ASSANGE - Sweden Supreme Court - Ordered New Investigation By Attorney General

ASSANGE Supreme Court Swe appeal hearing granted NEW INVESTIGATION to be carried by attorney general - ASSANGE - petition in protest of arbitrary detention also filed at UN + even if Swe drop the matter, UK can hold ASSANGE EXTRACTS Assange fears that any extradition to Sweden would see him onwardly extradited to the U.S, where the FBI continues a criminal investigation into Wikileaks. The decision was published in the Supreme Court's website and and the court ordered a new investigation to be carried by the attorney general. The lawyers also filed a petition with the United Nations in protest of arbitrary detention. ... even if Swedish authorities do drop the case, the United Kingdom could still detain Assange. Assange, who sought asylum in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, has repeatedly requested the Swedish prosecutor question him in England. Although this is a standard procedure allowed by the Swedish Justice system, prosecutor Marianne Ny has refused his requests.  http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Swedish-Supreme-Court-Approves-Assanges-Appeal-Hearing-20150310-0029.html FILINGS SC (Sweden) Appeal -  https://justice4assange.com/Assange-files-case-to-dismiss.html COMMENT OK, what's going on? I wasn't expecting that. The Attorney General investigation sounds too good to be true. After dragging this out FOREVER, until they could no longer keep it up & maintain any scrap of public credibility, they're giving in? No way.  It's probably to ward off some heat, because if this had gone before a human rights court, it wouldn't do for Sweden to have sat on the matter doing nothing for over 4 years. So, it's probably a tactic of being seen to be doing something, even if they may not be at the end of the day. Also, in my view, Sweden failing to progress this matter for over 4 years cannot come down to the action (or inaction) of one single person. Don't get the part where Britain can still block asylum even if Sweden drop the matter.

