APC Newsletter September 2007

Jubilation as UN approves indigenous people's declaration

Troops who spoke against war are killed

Bush cuts troops as 'return on success' in Iraq

Australia must not lose it's way on rights of refugees

ANTAR AGM

Nuclear Weapons Operating Status

Jubilation as UN approves indigenous peoples declaration
Survival International Press Release, 13 September 2007
Indigenous peoples around the world are today celebrating the UN General Assembly's approval of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration was approved by an overwhelming majority in an historic vote in New York today.
The vote is the climax of 22 years of intensive debate and negotiation. Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States voted against the declaration, whilst 143 nations voted in favour and eleven abstained.
Botswana Bushman Jumanda Gakelebone of First People of the Kalahari said today, 'We would like to say that we are really very happy and thrilled to hear about the adoption of the declaration. It recognises that governments can no longer treat us as second-class citizens, and it gives protection to tribal peoples so that they will not be thrown off their lands like we were.'
Kiplangat Cheruiyot of Kenya's Ogiek tribe said today, 'With the adoption of the declaration, the lives of indigenous peoples will be improved on an equal footing with the rest of world citizens.'
Survival's director Stephen Corry said today, 'The declaration on indigenous peoples, with its recognition of collective rights, will raise international standards in the same way as the universal declaration on human rights did nearly 60 years ago. It sets a benchmark by which the treatment of tribal and indigenous peoples can be judged, and we hope it will usher in an era in which abuse of their rights is no longer tolerated.'
The declaration recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to ownership of their land and to live as they wish. It also affirms that they should not be moved from their lands without their free and informed consent.
For further information contact Miriam Ross on (+44) (0)20 7687 8734 or email mr@survival-international.org

Troops who spoke against war are killed
Suzanne Goldenberg and David Stout, Washington
The Age, September 14, 2007. Guardian, New York Times
TWO US soldiers who helped write an article from the front saying America had "failed on every promise" in the Iraq war have been killed in Baghdad. Staff Sergeant Yance Gray, 26, and Sergeant Omar Mora, 28, were among a group of seven soldiers serving in Iraq who wrote a piece excoriating America's conduct of the war, published in The New York Times last month.
"Engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act," the soldiers wrote. They were referring to the daily ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about their lives with death and suffering all around them. But sadly, although they did not know it at the time, they might have been referring to themselves.
The two soldiers died when the five-tonne cargo truck they were riding in overturned on Monday. The Pentagon had yet to confirm their deaths. Their public criticism caused a flurry of debate in the US because of the candour with which the men, all serving in the 82nd Airborne, described the war.
"Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise," the seven wrote. "When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages."
Mora's mother, Olga Capetillo, said her son had grown increasingly gloomy about Iraq. "I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home," she said. A native of Ecuador, Mora had recently become an American citizen. "He was proud of this country, and he wanted to go over and help," said his stepfather, Robert Capetillo.
Gray's daughter, Ava, was born in April. His mother, Karen Gray, said: "My son was a soldier in his heart from the age of five. He loved what he was doing." Added his father, Richard: "But he wasn't any mindless robot."
The seven men directly challenged official claims of progress in the war, calling the debate in Washington surreal. "We operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies," they wrote. The men's deaths were reported the day before US President George Bush was due to give an address in which he will try to persuade the public to support the war at least until the middle of next year. Mr Bush is expected to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops over the next nine months. But he is also expected to say he does not envisage the bulk of US forces leaving Iraq before January 2009. Even while the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy, was shot in the head. He is expected to survive. "We need not talk about our morale," the seven wrote in closing. "As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

The war as we saw it
An extract from the soldiers' critique that appeared in The New York Times on August 19, 2007. "In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, 'We need security, not free food.' In the end, we need to recognise that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realise that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are, an army of occupation, and force our withdrawal."

