 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tripledoc
No. If Koestler is right, then I wonder why the Jewish homestate was set up in Palestine and not in the Caucasus. But that would have been imposible, since I don't think Stalin would have been amused. I am not being reactionary, and wishing for a relocation of the state of Israel, I just think that maybe the British were not thinking straight, back when Palestine was their mandate. Off course at that time the empire was falling apart, and maybe that confused them. |
Perhaps because then, as now, not all Jews claim descent from Khazars nor do they necessarily agree with the ideas of Arthur Koestler.
British Mandate of Palestine: San Remo Conference, 1920.
State of British Empire at that point: largest empire the world had ever seen, with a population numbering one quarter of the world's inhabitants. The Irish had yet to receive independence, Egypt had yet to receive independence, the Dominions had not achieved full autonomy and Great Britain was still occupying Istanbul and the Straits and had sent forces to Bolshevik Russia.
"In 1920 at the San Remo conference in Italy, the League of Nations mandate over Palestine and Transjordan was assigned to Britain. This territory at this time included all of what would later become the State of Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, a part of the Golan Heights, and the Kingdom of Jordan. The population of this area was mainly Arab, although with a significant Jewish minority (approaching 10%), and Bedouin and Druze.
The document defining Britain's obligations as Mandate power copied the text of the Balfour Declaration concerning the establishment of a Jewish homeland, including that Declaration's deliberate ambiguity. Many articles of the document specified actions in support of Jewish immigration and political status.
"The British government put severe limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine. Immigration was allowed, but up to a certain quota. "
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/ B...Nations_mandate
Instead of patronizing British government in Palestine and viewing through hindsight, why not check your posts for relevant dates to support your argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Instead of patronizing British government in Palestine and viewing through hindsight, why not check your posts for relevant dates to support your argument. |
They gave in to terrorism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
quote:
the Dominions had not achieved full autonomy |
At least one had.  |
"This document from the 1926 Imperial Conference declares the United Kingdom and its Dominions equal in status in all matters of internal and external affairs. This replaced the principle of a hierarchical relationship with one of 'autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status ... and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations'.
One of many printed copies, this document represents an important step in Australia's path to independent nationhood. This step was based on agreement to this report at the 1926 Imperial Conference, by which the British Commonwealth accepted the principles underpinning the autonomy of the self-governing Dominions. The international recognition of the free and equal status of the Dominion members of the League of Nations was thus affirmed within the British Commonwealth. The law enacting these principles was the Statute of Westminster in 1931, adopted by Australia in 1942. "
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/text...s/cth/cth11.htm
and:
"The statement (not to be confused with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 by which the British government favoured a Jewish national home in Palestine) is named (like the earlier document) after the Earl of Balfour (Arthur James Balfour, 1848-1930), Lord President of the Council in the British government and chairman of the Conference's inter-Imperial relations committee, which drew up the document preparatory to its approval by the Imperial premiers at their sitting of November 15.
The Declaration FORMALLY accepted the growing political and diplomatic independence shown particularly by Canada since World War I. It also accepted that the Governor-General, (the representative of the King, who remained head of state in each Dominion) should no longer serve automatically also as the representative of the British government in diplomatic relations between the two countries, foreshadowing the appointment (1928) of a British High Commissioner in Ottawa. "
http://www.fact-index.com/b/ba/balf...tion__1926.html
I just sank your battleship.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
And about congress: When will the US govt. do something? ( sadly, they're the only ones that can do anything of scale around, it seems) |
The thing is that the president of America is the supreme commander of the armed forces, and thus he has to take the military into consideration. The article below relates information on a think tank report which claims that it is the situation in Iraq which makes a military intervention impossible. Therfore it is not because Bush and Blair do not want to go in, they simply don't have the means to do it.
.....................................................................................
War in Iraq 'preventing efforts to stop Sudan genocide'
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
28 July 2004
Britain and America's preoccupation with Iraq has blocked international efforts to end genocide in the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan, according to a highly critical report published by a think-tank close to Tony Blair.
The study, to be published today, said that the war in Iraq had prevented effective planning for military intervention which could have bolstered diplomatic efforts to prevent the bloodshed, which has driven more than a million people from their homes.
It warned that discussion on Iraq had prevented the United Nations Security Council discussing the Darfur crisis in May and diverted attention from clear warning signs that started emerging more than a year ago.
