What began after Sept. 11, 2001, as a seemingly appropriate military response aimed at rooting out terrorism could end in a major strategic failure.

We need to understand why this is happening and what can still be done to turn around a nearly disastrous situation. The recent conference in London, attended by representatives from many countries and international organizations, is a first step in a new direction.

After diligent preparations, delegates to the London meeting adopted decisions that could help to turn things around — but only if the experience of the past three decades is reassessed and its lessons learned.

In 1979, the Soviet leadership sent troops to Afghanistan, justifying that move not just by the desire to help friendly elements there but also by the need to stabilize a neighboring country. The greatest mistake was failing to understand Afghanistan’s complexity — its patchwork of ethnic groups, clans and tribes, its unique traditions and minimal governance.
The result was the opposite of what we had intended: even greater instability, a war with thousands of victims and dangerous consequences for our own country. On top of it, the West, particularly the United States, kept fueling the fire in the spirit of the Cold War; it remained ready to support just about anyone against the Soviet Union, giving no thought to possible long-term consequences.

As part of perestroika in the mid-1980s, the new Soviet leadership drew conclusions from our troubles in Afghanistan. We made two crucial decisions. First, we set the goal of withdrawing our troops. Second, we intended to work with all parties in the conflict and with the governments involved to achieve national reconciliation in Afghanistan and make it a peaceful and neutral country that threatened no one.

Looking back, I still believe that it was a proper and responsible two-track course. I am sure that if we had fully succeeded, many troubles and disasters could have been avoided. Our new policy was not just a declaration; during my tenure, we worked hard and in good faith to implement it.

To succeed, we needed sincere and responsible cooperation from all sides. The Afghan government was ready to compromise and went more than halfway to achieve reconciliation. In a number of regions, things started to improve.

However, Pakistan, particularly its top brass, and the United States blocked all avenues to progress. They wanted one thing: the withdrawal of Soviet troops, which they thought would leave them in full control. By denying Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah’s government even minimal support, Boris Yeltsin played into their hands when he took office.

During the 1990’s, the world seemed indifferent to Afghanistan. In that decade the country’s government fell into the hands of the Taliban, who turned Afghanistan into a haven for Islamic fundamentalists and an incubator of terrorism.

Sept. 11 was a rude awakening for Western leaders. Even then, however, the West made a decision that was not carefully thought through and therefore proved flawed.

After ousting the Taliban government, the United States thought that the military victory, achieved at little cost, was final and had basically solved the long-term problem.

The initial success was probably one reason why the Americans expected a “cakewalk” in Iraq, taking a fatal step in a militaristic strategy there as well. In the meantime, they built a democratic façade in Afghanistan, to be guarded by the International Security Assistance Force — i.e., NATO troops. Increasingly, NATO sought to assume the role of a global policeman.

The rest is history. The military path in Afghanistan turned out to be less and less sustainable. That was an open secret; even the U.S. ambassador, in recently disclosed cables, said so.

I have been asked several times in recent months what I would recommend to President Obama, who inherited this mess from his predecessor. My answer has been the same each time: a political solution and troop withdrawal. That requires a strategy of national reconciliation.

Now, at long last, a strategy very similar to the one we offered more than two decades ago and that our partners rebuffed was presented at the London meeting: reconciliation, involving all more or less reasonable elements in reconstruction, and emphasizing a political rather than a military solution.

The United Nations envoy to Afghanistan said in a recent interview that what’s needed is demilitarization of the entire strategy in Afghanistan. What a shame this wasn’t said, and done, long before!

The chances of success — success rather than military “victory” — are at best 50-50. There have been some contacts with certain elements within the Taliban. Still more needs to be done to bring Iran into the process; a lot of hard work remains to be done with the Pakistanis.

Russia could become an important part of the Afghan settlement process. The West should appreciate the position Russia’s leaders are taking on Afghanistan. Far from gloating and letting the West bite the bullet while we wash our hands of the whole thing, Russia is ready to cooperate with the West because it understands that it is in its own best interests to counter the threats coming from Afghanistan.