Israel - Lebanon Clashes

WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE Deadly border clashes stoke fears of war in Israel, Lebanon By William Booth and Hugh Naylor January 28 at 9:15 PM JERUSALEM — Residents of Israel and Lebanon feared Wednesday that their countries were edging toward war after Israeli troops and the Lebanese Hezbollah militia exchanged deadly barrages across a fractious border earlier in the day. The clashes, which began with a Hezbollah attack that killed two Israeli soldiers, marked one of the most serious flare-ups of violence in the area since a month-long war in 2006 and raised tensions in a volatile tri-border zone close to positions held by Syrian rebels, including Islamist factions. A U.N. peacekeeper was also killed, although it was unclear how he died. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed that “whoever is behind today’s attack will pay the full price.” In addition to Hezbollah, Netanyahu said Israel would hold the governments of Lebanon and Syria — which Hezbollah is backing in its civil war— responsible for any attack originating from their territories. The Israeli leader, in the midst of a competitive election campaign, also blamed Iran, another ally of Hezbollah, for trying to open a new front against Israel. As anti-armor missiles and tank artillery flashed across the countries’ frontier, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, traveling in China, said Israel should retaliate “in a very harsh and disproportionate manner.” The Lebanese-based Shiite movement Hezbollah, which asserted responsibility for the attack on an Israeli convoy, also threatened more actions. The deadly exchange on the border came 10 days after an Israeli airstrike in the Syrian-controlled portion of the Golan Heights killed six Hezbollah fighters and a senior military commander from Iran. Hezbollah leaders had vowed to retaliate. The Lebanese Hezbollah group struck an Israeli military convoy on Wednesday, killing two Israeli soldiers. The attack was an apparent retaliation for an airstrike that killed six Hezbollah fighters in Syria earlier this month. The Israeli military said seven troops were wounded in Wednesday’s hostilities, and the United Nations said a Spanish member of its peacekeeping force was killed in the village of Ghajar, which straddles the Israel- Lebanon border. Andrea Tenenti, a spokesman for the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, said the circumstances of the “tragic incident” were being investigated. The clashes began when an anti­tank missile struck Israeli military and civilian vehicles traveling in a convoy along the border. The attack was followed by mortar rounds launched from Lebanon that landed near Israeli troops in the foothills of Mount Hermon, according to Israeli military officials. That barrage was answered by dozens of artillery shells fired into Lebanon. Israeli military officials said their forces launched “aerial and ground strikes at Hezbollah operational positions.” In a separate operation, Israeli jets hit Syrian army artillery positions near the Israel-occupied Golan Heights in response to two rockets fired from Syria the previous day. No casualties were reported. The triangle where Israel, Lebanon and Syria meet has been mostly quiet for years, but increasingly the nearly four-year-old conflict in Syria has spilled over. Hezbollah has backed the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which is also supported by Iran. The recent tensions began escalating Jan. 18, when a missile from an Israeli warplane struck a convoy traveling near the Syria-Israel demilitarized zone in the Golan Heights, killing the six Hezbollah members and the Iranian general. Israeli officials claimed Hezbollah had been planning a large-scale attack against Israel. Among the dead was Jihad Mughniyah, the son of Imad Mughniyah, a former top Hezbollah militant who was assassinated in a 2008 car bombing in the Syrian capital, Damascus. Israel is suspected of playing a role in the elder Mughniyah’s killing. The Israeli military had since been bracing for a retaliatory strike, moving additional soldiers, tanks and air-defense systems into the border zone. After Wednesday’s exchange, Israeli civilians were evacuated from some areas along the border. The exchange of fire took place in a contested area known as Shebaa Farms. Hezbollah says the area belongs to Lebanon, and the United Nations defines the area as part of Syria. The Israelis claim it is theirs. “The tension in the north is very tricky. It’s a very flammable situation,” said Maj. Gen. Israel Ziv, a reserve officer in the Israel army and former chief of operations. “Israel has to contain it, to defend our interests, but not get drawn in” to the Syrian battlefields, Ziv said. The fact that Hezbollah attacked Israeli troops, rather than Israeli population centers near the border, may make Israel less likely to respond harshly. But the death of two Israeli soldiers might also bring further Israeli action at a time when Hezbollah, distracted by its fight in Syria, could be weakened. Some analysts estimate that as many as 1,000 Hezbollah fighters have been killed in Syria, while others put that number in the hundreds. Hezbollah does not disclose such information, but its losses in Syria are widely believed to have been significant. “Hezbollah is stretched thin because of Syria. Even if it were not in Syria, that doesn’t mean that Hezbollah would want a major escalation with Israel,” said Hilal Khashan, a professor at the American University of Beirut. “The Israeli shelling in the south isn’t terribly intense,” he said. “So I don’t think this will lead to a major conflagration.” A Lebanese political analyst who has close ties with senior Hezbollah officials described the latest attack as “a trap set by Hezbollah.” “It’s important to note that Hezbollah’s first statement [on Wednesday’s attack] was called Communique No. 1, which means that it is signaling that it is ready to fight more,” said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the tense situation. Netanyahu warned Hezbollah not to escalate. “I suggest that all those who are challenging us on our northern border, look at what happened in Gaza,” he said, referring to last summer’s 50-day war between Israel and the Islamist group Hamas, which left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead and swathes of Gaza in ruins. He later sharpened his warnings, singling out Iran and saying those “behind the attack today will pay the full price.” Israel and Hezbollah fought a four-week war in 2006, which failed to dislodge key Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and was interpreted in the Arab world as a victory for the militia group. On Wednesday, Israeli military officials said rumors that an Israeli soldier was abducted by Hezbollah forces were untrue. A kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was one of the events that led to the 2006 war. Naylor reported from Beirut. Suzan Haidamous in Beirut contributed to this report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-and-lebanons-hezbollah-trade-fire-across-border-casualties-reported/2015/01/28/dd9a6b68-a6e0-11e4-a2b2-776095f393b2_story.html COMMENT If this is a trap, it may be more likely to be an Israeli trap than a Hezbollah trap, if you consider the chain of events.  Hostilities were initiated by Israeli air-strike on Syrian controlled Golan Heights, killing 6 Hezbollah troops and an Iranian officer. As Israel initiated the round of hostilities, during a time Israel appears intent on lobbying for sanctions against Iran and disrupting the Iran nuclear talks, it is possible that any action here may be a means of either drawing Iran into conflict or perhaps steering opinion against Iran. However, I'm not sure what that Iranian officer was doing scouting around Israel's border. That seems odd.  But I've never observe military before, so I don't know. Shebaa farms, the location of the latest hostilities, is a region that belongs to either Lebanon (according to Hezbollah), to Syria (according to United Nations) or to Israel (according to Israel), so it's not even clear whose territory this took place on.