The study, which was published by the Foreign Policy Centre, a left-of-centre think-tank which counts Mr Blair as its patron, said that there was a fatal lack of political resolve to take strong action against the Khartoum government, a key American ally in the war on international terrorism.
Yesterday the report's author, Dr Greg Austin, a specialist who has led Government funded research into conflict prevention, said the lessons of the Rwandan genocide had not been learnt. He said British and American military action in Iraq had prevented the two countries considering putting "boots on the ground" in Sudan, and criticised the United Nations for omitting Darfur from the agenda of the Security Council in May "since the focus of discussion was on Iraq".
A string of options ranging from sanctions to developing contingency plans for military action had been available as clear signs of genocide emerged over the past year, the report maintained.
"During the Darfur genocide, these options were available to the international community as early as September 2003. By June 2004 no action had been taken in any way that might credibly have led the perpetrators to cease the genocide," it said.
The report fiercely criticised Britain and the United States for backing "quiet diplomacy", arguing that such an approach was "utterly inappropriate" for the situation in Darfur.
It added: "Major powers and the UN have been fearful of angering Khartoum before it concludes a peace agreement in its civil war in the south.
"Furthermore, the political leaders of some major powers may lack the political resolve to intervene in Darfur because of their commitments elsewhere in the world. Major powers do not want to jeopardise good relations with the Sudanese government in the 'war on terrorism'," the report said.
Dr Austin, who said he wrote his report in a personal capacity, insisted that the whole of the international community had failed to act in Darfur.
But he warned: "The commitment of the US and the UK in Iraq and the use of military force in Iraq pushed them away from considering any sort of military option...
"What the Iraq war should not have prevented them from doing was working on the possibility of international partners to find somebody willing to take on some role. There was nothing stopping them getting together a coalition of the willing to start to plan things."
Ministers have insisted Britain is at the forefront of aid efforts in Darfur but Dr Austin said politicians risked overlooking the perpetrators of genocide by characterising the conflict as a humanitarian crisis.
John Bercow, the shadow Secretary of State for International Development, called on ministers to back an international force to secure aid efforts in Darfur and to police a ceasefire. He said: "We are at 59 minutes after the 11th hour. Every day lives are being lost, women are being raped and lives are being destroyed. It is an unstable, dangerously failing state."
The US told UN Security Council members yesterday to be ready to vote this week on a resolution warning Sudan to protect Darfur civilians.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/po...sp?story=545362
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I don't need lifeboats. If you don't think I'm aware of pretty much every step in the chain of Canada's political relationship with Britain then you've got a rude shock coming.
You may as well claim that we weren't autonomous until 1982 or that we aren't yet.
Autonomy was a fait accompli after WWI, and had pretty much been so since 1867. |
Perhaps then your problem is with my use of the English language:
"British declaration of war on Germany automatically involved Canada and the rest of the Empire; the Canadian war effort won Canada a greater degree of autonomy from Britain and a modest role in the peace process, but resulting Franco-English tensions in Canada produced a country reluctant to take on international responsibilities."
and:
"....after pressure at the 1926 and 1930 Imperial Conferences, the Statute of Westminster gave Canada, Newfoundland (and the other Dominions -- Australia, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, Eire) FULL and COMPLETE autonomy within the British Commonwealth, including control of foreign and domestic affairs and representation in the League of Nations; the constitutional status of the British Crown in the Dominions remained unresolved, and by Canadian consent the amendment or repeal of the British North America Acts (1867-1930) remained the preserve of the British Parliament until 1982."
http://www.regiments.org/milhist/na-canada/canada.htm
"I speak as a citizen of Canada," says Mackenzie King, and the audience applauds. He's speaking at the very first Canadian citizenship ceremony, at which King has been issued the very first Canadian citizenship certificate. Prior to this day in 1947, Canadians were simply British subjects living in Canada. Although his speech is rather formal, King's pleasure with this advancement in Canadian autonomy shines through. "Without citizenship, much else is meaningless," he says.
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-127...nzie_king/clip4
Indeed, Mr. King, indeed.
None of which seems to contradict what I said:
'the Dominions had not achieved full autonomy',
unless you have a different definition of full or autonomy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Perhaps your problem is with the English language, as I recall saying "after WWI"
So what date are you setting on autonomy then, Molly?
You've just offered 1947. Before it was 1926.
