Nuclear Diplomacy????
No decision on new Iran sanctions
NEW YORK (AFP) – Six major powers considered new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear defiance here Saturday but reached no decision, a senior European Union official said.
The closed-door meeting hosted by the European Union at its mission in New York brought together senior officials from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. China, signaling its reluctance to back tougher sanctions pushed by the West, sent a lower-level diplomat.
“Consideration of appropriate further measures has begun,” Robert Cooper, a top EU diplomat, said after the meeting, giving no details of the measures discussed.
He spoke as host and chair of the closed-door working luncheon, which lasted just over two hours.
Cooper said the six expressed concern over Iran’s building of a new secret enrichment plant “with no credible civilian purpose,” as well as its “insufficient cooperation” with the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The six were also concerned about Tehran’s rejection of a deal under which most of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) stockpile would be shipped abroad to be further enriched into reactor fuel.
Tehran has ignored a US-set December 31 deadline to accept the offer, drawn up by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, and countered with its own proposal of a simultaneous and staged swap of LEU with reactor fuel.
Iran insists it is ready to send its LEU abroad only if there is a simultaneous exchange of fuel inside the country.
“The group remains united, remains committed to the two-track approach” of sanctions while pursuing negotiations, the EU official said.
“That implies that we will continue to seek a negotiation solution — but consideration of appropriate further measures (sanctions) has also begun,” he pointedly noted.
Earlier, Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov emerged from the meeting, saying it was “inconclusive in the sense that we did not make any decisions right away.”
“We have started the next chapter of this saga, the next part of the process. As I said Russia has always been fully committed to the dual track approach,” he said.
“We have talked today about the second track, but it does not mean that we should abandon the first one, the engagement policy.”
US Under Secretary of State William Burns only aid that the six had a “useful discussion.”
His French counterpart Jacques Audibert stressed that “it was not a meeting to make decisions.”
Diplomatic sources said the EU-hosted meeting was preceded by a two-hour gathering of the four Western members of the group.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the six would explore “the kind and degree of sanctions that we should be pursuing” as Iran doggedly refused to comply with UN demands to halt uranium enrichment.
Measures said to be under consideration include tougher sanctions targeting Iran’s insurance, financial and arms sectors.
The goal is to increase the pressure so Iran will accept a UN-brokered deal aimed at allaying suspicions about the nature of its nuclear program.
Washington and its Western allies fear that Iran is secretly developing fissile material for nuclear weapons under the cover of its uranium enrichment program.
But Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and solely geared toward generating electricity for its civilian population.
Washington along with Britain, France and Germany have for months sought to convince Russia and China that the time has come to get tougher with the Islamic republic, which has already ignored three sets of Security Council sanctions.
Diplomats noted that Moscow, having seen its mediation efforts rebuffed by Tehran, has signaled it is prepared to turn up the heat on the Iranians.
But China, which has close economic and energy ties with Iran, has said new sanctions would be premature and that more time should be given for diplomacy to work.
Also at the meeting were Kang Yong, a counselor at China’s UN mission, Geoffrey Adams of Britain and Emily Haber of Germany.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100116/usa/iran_un_nuclear_diplomacy
H1N1 Vaccine Loan
Canada to lend Mexico 5 million doses of H1N1 vaccine; expects to be repaid
By Helen Branswell, Medical Reporter, The Canadian Press
TORONTO – Canada, which has a large surplus of H1N1 vaccine on its hands, announced Wednesday it will lend some to Mexico.
Canada’s NAFTA partner has ordered vaccine from manufacturers Sanofi Pasteur and GlaxoSmithKline, but won’t take possession of the bulk of its supply until the end of this month.
So this week GSK Canada will ship five million doses of adjuvanted vaccine from Canada’s stockpile to Mexico. Later, GSK Canada will put five million doses of adjuvanted vaccine from Mexico’s order into the reserve the company is holding for Canada.
The move was announced in a press release which stipulated that the vaccine will be replaced by the end of March.
