Items related to "Human Security Gateway: North America". Fri, 16 May 2008 0:30:21 +0000 Fri, 16 May 2008 0:30:21 +0000 robert_hartfiel@sfu.ca (Robert Hartfiel) Thu, 15 May 2008 09:06:18 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24375 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24375 The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (Optional Protocol) is meant to safeguard the rights of children under 18 from military recruitment and deployment to war, and to guarantee basic protections to former child soldiers, whether they are seeking refugee protection in the United States or are in U.S. custody for alleged crimes. The U.S. Senate ratified the Optional Protocol in December 2002. By signing and ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the U.S. bound itself to comply with the obligations contained in the Optional Protocol. The Optional Protocol provides that the absolute minimum age for voluntary recruitment is 16 years old. It also instructs countries to set their own minimum age by submitting a binding declaration, and the United States entered a binding declaration raising this minimum age to 17. Therefore, recruitment of youth ages 16 and under is categorically disallowed in the United States. SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union American Civil Liberties Union Wed, 14 May 2008 16:10:44 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24370 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24370 Cette étude porte sur les termes et les circonstances dans lesquels le gouvernement canadien a construit et légitimé la politique de sécurité du Canada en Afghanistan de 2001 à 2007. Par la mobilisation des grilles analytiques des approches théoriques postmoderne et constructiviste critique aux Relations internationales, l’auteur identifie et décrit un processus de renouvellement de l’internationalisme canadien dans le sens d’une politique étrangère davantage interventionniste, fondée sur une redéfinition des notions de souveraineté et de territorialité, ainsi que sur un rapport problématique entre militarisme et développementalisme. (date de publication = septembre 2008) SOURCE: Centre d'études des politiques étrangères et de sécurité Centre d'études des politiques étrangères et de sécurité Wed, 14 May 2008 13:30:27 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24359 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24359 Ce rapport contient des résumés sur les régions suivants: Etats-Unis d’Amérique et Canada, et Europe occidentale et centrale. SOURCE: Nations Unies // Programme Commun Des Nations Unies Sur le VIH/SIDA Nations Unies // Programme Commun Des Nations Unies Sur le VIH/SIDA Wed, 14 May 2008 13:16:16 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24357 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24357 Ce rapport contient des résumés sur les régions suivants: Amérique du Sud et Amérique centrale. SOURCE: Nations Unies // Programme Commun Des Nations Unies Sur le VIH/SIDA Nations Unies // Programme Commun Des Nations Unies Sur le VIH/SIDA Wed, 14 May 2008 12:05:49 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24346 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24346 Cette année marque un tournant pour le programme d’aide du Canada et l’agence canadienne chargée du développement international. Il y aura une réorientation majeure pour donner suite aux attentes des Canadiens et des Canadiennes, qui réclament un programme d’aide efficace qui donne des résultats concrets. J’ai moi-même été témoin des résultats que nos ressources ont permis d’accomplir, résultats qui ont eu pour effet de soulager les moins fortunés par la promotion des droits de la personne, de la liberté, de la démocratie et de la primauté du droit – en appui aux politiques du gouvernement du Canada. Néanmoins, je crois que nous pouvons accomplir davantage en ciblant davantage nos efforts et en renforçant l’efficacité, l’innovation et la reddition de comptes. Le présent rapport met en lumière l’engagement que nous avons pris à l’égard des Canadiens et des Canadiennes, soit accroître l’efficacité de notre action, et les principales mesures que nous prendrons en 2008-2009. La tâche ne sera pas simple et exigera des décisions difficiles et une bonne capacité d’adaptation. L’amélioration de l’efficacité de notre aide internationale est tributaire du soutien de tous. Les réformes envisagées appuient notre objectif central, soit réduire la pauvreté, encourager le respect des droits de la personne et intensifier le développement durable dans les pays et les régions prioritaires. Nous sommes toujours déterminés à étayer la reconstruction et le développement de l’Afghanistan, pays bénéficiaire de notre plus important programme d’aide, d’une valeur de 1,2 milliard de dollars sur dix ans. Nous allons aussi redynamiser notre relation avec les Amériques en visant des objectifs clés, soit promouvoir les valeurs démocratiques fondamentales, bâtir la prospérité et relever de nouveaux défis en matière de sécurité. Enfin, le Canada respectera l’engagement qu’il a pris au Sommet du G8, c’est-à-dire doubler l’aide à l’Afrique grâce à un investissement qui totalisera 2,1 milliards de dollars au cours du présent exercice financier. Nous continuerons de mettre à profit l’expertise reconnue du Canada dans les domaines suivants : la réforme du secteur public, la formation technique et professionnelle, l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, le développement du secteur privé, l’environnement, la santé et l’éducation de base. Nous allons également jouer un rôle de chef de file en matière de programmes novateurs. Ces interventions et les nombreuses autres initiatives de l’Agence canadienne de développement international (ACDI) en matière de réduction de la pauvreté et de développement durable sont décrites dans le Rapport sur les plans et les priorités de 2008-2009, que je dépose à l’attention du Parlement du Canada. -- L’honorable Beverley J. Oda, C.P., députée Ministre de la Coopération international SOURCE: Agence canadienne de développement international Agence canadienne de développement international Tue, 13 May 2008 11:47:12 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24320 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24320 Although there are compelling reasons not to define the struggle against mega-terrorism as a "war," for purposes of moral evaluation of defensive measures, Just War standards provide an essential second line of defense for human rights norms as well as a counsel of strategic prudence. Taking the sum of its policies in the wake of 9/11 it is evident that the Bush administration has failed to satisfy those standards even as it continues the effort of the American Right, launched during the administration of Ronald Reagan, to appropriate human rights for their purposes. SOURCE: Human Rights Quarterly Human Rights Quarterly Tue, 13 May 2008 10:52:54 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24319 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24319 By deploying tanks and armoured engineers to Afghanistan in October 2006 and supporting the acquisition of the Leopard 2, the leadership of the Canadian Forces (CF) has acknowledged the importance of maintaining heavy armour in a balanced force. While the continued development