UN to renew Darfur peacekeeping mandate

A UN Security Council resolution to redouble efforts to end a 5-year humanitarian disaster in Darfur is set for a vote today. The resolution will include wording that reiterates the AU's concerns that the recent ICC move to indict the Sudanese president has the potential of derailing the peace process. It also secures readiness by the Council to discuss suspending the indictment in the interest of peace. Sudan's UN Ambassador finds the resolution acceptable. The ICC recent move was referenced as a condition of renewing the mandate by nearly half of the Security Council. The resolution also expresses the Security Council's "deep concern for the decreasing security of humanitarian personnel." The resolution demands an end to civilian attacks. Out of a planned 26,000 troops, only 9,500 troops and police have been deployed. This has been due to Khartoum's insistence that the peacekeepers be Africans. Equipment and helicopters are still urgently needed. The resolution calls on UN member states to fill this need. The target date for full deployment by the UN is unknown, however the UN hopes to have be 80% of the way there by the end of the year. The resolution is a crucial step toward making UNAMID functional.

Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the United Nations Secretary-General and UN Webcast TV Video

With international concern being focused on what is going on in Darfur since the ICC call to indict the Sudanese President, UNAMID has reported that there have been 33 confidence-building patrols, five night patrols, and continued escorts of humanitarian assistance. UNAMID's General Agwai has called for an investigation into the bombings in North Darfur. UNAMID reported a robbery of the Medicine Sans Frontiers clinic where $9,000 were stolen. They reported the blockage of an escort convoy operation over the weekend. As far as sharing the Secretary General's stance on the UNAMID force, Spokeswoman Michele Montas said that Ban Ki Moon has been "deeply disappointed" in the force and that he has acknowledged that deployment has fallen far behind schedule.

The Security Counil discussed the draft resolution yesterday and is expected to vote on it today.

UN split over Darfur peace force

The UN Security Council has been deep in discussions about extending the mandate of a joint African Union-UN mission to Darfur, which expires today. South Africa and Libya want to include language in the mandate regarding the delay of ICC charges against the Sudanese President. Russia and China also want to delay the moves against Bashir. EU countries see little change in the behavior of Khartoum. The Sudanese Ambassador to the UN, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem has said that the politically motivated decision by Ocampo is unfair, unjust and an affront to Africa. He has said that Sudan is being unfairly singled out by Ocampo. Finally, he has called Ocampo, "a screwdriver in the workshop of double standards."

Sudanese court sentences 8 to death over Darfur rebel attack

Eight members of the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) were handed death sentences after being found guilty of counterterrorism. They were sentenced to hang. Judge Muntasim Mohamed Saleh presided at the special court in Khartoum North. In response to the May 10th attacks on Omdurman and Khartoum, Sudan set up four special courts to try those suspected of the attack. Defense attorneys have claimed that the special courts are unconstitutional and lack guarantees for their clients' legal rights. Kamal Omar, one of the defense attorneys, has called the courts "political" and "not independent." Appeals are expected. JEM members hail from the tribes that have been under attack - the Masalit, Fur and Zaghawa. Bashir has granted amnesty to 89 juveniles who were arrested following the attacks.

ICC Sudan decision disruptive to peace -China paper

As was expected, China's top official newspaper printed that the ICC indictment of Bashir could disrupt the peace process. The People's Daily stated that the Darfur crisis "has not been caused single-handedly by a certain leader, but by the joint force of various political, economic, cultural and environmental factors over a long period of time." They also stated that the indictment added uncertainty to the peace process. The commentary predicts that this could push the Sudan government in the opposite direction of finding a resolution for the conflict through consultations. They predict also that it could cause rebel groups to take a tougher and more non-compromising stance. It concluded that attempts to disrupt or block the peace process should be avoided by the international society.