Bush cuts troops as 'return on success' in Iraq
Anne Davies Washington correspondent, Sept 14, 2007 -
President George Bush has announced that 5,700 troops will be withdrawn by the end of 2007, and more will follow by July 2008, returning troop levels to around 140,000 - around the level that existed before January's "surge". The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is 'return on success'", the president said. "The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy," he said. But there was no word on a timetable for the remaining 140,000 troops still in Iraq. President Bush said the commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, would return in March to brief Congress on further progress. But he also made it clear that the US was likely to have "an enduring relationship with Iraq", foreshadowing many years of military presence on Iraq. The tone of the speech was conciliatory and aimed at trying to keep both Republicans and Democrats on Capital Hill from trying to force his hand. But his main message was that unless the US defeats extremists and terrorists in Iraq, America's security will be in danger. "Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East," he said. "We should be able to agree that we must defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists," he said Mr Bush spent considerable time outlining in detail some of the successes on the ground in the various provinces. Tomorrow he will issue a written report which says that nine of the 18 benchmarks set at the start of the surge had been met, five are unsatisfactory and four are mixed. Some 2200 Marines will return home this month without being replaced. An army brigade will be able to come home this year without being replaced, which will mean that by Christmas some 5700 troops will have returned.
President Bush also has recommended that there be a reduction of 20 combat brigades to 15 by July, following the recommendations of General Petraeus and the US Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker. They told Congress this week in a series of appearance before committees that there had been "real and measurable progress" in Iraq on the security front and some progress on the political reconciliation, although the "slope is not great". But in the hours before President Bush's speech there was more evidence as to just how fragile that political progress is.
In Anbar province - an area where the administration has pointed to positive developments at the provincial level - Sheik Abu Reesha was assassinated in a car bomb attack. The sheik had been instrumental in assisting the US in negotiating with Sunni insurgents to stop fighting the American forces and instead turn their guns on Al-Qaeda. President Bush said that despite the murder, Anbar was an example of what could be achieved at a local level. "In response, a fellow Sunni leader said " we are determined to fight back'" Mr Bush said. He said the Iraqi government must bring determination to achieving reconciliation.
"This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks - and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must," he said. He pointed to successes such as passing a budget, a practical sharing of oil revenues and local reconciliation.

Notice of Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (SA) Inc. A.G.M.
Thursday, 27 September, 2007, from 7 - 9 pm
Pilgrim Church Hall, 12 Flinders Street, Adelaide
Light refreshments. Guest Speakers. All welcome
We are inviting some local Aboriginal people to speak to the meeting. ANTaR SA has had a very productive year this past year - we will tell you more about it, and what we see as our work into the future, at the AGM. This year also happens to be the tenth anniversary of ANTaR nationally - October is the 10th anniversary of the first Sea of Hands in Canberra, in the campaign challenging the watering down of the Native Title Act in 1997 - 1998. To coincide there is an ANTaR National Congress in mid October in Canberra. Whoever wins the election, whenever it is held, it is absolutely clear that the necessity will remain for a people's movement for real justice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians

Australia must not lose its way on the rights of refugees
Age Editorial , September 14, 2007
What kind of country has Australia become? This is the question Australians again have to ask themselves in the wake of the Federal Government's disturbing decision to deny 72 Sri Lankans, who have been found to be genuine refugees, the right to settle in Australia. What the Government has granted this group of Tamil men is the right to languish on Nauru Island until the Government finds another country willing to assume Australia's international and moral obligations to accept and resettle them. The men are in for a long and possibly fruitless wait. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, only about 4 per cent of asylum seekers processed on Nauru and Manus Island have been accepted by other countries. This sad, paltry figure is testament to the fact that other countries are reluctant to accept people they consider, with justification, to be Australia's responsibility. And, if past experience is any indicator, these refugees also face a traumatic life in detention, a life characterised by isolation and mental illness.
Wednesday's decision is troubling, but not surprising. In February, the Howard Government foreshadowed this hardened stance prohibiting unauthorised arrivals fromsettling in Australia even when they had been found to be genuine refugees. Like the temporary protection visa, it is a tool being used by the Government to deter unknown people, often in unsafe boats, from arriving in Australia without a visa at a time when matters of border security are of obvious concern to many Australians. While, in the Government's terms, the policy has been successful, the question remains at what cost to Australia's international and moral standing? The Government also holds the firm view that unauthorised arrivals are "queue jumpers" and that those who aspire to be accepted into Australia should follow the correct channels and complete the necessary paperwork. While this is entirely appropriate in an ideal world, some people, such as those fleeing the chaos of the brutal internicine conflict in Sri Lanka, may not have the opportunity to line up in the proper queue.
On the whole, Australia fulfils its duties as an international citizen and, relative to its population, pulls its weight in terms of accepting refugees from camps around the world. But its reputation has been sullied by its intransigence over the Pacific Solution and will be further besmirched by its unreasonable stand on these 72 unfortunate Sri Lankans. The Government needs to accept that these men have been found to be genuine refugees, people who according to the UNHCR have fled persecution in their homeland and face torture or death should they return. By failing to offer them permanent entry to Australia, the Government only demonstrates that it fails to understand their plight and that its moral compass has gone awry.
As a civilised nation that acknowledges, and for the most part meets, its international humanitarian obligations, it should be welcoming what is a very small group of people and helping them rebuild their lives. What possible threat could they present? Australia has strong historical ties with Sri Lanka and a robust Sri Lankan community that would welcome them and provide a ready-made support network, which may not be available should they be cynically hand-balled to another country for resettlement. Australia should not forget that it is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and in the spirit of that historic covenant it should take these refugees and rescind its decision to condemn them to a life of indefinite detention and indeterminate exile on Nauru. In doing so it would send a message to the world that it places its human rights obligations above its policies of deterrence. Anything else is a shameful denial of the right to sanctuary.