of sensors and technology will be extremely important to achieving improved situational awareness (SA) on the battlefield, the hard-earned experiences of the Canadian Army and our allies in sustained combat in Afghanistan and Iraq have proven we must be prepared to get our hands dirty and come into physical contact with the enemy if we wish to define their strength, composition and intentions, and subsequently kill them. Canadian tanks and armoured engineers have better protected our dismounted infantry soldiers in Southern Afghanistan, allowing them to close with and destroy a fanatical and determined enemy in extremely complex terrain. SOURCE: The Canadian Army Journal The Canadian Army Journal Tue, 13 May 2008 10:43:22 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24318 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24318 In the final days of 1979, the Soviet Union, under the direction of the Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev, invaded Afghanistan. Soviet Special Forces and KGB agents assaulted Tajbeg Palace and executed President Hafizullah Amin the evening of December 27th as Soviet ground forces started their entry across the northern border. Brezhnev had decided to intervene when it became clear that Soviet advisory and aviation support to the threatened Afghan government was insufficient. Recent governments had attempted to reform the country too rapidly, making Afghanistan vulnerable to an Islamic overthrow similar to that of Iran. This, combined with numerous other reasons, led Moscow to its decision. Soviet forces faced an immense challenge. It was presented with not only the vast and rough terrain of Afghanistan, but also by its xenophobic Islamic population, which at the time was in a state of civil war. Fighting from ambush sites inherited from their ancestors and aided by men and material from around the world, the Afghan mujahideen fought a protracted insurgency against the Soviets. Although Soviet military forces completed every military task they were assigned, the tactical victories combined to result in strategic failure. Analysis through the lens of an appropriate model clearly demonstrates why. SOURCE: The Canadian Army Journal The Canadian Army Journal Tue, 13 May 2008 10:25:03 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24317 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24317 As John F. Kennedy observed of the Vietnam War in 1962, this type of warfare is again at the centre of the present and future operating environment. The Canadian Forces (CF) in Afghanistan are attempting to bring stability to the country as it suffers such an insurgency, and this environment demands new approaches and new capabilities inspired by old lessons. With respect to ‘how’ Canada would engage such environments, its policy was made clear in April 2005. The government of the day stated that our approach to intervention on the international stage, and in Afghanistan in particular, would be based on a 3D + C (diplomacy + development + defence and commerce) model. This approach is one in which diplomacy, defence, and development work together to synchronize efforts, improve effectiveness, and maximize the impact of Canada’s contribution. It is an approach that demands a coherent policy and integrated activities by all elements of power within the government. SOURCE: The Canadian Army Journal The Canadian Army Journal Mon, 12 May 2008 15:16:55 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24313 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24313 This article contends that the William Clinton and George W. Bush administrations experienced similar transformations in their respective policies towards UN peace operations and nation-building. Although they began from nearly opposite perspectives, both came to remarkably similar conclusions about the value of peace operations, UN-led or otherwise, as tools for US foreign policy. Initial positions, driven in part by ideological concerns, gave way to more pragmatism about how the United States would support UN peace operations, reinforced by experiences with Congress and at the UN. A defining feature of this pragmatism was a deep reluctance to contribute significant numbers of troops to UN-commanded operations, even as both administrations supported increases in the number and scale of UN missions. SOURCE: The Henry L Stimson Center The Henry L Stimson Center Mon, 12 May 2008 14:02:43 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24307 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24307 This is the first in a series of reports by the Majority and Minority staff of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Committee) on the threat of homegrown terrorism inspired by violent Islamist extremism. The Committee initiated an investigation into this threat during the 109th Congress under the leadership of Chairman Susan Collins (R-ME). The first hearing on the homegrown threat considered the potential for radicalization in U.S. prisons, including an examination of the activities of Kevin Lamar James, an American citizen. While in prison, James adopted a variant of violent Islamist ideology, founded an organization known as the Assembly for Authentic Islam (or JIS, the Arabic initials for the group), and began converting fellow prisoners to his cause. Upon release, James recruited members of JIS to commit at least 11 armed robberies, the proceeds from which were to be used to finance attacks against military installations and other targets in southern California. James and another member of the group eventually pled guilty to conspiring to wage war against the United States. SOURCE: United States Senate // Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United States Senate // Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Mon, 12 May 2008 13:49:37 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24306 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24306 Why do terrorist attacks frequently succeed, even though later investigations almost always show that warnings had been available but were either misunderstood or ignored? Conventional wisdom, as seen in the 9/11 Commission Report, holds that disasters such as the 9/11 attacks have been caused by failures of analytical imagination, a lack of long-term strategic intelligence on the threat, and organizational limitations that prevent the U.S. intelligence community from being able to “connect the dots” of the existing intelligence. The conventional wisdom is reassuring, because it suggests that if we can fix these problems, the American intelligence community (IC) will be more likely to connect the dots next time and prevent the next major terrorist attack. But the conventional wisdom is wrong, and this reassurance is misplaced. The history of American efforts to prevent terrorist attacks suggests that more imagination, better strategic intelligence, and intelligence reorganization will not prevent future disasters. SOURCE: Belfer center for Science and International Affairs // John F Kennedy School of Government // Harvard University Belfer center for Science and International Affairs // John F Kennedy School of Government // Harvard University Mon, 12 May 2008 13:42:07 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24304 