From My Perspective

When Uganda was faced with ICC indictments of its leaders, the Uganda government still was ready to hold talks with the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). Since the LRA showed its intention for peace, government representatives expressed that it wasn't the international community's problem, especially not The Hague's. This strengthened nationalism. Some analysts saw the moves in Uganda by the ICC as a pursuit of political gain, not with the intent to gain peace for the people caught in the war. The ICC came under intense scrutiny for its Ugandan approach to justice. As some have noted, and I agree with, although justice and peace can be complimentary, believing their reciprocal correlation can also be misleading.

Consider how justice is pursued. It's a lot of finger-pointing. In a complex situation where many parties are part of the reality of a conflict, in the end more time is spent gathering evidence about someone's guilt than addressing the grievances among the parties and reaching consensus to improve the quality of life of those suffering. It's righteous to pursue justice, but how do the victims in Darfur feel closure for the cruel and unusual aspects of war that they have had to endure while prosecutors spend their days putting their cases together to put away suspects who have been rounded up for prosecution? Where does the peace deal fit in?

No doubt these are difficult issues, and in the Uganda case it appears that the result of the ICC's investigation was increased international support for the peace talks.

Amnesty is a reality of conflict resolution in many international conflicts. In South Africa, leaders were given amnesty as part of the truth and reconciliation process so that they might end apartheid. As long as they disclosed their politically motivated crimes, this allowed South Africa to move toward a post-conflict society.

In the ICTJ's assessment mission to Mozambique, the ICTJ found that victims made comments about some of the worst offenders being the victims themselves for having been abducted and forced to kill. Many found that their priority was family and community healing, not becoming witnesses in criminal cases. According to the ICTJ, the use of transitional justice tools in Mozambique have gone largely overlooked. Why? The international community did not see efforts by communities and churches to launch projects to heal and reintegrate as part of a national program.

Peace processes are fragile, and if one interest group continually supersedes the interests of another, it will not lead to a peaceful solution. There needs to be an understanding of the interests and motivations of the parties to the conflict and also implementation of previous agreements. Not an ongoing debate on starting from scratch in terms of reaching some sort of resolution. Why isn't the international community trying to come to a deal with the rebels and the Sudanese government? China was pressured to do so and has shown that it has taken steps in doing so. Many people who have been affected by war outside of the West are not motivated by seeking accountability or prosecution. Instead, they seek a process that allows them to express their remorse, their grievances and seek forgiveness and formal apologies. To them, incarceration is not usually a high priority. Often, prosecutions prolong the conflict and continue the suffering for those who have had enough. People need to heal. They need closure not to see images of war that they have experienced in all the media around them as the international community puts justice above victims' rights to not live in fear or in a hostile oppressive environment.

Gypsy Caravan (my first review for The WIP!) is coming out on DVD next month. One of its stars is also on tour; here's a very interesting article on Queen Harish. I can't wait to see the film again!

Today's New York Times covers this year's BlogHer conference in its Fashion and Style pages, a blatantly sexist effort to contribute to the nearly universal attack on women by the US dominated corporate media. The report states that though fifty percent of bloggers are women, they have mostly failed to succeed financially and that women political bloggers are not taken seriously by their male counterparts and by major media. A primary reason offered for these failures is that:

"women are taught not to be aggressive and analytical in the way that the political blogosphere demands, and are more likely to receive blog comments on how they look, rather than what they say."

I contrast this egregious propaganda effort by the US corporate media's most prestigious organ with coverage of last year's BlogHer conference on these pages.

I also note an article by Chris Hedges from Truthdig in June after the death of entertainer/regime propagandist Tim Russert:

"We were repeatedly told by these television courtiers, people like Tom Brokaw and Wolf Blitzer, that this talk show host was one of our nation’s greatest journalists, as if sitting in a studio, putting on makeup and chatting with Dick Cheney or George W. Bush have much to do with journalism.

