 
|
« August 2005 | Main | October 2005 » Citizen JournalismLast night the Frontline Club hosted a talk on “Blogging and the Citizen Journalist” which provoked some impassioned debate. The line up of speakers seemed premeditated to fuel a healthy discussion. Monitored by John Owen from NewsXchange, the panel included participants in blogging from the full spectrum of journalism today. Owen began by summarising a brief history of blogging and highlighting some of the influence that it has had on world events. Sites included were Wonkette, which had a large following during the American elections (and which seems to be doing quite nicely out of advertising revenue as a result – does this now make it part of the mainstream?) and Rocketboom, a videolog run out of New York that spoofs broadcasting news. Elizabeth Lee, co-founder of iTalkNews, spoke about her new “citizen journalism site” run out of San Francisco. The premise is that anyone can send in a blog. The articles are then edited by a professional team of journalists and members get to vote on which pieces should be elevated to the front page. Closely modelled on the South Korean phenomenon OhMyNews, the site advocates creating a community of citizen journalists who can break down traditional forms of media prevalent in the world. Kyle MacRae from Scoopt introduced the concept of ‘citizen photojournalists’, describing his agency which sells images taken by the public to the mainstream press. He was patently unapologetic about his commercial aspirations. Unlike flikr, this is not an idealistic concept but rather one rooted in capitalism. It also opens up a moral minefield : does it encourage ‘citizens’ to re-enter disaster scenes to get their scoop? Is it promoting a world where everyone is a paparazzo? (MacRae denied this accusation but suggested that if you did happen to see Jude Law walking down the street then please snap him on your camera phone and send it in. You could supplement your income nicely). Neil McIntosh from the Guardian spoke about how his newspaper has been using the medium of blogging as a different form of representing their news and views. Not much else really. Finally we had Simon Bucks, the Associate Editor of Sky News, defending established journalism practices. His first analogy -would you rather have brain surgery performed on you by a professional brain surgeon or a citizen?- fell flat on its face (isn’t everyone distrustful of doctors?). It was later riposted smartly when he was asked if he would rather have sex with a professional or a citizen.He didn't have an answer to that. The talk didn’t really provide any answers to the questions it set out to explore (What does citizen journalism mean for mainstream media? Can it be considered a valid form of journalism?). However it did introduce an array of innovations out on the web. Perhaps the roles played by the four speakers best reflected the four directions in which blogging and citizen journalism can go: one idealistic, one commercial, one wants to assimilate it into its system while retaining the status quo, and one wants to deny its relevance. It’s a new world and the possibilities are endless. Whatever the Labour Party conference can do the Frontline Club can match. While Tony Blair’s heavies forcibly ejected Walter Wolfgang from the building, the Frontline Club was less heavy-handed with its heckler. It seems to be the season for heckling. Perhaps it’s a barometer of the import the subject being discussed. Look out for a more vitriolic report on the discussion here over the next few days. I believe our friend was there arguing with Simon Bucks from Sky long after everyone else had left. September 30, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Who governs the net?Hold the frontpage - the US and the EU can't agree who should run the Internet. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of Bill Thompson's book (or should that be a module out of his database?) and let the people do it. Whatever happens, it willl make November's WSIS conference all the more crucial. As both Bill and Andrew Chadwick note, these divisions have been rumbling along in the background for some time. September 30, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Email software goes futJust to let our email subscribers know, we're having technical trouble with our email sending software this week, and we haven't been able to send yesterday's email. In the meantime, if you're missing your biweekly contact with us, you can view the email here. The software should be back in business soon. But now's as good a time as any to subscribe to our RSS feed - which brings daily updates from openDemocracy straight to your desktop. You can find out more here. September 30, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Storming the court - a human rights legal thrillerby Carolyn Tan This afternoon, I attended an event where Brandt Goldstein talked about his new book Storming the Court: How a Band of Yale Law Students Sued the President and Won. An animated and engaging speaker, Brandt started by giving an outline of (in his own words) the ‘human rights legal thriller’ that took him five and a half years of researching and writing to complete. Brandt's book tells the story of 300 Haitian political refugees who had been granted passage into the US but had tested HIV positive and hence were being held in Guantanamo, which according to the American constitution is a land without law and where they had no rights at all. Ironic, considering