described as "ordinary corruption".
"I'm talking about the customs officers having to ask for bribes or the policeman who flags you down or the officer who licenses a business. The mindset has to change so that the creativity and potential of the Kenyan people can pay off," Mr Obama, who also spoke of his joy on returning to Kenya, said.
He added: "I told President Kibaki when he spoke to me about encouraging foreign investors, that corruption was a major impediment."
The East African Standard, Aug. 26, 2006, reporting on events of Aug. 25, 2006
Visiting American Senator Barack Obama believes Kenya does not yet have a transparent government that encourages development and war against corruption.
Speaking to journalists after talks with President Kibaki at State House, the man whose visit has caused a sensation in Nyanza where his father was born and buried, revealed he told the President as much.
"Kenya does not have a transparent government that encourages the fight against corruption. At every level the people have to suffer over corruption perpetuated by government officials."
Obama continued his attacks on the Kibaki government on August 28th. The Nation Aug. 29, 2006, reporting on events of Aug. 28, 2006:
And in a direct challenge to the Kibaki Administration, Mr Obama went on: "We're starting to see the Kenyan people want more than a simple change of the guard, more than piecemeal reforms to a crisis that's crippling their country.
"They are crying out for real change, and whether one voted Orange or Banana in last year's referendum, the message that many Kenyans seemed to be sending was one of dissatisfaction with the pace of reform, and real frustration with continued tolerance of high-level corruption."
In a ringing declaration the senator from Chicago - tipped by many to become the United States' first black president - said: "We have the opportunity to muster the courage to fulfil the promise of our forefathers and lead our great nations towards a better future.
"In today's Kenya - a Kenya more open and less repressive than in my father's day - it is courage that will bring the reform so many of you so desperately want and deserve.
"I wish all of you luck in finding this courage in the days and months to come, and I want you to know that as your ally, your friend and your brother, I will be there to help in any way I can."
In his speech at the Taifa Hall, Mr Obama celebrated the freedom won from British in the 1960s and went on: "The reason I speak of the freedom that you fought so hard to win is because today that freedom is in jeopardy. It is being threatened by corruption.
"But while corruption is a problem we all share, here in Kenya it is a crisis - a crisis that's robbing an honest people of the opportunities they have fought for; the opportunity they deserve. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.
"It is painfully obvious that corruption stifles development it siphons off scarce resources that could improve infrastructure, bolster education systems, and strengthen public health," he added.
Having given the support of his presence to Odinga, and having slammed Kibaki, it appears reasonable to say that Obama "campaigned for" Odinga.
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF A POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBAMA AND ODINGA
Politico stated that "there's no real evidence" of a relationship between Obama and Odinga. The assistance Obama gave Odinga, would appear to be a political relationship. Is there any additional evidence of a political relationship between Obama and Odinga?
The Nation, Aug. 16, 2006:
...it is known that Liberal Democratic Party's presidential hopefuls Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka, and their Kanu colleague in the Orange Democratic Movement, Mr William Ruto, have made trips abroad focusing on the United States in the past few weeks.
...Mr Odinga, who met with Kenyans in the US, also held talks with Senator Barack Obama, who has a Kenyan ancestry. The Lang'ata MP also travelled to Australia recently, where he addressed various groups.
The Nation, Sep. 4, 2006
It was Mr Odinga who persuaded Mr Obama to visit Kenya, and everybody saw how the Senator electrified crowds and unified the country. Forget about misguided people in government who think he should have come here and kept quiet. Never has Kenya been the focus of so much international public attention as in the period when Senator Obama and his family visited the country.
The Nation, Aug. 25, 2006, reporting on events of Aug. 24, 2006:
United States Senator Barack Obama arrived in the country last evening for a six-day visit.
It must have been one of the surreal images in Kenya preceding the visit of Senator Barack Obama - Key opposition leader Raila Odinga returning from a visit to the US, and on arrival at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport proudly displaying a photograph of him posing with the Senator.
If it had been any other US Senator, Mr Odinga probably would not have made much of having been granted an audience and a photo-op. But then because of Mr Obama's Kenyan roots, his name has resonated deeply within Kenya once he became the only serving African-American member of the US Senate.
And it strikes a particularly deep cord in Mr Odinga's political constituency, where Barack Obama's father was from.
And from Time Magazine, January 7, 2008:
In the days since his Iowa victory, Obama has had near-daily conversations with the U.S. Ambassador in Kenya or with opposition leader Raila Odinga. As of late this afternoon, before his rally in Rochester, N.H., Obama was trying to reach Kenyan President Kibaki.
