In spite of the Bush Administrations attempts to keep up the appearance that the Iraqi Government welcomes the continued presence of US troops indefinitely, members of the Iraqi Parliament have made numerous attempts to assert the independence of Iraq.
Never has this been more obvious than in recent months where Iraqi leaders have made both public and written statements opposing the continued US presence in their country.

Iraqi’s themselves have long been opposed the presence of US troops, largely because they are seen as a destabilizing factor. According to a recent BBC/ABC poll, 69% of Iraqis believe that the security situation in Baghdad will improve or at least stay the same with the withdraw of US troops.
After the discovery of a secret plan to continue the US military presence in Iraq indefinitely, numerous Iraqi lawmakers have attempted, with little success, to make their wishes known to American lawmakers and the American public. Although the majority of corporate media sources refuse to give voice to the Iraqi’s themselves, the information can be found through alternative sources. For example, “On Tuesday, Democracy Now! spoke to visiting Iraqi lawmakers…in New York. Iraqi parliament member Khalaf Al-Ulayyan criticized the US proposals” stating,

“I believe the parliament will not ratify the treaty in its current form, because it harms Iraqi sovereignty. Based on the details that have been leaked to the media, it seems that the deal will make Iraq not just an occupied country but an actual part of the US.”

And, in a recent letter to the American Congress and Senate, Iraqi lawmakers pointed out that any deal signed solely by the Executive branch, would be both “unconstitutional and illegal” under the current rulings and laws of the Iraqi Republic. According to the Iraqi Constitution Article 61 Section Four, the Iraqi government’s legislative power retains exclusive rights to ratify international treaties and agreements.

Representing the majority of the two-hundred and seventy five members of the Iraqi Parliament, the letter goes on to state,

Likewise, we wish to inform you that the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment, or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanism that obligate the occupying military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq, in accordance with a declared timetable and with leaving behind any military bases, soldiers or hired fighters.

The Iraqi Council of Representatives is looking to ratify agreements that end every form of American intervention in Iraq’s internal affairs and restore Iraq’s independence and sovereignty over its land.

According to The Independent newspaper, in response to the resistance met by Iraqi lawmakers, United States negotiators “are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal…The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…” These funds continue to grow as the price of oil climbs, furthering the pressure on Iraqi Lawmakers to accept the deal. This hold on these funds also inhibits the ability of Iraq’s rebuilding efforts as these funds, which under the UN mandate, are specifically for the reconstruction of Iraq including “the wheat purchase program, the currency exchange program, the electricity and oil infrastructure programs, equipment for Iraqis security forces, and for Iraqi civil service salaries and ministry budget operations.”

As Americans continue to debate the continued military presence in Iraq, what seems to elude them is the absolute hypocrisy of claims made by the Bush Administration both in regards to Iraq’s sovereignty and “The War on Terror.” in which he claims, “The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.” Considering that Bush’s solution to terrorism is the establishment of a “free and self-governing Iraq” one would think this issue would be moot. Iraqi leaders and the Iraqi people have shown with little doubt they wish us to leave.

It leaves one to wonder, when will we listen?

…what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

~John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961

Close to two decades after this speech was made the concept of American self-sacrifice took hold in the form of a speech delivered by then president, Jimmy Carter. On April 18, 1977, Carter had an open and honest discussion with the American people about the ensuing energy crisis that would threaten our national security and well-being as a nation.

He warned us that in this century the energy crisis would likely get “progressively worse” and that, “we must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources.”

Over thirty years ago, this was the message from our President and what have we done as a nation? We have annually increased our oil consumption and dependence on foreign oil. In spite of Carter’s calls and efforts to wean Americans off Middle Eastern oil dependence, European nations began conservation efforts that surpassed those of the Carter Administration…and some countries like Brazil and Sweden have either completely weaned themselves from oil dependence or have offered bold proposals to do so, proposals that are sustainable and do not continue the patterns of environmental degradation of nuclear and “clean coal” technologies.

Regardless of these blaring mistakes, no politician to date has addressed this issue as substantively as Carter has. This is not a partisan issue; under the administration of Clinton, we saw an encouragement to use more fuel through the simple act of raising the speed limit.

In his speech, Carter set out clear and obtainable goals…

--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.
--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.
--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.
--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.
--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.
--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.
--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

…in reaching these goals, President Carter laid out ten principles guiding energy policy…most notable, are Carter’s fifth and sixth principle where he states,

Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

…and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The time has come for Americans to make small sacrifices in order to conserve; perhaps drive slower to work every day, take public transit or carpool once a week, buy food from local farmers, (in other words read the label of your food, was it produced in Mexico or China? Put it back!), buy your children’s clothing at a second hand store or look for that Made in America label, shop in small local businesses rather than shop online where your product is hand delivered using more fuel, reduce the amount of meat you eat, turn off the lights, take shorter showers, turn your refrigerator down, wash in cold water, buy energy efficient appliances, turn down your thermostat and put on a sweater, cook more using fresh fruits and veggies that do not require lots of unnecessary packaging, and if possible utilize alternative energy sources like solar power to power your home.