The fact is that autonomy was already real, no matter how many technicalities were left. |
I've done nothing of the sort.
I'm suggesting that there was an historical process, a continuuum, and that first the British North America Act conferred a degree of local self-government (i.e., a greater DEGREE of autonomy than had existed before).
Canadian sacrifices in the Boer War and WWI were duly recognised, leading to the full autonomy in the Balfour Declaration.
It's me quoting Mackenzie King, by the way, not vice versa, and even the then Prime Minister of Canada and the C.B.C. seem to recognise something that Krazyhorse does not, that there are degrees and shades of autonomy.
Strangely enough, the governments of Canada and Great Britain seemed to find these things of some importance, at least enough to warrant acts of Parliament, repatriation of a constitution, the renaming of the British North America Acts, and so on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Fill full the mouth of famine[1]
26th July 2004
John Laughland
Perhaps the most striking thing about the news reports that Britain is thinking of sending troops to Darfur in Sudan is the silence on the matter which has emanated from the usual antiwar campaigners. Although the Guardian report on 22nd July said that a “humanitarian intervention” in Sudan would help retrieve Tony Blair’s reputation for moral action after the Iraq debacle—as if the solution to a bad war was a good one—the usual suspects have not piped up. And even though the US Congress formally decided on 22nd July that “genocide” was occurring in Darfur—“genocide” being an international crime, this is the legal trigger for intervention—no one has so far pointed out that the same genocide was invoked to justify Nato’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.
The silence is all the more odd, given that Darfur is a region which is rich in oil and through which pipelines are to be constructed. Moreover, the main investor in the Sudanese oil industry is the China National Petroleum Company, and China is Sudan’s biggest trading partner overall.[2] It has been alleged that there are Chinese soldiers in Sudan protecting Chinese oil interests there, and that these troops have engaged in skirmishes with the rebels.[3] Moreover, while there are numerous foreign oil companies present in Sudan, it is precisely in Southern Darfur that the Chinese National Petroleum Company has its concessions. USAID, the American humanitarian agency, has helpfully provided a map of Sudan showing precisely where the oil concessions are. See http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-...dan/map_oil.pdf)
It is surely inevitable that there will now be a military intervention by Sudan’s former colonial power, Britain. (In one of those delicious ironies of history, it was precisely in China that one of the most famous colonialists of all, General Gordon of Khartoum, distinguished himself before becoming governor of Sudan, where he precisely intervened to protect the blacks in the South from the Muslims who sold them as slaves.[4]) Tony Blair ostensibly tried to play down the news reports at his monthly press conference on 22nd July. But, while saying—as he had done on Iraq—that no decisions had been taken, the Prime Minister also reverted to his habitual use of the language of moralism. A question (planted?) made the comparison between Sudan and Kosovo and Blair replied, “I believe we have a moral responsibility to deal with this and to deal with it by any means that we can” (my italics).[5] This means war.
Blair evidently hopes that a humanitarian war will efface the memories of the “war for oil” in Iraq. The opposition to the Kosovo war having been minimal, and international support being widespread for an attack on the “genocidal” Sudanese government, his gamble is likely to pay off. It does not seem to matter to antiwar campaigners that the same language of moralism was used to justify all the other military interventions in Blair’s astonishingly militaristic premiership (the “Desert Fox” bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998; the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999; the intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000; the attack on Afghanistan in 2001; the invasion of Iraq in 2003.) Unfortunately, it is likely that the simple appeal of sending troops to help poor blacks against marauding Muslims will be too strong for most antiwar campaigners to overcome.
Indeed, the Darfur crisis is following a pattern which is so well-worn now that it has almost become routine. Saturation reporting from a crisis region; emergency calls for help broadcast on the electronic media (such as the one recently on the BBC Radio 4 flagship ‘Today’ programme); televised pictures of refugees; lurid stories of “mass rapes”, which are surely designed to titillate as much to provoke outrage; reproachful evocations of the Rwandan genocide; demands that something must be done (“How can we stand idly by?”, etc.); editorials in the Daily Telegraph calling for a return to the days of Rudyard Kipling’s benevolent imperialism[6]; and, finally, the announcement that plans are indeed being drawn up for an intervention.
In fact, the routine is now so well established that life even imitated satire when the Daily Telegraph dispatched its 90 year-old former editor, Bill Deedes, to report on the situation in Sudan. Deedes is himself the model for William Boot in Evelyn Waugh’s novel, Scoop, whose reports from a fictitious East African state on a war more or less invented by the press baron, Lord Copper, in London, were themselves inspired by the young Deedes’ reports from Abyssinia for the Morning Star in 1935.
According to Arab sources quoted by the informative Turkish paper, Zaman, oil is the basis of the crisis in Darfur.[7] These sources say that renewed fighting broke out at the very moment when a peace agreement was about to be signed which would have brought an end to 21 years of conflict. This is certainly what the Sudanese government itself alleges. If so, this would conform to the pattern established in Bosnia and Kosovo, when the international community moved to scupper peace deals, preferring to encourage wars which provide the pretext for intervention.
The Sudanese government, which is currently in the cross-hairs of the interventionist West, agrees that there is fighting and there is a humanitarian crisis. But it accuses Western humanitarian organisations and media of over-dramatising the situation in order to provide a pretext for military intervention. The Washington embassy issued the following statement: “Politicization of the situation in Darfur and its use as a tool to destabilize the Government of Sudan must be considered the major factor of the humanitarian disaster there.”[8] But it correctly denounces the media distortions and calls them propagandistic.[9] It also protests at the claim that it is backing the Janjaweed militiamen who are said to be causing so much trouble: this claim is repeated with the same relentlessness as was the similar claim that Serbia was pursuing ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.[/b] In reality, Janjaweed militiamen have been subjected to horrific punishments by the Sudanese courts, including amputation.[10][/b]
Zaman also alleges that some of the groups fighting the central government in Khartoum are supported by Sudan’s neighbours, by the US, European governments, and by Israel. The US is said to have given $20 million to the Sudanese People Liberation Army, led by a man who conforms perfectly to the model of the American agent. John Garang is a ruthless killer who has a doctorate from a university in Iowa, and who is a former Marxist who curries support from American Christian fundamentalists. (The support of American charities for the “Christians” in Southern Sudan has been a feature of the conflicts there for some years now, even though, as in John Garang’s case, the local tribes worship either the sky or animals.[11]) Garang’s movement is supported by the Sudanese Communist Party: communists are, paradoxically, American allies all over Eastern Europe and in many Southern African states. The suspicion is that intervention will encourage the Southern part of Sudan, including parts of Darfur, will move towards independence, as neighbouring Eritrea did from Ethiopia, and become, like Eritrea, a territory for US bases. Ethiopia, for its part, has funnelled aid from Israel and the US to the SPLA.
Another key figure is Hassan Turabi (Hasan al-Turabi) leader of the Popular National Congress, onetime leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and onetime ally of President Hassan al-Bashir. Turabi is known as an influential Islamist who is said to have given safe haven to Osama bin Laden. Although Turabi is denounced (especially by the Sudanese government he is attacking) as a Muslim fundamentalist, other Muslims regard him as a tool of the West.[12] Turabi was credited by American commentators as being the author of Sudan’s liberal and republican version of Islam.[13] Turabi’s Justice and Equality Movement is based in US-controlled Eritrea, from where it issues its official communiqués. As a turncoat former ally of the president, Turabi fits perfectly into the category of persons often used by outside powers (especially the US) to promote regime change. The tantalising possibility that an old friend of Osama bin Laden might be an American ally in Sudan only nourishes the kind of speculation indulged in by Michael Moore in Fahrenheit 9-11, which dwells at length on the business links between the Bush family and rich Saudis like the bin Ladins.
Intervention will allow Western forces to control an oil rich region, and perhaps to expel the present holders of concessions. The fact that the biggest of these is China, and that America’s other foreign adventures also seem to have as their goal the control of energy supplies to that strategic rival, only adds further piquancy to what is, otherwise, an all too banal case of modern imperialistic meddling.
http://www.sandersresearch.com/Sand...aspx?NewsID=703
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Did you check out the map provided by USaid?
That oil is at least one of the issues being fought over, is, I think, beyond doubt.
Also note that the base of Operation Lifeline Sudan (an American enterprize) is based in Kenya just bordering rebel controlled areas in the South.
Air America redux?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Is Operation Lifeline Sudan a cover for helping the rebels?
..........................................................................................