Nuclear Weapons Operating Status
Nuclear Weapons Operating Status sounds boring and technical, but - like everything to do with nuke weapons, but especially this uniquely scary topic - it's all about the world ending by accident on some really bad hair day. This has already happened rather too many times for comfort.
Some 2000 long- range nuclear weapons mostly in the US and Russia are on 24 - hour 'hairtrigger alert', or 'Launch on Warning' status, able to be launched within minutes, incinerating most humans in about an hour and a half and replacing the global warming problem with a nuclear winter in which most species including remaining humans, would perish. A contingency you'd really rather avoid.
Over the years there have been a series of utterly terrifying incidents in which the apocalypse has been minutes away. We've been saved by a Russian colonel in 1983 who decided not to press a flashing red button because he had a 'feeling' that it was a 'glitch', and by an unknown assistant to Boris Yeltsin who as the release of the Russian 'go' codes was debated, said 'lets wait another minute'.
High - level commission after high level commission from the Canberra Commission in 1996 to the Blix commission in 2006 have said that keeping thousands of nuclear weapons on alert is crazy. In 2005, 44 nobel prizewinners and 362 NGOs and Parliamentarians signed a statement urging action to take nukes off alert.
Australia already supports a resolution that has operating status in it but its only one or two lines. The issue really merits much more attention than that.
Now, the New Zealand government is riding to the rescue with a resolution in the U.N. General Assembly/First Committee, which urges that nuclear weapons be taken off alert. It's all but certain that this resolution will PASS, but it needs to do more than that. It needs to pass by as massive, overwhelming, a majority as it can. The support of nations like Australia is really important.
Let Alexander Downer know that election or no election, you want our government to support the NZ resolution on operating status. And let our ambassador in New York who will have to vote on it too, know what you feel. You've got to act fast - the resolution goes to a vote on 29 October.
Downer's fax number is (02)6273-4112.
Our UN Ambassadors number is 1-212-351-6610
Do let them know just how important you think it is to support this initiative. Don't forget to say that it is in keeping with the resolution we already support. We are not asking for anything new or radical.
The following letter was sent to Downer a few days back, with copies to Kevin Rudd, Robert McClelland, and UN Ambassador Caroline Millar
RE: NEW ZEALAND/SWEDEN RESOLUTION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS OPERATING STATUS
We are writing to you to urge your and Australia's support for New Zealand's initiative in the General Assembly and First Committee, on Nuclear Weapons Operating Status.
While nuclear weapons operating status is mentioned in a number of worthy resolutions on nuclear disarmament including the excellent and widely supported Japan/Australia sponsored Renewed Determination Toward the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, we believe that Operating Status is of sufficient importance that it really requires a standalone resolution specifically to itself. The one standalone resolution that does exist on it - Reducing Nuclear Dangers - is put up by India, and supported by largely the NAM bloc. Much wider support is necessary to have the required impact.
While operating status is included in some other resolutions (Renewed Determination, Reducing Nuclear Dangers), a strongly supported stand-alone resolution on operating status would demonstrate a depth and breadth of support with the potential to stimulate positive action by the nuclear weapon states .
Australia's support for the NZ resolution would mean that it would be widely supported by both NAM nations and by the 'western' bloc as well as by groupings such as NAC, and by those who support Renewed Determination.
Wide, cross-factional support is what we are looking for.
The lowering of nuclear weapons operating status by the US, Russia and other States possessing nuclear weapons, would constitute a practical and effective step away from the likelihood of actual use of nuclear weapons by madness, malice, miscalculation or malfunction.
Lowering nuclear weapons operating status is a commonsense measure that is possibly the single thing that would do most to make the world a safer place in the short-medium run. It has been recommended by the Canberra Commission, by a variety of bodies in between 1996 and 2006, by the Appeal signed by the 44 Nobels in 2005, and in 2006 by the Blix Commission. More recently, Kofi Annan, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists group of 18 Nobels, the Pugwash group, and others including Gorbachev, Kissinger and Sam Nunn have recommended it.
Progress on vertical as well as horizontal proliferation is becoming an urgent priority - indeed it has been so for some years. Support for the New Zealand Operating Status initiative would significantly facilitate such progress and help to make the world a safer place.
John Hallam, Nuclear Flashpoints, Sydney; and Doug Mattern
President, Association of World Citizens, San Francisco USA

A Peace of the Action

Radio program A Peace of the Action is dedicated to commentary on peace and social justice issues.
Radio Adelaide 101.5FM every Sunday at 12.30.

Ron Gray Human Rights Foundation

Click here for more information about the RGHRF

Opinions expressed on this website do not necessarily reflect those of the APC

This site Copyright of the Australian Peace Committee , contact APC-SA
[ Back ] [ Home ] [ Up ]