“This is not a donation,” the release stated in the lead paragraph. The loan was triggered by a request from Mexico, the Public Health Agency of Canada said.
“We are privileged that we are in a position to support Mexico’s pandemic response efforts,” Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said in the release.
“The immediate response to Mexico’s request by Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments serves as testimony to the special relationship that exists between Canada and Mexico.”
Aglukkaq was not available Wednesday and officials of the Public Health Agency of Canada declined to be interviewed on the development.
But in an emailed answer to questions, the agency said Canada currently has enough vaccine to meet domestic demand and could therefore accommodate the Mexican request.
In fact, Canada likely already has much more vaccine than it will need. Demand here, as elsewhere, has plummeted in recent weeks as H1N1 activity has waned in much of the Northern Hemisphere.
The Public Health Agency estimates that somewhere between 40 and 45 per cent of Canadians have been vaccinated against the pandemic virus. At one dose per person, that represents around 15 million doses.
But according to the agency’s most recent estimate – which dates back to Dec. 12 – Canada has taken possession of 27 million doses of vaccine, with much more to come.
The country bought 50.6 million doses of vaccine – 50.4 million from GSK and 200,000 doses of unadjuvanted vaccine from Australian manufacturer CSL Ltd. The GSK order was placed at a time when it was thought two doses per person would be needed for protection. Studies later showed one dose is sufficient for all but young children.
While the Public Health Agency said it is currently impossible to estimate the size of the potential vaccine surplus, it is clear that short of a huge surge in demand Canada will be left with more doses left over than it actually used. The surplus could be in the range of 30 million to 35 million doses.
That situation, which has been apparent for some time, has left observers here and abroad wondering what Canada will do with the excess vaccine and why the country hasn’t joined a group of other nations that are contributing to international vaccine fund for developing countries.
That effort, led by the World Health Organization, is set to make its first deliveries to Azerbaijan and Mongolia this week followed by Afghanistan next week.
“If you really want to hold a mirror up to our nation, you might ask the question why we’re lending and not just giving,” Dr. Ross Upshur, head of the University of Toronto’s Joint Centre for Bioethics, said when he heard the news Canada is lending vaccine to Mexico.
“What does that say about us? We’re not using the vaccine that we have, we’ve got a surplus, but we’re not big enough just to simply give?”
“If we do end up … not using it when there is a need for it elsewhere, that’s really a terrible condemnation of our policies.”
For weeks officials have been saying a decision about the unneeded vaccine would be made early in the New Year. But so far, deliberations are still taking place at the highest levels of government.
“There are a number of options being explored for dealing with surplus vaccine,” the Public Health Agency said by email. “These will be announced when we are confident we have enough vaccine to meet current needs and future contingencies.”
Canadian officials continue to press the public to get vaccinated, saying it’s too soon to rule out a return of the virus.
But the rates of uptake in all but the largest provinces are quite high, leaving some to question how many more people can be persuaded to get an H1N1 shot.
Some jurisdictions have topped 60 per cent.
Newfoundland and Labrador estimates it has vaccinated 68 per cent of its residents, followed by New Brunswick at about 67 per cent, Northwest Territories at 62 per cent and Nunavut at 61 per cent. Nova Scotia hasn’t yet calculated the percentage of doses administered, but says it has sent out to clinics and doctors’ offices enough for 64 per cent of its population.
Quebec and Prince Edward Island say they have vaccinated 57 per cent of their residents and Yukon about 53 per cent.
Saskatchewan estimates about 48 per cent of its citizens have received the H1N1 shot and British Columbia about 40 per cent.
Alberta says between 35 and 40 per cent of its residents have been vaccinated, followed by Ontario at 38 per cent and Manitoba at 36 per cent.
Canada isn’t alone in trying to figure out what to do with excess vaccine.
The Netherlands, Spain, France and Germany are among those that have publicly acknowledged they are looking to either sell excess vaccine or scale back their orders. And Australia has admitted it has used only about one-quarter of the doses it purchased.