Russia is right in asking why, during the years of U.S. and NATO military presence in Afghanistan, little or nothing has been done to stem the production of narcotics, large amounts of which flow to Russia through its neighbors’ porous borders. Russia is also right to demand access to economic opportunities in Afghanistan, including the reconstruction of dozens of projects built with our help and then destroyed during the 1990s.

Russia is Afghanistan’s neighbor, and its interests must be taken into account. The logic seems self-evident, but sometimes a reminder is in order.

I would like to hope that a new day is dawning for long-suffering Afghanistan, a ray of hope for its millions of people. The opportunity is there, but much is needed to seize it: realism, persistence and, last but not least, honesty in learning from the mistakes made in the past and the ability to act on that knowledge.

– having regard to the Council Conclusions of 27 April 2009 on Burma/Myanmar and the Council Common Position renewing restrictive measures against Burma,

– having regard to the European Council Conclusions – Declaration on Burma/Myanmar of 19 June 2009,

– having regard to the statement by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union of 11 June 2009 on the Karen civilians fleeing Burma/Myanmar,

– having regard to the EU Presidency statement of 23 February 2009 calling for all-inclusive dialogue between the authorities and democratic forces in Burma/Myanmar,

– having regard to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/238 of 23 December 2009 on the situation of human rights in Myanmar,

– having regard to the statement by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union of 14 May 2009 on the arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi,

– having regard to the ASEAN Chairman’s statement of 11 August 2009 on Myanmar,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on Burma/Myanmar,

– having regard to Rule 122(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the human rights situation in Burma/Myanmar has continued to deteriorate, political repression has escalated further and the fundamental freedoms of the Burmese people are being systematically violated,

B. whereas the military continues to perpetrate human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, forced labour and sexual violence, against civilians in ethnic conflict areas,

C. whereas the Burmese regime is persisting with the widespread and systematic forced recruitment of child soldiers,

D. whereas according to reports there are some 2177 political prisoners, including 14 journalists, in Burma, and whereas more than 230 Buddhist monks involved in the 2007 protests remain in prison,

E. whereas in autumn 2010 Burma/Myanmar is expected to hold its first parliamentary elections in two decades,

F. whereas the elections will be based on the army-drafted Constitution, the legitimacy of which has been widely challenged; whereas this new Constitution foresees elections in 2010 to justify five decades of military rule and gives the military 25% of the seats in parliament,

G. whereas the new Constitution bars Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy (NLD) and Nobel Peace Prize winner, from public office; whereas some opposition parties and ethnic minority groups have declared that they will boycott the elections, whilst the NLD will not accept their outcome if there is no prior dialogue on constitutional review,

H. whereas on 28 January 2010 Ngwe Soe Lin was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment for working for the foreign news agency Democratic Voice of Burma, whilst on 30 December 2009 Hla Hla Win was sentenced to 27 years in jail on similar charges,

I. whereas the continuous crackdown on political dissent must be seen as an attempt by the Burmese junta to establish greater control over the media ahead of the national elections planned for later this year,

J. whereas on 11 August 2009 Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was sentenced to three years in prison, a sentence that was later commuted by the Burmese authorities to 18 months to be served under house arrest; whereas her lawyers have appealed to Burma’s Supreme Court against the sentence; whereas the unjustified trial and verdict against Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has been widely condemned by the international community,

K. whereas in May 2009 attacks by the Burmese Army and the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA) displaced thousands of civilians and forced an estimated 5000 refugees to flee into Thailand; whereas there is a severe risk that upon their return the Karen refugees will be subjected to severe human rights violations, including forced labour and rape by soldiers of the Burmese Army,

L. whereas there are an estimated half a million internally displaced persons in eastern Burma, 140 000 refugees remain in nine camps along the Thailand-Burma border, and over 200 000 Rohingyas are living in refugee camps or scattered over south-eastern Bangladesh; whereas millions of Burmese migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are living in Thailand, India, Bangladesh and Malaysia and are sometimes victims of trafficking,