that we are talking about 300 democracy activists who were attempting to flee to America, the land of democracy. A group of Yale law students took up the refugees' cause and fought for their right to legal representation as well as release. This story is still very relevant today, especially with the attention that Guantanamo is getting in the media. A member of the audience brought up the issue that there is no accountability on Guantanamo today and what damage does that do to the values of the US ranging from the rule of law to individual freedom? The US has sacrificed its moral leadership, but is Senator McCain’s effort to make sure that there is no inhuman treatment in Guantanamo going to help rectify the situation? Like the Haitian refugee case 12 years ago, action is being carried out right now to protect the human rights of the detainees. Even if this action does succeed, we still have to ask ourselves if big-level activism is ever going to create a permanent change in American society on the national stage? After all, it looks as if the same human rights violations that the Haitian refugees experienced 12 years ago have once again repeated themselves. September 29, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack World Social Forum x 3It's hello-time for the 6th World Social Forum. It's being held in three different cities this time, January 2006. Pick a location near you: Caracas (Venezuela), Karachi (Pakistan) and Bamako (Mali). They're calling it a "polycentric" forum, an adjective so fair it probably took an entire committee to agree on. My guess is most of the action will be in Venezuela. If you'd like to organise and register activities at the Forum, alone or with other organisations, you've got a few weeks to do it on the different Forum websites. I'm hoping to go to Caracas so I might say hello to my pal Chavez again. He was the star speaker of the last WSF in Porto Alegre, and no doubt he will be the star at the next. He wouldn't have it any other way. Would anyone like to bet on Castro making a surprise appearance? How will the global left respond to being personal guests of the rebellious Chavez government? How will it influence the process and the outcomes? This is going to be very interesting to follow. September 28, 2005 in World Social Forum | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Washington MarchOn Saturday I was one of the estimated 100,000 people (or 20 million people if you beleive one protestor to whom I spoke) that converged on Washington, to protest against the war on Iraq. Though this particular person was probably unduly optimistic, the event had a vigor and optimism that has been all-too-rarely observed in the US antiwar movement. I've been to a few vigils in my time as a young, conscientous person, and what's always striking, is the disparity of people choosing to protest. Saturday's protest outscored even the anti-foxhunting protest I attended in London last year. Pacifists rubbed shoulders with humanitarian interventionalists, Democrats with Republicans. I spoke with Vietnam veterans, and relics from the 1960s hippie era. Together, these mass of people somehow congealed into a group with direction; the direction was the White House, the pace a slow trudge. Brad, a lifelong Republican from Iowa, confessed himself (perhaps unwisely in the circumstances) overall a fan of Bush, with Iraq the sole blot on his copy-book. But a big blot? "Sure - it's getting to the stage where I might consider revising my opinions of the guy in general. But you know, I'm really here for my wife, and out of interest, and because this is the first time in a while that there's been any movement to speak of - I think people have generally felt pretty detached from politics." The obligatory banners and fancy-dress costumes pervade the march. To my left, a woman dressed in a full hijab carries a banner reading "US soldiers died, so that I could dress freely." The exact political implication of this was unclear to me. Around us, a bizarrely Bibilical (and not-quite-rhyming) chant goes up: "Matthew, John, Luke Mark / Were no friends of pre-emptive strike." The religious reference seems to upset more than a few: "Don't take the Gospels in vain", shouts one buff voice. I manage to miss Joan Baez' performance by Washington Mounument, but am installed at the front row (or "mosh pit", as one young protestor remarks) for the appearance of Cindy Sheehan. Having interviewed Sheehan earlier in the week, it is a surprise to see her in the flesh, quite at odds with the somewhat hesitant voice that had reached me from Los Angeles. By far the biggest roar of the day greets her appearence. For a brief moment, the invariable distractions of an event like this are cast aside, as the crowd en masse, and almost in time, chant simply "Bring Them Back." I glance over to my right, and Brad is chanting along. If only Drudge could see. Following Sheehan's declamations, a certain amount of disorder prevails. A surge of seperate protestors, who have been assembled across the city outside the offices of the IMF, reaches us, and for a moment no-one is quite sure where, and what, to protest. But in keeping with the day as a whole, there is no discernable hint of violence. I am surprised, therefore, when the shout goes around that Cindy Sheehan has been arrested. But why? The reasons given are multiple: she spat on a policeman, she "loitered with intent" on a pavement. Bizarrely, this latter explanation proves mst accurate, as Sheehan was - I later learn - staging an illegal sit-down, in an area where protestors must, under pain of legal recrimination, keep moving. I strain my neck, and can jst about make out what seems like the gentlest arrest ever - Sheehan being escorted by three burly officers with a gentle arm on her back, until she starts to do a little bit of passive resistance. But the whole event has a strangely playful air, evidenced by the protestors posing beside policemen to have their photographs taken. So, what to conclude? Certainly, I'd take playful over violent, any day: the protestors managed not to obscure their cause by a cheap smashing of Starbucks. The importance of the event lies in its proof that the antiwar faciton can become more than a faction, and truly mobilise when necessary. What needs to now happen is a broad coalition of responsible individuals, such as were in evidence in Washington - actually exerting a political consensus in the weeks to follow. In the wake of Katrina, and with the nomination hearings of Judge Roberts, this is the most openly contentious period of American political discourse for a number of years. From the overall state of exasperated indifference I perceived toward party politics in general, this dialogue needs to occur outside of the standardised lines of Democrats and Republicans. It is for the peole to phrase their ideals, and only then to hope that a party reflects them. September 27, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Bombs don't kill peopleoD friend, Hossein Derakhshan says in today's Guardian (UK), that the world should worry more about whether Iran has a democratic government than whether it has nuclear weapons. "Beware the bomber, not the bomb," goes the headline - reminds me of the old mantra of the US National Rifle Association, "Guns don't kill people, people do". I suppose a country has the right to defend itself, but don't tell me nuclear bombs don't kill people. Hossein's argument is more thoughtful than that, take a look. September 27, 2005 in News related | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Marching for justice: a photo diary of 24 September 200524 September 2005 was a sunny day – like most have been as we’ve marched on London. It was probably my sixth or seventh Stop the War demonstration. So why are we still here? To me today felt immensely important, and quite different from others, as this was our first demonstration since those bombings shook our great city. Not that buildings had fallen, but us, we all felt it. I’m not sure how many felt the intense anger I did; that this had happened after we campaigned so hard to stop the war. It had been ordinary people, on their way to work, as is usually the case, who reaped the consequences. We marched for Peace and Liberty. Peace, in terms of the occupation of Iraq, and the right to self-determination for oppressed peoples, and also for us, that we may have peace at home, and not suffer attacks as a result of our government’s foreign policy. Liberty, in terms of the anti-terror laws, that have been used to restrict protest, and imprison people without trial in Britain’s Guantanamo, Bellmarsh. New proposals, for further anti-terror laws, on indirect incitement (a subjective concept at best), and for the proscribing of some Muslim groups, are of additional concern. The journey up was rather confused. My friend and I were running rather late. On the Victoria Line tube we bundled out at Warren Street as we were informed the next stop, Victoria, had been closed for a ‘security alert’. How convenient – ‘they’ were probably doing it on purpose, we half joked to one another. We took the Northern line to Charing Cross instead, and walked past Trafalgar Square to Whitehall. Here we caught the front of the march on its way towards us. “Peace and Liberty” donned the railings, and we had arrived.
It seemed the natural thing once we had caught up with friends to stop for a quick drink in the pub. It had been a long journey, and it was a hot day, after all. We sat there self-satisfied that streams of people were filing past outside. What wonderful streams of people they were, those concerned and dedicated enough to come out today and add their weight to our common cause.
We were deep in conversation when all heads in the public house turned to the open door. A passing protestor was tunefully belting out a rather loud rendition of the classic chant ‘power to the people’. As our heads turned back I felt that rather surreal feeling I only get on the day of demonstrations. We are all out here, so passionate, so committed, so desperate to reign in the drastic attacks on our civil liberties, and there are people in the pub who have just popped out for an afternoon drink. It’s not that this drastically offends me, rather that it emphasises what seem to be our parallel lives. Our parallel lives that occupy the same city, the same country, the same world. Our gang, that pounded the streets building the biggest demonstration in British history not on 15 February 2003, and their gang, the bystanders. I voiced this sentiment to the table at which I sat. A friend remarked that you couldn’t generalise, that a lot of these people probably agree with us, are glad at what we are doing. But still, I mused to myself, we are in another sphere. I feel almost, when I’m in the ‘sphere’ of the protest, that any sphere outside is quite perverse, and that we seem perverse to them also. As do the police officers. I always wonder what they are thinking as we strut past.
