Statement on the 5th Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates

November 12, 2004
Rome, Italy

Two decades ago, the world was swept with a wave of hope. Inspired by the popular movements for peace, freedom, democracy and solidarity, the nations of the world worked together to end the cold war. Yet the opportunities opened up by that historic change are slipping away. We are gravely concerned with the resurgent nuclear and conventional arms race, disrespect for international law and the failure of the world's governments to address adequately the challenges of poverty and environmental degradation. A cult of violence is spreading globally; the opportunity to build a culture of peace, advocated by the United Nations, Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and other spiritual leaders, is receding.

Alongside the challenges inherited from the past there are new ones, which, if not properly addressed, could cause a clash of civilizations, religions and cultures. We reject the idea of the inevitability of such a conflict. We are convinced that combating terrorism in all its forms is a task that should be pursued with determination. Only by reaffirming our shared ethical values -- respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms -- and by observing democratic principles, within and amongst countries, can terrorism be defeated. We must address the root causes of terrorism -- poverty, ignorance, and injustice -- rather than responding to violence with violence.

Unacceptable violence is occurring daily against women and children. Children remain our most important neglected treasure. Their protection, security and health should be the highest priority. Children everywhere deserve to be educated in and for peace. There is no excuse for neglecting their safety and welfare and, particularly, for their suffering in war.

The war in Iraq has created a hotbed of dangerous instability and a breeding ground for terrorism. Credible reports of the disappearance of nuclear materials cannot be ignored. While we mourn the deaths of tens of thousands of people, none of the goals proclaimed by the coalition have been achieved.

The challenges of security, poverty and environmental crisis can only be met successfully through multilateral efforts based on the rule of law. All nations must strictly fulfil their treaty obligations and reaffirm the indispensable role of the United Nations and the primary responsibility of the UN Security Council for maintaining peace.

We support a speedy, peaceful resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue, including a verifiable end to North Korea 's nuclear weapons program, security guarantees and listing of sanctions on North Korea . Both the six-party talks and bilateral efforts by the United States and North Korea should contribute to such an outcome.

We welcome recent progress in the talks between Iran and Great Britain, France and Germany on the Iranian nuclear program issue and hope that the United States will join in the process to find a solution within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

We call for the reduction of military expenditures and for conclusion of a treaty that would control arms trade and prohibit sales of arms where they could be used to violate international human rights standards and humanitarian law.

As Nobel Laureates, we believe that the world community needs urgently to address the challenges of poverty and sustainable development. Responding to these challenges requires the political will that has been so sadly lacking.

The undertakings pledge by states at the UN Millennium Summit, the promises of increased development assistance, fair trade, market access, and debt relief for developing countries, have not been implemented. Poverty continues to be the world's most widespread and dangerous scourge. Millions of people become victims of hunger and disease, and entire nations suffer from feelings of frustration and despair. This creates fertile ground for extremism and terrorism. The stability and future of the entire human community are thus jeopardized.

Scientists are warning us that failure to solve the problems of water, energy and climate change will lead to a breakdown of order, more military conflicts and ultimately the destruction of the living systems up which civilization depends. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for the Kyoto Protocol and the Earth Charter and endorse the rights-based approach to water, as reflected in the initiative of Green Cross International calling upon governments to negotiate a framework treaty on water.

As Nobel Peace Prize Laureates we believe that to benefit from humankind's new, unprecedented opportunities and to counter the dangers confronting us there is a need for better global governance. Therefore, we support strengthening and reforming the United Nations and its institutions.

As immediate specific tasks, we commit to work for:

Genuine efforts to resolve the Middle East crisis. This is both a key to the problem of terrorism and a chance to avoid a dangerous clash of civilizations. A solution is possible if the right of all nations in the region to secure, viable statehood is respected and if the Middle East is integrated in all global processes while respecting the unique culture of the peoples of that region.

Preserving and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We reject double standards and emphasize the legal responsibility of nuclear weapons states to work to eliminate nuclear weapons. We call for the continuation of the moratorium on nuclear testing pending entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and for accelerating the process of verifiable and irreversible nuclear arms reduction. We are gravely alarmed by the creation of new, usable nuclear weapons and call for the rejection of doctrines that view nuclear weapons as legitimate means of war-fighting and threat preemption.

Effectively realizing the initiative of the UN Secretary General to convene a high-level conference in 2005 to give an impetus to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. We pledge to work to create an atmosphere of public accountability to help accomplish these vitally important tasks.

We believe that to solve the problems that challenge the world today, politicians need to interact with an empowered civil society and strong mass movements. This is the way toward a globalization with a human face and a new international order that rejects brute force, respects ethnic, cultural, and political diversity and affirms justice, compassion, and human solidarity.

We, the Nobel Peace Laureates and Laureate organizations, pledge to work for the realization of these goals and are calling on governments and people everywhere to join us.

Mikhail Gorbachev

Kim Dae-Jung

Lech Walesa

Joseph Rotblat

Jose Ramos-Horta

Betty Williams

Mairead Corrigan Maguire

Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo

Adolfo Perez Esquivel

Rigoaberta Menshu Tum

and

United Nations Children's Fund

Pugwash Conferences

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War

International Peace Bureau

Institut de International

American Friends Service Committee

Medicins sans Frontieres

Amnesty International

Untied Nations High Commisssioner for Refugees

International Labour Organization

International Campaign to Ban Land Mines

United Nations

To read the original statement posted by the American Friends Service Committee, click on:
AFSC

Let's Get Everybody's Troops Out of Everywhere

"Who wants to be occupied? Nobody wants to be occupied."
-- President Bush, May 7, 2004

"I've always felt that foreign troops are an anomaly in a country, that eventually they're unnatural and not welcomed really. There's also the concept of declining consent."
-- then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, summer of 2006

Nothing unites and expands the international jihadist movement more than the prospect of opposing a perceived foreign occupation of Islamic lands; the presence of foreign troops of India in Kashmir, Morocco in Western Sahara, Turkey in Northern Cyprus, and Israel in Palestine incites armed resistance.

To read the full article in the Boston Globe, click on:
Boston Globe

Archbishop of Canterbury attacks Britain and US over Iraq

Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has attacked the US and British policies in Iraq as short-sighted and ignorant. The Archbishop said there was no moral basis for military intervention there.

To read the full article in Sydney Morning Herald, click on:
SMH

Bears of northern Spain have stopped hibernating

The changes in the natural world of the activity of bumblebees, butterflies and even swallows in in the Northern Hemisphere in December may be a result of climate change. In one of the strongest signals yet, the bears in the mountains of northern Spain have stopped hibernating.

To read the full article from The Independent, click on:
The Independent

Vilification and the Islamic Council of Victoria

Dear Mr. Ramzi El-Sayed,

Pax Christi Victoria is deeply concerned at the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria that the judgment given in favour of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) and against ‘Catch the Fire Ministries’ by the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 22 June 2005 be sent back to VCAT for further consideration by a different judge.

Pax Christi wishes to express our support for and solidarity with the Islamic Council of Victoria and with the wider Muslim community in this matter. Pax Christi fully supports the anti vilification legislation in Victoria and we deplore any vilification of any group on religious or racial grounds. As Christians we believe that we are called to express God’s love in Jesus Christ for all people. Vilification directly contradicts the command of Jesus to love one another as I have loved you. We believe that the Holy God is drawing us closer to each other towards a fuller and deeper appreciation of God’s love and God’s justice for all humanity.

Pax Christi is grateful for the opportunities to meet with and work together with and to enter into dialogue with members of the Islamic community and we particularly appreciate the hard work of members of ICV in making this possible.

At a recent Pax Christi International conference our great friend, Muslim scholar Dr Chandra Muzaffar said: This is how Christian Muslim solidarity will develop in the future. It is through the sacrifice and suffering that a heroic struggle for justice demands that Christians Muslims and people from other backgrounds will come together to create a compassionate civilisation guided by values rooted in the divine. Pax Christi fully supports Dr Muzaffar’s vision.

Yours in love and peace

Harry Kerr
Convenor, Pax Christi Victoria

Australia failing to meet Kyoto emissions targets

The forecasts by the Environment Minister's own department show that Australia is failing to meet the Kyoto emissions targets contrary to the repeated pledges of the Government.

To read the full article, click on:
The Age

No consensus in US over nuclear weapons

A prestigious US Defense Department Panel voices concern that an influential segment of the population opposes transforming the US nuclear stockpile with new warheads. It states that such opposition is the reason why "little progress to date in evolving needed U.S. nuclear capabilities to address effectively the more diverse range of potential threats likely to emerge in the 21st century."

To read the full article from the Washington Post, click on:
Washington Post

Colin Powell says US losing the war in Iraq

As the US military death toll in Iraq approaches 3000, the former US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, says it is time to pull out of Iraq, which puts him at odds with the Bush Administration.

To read the full article in the Sydney Morning Herald, click on:
SMH

West Papuan artists' visa applications rejected

The premiere of ‘Peace Child’ with an hour of extraordinary theatre in dance, body design, drumming, and Melanesian harmonies, performed by TUMBUNA, West Papua's premiere performance artists was to have taken place on 14 December in Melbourne. I regret to say that the Howard Government has rejected the visa applications for these artists.