Israel - Palestine Conflict: Mads Gilbert & Noam Chomsky

ISRAEL / PALESTINE MADS GILBERT Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZzIf7Bk8CHM Talk to Al Jazeera - Mads Gilbert:  'People are questioning Israel' Mads Gilbert is a convincing voice for Palestine and it's worthwhile taking the time to view this video, which is from the perspective of a medical professional that has long been active in helping people in Palestine. Gilbert says that, according to international law, an occupied people have the right to take up arms to defend themselves.  That isn't something the mainstream media makes clear.  In fact, I think that's the first time I've ever heard anybody say that. It is also illegal to occupy a people!  Wow, I didn't even know that. During this interview, Gilbert calls into question the Israeli narrative of Israel as a people under attack. Gilbert goes on to say that the solution is a political one rather than a military one. NOAM CHOMSKY Which takes me back to another video that I watched about Palestine and Israel - Noam Chomsky's UN speech: Link:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2LNyZ6NNeE Noam Chomsky at UN (Oct 14th, 2014)  "Solutions To The Israel-Palestine Conflict" It's worthwhile taking the time to watch the Noam Chomsky video  because he explains the ways in which a political solution has been dodged. Watched this video some time ago and summarised some of the points Chomsky made during the first half hour or so of the video.   Summary below: Israel-Palestine conflict: general outlines of a diplomatic solution has been clear for at least 40 years. Resolution brought before UN 1976 called for two-state settlement internationally recognised border which guarantees rights of both states 1976 resolution brought to UN by 3 major Arab states -- Egypt, Jordan, Syria ('the Confrontation States') 1976 UN resolution -- Israel refused to attend the session. Resolution vetoed by US. 1976 UN Resolution> US veto typically DOUBLE-VETO  1) Non-implementation Resolution  2) Event vetoed from history .. 1976 UN Resolution> Israel refusal to attend + US veto of implementation of Resolution (& from history) SET PATTERN SINCE 1976 UN Resolution> most recent US VETO 2011 #Obama - vetoed implementation 4 official US policy / for opp. to expansion of settlements Opposition to expansion of settlements >*expansion* not issue / issue is illegal *settlements* + infrastructure projects for long time, overwhelming international consensus in support of a [illegal] settlement along these general lines UN pattern set 1976 continues to the present /Israel rejects settlement of terms with unremitting & decisive support of US UN pattern set 1976 continues with unremitting & decisive support of US -- military, economic, diplomatic & ideological pattern continues with support of US, establishing how conflict viewed & interpreted in US & within US sphere of influence pattern> ceasefire, Israel disregards >continues assault on Gaza, incl. continued siege, intermittent violence, settlement &  development. pattern> Hamas observe ceasefire until Israel escalation elicits Hamas response >Israel exercises 'mowing the lawn'  [ie military offensive against Palestinians] pattern > Israel 'mowing the lawn'  [ie military offensive against Palestinians] > each episode more fierce & destructive than the last -- in a series Agreement on Movement & Access Nov 2005, called for crossing between Gaza & Egypt (Rafah) 2005 Agreement > for export of goods & transit of people , continuous op of crossings between Israel & Gaza 4 import/export + transit of people 2005 Agreement > called for reduction of obstacles to movement w/in the West Bank, bus & truck convoys between West Bank & Gaza ... 2005 Agreement > called for the building of a sea port in Gaza, the reopening of airport in Gaza (that Israel had destroyed) Terms of 2005 Movement & Access Agreement are essentially terms of successive ceasefires, incl. one reached few weeks ago. 2005 Agreement timing significant > it was moment of Israel's disengagement from Gaza & removal several thousand Israeli settlers 2005 Israel disengagement stated goal was the FREEZING of the peace process to prevent establishment of Palestinian state 2005 Israel disengagement stated goal was to ensure that diplomacy has been removed indefinitely from agenda ... Israel-Palestine:'05 Israel disengagement reality:  ruined territory not released for even single day from Israel military grip or occupation '05 Israel disengagement stated reality - Israel left behind scorched earth, devastated services & people with no present or future 2005 Israel disengagement stated reality: settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier 2005 Israel disengagement >occupier continues to control territory kill & harass inhabitants >means of formidable military might Oslo Accords established 20 years ago >> Gaza & West Bank are INDIVISIBLE TERRITORIAL UNITY > integrity cannot be broken up For 20 years US & Israel dedicated to separating Gaza & West Bank in VIOLATION of the ACCORDS they had ACCEPTED Separation of Gaza & West bank look at map explains why: Gaza offers only access to outside world to Palestine. if Gaza is separated from the West Bank whatever autonomy it might be granted in West Bank would be imprisoned. September. West Bank = Imprisoned; Israel on one side & hostile Jordan (ally of  Israel)  on other and Israel-US Jordan valley takeover Israel's slow & steady US-backed policy is to take over Jordan Valley, about 1/3 of West Bank & much of arable land Jordan Valley take-over is major geostrategic reason for Israel with US backing INSISTENCE on SEPARATING Gaza & West Bank Jan 2006 = first full free election in the Arab world (monitored & recognised) occurred> HAMAS won control of Parliament Hamas win election result in 2006 was not what US & Israel wanted 2006 Hamas win of Parliament good test of US 'democracy promotion' agenda > Fail: Palestine harsh siege instituted US/IS following 2006 Hamas win of Parliament, US began to immediately organise a military coup - as per standard US record post 2006 election, US organised military coup >> to its shame & discredit, European Union went along with this. sounds like the punishment, violence, US arranged coup (accepted by EU) led to Israeli escalation + end to Nov 2005 Agreement 2007 Hamas committed even greater crime than winning fair election; it pre-empted planned military coup & took over Gaza! 2007 elected Hamas PREVENTING US-arranged coup is described in West as Hamas taking Gaza over by 'force'. Hamas preventing planned & US-arranged military coup against the Hamas elected government led to substantial attacks on Gaza. Jan 2008 another. ceasefire reached. Similar to 2005 terms. Israel publicly rejected ceasefire. Hamas observed the ceasefire. one-sided ceasefire cont. to Nov 4, 2008 - day of US election - Israeli forces invaded Gaza & killed Hamas militants ... Nov 2008 Israel attack on Gaza led 2 rocket fire on Israel, a huge Israeli response, lots killings: Palestinians, as usual mid Dec 2008, Hamas offer to renew the ceasefire, Israeli doveish Cabinet rejected & launched next military op 'Cast Lead' 2008 Israel Op 'Cast Lead' >> horrible Op .. caused substantial international reaction, investigation: UN, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch 2008 Israel Op 'Cast Lead'  >> precisely timed to end before  #Obama inauguration .. so Obama didn't have to respond. no comment / let's forget about the past & look to the future is standard slogan for those engaged in serious crime Jan 8, 2009 >> UN Resolution passed (US abstaining) >> calling for immediate cease-fire with usual terms - NEVER OBSERVED > UN ceasefire Resolution of Jan 8, 2009 > broke down completely w. next episode of 'mowing the lawn' in Nov. 2012 >Nov. 2012 'mow the lawn' [ie military offensive against Palestinians] >> get good sense what going on looking @ casualty figures: 79 killed / 78 of them Palestinians The above points were summarised weeks ago, and this is one of the things I didn't get around to finishing.  Hopefully it makes sense. I thought the Chomsky UN video was amazing.  It explains in simple terms what's really going on, which was a revelation to me, as I'm new to politics and as you don't get this sort of information from mainstream media.  [Excuse any typos.  Another all-nighter, no sleep.  Getting to be a baaaaad habit.]