"No journalist makes $5 million a year. No journalist has a comfortable, cozy relationship with the powerful. No journalist believes that acting as a conduit, or a stenographer, for the powerful is a primary part of his or her calling. Those in power fear and dislike real journalists. Ask Seymour Hersh and Amy Goodman how often Bush or Cheney has invited them to dinner at the White House or offered them an interview."

Though some reporters for the Times are true journalists, the paper as a whole is part of the corporate media that are aiding the Bush regime and its backers to effect an authoritarian agenda of suppression of women, minorities, "undesirables" of all sorts and truth. A primary tool of this suppresion, used on the anti-war movement for example, is to trivialize and discount, as in this report on the BlogHer conference.

Thank you to the WIP for continuing to offer an alternative to male dominated propaganda masquerading as journalism.
Thank you to the courageous editors who persevere in spite of financial challenges and the policy of discounting work such as you do. Your results are invaluable.

Arab Analyst Says ICC Strengthened Bashir, Worsened “Victims’ Tragedy”

Al-Hayat, a London-based newspaper published on Monday this commentary by a regular contributor, Abdallah Iskandar. His main points deserve attention. One of those points is that the regional organizations, especially the AU and the Arab League, will not easily support indictments for fear of this being a precedent for other member’s nations in terms of their human rights and good governance track records. Another important point is that Bashir’s regime’s tight grip on the country isn’t something to be dismissed. ICC Prosecutor General Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s use of pressuring Khartoum does nothing to weaken Bashir and it leaves the victims in Darfur more vulnerable as international organizations head out for fear of being caught in the cross-fire. Finally, rebels and those who oppose Bashir have gotten the wrong message. The rebels will see any gestures or actions toward internal peace negotiations questionable with the international pressure to pursue his indictment. As Iskandar mentions, this could lead to more armed conflicts.

Russia: UN may want to suspend ICC action on Bashir

Russia has recognized the AU’s appeal to the Security Council to put on hold the ICC decision to accept the court’s chief prosecutor’s call for an indictment. Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin told reporters that the Security Council should be attentive to the appeals. He has also stated that Russia should not be the one initiating the suspension process. However, he did point out that there is “a lot at stake in terms of peacekeeping in eastern Africa, and in terms of the future of Sudan.”
Russia is not a party to the ICC. Neither are the US or China. To clarify what Article 16 of the ICC statute states, basically it states that the Security Council can pass a resolution suspending ICC investigations or prosecutions for a one year.

Adadas and Moussa Discuss Cooperation and Peace in Darfur

Last week, an emergency meeting of Arab Foreign Ministers in Cairo on the issues of cooperation between the AU and UN was held. This week, AU-UN Joint Special Representative for Darfur, Rodolphe Adada, met with Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa. Previously, Moussa had consulted with Al Bashir and top Sudanese officials regarding an Arab League initiative to resolve the current crisis after the recent ICC charges against Bashir. The result of the meeting was conveyed by Adada, who told reporters that the Mission is determined to lend all support to the new Chief Mediator for Darfur, Djibril Bassole. He reassured Moussa that the AU-UN Joint mission will be carried out in Darfur and that protection will be offered to the civilian population on an ongoing basis. The two also discussed the new troops that will be sent in by the end of the month to strengthen UNAMID efforts. The recent indictment by the ICC is totally separate from the mandates of UNAMID.

Sudan to Set Up Darfur Human Rights Abuse Courts – Arab League

In response to recent calls by the ICC to have Bashir charged with war crimes, Sudan has agreed to set up special courts to try alleged human rights abuses in Darfur. UN and Arab League officials will monitor the special courts.

From my Perspective

Although the international community continues to cry foul about the human rights issues and good governance issues in Sudan, the international community misses an opportunity to use transitional justice solutions other than criminal prosecutions that involve commissions, security reform, dialogue, and building incentives toward reconciliation. Efforts should complement one another. Creating alarming signals to rebel groups doesn’t this purpose. An approach must foster reconciliation between warring parties and still address the violations in such a way that improves the society in Sudan and doesn’t put innocent victims at greater risk. Equally, the international community’s efforts toward helping the victims in Darfur will be more readily met by working with the local justice measures within Sudan. Each society chooses its own path. Although there is a fundamental belief that hate crimes against any one group of people cannot be condoned, we must learn from past interventions and avoid repeating avoidable mistakes to be more effective.