We stepped back out into the air as the tail of the march went past Trafalgar Square. An ultra-efficient clean-up operation was immediately kicking in. It seemed as though they sought to immediately remove all trace of our dissent. The machines whirred and police walked past them in the opposite direction, as if checking that not a single leaflet with a single idea could leave the ranks of the demonstrators, and somehow make its way to the gaze of an unsuspecting tourist.
The clean-up was so quick to come into force that straggling demonstrators like ourselves had to weave in and out of the cleaning vehicles to join the back of the march.
We caught back up and passed one of the famous glittering neon trademarks of London.
We were on a mission by that time to get to Hyde Park without missing the speeches. But we were sidetracked again first by stumbling upon old friends, and then by a rather interesting array of artwork attached to the fence.
As we finally re-joined the march I heard someone looking wistfully back at the path down which we had just walked. Half had been cordoned off for the demonstration. It was full on the ‘big day’, he said. I had never heard 15 February 2003 referred to in that way, almost like a wedding. But I knew instinctively what he was talking about. If there was to be a wedding, or big day, for British protest, it had to be that. Now we forever walked in the shadow of 15 February. It both drove us on and mocked us from every corner. It had placed a seed of hope in our hearts that will perhaps never be equalled. On that day, on the way to London, it seemed every train, every route, was people on their way. Everyone was with us. We have had to set out every time after that knowing it would never be like that again. Yet we know from it we are part of a great movement, and that it is up to us to sustain the momentum, and not fall away in its wake.
Hyde Park was pretty busy when we got there. But there wasn’t the usual conversation about numbers. It didn’t seem to matter anymore. After ‘the big day’ playing the numbers game was pretty futile anyway. No amount of creative multiplication could place anything since in the same league. We also knew that our efforts were likely to be largely ignored by the media, and that we were here for us. For peace, for liberty, for justice, but also for us. Today as much as it was about learning and protesting, we were here for each other on the movement. Most people obediently assisted with the theme of immediate clean-up and followed the shouted command to ‘leave your placards here before you enter the park’. How very civilised. I laughed at one that had been left all alone for those passing to read.
I saw a rare Union Jack and snapped the poignant illustration of the price paid by British soldiers for this war.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir had many activists handing out leaflets. This was clearly a political organisation afraid for its survival, and one with plenty of able-bodied men prepared to work to prevent its demise. I got near the stage in time to hear Anthony Walker’s uncle Shyla, make a speech and sing a song. Today the speakers and the crowd quite easily illustrated the links between the racist murder in Liverpool, to the failures in New Orleans, to the occupation of Iraq, to the desperate poverty in the global south to the London bombings. Many speakers referred to the multiracial nature of the crowd. Some referred to Trevor Phillips assertion about Britain, and its divisions, and invited the establishment to take a look at the faces of us, the crowd as we assembled. And we were of all backgrounds and all faiths, and many of none. I believe that in our many colours, we looked quite beautiful.