The Netherlands has already sold surplus doses. And in recent days, France has announced it is cancelling more than half of its original order of 94 million doses. Reports suggest France is also negotiating to sell vaccine to countries in the Middle East and Central America.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100107/national/flu_vaccine_loan
All that’s left to do is squeeze…..
Secret document exposes Iran’s nuclear trigger
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
An Asian intelligence source last week confirmed to The Times that his country also believed that weapons work was being carried out as recently as 2007 — specifically, work on a neutron initiator.
The technical document describes the use of a neutron source, uranium deuteride, which independent experts confirm has no possible civilian or military use other than in a nuclear weapon. Uranium deuteride is the material used in Pakistan’s bomb, from where Iran obtained its blueprint.
“Although Iran might claim that this work is for civil purposes, there is no civil application,” said David Albright, a physicist and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, which has analysed hundreds of pages of documents related to the Iranian programme. “This is a very strong indicator of weapons work.”
The documents have been seen by intelligence agencies from several Western countries, including Britain. A senior source at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed that they had been passed to the UN’s nuclear watchdog.
A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokeswoman said yesterday: “We do not comment on intelligence, but our concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme are clear. Obviously this document, if authentic, raises serious questions about Iran’s intentions.”
Responding to The Times’ findings, an Israeli government spokesperson said: “Israel is increasingly concerned about the state of the Iranian nuclear programme and the real intentions that may lie behind it.”
The revelation coincides with growing international concern about Iran’s nuclear programme. Tehran insists that it wants to build a civilian nuclear industry to generate power, but critics suspect that the regime is intent on diverting the technology to build an atomic bomb.
In September, Iran was forced to admit that it was constructing a secret uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. President Ahmadinejad then claimed that he wanted to build ten such sites. Over the weekend Manouchehr Mottaki, the Iranian Foreign Minister, said that Iran needed up to 15 nuclear power plants to meet its energy needs, despite the country’s huge oil and gas reserves.
Publication of the nuclear documents will increase pressure for tougher UN sanctions against Iran, which are due to be discussed this week. But the latest leaks in a long series of allegations against Iran will also be seized on by hawks in Israel and the US, who support a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities before the country can build its first warhead.
Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: “The most shattering conclusion is that, if this was an effort that began in 2007, it could be a casus belli. If Iran is working on weapons, it means there is no diplomatic solution.”
The Times had the documents, which were originally written in Farsi, translated into English and had the translation separately verified by two Farsi speakers. While much of the language is technical, it is clear that the Iranians are intent on concealing their nuclear military work behind legitimate civilian research.
The fallout could be explosive, especially in Washington, where it is likely to invite questions about President Obama’s groundbreaking outreach to Iran. The papers provide the first evidence which suggests that Iran has pursued weapons studies after 2003 and may actively be doing so today — if the four-year plan continued as envisaged.
A 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate concluded that weapons work was suspended in 2003 and officials said with “moderate confidence” that it had not resumed by mid-2007. Britain, Germany and France, however, believe that weapons work had already resumed by then.
Western intelligence sources say that by 2003 Iran had already assembled the technical know-how it needed to build a bomb, but had yet to complete the necessary testing to be sure such a device would work. Iran also lacked sufficient fissile material to fuel a bomb and still does — although it is technically capable of producing weapons-grade uranium should its leaders take the political decision to do so.
The documents detail a plan for tests to determine whether the device works — without detonating an explosion leaving traces of uranium detectable by the outside world. If such traces were found, they would be taken as irreversible evidence of Iran’s intention to become a nuclear-armed power.
Experts say that, if the 2007 date is correct, the documents are the strongest indicator yet of a continuing nuclear weapons programme in Iran. Iran has long denied a military dimension to its nuclear programme, claiming its nuclear activities are solely focused on the production of energy for civilian use.
Mr Fitzpatrick said: “Is this the smoking gun? That’s the question people should be asking. It looks like the smoking gun. This is smoking uranium.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6955351.ece
Fuel from Algae
A startup’s new process could make fuel from algae as cheap as petroleum.