UN to withdraw non-critical staff from Darfur

On Monday, Sudanese President Bashir was formally charged at the ICC at
the Hague with genocide and crimes against humanity. Reprisals on the UN
are looming after the indictment of Sudanese President Bashir. Attacks
have occurred, including one last week by Sudanese militias on a team of UN
blue helmets. Seven peacekeepers were dead.

It is expected that there will be violent reactions to the indictment of
Bashir, as he has a lot of support among his country’s majority Arab
population. The national Congress Party warned of more violence and
bloodshed. The anger is being directed at the UN. Secretary General Ban
Ki-Moon has stated that the ICC made their decision independently and that
the UN must respect the independence of the judicial process. Critical UN
personnel in humanitarian and peacekeeping roles will stay.

China in a deep dilemma as Sudan’s Bashir faces charges

Beijing’s interests in Sudan are putting China in a dilemma. China has key energy and political stakes in Sudan. They also have an interest in helping Darfur in its peace efforts. The sudden announcement by the ICC prosecutor has interrupted China in its efforts. As of Tuesday, China has not responded to ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s announcement of charges. There are consequences. He Wenping, an African expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, says, “China’s peacekeepers will be threatened, this will impede China’s space to mediate over Darfur and encourage dialogue between Sudan and the West.” A few experts have speculated on how China may respond. I agree with Shi Yinhong, an international security expert at Renmin University in Beijing that Beijing will call Ocampo’s decision to target Bashir unwise, weigh reactions of other major players and will not lead any opposition.

Protest against ICC forces UN staff to stay at home

UN has urged hundreds of staff to stay at home on Tuesday as more protestors demonstrate. Pro-government and those who typically oppose Bashir are backing him against The Hague-based ICC. There have been no senior officials in attendance.

However, Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Mohamed Taha has called the ICC move “irresponsible, illegal and unprofessional.” He believes it is a good way to prevent Sudan from being a normal member of the international community.

The AU’s reaction is that it is a display of African officials being targeted and therefore unacceptable.

Wade wants Darfur probe halted

International leaders have begun to voice their concerns about the recent charges pressed against Bashir. Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade has asked that the ICC freeze its Darfur investigation for a year in response to the response within Sudan. He has stated that if the prosecution continues, the situation will worsen and plunge into chaos. Judges will decide in the next few months about the arrest warrant for Bashir.

From my perspective:

The move by the ICC has the potential of strengthening the Islamic movement and increasing violence in the region. This is counterproductive to efforts in the regions to maintain peace and security. It has the potential of jeopardizing UN and international efforts in Sudan and destabilizing relations. The international community has been reaching out to Darfur and has been trying to foster discussions between the warring rebel groups and the government. The ICC has not been successful in enforcing international law in Sudan in the past. It seems that once again the people who will be most affected by this move were not considered and that the conflict has been trivialized and oversimplified. The importance of reaching a peaceful solution rather than impose the priority of legal action has been sidestepped. This action can polarize the region. The protests are good indicators of the division that this action will take rather than increasing efforts toward bridging the divides between conflicting parties.

“Flying Close to the Sun,” is a memoir by Cathy Wilkerson, who was a political protestor and a member of the Weathermen during the late 1960s-early 1970s. I was immediately drawn in by her story, which seemed suddenly very appropriate to bear in mind after the intense and failed political campaign by Hillary Clinton this spring. The endless barrage of articles and blogs pointing out the sexism used by or made towards Clinton and her campaign put gender issues right up to the front lines again and so it seems like a good time to think back forty years ago to the efforts, success, and failures made by so many women.