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24304 The attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, coupled with the rise of militant transnational Islamism, have prompted both the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress to reassess foreign policy in Africa and to begin to give considerable attention to Africa’s Muslim populations and it’s failed and failing states. Some experts have noted that Africa’s failing and failed states may serve as a breeding ground for terrorists.1 In response to terrorist threats, the United States, in partnership with countries across Africa, has developed a range of strategies to help regional governments face the challenge of terror. Since September 11, 2001, the size of U.S. diplomatic missions in sub-Saharan African countries with large Muslim populations has increased. Presently, there are 45 active embassies in sub-Saharan Africa, including 16 new compounds built since 2001. Most recently, President Bush returned from a five-country visit to Africa, his second trip to the continent. Some observers view these trips as reflective of the Administration’s focus, which has seen increasing American engagement with the continent in recent years. SOURCE: Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service Mon, 12 May 2008 13:20:18 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24302 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24302 Many forces combine in Pakistan to threaten global peace and security, rendering it the most dangerous country in today’s world. Violence is a dominant feature of the political landscape—most notably in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007. The February 2008 elections, however, may have put Pakistan on a tortuous path toward democracy. In most respects, the current administration’s policy toward Pakistan has not paid off. The next President must change the agenda and seek to alter the mood, by revamping Pakistani visions of America. Pakistani people must be persuaded that America supports democracy in their country and can be a long-term and reliable ally. They should feel that the struggle against Al Qa’eda and its allies is their war as well as ours. SOURCE: The Brookings Institution The Brookings Institution Mon, 12 May 2008 13:12:25 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24301 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24301 On November 26, 2007, U.S. President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki signed a Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America. Pursuant to this Declaration, the parties pledged to “begin as soon as possible, with the aim to achieve, before July 31, 2008, agreements between the two governments with respect to the political, cultural, economic, and security spheres.” Among other things, the Declaration proclaims the parties’ intention to enter an agreement that would commit the United States to provide security assurances to Iraq, arm and train Iraqi security forces, and confront Al Qaeda and other terrorist entities within Iraqi territory. Officials in the Bush Administration have subsequently stated that the agreement will not commit the United States to militarily defend Iraq. The nature and form of such a U.S.-Iraq security agreement has been a source of congressional interest, in part because of statements by General Douglas Lute, Assistant to the President for Iraq and Afghanistan, who suggested that any such agreement was unlikely to take the form of a treaty, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, or otherwise require congressional approval. SOURCE: Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service Mon, 12 May 2008 12:44:36 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24292 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24292 With enactment of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 2764/P.L. 110-161 on December 26, 2007, Congress has approved a total of about $700 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This $700 billion total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001 in supplementals, regular appropriations, and continuing resolutions including not quite half of the FY2008 request. Of that total, CRS estimates that Iraq will receive about $526 billion (74%), OEF about $140 billion (20%), and enhanced base security about $28 billion (5%), with about $5 billion that CRS cannot allocate (1%). About 94% of the funds are for DOD, 6% for foreign aid programs and embassy operations, and less than 1% for medical care for veterans. As of January 2008, DOD’s monthly obligations for contracts and pay averaged about $12.2 billion, including $9.8 billion for Iraq, and $2.4 billion for Afghanistan. SOURCE: Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service Mon, 12 May 2008 12:42:14 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24291 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24291 Although long a component of U.S. foreign policy, strengthening weak and failing states has increasingly emerged as a high-priority U.S. national security goal since the end of the Cold War. The past three U.S. National Security Strategy documents point to several threats emanating from states that are variously described as weak, fragile, vulnerable, failing, precarious, failed, in crisis, or collapsed. These threats include providing safe havens for terrorists, organized crime, and other illicit groups; causing conflict, regional instability, and humanitarian emergencies; and undermining efforts to promote democracy, good governance, and economic sustainability. SOURCE: Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service Fri, 09 May 2008 14:04:34 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24279 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24279 Facing an evolving, global terrorist threat, the international community’s ability to deal effectively with it will only be as strong as the international community’s weakest link and the United States derives more benefit when it works with partners around the globe rather than alone in the international fight against terrorism. Immediately after 9/11, the U.S. made a promising start by working with the international community. Since then, however, attention to this crucial element of counterterrorism policy has dwindled significantly. SOURCE: Better World Campaign Better World Campaign Fri, 09 May 2008 10:42:43 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24267 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24267 Despite dangerously high tensions between the United States and Iran, which are rooted in the fundamentally different foreign policy objectives of each country, the risks of open hostilities between the two sides are kept in check by the realization of the catastrophic consequences involved. The conflict between the two sides is one of fundamental foreign policy visions and principles that often — especially since the start of President Bush’s second term — verge on the irreconcilable. The stakes of this dangerous rivalry are high, and the range of possible scenarios for moving beyond it is perilously limited. At the same time, however, both sides appear to be keenly aware of the catastrophic consequences of open hostilities between them, and thus seek to undermine the