Reinvent Democracy by Creating Three Dimensional 3D Democracy

Archive for January 3, 2016

Algerian President Bouteflika Convicted of Theft in 1983

Algerian President Bouteflika

Algerian President Bouteflika

After independence in 1962, Abdelaziz Bouteflika became deputy of Tlemcen in the Constituent Assembly and Minister for Youth and Sport in the government led by Ahmed Ben Bella; the following year, he was appointed as Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was later a prime mover in the military coup led by Houari Boumédienne that overthrew Ben Bella on 19 June 1965. Bouteflika continued as Minister for Foreign Affairs until the death of President Boumédienne in 1978.

In 1981, he was sued for having stolen Algerian embassies money between 1965 and 1979. On 8 August 1983, Bouteflika was convicted by The Court of Financial Auditors and found guilty of having fraudulently taken 60 million dinars during his diplomatic career.

In his defence Bouteflika said that he reserved that money to build a new building for the foreign affairs ministry, the court judged his argument as fallacious. In 1979, just after the death of Boumédiène, Bouteflika reimbursed 12,212,875.81 dinars out of the 70 million dinars that was deposited in a Swiss bank. Although Bouteflika was granted amnesty by the president Chadli Bendjedid, his colleagues Senouci and Boudjakdji were jailed.

After the amnesty, Bouteflika was given back his diplomatic passport, a villa where he used to live but did not own and all his debt was erased. He never paid back the money “he reserved for a new foreign affairs ministry’s building”.

The In-Security Council – Dump It or Grow It?

UN in-Security Council

UN in-Security Council

…the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small…::Preamble, Charter of the United Nations, 1945 ::

Written by: Chithra KarunaKaran

A core principle of the United Nations Charter is One Member One Vote. This is not an explicit statement within the Charter. Significantly, the Charter goes even further. The Charter states that the UN was established to secure “the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.” It places the rights of men and women before the rights of states. That’s you and me and six billion-plus others. The rights of individuals are co-equal with and precede the rights of states. What a glorious (and yet to be realized) ideal. But it will not happen unless We the People do something about the UN Security Council. The question is — What? Dump it, scrap it, change it or grow it?

As events have shown, the Security Council has become dangerously obsolete, representing the whim, greed and political fundamentalism of one hyper-power.

On March 10, at a press conference at UN headquarters, a million-plus petitions signed by people from all over the world were presented to the Security Council. The petitions had been generated through a massive online campaign by anti-war groups, protesting the US govt.’s decision to go to war against the people of Iraq. What did the UN do? Not a peep about it from Kofi Annan, not even in his generally timid “off the cuff” statements featured daily on the UN website. No prior announcement about the event was made by the UN Secretariat, though they were aware that the petitions would be delivered in 12 boxes to Security Council members. It was as if the event never occurred. So, is the UN Charter just a piece of paper to be stored on a musty shelf, or is it supposed to safeguard the “rights of men and women and of nations, large and small” to discursive, negotiated settlement of disputes? Talk is cheap, cheaper than war.

Unequal Membership

All member states of the 191-member body are stated to be equal. Each member state supposedly has one vote and one vote only. The Security operates on the non-principle of One Member Two Votes. The stated principle of equality of membership is breached and flouted by the structure, processes and exclusive (not to mention, exclusionary) membership of the United Nations Security Council. The UN Security Council is the only UN body that has permanent members (Article 23). All other UN bodies have general or rotating memberships.

The Security Council is the only body that can “adopt its own rules of procedure,” (Article 30) unfettered by The UN General Assembly. Under the United Nations Charter, therefore, inequality of membership is guaranteed, implemented and enforced by the Security Council. In Orwellian terms, all member states are equal but some member states are more equal than others. But, hey, it’s not 1984 anymore, it’s 2003. Time for a change? Time for a change that will guarantee the equality of all member states. While the media and the policy wonks in the dominant states are concerned about the lack of unity at this time in the Security Council, others are questioning whether the Security Council should be taken apart and retired. Are We the People more secure because of the Security Council? Or have we become more insecure, because of the Security Council?

Postcolonial Membership Structure

So the question du jour that subservient member-states (and that includes every member who is not permanently on the Security Council) should be asking is Should the United Nations Security Council be dismantled and repaired? Or scrapped and dumped? Subservient member states include large global players like India; small island states and previous colonial dependencies such as Mauritius; AIDS-ravaged new democracies like South Africa; poor landlocked states dependent on the goodwill of their neighbors like Nepal; or dominated regions with little hope of religious freedom, right of return of its tens of thousands of refugees and sovereignty, like Tibet.