As a brief synopsis of the book, Wilkerson was born in 1945 and raised in an upper-middle class family in New England. She blossomed during the mid-late 1960s, finding her place among student protestors and political engagement, starting with the Student Democratic Society. But soon her political stance developed further into revolutionary ideology, and she became a member of the Weathermen—and then the Weather Underground, which used violent means for conveying their message. During this era Wilkerson also participated in the development of the feminist movement. She tried to balance her identification with women’s struggles while trying to see the bigger political picture of government coercion and war. It wasn’t easy. The Weathermen and SDS were notoriously macho groups. She sited numerous cases in which men in these liberal movements blatantly blocked women’s opinions and insulted their efforts at building the feminist movement.

Wilkerson’s memoir is not a glorification of the past, but an honest reflection of the era and her choices, as if she is still making sense of all the madness of that time. Despite the clear advancements, women are still caught in the proverbial Catch-22. Women are still subjected to intense scrutiny and obstacles that are put into place by men who have held the reins of political power. Clinton was subjected to all sorts of inappropriate and non-relevant criticism from her choice of pantsuit, to her “frigidity,” to her relationship with her husband. Following her defeat some critics sought to do a mea culpa by pointing out this unfairness…too little too late. The damage was done. We are such an image-conscious society and once the image has been tainted-there is no going back. Having passed thru 2nd wave feminism and moved into the 3rd if not the 4th wave, full of the growing complexities that make up this world, I find it shocking the backlash that so many women felt and the anger and aversion towards someone like Clinton. At times it felt as if they were afraid to identify with her. As Gloria Steinem stated in The New York Times, January 8, 2008 article “Women are Never Frontrunners:” “… what worries me is that he (Obama) is seen as unifying by his race while she (Clinton) is seen as divisive by her sex.”

As a woman born in the early 1970s and therefore a direct recipient of the effects of 2nd wave feminism, I am regularly inspired by the risks these women took for the Cause. It’s hard to imagine the efforts and sacrifices that these women made. Yes, we still make sacrifices today-but the scale is different. Our choices are more our own and so when I see women tearing apart other women about their choices, lifestyle or choice of pantsuit, it is frustrating. What gets lost in the scuffle are the core issues raised in the 1970s and still not settled: Daycare, healthcare, support for single parents, education, sex-education, and positive female role models in the news. Instead we see the TV show characters of Gossip Girls and how they are adored by millions of women because of the fabulous designer fashions as a cover article in the New York Times. (This in between a road bomb in Afghanistan and the global food crisis). Too many women will embrace these characters as “role models,” then they will admit a sense of pride for a women running for president. Many women of my generation say gender is not an issue; that they can’t identify with the early feminists; or that feminism is not relevant anymore. I have to wonder.

I want your vote! Please vote for me to be the next Commentator on the “Tom Joyner Morning Show,” which is heard by over 8 million listeners. The radio show is available online at BlackAmericaWeb.com, but you must register in advance.

The person selected to be the next voice “to elevate, educate, entertain and inform black America” will have a platform that is trusted by African Americans. As Chuck D observed in the new documentary, "Disappearing Voices," black radio historically “looked out for black people.” Indeed, radio stations like WDIA in Memphis and WVON in Chicago were the voice for the voiceless.

Every Election Day, I encourage readers of my blog, Anderson@Large, to take five to the polls. Well, I want you to forward this post to five friends, coworkers or family members and ask them to tune in to my five-minute commentary on Tuesday, July 15 at 8:10 am ET.

Listeners will be asked to go to my webpage and rate me. If folks miss my commentary, they can still vote. Voting will be open on July 15 from 8:00 am ET to 8:00 pm ET.

I thank you in advance for your support. I’ll see you on the radio.