other’s interests without stepping beyond certain ill-defined red lines. High-level US-Iranian tensions are likely to continue for some time, therefore, without, however, spilling into open warfare. SOURCE: Middle East Institute Middle East Institute Thu, 08 May 2008 15:12:29 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24251 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24251 Recommandations d'aupres une série de trois documents de travail qui entend aider les membres du CCCI, et les milieux universitaires et de réflexion sur les politiques, à bien examiner le cadre des " États non viables ". À voir aussi: Introduction ; Partie 1 de 3: LES DÉFAILLANCES DU CADRE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES » ; Partie 2 de 3: L’APPROCHE PANGOUVERNEMENTALE FACE AUX « ÉTATS FRAGILES » ; Partie 3 de 3: LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET LA POLITIQUE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES » SOURCE: Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Thu, 08 May 2008 15:08:30 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24250 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24250 Premiere partie d'une série de trois documents de travail qui entend aider les membres du CCCI, et les milieux universitaires et de réflexion sur les politiques, à bien examiner le cadre des " États non viables ". À voir aussi: Introduction ; Partie 2 de 3: L’APPROCHE PANGOUVERNEMENTALE FACE AUX « ÉTATS FRAGILES » ; Partie 3 de 3: LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET LA POLITIQUE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES » ; Recommandations SOURCE: Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Thu, 08 May 2008 15:08:10 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24249 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24249 Richard Holbrooke (left), the chairman of the Asia Society and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., gave a speech on Afghanistan at an event co-hosted by CSIS and the Asia Society. Jack Garrity, executive director of the Asia Society in Washington, welcomed the audience. Anthony Cordesman, the CSIS Burke Chair in Strategy, introduced Holbrooke and moderated the question-and-answer session that SOURCE: Center for Strategic and International Studies Center for Strategic and International Studies Thu, 08 May 2008 15:00:31 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24248 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24248 Troisième partie d'une série de trois documents de travail qui entend aider les membres du CCCI, et les milieux universitaires et de réflexion sur les politiques, à bien examiner le cadre des " États non viables ". À voir aussi: Introduction ; Partie 1 de 3: LES DÉFAILLANCES DU CADRE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES »; Partie 2 de 3: L’APPROCHE PANGOUVERNEMENTALE FACE AUX « ÉTATS FRAGILES »; Recommandations SOURCE: Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Thu, 08 May 2008 14:58:18 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24247 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24247 Deuxième partie d'une série de trois documents de travail qui entend aider les membres du CCCI, et les milieux universitaires et de réflexion sur les politiques, à bien examiner le cadre des " États non viables ". À voir aussi: Introduction; Partie 1 de 3: LES DÉFAILLANCES DU CADRE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES »; Partie 3 de 3: LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET LA POLITIQUE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES »; Recommandations SOURCE: Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Thu, 08 May 2008 14:52:03 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24245 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24245 L'introduction d'une série de trois documents de travail qui entend aider les membres du CCCI, et les milieux universitaires et de réflexion sur les politiques, à bien examiner le cadre des " États non viables ". À voir aussi: Partie 1 de 3: LES DÉFAILLANCES DU CADRE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES » Partie 2 de 3: L’APPROCHE PANGOUVERNEMENTALE FACE AUX « ÉTATS FRAGILES » Partie 3 de 3: LES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET LA POLITIQUE DES « ÉTATS FRAGILES » Recommandations SOURCE: Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Conseil canadien pour la coopération internationale Thu, 08 May 2008 11:59:15 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24239 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24239 t is an honor to appear before you today to address one of the most pressing and emergent issues we face as a nation. One which for too long has been hidden by our focus and concentration on other issues in the region and beyond. In recognition of the growing crisis in Afghanistan and its relationship to Pakistan, three major American organizations each carried out studies of what was happening and what needs to be done to deal with the problems. It is no accident that the issue is so exigent that when the three organizations gathered to discuss their reports, they immediately agreed to issue their reports together and to join forces in their presentations. That was done on January 30, 2008. Today’s hearing gives me a chance to highlight aspects of the report I had the welcome pleasure of co-chairing with General James Jones, former NATO SACEUR and US Combatant Commander in Europe. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs Thu, 08 May 2008 11:55:32 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24238 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24238 Today we turn our attention to a region that defense experts have singled out as perhaps the most likely launching point of a future Al Qaeda terrorist strike. The tribal regions of Pakistan provide safe haven for thousands of militants and terrorists who seek not only to destabilize Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan, but who also plan attacks around the globe. For this reason, I believe it’s imperative that we review U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan to find out what is working, what is not, and how a new Administration should approach this critical region. With new civilian and military leadership in Pakistan, we now have a chance to establish a sustainable and mutually beneficial bilateral relationship; a relationship that recognizes how unfettered extremism poses a threat to Pakistan, its neighbors, and the world; a relationship that focuses on economic and development assistance not as an afterthought but as the necessary foundation to promote long-term growth; and a relationship that adheres to the values that both of our nations inherently share – bolstering forces of moderation, holding dear the principles of democracy, and promoting peace and prosperity throughout Pakistan. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs Wed, 07 May 2008 15:35:51 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24226 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24226 The Iraq War is an extremely complex conflict, and one where the overall trends and developments are difficult to track with any clarity. The Burke Chair has developed a detailed briefing on key developments in the fighting, drawing on material provided by the Multinational Force- Iraq (MNF-I), the Department of Defense, Department of State, Iraqi government, and other sources. The briefing surveys sectarian and ethnic trends, progress in political accommodation, developments in the fighting, and trends in casualties. Maps show the steady decline in Al Qa’ida capabilities since mid-2007, but also the broader problems in sectarian and ethnic tensions and conflicts. Breakouts are provided on the trends in the fighting in Anbar and Baghdad. Polling data developed by ABC shows how Iraqis view these issues by sect and ethnicity. SOURCE: Center for Strategic and International Studies Center for Strategic and International Studies Wed, 07 May 2008 13:30:18 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24216 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24216 Accusations regularly fly between Washington and Tehran about their involvement in Iraq, but the past few weeks have seen these charges take a more specific turn. The U.S. military in recent weeks has accused Iran of arming Shiite militias inside the war zone. What’s more, an unnamed U.S. official told the New York Times that Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist group, has been training Iraqi fighters at a base near Tehran. The government of Iran, meanwhile, has pulled out of a fourth round of bilateral talks over Iraqi security to protest what Tehran calls the “massacre” (aj-Jazeera) of innocent civilians in Iraq by U.S.-led forces. The Pentagon says it is only bombing fighters suspected of receiving Iranian backing. SOURCE: Council on Foreign Relations Council on Foreign Relations Wed, 07 May 2008 12:12:27 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24209 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24209 Le budget du département américain de la Défense demandé par George W. Bush s’élève à 588,3 milliards de dollars pour l’exercice 2009, en hausse de 7,5% par rapport à 2008. Depuis 2001, les dépenses supplémentaires pour faire face à la « guerre totale contre la terreur » se chiffrent déjà à plus de 800 milliards de dollars. Le président Bush entendait vendre aux Américains une guerre rapide, gratuite et glorieuse. Elle tourne au désastre humanitaire et est en passe de devenir la guerre la plus chère de l’Histoire : plus de 3 000 milliards de dollars, selon le prix Nobel d’économie Joseph Stiglitz. Plusieurs générations d’Américains et d’Irakiens finiront inévitablement par payer le prix vrai de cette guerre, qui ne se mesure pas seulement en dollars sonnants et trébuchants, mais aussi en déficit durable pour la sécurité nationale et internationale ainsi que pour les libertés constitutionnelles. SOURCE: Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité Wed, 07 May 2008 12:01:24 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24205 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24205 L’extension prévue du bouclier antimissile américain sur le Vieux Continent ne suscite curieusement que peu de réactions de la part des principaux intéressés, les Européens. Ce déploiement de technologies les plus avancées, dont l’efficacité est pourtant toute relative, est censé fournir une protection contre une menace actuellement inexistante, en l’occurrence des missiles iraniens de longue portée. En apparence anodin, puisque présenté comme défensif, ce bouclier est pourtant le prolongement de la stratégie nucléaire états-unienne. Tournant le dos à la dissuasion, cette stratégie toujours plus offensive ouvre désormais la voie à l’utilisation effective de l’arme nucléaire sur le champ de bataille. Illustration de la ligne de partage établie Outre-Atlantique entre « Vieille » et « Nouvelle » Europe, ces installations s’invitent sur le Vieux Continent par la voie de négociations bilatérales, entre Washington et deux capitales de l’Union européenne, Prague et Varsovie. De cette manière, l’administration Bush fait l’économie d’un débat de fond au sein de l’OTAN tout en exploitant les contradictions d’une Union européenne qui se cherche en tant qu’entité politique. Dans le même temps, une nouvelle période de tension avec Moscou pointe à l’horizon. Un débat européen s’impose d’urgence. SOURCE: Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité Wed, 07 May 2008 11:41:24 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24204 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24204 Years after Secretary Rumsfeld described the GTMO detainees as the ‘worst of the worst’, we can now conclude, as one of our witnesses states, that many are more accurately described as “the unluckiest of the unlucky.” For its crucial to understand that a majority of the detainees were the victims of a bounty system that made them easy prey for local thugs who seized an opportunity to make a quick buck. Remember that only 5% of the inmates were captured by American forces. The rest were primarily purchased from Afghanis and Pakistanis. The fact that mistakes are made in the fog of war is understandable and, as in any human endeavor, are to be expected. But -- once discovered -- acknowledge them and fix them. Design a system that allows redress -– that embraces the rule of law in full measure – and that shows the world that American justice is not afraid of the truth but rather seeks the truth – however embarrassing. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 11:40:16 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24203 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24203 My name is Emi MacLean and I am a Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, or CCR. CCR is a forty-year old litigation and education organization dedicated to advancing and protecting the Constitution and international human rights. We have been representing the men detained at Guantánamo since the prison opened in 2002. Through litigation and advocacy, we have been engaged in efforts to close Guantánamo and restore the rule of law. In the past six years, we have seen two Supreme Court decisions call for habeas hearings to proceed in federal court for the prisoners at Guantánamo – allowing them that most basic right, to challenge the legality of their detention in a fair hearing. Yet there have been 500 men released from Guantánamo, and 275 who remain – and not a single one has had a fair hearing. Only one Guantánamo prisoner has been convicted – and only then on a plea agreement negotiated by political actors to secure his release. And day by day, the military commission process intended to try a very small number of the Guantánamo prisoners is losing any semblance of legitimacy. Indeed, just last week, the former military commission chief prosecutor testified of behalf of a defendant. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 11:38:35 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24202 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24202 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to speak to the Subcommittee today about my client, Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov, an Uzbek national who is being unlawfully detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. My client is one of approximately 30 detainees who represent “Guantánamo’s refugees.” These are detainees who have been cleared for release by the U.S. government -- for some, years ago, yet they remain imprisoned at Guantánamo because they come from “high-risk” countries where there is a potential danger of persecution or torture should they be forcibly returned, and no country, other than Albania, has been willing to accept these refugees from Guantánamo for resettlement. Indeed, the United States has already transferred detainees from Guantánamo to high-risk countries despite credible individualized fears of persecution or torture upon their repatriation. My client is one of these refugees, who fears repatriation to his native Uzbekistan. Oybek’s 6-year long imprisonment at the hands of the U.S. government is a tragic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now 30 years old, Oybek and his pregnant wife, infant son, and elderly mother were living with other Uzbek refugees in northern Afghanistan in 2001 when fighting broke out between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Oybek was not captured on the battlefield, nor was he armed. Instead, he accepted a ride from a group of Northern Alliance soldiers he met at a roadside teahouse who said they would give him a ride to Mazar-e-Sharif. Unfortunately, instead of driving him to Mazar-e-Sharif, the soldiers took Oybek to Bagram Air Base where they handed him over to U.S. forces, undoubtedly in exchange for a sizable bounty. In a desperately poor, war-torn country, Oybek was an easy mark for soldiers responding to leaflets dropped throughout Afghanistan by the U.S. military offering thousands of dollars in cash rewards to anyone who turned over a Taliban or foreign fighter. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 11:37:02 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24201 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24201 My name is Stephen H. Oleskey and I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. I have been a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1968 and am also admitted in New York and New Hampshire. I previously served as Massachusetts Deputy Attorney General and Chief of that office’s Public Protection Bureau. My practice generally focuses on complex civil litigation. By way of background to today’s testimony, my experience in the critical matter before this Committee arises from my role as co-lead counsel and pro bono advocate for six Guantanamo detainees in the period since July 2004, following the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Rasul and Hamdi cases. Our clients, Algerians by birth, were working and living with their wives and children in Bosnia and Herzegovina—an American ally—when, at the demand of the United States, they were arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001. Relying on statements by representatives of the United States that our clients were suspected of planning terrorist acts in Bosnia, the men’s homes and offices were thoroughly searched and examined. After a ninety-day investigation, and based on the recommendation of the Bosnian prosecutor, the Bosnian Supreme Court ordered in January 2002 that all six men be released for lack of evidence. This decision came the same day as a binding order by the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina instructing the Bosnian government to take all necessary steps to prevent our clients from being taken out of the country. Nevertheless, as our clients were about to leave the Central Jail in Sarajevo, the Bosnian executive turned them over to the U.S. military forces resident in Bosnia as part of the international peace-keeping mission. In a harrowing 30-hour trip in which they were stripped naked, subjected to an invasive medical exam, short shackled by their hands and wrists, blinded and deafened by sensory deprivation helmets, and verbally and physically abused, the men were flown to the just-opened Camp Delta facility at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they have been held since January 20, 2002. Our clients have now been detained for nearly six and one-third years without charge much less trial, and without being shown any of the evidence against them. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 11:34:44 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24200 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24200 My name is Elizabeth Gilson. I am a lawyer practicing in New Haven, Connecticut. I represent two men imprisoned by the U.S. Government at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, without any charges or a hearing. My clients are brothers, Uighur refugees from China. They are among 17 Uighurs held at Guantánamo. The Uighurs are a Turkic Muslim minority group in far-west China. Their homeland, East Turkistan, was annexed by the Chinese Communist Government in 1949 and re-named the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region. The Uighur people have been, and continue to be, brutally oppressed by the Chinese Government. The oppression of the Uighur people, and the state-sponsored mass-migration of millions of ethnic Han Chinese into the Uighur homeland, has led to ethnic tensions and to a Uighur nationalist movement, much to the displeasure of the Chinese Government. Chinese officials allege that Uighurs carried out “terrorist operations” by using “literary means” and “arts and literature” to “distort historical facts.” Uighurs were accused of “taking advantage of art and literature to tout the products of opposition to the people and to the masses and of advocating ethnic splittist thinking.” SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 11:25:37 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24197 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24197 The nature of our enemy in the war on terror has created many difficult and unique problems for the United States. Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies are not controlled by any particular state or government. Indeed, they reject the nation-state and any kind of “international” law as organizing principles. They do not recognize, accept or implement the law of armed conflict. They do not have a regular and transparent command structure. They do not wear uniforms, carry their arms openly, or distinguish themselves from the surrounding civilian population in any other manner. They do not obey the laws and customs of war in their operations. Because of these purposeful decisions made by the enemy, it has been far more difficult than in conventional conflicts for the United States to identify their forces with certainty. That, of course, is exactly why guerillas and others engaged in “asymmetrical warfare” – especially those operating among and preying upon the civilian population – organize themselves as irregulars. The lawful armed forces of states, by contrast, do mark themselves out from the civilian population, and this is one of the key criteria they must meet, under the laws and customs of war, in order to achieve the status of “lawful” or “privileged” combatants. Such lawful combatants, when acting under the authority of a sovereign state, are not subject to prosecution for their violent acts – so long as they otherwise operate in accordance with the applicable laws of armed conflict – and are also entitled to the various rights and privileges of honorable prisoners of war upon defeat or capture. SOURCE: United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight United States House of Representatives // Committee on Foreign Affairs // Subcommitee on International Organization, Human Rights and Oversight Wed, 07 May 2008 10:42:58 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24187 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24187 There are approximately 50 detainees at Guantánamo from “high-risk” countries where there is a very real danger of persecution or torture should they be forcibly returned, or who are unable to return to their home countries because they are stateless.