India is the world’s largest democracy. It is a democracy that has struggled out of colonialism and painful subservience to colonial interests. Therefore it has a perspective that is diametrically opposite to that of the colonizing and neo-imperial powers. Perhaps India should not be seeking expansion of the Security Council, as it is doing now, so that it too can become a member. India’s membership, if it happens, will make Pakistan and other South Asian nations feel more insecure. That will not be a good thing. Building bonds between blood-related neighbors and historically enmeshed partners is more important than Security Council membership. Dismantling the Security Council is certain to strengthen the General Assembly. Maybe India, in the spirit of 21st century understanding of the paramount importance of human rights, post-capitalist democracy, freedom and equality of participation should not be seeking expansion of the Security Council but dissolution of the Security Council. Maybe it is almost time to dismantle the Security Council as a dangerously obsolete, ineffectual, humiliating emblem of nineteenth and twentieth century dominant power relations. Maybe India, Norway, Pakistan, Mauritius, Sweden, Iran, Brazil, Sri Lanka and historically diverse others can help move the UN into the 21st century with political equality of all member states, at every level of operation of the UN. Article 109 can be invoked to amend the UN Charter. However, all five permanent members of the Security Council would have to agree. Talk about double jeopardy “for the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small.”

Members of the Security Council, (the only ones that really matter are the five permanent members), the Big Five, exercise more political and economic power than any other body within the United Nations. This cannot be claimed to be a natural outcome of the historical development of the Security Council, but the explicit intent of the original superpowers. Inequality of membership was the demand of the original framers of the United Nations Charter, all of them colonial powers and one emerging power of that time, the US. However, the US was a worthy candidate for dominant and exclusionary membership. The US had already practiced slavery for 100-plus years and was therefore well equipped to develop its capability to become a neo-imperial power, exerting dominance over new member states which included those from which it had previously drawn free labor. It is comfortable with sharing power with the colonizing powers, all white and all European. China’s later inclusion in 1949, (with India deferring its claim of membership to China), merely underlines the importance of size and potential economic power as a basis for strengthening the inequality of membership. Again, the fragmenting of the USSR and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc in 1989, has not knocked Russia out of contention for continued membership. The politics of dominance is therefore key to membership in the Security Council. Not equality of membership but dominance in membership.

Acquiescence to the non-principle of inequality of membership was demonstrated by those colonized member states including India who were founding co-signers of the United Nations Charter. The postcolonial states, recently independent in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, accepted the non-principle of inequality of membership, carrying on the colonial tradition of political subservience to their previous masters, now sitting as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

To borrow from sociologists Max Weber and C. Wright Mills, the collusion of elites characterizes many bureaucratic institutions. In the case of the UN we have a collusion of male-dominant, wealthy national elites. A phallocracy, a bureaucracy and now increasingly a corporatocracy. And the UN Security Council represents the crème de la crème of the elites of each of the five permanent member states, joining in mutual recognition of their shared elite power, status and privilege.

The United Nations is of course a global, inter-govermental bureaucracy, with salient and classic features of hierarchical, top-down authority, bottom-up accountability, written rules, written communications and written records (most recently, Resolution 1441), continual expansion, division and departmentalization of tasks within agencies and committee structures. But the power equation is its most salient feature. The Security Council is in fact explicitly constituted to exercise unequal global power, status and privilege, through its Charter-guaranteed position at the apex of the UN bureaucracy. The Security Council is the elite of global elites. It is the problem not the solution. It compromises the UN General Assembly.

Are We Secure With The Security Council?

What has the Security Council accomplished? Has the Security Council accomplished security for the world at large? The Security Council has a sorry record of lack of accomplishment. It established the State of Israel in 1948, in violation of its own Preamble and unleashed seventy-five years of disenfranchisement of the indigenous Palestinian people. It presided over and literally authorized Palestinian disenfranchisement. The US continues to arm Israel and the Security Council can’t do a thing about it. The Security Council proved unable to overturn apartheid in South Africa. It failed to prevent the expulsion of Indians from Uganda by Idi Amin. It was unwilling to prevent Britain from going to war to claim the Falklands Islands. The UN Security Council was unable (unwilling?) to anticipate, prevent or intercede in the bloody ethnic strife between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, and in the continuing genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia was emptied of its indigenous population, the Ilios, who were shunted off to neighboring Mauritius, so that the island could serve as a military base for joint use by the Britain and the US. Diego Garcia is currently serving the strategic interests of the US and the UK as a naval base for operations against states in the Middle East, Afghanistan and South Asia. And now the UN has failed to avert war by a hyper-dominant member state against the people of Iraq. In each of these instances, the individual and combined interests of the five member states outweighed the interests of the 191-strong UN community of member states. The universal and greater common good is not, and cannot be expected to be the prime consideration of a small elite of states holding dominant power in the Security Council. That power has become even more concentrated with the US becoming the dominant member of the UN Security Council, supported by the post-imperial politics of the erstwhile dominant world power, the UK. This blatant concentration of power to the exclusion of all others, makes the active pursuit of a universal and greater common good by the UN, and particularly the Security Council virtually impossible.