This week I posted several articles that focused on constructive steps toward democracy in Sudan, reaffirmation of the need for peace in Sudan by the Sudanese President and efforts toward forging dialogue between the rebel movements and humanitarian organizations. Also, in the news, is the trial of Mr. Abdul Aziz Ashur, a member of JEM, a suspect of the attacks on Khartoum.

Mr. Abdul Aziz Ashur is being charged under criminal law and anti-terrorism legislation. His defense attorney, Satie Mohamed al-Haj, calls the formation of the special court unconstitutional and that it goes against his client’s legal rights. Terrorist charges have been made against 39 suspected rebels in the attacks and Human Rights Watch has asked for action since rebels were complaining of mistreatment.

Formation of the Anti-Terrorism Special Courts set up by Sudan’s government in response to the May 10, 2008 attacks have been criticized by Human Rights Watch. The reason for the criticism has been that the courts do not meet the minimum international fair trial standards. The Courts were created under Sudan’s 2001 Anti-Terrorism Law. Lawyers have complained that they have limited or no access to the clients and that the court proceedings are arbitrary. Sudanese law states that a defendant can be convicted on the basis of confessions made in detention or during coerced interrogations.

The Special Court in Khartoum has refused defense lawyer’s access to clients and assigned the cases to a legal aid lawyer. Another violation of international law noted by HRW is that the defendant’s right against self-incrimination has been stripped. Filing of cases must be within seven days of the judgment, which HRW states isn’t enough time for an appeal.

Special courts in Sudan have been set up in the past to fend off UN demands that Sudan hand over Darfur war crimes suspects to an international court.

In another story, the British Foreign Minister David Milibank has expressed the UK’s readiness in hosting peace talks in London. However, there are contradictory statements being made by Miliband’s Sudanese counterpart Deng Alor about Britan’s role in helping Sudan gain stability and what was discussed with the British Foreign Minister.

In another story, The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in cooperation with the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) will hold a 3-day workshop for Darfur rebel movements. The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) Unity Command will attend. The goal of the workshop is to facilitate greater awareness of key humanitarian related issues and reach a commitment to ensure improved protection of civilians and humanitarian organizations in Darfur. Various UN agencies will also participate.

Additionally, this week, Sudan’s parliament approved a new electoral law. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement called for elections no later than 2009, but efforts to implement have been delayed. The new law benefits women and introduces proportional representation. This will allow a parliamentary voice to vulnerable areas. The law has the support of the SPLM, but it criticized the gender segregation and concern about the marginalization of the east and Darfur. The SPLM deputy secretary general, Yasser Arman, shared that unless the Darfur situation is improved there is a threat to fair and democratic elections. He suggests a neutral election commission.

Finally, on the occasion of the 19th anniversary of the National Salvation Revolution, President al-Bashir in a televised address reiterated his commitment to reach a peaceful solution to the Darfur issue. He reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the peace agreement and to completing the Western Salvation Highway and the expansion of medical services. He shows dedication to free and fair elections. He also showed that he is interested in ongoing talks with all the political parties and he noted that civil society organizations want to reach a lasting comprehensive solution. He made a call out to some neighboring countries to regard the principles of positive interaction, good neighborliness, nonintervention and safeguarding Sudan’s sovereignty.

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?

With the advances of technology comes more means to communicate; more people around the world are interconnected. We have the ability to get in touch with people anywhere about matters that involve us all. World events affect us in many different ways. We are firmly in the information age and as such, I started a blog about Darfur and how the tragedies that occur there should not be buried by the news of the day - the news cycle. The tragedies in Darfur have been ongoing. The WIP is featuring my article Social Networking Site Put into Action: Darfur Blog on Myspace Encourages Awareness this weekend. This article is a jumping-off point for me to begin sharing my blog with readers of The WIP by cross-posting my Darfur coverage on the WIP TALK. By blogging about international events, people can stay informed and help those who feel helpless, stuck in conflicts, have a voice. It also helps build a community of people who are dedicated to staying informed about the conditions of Darfur victims.

…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.