* In 2008, none have been charged or tried after more than six years of imprisonment, and virtually all remain in solitary confinement at a “supermaximum” security prison intended to be outside the rule of law. What follows are short profiles of seven refugees who remain at Guantánamo today. Detainees who fear return include some detainees from Algeria, China, Jordan, Libya, the Palestinian Occupied Territories, Russia, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. SOURCE: Center for Constitutional Rights Center for Constitutional Rights Wed, 07 May 2008 10:11:35 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24183 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24183 Le 16 février 2003, au lendemain de la plus grande mobilisation pacifiste connue à ce jour, le New York Times titrait en première qu’il existait maintenant un véritable contrepouvoir à l’hégémonie américaine, celui de la société civile mondiale. Bien qu’il soit difficile de soutenir une telle thèse ce contrepouvoir reste immensément diffus et hétérogène il n’en reste pas moins qu’il existe aujourd’hui une variété d’acteurs nonétatiques qui prennent position souvent quotidiennement sur une vaste série d’enjeux qui affectent autant les pays du Nord que ceux du Sud. Parmi ces acteurs, trois grands ensembles, les organisations non gouvernementales internationales (ONG), les réseaux de militants et les mouvements sociaux transnationaux sont particulièrement importants autant par leur capacité de mobilisation que par les liens qu’ils créent à travers les frontières et la compréhension commune qu’ils apportent des grandes problématiques de l’heure, l’environnement, la pauvreté, la souveraineté alimentaire, la condition féminine, les droits de la personne et évidemment, la paix (Caouette 2007). SOURCE: Groupe d'Étude et de Recherches sur la Sécurité Internationale Groupe d'Étude et de Recherches sur la Sécurité Internationale Wed, 07 May 2008 09:51:31 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24180 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24180 Le 6 février 2007, George W. Bush annonçait la création d’un Centre de Commandement pour l’Afrique -l’AFRICOM-. Pour les États-Unis, les raisons de ce redéploiement des forces illustrent fort bien que le continent revêt désormais une certaine importance stratégique. D’une part, les ressources extractives, notamment dans le Golfe de Guinée, occupent une part significative des flux mondiaux. En effet, selon les autorités américaines ainsi que la tendance des marchés, cette part ne fera qu’augmenter au cours des prochaines décennies. D’autre part, les menaces à la sécurité nationale émanant d’un contexte géopolitique récent, la mise sur pied d’un commandement militaire pour l’Afrique permettra aux États-Unis d’améliorer leur capacité d’intervention à l’échelle continentale. SOURCE: Groupe d'Étude et de Recherches sur la Sécurité Internationale Groupe d'Étude et de Recherches sur la Sécurité Internationale Tue, 06 May 2008 14:06:57 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24167 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24167 According to U.S. embassy officials in Islamabad and unclassified U.S. intelligence documents, since 2002, al Qaeda and the Taliban have used Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the border region to attack Pakistani, Afghan, U.S. and coalition troops; plan and train for attacks against U.S. interests; destabilize Pakistan; and spread radical Islamist ideologies that threaten U.S. interests. Since October 2001, the United States has provided Pakistan with over $10 billion for military, economic, and development activities in support of the critical U.S. national security goals of destroying terrorist threats and closing terrorist safe havens.1 A major component of this effort has been U.S. Coalition Support Funds (CSF) reimbursed to Pakistan. The purpose of CSF is to reimburse coalition countries for logistical and military support provided to United States military operations in the global war on terror. In Pakistan, reimbursements through CSF are intended to enable the government of Pakistan to attack terrorist networks in the FATA and stabilize the border areas. It is structured as a reimbursement mechanism in which the U.S. Department of Defense (Defense) policy is to validate that support was provided, costs were incurred, and these costs were incremental to normal Pakistani military operations. SOURCE: Government Accountability Office Government Accountability Office Tue, 06 May 2008 11:45:03 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24161 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24161 This paper will be concerned with the exercise of universal jurisdiction, or, more to the point, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by domestic courts in respect of gross human rights offenses. In so doing, I will acquaint the reader with the evidence against ex- Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.1 While there remains a considerable amount of criticism and challenges to the exercise of universal jurisdiction it is my belief that such arguments are often overstated, misguided, and politically self-serving—a dubious means for those accused of rights violations to evade accountability. Overall, I will contend that universal jurisdiction not only represents a necessary instrument of justice in the twenty-first century, but also one that may in fact serve to benefit the United States’ long-term national interest. SOURCE: The Human Rights Institute // University of Connecticut The Human Rights Institute // University of Connecticut Tue, 06 May 2008 11:44:39 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24160 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24160 This paper will be concerned with the exercise of universal jurisdiction, or, more to the point, the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by domestic courts in respect of gross human rights offenses. In so doing, I will acquaint the reader with the evidence against ex- Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.1 While there remains a considerable amount of criticism and challenges to the exercise of universal jurisdiction it is my belief that such arguments are often overstated, misguided, and politically self-serving—a dubious means for those accused of rights violations to evade accountability. Overall, I will contend that universal jurisdiction not only represents a necessary instrument of justice in the twenty-first century, but also one that may in fact serve to benefit the United States’ long-term national interest. SOURCE: The Human Rights Institute // University of Connecticut The Human