Bear in mind that these "near-daily conversations" came after the mass murders conducted by Odinga's followers.
CONCLUSION
Obama's support for and relationship with Odinga is a well-documented fact. I repeat my conclusion from my original article:
American Liberals: given that Obama campaigned on behalf of Odinga - a Marxist, a murderer as the leader of the bloody coup attempt, and a leader of genocide - is it possible that Obama has the same values that you have; has the same goals for America that you have; is it possible that you can vote for such a man?
POSTSCRIPT
Politico reporters Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris recently admitted that they were biased in favor of Obama, and said, "So what?" The answer to "so what" in this case, appears to be that the bias of Politico led it to inaccurately claim that a well-documented story, damaging to their preferred candidate, was an unfounded rumor.
The security systems for the One Laptop per Child computer are quite brilliant:
Beyond cyberthreats, the XO laptop will have an anti-theft system designed to render stolen laptops useless. Each XO is assigned a "lease," secured by cryptography, that allows it to operate for a limited period of time. The laptop connects to the internet daily and checks in with a country-specific server to see if it's been reported stolen. If not, the lease is extended another few weeks.
If the lease expires, the XO's internet connectivity is turned off, and shortly thereafter the whole computer becomes a brick. In the case of an area without internet connectivity, a local school can extend the lease from its own server by Wi-Fi or with a USB dongle.
Compare what new UN chief Ban Ki-moon says about Darfur, to what Kofi Annan said. Here's Ban Ki-moon:
Ban Ki-moon of South Korea, who was sworn in as the next UN chief, described the tragedy in Sudan's Darfur region as "unacceptable" and pledged to be personally engaged in efforts to end the bloodshed there.
"The suffering of the people of Darfur is simply unacceptable," the 62-year-old former foreign minister told his first press conference since he took the oath office earlier Thursday to succeed Kofi Annan on January 1.
Ban said he planned to "make himself directly and personally engaged" in the search for a Darfur settlement.
And here's what the pathetic Kofi Annan had to say on the same subject, earlier this month:
Although the UN vowed "never again" in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide and killings at Srebrenica, the organisation has been unable to end a three-year crisis in Sudan's Darfur region, where more than 200,000 people are thought to have died.
"It is deeply, deeply disappointing and it's tragic," said Mr Annan. "But we do not have the resources or the will to confront the situation."
This indicates a determination on the part of Ban Ki-moon to put the UN to good use. But what will his stance be on radical Jihadists, and on Israel? Stay tuned.
From commenter Olah Chadasha, of the Greetings from the French Hill weblog:
Here’s the message that the sufferers of Darfur get when they call up the “esteemed” UN Human Rights Council:
“We’re sorry we’re not here to take your human rights violation claim, but we’re too busy dealing with the number one human rights violator in the world: Israel. But, if you would like to leave a message, we’ll try to get back to you after our next emergency session dealing with Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Thank for your time. Have a lovely day.”
The U.N. Human Rights Council is the replacement for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, which was disbanded for including many of the world's most brutal and oppressive regimes in its voting membership.
The UN Human rights council continues to be tested to see if it is any improvement over its predecessor. Yesterday Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, addressed the UN Human Rights Council. Here is the text of his remarks, provided to this site by Mr. Littman.
(All boldfacing is in the original.)
WORLD UNION FOR PROGRESSIVE JUDAISM
3nd session (20 November - 8 December 2006). President: Amb. Luis Alfonso de Alba (Mexico)
[All NGO statements had to be cut from 3 to 2 minutes; reduced passages in brackets not spoken.]
Sir, two weeks ago we again briefly referred to that great tragedy in Darfur about which the High Commissioner had then issued a warning ["Action must be taken now] to stop the killings and displacements" - a warning that she has now vividly described, insisting that "the ongoing atrocities must stop." We shall reiterate the words of 43 NGOs in our May appeal [to the High Commissioner]: "We believe that the role of the new Human Rights Council will be, in part, tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced."(1) This is still true today!
In his message to the Council this morning, the Secretary-General spoke of the glaring case of Darfur, "which would merit scrutiny at a special session."
Mr. President, we are all experiencing a historic moment in world history with the pope's official visit to Turkey, and this climacteric should inspire us to reflect. Pope Benedict was right to declare two months ago: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul." We heard similar words in his appeal yesterday - almost identical to those we have used here for the past three and a half years, in requesting the Commission, and then the Council: "to condemn all who kill, call upon others to kill, terrorise, or use violence in the name of God or religion - of any religion!" - and we have urged the inclusion of such a firm condemnation by the Council in any future resolution on: Combating Defamation of Religions.
[Here, at the opening meeting of the Council, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khann - speaking for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) - affirmed that: "Islam abjures, renounces and condemns violence. Islam calls for peace, not war; love not hatred; tolerance, not bigotry."]
We ask again whether there is not a grave risk that lack of a clear condemnation on this major issue might be construed by many as acquiescence in this ugly 'defamation' and might provoke more manifestations of 'Islamophobia'?
[Sir, we would remind the Council that in 1999 a Geneva Spiritual Appeal was promulgated, being signed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gro Harlem Bruntland (General Director of the WHO), Mary Robinson (HCHR), Cornelio Sommaruga (President ICRC), and Sadako Ogata (HCR). It calls on all "Not to refer to any religious or spiritual imperative to justify any form of violence." This 'Appeal' brought Christians, Jews, and Muslims to declare in Geneva's St Peter's Cathedral in March 2003: "Together, we denounce all reference to God to justify and foster hatred."]
Mr President: "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven…a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time of war, and a time of peace." [Ecclesiastes, 3: 1, 7]
Today, violence and killing in the name of a faith or God is being carried out daily on a vast scale in the Middle East. It is time to speak out here to condemn any use of violence in the name of God or religion.
May it soon be a "time of peace" and of dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis - and throughout the Middle East - and for all calls to kill in the name of religion, faith, or sectarian belief to be placed beyond the pale of civilization. Amen
-----------
1. E/CN.4/2006/NGO/3: Urgent Appeal to stop crimes in Darfur by invoking the Genocide Convention
Yesterday this site posted regarding a letter from 43 NGO's (non-govenmental organizations), which called on the UN's Human Rights Council, to act to stop the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. In this follow-up post, we examine the immediate results of that letter, which has already generated a great deal of attention.
From Agence France-Presse (no link - forwarded to me by Mr. David Littman):
UN rights office takes Sudan to task over Darfur
GENEVA, May 23, 2006 (AFP) - The UN's human rights office on Tuesday took Sudan to task for doing too little to halt abuses in its troubled Darfur region.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour's spokesman Jose Diaz said that the top official remained "very concerned" by the situation in the western Sudanese region.
"Our monitors have documented a situation of escalating violence in Darfur in recent months, reaching a level not seen since the flare-up in the conflict in late 2003 and 2004," Diaz told AFP.
In a report released on Tuesday, Arbour's team on site in Sudan said that the country was "falling short" on human rights.
It cited a failure to protect civilians from attacks including rape, as well as to hold people accountable for conflict-related crimes.
It also said that it was "particularly alarming" that the government had reverted to the use of helicopter gunships in the region.
In addition, it pointed to new problems caused by fighting between different factions of the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), Darfur's anti-government rebels.
The upsurge in the conflict has hit civilians hard and also worsened Darfur's humanitarian crisis because insecurity has seriously limited aid workers' operations.
Also on Tuesday, a coalition of 43 human rights groups wrote to Arbour saying that the situation in Darfur was "at a critical turning point".
They said that the role of the UN's new Human Rights Council, which will start work next month, will be "tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced" by the new UN body.
Its predecessor, the discredited UN Human Rights Commission, was accused of doing too little to call the Sudanese government to account.
Violence and famine have killed some 300,000 people in Darfur and displaced 2.4 million since all-out fighting erupted in 2003 between ethnic minority rebels and government troops and their proxy Janjaweed militia.
Earlier this month the African Union brokered a peace accord between the government and the main part of the SLA, but two smaller rebel factions declined to sign the deal.
The AU already has 7,000 troops in Darfur, and plans are under way to deploy a UN peacekeeping mission there.
The UN response was to try to suppress all debate on the subject. From UN Watch:
Darfur Outburst Disrupts UN Human Rights Council Session
Geneva, May 23, 2006 - The first preparatory session of the UN's new Human Rights Council was disrupted today by a heated dispute over allegations of Sudanese human rights violations in its Darfur province. The meeting in Geneva of over 150 ambassadors and numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was convened by its new Chair, Mexico's Ambassador Luis De Alba, to decide details for the inaugural ceremonies of the Council's opening on June 19th. But discussions were interrupted when the representative of Sudan irately protested an organization's distribution in the assembly hall of a statement alleging "a constant pattern of human rights violations" in Darfur.