By: Kevin Bullis
Solazyme, a startup based in South San Francisco, CA, has developed a new way to convert biomass into fuel using algae, and the method could lead to less expensive biofuels. The company recently demonstrated its algae-based fuel in a diesel car, and in January, it announced a development and testing agreement with Chevron. Late last year, the company received a $2 million grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a substitute for crude oil based on algae.
The new process combines genetically modified strains of algae with an uncommon approach to growing algae to reduce the cost of making fuel. Rather than growing algae in ponds or enclosed in plastic tubes that are exposed to the sun, as other companies are trying to do, Solazyme grows the organisms in the dark, inside huge stainless-steel containers. The company’s researchers feed algae sugar, which the organisms then convert into various types of oil. The oil can be extracted and further processed to make a range of fuels, including diesel and jet fuel, as well as other products.
The company uses different strains of algae to produce different types of oil. Some algae produce triglycerides such as those produced by soybeans and other oil-rich crops. Others produce a mix of hydrocarbons similar to light crude petroleum.
Solazyme’s method has advantages over other approaches that use microorganisms to convert sugars into fuel. The most common approaches use microorganisms such as yeast to ferment sugars, forming ethanol. The oils made by Solazyme’s algae can then be used for a wider range of products than ethanol, says Harrison Dillon, the company’s president and chief technology officer.
What’s more, the algae has a particular advantage over many other microorganisms when it comes to processing sugars from cellulosic sources, such as grass and wood chips. Such cellulosic sources require less energy, land, and water to grow than corn grain, the primary source of biofuel in the United States. But when biomass is broken down into sugars, it still contains substances such as lignin that can poison other microorganisms. In most other processes, lignin has to be separated from the sugars to keep the microorganisms healthy. But the tolerance of the algae to lignin makes it possible to skip this step, which can reduce costs.
The process also has significant advantages over a quite different way of using algae to create biofuels–one that makes use of algae’s ability to employ sunlight to produce their own supply of sugar, using photosynthesis. In these approaches, the algae are grown in ponds or bioreactors where they are exposed to sunlight and make their own sugar. In Solazyme’s approach, the researchers deliberately turn off photosynthetic processes by keeping the algae in the dark. Instead of getting energy from sunlight, the algae get energy from the sugars that the researchers feed them.
Solazyme’s process of growing the algae in the dark has a couple of advantages over approaches that use ponds or bioreactors. First, keeping the algae in the dark causes them to produce more oil than they do in the light. That’s because while their photosynthetic processes are inactive, other metabolic processes that convert sugar into oil become active.
Just as important, feeding algae sugar makes it possible to grow them in concentrations that are orders of magnitude higher than when they’re grown in ponds using energy from the sun, says Eric Jarvis, a biofuels researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, in Golden, CO. (Jarvis is not connected to Solazyme.) That’s in part because the sugar provides a concentrated source of energy. These higher concentrations reduce the amount of infrastructure needed to grow the algae, and also make it much easier to collect the algae and extract the oil, Jarvis says, significantly reducing costs. High capital costs have so far stymied other attempts to make fuel from algae.
In spite of these advantages over other approaches, Solazyme’s method for creating fuel is not yet cheap enough to compete with fuels made from petroleum, Dillon says. Indeed, Jarvis warns that one of the most expensive parts of making fuels from cellulosic sources is processing them to create simple sugars, a part of the process that Solazyme isn’t focused on improving. But in the past 18 months, improvements in the amount of oil that the algae produce have convinced the company that competitive costs are within reach. Solazyme hopes to begin selling its fuel in two to three years, Dillon says.
By any means necessary….????
Drug war abuses by Mexican army rise sharply
By Mica Rosenberg
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Complaints of torture, murder and illegal detention by the Mexican army have jumped as soldiers have been dragged into a long, gruesome battle with powerful drug cartels, Amnesty International said on Tuesday.
Mexico’s national human rights commission received some 2,000 accusations of abuse by the military in 2008 and the first six months of 2009, a sharp jump from 367 complaints in 2007 and 182 in 2006, the rights group said in a report.