Published in Boston Globe (USA)
December 6, 1999
US Plan to Feed Sudan Rebels Rapped
Aid Groups Foresee Prolonged War
By Gunnar Willum and Bjørn Willum
NAIROBI - The US legislation authorizing food aid to Sudanese rebels has elicited warnings from humanitarian agencies that food deliveries could jeopardize aid operations and ''put aid workers at risk.''
President Clinton, who signed the bill last week, is considering using the food aid to enhance the military capabilities of the Sudan People's Liberation Army, or SPLA, a south Sudanese rebel group fighting to oust an Islamist government in the capital of Khartoum. Washington accuses the government of sponsoring international terrorism.
Since Sudan's civil war began in 1983, an estimated 1.5 million people have died, a majority of whom have starved to death as both sides have used food as a weapon. Aid organizations said a direct US alignment with rebels could be used by Khartoum to close down the UN-led Operation Lifeline Sudan, or OLS, a consortium of UN and private aid organizations feeding the millions of displaced across Sudan. The groups say their effort depends on the approval of the government.
''It is quite possible that the Sudan government would shut down the OLS and other aid agencies operating in Sudan,'' said Abigail Spring from the World Food Program, a UN agency participating in Operation Lifeline.
But the food program is also concerned that the US support could put the aid workers themselves at risk.
''If the US was to fly in support for the SPLA, the WFP and other aid agencies could become military targets,'' Spring said. ''Our aircraft could be mistaken for US planes and be shot at.''
Several agencies have stated publicly that they will not participate in any distribution of food aid to the People's Liberation Army. ''It would set a terrible precedent,'' said Marianne Leach from the Washington-based CARE.
CARE and seven other private organizations participating in Operation Lifeline have written to Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright requesting that the bill not be implemented. ''Food aid will put not only humanitarian aid workers at risk but also jeopardize vulnerable people in need,'' they wrote in a joint letter.
But the legislation is controversial not only because it could curtail aid efforts. The measure is intended to support the Sudan People's Liberation Army because it is fighting a government with ''a dismal human rights record,'' according to a State Department official. ''It's an extremely repressive regime, which supports international terrorism and slavery,'' the official said.
But according to the latest State Department human rights report, both the Sudanese government and the People's Liberation Army are behind slavery, recruitment of child soldiers, and murder.
Critics say aid has been misused by the People's Liberation Army and warn of putting too much faith in leader John Garang.
''It is insane to think that Garang is the savior of the south. Garang will either sell the food, give it to some of his friends, or deny it to people he doesn't like,'' a Western official said, adding that there were clashes last week between different army units.
''Both parties are only concerned with winning the war,'' said Gillian Wilcox from Operation Lifeline in Nairobi. ''Civilian lives are simply not a priority.''
While the northern government and various rebel factions in the south have negotiated for years, Albright officially lent her support to the peace process on her recent trip to Africa.
''I think we are all on a daily basis horrified by what is going on in Sudan and we believe that the process is the best way to go forward,'' Albright said before meeting Garang in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, in October.
But during the meeting, which was closed to the public, Albright promised continued support for the rebels, according to a UN official who followed the negotiations.
''Albright made a deal with Garang about more help in return for SPLA improving their human rights record, but Albright did not put pressure on Garang to conclude a peace,'' the UN official said.
''Giving food aid directly to the rebels would be fueling the war rather than putting pressure on both sides to end it. It would be an escalation,'' said Annette Weber of Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group.
Gunnar Willum reported from Nairobi, and Bjorn Willum from London.
http://www.willum.com/articles/glob.../indexright.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
No. Wait for Comrade Tribune to come back before you express shame.
On the other hand, I disagree with just about everything Tripledoc just said. |
CT....  I miss him.
And about congress: When will the US govt. do something? ( sadly, they're the only ones that can do anything of scale around, it seems) |
we're tring to work with the UN - since the US is overstretched, and its easier to get the help of others with a UNSC res. in hand. Happily UK, Germany, and France are with us - unfortunately China and Russia are not. The initial plan was a res that threaten sanction if Sudan doesnt act, to be revisited in 30 days. Cant get consensus on that, so now its being softened to "additional measures" if Sudan doesnt act, to be revisited in 30 days.
Bottom line, sanctions are meaningless if not fully multilateral. Military action by the US will happen ONLY if UK, France and Germany are alongside - and they probably wont go without a UNSC res, which means we need Russia and China to at least abstain. Which means this is gonna drag out, and people are gonna die meanwhile. Still its better than whats happened in some past genocides.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 04:59
|