Accepting Sudan's objection, Chairman De Alba instructed the representative from the Association for World Education to cease distributing the document in the hall.
Isn't that amazing? The Chairman not only prevented debate, but ordered that the document not even be distributed!
The Chairman resorted to his gavel to further prevent the group from reading the text in a speech, ruling that neither Sudan, nor any other situation, could be raised during the procedural discussion.
And by the way, the UN doesn't let the situation be discussed elsewhere, either. See this post for details of a previous attempt in which Mr. Littman sought to discuss the issue, and to see the enormous efforts made to prevent him from doing so. But the efforts of the UN to suppress discussion on this subject, may have backfired:
[Executive Director of UN Watch, Hillel] Neuer speculated that Sudan's angry objections might have had the unintended effect of provoking greater interest among diplomats, who then rushed to obtain copies of the joint appeal. The statement describes a "violent situation in Darfur" that is at "a crucial turning point which should open the door to increased UN action." The statement called on the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights to appoint "a sufficiently large team of human rights monitors and advisors" to monitor the recent cease-fire in Sudan.
Darfur may be shaping up to be a test of the legitimacy of the UN's Human Rights Council:
"It's quite clear, as UN Watch and over 40 other NGOs are saying in today's joint appeal, that the UN's new Human Rights Council will be tested by the actions it takes to stop the crimes against humanity in Darfur," said Neuer. "Let us not forget that its predecessor, the now-defunct Human Rights Commission, officially treated Darfur last year under its agenda item for 'Technical Cooperation'. If the Council perpetuates the same attitude of moral indifference, and whitewashes atrocities, then the change to a new body will have proved meaningless."
This site would like to thank Mr. Littman, for keeping us informed on these fascinating events inside the UN.
Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, forwarded to me the following letter, in which 43 NGO's (non-govenmental organizations) called on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, to act to stop the genocide in Darfur:
The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations
Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights, Geneva
Mme Louise Arbour
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
Geneva
23 May 2006
Dear Madame High Commissioner:
DARFUR
We, the undersigned NGOs, know that you share our concern with the violent situation in Darfur, Sudan and with the constant pattern of human rights violations well documented by the dedicated staff of the United Nations system.
It is now evident to all that the situation in Darfur is at a crucial turning point which should open the door to increased UN action. There is, on the one hand, a danger that the conflicts will spread to Chad where there have already been armed attacks. On the other hand, cease-fire negotiations carried out with the help of the African Union in Nigeria have led to an agreement between the largest of the three Darfur insurgencies and the Government of Sudan.
We believe that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights has an important role to play in appointing a sufficiently large team of human rights monitors and advisors to help ensure that the cease-fire becomes really effective, that refugees and the displaced can return in safely, and that efforts for the promotion of human development in the region can be undertaken.
As you know, NGOs have been active in drawing attention to the conflicts in Darfur, in suggesting avenues for the peaceful settlement of disputes and in relief efforts. Last December the president of CONGO, Renate Bloem, conveyed to you a letter signed by 22 NGOs with regard to the General Assembly’s ‘No Action’ on Darfur vote of 23 November 2005.
We believe that the role of the new Human Rights Council will be, in part, tested by the way the Darfur conflict is faced.
We will be pleased to continue working with you on this tragic situation.
Yours respectfully,
Peter N. Prove
President, Special Committee of NGOs on Human Rights, Geneva
on behalf of:
1. 3HO Foundation
2. Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Organization
3. Agence des cites pour la cooperation Nord Sud
4. American Humanist Association
5. Art of Living Foundation
6. Associated Country Women of the World
7. Association for World Education
8. Association of World Citizens
9. Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd
10. Defence for Children International-Canada
11. Federation of Associations of Former International Civil Servants
12. Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas
13. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
14. Interfaith International
15. International Alliance of Women
16. International Association for Human Values
17. International Association for Religious Freedom
18. International Association of Applied Psychology
19. International Council of Jewish Women
20. International Federation of Social Workers
21. International Federation of University Women
22. International Humanist and Ethical Union
23. International Inner Wheel
24. Lutheran World Federation
25. MRAP
26. Pax Christi International
27. Pax Romana
28. Peace Worldwide
29. Peter-Hesse-Foundation SOLIDARITY IN PARTNERSHIP for ONE world in diversity
30. Socialist International Women
31. UN Watch
32. Union for Reform Judaism
33. Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
34. Unitarian Universalist United Nations Office
35. United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
36. Women of Reform Judaism
37. Women's World Summit Foundation
38. World Federation for Mental Health
39. World Federation of Methodist and Uniting Church Women
40. World Federation of United Nations Associations
41. World Union for Progressive Judaism
42. World Vision International
43. Worldwide Organization for Women
On January 23rd, Mr. David Littman, Representative of the Association for World Education, addressed a U.N. Work group on Racism.
Littman first spoke about the mass murder of citizens in the Darfur region of Sudan. He was interrupted by the representative of Sudan -- and the interruption was supported by the Chairman of the meeting, Ambassador Juan Martabit, of Chile. Littman was told he was not permitted to reference Sudan.
Littman then discussed the recent statements by the President of Iran that the U.N. member nation of Israel should be destroyed. This time he was interrupted by the representative of Iran. And again the interrupted by the Chairman of the meeting, and Littman was told he was not to mention any country in that room.
Imagine a work group on racism at which the participants are forbidden to discuss the racist practices of specific nations. This is an example of how the U.N. is often an obstacle to free nations, and a supporter of murderous dictatorships.
It's as if the foxes were in the henhouse, and the farmers were told not to offend the foxes.
The text of the meeting was provided to this site by Mr. Littman. Excerpts (with boldfacing as in the original document):
Mr. Littman: Our 1st question, Sir, relates to this ghastly, racist tragedy - qualified as 'genocide' by a 566 to 6 vote in September 2004 by the Parliament of the European Union, and by others. Sir, have you received a reply from the Government of Sudan, and - in view of recent UN reports to which we have referred - will you now recommend that article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide be invoked for Darfur? [1st 'point of order': Sudan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman:
Mr. Littman, there is a point of order. Sudan has the floor on a 'point of order'.
Sudan (Minister Counsellor O. Omer Dahar F. Mohamed or Counsellor El Mubarar Salah):
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the assistance and the help on this debate. This meeting is to last from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. In accordance with the agenda, the debate is globalization and racism. Mr. Chairman, could I ask you whether a statement like the one which is being made by a distinguished speaker - is that statement a part of the debate of globalization and racism, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman:
Yes, delegate of Sudan. Thank you for that 'point of order' and the way that you formulated it. I will say to Mr. Littman that he should confine his remarks to the subject of our debate and I would go a bit further. Mr. Littman, are you listening? [Speaking in English] Listen to me. I will speak slowly because I am thinking word by word what I will say to you. [Speaking Spanish again, interpreted into English]: It is not a debate on Sudan here. The debate that we are engaged in right now is general in nature. Please do not focus specifically on Sudan. If you wish to speak specifically about Sudan, than the NGO that you are representing could make a statement along the lines that you have been making in the General Assembly or in the Security Council of the United Nations [NGOs don't speak at either the GA ,or the SC], or in the Commission on Human Rights under the appropriate item of the agenda. [It was then not certain whether there would be a final 62nd 6-week session of the CHR from mid-March.] Right now we are meeting in a Working Group. I'm trying to be extremely constructive and I hope that all the delegates feel comfortable with this debate as it is. You - and we are also referring to the delegate of Sudan as well - you may be right in what you are saying. I am not saying, Mr. Littman, that you are not right, but I'm saying that this is not the right occasion to make this statement. We are in a working group, Mr. Littman, and I would like to extend……...[incoherent 5 words interpretation]. A Working Group has a different type of atmosphere. [This WG is under the auspices of the 62nd session of the Commission on Human Rights.] This is a Working Group, not a place for confrontational dialogue. If we were to engage in such confrontation, we would never achieve any of our goals. The objective on working group is to engage in a debate, not to have a confrontation of debate, even if the delegates in that confrontation may be right in some of their comments. In every part of the world now there are problems, in some areas of the world the problems are more serious than they are elsewhere but, at any rate, these are all delicate issues, because we're speaking about problems of human beings and violations of human rights. These violations occur everywhere in the world. In some cases these violations are worse than elsewhere. There are places in the world where there are real risks of genocide and true genocide. I'm not prejudging where this is happening or where there are serious threats or not, but the Working Group's task is not to discuss these issues. I would invite your NGO, with all due respect - and I have all due respect for you as well - you have other bodies: the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, the Commission on Human Rights [the Chairman here repeats himself], and here I am trying with the delegates seated here to do something different. None of the participants except for a few exceptions are ambassadors - no one can react in the appropriate way. We're talking about high-level officials, who have come together in a Working Group and have a very good understanding of the issues and have come, with a spirit of cooperation, to move forward on crucial issues. Have I made myself understood, Mr. Littman?
Mr. Littman: Yes, Mr. Chairman, may I continue.
Chairman (speaking in English):
Yes, please, you can continue, but please don't mention Sudan any more - it's clear? (laughter)
Mr. Littman:
Sir, I have only finished my first point to the Special Rapporteur.
Chairman:
Only the first point - I though you had finished.
Mr. Littman:
I did refer to the remarks of the Special Rapporteur on Sudan.
Chairman:
Please do not refer to Sudan and any particular country, please.
Mr. Littman:
Well, the 2nd point refers to a specific case, but I did refer to the racial discrimination remark of the Special Rapporteur on racism in reference to the country which you just named, which I will not. (general laughter)
II. Sir, on a second issue, and regarding your Report to the General Assembly of 19 August 2005 [A/60/283], we were struck by your analysis [§B 19] of a thematic discussion on genocide, which is quoted fully in our text.
Mr Chairman, at a Teheran conference on 26 October, the Iranian president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". He predicted: "very soon the stain of this disgrace will be purged from the centre of the Islamic world." He warned peacemakers: "Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury. (*)
[2nd 'point of order: Iran]
Chairman:
Mr. Littman, I think again your points are related specifically to countries where you may [incoherent words by interpretor], that you have every right to consider that there are problems of human rights, but please do not cite those countries in this room. I'm going to be as frank as possible because we're not going to get anywhere. The delegate of Iran is making a 'point of order.' She is right because she is going to respond, then you are going to respond and we're not going to get anywhere. Mr. Littman, listen to me, and all delegates. I'm here to contribute in my humble way, with my time and my competence, to build bridges, to deal with extremely complex issues. I don't think that anyone…everyone has the right to deal with problems, but please do not cite specific countries. You have mentioned Professor Doudou Diène and I will ask Doudou Diène to respond to the questions you have raised. Your problems with Sudan and Iran please raise them in a different meeting, not here. I'm going to be very blunt with you, and with everyone - if we're going to get into a country situation debate here at this Working Group, we will not make any progress. This doesn't mean that I am excluding or turning a blind eye to the problems that exist in different countries. If you have any positive examples to cite, you could mention those, but please do not create an atmosphere that would create tension and which will send us into a deadlock. I hope that you've finished Mr. Littman. Thank you very much. I will like to ask Prof. Doudou Diène…
Mr. Littman(microphone button not pressed, but his voice is just audible on the tape):
You have cut me, Sir. I am taking part in a debate next month in Holland regarding what is happening at the United Nations. To be stopped on such an issue, when I have not yet begun, is such that - after 20 years experience at the UN - I find incredible! Sir, if you allow me to continue, I shall be careful not to name another State.
Chairman:
OK, continue, please, but please don't mention any crucial issues of the international agenda of today by the name of the country. Continue, please.
[This is the most extraordinary - and noteworthy - remark made by the Chairman.]
The U.N. needs to be supplemented by a parallel organization open only to the world's free and democratic nations.
The complete document provided to this site by Mr. Littman is available here.
MAX BOOT HAS GREAT INSIGHTS ON ENDING POVERTY IN AFRICA. It’s not a matter of giving African nations more billions—we’re already doing that:
The solution being promoted by Live 8 is simple: Send beaucoup bucks. The anti-poverty campaigners are grouchy because the wealthy world spends only 0.25% of its gross national income on aid — a mere $76.8 billion last year. They want to nearly triple that, to 0.7% of GNI.
The United States, in particular, is castigated for its stingy development budget — only 0.16% of GNI. This obscures the fact that, in absolute terms, the U.S. government spends far more on foreign aid ($19 billion last year) than any other nation. And that’s only a small part of our total contribution. Thanks in part to our lower tax rates, Americans give far more to charity than do Europeans. If you include private-sector donations, the Hudson Institute finds, U.S. foreign aid totals $81 billion, or 0.68% of GNI — close to the U.N. Millennium Development Goals. And that’s not counting the billions the U.S. spends to subsidize global security or the billions more it sends abroad as investment capital.
By any measure, the U.S. is extraordinarily generous, and President Bush is making us more generous still. He has already tripled development aid to Africa and plans to double it again.
it’s a matter of the economic policies of the impoverished nations:
In the last 50 years, $2.3 trillion has been spent to help poor countries. Yet Africans’ income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, during that period, while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
Misgovernment is oppressing these nations by robbing them rather than implementing the kinds of economic policies that have worked elsewhere:
Africans continue to be tormented not by the G-8, as anti-poverty campaigners imply, but by their own politicos, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who is abetting genocide in Darfur, and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who is turning his once-prosperous country into a famine-plagued basket case. Unless it’s linked to specific “good governance” benchmarks (as with the new U.S. Millennium Challenge Account), more aid risks subsidizing dysfunctional regimes.
Read the whole thing—the last paragraph’s the kicker.
CHRENKOFF ENDORSES GWB’S CALL for aid to African countries to be tied to a requirement for countries to get their citizens working harder to help themselves.
...President Bush’s requirement that the doubled aid over the next five years be tied to achieving reformist outcomes is the only way forward. As Bush said, African leaders must become the “agents of reform” rather than “passive recipients of money”.
There have been many reports this week about AIDS treatment in Africa, with all sorts of dramatic headlines. I’ve gone through them and I will seek to make sense out of them here.
An alternate title for this post might be, “An Error Made By Jesse Jackson Threatens Lives in South Africa.” It would be difficult to find a clearer-cut example of someone on the Left claiming moral outrage in pursuit of a goal which threatens the lives of the very people that person is ostensibly trying to help.
WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT
Here’s the deal. The vast majority (70%) of the people in the world who have HIV live in a specific region of Africa:
Some 70 percent of the 45 million people worldwide infected with HIV live in sub-Saharan Africa.
There’s a terribly serious circumstance there: in childbirth the disease may be passed from the mother to the infant. A drug, nevirapine, has been found, that greatly reduces this danger:
Studies have shown that a single dose of nevirapine to an infected woman during labor and another dose to her newborn can reduce the chances of HIV transmission by up to 50 percent. Nevirapine is also used in combination with other drugs to prolong the lives of AIDS patients.
Subsequent research has confirmed the safety and efficacy of nevirapine in protecting newborns, according to the World Health Organization. ...WHO recommends nevirapine be used in combination with other drugs where possible — a strategy that has reduced transmission to less than 1 percent in wealthier countries.
America has been providing this drug to people in Africa:
President Bush launched a 2002 plan to distribute the drug in Africa.
Additional details:
In June 2002, Bush announced a three-year, $500 million initiative to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission in Africa and the Caribbean with nevirapine as the plan’s “centerpiece,” the AP/Globe reports (AP/Boston Globe, 12/14).
The initiative aimed to provide treatment to one million HIV-positive pregnant women annually to reduce vertical HIV transmission by 40% in target countries within five years or less (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/19/02).
The program is considered to have saved lives:
...the drug [is] credited with protecting thousands of African babies from catching HIV from their mothers.
So what we have here is an impressive story of American generosity saving lives in Africa, of which we would all be extremely proud, if anyone here ever heard about it from our biased Liberal media. Of course, the mainstream media tries to avoid printing anything that makes America look good. MSM only mentions this sort of thing when there’s a way of using it to make America look bad.
In keeping with which, earlier this week, this headline appeared:
Pregnant Woman in NIH Study Died of Liver Failure Likely Caused by Nevirapine
Sounds like evidence that normal use of the drug is dangerous, doesn’t it? However, it turns out the drug was improperly administered:
...NIH documents obtained by the Associated Press show that Hafford could have survived if doctors had ceased administering nevirapine when her bloodwork indicated liver problems two weeks before her death, the AP/Sun reports.
The U.S. government has publicized the dangers of incorrectly administering the drug for over four years:
Since 2000, the government has warned that nevirapine can cause lethal liver damage or rashes in patients who take the drug in multiple doses over extended periods of time.
There is a one serious possible side-effect of using the drug to save the lives of the infants:
...there’s evidence women who receive a single dose during pregnancy can develop resistance to the drug that can compromise their future AIDS treatment.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INITIAL STUDY
However, initial testing of the drug in Africa was not satisfactorily completed:
NIH in 1997 began studying the use of nevirapine in single doses among HIV-positive pregnant women in Uganda to determine the drug’s ability to prevent vertical HIV transmission. The initial results showed that the drug prevented HIV transmission to newborns in as many as 50% of births.
However, by early 2002, medical safety specialists and an auditor with NIH as well as Boehringer all cited “widespread problems” with the research in Uganda—including a failure to receive participants’ consent about changes in the study, administration of incorrect doses, and delays and underreporting of “fatal and life-threatening” reactions to the drug, according to the AP/Globe. Because of the reported problems, NIH suspended the research for 15 months from spring 2002 to summer 2003 in order to “review the science and take corrective actions,” according to the AP/Globe.