In one case documented by Amnesty, 31-year-old Saul Becerra was picked up in an army raid at a car wash in Ciudad Juarez, near the U.S.-Mexico border.
His body was found a year later and his death certificate showed he died the day after his detention of a severe brain hemorrhage from blunt-force trauma.
“The cases that we have been able to investigate are truly shocking. But what is more shocking is that we know that this is only the tip of the iceberg,” Kerrie Howard, deputy director of Amnesty’s Americas program, said in a statement.
President Felipe Calderon has deployed 49,000 soldiers across Mexico to combat the feuding drug cartels who control cocaine trafficking from South America, produce methamphetamines and grow marijuana for U.S. consumers.
The army has failed to curb violence with more than 16,000 people killed in the drug war since Calderon took office in late 2006 and the president risks losing public support for his military-backed crackdown.
In a sign of the intensity of the fight, suspected drug gang members attacked a police helicopter in the northern state of Durango on Tuesday, provoking a fierce battle with soldiers in which 10 assailants died, police and the army said.
Thousands of people protested against the army presence in Ciudad Juarez on Sunday, calling for troops to leave.
Mexico’s interior ministry said in a statement it would look seriously at Amnesty’s report and that the army was committed to protecting human rights.
Generals in Mexico City deny systematic rights abuses by soldiers and say any troops caught working for the cartels or failing to respect human rights are tried in military courts.
U.S. AID TIED TO RIGHTS
The army has taken on more policing roles because many of Mexico’s police forces are working for the drug gangs, and soldiers often clash with local law enforcement.
In March, 25 police officers were detained by the military, held incommunicado for 41 days and tortured to illicit false confessions, the Amnesty report said.
One police officer told human rights investigators how he was beaten for hours until he fainted and was given electric shocks on his feet and genitals.
Other people detained by the army said they were suffocated temporarily with plastic bags or told they would be executed.
The United States has promised Mexico $1.4 billion in aid to boost Calderon’s anti-drug campaign but so far only about 2 percent, or $26 million, has been spent in Mexico, said a recent report from the U.S. government accountability office.
Fifteen percent of the drug aid can be withheld if there are legitimate complaints of human rights abuses committed by the Mexican army. But President Barack Obama said on a visit to Mexico earlier this year that the drug traffickers were the biggest violators of human rights.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091209/world/international_us_mexico_drugs
UN Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, therefore,
The General Assembly,
Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article I
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
Human Rights Violations
Afghan women among worst off in world-rights group
By Golnar Motevalli
KABUL (Reuters) – Afghan women are among the worst off in the world, violence against them is “endemic” and Afghanistan’s government fails to protect them from crimes such as rape and murder, a rights group said on Monday.
Human Rights Watch said in a report the situation for women in Afghanistan is “dismal in every area.”
“Women will not seek help because of their fears of police abuse and corruption, or their fears of retaliation by perpetrators of violence,” said the 96-page report, which is based on 120 interviews from different Afghan provinces.
Afghanistan is a deeply conservative, Muslim country where women have only been allowed to return to work and education since 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown by U.S.-led forces.
“Whereas the trend had clearly been positive for women’s rights from 2001-2005, the trend now is negative in many areas … it is a reflection of the power of conservative leaders who want to deny women their basic rights,” the report said.
The report cites cases where rapists have been pardoned by the government, girls and women have been imprisoned for running away from home, rape victims have been charged with adultery and where women in public life have been murdered.
It comes a week after the United Nations said violence and rape against women in Afghanistan was a problem of “profound proportions.”
FORMER WARLORDS
When President Hamid Karzai was first elected president of Afghanistan in 2004, he appointed three women ministers. Five years on, the minister for women’s affairs is the last remaining female in the cabinet.
The report’s author said Karzai’s reliance on support from powerful former warlords has further restricted women from making progress in Afghan society and government, and attacks on women in public life seem to be worsening.
“There are definitely some negative trends and attacks on women in public life is one of those,” said Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for the Washington-based rights group.
“As Karzai has weakened over the last few years he’s got more dependent on warlords, whose views are not that different from the Taliban often and that has an effect on women.”