M. whereas starting on 2 January 2010 there has been an unprecedented crackdown by Bangladesh law enforcement agencies on unregistered Rohingya refugees who have settled outside the two official refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar District; whereas more than 500 Rohingyas have since been arrested and some of those arrested have been forced back across the Burmese border, whilst others have been charged under immigration law and jailed,

N. whereas more than 5000 self-settled Rohingyas in Bangladesh have already fled their homes and flocked to the Kutupalong makeshift camp in Ukhia in search of safety; whereas the population of that camp has now swelled to an estimated 30 000 people, who do not receive food assistance and are now being denied access to a livelihood, as they would face arrest if they were to leave the camp to find work,

1. Strongly condemns the ongoing, systematic violations of the human rights, fundamental freedoms and basic democratic rights of the people of Burma/Myanmar;

2. Expresses grave concern at the recent trial, conviction and sentencing of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and calls for her immediate and unconditional release; calls for her to be granted the right to participate in the forthcoming elections;

3. Takes note of the decision by the Government of Burma/Myanmar to hold elections and insists that under the present conditions they cannot be considered free and democratic; criticises, in particular, the ban on Aung San Sui Kyi standing as a candidate;

4. Calls on the Government of Burma/Myanmar immediately to open a genuine dialogue with the NLD, all other opposition parties and ethnic groups; welcomes, in this context, the mediation efforts by the UN Secretary-General and his Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma/Myanmar;

5. Strongly urges the Government of Burma/Myanmar to take without delay the steps needed to ensure a free, fair, transparent and inclusive electoral process consistent with international standards, including by enacting the required electoral laws, allowing all voters and all political parties to participate in the electoral process and agreeing to the presence of international observers;

6. Condemns the arbitrary charges behind the arrests of political opponents of the Burmese regime or dissidents, particularly the continuing repression and intimidation of Buddhist monks; urges the Burmese authorities to desist from further politically motivated arrests and to release all prisoners of conscience, including the monks, immediately and unconditionally and with full restoration of their political rights;

7. Condemns the restrictions on freedom of assembly, association, movement and expression in Burma/Myanmar; urges the authorities of Burma/Myanmar to lift these restrictions, including those imposed on the free and independent media;

8. Expresses its concern at the continuing discrimination, human rights violations, violence, child and forced labour, displacement and forms of repression suffered by numerous ethnic and religious minorities, and calls on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to take immediate action to improve their respective situations;

9. Expresses grave concern at the continuing use of practices such as arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, rape and other forms of sexual violence, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; calls strongly on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to ensure that a full, transparent, effective, impartial and independent investigation is carried out into all reports of human rights violations and to bring those responsible to justice in order to end impunity for such crimes;

10. Calls strongly on the Burmese military junta to put an immediate end to the continuing recruitment and use of child soldiers, to step up measures to protect children from armed conflict and to pursue its cooperation with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict;

11. Condemns in strong terms the ethnic cleansing campaigns directed by the Government of Burma/Myanmar against minorities, including those seeking refuge in neighbouring countries;

12. Calls on the Royal Thai Government to continue providing shelter and protection to Karen refugees fleeing abuses in Burma/Myanmar and to work with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Thai-Burma Border Consortium and the international community to find an alternative solution that ensures the safety of the 3000 Karen refugees;

13. Urges the Commission, in light of the ongoing conflict on the Thailand-Burma border, to maintain the EC Humanitarian Office’s support for refugee assistance in that area in 2010;

14. Welcomes the fact that the Bangladesh Government is allowing a fact-finding mission by its South Asia delegation to examine the situation of the Rohingya population in Cox’s Bazar and Bandarban Districts next week, and calls on the Bangladesh Government to recognise that the unregistered Rohingyas are stateless asylum seekers who have fled persecution in Burma/Myanmar and are in need of international protection, and to provide them with adequate protection, access to a livelihood and other basic services;

15. Urges the governments of China, India and Russia to use their economic and political leverage with the authorities of Burma/Myanmar in order to bring about substantial improvements in the country and to stop supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry and other strategic resources;

16. Calls on the Council to maintain the restrictive measures targeted against the Burmese regime until there is tangible progress on democratisation; at the same time, urges the Council to evaluate the effectiveness of the restrictive measures;

17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the EU Special Envoy for Burma/Myanmar, the Burmese State Peace and Development Council, the governments of the ASEAN and ASEM member states, the governments of Bangladesh and Russia, the ASEM Secretariat, the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy, the UN Secretary-General, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma/Myanmar.

Featuring: Hans Blix

March 25th, 3 pm

Italian Parliament, Camera dei Deputati, Palazzo Montecitorio.

Click here for more information

Technorati Tags: Blix, nuclear weapons

In order to show their solidarity with the people of Gaza, around l,400 people
from 48 different countries have this week gathered in Egypt hoping to enter
Gaza at the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt. They bring humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. These l,400 represent millions of
People around the world who join them in spirit and add their voices to theirs
To demand that Israel change its policies of siege and occupation and illegal
Policies of collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

These people come from many different countries. Their demands are simple:
To the Israeli Government – lift the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza, which has
Left l.5 million people with inadequate food, water, health care, electricity,
Sanitation, and education.

Amongst the International delegation are about one dozen people from Ireland,
Who has brought medical aid and educational materials and toys for the children.
The Irish delegation have joined with the Gaza Freedom March and Viva Palestina
Convey in their 200 Gaza bound vehicles, and have travelled for several weeks
Overseas to join other International delegates from around the World.

I would appeal to the Egyptian Authorities to open the Rafah crossing and assist
the humanitarian delegations to enter Gaza to be with the people of Gaza.
It is particularly important as the children are suffering so much and as the human
Family we must all do what we can to help each other, particularly the children
And civilians, who under International Law must be protected against war
And violence.

I appeal to President Obama and the American Administration to do all in their
Power to bring to an end this illegal siege of Gaza, which is a shame to humanity
in this the 2lst Century, when Governments and people are challenged to
Abolish barbaric wars and solve problems through dialogue and negotiations.

Mairead Maguire (Nobel Peace Laureate)
www.peacepeople.com (44 (o) 28 90 663465)

“My sister Dr Nooshin Ebadi was arrested at 9 pm (1630 GMT) on December 28 by four intelligence agents at her home and sent to prison,” Ebadi said in a statement carried by the Rahesabz website.

“I am not aware of the place of her detention or the reason for her arrest,” she said, describing her sister as a professor of medicine.

Iranian MPs called for the “maximum punishment” of opposition demonstrators on Tuesday after violent protests erupted during a Shiite religious commemoration and eight people were killed.

The conservative-dominated parliament condemned “disgusting comments” by Western governments about Sunday’s unrest and accused the protesters of being “anti-religion” and “counter-revolutionaries.”

“Parliament wants the judiciary and intelligence bodies to arrest those who insult religion and impose the maximum punishment on them without reservation,” said the statement read out by parliament speaker Ali Larijani on television.

But the MPs appeared to be softer on opposition leaders, who reject President Mahmoud Ahmadienjad’s June re-election as fraudulent, and urged them to distance themselves from the protests.

“We expect these gentlemen who had complaints in the election to wake up and clearly separate their path from this wicked movement, not to come out and issue statements again and make the air dustier.”

The MPs hit out at US President Barack Obama over his “statement in favour of this group which committed anti-religion acts on Ashura” and said it was reminiscent of his predecessor George W. Bush.

“Such praise disgraces you and causes the system to act more firmly,” the statement said.

Obama demanded on Monday that Iran free those protesters it had detained and told the opposition that history was on its side as he led Western nations in denouncing the Islamic regime’s deadly crackdown. Related article: Recent key events in Iran.

“The United States joins with the international community in strongly condemning the violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens,” Obama said in Hawaii where he is on holiday.