Investigators found that the research was “riddled” with poor record keeping and could not be sure from records which participants received nevirapine, the AP/Globe reports. Therefore, researchers had to use blood samples to confirm the doses used in the study, according to the documents obtained by the Associated Press.
That “fatal and life-threatening” phrase appears to be quite serious. However, in all the articles I’ve reviewed at this time, the only “fatal and life-threatening” reactions to the drug are associated with administration of the drug that is contrary to the official procedures for its use. No articles quoted in this post report any life-threatening consequences associated with correct use of the drug.
Okay, so the initial study had a lot of sloppy record-keeping and was poorly admistered; since then in actual practice the drug has (per the quotes at the top of this post) been found effective, and no deaths have been observed from the correct use of the drug, but only from use of the drug in ways that are contrary to officially approved procedures.
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE INITIAL STUDY BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY
Dr. Tramont, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Division of AIDS, was aware of the poor administration of the initial study, and did not consider this serious enough to report to the FDA:
The documents show that Dr. Edmund Tramont, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Division of AIDS, and other NIH officials regarded the problems with the trial as “overblown” and did not immediately report safety concerns about the drug to FDA, according to the AP/Globe.
Dr. Tramont’s evaluation appears to have been justiifed by actual results of use of the drug.
So yesterday, AP ran an article with the headline, “S. Africa Attacks U.S. Over AIDS Drug”:
President Thabo Mbeki’s ruling party published a stinging attack Friday on top U.S. health officials, accusing them of treating Africans like “guinea pigs” and lying to promote a key AIDS drug.
The article, published in the online journal ANC Today, was responding to Associated Press reports this week that U.S. health officials withheld criticism of a nevirapine study before President Bush launched a 2002 plan to distribute the drug in Africa.
...”Dr. Tramont was happy that the peoples of Africa should be used as guinea pigs, given a drug he knew very well should not be prescribed,” the article said. “In other words, they entered into a conspiracy with a pharmaceutical company to tell lies to promote the sales of nevirapine in Africa, with absolutely no consideration of the health impact of those lies on the lives of millions of Africans.”
Paragraph 6 of the AP article casts doubt on the statements in paragraph 1. Paragraph 1 says that “President Thabo Mbeki’s ruling party” is responsible for the allegations, but per paragraph 6:
Smuts Ngonyama, an African National Congress spokesman and editor of the journal, said the article was an opinion piece by a member and didn’t reflect official party policy. He wouldn’t identify the author.
However, the AP article does report that the doctors using the drug feel it is effective and fear to have the use of it curtailed:
The criticism reinforces fears of doctors and activists that new questions about the testing of nevirapine could halt use of the drug that’s credited with protecting thousands of African babies from catching HIV from their mothers.
Okay, so there were concerns about the initial study, which Dr. Tramont did not feel were serious enought to stop the use of this life-saving drug. Dr. Tramont’s views appear to have been justified by the actual use of the drug. The doctors and activists using the drug in Africa have found it to be effective and fear to lose access to it.
WHICH BRINGS US AT LAST TO THE REVEREND JESSE JACKSON
Here’s what Jesse Jackson had to say about all this:
In the United States, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called for a U.S. congressional investigation and demanded nevirapine no longer be distributed in Africa.
“This was not a thoughtful and reasonable decision, but a crime against humanity,” Jackson said Thursday in Chicago. “Research standards and drug quality that are unacceptable in the U.S. and other Western countries must never be pushed onto Africa.”
That’s
right. The Reverend Jesse Jackson demands that the drug no longer be
distributed. In the name of high moral authority he demands the very
thing that would cause lifelong suffering and even death to the very
people he purports to defend.
Update 12-19-04: Instapundit questions the propriety of Dr. Tramont’s actions:
IF A DRUG COMPANY DID THIS it would be a huge scandal. But it’s the government, so it’s okay!
It
doesn’t appear to me that Glenn has stated a conclusion on this yet,
although he well may by the time you read this. It’s a very interesting
controversy. Dr. Tramont’s actions got the drug to the people sooner
and saved lives. But in less honorable hands the procedures he used
could have been used for wrongful purposes. Do we sanction Dr. Tramont?
Or do we give him credit but keep a more watchful eye out for such
things in the future?
2nd Update 12-19-04: Welcome, Instapundit readers. Thanks Glenn, for the link to this post.
Page 1 of 1 pages