A further sign that women’s status in Afghanistan is declining, the report said, is the introduction of the Shi’ite Personal Status Law, which caused an international outcry because some of its articles were seen to legalize marital rape.
Last week U.S. President Barack Obama announced an additional 30,000 U.S. troops for Afghanistan. Reid said his silence on women’s issues during his speech signaled that attacks against women in the war-raven country were permissible.
“It matters so much that on the presidential level, it matters from top to bottom that leaders in society, that men and women try to tackle the injustices that are meted out to women daily,” Reid said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/091206/world/international_us_afghanistan_women
World Trade Organization
WTO set to end inconclusive talks on Doha
GENEVA (AFP) – Trade ministers were set to wrap up three days of WTO talks Wednesday with no compromise in sight for ending an eight-year stalemate on framing a trade liberalisation accord ahead of a 2010 deadline.
Parties appeared unwilling to budge on the level of cuts to agriculture subsidies and industrial product tariffs which caused the impasse between developed and emerging nations in the Doha round of global trade talks.
There was hardly any forward movement particularly by the United States and India, blamed for the failure of the last ministerial-level talks in July 2008 over a disagreement over subsidy protection for poor Indian farmers.
Expectations were high that the change in top trade negotiators from India and the United States following elections in the two countries would help set the ball rolling for a successful outcome of the Doha Round.
“Doha does not seem to be fully on the agenda of the United States,” French External Commerce Minister Anne-Marie Idrac told AFP, adding that she had the same impression of India.
Since the collapse of negotiations in July 2008, the “crisis is far from being eased,” Idrac lamented.
US Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma met at least twice at the sidelines of the Geneva meeting, with the US envoy calling on trade-driven developing nations to open up their markets.
“The United States has been clear that we will need to achieve meaningful market opening that will result in significant new trade flows, particularly in the world’s fastest-growing economies,” Kirk said.
But Sharma said key sticking points such as cotton — which is being held up by disagreements over US subsidies — needed to be dealt with “sympathetically.”
China and India are among the top growth drivers among emerging nations but Beijing has not been as eager as India in bridging the gap in negotiations with the United States, one Western diplomat familiar with the Doha talks said.
“The UK is disappointed that WTO members have not yet been able to take the final steps to agree an outline (Doha) deal,” said Gareth Thomas, British Trade Minister.
“If we don’t make progress soon, we will miss our 2010 target and that would be a great loss for the global economy and the world’s poorest,” he said, in a reminder of the target date set by the leaders of the Group of 20 emerging and developed economies.
Ministers are expected to meet again early next year to give a final push to negotiations as trade is being seen as critical to helping the global economy recover from the worst recession in decades.
A successful Doha outcome would boost the global economy by around 170 billion dollars annually, some estimates show.
World Trade Organization (WTO) chief Pascal Lamy has warned ministers that time was not on their side even though about 80 percent of the deal had been clinched.
Since the start of Doha talks in the Qatari capital in 2001, deadlines have been missed several times.
“As the Doha Round stalls, free trade agreements are being concluded with countries that have strong growth potential and large domestic markets,” said Japanese trade minister Masayuki Naoshima.
But he hastened to add that less developed countries tend to be left behind by the trade agreements outside of the Doha deal.
“The days of only nice statements should be over,” said EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, calling nations to be straightforward as they attempt to narrow their differences.
Canada in Charge???!!!…bout time eh…
U.S. surge in Afghanistan likely to highlight Canadian role in Kandahar
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – The United States is sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in the hopes of breaking an insurgency that has engulfed the country’s southern regions, where Canadian troops have been holding Kandahar city.
President Barack Obama outlined a new strategy for U.S. forces that included a military surge, a focus on improving civilian institutions and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.
“We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum,” he said in the speech from the West Point Military Academy in New York.
“And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government.”
American soldiers gathered around television screens at Kandahar Airfield to watch the highly anticipated speech, though it failed to bump a hockey game between the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs broadcast near the Canadian barracks.
The speech aired at 5:30 a.m., local time, in Afghanistan and is expected to prompt an official reaction from Canadian commanders later Wednesday.
Though he didn’t specifically mention Kandahar, where most of Canada’s 2,850 troops are based, officials say the bulk of the American reinforcements will be posted to southern Afghanistan.
In an effort to regain the initiative in Kandahar, NATO commanders are putting Canada’s military command in charge of the tactically vital Arghandab district north of Kandahar city.
As a result, two full battalions of troops already in the country – one American, the other Afghan – will come under the control of Brig. Gen. Dan Menard, the commander of the Canadian contingent known as Task Force Kandahar, by the new year.
“You’ll get all these guys together focused on Arghandab under the command of Dan Menard,” said Brig. Gen. Frederick Hodges, director of operations for NATO’s southern command.
“I think that’s a significant manifestation of the importance of that place on the city.”
Under U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, NATO has signalled its desire to shift the focus of counter-insurgency efforts to urban areas; Kandahar has been singled out among them.
McChrystal is expected to tour NATO bases in Afghanistan on Wednesday to outline how Obama’s strategy will be implemented.
In a statement released as Obama delivered his speech, McChrystal said his main focus will be to develop the capacity of the Afghan police and army.
“We will work toward improved security for Afghanistan and the transfer of responsibility to Afghan security forces as rapidly as conditions allow,” he said.
By hastening the training of both the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, Obama hopes to create a sustainable security environment that will allow the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops in 2011.
“After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home,” he said.
The timeframe coincides roughly with the planned end of the Canadian combat mission in Afghanistan.
Speaking in Ottawa, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said earlier the decisions to focus Canadian resources on Arghandab does not signal a change in direction for the mission, nor does it threaten the vaunted “model village” project in the Dand district to the south.
The model village concept, largely credited to Menard’s predecessor, Brig. Gen. Jonathan Vance, is a uniquely Canadian combination of security, development and political outreach designed to win over public support and drive out insurgents in smaller rural areas outside the city.
“The Americans have paid us an enormous compliment,” MacKay said of Canada’s added responsibilities. “They trust us. They appreciate our expertise.”
The move won’t change Canada’s mind about its own scheduled 2011 exit date, “nor does it affect our ongoing responsibility with Kandahar city” and the projects already begun, he added.
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said he welcomes the increase in U.S. troops.
“We are pleased that the objectives of the U.S. policy are complementary to Canada’s own priorities,” Cannon said in a new release following Obama’s address.
“Canada has a significant civilian contingent on the ground in Afghanistan working alongside their military colleagues to ensure our programs and policies are helping the Afghan government to build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.”
Obama’s decision will put pressure on other NATO allies to either contribute more troops or in cases like Canada, extend existing commitments.
“I think it’ll have a positive influence on how other countries think about whether or not they should commit,” Hodges said in an interview prior to Obama’s announcement. “I personally… would love to see the Canadians stay here as long as is necessary, but I understand each nation has to make its own decisions.”
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already asked France for an additional 1,500 troops to add to the 3,750 already in the country. She is seeking up to 7,000 more soldiers in all from the NATO alliance.
And while Canada is slated to begin a military pullout in 2011, some say it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama’s plan could influence the popular perception of the Afghan mission in Canada.
“I would suggest that if Obama had a strategy that Canadians would be at ease with, it’s not inconceivable the government would change its direction,” said Maj. Gen. (ret.) Terry Liston, a former chief of planning and development with the Canadian Armed Forces.
But Liston questioned whether an additional 30,000 troops would be enough to conduct a counter-insurgency properly, forcing the U.S. to rely on airstrikes and drone attacks that put civilians at risk.
With insufficient force levels, Obama would be hard-pressed to distinguish his military approach from his predecessor, George W. Bush, who focused on the counter-terrorism dimension.
“The extent that it seems to be a continuation of the (former U.S. secretary of defence Donald) Rumsfield approach, it’s not going to cause a rethink in Canada,” Liston said.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091201/national/afghan_cda_obama