Apparently WE the People must change the UN and particularly its Security Council.

When will the Security Council act to guarantee the guarantee the “equal rights of men and men and of nations, large and small.?” Never? The UN appears too cumbersome, too compromised and too preoccupied with its own survival as a burgeoning bureaucracy to undertake its own reform on behalf of We the People. It will again be up to those million-plus petitioners, who swamped the UN with signatures asking the Security Council to act on behalf of a negotiated peace. Their request was futile this time. Better luck next time.

The writer is a professor and journalist. She contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from New York, USA.

Source: by courtesy & © 2003 Chithra KarunaKaran

   Copyright © 2003 Media Monitors Network. All rights reserved.  
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

Pears of Wisdom

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

– Samuel P. Huntington

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

Sudan Technology Innovation Center (STIC)

This is a proposal to create a sustainable non-governmental organization
To act as:
1- Incubators for new technologies and inventions;
2- Workshops for formulating technological solutions.
To provide the following:
1- Technical assistance;
2- Research information;
3- Administrative support;
4- Legal protection;
5- Financial loans;
6- Promotion & marketing;
7- Governmental coordination;
8- Site & logistics.

Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right

Next European Imperialism

Next European Imperialism

Jean Bricmont’s concept “humanitarian imperialism” succinctly captures a dilemma that has faced Western leaders and the Western intellectual community since the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the origins of the Cold War, there was a reflexive justification for every resort to force and terror, subversion and economic strangulation: the acts were undertaken in defense against what John F. Kennedy called “the monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” based in the Kremlin (or sometimes in Beijing), a force of unmitigated evil dedicated to extending its brutal sway over the entire world. The formula covered just about every imaginable case of intervention, no matter what the facts might be. But with the Soviet Union gone, either the policies would have to change, or new justifications would have to be devised. It became clear very quickly which course would be followed, casting new light on what had come before, and on the institutional basis of policy

Source: Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right

Western Guide on How to make a Dirty but pretty Revolution

الدليل الغربي عن طريقة صنع ثورة قذرة ولكن جميلة

Gene Sharp, The 83 Year Old Who Toppled Egypt

Pamphlet Guide to Revolution in Egypt How to Protest Intelligently

Western Guide on How to make a Dirty but pretty Revolution

Gene Sharp and the Theory of Soft and Undercover Coups d’États

thawra2011_lo_01 thawra2011_lo_02 thawra2011_lo_03 thawra2011_lo_04 thawra2011_lo_05 thawra2011_lo_06 thawra2011_lo_07 thawra2011_lo_08 thawra2011_lo_09 thawra2011_lo_10 thawra2011_lo_11 thawra2011_lo_12 thawra2011_lo_13 thawra2011_lo_14 thawra2011_lo_15 thawra2011_lo_16 thawra2011_lo_17 thawra2011_lo_18 thawra2011_lo_19 thawra2011_lo_20 thawra2011_lo_21 thawra2011_lo_22 thawra2011_lo_23 thawra2011_lo_24 thawra2011_lo_25 thawra2011_lo_26

Damage Assessment of Israel’s ‘Clean Break’ Plan

Damage Assessment of Israel’s 'Clean Break' Plan

Damage Assessment of Israel’s ‘Clean Break’ Plan

Neocon Middle East Policy: The ‘Clean Break’ Plan Damage Assessment” is a 112 pages book, Written by Adam Shapiro and E. Faye Williams ; Published by : Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, Inc. (IRmep) (March 1, 2005)

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is a definitive Middle East strategy authored and implemented by operatives in the highest levels of the US government. There is just one problem. The plan was a strategy for Israel, not the United States of America.

The book reviews strategies and consequences of the “Clean Break” plan authored by Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith in 1996. It analyzes the core assumptions of the policy, cost of tactics that have already been implemented and discusses the likelihood others will be executed in the future.