At least eight people were killed as security forces used teargas, batons and eventually live rounds to push back thousands who had taken to the street.

More than a dozen dissidents were also rounded up as the regime stepped up its crackdown on opposition. Related article: West slams Iran crackdown.

The nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi — Ahmadinejad’s main challenger in the disputed June election — was also shot dead in the demonstration.

The Ottawa Citizen

Thirty years ago, Bangladesh was considered beyond redemption. Like Haiti, it is a nation prone to environmental catastrophe, situated in the Ganges delta with seasonal monsoons and hurricanes, low elevation and upland deforestation which make it subject to regular flooding of most of its land.

In the midst of its environmental devastation, poverty and death rates in Bangladesh were among the highest in the world in the 1980s. Yet today, Bangladesh has reached a new watershed. Under-five child mortality has plummeted to less than 60 from above 200 per thousand in 1980.

Gender parity has already been achieved in both primary and secondary schools. The fertility rate has fallen to two from more than six in 1980.

What has made the difference? Look wherever you might, but you cannot ignore the impact of micro-lending, which is focused not just on the poor, because virtually everyone in Bangladesh is poor, but on the poorest of the poor, the destitute women of this Islamic nation. By making loans so small they can only be considered micro to women with absolutely no collateral, Dr. Mohammed Yunus has transformed whole communities and perhaps the nation itself.

Given access to financial resources and the support of their peers, the poor create their own livelihoods, and are better able to care for and

educate their children. Dr. Yunus’ bank, the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, long ago became self-sustaining as its borrowers became savers. In 2006, Dr. Yunus won the Nobel Prize for his efforts.

All Haiti needs are similar champions of the poorest. Dr. Yunus has already laid out the blueprint. Perhaps with its renewed focus on Haiti, the Canadian International Development Agency will now have the opportunity and resources to find him or her. Fortunately for CIDA, underfunded Grameen-style banks like Fonkoze already exist in Haiti so the search shouldn’t be too difficult.

Although the administrative cost is doubtless greater, microloans need to go primarily to those who are most poor. If so, it may not even take a generation to transform Haiti, like Bangladesh, from the bottom up, into a nation of promise.

The Ottawa Citizen

Thirty years ago, Bangladesh was considered beyond redemption. Like Haiti, it is a nation prone to environmental catastrophe, situated in the Ganges delta with seasonal monsoons and hurricanes, low elevation and upland deforestation which make it subject to regular flooding of most of its land.

In the midst of its environmental devastation, poverty and death rates in Bangladesh were among the highest in the world in the 1980s. Yet today, Bangladesh has reached a new watershed. Under-five child mortality has plummeted to less than 60 from above 200 per thousand in 1980.

Gender parity has already been achieved in both primary and secondary schools. The fertility rate has fallen to two from more than six in 1980.

What has made the difference? Look wherever you might, but you cannot ignore the impact of micro-lending, which is focused not just on the poor, because virtually everyone in Bangladesh is poor, but on the poorest of the poor, the destitute women of this Islamic nation. By making loans so small they can only be considered micro to women with absolutely no collateral, Dr. Mohammed Yunus has transformed whole communities and perhaps the nation itself.

Given access to financial resources and the support of their peers, the poor create their own livelihoods, and are better able to care for and

educate their children. Dr. Yunus’ bank, the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh, long ago became self-sustaining as its borrowers became savers. In 2006, Dr. Yunus won the Nobel Prize for his efforts.

All Haiti needs are similar champions of the poorest. Dr. Yunus has already laid out the blueprint. Perhaps with its renewed focus on Haiti, the Canadian International Development Agency will now have the opportunity and resources to find him or her. Fortunately for CIDA, underfunded Grameen-style banks like Fonkoze already exist in Haiti so the search shouldn’t be too difficult.

Although the administrative cost is doubtless greater, microloans need to go primarily to those who are most poor. If so, it may not even take a generation to transform Haiti, like Bangladesh, from the bottom up, into a nation of promise.