Tariq Ali spoke with passion and conviction. And he finished by answering the question as to what we achieve by all this. I feel this is something we know in our hearts but often find difficult to articulate to the cynical. He said something along the lines of ‘we were here to fill a public space’, and I recall from memory here, ‘with the speech and the ideas of the majority of people in this country’. It mattered that someone said that. Tom Hayden the veteran US peace activist made a compelling plea for a special relationship. The crowd roared with delight. A special relationship, he said, not between our leaders, but between the people of the US and Britain, in opposing this injustice. His case for convoluting the malevolent alliance of our governments on the ground got particular applause. We all cast our mind to our allies in Washington, who would be beginning their march in a couple of hours. I caught site of a woman in Muslim dress crying at one point. I wonder if she was overcome with the emotion of the event, after how difficult things have become after the London attacks. I’ll never know. I was torn between feeling glad she would be so moved by our common movement, and sadness that this chain of events, of which the London bombings are a part, have impacted so deeply on the lives of ordinary people, who have no control over them whatsoever. The most saddening speech was that of the young Iraqi doctor who told us with passion the problems faced by medics in Iraq with poor resources. He spoke also of the impossibility of reaching patients caught up in restricted areas. One celebrity speaker, Brian Eno, was the only I heard mention a slight dilemma, he suggested UN, and Arab troops, should enter Iraq instead. I didn’t hear any heckling, I think people saw it as a legitimate point to raise, and even counter, as a later speaker did (all foreign troops out), but one which was made from the perspective of someone who genuinely cared about the complete chaos Iraq has been made. Nonetheless all protestors and speakers agreed that coalition forces were the cause of, not a solution, to the problems in Iraq. September 26, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Summarising the SummitDavid Mepham does an excellent job summarising the outcomes of the Summit. Important progress was made on genocide (how to fight it), peace, human rights and democracy. Those are all things we care a lot about at openDemocracy. As for the lackluster bits of the Summit, I think we've covered those already. Even Kofi Annan had a hard time keeping up appearances at this meeting. Some people would think it an opportune moment to poke fun, like George Bush who passed Annan in the hallway right before the summit ended and asked: "Has the place blown up since he's been here?". Very funny, Mr. President. No, it hasn't blown up. September 26, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack President Bush pledges to fight corruptionThe good news is that President Bush has renewed his commitment to the Millennium goals, as Johanna Mendelson-Forman writes in oD today. “We are committed to the Millennium Development Goals… To a new vision for the way we fight poverty and curb corruption” as the president told the UN World Summit last week. Which makes me eager to hear what his plans are for dealing with what Ali Allawi, Iraq’s finance minister, described to Britain’s Independent newspaper as “possibly one of the largest thefts in history.” He was talking about the scandal of the missing US$1billion, a sum that has vanished from Iraq’s defence budget with nothing to show for it on in the ground. Iraq’s troops are left, as Patrick Cockburn puts it, “to fight a savage insurgency with museum piece weapons.” “The Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit says in a report to the Iraqi government that US-appointed Iraqi officials in the defence ministry allegedly presided over these dubious transactions. So let us all get behind President Bush in his anti-corruption drive, beginning with occupied Iraq. Watch this space September 19, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Bolton is speakingUS ambassador John Bolton looks much taller when he is sitting down. "We cannot allow the reform effort to be derailed," he says. And he's also "glad to hear" that so many member-countries denounce terrorism. Me too. September 17, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Afternoon at the UN
The General Assembly continues today with more and more presidential addresses, and today I am watching it on television monitors in the press room. It will hardly be news to anyone who's ever attended a press conference, but let me tell you the real thing is very different from what you read in the newspapers.
Yesterday's address by Israel (small important country) was as scarcely attended as all the others. Yet, today's New York Times article describes it as a momentous event. I don't dispute that. It's just strange how history in the making is more apparent when you read it in the paper the next day. (Can you believe the GA audience were just asked to be quiet out of respect for the speakers? So unruly.) (Photos are from my cellphone, press room and General Assembly)
September 17, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Cuba and Venezuela call itI wish I had stuck around for the President of Venezuela yesterday (I had to go). Yesterday, I complained the world leaders were too sterile. Well, Hugo Chavez is completely infectious. Witness the 4000 blog posts that have been written about his appearance at the UN yesterday. He said the document of the meeting has been "hijacked" by the US. He waved it in the air and called it an "illegal" document "approved with a dictator's hammer". Check out the video. Chavez suggested (and he wasn't joking) that we should move the UN out of the US, because they do not respect international law. He said this had been a proposal from the World Social Forum. And went on to suggest it's new location could be Jerusalem... after it were converted to an international city for all peoples. He also refused to stop speaking after his 15 minutes ran out, saying that Bush had been allowed 20. Save for the impracticality (ahem) of some of Chavez suggestions, it was refreshing to hear someone say out loud what most people here seem to be thinking. The document is weak and undemocratic. Some bloggers are being pretty snide about Chavez' comments, saying the US doesn't want the UN anyway (ha, there's more where this comes from). Meanwhile Cuba's envoy Ricardo Alarcon agreed with Chavez, saying:
You might not like where it's coming from, and certainly it's not a very diplomatic way of saying it (dare I say politically correct?), but I think both left and right can agree the UN struck out at this Summit. Check openDemocracy's UN democracy debate for more thoughtful commentary on US maneuvers and how to repair the United Nations, and why it's so important we get it right. September 17, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack Chinese labour activist gets Sigrid Rausing Trust AwardIn an interesting attempt to try to achieve decent working conditions for the millions of workers around the world who produce goods for Wal-Mart, the International Labour Rights Fund has filed a law suit against the US retail giant for failing enforce its code of conduct with its supplier factories. Many of these factories are in China, where Wal-Mart last year bought more than 18 billion dollars worth of goods. Wal-Mart is such a powerful buyer in China that it has the power to make or break any supplier. It is not a power that Wal-Mart, the plaintiffs claim, has used in favour of its workers. Wal-Mart orders many of its goods not through wholesalers but direct from manufacturers. Those manufacturers in turn, use components that are produced further up the supply chain. Wal-Mart’s aim is to shift large quantities of cheap goods to its customers. To do this, it drives hard bargains with its suppliers. To fulfill their contracts, the suppliers are obliged to drive their workers equally hard. On the other hand, like other major Western companies, Wal-Mart has an image to protect. Will its customers still enjoy their cheap goods if they are aware of the human costs of producing them? To address this problem, major brands that source their good in China draw up agreements with their suppliers that lay down minimum conditions for the workers: these set out rules on overtime, minimum pay, working conditions and so on. Wal-Mart’s suppliers have been known to complain that they can either meet Wal-Mart’s hard bargains or treat their workers in accordance with the code of conduct, but doing both is impossible. Suppliers to other major brands, facing similar challenges, have developed elaborate counter-compliance practices to outwit the external compliance inspectors whose job it to ensure that the codes of conduct are being honoured. It can be an elaborate cat and mouse game, in which workers are coached in how to answer inspectors’ questions and double sets of timesheets and accounts are kept. The compliance inspector – often responsible for too many factories, with too little time and too little help, faces what some have described as an impossible task. There is, though, another answer to the question of worker exploitation in China and elsewhere in the global south: free trades unions with guaranteed rights. With real trades unions, the workers themselves become the compliance enforcers. But in China, the official All China Trades Union functions as an arm of the state. (In an ironic sidebar to the Wal-Mart experience, the company, which has a no trade union policy, was forced to accept the formation of China’s official union). This week, in London, a man who has devoted his life to the rights of workers in China – including their right to form free trades unions, was honoured with a special award by the Sigrid Rausing Trust. Han Dongfang, director of the China Labour Bulletin, was one of the few workers among the thousands of student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Han’s Beijing-based Workers' Autonomous Federation was China’s first (and only) independent union and was seen as a serious threat by the Chinese communist party. Han was imprisoned without trial, sharing a cell with a tubercular inmate. He contracted tuberculosis and was released after 22 months, gravely ill. He recovered in the United States, then tried to return to China but found himself banned. He settled in Hong Kong where he still lives. Last year I watched Han Dongfang in operation, gathering information for a radio programme on labour disputes and labour rights in China, a programme that is broadcast into China. Working the phones, calling local officials, trades union officials, workers and factory managers, he patiently built up a picture of an industrial dispute for broadcast later that day. His programme has become a beacon for Chinese workers who, after more than fifty years of state controls, have little idea of their constitutional rights or how to organize to protect them. In addition to broadcasting, Han Dongfang’s organization, the China Labour Bulletin reports on Chinese labour issues and offers legal advice and support to workers and their families. He is critical of China’s treatment of its workers, but there is another rationale to what he does: labour disputes and worker unrest are rife in China and Han Dongfang sees them as one of the greatest threats to China’s stability. To give rights to workers, he argues, would be both the right thing to do and in the interests of China’s government. He himself is not trying to make another revolution: he is trying to get the workers off the streets and railway lines and into the law courts in the hope that there they can find peaceful, legal solutions. For an extended interview with Han Dongfang, see The New Left Review. September 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack What Israel saidPM Ariel Sharon described his belief in the Jewish right to Jerusalem as the "essence of my Jewish consciousness." He spoke of Israel's "concessions" (withdrawal) in Gaza and the difficult decision he had to make "at a heavy personal price". "Our hearts desire remains to achieve peace with our neighbours," he said, stressing it is now up to the Palestinians to show their commitment to peace by developing their economy and a democratic government. Towards the end he said, "We know there are those who sit here, and who's leadership calls for wiping Israel off the face of the earth." And he chastised the UN Assembly for keeping silent. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack What Denmark thinks"Good deeds start at home," said the prime minister of Denmark referring to the "oil-for-food scandal", "and the UN needs to get its own house in order." Describing Denmark as one of the most generous contributors to African aid, he called on the developed nations to give and do more (especially on Sudan) and on African governments to fight corruption and poverty, and promote women's rights. "All our aid will come to nothing if countries are run by corrupt dictators," he said. And he didn't point to anyone in the audience. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack Blogging the General AssemblyI am sitting in the General Assembly hall, where the UN has conveniently provided wireless internet. The president of Georgia is speaking and no one is listening (sorry Georgia). Many of the politicians on the UN's trademark blue benches are wearing translation headphones, but in the small booths above the GA floor we have loudspeakers. In case you should miss a speech (or aren't paying attention) there are copies of all the speeches available in the press room. These vary from simple two-sided photocopies (most countries) to laminated folders and embossed paper (China, and a few African nations). The president of Nauru has been followed by the president of the Republic of Congo, and now the president of Mongolia is speaking (I'm typing slow). Still, no one is listening (sorry small or poor countries). But the hall is filling up a little, perhaps because Italy, Israel and France are speaking later. Personally, I am waiting for the kingdom of Denmark (small and rich country where I was born). India just took the stage, and the hall has gotten a little quieter. You can watch the whole thing on UN webcast if you think you're missing out. You'd think there was something more productive for world leaders to do when they were finally all gathered in the same place. When everyone says what's expected of them, it really isn't too exciting. And yes, mobile phones do go occasionally off in the audience (bad Chad). It would be much more fun, if they conducted this part of the Summit in quick panel discussions with four-five leaders at a time on subjects of regional or international interest - make the presidents sweat a little. This environment is way too sterile to produce anything useful or informative. Although I guess the symbolic value of it all shouldn't be discounted. PS: The president of Saint Kitts and Nevis is pretty good speaker. Next up: Cambodia. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack On opening day, Summit flopsCrossing the street to enter the UN building yesterday, I passed Abdoulaye Wade, the president of Senegal. Honestly, I would never have recognised him if it weren't for the clapping and shouting supporters who had lined up near the sidewalk barricades hoping to catch a glimpse of him. Later, I nearly bumped into President Lula of Brazil as he got off an escalator on the 2nd floor of the UN building and entered an elevator. I know I probably should have accosted him for an interview, but he was very busy and had about nine equally busy men surrounding him. Que pena. But how fun to be sharing hallways with all these world leaders. Apart from that, my afternoon was pretty uneventful. The UN Summit programme is called the "Journal" and it is surprisingly brief - about a page or two per day. Most of the meetings are closed, and the press just sit around outside meeting rooms waiting to pounce on officials when they come out. Yesterday, there were addresses from 80 heads of state, and today there will be 80 more. It's been sad to see how damning NGO statements on the UN draft document are (seriously, have a look). Combined with the whole US/Bolton ordeal and frustration over how to bring about UN reform, this Summit is not a happy one. Maybe things will perk up later. Or at least before the year 2015. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack Bloggers, Bush, and bathroom breaksOn the day of President Bush's speech on the opening day of the Summit, bloggers are much less interested in the words he uttered, than the ones he scribbled on a note to Condoleezza Rice at the UN: "I think I may need a bathroom break". Trust the blogosphere to identify the most interesting story: Bush needs permission from Condi to go to the loo. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack UN Summit diaryGrace Mukagabiro from Rwanda works for Oxfam and is writing a daily diary of the Summit for the Globe and Mail newspaper in South Africa. September 15, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack UN: Bush spokeSee the video of the President's performance today at the UN. Here's a rundown of what he said: He said thanks for help with Katrina: "Your response, like the response to last year's tsunami, has shown once again that the world is more compassionate and hopeful when we act together." He said terrorism must be confronted: "The terrorists must know that wherever they go, they cannot escape justice." (Does anyone think it's weird he keeps referring to "the terrorists"? Who is he talking about?) He calls for the world's nations to implement the Monterrey Consensus for economic development in the developing world (hello IMF). And he announced a new international partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. On Iraq: "the whole world has a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq -- and no civilized nation has an interest in seeing a new terror state emerge in that country." On UN reform: "If member countries want the United Nations to be respected -- respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect." September 14, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack Uncovering the PastIn July this year around 30,000 old police files were discovered in a disused ammunition dump in Guatemala’s capital city. Containing what appears to be a complete record of the old National Police activities the files promise new hope for the victims of human rights abuses during the country’s 36 year long civil war (1960-1996). With files entitled “Disappeared People 1989" and "Kidnapped Children 1993" the discovery could end long searches for historical truth by the relatives of victims and pave the way towards establishing accountability for past crimes. Nonetheless, the path towards truth and justice is fraught with difficulty, not least in the vast scale of the job now in hand. Activists from dozens of rights organizations have demanded the Guatemalan government carry out a full examination of the archives but they are so extensive that estimates of up to five years have been placed on efforts to sort through all the information. It is unlikely that the Guatemalan government will be able to provide the time and resources needed for such a project and will need to look to outside help. Interventions from the UN or other political bodies are unlikely to be forthcoming on the scale seen for the Guatemalan Truth Commission in 1996 and many within the government are likely to oppose any further investigation of the past. The first priority for the project has to be physically protecting the files themselves and then granting citizens free access to the information they contain. The matter of historical truth and setting the record straight is crucial to the inclusion of victims and their relatives within the democratic community. However, almost a decade after the end of civil conflict this process will take a sustained effort that many will not be able to afford. The truth may have been discovered but it is a long way from being understood and applied in the name of justice. September 14, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Little visible civil society presence at UN summitFrom a quick walk around the UN buildings and surronding area, I'd say Solana Larsen is right (see previous post) to say New York is so far underwhelmed by the presence of more world leaders together in one place at the same time since the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 for a summit predicated on "bold reform". I was quite surprised to see no organised presence on the streets outside by NGOs like Oxfam calling for the UN to meet the Millennium Development Goals (however problematic those goals may be - see Amir Attaran in the Sep 13 New York Times and this response from Jeffrey Sachs), or even the recommendations of the UN High Level Panel itself. Indeed, the most conspicuous token of "civil society" presence I have seen so far is a giant poster right pretty much opposite one of the main entrances to the compound advertising brokenpromisesmovie.com . This comes from a group called Citizens United, whose American Sovereignty Project aims for "complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government". September 14, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack UN Summit weblogsThe 2005 UN Summit in New York starts today, and openDemocracy is co-editing a daily newsletter together with the Stakeholder Forum. It's called Outreach. The first issue will be circulated to UN delegates and press tomorrow. I was inside the UN building today for the first time. Even the security guards (and there are many) were multinational. This afternoon was quiet, but so far the talk of the town is UN reform, the stale document that has been drafted for the Summit, and what George Bush will say later today. The streets surrounding the UN are full of secret security types in dark suits and NYC police. And if you walk far enough from the UN you might meet the occasional protester too. But overall, I'd say New York is underwhelmed. Here are a couple of blogs it's worth keeping an eye on throughout the Summit. * :::the:::mdgs::: September 14, 2005 in Un Summit 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Former Chinese leaders in the dock?Ever since the dramatic arrest of the former Chilean dictator Auguste Pinochet in London in 1998, at the behest of the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon, human rights advocates and victims of both torture and crimes against humanity have seen the Spanish courts as a possible place to look for judicial redress. If Spain is willing to take a stand on universal jurisdiction, then victims hope that they will find in Spain a justice denied to them at home. Such cases are argued on Article 23.4 of Spain's Fundamental Judicial Laws. This article recognises that Spain possesses the jurisdiction to pursue universal crimes beyond her frontiers, regardless of where these crimes are committed, or the nationality of either the victims or the perpetrators. September 13, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack Cricket and EmpireOn 21 July The Ashes series of 2005 has been
anticipated with far greater vigour than has been done for some time. For the
first time in 16 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