Neocon Middle East Policy then turns to the most difficult questions of all, “Can a policy crafted for a foreign government and presented to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu serve as a blueprint for US regional policy? At what cost in credibility, blood, treasure and American integrity? At what cost to Israel?” Neocon Middle East Policy is a must-read for anyone concerned about the convergence of US and Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East.
Contributors: Adam Shapiro, Dr. E. Faye Williams, Khaled Dawoud, Mohammed Kaddam. Edited by Grant F. Smith, Publication Date: April, 2005 ISBN # 0-9764437-3-2 Cover Price $9.95 Shipping Weight 9 Ounces, Paperback: 112 pages, Publisher: Institute for Research (March 1, 2005), ISBN-10: 0976443732, ISBN-13: 978-0976443735

IT SAYS:
The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) Policy Initiatives (Source: Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, IRMEP 2003)
Increase U.S. Congressional Support
1. “Electrify and find support” of key U.S. congressional members
2. Strategic cooperation with U.S. on missile defense
3. Gain more support among members of Congress with little knowledge of Israel
4. Harness support to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv
5. Identify Israel with the U.S. and “western values”
6. Utilize Cold War rhetoric to make Israel’s case to the American people
“Peace for Peace” Palestinian Solution
1. Eliminate movements toward a “comprehensive peace” and substitute with the “Peace for Peace” strategy
2. Stress “balance of power” as sole test of legitimacy, enforce agreements
3. Nurture alternatives to Arafat
4. Seek legitimization of “hot pursuit” of Palestinian militants
5. Eliminate “land for peace” concept, use negotiations only as a forum for communicating resolve
6. Establish a joint monitoring committee with the U.S. for measuring Palestinian compliance
7. Withhold U.S. aid to Palestinians
8. Promote Human Rights among Arabs to isolate Palestinians in Arab Constituencies
9. Legitimize 2000 year old historical land claim
10. Foment Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for peace
Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers
1. Challenge Arab countries as “police states” lacking in legitimacy.
2. Fortify regional alliances. Work with Turkey and Jordan to insert hostile Arab tribes into Syria
Syria
1. Publicly question Syrian legitimacy, assume treaties with Damascus are in bad faith
2. Contain Syria, strike select targets
3. Reject “land for peace” concept on the Golan Heights
Iraq
1. Install a Hashemite monarchy in Iraq
2. Isolate and surround Syria with a friendly regime in Iraq
Lebanon
1. Engage Syria, Iran and Iraq in Lebanon
2. “Wean” Lebanese Shiites from Iraq toward Jordan
Economic Reform
1. Eliminate Social Zionism from the economy.
2. Reform the overall economy, cut taxes
3. Show maturity and economic self reliance from the United States
4. Eliminate need for defense by U.S. military forces
5. Remove U.S. aid leverage over Israel
6. Relegislate a free trade zone, sell off public lands and enterprises
Zionism
1. Rebuild Zionism, rejuvenate the national ideal
2. “Shape the regional environment” in favor of Israel, “transcend foes” rather than contain them
3. Pre-emption as the preferred national defense strategy
Although ACB readers can identify nearly 34 distinct and actionable goals eloquently stated within the document, they may be summarized in five overarching policy goals:
1. Increase U.S. Congressional Support
2. “Peace for Peace” Palestinian Strategy
3. Contain, Destabilize, and Roll Back Regional Challengers
4. Economic Reform
5. Rejuvenation of Zionism

In this paper, we evaluate the level of implementation of these five summary goals, and their effect on the interests of the United States. However, no set of policies ever come to fruition without an active and vocal distribution and implementation network. ACB’s legions of American shock troops are many. At its core, key operatives working within the Bush Administration (called the Neocons), policy research “think tanks”, specialty press, and opinion columns have achieved amazing success at seasoning and baking ACB policy agenda items into a tenuous mold as “vital interests” of the United States itself.
The need for “crime scene” levels of evidence linking ACB followers’ complicity in the actions of the U.S. Government at Israel’s behest is unnecessary. Many U.S. actions are simply so inexplicable that consideration of their chief benefactor, Israel, is the only reasonable explanation. And as Americans dismiss Arab government charges that Israel is attacking them by proxy across the region, the evidence shows that the Arabs are correct. “A Clean Break” is, at heart, an Israeli proclamation of “Dirty War”.

Read the full Executive Summary of Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., on The Israeli policy paper “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (ACB) at this link