Rights Institute // University of Connecticut Tue, 06 May 2008 09:57:26 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24149 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24149 We provide this timeline and anthology as a reference for debate on the current war in Iraq. After five years of combat and the expenditure of considerable American treasure, particularly the lives of her sons and daughters, it is an important exercise to recount the words and pledges that were offered during the origins of the current conflict. SOURCE: Center for American Progress Center for American Progress Tue, 06 May 2008 08:17:54 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24145 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24145 Long before launching the global “war on terror,” the United States launched what it called the “war on drugs,” a law enforcement and crime control effort targeting its own people. Ostensibly color-blind, the US drug war has been and continues to be waged overwhelmingly against black Americans. Although white Americans constitute the large majority of drug offenders, African American communities continue as the principal “fronts” in this unjust effort. Defenders of the current anti-drug efforts claim they want to protect poor minority communities from addiction as well as the disorder, nuisance, and violence that can accompany drug dealing. But the choice of imprisonment as the primary anti-drug strategy, and the effect of this policy on neighborhoods, evokes the infamous phrase from the Vietnam War, “it became necessary to destroy the town in order to save it.” SOURCE: Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch Mon, 05 May 2008 15:35:46 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24144 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24144 On May 1, The Century Foundation's Prospects for Peace Initiative hosted Aaron David Miller as he discussed his newly-released book, The Much Too Promised Land: America’s Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace. Miller’s first-person account of the peace process tackles the most difficult questions: Why has the United States failed to broker a solution to the conflict? What approaches have been more or less successful? What influence does American domestic politics have on U.S. foreign policy? And how can we get it right next time? The discussion was moderated by Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative. Until his departure from government in 2003, Miller served at the Department of State as an adviser to six secretaries of state, where he helped formulate U.S. policy on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli peace process. Drawing both on his personal experiences and 160 interviews, including interviews with three U.S. presidents, nine U.S. secretaries of state, and a host of Arab and Israeli leaders, Miller’s book is a rich insider’s account—full of controversial analysis, wise advice and great stories—and Aaron will be sharing all of this with us at this invitation-only lunch. SOURCE: The Century Foundation The Century Foundation Mon, 05 May 2008 12:10:57 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24118 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24118 Among the most disturbing developments in Tibet is the segregation of Tibetans from Chinese society. Tibetans are now instructed to stay or return to their registered place of residence, they are prohibited from accessing services, like hotels, unless specifically designated for their use; and they are routinely harassed and detained simply because they are Tibetan. Chinese servers in many restaurants are choosing not to serve Tibetans. The Chinese government, which, as a tenet of its economic growth strategy has encouraged travel for its citizens, restricts travel for Tibetans. SOURCE: United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Mon, 05 May 2008 12:08:00 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24117 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24117 My experience on the Tibetan plateau dates to the mid-1980s, and I have visited many of the areas, towns, and monasteries where today’s protests and crackdown are unfolding. I witnessed at close range the events of 1989 that led to martial law in Lhasa. I know that Tibetans are facing very serious consequences. The cascade of Tibetan protests began in Lhasa on March 10, 2008, then, by the end of March, had swept across much of the ethnic Tibetan area of China. Except for periods of armed conflict between Tibetan and Chinese armed forces and periods of politically-driven social chaos, no Chinese government has been confronted by an upsurge of Tibetan discontent as widely dispersed, sustained, and popular since the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Chinese public security forces, principally the People’s Armed Police (PAP), moved swiftly to establish lockdowns in each protest site. SOURCE: United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Mon, 05 May 2008 12:06:06 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24116 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24116 Boxer, and members of the subcommittee, for the honor of speaking before you today. I applaud the actions of the Senate during this crisis, most notably the Senate letter to President Hu Jintao, sent on April 2, and the Senate resolution passed on April 9th (S. Res. 504--110th Congress (2008). You have demonstrated your leadership, and the convening of this hearing attests to your commitment to support a positive way forward out of the current crisis. There is now a window of opportunity for meaningful dialogue between the two sides to find a lasting solution to the Tibet issue. The issue will not go away, and the earlier it is addressed, the better it will be for all. SOURCE: United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs Mon, 05 May 2008 12:03:53 -0700 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24115 http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/showRecord.php?RecordId=24115 A little over a month ago, what began as peaceful protests in Lhasa erupted into violence and the loss of lives and property spanning the Tibet Autonomous Region and other Tibetan areas of China. The United States welcomes a stable, peaceful and prosperous China, and we have a broad agenda with that country, which is a growing economic powerhouse, a nuclear P-5 member, and an increasingly important actor on the international scene. At the same time, we engage China in a way that is supportive of our political values — urging respect for human rights, religious freedom, and democracy. The United States recognizes Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China, but we have very serious concerns about the recent events, human rights conditions, and limits on religious freedom there. The United States calls upon the PRC Government to exercise restraint in resolving the recent unrest and urges dialogue with the Dalai Lama, but it is up to China and the Tibetans to resolve their differences. In this testimony, I would like to touch on the recent events in Tibet, outline our response, and discuss next steps. SOURCE: United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee // Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs