Una morte sospetta, i parenti della vittima che chiedono giustizia e non si lasciano corrompere. La polizia ed i manifestanti che si contendono il corpo di Xu Yuangao trovato privo di vita fuori dall'hotel Yong Long nella città di Shishou. Su Global Voices la vicenda trova una dettagliata descrizione. La determinazione di un padre nel chiedere giustizia per la morte del figlio, un regime dittatoriale sordo ed insensibile, una cittadina che si ribella, anche questa è la Cina d'oggi.
domenica 28 giugno 2009
Silenzio di tomba
Una settimana di scontri a Teheran non ha suscitato né manifestazioni di solidarietà, né un gesto collettivo. Deve essere stato eccitante, per alcuni, avvertire l’ebbrezza del silenzio. Tra questi, qualcuno, non pago, ha invitato tutti noi a perseverare in quella pratica giudicandola virtuosa. Alle volte la realtà, in un colpo solo, esprime tutta la complessità del tempo presente: mette a nudo le nostre miserie, e dà forma ai desideri più inconfessati.
David Bidussa, storico sociale delle idee
sabato 27 giugno 2009
FREEDOM FOR GHILAD SHALID
A tre anni dal suo rapimento, il caporale israeliano Ghilad Shalit è ancora prigioniero di Hamas. Dopo Parigi, ieri anche Roma gli ha conferito la cittadinanza onoraria. Il primo luglio, la sua famiglia ritirerà la pergamena dalle mani del sindaco Alemanno. Ma l'Italia si è impegnata ieri anche attraverso la Commissione Diritti Umani del Senato, con la lettera che il suo presidente Pietro Marcenaro ha scritto al padre di Shalit, invitandolo in Italia e manifestandogli piena solidarietà. "Il rapimento di suo figlio, ha scritto, costituisce un
atto efferato e insopportabile, che ripugna alla coscienza", E che sia anche la Commissione dei Diritti Umani del Senato a prendere così posizione mi sembra importante e significativo. Perché colloca il caso del caporale Shalit in un contesto più generale di intollerabili violazioni dei diritti umani, come quelle che avvengono nelle strade di Teheran, in Cina, a Cuba. Perché colloca il rapimento e la presa di ostaggi fra le violazioni più intollerabili dei diritti, alla pari delle torture, delle esecuzioni capitali, della repressione di ogni genere.
Anna Foa, storica
giovedì 25 giugno 2009
TOGO: ABOLITA LA PENA DI MORTE
Il parlamento del Togo ha votato all’unanimità l’abolizione della pena di morte nel Paese. Alla votazione dell’Assemblea Nazionale, riunita in seduta plenaria e presieduta dal Presidente El Hadj Abass Bonfoh, ha assistito anche il Primo Ministro spagnolo Josè Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, impegnato nella campagna per una moratoria universale della pena di morte nella prospettiva della sua abolizione completa.
“Il parlamento Togolese ha levato una voce a favore della giustizia e della dignità umana,” ha dichiarato Zapatero. Da parte sua, il Ministro della Giustizia, Kokou Tozoun, ha detto: "Penso sia stata la decisione migliore che abbiamo preso quest’anno... noi non abbiamo il diritto di dare la morte a nessuno se siamo convinti, come siamo, che la morte non è una cosa buona da dare."
La legge, composta da cinque articoli, afferma il principio dell’abolizione della pena di morte, stabilisce la sua conversione in ergastolo e prevede la sostituzione in tutta la legislazione congolese di ogni riferimento alla pena di morte con le parole “reclusione a vita”.
L’ultima esecuzione in Togo risale al 1978, mentre l’ultima condanna a morte risale al 2003. Al momento dell’abolizione, i detenuti nel braccio della morte togolese erano almeno sei.
(Fonte: Nessuno Tocchi Caino)
lunedì 22 giugno 2009
AUNG SAN SUU KYI
Auguri Aung San Suu Kyi
di Giulia Menegotto
Dai siti e dai blog di tutto il mondo centinaia di migliaia di messaggi di auguri per la leader del partito democratico birmano Aung San Suu Kyi.
La “signora”, come in molti amano chiamarla, compie oggi 64 anni. L’esile figura che che da più di vent’anni guida con coraggio e tenacia l’opposizione alla dittatura che governa il suo paese, premio Nobel per la pace nel 1991, e dal 1995 agli arresti domiciliari, è oggi nel carcere di Insein ad aspettare la sentenza dell’ultimo processo in cui è accusata di aver ospitato illegalmente nella sua casa un cittadino statunitense.
L’avvenimento risale a poco più di un mese fa ed è ancora avvolto da un alone di mistero. Secondo le informazioni più recenti, l’uomo, John William Yettaw, un mormone americano di 45 anni, avrebbe raggiunto l’abitazione di Aung San Suu Kyi a nuoto, partendo dalla riva opposta del lago su cui si affaccia la casa, e vi sarebbe rimasto per qualche giorno.
L’ospitalità è costata alla leader una nuova condanna e, non appena trapelata la notizia, è stata immediatamente trasferita nel famigerato carcere della capitale, nonostante le sue precarie condizioni di salute, dove dovrà restare fino al giorno della sentenza, prevista per il 26 giugno.
A nulla sono valse le proteste della comunità internazionale, da quelle delle più alte istituzioni a quelle ai singoli cittadini. La giunta birmana ha aspettato pazientemente che passassero i giorni “caldi” delle prime pagine mondiali e si prepara ora ad emettere il verdetto su Aung San Suu Kyi protetta dal silenzio stampa.
Perpetuare gli arresti alla signora è per i generali l’unico modo di assicurare stabilità al proprio potere. Le libere elezioni, indette per il 2010 come promessa di buona condotta alla comunità internazionale, sono ormai alle porte e i militari non vogliono correre il rischio di perderle una seconda volta.
Nel 1992, in seguito alla stragrande vittoria del partito democratico, la giunta si vide costretta a riprendere il potere con la forza e ciò provocò l’adozione di molteplici risoluzioni cui si condannavano aspramente le ripetute violazioni di libertà politiche e diritti umani sia da parte delle Nazioni Unite che dell’Unione Europea che di singoli governi.
Il rinnovo degli arresti di Aung San Suu Kyi con una motivazione quasi legittima - secondo la legge birmana si tratta di “violazione di detenzione” - sarebbe quindi un buon escamotage per i generali per sbarazzarsi della punta di diamante dell’opposizione e non correre il rischio di risultati inaspettati in sede di voto.
E così, un esile figura che riesce a spaventare i suoi nemici con la gentilezza del suo sorriso trascorrerà l’ennesimo compleanno lontana dai suoi affetti. Dalla sua famiglia, suo marito è morto di tumore qualche anno fa e non vede i figli da ormai quattordici anni, ma anche dagli amici e dai colleghi, ormai quasi tutti in carcere o in esilio.
Ma sarà in compagnia della sua straordinaria forza e al pensiero di tutti noi. Tanti auguri Aung San Suu Kyi.
(Fonte: Notizie Radicali)
domenica 21 giugno 2009
TEHERAN SPARI SULLA FOLLA, UNA RAGAZZA MUORE
I suoi occhi che ci guardano, le grida del padre, il suo sangue che bagna via Amirabad a Teheran. Lottava a mani nude per la libertà del suo Paese, aveva 16 anni si chiamava NEDA.
sabato 20 giugno 2009
Libertà anticipata per il genocida
La voce del genocidio del Ruanda, colui che nel 1994 dalla radio delle Mille Colline incitava gli hutu a massacrare i tutsi e segnalava nomi e indirizzi delle vittime apparteneva a un italo-belga, Georges Omar Ruggiu. Ruggiu era stato condannato per genocidio a dodici anni nel 2000 dal Tribunale penale internazionale sui crimini del Ruanda. Dopo aver scontato in Tanzania, sede del Tribunale, otto anni di prigione, Ruggiu era stato inviato in Italia nel carcere di Voghera a scontare il rimanente della pena. Compresi i vari benefici, avrebbe dovuto essere liberato nel luglio di quest'anno, dopo nove anni di prigione. Non era molto, per un genocidario, non vi pare? Ma il 21 aprile il magistrato di sorveglianza gli ha concesso tre mesi di sconto per buona condotta, e il Ruggiu è diventato ufficialmente libero, scomparendo nell'anonimato. Invano il Tribunale internazionale ha chiesto ragione di questa decisione alle istituzioni italiane. I nostri tribunali, comportandosi come se Ruggiu fosse stato non un criminale condannato da un tribunale internazionale per reati terribili, ma un comune ladro di polli, lo hanno rimesso in libertà anticipata. Ciò che conta in questo paese è la buona condotta! Chi potrà ancora credere alle firme che le istituzioni italiane appongono sui trattati internazionali, quando li violano poi tranquillamente? Chi potrà ancora pensare che all'Italia, e agli italiani, interessi qualcosa dei genocidi e dei diritti umani?
Anna Foa, storica
venerdì 19 giugno 2009
Esplosione demografica
Un Altro Tragico Dono del Dogmatismo Politico e Religioso
di Marco Pannella
L’Esplosione Demografica è stata definita “la Madre di Tutte le Tragedie Contemporanee” perché fame, sete, guerra, povertà, disoccupazione, inquinamento, migrazioni di massa e desertificazione sono ovviamente e strettamente connesse con il drammatico incremento di cinque volte che ha portato l’umanità da 1,2 miliardi nel 1900 a 6 miliardi di persone a fine millennio. Valutando adeguatamente questo incremento dobbiamo essere consapevoli che l’aumento della popolazione umana in un singolo anno , alla fine del secolo scorso, era uguale all’incremento durante il primo Millennio dell’era Cristiana.
Ma, a dispetto del suo impatto di ineguagliabile gravità su tutti i maggiori problemi umani, l’esplosione demografica è stata ignorata durante tutto il secolo scorso, non solo dai leader politici e religiosi ma anche dai loro lacchè nei Dipartimenti di demografia, portando qualche acuto osservatore a concludere che la maggiore tragedia relativamente all’esplosione demografica non è la sua scala ed il suo impatto ma la sua totale negazione da parte dell’establishment politico, religioso e scientifico.
Questa negazione non può essere spiegata logicamente , ma solo psicologicamente . Tutti i maggiori dogmi religiosi e politici durante il secolo scorso, dal Cattolicesimo all’Islamismo, dal Fascismo al Comunismo, a dispetto dei loro proclamati contrasti su tutti gli altri temi, hanno unanimemente rifiutato ogni programma di controllo demografico o pianificazione familiare nelle loro politiche nazionali e internazionali. Perché?
Secondo la nostra opinione, perché la contraccezione comporta inevitabilmente un attacco ai tabù sessuali che, come dimostrato dalla psicologia politica, sono un pilastro portante dei fanatismi religiosi e politici ed anche perché la moltiplicazione dei pani e dei pesci è una promessa fondamentale di ogni Paradiso politico e religioso.
Ora, dopo una repressione di mezzo secolo dovuta alle gerarchie Cristiane ed Islamiche, Fasciste e Comuniste e lo sterminio di massa di mezzo miliardo di bambini condannati a morte, 10 milioni di donne uccise dall’aborto illegale, 200 milioni di giovani uomini uccisi da guerre territoriali e altre incalcolabili moltitudini di uccisi dalla povertà, disoccupazione di massa e genocidi, il problema sovrappopolazione sta nuovamente imponendo alla comunità internazionale il suo profilo opprimente, perché né brillanti economisti né fascinosi ideologi possono spiegare un singolo evidente fatto – es. i soli paesi del Terzo Mondo che hanno sconfitto la povertà, disoccupazione e sottosviluppo sono quelli (Cina, Corea del Sud, Taiwan, Hong Kong e Singapore) che hanno simultaneamente adottato libero mercato e controllo delle nascite.
Ma come possiamo ottenere un rapido controllo della popolazione senza adottare le politiche coercitive della Cina?
Ancora una volta la psicologia, e la psicologia motivazionale in particolare, possono offrire una valida risposta, come studi Italiani specializzati hanno persuasivamente mostrato.
Comunque, questa risposta, così come tutte le misure per il controllo delle nascite, deve essere sostenuta politicamente dai Governi democratici attraverso la subordinazione d’ogni tipo d’aiuto economico e sociale, a favore dei paesi del Terzo Mondo, all’adozione di politiche per il controllo delle nascite.
CHI ALTRO SOTTOSCRIVE?
(Rientro dolce)
(Tratto da: sopra le nuvole, il cielo è azzurro)
di Marco Pannella
L’Esplosione Demografica è stata definita “la Madre di Tutte le Tragedie Contemporanee” perché fame, sete, guerra, povertà, disoccupazione, inquinamento, migrazioni di massa e desertificazione sono ovviamente e strettamente connesse con il drammatico incremento di cinque volte che ha portato l’umanità da 1,2 miliardi nel 1900 a 6 miliardi di persone a fine millennio. Valutando adeguatamente questo incremento dobbiamo essere consapevoli che l’aumento della popolazione umana in un singolo anno , alla fine del secolo scorso, era uguale all’incremento durante il primo Millennio dell’era Cristiana.
Ma, a dispetto del suo impatto di ineguagliabile gravità su tutti i maggiori problemi umani, l’esplosione demografica è stata ignorata durante tutto il secolo scorso, non solo dai leader politici e religiosi ma anche dai loro lacchè nei Dipartimenti di demografia, portando qualche acuto osservatore a concludere che la maggiore tragedia relativamente all’esplosione demografica non è la sua scala ed il suo impatto ma la sua totale negazione da parte dell’establishment politico, religioso e scientifico.
Questa negazione non può essere spiegata logicamente , ma solo psicologicamente . Tutti i maggiori dogmi religiosi e politici durante il secolo scorso, dal Cattolicesimo all’Islamismo, dal Fascismo al Comunismo, a dispetto dei loro proclamati contrasti su tutti gli altri temi, hanno unanimemente rifiutato ogni programma di controllo demografico o pianificazione familiare nelle loro politiche nazionali e internazionali. Perché?
Secondo la nostra opinione, perché la contraccezione comporta inevitabilmente un attacco ai tabù sessuali che, come dimostrato dalla psicologia politica, sono un pilastro portante dei fanatismi religiosi e politici ed anche perché la moltiplicazione dei pani e dei pesci è una promessa fondamentale di ogni Paradiso politico e religioso.
Ora, dopo una repressione di mezzo secolo dovuta alle gerarchie Cristiane ed Islamiche, Fasciste e Comuniste e lo sterminio di massa di mezzo miliardo di bambini condannati a morte, 10 milioni di donne uccise dall’aborto illegale, 200 milioni di giovani uomini uccisi da guerre territoriali e altre incalcolabili moltitudini di uccisi dalla povertà, disoccupazione di massa e genocidi, il problema sovrappopolazione sta nuovamente imponendo alla comunità internazionale il suo profilo opprimente, perché né brillanti economisti né fascinosi ideologi possono spiegare un singolo evidente fatto – es. i soli paesi del Terzo Mondo che hanno sconfitto la povertà, disoccupazione e sottosviluppo sono quelli (Cina, Corea del Sud, Taiwan, Hong Kong e Singapore) che hanno simultaneamente adottato libero mercato e controllo delle nascite.
Ma come possiamo ottenere un rapido controllo della popolazione senza adottare le politiche coercitive della Cina?
Ancora una volta la psicologia, e la psicologia motivazionale in particolare, possono offrire una valida risposta, come studi Italiani specializzati hanno persuasivamente mostrato.
Comunque, questa risposta, così come tutte le misure per il controllo delle nascite, deve essere sostenuta politicamente dai Governi democratici attraverso la subordinazione d’ogni tipo d’aiuto economico e sociale, a favore dei paesi del Terzo Mondo, all’adozione di politiche per il controllo delle nascite.
CHI ALTRO SOTTOSCRIVE?
(Rientro dolce)
(Tratto da: sopra le nuvole, il cielo è azzurro)
martedì 16 giugno 2009
STAREMO A GUARDARE ?
L’occidente ha l’obbligo di aiutarli
di Bernard-Henri Lévy
Siamo di fronte a brogli elettorali su scala massiccia, oppure no? A una nuova forma di colpo di Stato, oppure no? E come interpretare queste strane elezioni, i cui risultati sono stati annunciati dalle agenzie di stampa legate alle milizie filogovernative ancor prima che gli scrutini fossero terminati? Nell’assenza di osservatori internazionali, dato che gli scrutatori inviati dagli oppositori di Ahmadinejad sono stati cacciati dai seggi a colpi di manganello, e visto il clima di terrore, è difficile pronunciarsi con certezza. Ma tre punti, in ogni caso, restano fermi.
1) Le elezioni iraniane sono state democratiche solo in apparenza. Mir Hossein Mousavi, il principale antagonista di Ahmadinejad, è comunque anche lui figlio del sistema. A proposito del «diritto» dell’Iran al nucleare, le sue posizioni non differiscono poi tanto da quelle del presidente riconfermato.
Interrogato sulle dichiarazioni negazioniste dell’avversario, Mousavi non ha esitato ad affermare: «Ammettendo che ci sia stato lo sterminio degli ebrei in Germania (notate la sottigliezza di quel 'ammettendo che'...), cosa c’entra l’Olocausto ebraico con il popolo oppresso della Palestina, vittima dell’olocausto di Gaza?» (E già questo dice tutto...). In altre parole, un Gorbaciov iraniano non è ancora sceso in lizza. L’uomo capace di avviare un’autentica perestroika resta inconcepibile, e tuttora inesistente, in una repubblica islamista che oggi appare più blindata che mai. Gli osservatori che commentavano l’«alternativa» proposta da Mousavi per l’appunto, già primo ministro di Khomeini, oltre che direttore onnipotente dell’equivalente iraniano della Pravda, peccavano per ingenuità — un po’ come quelli che, ai tempi dell’Unione Sovietica trionfante, discettavano sulle impercettibili lotte tra fazioni in seno a un apparato abilissimo, anch’esso, nell’inscenare la sua stessa commedia. È un dato di fatto.
2) L’altro fatto incontestabile, peraltro, è il desiderio di cambiamento avvertito da una percentuale non indifferente, e forse addirittura maggioritaria, della società iraniana. Gli elettori esasperati che vediamo, da domenica, pronti a sfidare i paramilitari delle milizie... Le donne che a Teheran, ma anche a Isfahan, Zahedan e Shiraz, reclamano l’uguaglianza dei diritti... I giovani, collegati in permanenza a Internet, che hanno trasformato Facebook, Dailymotion e il sito «I love Iran» nel teatro di una guerriglia ludica ed efficace... I conducenti di taxi, araldi della libertà di espressione... Gli intellettuali... I disoccupati... I mercanti dei bazar, in rotta contro un governo che li manda in rovina... In breve, i ribelli contro gli imbroglioni. I blogger e i burloni contro i sepolcri imbiancati dell’apparato militare islamista. L’autore anonimo della barzelletta che è rimbalzata tramite Sms su milioni di cellulari e che, a quanto pare, fa sghignazzare i manifestanti: «Perché Ahmadinejad porta la riga in mezzo? Per separare i pidocchi maschi dalle femmine»... Tutti costoro hanno votato per Mousavi. Ma senza farsi illusioni.Come i polacchi di Solidarnosc, che negli ultimi anni del comunismo tenevano a freno consapevolmente la loro rivoluzione in attesa di vedere il regime autodistruggersi e sparire.
3) La terza certezza, infine, è che l’iniziativa, all’improvviso, torna più che mai nel campo delle democrazie. In realtà, esistono solo due alternative. O vincono i partigiani della realpolitik: ci incliniamo davanti al presunto verdetto delle urne e ci limitiamo a ratificare il peggio, come quel ministro degli Affari esteri francese che, nel 1981, al momento del colpo di Stato contro Solidarnosc pronunciò il suo famoso «Sia chiaro che noi non faremo nulla». Oppure, davanti a un Paese diplomaticamente isolato, davanti a un regime al quale tutti gli Stati confinanti augurano più o meno velatamente la caduta, davanti a un’economia sfibrata e incapace persino di raffinare il suo petrolio, decidiamo di ricorrere ai mezzi che abbiamo a disposizione e che sono molto più numerosi di quanto si pensi.
Eviteremo così la doppia catastrofe che sarebbe, da un lato, l’inasprimento della repressione, forse addirittura un bagno di sangue a Teheran, e dall’altro il rafforzamento inevitabile di uno Stato jihadista che rappresenterebbe un pericolo terribile per il mondo intero, perché dotato di un arsenale nucleare che non esiterebbe a mettere immediatamente al servizio dell’Imam nascosto e della sua apocalittica riapparizione (e di questo non ha mai fatto mistero).
Per riassumere; da queste tre certezze, esaminate congiuntamente, scaturisce un obbligo chiaro: aiutare e rafforzare, con tutti i nostri mezzi, la società civile iraniana in rivolta. L’abbiamo già fatto, in passato, con l’Unione sovietica. Abbiamo finalmente compreso, dopo decenni di vigliaccheria, che il totalitarismo, arrivato a un tale stadio di putrefazione, traeva la sua forza esclusivamente dalle nostre debolezze. Abbiamo saputo organizzare catene di solidarietà verso coloro che venivano definiti dissidenti e che alla fine trionfarono sul sistema. In Iran esiste l’equivalente di quei dissidenti che sono, come apprendiamo oggi, infinitamente più numerosi e potenti. A costoro deve andare oggi il nostro sostegno e il nostro incoraggiamento. La «mano tesa» di Obama? Speriamo che sia tesa anche in direzione di questa gioventù, che fa onore a un popolo che ha dato i natali ad Avicenna, Razi, al-Ghazali, Kasifi e tanti altri. È questa la nostra sfida.
1) Le elezioni iraniane sono state democratiche solo in apparenza. Mir Hossein Mousavi, il principale antagonista di Ahmadinejad, è comunque anche lui figlio del sistema. A proposito del «diritto» dell’Iran al nucleare, le sue posizioni non differiscono poi tanto da quelle del presidente riconfermato.
Interrogato sulle dichiarazioni negazioniste dell’avversario, Mousavi non ha esitato ad affermare: «Ammettendo che ci sia stato lo sterminio degli ebrei in Germania (notate la sottigliezza di quel 'ammettendo che'...), cosa c’entra l’Olocausto ebraico con il popolo oppresso della Palestina, vittima dell’olocausto di Gaza?» (E già questo dice tutto...). In altre parole, un Gorbaciov iraniano non è ancora sceso in lizza. L’uomo capace di avviare un’autentica perestroika resta inconcepibile, e tuttora inesistente, in una repubblica islamista che oggi appare più blindata che mai. Gli osservatori che commentavano l’«alternativa» proposta da Mousavi per l’appunto, già primo ministro di Khomeini, oltre che direttore onnipotente dell’equivalente iraniano della Pravda, peccavano per ingenuità — un po’ come quelli che, ai tempi dell’Unione Sovietica trionfante, discettavano sulle impercettibili lotte tra fazioni in seno a un apparato abilissimo, anch’esso, nell’inscenare la sua stessa commedia. È un dato di fatto.
2) L’altro fatto incontestabile, peraltro, è il desiderio di cambiamento avvertito da una percentuale non indifferente, e forse addirittura maggioritaria, della società iraniana. Gli elettori esasperati che vediamo, da domenica, pronti a sfidare i paramilitari delle milizie... Le donne che a Teheran, ma anche a Isfahan, Zahedan e Shiraz, reclamano l’uguaglianza dei diritti... I giovani, collegati in permanenza a Internet, che hanno trasformato Facebook, Dailymotion e il sito «I love Iran» nel teatro di una guerriglia ludica ed efficace... I conducenti di taxi, araldi della libertà di espressione... Gli intellettuali... I disoccupati... I mercanti dei bazar, in rotta contro un governo che li manda in rovina... In breve, i ribelli contro gli imbroglioni. I blogger e i burloni contro i sepolcri imbiancati dell’apparato militare islamista. L’autore anonimo della barzelletta che è rimbalzata tramite Sms su milioni di cellulari e che, a quanto pare, fa sghignazzare i manifestanti: «Perché Ahmadinejad porta la riga in mezzo? Per separare i pidocchi maschi dalle femmine»... Tutti costoro hanno votato per Mousavi. Ma senza farsi illusioni.Come i polacchi di Solidarnosc, che negli ultimi anni del comunismo tenevano a freno consapevolmente la loro rivoluzione in attesa di vedere il regime autodistruggersi e sparire.
3) La terza certezza, infine, è che l’iniziativa, all’improvviso, torna più che mai nel campo delle democrazie. In realtà, esistono solo due alternative. O vincono i partigiani della realpolitik: ci incliniamo davanti al presunto verdetto delle urne e ci limitiamo a ratificare il peggio, come quel ministro degli Affari esteri francese che, nel 1981, al momento del colpo di Stato contro Solidarnosc pronunciò il suo famoso «Sia chiaro che noi non faremo nulla». Oppure, davanti a un Paese diplomaticamente isolato, davanti a un regime al quale tutti gli Stati confinanti augurano più o meno velatamente la caduta, davanti a un’economia sfibrata e incapace persino di raffinare il suo petrolio, decidiamo di ricorrere ai mezzi che abbiamo a disposizione e che sono molto più numerosi di quanto si pensi.
Eviteremo così la doppia catastrofe che sarebbe, da un lato, l’inasprimento della repressione, forse addirittura un bagno di sangue a Teheran, e dall’altro il rafforzamento inevitabile di uno Stato jihadista che rappresenterebbe un pericolo terribile per il mondo intero, perché dotato di un arsenale nucleare che non esiterebbe a mettere immediatamente al servizio dell’Imam nascosto e della sua apocalittica riapparizione (e di questo non ha mai fatto mistero).
Per riassumere; da queste tre certezze, esaminate congiuntamente, scaturisce un obbligo chiaro: aiutare e rafforzare, con tutti i nostri mezzi, la società civile iraniana in rivolta. L’abbiamo già fatto, in passato, con l’Unione sovietica. Abbiamo finalmente compreso, dopo decenni di vigliaccheria, che il totalitarismo, arrivato a un tale stadio di putrefazione, traeva la sua forza esclusivamente dalle nostre debolezze. Abbiamo saputo organizzare catene di solidarietà verso coloro che venivano definiti dissidenti e che alla fine trionfarono sul sistema. In Iran esiste l’equivalente di quei dissidenti che sono, come apprendiamo oggi, infinitamente più numerosi e potenti. A costoro deve andare oggi il nostro sostegno e il nostro incoraggiamento. La «mano tesa» di Obama? Speriamo che sia tesa anche in direzione di questa gioventù, che fa onore a un popolo che ha dato i natali ad Avicenna, Razi, al-Ghazali, Kasifi e tanti altri. È questa la nostra sfida.
(Fonte: Corriere della Sera)
lunedì 15 giugno 2009
REPRESSIONE IN IRAN
A vent'anni esatti da Tien An Men, la repressione in Iran contro i giovani che protestano per i brogli elettorali del regime di Ahmadinejad ci riporta a quel clima di violenza e di assoluto disprezzo del diritto. Con la Cina di oggi, l'Occidente fa affari, chiudendo tutti e due gli occhi di fronte alle quotidiane condanne a morte, in media ventidue, che danno a quel Paese il primato mondiale delle esecuzioni capitali. Succederà lo stesso con Teheran, una volta placate, se lo saranno, le tensioni politiche più forti? Continueremo a stringere accordi e trattati sacrificando i diritti umani? Lo abbiamo fatto con l'Est Europa negli anni Settanta, sacrificando il dissenso al riavvicinamento fra i blocchi. Lo abbiamo fatto di nuovo in molti altri casi, ad esempio con la Russia di Putin, e ancora ieri, ospitando nel cuore della nostra capitale l'arrogante dittatore libico. Giungeremo mai a capire che gli accordi economici, i riavvicinamenti politici, i trattati si fanno chiedendo come garanzia diritti per chi non ne gode, uguaglianza per chi non la possiede, e non sacrificando il diritto ad un astratto realismo politico che non è altro, a vederlo bene da vicino, che viltà e opportunismo?
Anna Foa, storica
Anna Foa, storica
domenica 14 giugno 2009
FREEDOM FOR EUNA LEE and LAURA LING
Euna Lee e Laura Ling sono state condannate a 12 anni di lavori forzati da una corte nordcoreana, la loro colpa quella di essere due giornaliste che fanno il proprio lavoro.
Arrestate lo scorso 17 marzo con l'accusa di aver oltrepassato il confine cinese-coreano illegalmente. Erano entrate in Corea per riprendere il traffico sessuale delle donne nordcoreane lungo il confine cinese. La loro guida è tuttora trattenuta dalle autorità cinesi. Informazioni dettagliate su Global Voices. Appelli di amici e sostenitori su YouTube.
Arrestate lo scorso 17 marzo con l'accusa di aver oltrepassato il confine cinese-coreano illegalmente. Erano entrate in Corea per riprendere il traffico sessuale delle donne nordcoreane lungo il confine cinese. La loro guida è tuttora trattenuta dalle autorità cinesi. Informazioni dettagliate su Global Voices. Appelli di amici e sostenitori su YouTube.
venerdì 12 giugno 2009
Elezioni
Dopo le elezioni europee, le elezioni amministrative in Italia, ed il confronto elettorale in Libano dove ha prevalso il fronte, così detto, pro-occidentale del “14 marzo” e di cui parla il futuro premier Saad Hariri in un’interessante intervista al Corriere della Sera, oggi è chiamato al voto il popolo iraniano. Quattro i candidati, ma solo due si contendono la presidenza, Ahmadinejad e Mirhossein Moussavi. Il primo lo abbiamo già visto all’opera con i suoi programmi di governo: cancellazione dello Stato Ebraico dalle carte geografiche, lotta contro il Grande Satana americano, sostegno al organizzazioni terroristiche come Hamas e Hezbollah, riarmo nucleare, brutale repressione del dissenso. Il suo rivale è accreditato come candidato “riformista” apre all’Occidente e a parole sembra voglia apportare un cambiamento radicale alla politica estera iraniana. Sullo sfondo si allunga l’ombra del potere dell’ayatollah Ali Kamenei (nella foto), che tutto avvolge. A poche ore dalla chiusura dei seggi Mirhossein Moussavi ha già rivendicato la vittoria, mentre il ministero dell’interno in contemporanea ha comunicato i primi dati che vedono in vantaggio Ahmadinejad.
mercoledì 10 giugno 2009
IN CAMPEGGIO CON IL DITTATORE
Visita di stato di tre giorni di Gheddafi in Italia. Atterrato all’aeroporto di Ciampino, il dittatore libico è stato accolto da Silvio Berlusconi con calorosi abbracci. Il picchetto d’onore ha salutato Gheddafi con queste parole:”Onore al leader della rivoluzione”. Gheddafi parlerà nell’aula del Senato, i radicali fermamente contrari chiedono un voto dell’assemblea ed Emma Bonino vicepresidente del Senato dichiara:”E’ pazzesco. I precedenti sono i discorsi di Juan Carlos di Spagna e Kofi Annan per L’Onu”. Mentre viene piantata a Villa Pamphili la tenda in cui alloggerà il dittatore libico si alzano voci di dissenso.
martedì 9 giugno 2009
Elezioni europee: i risultati
L’affluenza alle urne si ferma al 43,09%, questa la media nei 27 paesi dell’Unione Europea. Nel 2004 era stata del 45,47%. In Slovacchia ha votato solo il 19,64%, in Lituania 20,88%, in Romania 27,21% più in generale l’Est Europa fa registrare un alto tasso di astensione.
In Italia l’affluenza si attesta al 62.3% contro il 72,6% del 2004. Sud e isole si contraddistinguono per la bassa partecipazione al voto.
Vengono premiati i partiti di centrodestra e più in generale i partiti di governo , Francia e Germania e Italia ne sono un esempio. Eccezione in Grecia dove gli elettori puniscono il governo di centrodestra.
Il primo gruppo nel nuovo parlamento è quello del Partito popolare che con il 35,7% e 263 seggi mantiene il primato pur perdendo un punto percentuale rispetto al 2004.
I socialisti del PSE risultano pesantemente sconfitti esempi ne sono Inghilterra, Spagna,Portogallo,Ungheria. I socialisti passano infatti dal 27,6% del 2004 al 21,9% con 161 seggi.
Flessione anche per i liberal-democratici si passa dal 12,7% del 2004 al 10,9% anche se mantengono il loro peso in termini di seggi 80.
Gruppo verde in avanzata grazie soprattutto all’ottimo risultato raggiunto da Europe Ecologie di Daniel Cohn-Bendit che con il 16% in Francia da un contributo notevole all’avanzata verde. Si passa dal 5,5% del 2004 al 7,1% con 52 seggi.
Si confermano e in alcuni casi avanzano partiti euroscettici in diversi paesi tra cui l’Italia e l’inghilterra.
I partiti di estrema destra avanzano in diversi Paesi Slovacchia, Austria, Inghilterra, Olanda, Grecia e riescono ad ottenere seggi al Parlamento Europeo. Il ministro degli Esteri turco Ahmet Davutoglu ha dichiarato:” In europa c’è un atmosfera che rasenta la xenofobia.”
Il progetto degli Stati Uniti d’Europa, dell’Europa federale si allontana, mentre l’Europa delle piccole patrie e delle grandi tragedie avanza minaccioso all’orizzonte.
Iniziano già i giochi per la conferma del portoghese Josè Manuel Durao Barroso come presidente della Commissione.
Da ultimo ma non certo in termini d’importanza una considerazione, nonostante più della metà degli europei siano donne, queste rimangono sottorappresentate nell’Assemblea dell’UE, Lussemburgo ed Estonia sono i Paesi dove metà degli eurodeputati sono donne, mentre l’Italia e la Polonia sono agli ultimi posti.
In Italia l’affluenza si attesta al 62.3% contro il 72,6% del 2004. Sud e isole si contraddistinguono per la bassa partecipazione al voto.
Vengono premiati i partiti di centrodestra e più in generale i partiti di governo , Francia e Germania e Italia ne sono un esempio. Eccezione in Grecia dove gli elettori puniscono il governo di centrodestra.
Il primo gruppo nel nuovo parlamento è quello del Partito popolare che con il 35,7% e 263 seggi mantiene il primato pur perdendo un punto percentuale rispetto al 2004.
I socialisti del PSE risultano pesantemente sconfitti esempi ne sono Inghilterra, Spagna,Portogallo,Ungheria. I socialisti passano infatti dal 27,6% del 2004 al 21,9% con 161 seggi.
Flessione anche per i liberal-democratici si passa dal 12,7% del 2004 al 10,9% anche se mantengono il loro peso in termini di seggi 80.
Gruppo verde in avanzata grazie soprattutto all’ottimo risultato raggiunto da Europe Ecologie di Daniel Cohn-Bendit che con il 16% in Francia da un contributo notevole all’avanzata verde. Si passa dal 5,5% del 2004 al 7,1% con 52 seggi.
Si confermano e in alcuni casi avanzano partiti euroscettici in diversi paesi tra cui l’Italia e l’inghilterra.
I partiti di estrema destra avanzano in diversi Paesi Slovacchia, Austria, Inghilterra, Olanda, Grecia e riescono ad ottenere seggi al Parlamento Europeo. Il ministro degli Esteri turco Ahmet Davutoglu ha dichiarato:” In europa c’è un atmosfera che rasenta la xenofobia.”
Il progetto degli Stati Uniti d’Europa, dell’Europa federale si allontana, mentre l’Europa delle piccole patrie e delle grandi tragedie avanza minaccioso all’orizzonte.
Iniziano già i giochi per la conferma del portoghese Josè Manuel Durao Barroso come presidente della Commissione.
Da ultimo ma non certo in termini d’importanza una considerazione, nonostante più della metà degli europei siano donne, queste rimangono sottorappresentate nell’Assemblea dell’UE, Lussemburgo ed Estonia sono i Paesi dove metà degli eurodeputati sono donne, mentre l’Italia e la Polonia sono agli ultimi posti.
IRAN: IMPICCATI A ZAHEDAN DUE “NEMICI DI DIO”
6 giugno 2009: due uomini sono stati impiccati in Iran, nella città sud-orientale di Zahedan. La notizia è stata riportata dal quotidiano Kayhan, secondo cui Abdolhamid Rigi e Reza Ghalandar Zahi sono stati giustiziati di mattina dopo essere stati riconosciuti come "moharebeh" (nemici di Dio) ed appartenenti al fuorilegge gruppo balucho di Abdolmalek Rigi. La pena di morte è prevista in Iran per omicidio, rapina a mano armata, stupro, blasfemia, apostasia, cospirazione contro il Governo, adulterio, prostituzione, omosessualità, reati legati alla droga. Le esecuzioni in Iran nel 2008 sono state almeno 319.
(Fonte: Nessuno tocchi Caino)
lunedì 8 giugno 2009
L'idea europeista
Bene ha fatto David Bidussa a ricordarci ieri, mentre si votava per un'Europa che dovrebbe in quanto tale essere un'unione di Stati liberi e volti a garantire le libertà di tutti, le inadiempenze di noi europei sui diritti umani, i nostri compromessi con i tiranni del mondo. Ora, le elezioni europee portano in Parlamento, per la prima volta in maniera significativa, esponenti dichiaratamente antieuropei, nazionalisti, razzisti. E così l'Europa, nata come un sogno di libertà e di universalismo, minaccia di diventare la patria di un tetro "nazionalismo europeo". Il sogno si trasforma in un vero incubo. Ma, proprio perché soffiano venti tanto estremi, è ancor più ora di rinunciare alle nostre chiusure, alle nostre viltà, e di assumere, in quanto europei, finché ancora siamo in grado di farlo, le battaglie per la libertà, per i diritti umani. Finché in Europa ancora governano forze, siano esse conservatrici o socialiste, ancora liberali, ancora aperte all'idea europeista, ancora attente alle libertà in pericolo, ai diritti umani conculcati, ovunque essi siano.
Anna Foa, storica
Anna Foa, storica
Discorso di Obama al Cairo 4 giugno 2009
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
domenica 7 giugno 2009
La corrente della speranza
Oggi oltre al voto europeo c’è un altro importante appuntamento elettorale. Tre milioni di libanesi sono chiamati al voto. Si contendono la maggioranza parlamentare due formazioni la coalizione filo-occidentale 14 Marzo, guidata dal giovane leader sunnita Saad Hariri, che attualmente detiene la maggioranza parlamentare, e la coalizione filo-siriana guidata dal gruppo sciita radicale Hezbollah, e di cui fa parte anche la fazione cristiana del generale Michel Aoun. Un confronto elettorale cruciale per il futuro del Libano, così viene definito da diversi commentatori l’appuntamento odierno. Un interessante articolo sulle possibili conseguenze del voto in relazione agli aiuti internazionali lo possiamo trovare
sull’ Orient-Le Jour. Altra segnalazione riguarda l’articolo pubblicato qualche giorno fa su ASCA.
Da ultimo un auspicio di un caro amico, purtroppo scomparso, che si concretizzi attraverso la vittoria del leader Saad Hariri (nella foto) quella svolta democratica che sola può portare la pace e la prosperità in Libano.
sabato 6 giugno 2009
Tien an men 20 anni dopo
In occasione del ventennale della brutale repressione cinese delle manifestazioni di protesta organizzate in piazza Tian An Men, alcuni attivisti di Hong Kong hanno realizzato ciascuno una propria maglietta commemorativa. Ce ne parlano gli stessi blogger e militanti che cercano di ristabilire la verità sul 4 giugno 1989.Su Global Voices.
venerdì 5 giugno 2009
The Tiananmen Square Massacre
Today, June 4th, marks the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Twenty years ago, the world was shocked and horrified by the images of Chinese tanks opening fire on Chinese students, laborers, and even government workers, who were peacefully protesting for democracy and human rights. Equally as shocking was the Chinese government's denial that the massacre ever happened.
For the past twenty years, China's leaders have done everything in their power to make the world forget Tiananmen Square.
But we will never forget.
Tibetans and their supporters have taken to the streets to show solidarity with the victims of the Tiananmen massacre, their families, and with those Chinese who continue to struggle for democracy and human rights in China, despite the risk of arrest and imprisonment.Watch Lhadon's speech at the Tibetan solidarity vigil last night in front of the Chinese
Consulate in New York City. In Hong Kong today, more than 100,000 people gathered in Victoria Park to commemorate the anniversary and to call for democracy in China.
This commemoration of unprecedented size represents hope that change will come to China and to Tibet.
Here are a few simple ways you can support human rights on this important day:Visit the SFT blog for video, photos, and articles on Tiananmen Square, including a powerful op-ed by former Tiananmen student leader Wu'er Kaixi.
Watch and share Human Rights Watch's video: "China: Tiananmen's Unhealed Wounds."
Please donate today and help SFT continue its vital work for freedom and human rights in Tibet and China.In solidarity,
Tendor, Kate, Lhadon, Chand, Heather & everyone at SFT HQ
lunedì 1 giugno 2009
Pechino cancella la perla uigura sulla via della Seta
Un migliaio di anni fa, il ramo Sud e quello Nord della Via della Seta convergevano su Kashgar, la città-oasi all’estremità occidentale del deserto di Taklamakan. Mercanti andavano da Delhi a Samarcanda attraversando montagne gelide e impervie, scaricavano qui i loro cavalli e vendevano zafferano e mastice. Così facevano anche i mercanti cinesi, con i cammelli carichi di seta e porcellana. Oggi nei vicoli della città, dove gli asini trascinano carretti pieni di mercanzie e le case sono di fango e paglia, passeggiano i turisti. Ma quelle case, nelle cui finestre un tempo si potevano guardare le merci senza comprarle, dopo i saccheggi di Tamerlano e Gengis Khan stanno per conoscerne un altro. Novecento famiglie sono già state sfrattate dalla Città Vecchia, «l’esempio meglio conservato di città tradizionale islamica in Asia centrale», come ha scritto l’architetto e storico George Michell nel suo saggio «Kashgar, città-oasi sull’antica Via della Seta cinese». Nei prossimi anni, dicono le autorità cittadine, si demolirà almeno l’85 per cento di questa pittoresca conigliera e verranno spostate molte delle 13 mila famiglia uigure - un’etnia turcomanna e musulmana. Devono lasciare il posto a una nuova Città Vecchia, una combinazione di case da appartamento, piazze e viali, nello stile dell’antica architettura islamica «per preservare la cultura uigura», come ha spiegato in un’intervista telefonica il vicesindaco di Kashgar, Xu Jianrong.La demolizione è considerata una necessità urgente perché in qualunque momento la terra potrebbe tornare a tremare, facendo crollare edifici vecchi di secoli e uccidendo migliaia di persone. «L’intera area del Kashgar è a rischio terremoti - ha detto Xu -. Ora io le chiedo: quale governo non proteggerebbe i suoi cittadini dai pericoli di un disastro naturale?». I critici parlano di ben altro disastro. «Da un punto di vista culturale e storico, questo piano è stupido», spiega Wu Lili, direttore del Centro per la protezione culturale di Pechino, un gruppo non governativo che si dedica alla conservazione storica -. Dal punto di vista della popolazione locale, è una crudeltà». Nel corso del lungo boom della Cina la ricostruzione urbana ha distrutto molti centri storici, a cominciare dagli antichi vicoli e dai cortili abitati della capitale Pechino. Kashgar, però, non è una tipica città cinese. I funzionari che si occupano della sicurezza interna la considerano il terreno di coltura di un piccolo ma coriaceo movimento di separatisti uiguri che, secondo Pechino, avrebbero legami con la Jihad internazionale. Così il nuovo sviluppo di questo antico centro della cultura islamica coincide con un po’ di normalizzazione forzata. Le autorità cinesi hanno offerto spiegazioni confuse dei loro piani. Xu Jianrong chiama Kashgar «un esempio originale di una importante storia culturale ma anche un’importante città turistica». Eppure il progetto di demolizione ridurrà in macerie proprio la principale attrazione turistica, quella Città Vecchia che è un magnete per il milione di persone che ogni anno la visita. Tra l’altro, la Cina appoggia un progetto internazionale per far designare i punti più importanti della Via della Seta «Patrimonio dell’Umanità» Unesco, ma nell’elenco dei siti da proporre Kashgar non c’è. Un diplomatico straniero che non vuole essere identificato per paura di guastare i rapporti del suo Paese con la Cina ha detto che il progetto della Città Vecchia è stato appoggiato in modo insolitamente forte dal governo. Si dice che costerà 440 milioni di dollari ed è iniziato a sorpresa quest’anno, poco dopo l’annuncio del governo centrale cinese di un investimento di 584 miliardi di dollari in lavori pubblici per combattere la crisi finanziaria globale. Questo piano completerebbe lo smantellamento finora frammentario iniziato qualche decennio fa. Le mura della città, un terrapieno largo sette metri e alto dieci, sono state in larga parte demolite. Negli Anni 80 la città riempì e pavimentò il fossato che la circondava per creare un anello, poi aprì la strada principale attraverso il centro. Ciò nonostante gran parte della Città Vecchia rimane com’era e com’è sempre stata. Dalla cima delle quaranta piccole moschee i muezzin chiamano alla preghiera con la loro voce, non ci sono altoparlanti. Centinaia di artigiani martellano recipienti in rame, intagliano legno, affilano scimitarre e vendono di tutto, dai pani piatti ai rospi secchi ai cappelli per la preghiera. Decine di migliaia di uiguri vivono ancora qui, dietro le porte di pioppo intagliate a mano, in alloggi fatiscenti o in case a due piani che si allungano a volta sui vicoli e si aprono su cortili pieni di rose e vessilli. Le autorità cittadine dicono che i residenti uiguri sono stati consultati in ogni fase della pianificazione, ma la maggior parte di loro replica che viene semplicemente convocata a riunioni in cui si annuncia il calendario degli sfratti, con le somme offerte in risarcimento. La città offre agli sfrattati la possibilità di costruire le loro case nuove sul terreno delle vecchie, ma alcuni si lamentano che i soldi ricevuti non coprono l’intero costo del nuovo edificio. «La mia famiglia ha costruito questa casa 500 anni fa - dice il muscoloso Mr Hajji, 56 anni e capelli a spazzola bianchi, mentre la moglie ci serve il tè nella loro casa a due piani -. Era fatta di fango, è stata migliorata negli anni, ma le stanze sono rimaste com’erano». Costruita nello stile uiguro, la casa ha pochi mobili. Dai muri pendono gli arazzi, i tappeti coprono il pavimento e ci sono zone rialzate per dormire e ricevere gli ospiti. La stanza per l’inverno ha una stufa a carbone panciuta; il garage è stato trasformato in negozio, dove la famiglia vende dolciumi e gingilli. Ci sono nove stanze sotto e sette sopra, il frutto di trasformazioni secolari. «Questa casa ci appartiene - dice la moglie -. È grande e ci possono vivere molte, molte generazioni. Ma se andiamo in un appartamento, quello lo buttano giù ogni 50-70 anni. Come possiamo lasciare in eredità a nostro figlio un appartamento? Questo è il nostro maggior cruccio». Gli ispettori cittadini hanno considerato insicure quasi tutte le case più antiche, a partire da tutte quelle in fango e paglia. Verranno rase al suolo e, in molti casi, ricostruite in stile uiguro ma con criteri anti-sismici. Tre dei sette quartieri della Città Vecchia sono stati però giudicati inadatti all’architettura uigura e verranno ricostruiti in modo decisamente più anonimo. Altre duemila case dovranno lasciare il posto a piazze e scuole. I residenti più poveri, che vivevano nelle più piccole, sono già stati trasferiti in periferia. Quello che resterà della vecchia Kashgar non è chiaro, anche se Xu dice che gli edifici importanti sono stati inclusi nell’elenco speciale dei beni da conservare. Se non ci sono archeologi a controllare la situazione, spiega, è perché già si sa tutto. Le autorità di Kashgar hanno però buone ragioni per temere i terremoti. Lo scorso ottobre un sisma di magnitudo 6,8 ha colpito a un centinaio di miglia più in là. Uno di magnitudo 8, nel 1902, ha ucciso 667 persone. Poi ci sono gli abitanti che preferiscono vivere in un ambiente più moderno. Secondo Xu, la demolizione darà agli uiguri una vita migliore e li metterà al sicuro dai disastri. Le autorità, da Kashgar a Pechino, sono così inquiete alla prospettiva di un terremoto «che non riescono a dormire la notte».
di Michael Wines
(Fonte: New York Times)
di Michael Wines
(Fonte: New York Times)
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)