To read the full article in The Australian, click on:
The Australian

Outrage over child soliders in Sri Lanka

The Tamil Tigers have long used child soldiers in their campaign against the Sri Lankan government. Now the large-scale hostilities in Sri Lanka have resulted in accusations that the Sri Lankan Army is also abducting children, some are as young as 11 years of age, to become soldiers. Human rights groups are outraged by the actions of both sides.

To read the full article from the Christian Science Monitor, click on:
CS Monitor

Iraq is a disaster

Eight Australian former military chiefs and the present RSL president have delivered a blistering attack on the US-led coalition strategy in Iraq. They say that Australia must urge the US Administration to change course.

To read the full article in The Age, click on:
The Age

Questions about the Iraq policy climate

Ten questions for the PM about Iraq
Scott Burchill, who teaches International Relations at Deakin University, raises 10 questions for the Howard Government on the Iraq policy climate.
To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Ignorance of al-Qa'ida and Hezbollah

US intelligence chief fails fundamental quiz
Tom Baldwin, Washington
December 14, 2006

HE is expected to have a deep understanding of terrorist groups and their threats to the US.

But the incoming chairman of a US congressional intelligence committee was struggling yesterday to explain his ignorance of al-Qa'ida and Hezbollah.

Silvestre Reyes, the Democrat chosen to head the House of Representatives committee, was asked whether members of al-Qa'ida came from the Sunni or Shia branch of Islam.

"Al-Qa'ida, they have both," he answered, adding: "Predominantly probably Shi'ite."

In fact, al-Qa'ida was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organisation, and views the Shia Muslims as heretics.

And Sunnis dominate the militias and death squads in Iraq.

A reporter for Congressional Quarterly, Jeff Stein, then put a similar question about Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group.

"Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah," replied Mr Reyes.

"Why do you ask me these questions at five o'clock?" he said. "Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?"

Go ahead, said Mr Stein.

"Well, I, uh ...," said the congressman.

His apparent ignorance of the basic facts raised fresh questions over his suitability for the key intelligence post - as well as the judgment of Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, who picked him for the job.

She has already been criticised for trying to oust her deputy, Steny Hoyer, in a poll among Democrat congressmen after the mid-term elections.

There was further controversy over her choice of Mr Reyes in preference to Jane Harman, who was the committee's most senior Democrat but was said to have upset Ms Pelosi.

When appointed, Mr Reyes said he had "very strong credentials" for the job - "credentials that could stand up to anybody".

He said in a statement yesterday: "The CQ interview covered a wide range of topics other than the selected points published inthe story.

"As a member of the intelligence committee since before 9/11, I'm acutely aware of al-Qa'ida's desire to harm Americans. The committee will keep itseye on the ball, and focus onthe pressing security and intelligence issues."

Earlier this year, Mr Stein flummoxed two Republicans on the committee, Jo Ann Davis and Terry Everett, with similar questions about the differences between Sunni and Shia. "One's in one location, another's in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know," replied Mr Everett.

Stein has also caught out Willie Hulon, chief of the FBI's new national security branch, when he asked him to which branch of Islam did Iran and Hezbollah belonged.

"Sunni," Mr Hulon replied.

"Wrong," said Mr Stein, who has defended his use of such questions. "To me, it's like asking about Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland - who's on what side? It's been five years since these Muslim extremists flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Centre. Is it too much to ask that our intelligence overseers know who they are?"

But Trent Lott, the No2 in the Republican Senate leadership, said recently: "It's hard for Americans, all of us, to understand what's wrong with these people ... They all look the same to me."

The report from the Iraq Study Group expressed amazement that more was not being done to "understand the people who explode roadside bombs".

Only six people in the US embassy in Baghdad are fluent in Arabic, and only about two dozen of its 1000 employees have some familiarity with the language.

The Times

To read the original article from The Australian, click on:
The Australian

The need to protect human rights

It's time to uphold our rights
By Julian Burnside
December 14, 2006

In a climate of fear, protection of human rights becomes extraordinarily difficult. It brings to the forefront the tension between the majoritarian principle of democratic rule and the humanitarian principle of protecting the powerless and marginalised. In that setting, protection of human rights presents its greatest challenges.

The protection of human rights depends on a number of things. First, Parliament must exercise restraint in legislating where human rights are affected. It should recognise that human rights are a basic assumption in democratic systems, and that majoritarian rule does not justify the mistreatment of unpopular minorities.

ASIO's powers have been greatly increased since the September 11 terrorist attacks. ASIO can now hold a person incommunicado for a week, and force them to answer questions on pain of five years' jail. The person need not be suspected of any offence.

The Federal Police now have power to obtain a secret order jailing a person for up to a fortnight, without a trial and without the person having committed any offence. They can obtain a secret control order, placing a person under house arrest for up to 12 months without access to telephone or internet. In each case, the person affected by the order is not allowed to know the evidence against them. These laws betray the most fundamental assumptions of a democratic society.

The protection of human rights also depends on the executive showing restraint and decency in administering laws that have the potential to affect human rights. In this, the Howard Government has a miserable record, a record made all the worse by its hypocritical maundering about "family values" and a "fair go".

Family values cannot be reconciled with the indefinite detention of refugee families in conditions that drive children to attempt suicide.

The idea of a "fair go" was nowhere to be seen when Attorney-General Philip Ruddock instructed the Immigration Department to argue the case of Al Kateb. The Migration Act provides that a person who comes to Australia without a visa must be detained and must remain in detention until they get a visa or until they are removed from Australia. Boat people have not committed any offence, but they are held indefinitely in high security jails. Kateb had arrived in Australia seeking asylum. He was refused a protection visa. He asked to be removed from Australia, because he found conditions in detention unbearable. He could not be removed from Australia because he is stateless. The "fair go" Howard Government argued that Kateb could be held in detention for the rest of his life.

It is easy to support the idea of human rights for ourselves, our family and friends, our neighbours and so on. It is less easy to stand up for the rights of the unpopular, the marginal, those we fear or hate. Public reaction to the Cornelia Rau case seemed to reflect a perception that she was one of "us", not one of "them". Her rights mattered but, by implication, the rights of the others in detention did not.

That sort of thinking - so easily influenced by governments - is profoundly dangerous to the cause of human rights. The Howard Government's attitude to human rights is demonstrated by the case of David Hicks. Several things are clear about the Hicks case. First, he is not alleged to have hurt anyone at all. Second, he has not broken the law of Australia, the US or Afghanistan. Third, the most serious allegation against him is that, fighting with the Taliban (then the lawful government of Afghanistan) he pointed a gun in the direction of American troops. It is not alleged that he fired at them. Fourth, he has spent five years in Guantanamo Bay, mostly in solitary confinement. Fifth, the treatment he has been subjected to in Guantanamo breaches the Geneva Convention concerning the treatment of prisoners of war and it breaches Australian and US standards for the treatment of criminal suspects.

The Howard Government has done nothing at all to help Hicks. It has abandoned him. The conduct of the Government is impossible to reconcile with the values and assumptions that are basic to our democratic system. By exploiting a climate of fear, the Government has curtailed human rights and civil liberties in a way that would not otherwise be tolerated.

The Victorian Government has begun a move in the opposite direction by passing the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. While the charter cannot affect federal laws, it serves as a timely reminder that human rights are fundamental. It will put the assumption of human rights to the forefront: human rights are not an optional extra. In addition, the charter reminds us that human rights are for all people: the unpopular, the unworthy, the feared and despised are also entitled to be treated as human beings.

What is needed, however, is a Federal Charter of Rights. The major human rights abuses in Australia are committed by the Federal Government: indefinite detention of asylum seekers, even though they have committed no offence; secret jail orders; secret control orders; secret hearings in which a person's fate can be blighted forever.

If a government can mistreat one unpopular group, they will mistreat another, and another. Do not wait until it is your turn. Human rights matter, especially in a climate of fear.

Julian Burnside is the president of Liberty Victoria. This is an edited extract of his Human Rights Oration, delivered yesterday for the Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria. For the full text, go to Human Rights Oration

To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Australia should do more about poverty

We've become a laggard in fighting world poverty
By Tim Costello
December 13, 2006

Thousands of people flocked to the Make Poverty History concert last month and hundreds of thousands watched the event in other venues across the country.

Collectively they were raising their voices to demand that Australia does more - its fair share - in striking a death blow to global poverty in our world, a grinding poverty that kills 30,000 children a day.

Today there is now emerging the first sign that their voices are being heard.

Recently, new deputy Labor leader Julia Gillard (Opinion, 1/12) said the Australian Government could and should have done more to put poverty on the agenda at the G20 summit in Melbourne.

Her leader, Kevin Rudd, has spoken about the moral obligations his Christian faith demands of him - that power should be used to protect the poor and the vulnerable at home and abroad. Yet before Rudd's ascension to leader, Labor had yet to commit to concrete efforts to tackle global poverty. The challenge now presents itself to the new Labor leadership team. It is an issue I plan to press with Rudd and Gillard in a meeting.

There is also evidence that the hundreds of thousands of people across the nation that have joined the Make Poverty History campaign are also being heard by the Coalition.