Certainly as Carter pointed out some thirty years ago, we as a nation will surely perish if we do not look to alternatives and conservation. Thirty years have been wasted in blood and national treasure and his promise, "Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977 -- never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980s..." has gone unrecognized and held in contempt by many, especially those in the oil industry.

This brings us back to the request from John F. Kennedy, the idea of personal sacrifice for the well-being of our country, and the world, where violence has now become the accepted means to secure energy resources. From Africa to the Middle East, people die and suffer needlessly in order to quench our bloody thirst for oil.

Think of it as the true test of the Western humanitarian impulse: The international effort that went into coordinating relief after the 2004 tsunami has to be repeated, but in much harsher, trickier, uglier political circumstances. Yes, we should help the Burmese, even against the will of their irrational leaders. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn't much time to ruminate about any of this.

~Anne Applebaum

The situation facing the Burmese and the Chinese in the face of natural disaster is in dire need of attention. Some reports and media outlets are offering figures as high as 125,000 dead and 2.4 million at risk due to starvation and disease. The numbers in Burma alone are staggering. In fact, the amount of suffering civilians has led lawmakers including President George Bush to respond swiftly.

In response to these combined natural disasters, the United States has come forward with close to 20 million dollars in aid and the international community has “responded by offering over 100 million”

It seems as if the United States and indeed the world at large has taken the advice of Applebaum. Swift action in the face of “irrational leaders” will save lives and reduce the suffering of victims.

Sadly, Western media outlets fail to compare this humanitarian crisis to the US created crisis taking place daily in the Middle East, namely in Iraq, where over 4 million have been displaced and are living in squalid conditions. This humanitarian crisis has been named the largest humanitarian and displacement crisis in the world, and goes on largely unnoticed.

In a recently released report published by Refugees International, (Uprooted and Unstable, 2008) “the needs of the displaced are not adequately addressed by the Government of Iraq or the international community.”

Indeed, when compared to the billions of dollars (most recently 165 billion) President George Bush requests from US taxpayers to pay for the continued military presence in Iraq annually, a mere 35 million in humanitarian aid was requested for the fiscal year 2008. The report goes on to note, “This vacuum is quickly being filled by militias and other armed groups, who engage in hearts and minds campaigns and provide assistance as a means of building support for their political and military goals.”

The Iraqi government fragmented and corrupt has done little to assist their own people in providing basic services and aid, according to Refugees International, “It is unable and unwilling to use its important resources to respond appropriately to the humanitarian crisis.” However, in sharp contrast, as reported by Democracy Now! the Iraqi government “has now become one of the largest purchasers of US arms” worldwide.

Yet, in spite of the dire humanitarian situation in Iraq, the continued hypocrisies and politicization of convenient crisis’s, and the obvious blunder of pushing Iraqi civilians towards militias and radical groups, Western media and politicians will continue to distract voters from the real issues underlying continued destabilization of Iraq…the deliberate denial of Iraq’s humanitarian crisis.

One can easily take the words of Applebaum and make them apply to Iraq, “Yes, we should help the Iraqis, even against the will of irrational leaders like George Bush. Yes, we should think hard about the right way to do it. And, yes, there isn't much time to ruminate about any of this.

You can do something…HERE

MEND-The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta

The oppressive and repressive activities of the oil companies and the Nigerian State [sic] impact women first and foremost. During military occupation of communities, the women suffer psychologically, emotionally, and physically. They are raped and maimed. They suffer as their sons get arrested and killed…and feel it most when their brothers, husbands and lovers are tortured maimed and killed. The military and armed police have brutalized and sacked whole communities, assaulting and beating indiscriminately. The objective is to humiliate, intimidate, and eliminate all those who resist oil exploitation activities.