Many Coalition MPs I have spoken to have expressed their desire that Australia do more to tackle global poverty, specially when we have delivered a string of budget surpluses.

As Bono wrapped up his Australian tour he spoke to me about his bewilderment at the two Australias he had encountered. There was the new Australia: proud Australians who told him they want their country to be a leader, not a laggard in facing the great challenges of the age such as global poverty. These were the soccer mums, the kids who went to his concerts, student activists, church and development groups.

Yet he also saw an Australia that was no longer taking a leading role on these issues. Leadership on both sides of the political divide that was following rather than leading on issues such as poverty and climate change.

It is a contrast that is genuinely bewildering. Even more confusing is trying to understand the logic of those arguing against any move by Australia to boost aid and offer debt relief to the world's poorest nations.

It is argued that trade is the panacea for the poor and not aid. Even leaving aside the fact that the Doha round of the world trade talks appears to be terminally stalled, the argument is a false one. Make Poverty History is not arguing against trade but it argues for it to be effective. For the poor it must be accompanied by aid that builds bridges, roads and ports to provide market access.

We've seen in countries such as India and China that even with exceptional economic growth often the poorest do not benefit. In India, despite 11 years of stunning growth, the World Bank estimates that some 47 per cent of children are malnourished and 20 per cent still don't get to go to school.

Back in 1970 Australia and other developed countries first agreed to provide 0.7 per cent of their gross national income as aid. Today 16 of the 22 countries have now committed to reach 0.7 per cent by 2015. Australia's level of aid is 0.3 per cent now and there is still no timetable to take it to 0.5 by 2010 or 0.7 per cent by 2015.

Our contribution to the Global Fund to fight tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS is at $18 million - our fair contribution would be $60 million. Even President George Bush had taken the United States' commitment to the fund from millions to billions.

Other world leaders such as Britain's Tony Blair understand the importance of overseas aid and that you cannot win a war on terror or climate change without winning the war on poverty. As a result, he ensured that the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles had global poverty and the plight of Africa firmly at the top of the agenda.

With the federal election due next year, there is still hope that Australia can become smarter in its policies on poverty.

The Make Poverty History five-point plan calls for leaders to ensure the quality and volume of aid is improved, debt relief is given to those countries struggling to halve their poverty levels by 2015, trade talks are revived, greenhouse pollution is cut and corruption is tackled on our own shores as well as in developing countries.

There is no magic bullet to fighting poverty. It is only through tackling all five areas that we will make inroads.

Tim Costello is chief executive of World Vision Australia.

To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Catastrophic consequences of small nuclear war

Global hell of limited nuclear conflict
John Johnson in San Francisco
December 13, 2006

EVEN a small nuclear war could have catastrophic environmental and societal consequences, extending the death toll far beyond the number of people killed directly by bombs, says the first comprehensive climatic analysis of such a conflict.

Scientists say a few dozen Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons exchanged between India and Pakistan, for example, could produce a pall of smoke that would encircle the Earth, causing temperatures to fall worldwide and disrupting food production for millions of people.

Owen Toon, an atmospheric researcher at the University of Colorado, told a meeting of the American Geophysical Union on Monday that although a small nuclear exchange might not trigger a "nuclear winter" that would wipe out all life, it could cause as much death as was once predicted for a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.

"These results are quite surprising," Dr Toon said. Regional nuclear conflicts "can endanger entire populations" the way it was once thought only worldwide conflict could.

Dr Toon and his co-author Richard Turco, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, were part of the team of scientists that developed the concept of nuclear winter in the 1980s.

The analysis was presented in two papers that dealt with the climatic, atmospheric and social consequences of a regional exchange. The studies were published in the online journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions.

Since the 1980s, when the US and Soviet Union began reducing their nuclear stockpiles, the number of weapons around the world has declined by a factor of three, Dr Toon said. There are now about 10,000 such weapons, and that is expected to drop to 4000 by 2012.

But the number of potential nuclear-armed nations has risen dramatically. Dr Toon said 40 countries had the fissile material to build nuclear weapons. Many that could build them were unstable or in dispute with their neighbours.

In conducting their research, the scientists looked at other global cataclysms, such as the 1815 eruption of Tambora volcano in Indonesia. It triggered the "year without a summer", which led to lethal frosts and crop losses in the north-eastern US and crop failures and famine in Europe.

The authors said even a limited nuclear conflict would be much worse, killing as many as 17 million people in China alone.

The biggest atmospheric impact from such an exchange would be the accumulation of smoke and soot in the atmosphere, said Professor Georgiy Stenchikov, of Rutgers University. He estimated 5 million tonnes of soot could be thrown into the air by the explosion of about 100 15-kiloton weapons. This would rise into the stratosphere and stay there for up to 10 years, causing temperatures to fall several degrees.

Los Angeles Times

To read the original article in the Sydney Morning Herald, click on:
SMH

Kofi Annan's advice for meeting the challenges of the 21st century

The lessons I have learnt in 10 years
By Kofi Annan
December 13, 2006

Nearly 50 years ago, when I arrived in Minnesota as a student fresh from Africa, I had much to learn - starting with the fact that there is nothing wimpish about wearing earmuffs when it is 15 degrees below zero. All my life since has been a learning experience. Now I want to pass on five lessons I have learned during 10 years as Secretary-General of the United Nations that I believe the community of nations needs to learn as it confronts the challenges of the 21st century.

First, in today's world we are all responsible for each other's security. Against such threats as nuclear proliferation, climate change, global pandemics or terrorists operating from havens in failed states, no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over all others. Only by working to make each other secure can we hope to achieve lasting security for ourselves.

This responsibility includes our shared responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. That was accepted by all nations at last year's UN summit. But when we look at the murder, rape and starvation still being inflicted on the people of Darfur, we realise that such doctrines remain pure rhetoric unless those with the power to intervene effectively - by exerting political, economic or, in the last resort, military muscle - are prepared to take the lead. It also includes a responsibility to future generations to preserve resources that belong to them as well as to us. Every day that we do nothing, or too little, to prevent climate change imposes higher costs on our children.

Second, we are also responsible for each other's welfare. Without a measure of solidarity, no society can be truly stable. It is not realistic to think that some people can go on deriving great benefits from globalisation while billions of others are left in, or thrown into, abject poverty. We have to give all our fellow human beings at least a chance to share in our prosperity.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on respect for human rights and the rule of law. Throughout history, human life has been enriched by diversity, and different communities have learned from each other. But if our communities are to live in peace we must stress also what unites us: our common humanity and the need for our human dignity and rights to be protected by law.

That is vital for development, too. Both foreigners and a country's own citizens are more likely to invest when their basic rights are protected and they know they will be fairly treated under the law. Policies that genuinely favour development are more likely to be adopted if the people most in need of development can make their voice heard. States need to play by the rules toward each other, as well. No community suffers from too much rule of law; many suffer from too little - and the international community is among them.

My fourth lesson, therefore, is that governments must be accountable for their actions, in the international as well as the domestic arena. Every state owes some account to other states on which its actions have a decisive impact. As things stand, poor and weak states are easily held to account, because they need foreign aid. But large and powerful states, whose actions have the greatest impact on others, can be constrained only by their own people.

That gives the people and institutions of powerful states a special responsibility to take account of global views and interests. And today they need to take into account also what we call "non-state actors". States can no longer - if they ever could - confront global challenges alone. Increasingly, they need help from the myriad types of association in which people come together voluntarily, to profit or to think about, and change, the world.

How can states hold each other to account? Only through multilateral institutions. So my final lesson is that those institutions must be organised in a fair and democratic way, giving the poor and the weak some influence over the actions of the rich and the strong.

Developing countries should have a stronger voice in international financial institutions, whose decisions can mean life or death for their people. New permanent or long-term members should be added to the UN Security Council, whose membership reflects the reality of 1945, not of today.

No less important, all the Security Council's members must accept the responsibility that comes with their privilege. The council is not a stage for acting out national interests. It is the management committee of our fledgling global security system.

More than ever, Americans, like the rest of humanity, need a functioning global system. Experience has shown, time and again, that the system works poorly when the United States remains aloof but it functions much better when there is farsighted US leadership.

That gives American leaders of today and tomorrow a great responsibility. The American people must see that they live up to it.

Kofi Annan will retire as Secretary-General of the United Nations on December 31. This article is based on an address delivered on Monday at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library in Independence, Missouri, US.

To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Upcoming Events

Wednesday 13 December 7.30 – 9.30 pm: Politics of Empire and the Culture of Dialogue. Moderator: Morag Fraser, Adjunct Professor, Philosophy, La Trobe University, Speakers: Professor Ashis Nandy, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi; Dr Chandra Muzaffar, International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Kuala Lumpur; Professor Majid Tehranian, Director, Institute for Peace and Global Policy Research (Tokyo, Honolulu); Introduced by: Professor Joseph Camilleri, Director, Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University University City Campus, 215 Franklin Street, Melbourne. Sponsored by: Centre for Dialogue, La Trobe University, Victorian Council of Churches, Islamic Council of Victoria. RSVP: Christine Siokou, tel. 9479-1893, email: dialogue@latrobe.edu.au

Thursday 14 December 6.30 pm: Australian premiere of 'Peace Child' at BMW Edge Theatre (Federation Square) by West Papua's TUMBUNA, in collaboration with Yoko Fujimoto from Japan, as a Christmas experience. An hour of extraordinary theatre in dance, body design, drumming, and Melanesian harmonies. TUMBUNA is West Papua's premiere performance artists, and 'Peace Child' is their premiere performance piece. Even the Indonesian government employs them to perform for its interminable independence celebrations. For more information, ring Louise Byrne on (03) 9510 2193; 043 2924 212

Friday 15 December 6.30 pm: Democratic Rights in Fiji - The Fiji Coup and the Return to Democracy. Speakers include: Mosese Waqa, Pacific Islands Network; Nic Maclellan, Oxfam International. Meeting Room 1, Ground Floor, Trades Hall, Corner of Lygon Street and Victoria Street, Carlton (entry from Victoria Street). On 5 December 2006, the commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commodore Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama led a military coup to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. The RFMF has disarmed police, sacked senior public servants and seized control of key government institutions. There is widespread public condemnation of coup from the Great Council of Chiefs, NGOs, churches, unions and overseas governments. But how is the current crisis affecting local communities in Fiji? Join us for a discussion on the Fiji coup and the return to democracy. For further information, contact Mosese on 0411343800 or Nic on 0421840100

Chief Scientist and a panel of other eminent scientists contradict Switkowski nuclear report

Experts explode Ziggy's nuclear power theory
Katharine Murphy, Canberra
December 12, 2006

A PANEL of eminent scientists has contradicted one of the central findings of the recent nuclear review commissioned by John Howard, declaring it unrealistic that Australia could have nuclear power plants within 10 years.

A "peer review" panel of experts from Australia and overseas, led by the chief scientist Jim Peacock, has challenged several assertions made by the inquiry headed by former Telstra chief Ziggy Switkowski.

The experts urge the Switkowski taskforce to do more to sell the positive greenhouse benefits of nuclear energy by pointing out that Australia does not need nuclear power to tackle climate change. "The report needs to make clear the reasons why Australia should be considering the nuclear option," the peer review says.

The review team also concludes that the Switkowski report "under-estimates the challenge that will confront Australia if it should choose to expand the scope of its nuclear activities".

The wide-ranging critique is the result of a process where scientific experts, led by Dr Peacock, were asked to examine the Switkowski report and provide feedback to the panel.

Dr Switkowski's draft review, unveiled a month ago, argued that Australia could add nuclear energy to the mix to help reduce carbon dioxide emissions if the Government was prepared to impose a price on pollution. Dr Switkowski said Australia could build a nuclear power plant within 10 to 15 years.

The peer review was initially expected to remain confidential. But Dr Switkowski's panel has taken the decision to release the report before handing their final document to John Howard later this month.

The review team included Dr Peacock, the chairman of the Future Fund and former Commonwealth Bank boss David Murray, and a group of experts from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Their five-page report raises a number of important issues for the taskforce to consider. These include the unrealistic time frames proposed for building nuclear plants and an "under-estimate" of the amount of workers needed to be trained to work in the industry.

The peer review also says the public must better understand the risks of global warming to understand the connection between the two areas. "Expansion of nuclear fuel cycle activities need not be part of a response to climate change," they say.

Environment group Greenpeace said the review had "torpedoed" the Switkowski report. "The review vindicates Greenpeace's position that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too dangerous to be any solution to climate change," Greenpeace spokesman Steve Campbell said.

To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Fiji human rights activists threatened

Sunday December 10th, 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WOMEN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS THREATENED

HUMAN rights organisations and individuals have been threatened with violence, including rape, for speaking out on the current impasse in Fiji. The Fiji Women’s Rights Movement office and FWRM Board member Imrana Jalal received threatening phone calls last week.

The threats follow public statements by FWRM and an opinion piece by activist and human rights lawyer Jalal.

“I received a phone call on Monday afternoon (4th December) – an anonymous male voice threatened me with rape and attempted to intimidate me,” said Jalal, who has reported the criminal threat to the police.

When she asked the caller to identify himself, “I was told that they would ‘shut me up forever’ and I was to wait because they would come and get me.”

FWRM Executive Director Virisila Buadromo was also told to ‘stop what she’s doing’ by a male caller who identified himself as being from the military.

“These threats against unarmed peace activists by the armed forces seem extreme. We have simply been advocating for the basic principles of the rule of law and democracy,” said Buadromo.

The threats against the organisation and individual activists coincides with International Human Rights Day (December 10th), International Women Human Rights Defenders Day (November 29th) and16 Days of Activism on Violence Against Women.

‘Women Human Rights Defenders’ (WHRDs) is a term referring to women who individually or with others, act to promote and protect everyone’s human rights. This sub-category of defenders has been singled out because they face risks particular to their gender committed by both state and non-state actors, including governments, the military and even within communities.

The 16 Days campaign aims to increase the visibility of violence against women as a human rights violation. The campaign has been utilised by groups all over the world to use international human rights instruments to address violence against women as a human rights violation and a threat to human security and peace worldwide.

FIJI WOMEN’S RIGHTS MOVEMENT, P.O. Box 14194, Suva, Fiji
Tel: (679) 3312 711/3313 156 Fax: (679) 331 3466 email: info@fwrm.org.fj

Justice for Indigenous Australians

Indigenous Health: doing nothing is not an option!

Do you care about justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians?

Nowhere is justice for Aboriginal people in shorter supply than in the area of health.

For example, an Indigenous baby born today will live a life that is, on average, seventeen years shorter than a non-Aboriginal child’s. That child’s father has a 45% chance of dying before he’s 45 years old.

So bad is this situation that an average person in the developing countries of Nigeria and Bangladesh can expect to live ten years longer than an Indigenous person in the ‘developed world’ country of Australia.

Want to do something about it?

ANTaR is running a campaign to help close the Indigenous life expectancy gap within a generation. It’s called Healing Hands and Saving Lives.

We need to achieve is to get our governments to agree to a timeframe to close the gap, provide the resources and get on with it.

The campaign’s goal reflects the Human Rights Commision’s 2005 Social Justice Report that proposed that 25 years for achieving equality of health status and life expectation is realistic and achievable.

We need to achieve is to get our governments to agree to a timeframe to close the gap, provide the resources and get on with it.The campaign’s goal reflects the Human Rights Commision’s 2005 Social Justice Report that proposed that 25 years for achieving equality of health status and life expectation is realistic and achievable.


‘Perhaps the factor that is most striking, in its absence from the current framework, is the lack of a timeframe for achieving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health equality… The absence of such timeframes …. sends a message that it is fine for things to simply drift along.’ Tom Calma, Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner

ANTaR’s campaign will focus on three areas: policy, the public and evidence.

Policy: ANTaR’s national network will lobby State, Territory and Federal parliaments. We'll also support Indigenous leaders who work first-hand on Indigenous health to access government and corporate decision makers, and the mass media.

The Public: we know the power of advertising in motivating the public – ANTaR’s Sea of Hands is proof that people respond to motivators for reconciliation. We will develop new public media to effectively reach the minds and hearts of all Australians.

Evidence: We need to prove through objective research that as well as saving and improving lives, huge economic savings will be achieved in the long run by sensible investment now.

It’s a massive campaign, and an uphill struggle. But with your support it can be done – it has to be done.

It is not hopeless: there are plenty of examples of success – often led by Aboriginal people taking the initiative and tackling health problems in their community.

For more details of the campaign and for the pledge of support to sign, click on:
ANTaR

Malcolm Fraser on Responsibilities under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

50th Anniversary - Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ‘Our Responsibility’

Old Arts, University of Melbourne, Parkville - 10 December 1998

Fifty years ago the universal declaration of human rights was endorsed by the United Nations. Over that time, much progress has been made but much more needs to be done. For at least the last 15 years there has been a group of people who believe that, in a globalised, inter-related world, we also need a universal declaration of responsibilities. Those working to this purpose believe that a world in which everyone demands rights but do not accept responsibilities, will be an unequal and even a dangerous and discordant world.

In 1983, sponsored principally by Takeo Fukuda of Japan, the interaction council, composed of around 30 former heads of government, was formed. Its members comprised people from all continents, from east and west, from north and south, there were conservatives, liberals, socialists and communists involved in the affairs of the council.

The council has devoted a great deal of time to economic and social issues. Above all, to globalisation and to problems of population and of the environment - questions which are closely inter-related.

The government of Japan had asked that we always meet shortly before the G7 meetings, so that we could provide a commentary on events that would be given not only to the Japanese government but also to other G7 members.

The most important task of the council began in 1987 when I and other members, including Takeo Fukuda, Helmut Schmidt and Olusegun Obasanjo, met with significant people from the world’s major religions - Buddhists, Muslims, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Hindus and the Jewish faith were all represented. Religious leaders came from countries as diverse as Sri Lanka, the United States, Indonesia, Austria, the People’s Republic of China and India.

Our purpose was to explore with religious leaders the possibility of establishing a common ethical standard. We were conscious that innumerable wars had been conducted in the name of religion. Since we met in 1987 the terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia has been religious and racial in content. We are conscious too, that with rapid growth of population, especially in Muslim countries, Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilisations’ could become a reality.

Since the collapse of communism, our concerns have deepened. Despite the dangers of the cold war, the factual existence of two super powers placed a degree of modesty on each super power. There is now one super power which has claimed a great moral and democratic victory over communism and which, as a consequence, has become more assertive in promoting values which are thought to advance American interests.

We know quite well that, at some point, the Chinese economy will pass that of America. No great power has ever enjoyed seeing another climbing up the greasy pole to displace it. The possibility of significant problems between America and china are real and in our part of the world it is not difficult to point to issues which could trigger a major calamity.

Our original meeting in Rome with leaders of the world’s major religions was prompted, not only by a consciousness of past religious bitternesses and hatreds but also by a consciousness that, in a world that was becoming increasingly globalised in trade, in movements of capital, in inter-dependence, there needs to be a new spirit of co-operation if significant dangers are to be avoided.

Exploring areas of agreement with significant leaders of major religions was a testing ground for the interaction council in determining whether or not a common ethical base could be established.

We were encouraged to believe that that was a possibility. The initial exchange of views resulted in a striking degree of common perception of the valuation of present dangers and on the recognition of the need for action built on a widely shared ethical basis. The need for peace is easily stated but to see people from extraordinarily diverse backgrounds agreeing about the major ingredients for peace, was encouraging.

The need for a more equitable economic structure to reverse the present appalling poverty which affects such a large part of humanity, was agreed. Dialogue predicated on enlightened self-interest between industrialised and developing countries, was and remains important.

The need for moral values for the family was accepted by everyone, the recognition that a common responsibility of both men and women is indispensable in dealing with these issues.

Responsible public policies require systematic projections of population, environmental and economic trends, with recognition of their interaction.
The group in Rome was clearly aware of the approaches of different religions to family planning yet all the leaders there agreed that present trends make the pursuit of effective family planning inevitable.

The Rome meeting provided a foundation. In the intervening years, the council considered how it could take matters further, how it could advance a common belief in basic ethical standards.

The 50th year after the passage of the universal declaration of human rights is an appropriate time to promote debate and discussion about the need for a similar declaration concerning human responsibilities, the combination of belief and common ethical standards.

It is important to understand that the universal declaration of human rights addresses itself to the inalienable rights of humanity and to the protection of all people against abusive power by governments or institutions of government.

Three years after the end of the world war, during which basic rights of people had been totally disregarded, it was appropriate and necessary to have official recognition of the need for basic human rights.

The universal declaration of human rights is not a legal document. It represents a moral standard which, through time, has come to be almost a statement of international law. It has, however, been given effect by two important treaties: the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights. These are binding treaties and only a handful of countries have failed to accede to them. It is significant that the United States has not ratified the international covenant of economic, social and cultural rights.

While most of the articles in this universal declaration relate to civil and political rights, article 25 and article 26 have economic and social implications and it is worth noting that article 29 states: ‘everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible’.

The United Nations that adopted the universal declaration of human rights comprised 56 members. It is a very different organisation today.

The declaration was in many ways a creature of the west and that also is appropriate because significant parts of the west had been the principal perpetrators of the most terrible crimes against humanity. The west needed to redeem itself and establish universal standards of behaviour.
There has been considerable progress in the development of human rights in the last 50 years. In recent years in particular, more and more governments have adopted democratic constitutions, even if they do not reach the purist form with which America or Britain would regard their constitutions. We now call Russia a democracy. If their constitution were applied to us we would regard it as a dictatorship. As in many things, there are few absolutes.

The universal declaration of human rights has been advanced by many countries of the west to seek to change behaviour in other countries. Such attempts were applied to the Soviet Union before its disintegration, they are applied to China today. They were not applied to President Mobutu of Zaire, they have not been applied to Nigeria, they have not been applied to the Sudan.

Human rights activists and countries which argue publicly for a better human rights record have been selective in their targets. We should not be surprised. The declaration of human rights is too often used as a political tool to advance the self-interests of, for example, America against China.

If that were not so, the demand for better adherence to the declaration would be applied universally.

In the interaction council we believe that the constant demand for rights alone, without better recognition of matters covered in article 29, would not achieve the purpose of the original authors. There is in many ways a cultural divide. There has been and still is, a religious divide. These need to be overcome. Tolerance between cultures and religions, between geographic regions, is often a scarce commodity. It needs promoting and supporting.

While we do not subscribe to Samuel Huntington’s clash of civilisations as being inevitable, that clash is a real possibility if world leaders do not take positive steps to avert it. Such steps cannot be taken by trying to persuade others to be more like us.

A senior but retired diplomat from Europe said in a small meeting the other day that some progress was being made, Asian countries that he had visited were becoming ‘a bit more like us’ but he said there was a long way to go. I put the view that in some respects we should become a bit more like them and interchange was not a one-way road. He could not understand the point I was making. But we had better understand it for, unless we do, there will be significant adverse consequences.

Other cultures and other religions do place more reliance on responsibilities than we do but surely, in our own societies, we have seen problems, grave and serious deficiencies, where people demand rights without the acceptance of a responsibility to family, to community or to country.

Since our first meeting with religious leaders in Rome in 1987, we have discussed amongst ourselves how we might move forward the idea of universally accepted ethical standards or responsibilities. That Rome meeting had given us the greatest encouragement because, as a result of it, we believed that such a standard could be framed acceptable to the world’s major religions. Thus it seemed that an attempt to draft a declaration of human responsibilities was a natural consequence of our first meeting in Rome and a natural consequence, having regard to the difficulties and dangers foreseeable for the future. It also represented a necessary extension of article 29 of the universal declaration of human rights.

And so we prepared a draft. It has been widely circulated. It has met considerable support throughout Asia, throughout developing countries but major countries in the west are less enthusiastic. Some curious reasons for not actively supporting the document have been promoted.

It has been said that the United Nations is an organisation of governments and, since our universal declaration of human responsibilities relates principally to how individuals should behave, it would be quite wrong for the United Nations to declare an agreed ethical standard.

If the United Nations is not prepared to give a lead in such matters, then who might?

In any case, universal declaration of human rights does not only address itself to what governments should do, it also has implications for individual behaviour.

While much of our proposed declaration does relate to the way individuals should behave, it also has serious implications for governments.

Our article 6 states that ‘disputes between states, groups or individuals should be resolved without violence. No government should tolerate or participate in acts of genocide or terrorism, nor should it abuse women, children or any other civilians as instruments of war. Every citizen and public official has a responsibility to act in a peaceful, non-violent way.’ This is quite directly aimed at governments.

So that objection, I believe, falls to the ground.

It has also been said that, since there is still considerable progress to be made concerning the universal declaration of human rights, we should not be diverted by another declaration.
At first blush this argument may have some appeal but, on analysis, it represents a dangerous and wrong-headed view.

There is a growing belief that the declaration of human rights is an instrument of the west and every time the article is used publicly to criticise governments in Asia, that impression is advanced. There will, I believe, be attempts to modify the universal declaration of human rights if it is not balanced by a declaration on responsibilities. In the interaction council we are opposed to an attempt to change the universal declaration of human rights and believe that our proposed declaration would not only provide a balance but would also mean that the human rights declaration would remain inviolate and intact. We also believe that, if responsibilities come to be recognised, as are human rights now, that greater progress will be made in advancing human rights themselves where there are still serious deficiencies.

From an ethical perspective, the declaration of human responsibilities supports and re-enforces the declaration of human rights. We cannot dispute the fact that the rule of law and the promotion of human rights depend upon the readiness of men and women to act justly and to accept the responsibility for so doing.

It is valid to argue that in many cases the weakness of human rights is not grounded in the concept but in the lack of political and moral will on the part of those responsible for implementing them. Ethical behaviour is required for an effective realisation of human rights.

Some might argue that the concept of responsibility can be abused. In Europe especially the sense of duty has been significantly misused in quite recent history. Duty towards the Fuhrer, the Volk, the party, has been emphasised by totalitarian and authoritarian ideologies. But that is no argument to avoid the basic and necessary sense of responsibility, without which civilised, humane society could not operate. Our declaration of responsibilities would provide a framework whereby the distortion of such ‘duties’ would be clear.

In any case, the concept of rights can itself be abused and could lead to anarchy.

Rights and responsibility are closely intertwined. Most rights imply responsibilities for their effective implementation but the converse is not true: there are responsibilities which do not follow from rights. For example, the freedom of the press or of a journalist is guaranteed in a modern constitutional state. There is the right to report freely. The state must support this right and, if necessary, act to enforce it. The state and the citizen have the responsibility to respect that right, however, the right to report freely does not impinge on the responsibility of the journalist or of the media.

It can be seen therefore that rights entail responsibilities but the converse is not necessarily true. There are ethical responsibilities grounded in the dignity of the human person and which do not flow from specific rights.

The West should put aside its hesitancy. There are some I believe genuinely wondering what the impact on the universal declaration of human rights would be. There are others who see responsibilities spelt out in clear and ethical terms, which have particular application for the wealthy and the powerful, whether they be governments or corporations. That the United States has not acceded to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights may well be a pointer.

The intellectual arguments for rights and responsibilities are well based. Some in the west may believe that to accept both will weaken their effectiveness against other countries whom the West believes inadequately protects human rights. People in the west may also believe that to accept a declaration of responsibilities may open themselves to criticism for inadequate acceptance of responsibilities on the other. Such views demean the west.

Perhaps it is time for leadership in the west to recapture that sense of idealism and faith in the future which led to the formation of the United Nations itself and other great international institutions in the immediate post-war years and which led to the single most generous act of any nation at any time, the Marshall Plan. There should be no suggestion that human rights or human responsibilities should be played for specific national objectives or advantage.

A demand for rights is widespread throughout the world. Many people in nearly every country are well aware of their rights as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights. The sense of responsibility in many places is much less well understood. Our proposed declaration would redress that. In addition it is worth noting that, while the universal declaration of human rights properly addresses itself to the protection of individuals against the abusive power of governments, our proposed declaration of human responsibilities places obligations on governments, on institutions and corporations as well as on people themselves. The totality provides a balance which, it could be claimed, is presently lacking.

Our hope is that the proposed declaration on human responsibilities will be introduced into the United Nations for debate. It has been well received in political circles in Asia and in the developing world. It has been well received by academics and religious leaders in many parts of the world. It is the political leadership of the west that appears to be hesitant and doubtful. That hesitancy is wrongly based. The constant pursuit of rights without a sense of responsibility will not achieve our desired objectives. Both rights and responsibilities are essential to each other. Both should be adopted and a better world will result.

To read the original talk by Malcolm Fraser, click on:
Malcolm Fraser Collection

Donald Rumsfeld may have to face trial over torture

Judge Weighs Torture Claim Vs. Rumsfeld
Dec 8, 10:14 PM (ET)

By MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge on Friday appeared reluctant to give Donald H. Rumsfeld immunity from torture allegations, yet said it would be unprecedented to let the departing defense secretary face a civil trial.

"What you're asking for has never been done before," U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The group is suing on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. The lawsuit contends the men were beaten, suspended upside down from the ceiling by chains, urinated on, shocked, sexually humiliated, burned, locked inside boxes and subjected to mock executions.

If the suit were to go forward, it could force Rumsfeld and the Pentagon to disclose what officials knew about abuses at prisons such as Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and what was done to stop it.

Rumsfeld, who leaves the Defense Department on Dec. 18, told Pentagon employees and reporters Friday that the day he learned about abuses at Abu Ghraib was his worst day in office.

"I remember being stunned by the news of the abuse at Abu Ghraib," Rumsfeld said. "And then watching so many determined people spend so many months trying to figure out exactly how in the world something like that could have happened, and how to make it right."

Lawyers for the ACLU and Human Rights First, however, argue that Rumsfeld and top military officials disregarded warnings about the abuse and authorized the use of illegal interrogation tactics that violated the constitutional rights of prisoners.

Foreigners outside the United States are not normally afforded the same protections as U.S. citizens, and Hogan said he was wary about extending the Constitution across the globe.

Doing so, he said, might subject government officials to all sorts of political suits. Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered.

"How do you control that?" Hogan asked. "Where does it stop? Does it stop at the secretary of defense? Does it stop at the president? How does this work?"

The Justice Department argues that is exactly why government officials generally are immune from suits related to their jobs. By allowing the case to proceed, Hogan would make all future military operations subject to second-guessing by the courts, the government contends.

"We cannot have courts interfering with core military functions," Deputy Assistant Attorney General C. Frederick Beckner III said.

Hogan questioned the scope of that immunity. He said freedom from torture is a basic right accepted by the United States and all civilized nations.

"Would you take the same policy if the argument was one of genocide?" Hogan asked. "Are you saying there could be no inquiry done?"

Beckner said abuse claims should be handled by the military, which has prosecuted more than 100 such cases. In his farewell speech Friday, Rumsfeld said such prosecutions demonstrated "how our democracy deals openly and decisively with such egregious wrongdoing."

Lawyers for the civil rights groups, which have criticized the military's prosecution record, said the government is trying to operate a "rights-free" zone overseas.

"The defendants had a duty to deter and punish acts of torture and they did 180 degrees opposite of that: They encouraged and directed that torture," lawyer Paul Hoffman said.

Hogan said torture is a crime against mankind, but he did not see how the Constitution applied to foreigners held in overseas military prisons.

Hogan said he would rule quickly on whether to dismiss the case; he did not make a decision Friday.

The other officials named in the suit are: retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, former Brig. Gen. Janis L. Karpinski and Col. Thomas M. Pappas.

Karpinski, whose Army Reserve unit was in charge of the Abu Ghraib prison, was demoted last year and is the highest-ranking officer punished in the scandal. Sanchez, who commanded U.S. forces in Iraq, retired from the Army last month, calling his career a casualty of the prison scandal.

Pappas, the former top-ranking intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib, was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony about the abuse.

To read the original article in My Way, click on:
My Way

Stop the arms trade

Child soldiers and the arms trade

Lack of control on the arms trade is resulting in conflict, poverty and human rights abuses worldwide. Without strict control, small arms and light weapons continue to fuel violent conflict, state repression, crime and domestic abuse.

Unless governments act to stop the spread of arms, more lives will be lost and more human rights violations will continue to take place.

Learn more about the arms trade

Get the facts
o 300,000 child soldiers exist worldwide
o Around 1,000 people are killed every day by small arms
o By 2020, the number of deaths and injuries from war and violence will overtake the number of deaths caused by killer diseases such as malaria and measles
o Around 600 million small arms and light weapons exist in the world today and 8 million additional arms are produced annually
o 88% of reported conventional arms exports are from the five permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, UK and USA

The plight of child soldiers
As armed conflict proliferates around the world, increasing numbers of children are exposed to the brutalities of war. In many countries, boys and girls are recruited as child soldiers by armed forces and groups.

Children are susceptible to recruitment by manipulation or may be driven to join armed forces and groups because of poverty or discrimination. Often they are abducted at school, on the streets or at home.

Once recruited or forced into service, they are used for a variety of purposes. While many children participate in combat, others are used for multiple roles including as spies, messengers, porters, servants or to lay or clear landmines. Many children are also abused sexually.

"I was trained for six months in Kigali and learnt how to use weapons. During the training, many children died. It was awful."
Jacques, 15 years, Rwanda

Children who are used as soldiers are robbed of their childhood and are often subjected to extreme brutality. Stories abound of children who are drugged before being sent out to fight and forced to commit atrocities against their own families as a way to destroy family and communal ties.

Such children are exposed to the worst dangers and the most horrible suffering, both psychological and physical.

Worldwide, more than half a million children under 18 years of age have been recruited into government armed forces, paramilitaries, civil militia and a wide variety of non-state armed groups in more than 85 countries.

At any one time, more than 300,000 of these children are actively fighting as soldiers with armed government forces or political groups.

Get the facts about AK-47s
o An AK-47: lightweight and easy for children to handle.
o With new weapons that are lightweight and easy to fire, children are more easily armed, with less training than ever before.
o The proliferation of, and ease of access to AK-47s and similar assault rifles around the world, is contributing to suffering on a massive scale.
o The AK outstrips its nearest rival, the M-16 assault rifle, by 10 to 1 in terms of numbers produced
o An AK-47 can be bought for as little as US$30 in parts of Africa
o There are an estimated 100 million AK-47s in the world
o AK-47s are found in the state arsenal of at least 82 countries
o The AK-47 can be fired at a rate of 600 bullets per minute
o It is estimated that 50-60% of weapons used in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo are AK-47s or its derivatives.

To read the original article from Amnesty International, click on:
Amnesty

Pax Christi Peace Award 2006

Pax Christi has given their 2006 Peace Award to two outstanding people from the Middle East, Ms Ogarit Younan and Mr Rami Khoury. This award is given annually to the deserving individuals or organisations dedicated to bringing peace to their region, or more broadly to the entire world. To read more, click on:
Peace Award

David Hicks is being held at the whim of Australia, not of the US

Shameful neglect is the John Howard way
By Nicola Roxon
December 8, 2006

Tomorrow marks five years since Australian David Hicks was detained in Afghanistan. Unlike other people alleged to have committed crimes overseas, he has not been tried or convicted. He was once charged, under the initial military commission process, but when the United States Supreme Court threw out that process, the charges went with it too.

No charges have yet been laid against Hicks under the newly established military commission process, but they are expected in the future.

So the state of play leaves Hicks in solitary confinement in Guantanamo Bay, passing his fifth anniversary in detention without any sign whatsoever of when this Kafkaesque nightmare might end.

Although this is a scandalous departure from the normal processes of the rule of law, the Howard Government is deaf to pleas that it act decently and ensure either an immediate fair trial or Hicks' release into Australian custody.

Federal Labor, every state and territory attorney-general, the UK Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor, a former High Court judge and many other eminent Australians have all repeatedly and persistently raised questions about this shameful, prolonged incarceration and demanded the Howard Government take action.

This week, Liberal backbenchers have joined the long list of those in the community calling for action and we can only hope that this might, at last, force the Attorney-General and Prime Minister to rethink their position of neglect.

All that is being asked for is that the normal rules apply.

The proposition is quite simple. Every citizen needs to be assured that if they get into trouble with the law overseas, the Australian Government will always stand up for their right to a fair trial. No one can expect the Government to protect them from the consequences of their actions, but they should expect strong action and representations to demand a fair and regular process is used.

On each of these counts, the Howard Government has shamefully abdicated its responsibilities to David Hicks. The detention and military commission process is anything but ordinary - in fact, it is marred by so many irregularities that other governments, those of Britain, France, Russia, Spain and Sweden, among others, all moved quickly to claim their nationals from US custody at Guantanamo Bay.

But an Australian man has been left languishing by the Howard Government. Rather than ensure a fair process for Hicks, the Government has instead sacrificed one of its own citizens to a military commission process that no other Western country considers acceptable.

The Government asserts that Hicks cannot be prosecuted under Australian law. The Government uses this to imply that a prosecution here is a requirement of his release from US custody. But this implication is simply false. The US' own legal adviser has confirmed that prosecution at home is not required for the release of detainees.

In fact, the chief legal adviser to the US Secretary of State, John Bellinger, specifically said this to the BBC World Service on November 5. He expressly said ". . . we (the US) have not required that people be under 24-hour surveillance. What we have said is that we want countries to take responsibility for their nationals. Look, we work out a whole variety of different security assurances. I mean, in some cases a country may prosecute them, sometimes they may detain them, sometimes they just need to make sure that they are not going to pose a threat to any of the rest of us but we are not saying that people have to be, have, 24/7 surveillance."

In the same interview, Bellinger said the US had made clear it would like to return "as many people as (it) can" to other countries, but still Howard refuses to make this request.

It is clear that our laws are adequate to meet these appropriate security standards. If David Hicks is assessed to pose a security risk to the community, our laws provide for control orders that can be imposed to monitor a person's movements in proportion to the threat they pose.

There is no reason - other than a lack of political will and the stubbornness of the Attorney-General - for Hicks not to be returned to Australia immediately. Claims that Hicks' fate is out of the Government's hands are just standard Howard Government operating procedure: blame someone else.

Other countries have successfully gone in to bat for their nationals and it is shameful that Australia's reputation as a strong democracy, respecting and promoting the rule of law, is being tarnished irretrievably by this approach.

The Howard Government has an opportunity: it needs to act now, before charges are laid against Hicks under the new military commission process and before another bout of legal and political wrangling over the process begins.

Five years of shameful neglect are enough.

Nicola Roxon is the shadow attorney-general. She will speak at Federation Square from 2 pm tomorrow at the International Day of Action marking the fifth anniversary of David Hicks being held in detention.

To read the original article from The Age, click on:
The Age

Coalition for Democracy and Peace say "It's a matter of PRINCIPLE"

Below is a statement on sanctions in Fiji, issued today by the new Coalition for Democracy and Peace, which links women’s and non-government groups in Fiji.

MEDIA STATEMENT

Coalition says NO to sanctions: “Only the poor will suffer”

SUVA, Thursday 7th December, 2006:

A group of concerned NGOs and citizens have come out strongly against international sanctions for Fiji. The Coalition for Democracy and Peace says sanctions, which have already begun by the New Zealand Government, will mainly affect poor and marginalized Fiji citizens.

“Removing scholarships and access to guest worker schemes obviously affect poor people, and not the military,” the group said.

“This shifts the negative impact of the military takeover onto the ordinary citizen.”

Fiji citizens are also feeling the brunt of the military takeover, as important issues such as the increase in Valued Added Tax (VAT) and the privatization of water are ignored during the crisis. Vulnerable groups are also particularly at risk of violence and increasing levels of HIV, as a result of reduced services.

While welcoming the military’s retreat from media outlets, the Coalition is concerned by some published language that legitimizes the current illegal takeover. The Coalition requests that the media refer to all military appointments as ‘military-appointed official’ rather than ‘caretaker’ official.

The group yesterday delivered a request for a Presidential Commission of Inquiry to the President, Commander and Great Council of Chiefs. The Coalition reiterates its pledge of allegiance to President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and has called on him to establish a binding Commission of Truth, Justice and Resolution under the Commission of Inquiry Act. The Coalition believes such an inquiry can assist in addressing existing concerns from all sides of the conflict and is a Constitutional way out of the current crisis.

They have also reiterated their call for peaceful non-violent protest by citizens calling for peace, democracy and the Rule of Law by:

Wearing a Fiji Blue ribbon
Wearing all black every Thursday as part of the ‘Thursdays in Black’ campaign
Lighting a candle or lamp for peace in their homes, offices, churches or temples


The Coalition for Democracy and Peace is a diverse group of citizens and NGOs who are working to halt Fiji’s collapse into political, social and economic disaster following the military takeover of the Fiji Government.

For more information contact:

Suliana Siwatibau (Chairperson c/- PCPI 3318927)

Sharon Bhagwan Rolls (c/- femLINKPACIFIC 3307207)

Virisila Buadromo (c/- FWRM 3313156)

Shamima Ali (c/- FWCC 3313300)

Ponipate Ravula (c/- CCF 3308379)

Wadan Narsey

Violence in Iraq

Ten Fallacies About the Violence in Iraq
By John Tirman, AlterNet. Posted November 28, 2006.

The distortions about the violence in Iraq persist even as the mayhem increases. Here are ten of the worst myths being spread in the media. Tools

The escalating violence in Iraq's civil war is now earning considerable attention as we pass yet another milestone -- U.S. occupation there, in two weeks, will exceed the length of the Second World War for America. While the news media have finally started to grapple with the colossal amount of killing, a number of misunderstandings persist. Some are willful deceptions. Let's look at a few of them:

1. The U.S. is a buffer against more violence. This is perhaps the most resilient conjecture that has no basis in fact.

Iraqis themselves do not believe it. In a State Department poll published in September, huge majorities say the U.S. is directly responsible for the violence. The upsurge of bloodshed in Baghdad seems to confirm the Iraqis' view, at least by inference. The much-publicized U.S. effort to bring troops to Baghdad to quell sectarian killing has accompanied a period of increased mortality in the city.

2. The killers do it to influence U.S. politics. This was the mantra of right-wing bloggers and cable blowhards like Bill O'Reilly, who asserted time and again before November 7 that the violence was a "Tet offensive" designed to tarnish Bush and convince Americans to vote for Democrats. This is American solipsism, at which the right wing excels. If anything, the violence has grown since November 7.

English-language sources have more than 1,000 dead since the Bush rejection at the polls. Bill, are the Iraqi fighters now aiming at the Iowa caucuses in '08?

3. The "Lancet" numbers are bogus. Since the only scientific survey of deaths in Iraq was published in The Lancet in early October, the discourse on Iraqi casualties has changed. But many in media and policy circles are still in denial about the scale of mayhem.

Anthony Cordesman, Fred Kaplan, and Michael O'Hanlon, among many others, fail to understand the method of the survey -- widely used and praised by leading epidemiologists -- which concluded that between 400,000 and 700,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict. One knowledegable commentator describes the Lancet survey as "flypaper for innumerates," and the deniers indeed look foolishly innumerate when they state that there was "no way" there could be more than 65,000 or 100,000 deaths. As soon as that bit of ignorance rolled off their lips, the Iraq Health Ministry admitted to 150,000 civilians killed by Sunni insurgents alone, which would be in the Lancet ballpark. Much other evidence suggests the Lancet numbers are about right. (See "The Human cost of the War in Iraq" here; fyi, I commissioned the study. More on this another time.)

4. Syria and Iran are behind the violence. There is no compelling reason why the two neighbors would foment large-scale violence that could spill over to threaten their regimes. Iran is in the driver's seat -- as everyone not blinded by neo-con fantasies knew in advance -- with its Shia cousins in power; Syria has its own regime stability problems and does not need the large influx of refugees or potential jihadis. That both are happy to make life hard for the U.S. is not a secret (call it their Monroe Doctrine). But are they organizing the extreme and destabilizing violence we've seen this year? Doubtful. And, there's very little evidence to support this piece of blame-someone-else.

5. The "Go Big" strategy of the Pentagon could work. The Pentagon apparently is about to forward three options to Bush for a retreat: "Go Big," meaning more troops for a short time, "Go Long," a gradual withdrawal while training Iraqis, and "Go Home," acknowledging defeat and getting out. Go Big is what McCain and Zinni and others are proposing, as if adding 20,000 or 30,000 troops will do the trick. The argument about more troops, which speaks also to the "incompetence dodge" (i.e., that the war wasn't wrong, just badly managed), has one problem: no one can convincing prove that modest increments in troop strength will change the security situation in Iraq (see #1 above). One would need 300,000 or more troops to have a chance of pacifying Iraq, and that is neither politically feasible or logistically possible, and is therefore a nonstarter. So is "Go Big."

6. Foreign fighters, especially jihadis, are fueling the violence. This was largely discredited but is making a comeback as Washington's search for scapegoats intensifies. By most estimates, including the Pentagon's, foreign fighters make up a small fraction of violent actors in Iraq -- perhaps 10 percent overall. (This is based on identifying people arrested as fighters.) Some of the more spectacular attacks have been carried out by al Qaeda or its imitators, but overall the violence is due to three forces: U.S. military, Iraqi Sunni Arab insurgents, and Shia militia, with minor parts played by Kurdish peshmerga in Kirkuk and the foreign bad boys.

7. If we do not defeat the violent actors there, they will follow us here. This is now the sole remaining justification for U.S. involvement in the war. If the numbers about foreign fighters are correct, then it is plainly wrong. The main anatgonists are Iraqis, and they will remain there to fight it out for many years. That does not mean we have not created many "terrorists" who would do us harm, as U.S. intelligence agencies assert, but killing them in Iraq is not a plausible option. It's too difficult; aggressive counterinsurgency creates more fighters the longer we stay and harder we try; and they might not be there.

8. The violence is about Sunni-Shia mutual loathing; a pox on both their houses. This is the emerging "moral clarity" of the right wing, that we gave it our best, we handed the tools of freedom to Iraqis, and they'd rather kill each other. That there was longstanding antagonism, stemming from decades of Sunni Arab domination and repression, is well known. But the truly horrifying scale of violence we see now took many months to brew, and is built on the violence begun by the U.S. military and the lack of economic stability, political participation, etc., that the occupation wrought. Equally as important, sectarian killing found its political justification in the constitution fashioned by U.S. advisers that essentially split the country into three factions, giving them a very solid set of incentives to go to war with each other.

9. The war is an Iraqi affair, and the best we can do now is train them to enforce security. This is the more upbeat version of #8, the "Go Long" strategy that sees training as a panacea. Despite three years of serious attempts, the U.S. training programs are bogged down by the sectarian violence itself, or by incompetence all round. No one who has looked at this carefully believes that training Iraqis is a near-term solution. It's a useful ruse as an exit strategy, blaming the victims for violence and failure.

10. Trust the same people who caused or endorsed the war to tell us what to do next. We know who they are: Bush, Cheney, McCain, and other cronies; the neo-cons now increasingly on the periphery of power but still bleating (Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, Adelman, Lieberman), the liberal hawks, and the right-wing media (Krauthamer, Fox News, Glenn Beck, phalangist bloggers, et al). They say, "just finish the job." Just finish the job... at a human cost of how many more dead? How many lives ruined? How much more damage to U.S.-Arab relations? How much anti-Muslim racism fomented to justify the killing?

The distortions about the violence in Iraq persist even as the mayhem increases. Yesterday there was a report about 100 widows a day being created in Iraq. A Times of London report from last summer notes that gravediggers in one Baghdad cemetery are handling 200 bodies daily, compared with 60 before the war. The situation of the displaced is becoming a humanitarian crisis that will soon rival the worst African cases; the middle and upper classes have fled, leaving the poor to cope. So the poor from the U.S. go to beat up the poor in Iraq, or stand by helplessly as the Iraqi poor ravage each other.

That is the harsh reality of violence in Iraq. A half million dead. More than two million displaced. No end in sight.

Beware the delusions.

To read the original article from Alter Net, click on:
Alter Net

US arms sales soar

Published on Tuesday, December 5, 2006 by Reuters
U.S. Predicts Bumper Year in Arms Sales
by Jim Wolf

The U.S. government is on its way to brokering about $20 billion in arms sales in the fiscal year that began October 1, steady with last year's near-record total, the Pentagon official responsible for such sales said on Monday.

"We're forecasting in the $20 billion range" for fiscal 2007, Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kohler, director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, told the Reuters Aerospace and Defense Summit in Washington.

In fiscal 2006, which ended on September 30, foreign military sales notified to Congress reached $20.9 billion, nearly double the $10.6 billion the previous year.

Last year's total was second only to 1993, which topped $30 billion, swollen by sales to the Middle East after the first Gulf War.

Regional security concerns tied to Iran and North Korea were helping drive current sales, Kohler said.

He said Saudi Arabia, for instance, was talking to the United States about shore-hugging littoral combat ships that could cost billions of dollars in coming years.

The ships were of particular interest to the Saudi Navy's Eastern Fleet "that would first confront Iranian aggression if there is any." The Eastern Fleet also was largely responsible for protecting Saudi oil infrastructure in the Gulf, Kohler said.

Such ships, costing some $220 million apiece, are designed to counter submarines, small surface attack craft and mines in heavily contested areas near shore. Different versions are being built for the U.S. Navy by teams led by Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp..

The United Arab Emirates also was considering purchases designed to boost its naval capabilities, missile defense and command and control, Kohler said.

Sales to Iraq, including armored personnel carriers, plus equipment for Afghan government forces would total about $3 billion in fiscal 2007, about the same as last year, he said.

North Korea, which defied global pressure this year to test-fire missiles and carry out a nuclear test blast, is also spurring arms purchases, Kohler said.

Japan had been seeking to buy Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles faster than its original plan, and the United States expects South Korea to follow suit, he said.

"We're hoping that will be in their next budget," Kohler said. South Korea needs extra Patriot missiles, which could cost $50 million to $300 million, to deal with "the threat from North Korea."

India, for its part, may be moving closer to becoming a U.S. arms client, Kohler said, citing among other things relationships he had built in as many as 11 meetings over time held with some of his Indian counterparts.

Last month, he wound up "probably the best visit I've had out there," thanks to those relationships, he said.

Kohler made clear the United States was balking at Taiwan's interest in buying up to 66 advanced Lockheed Martin Corp. F-16 fighter aircraft until it follows through on a package of weapons it requested more than five years ago.

At issue is refusal by the Taiwan legislature, controlled by the political opposition, to purchase up to eight diesel-electric submarines, 12 P-3C Orion anti-submarine aircraft and Patriot anti-missile systems offered by President Bush in 2001.

"Until we see some movement on that, the U.S. government is reluctant to endorse an F-16 sale," Kohler said.

Taiwan has sought the F-16C/D fighter jets over a five-to-10-year period, in a deal that could be worth as much as $5.5 billion.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

###

To read the original article from Reuters, click on:
Reuters

Minutes of National Council

Pax Christi Australia

Minutes of First Meeting of National Council. (by phone)
27 November 2006

Taking Part: Maggie Galley (Chair) Claude Moskovitz, Jo Camilleri, Claire Cooke, Harry Kerr, Pancras Jordan,

1. Role Of National Council: It was agreed that the purpose of the National Council is to
 Facilitate communication and interaction between branches,
 Facilitate and initiate action as a national movement
 Facilitate care of and oversight of branches and “lone members”
 Facilitate formation of new branches,
 Facilitate communication and interaction with the Asia Pacific Region and with Pax Christi International
Represent Pax Christi Australia to the wider Australian Community.

2. Role of Members of National Council:
 To act as points of connection between council and branches and between branches
 Take responsibility for implementing council decisions.
 Facilitate communication within council
 Communicates minutes and decisions to members.

3. It was agreed that we accept Joe’s proposal for the roles of president and Secretary.
(The most important agenda item, as I see it, is to clarify what we see as the role of NATIONAL PRESIDENT and NATIONAL SECRETARY. This was not done either at this year's conference, or at the one that framed our present constitution. As I see it, these two roles are critical to the development of a properly functioning national framework.

Let me share with you a couple of thoughts.

The secretary's role is perhaps the more important of the two in this sense:
whoever assumes this role is the one who will keep the wheels turning of our fledgling National Council. It requires someone who is good at consulting, good at writing minutes, circulating them, and good at ensuring that we have a workable system of consultation. It requires reliability, punctuality (if something important needs doing, it is done by the due date, not a few days or a few weeks later) and a good deal of "stick-at-it-ness", especially in the formative first year or two, when we are trying to develop workable mechanisms
of consultation and decision-making.

The President's role is to conduct the external relations of the Pax Christi movement - someone who can be the public face of the movement (speak with media- if and when we have something useful to say), who represents the movement at significant national forums or gatherings, who liaises with Pax Christi International, and occasionally with other International Presidents.)


4 Joe Camilleri accepted Nomination for National President of Pax Christi Australia for at least twelve months.

5 Joe accepted nomination on condition that each branch provided the infrastructure and to take responsibility for communicating statements, decisions and information to the media.

6 Maggie Galley accepted nomination to act as National Secretary.

7 Priorities for State Branches

 Queensland: Priority to be given to monitoring events in Sri Lanka, working with the Justice and Peace Commission and the Brisbane Peace Network
Interfaith dialogue: to become more involved with Northwest Interfaith Group and other interfaith networks.

 New South Wales: Priorities would be West Papua and per4ecution of the Falun Gong: involvement in campaign to boycott the Beijing Olympics.

8 Victoria: To actively participate in and be the Melbourne face of the Alternatives to Empire project, a partnership between Pax Christi, the Uniting Church (Victorian Synod) and Movement for a Just World., (Kuala Lumpur)

 To continue to develop interfaith contacts, to continue to support and participate in the Jewish Christian Muslim Association, to support and participate in the work of the Dialogue Centre ( La Trobe University) of which PXVic is a sponsor.
 To continue to create awareness of the threat to human rights in Australia form the anti terror legislation particularly among the church communities and to hold a conference during 2007.
 To offer a support to our Japanese partners in the campaign to change the no-war provisions in the Japanese constitution.

9 Future meetings.
It was agreed that the council will meet monthly February-June 2007 and then review frequency. Maggie to circulate dated for a February meeting.

Harry Kerr 5/12/2006