~Emem J Okan

On November 10, 1995, a small group of ten human rights activists including Ken Saro-Wiwa was led to a prison yard to face punishment for their crimes. Ken Saro Wiwa was executed by hanging. The Nigerian military wanted to make an example of individuals who might consider further protest of the destruction of their land, the poisoning of their air and water, and the theft of their natural resources, namely oil.
In September of 1999, a group of journalists with the Essential Action and Global Exchange spent ten days in the Niger Delta meeting with community leaders, residents, and state and local officials. According to the report that subsequently followed released on January 5, 2000, “There is a long and terrible record of environmental destruction and human rights violations in the oil-producing regions of Nigeria. The gross level of environmental degradation caused by oil exploration and extraction in the Niger Delta has gone unchecked for the past 30 years.” However, in spite of the atrocities committed by the Nigerian government, Shell, and other multi-national companies, the murder of Wiwa, environmental degradation, and civil unrest caused by oil exploration and drilling went unnoticed by Western audiences. Stories of celebrity drama continue to hold the attention of the American people, even as they pay close to three-dollars and fifty cents for one gallon of gas.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, or MEND,
has claimed responsibility for several bombings that have taken place in recent weeks that have forced oil conglomerates to shut down operations and have removed close to 164,000 barrels of oil a day from world markets. According to a recent article in the Tehran Times, “The latest wave of attacks and an eight-day strike by senior oil workers at U.S. energy giant Exxon Mobil which ended on Thursday, had slashed Nigeria's output by 50 percent, helping to push oil prices to new records.”
In an electronic communication released this week, the group stated, "The MEND command is seriously considering a temporary ceasefire appeal by Senator Barack Obama. Obama is someone we respect and hold in high esteem,"
In sharp contrast and in spite of the pleas of organizations and authors like Emem J, Okan, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, and the Council of Ijaw Associations Abroad, the administration of Bill Clinton continued to allow the use of private military contractors in the Niger Delta. Regardless of the fact that the use of private military personal has become the focus of recent US attention, Mother Jones Magazine points out, "The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration.” Part of this escalation took place in the Niger Delta where companies like Shell and Chevron hired private military for ‘security’.
To further the power of multi-national corporations and military contractors, Clinton joined with these companies to overturn laws that allow states to use “selective purchasing” power. According to Corp Watch, “Selective-purchasing laws are designed to force companies to choose between continuing to do business with repressive foreign governments and bidding on often-lucrative state or local government contracts.”
Most recently in a press release dated February 2008, the Clinton campaign has said about military contractors in Iraq, “From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable… We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command,” However, prior to Clinton’s most recent statement and in spite of sitting on Armed Services Committee no legislation has been presented by Clinton. When questioned about this contradiction, Clinton claimed she did not know about this problem, “Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it.” This in spite of well-documented human rights abuses around the world by the very contractors who contribute regularly to her campaign.
Juxtaposed with Clinton rhetoric is bill S.674: Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Act of 2007, submitted by Barack Obama in February of 07. According to the Obama campaign website, the bill would “require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes. The act would clarify the legal status of contractors, subjecting them to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) to ensure that all contractors working in war zones – regardless of contracting agency would be held accountable under U.S. law. Passed in 2000, MEJA says that contractors for the armed forces can be prosecuted under US law for crimes committed overseas.”
The potential for the United States to regain the respect and admiration of the world is within our grasp. As some elder statesmen have pointed out, as long as the United States continues to build relationships with foreign nations whose records on the democratic process are abysmal, we will continue to pay the price. A price paid at the gas pump and in innocent blood.

Women's International Perspective hosted its first ever speaker panel on Friday April 4, 2008, at the Monterey Institute of International Study. The organization, barely one year old at the time of the event offers a woman's perspective of violence against women and children around the globe.

Joyce Laker, a human rights worker and women's advocate in Uganda shared her experiences about violence against women and children. Uganda, known for its child soldiers has been riddled with violence and conflict for decades. Forced to join the armed resistance of the Lord's Resistance Army, children as young as ten years old are often forced to kill their own parents first, to sometimes drink their blood or cannibalize their bodies, and then enter into a never ending cycle of violence.

As sociologist and scholar Riane Eisler points out, violence against women and children around the world is actually, "normal," and calls it, "the most ubiquitous human rights violation in the world." As evidenced by Joyce Laker's experience in Uganda, Riane Eisler's point carries great weight.

Joyce Laker shared alarming statistics representing reported sexual violence. Throughout Uganda, anywhere from 26 to 52 percent of the female population has experienced sexual violence. However, as Laker points out, these numbers are likely not accurate as the reporting and investigation of a rape for women is costly and tedious at its best, and further degrading at its worst. Women are forced to pay police to conduct the investigations at the rates of 3.00 for the police to come and take the report, 10.00 to provide transportation for the police to come take the report and 20.00 to provide transportation for the perpetrator to the police station.

These human rights violations and atrocities are rarely, if ever reported in United States mainstream media and do not gain the attention they deserve. As American media outlets and politicians continue to ignore developments in Africa, the Bush Administration has dramatically ramped up the militarization of the continent since 2002, flushing the area with over $130 million dollars in military sales, financing, and training expenditures for what the US considers strategic for the "war on terror."

However, as the think tank Foreign Policy In Focus rightly queries, the fundamental question for many is whether the US will utilize this increased military presence to support freedom, self determination, growth, prosperity, and accountability on behalf of the majority of nearly one billion people in Africa or if this new initiative will instead serve to oversee surrogate nations whose leadership is accountable first to U.S security and economic interest. (Gerald Le Melle, "Africa Policy Outlook 2008," (Waahsington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, February 7, 2008).

Under the Bush administration, AFRICOM's (Africa Command) structure would "place humanitarian work previously done by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development under the directive of the Department of Defense." (Le Melle 2008) As evidenced by circumstances on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous countries around the globe, US interests rarely coincide with human rights, the sickness of the global society in regards to the rights of women and children around the globe should determine which countries the US does and does not call an ally.

As Le Melle points out in the Africa Policy Outlook conclusion, "Despite being the most stretched out campaign in American history, the 2008 presidential election is marked by the typical absence of any serious discussion of Africa. It is as if Africa has already been ceded to the Department of Defense and therefore out of the view of the American public. In contrast with the accelerating militarization of the U.S Africa relations described above, this silence is deafening."