The Rome Statute - International Criminal Court

ꕤ Article SOURCE https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Rome, 17 July 1998 Entry into force:     1 July 2002, in accordance with article 126. Registration    : 1 July 2002, No. 38544 Status              : Signatories : 139.   Parties : 123 The Statute was adopted on 17 July 1998 by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.  In accordance with its article 125, the Statute was opened for signature by all States in Rome at the Headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on 17 July 1998.  Thereafter, it was opened for signature in Rome at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy until 17 October 1998.  After that date, the Statute was opened for signature in New York, at United Nations Headquarters, where it will be until 31 December 2000. plenipotentiary A person, especially a diplomat, invested with the full power of independent action on behalf of their government, typically in a foreign country. [source] Note Israel & USA not party to Rome Statute ꕤ

US - 'Partnerships' - NATO - Trade - US Imperialism - War - Death for Profit

"Monday, 28 July 2014 16:52 Another Way To Police the World Written by John F. McManus Another Way To Police the World On Sunday, July 27th, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared on the CBS “Face the Nation” program and said something the American people wanted to hear. She then promptly contradicted her own pronouncement. After agreeing that “the world is a mess,” and that its current travails are less important to most Americans, she registered her opinion that the people in our nation don’t want the U.S. “to be the world’s policemen.” Amen to that! But Albright, who probably would never have come even close to expressing that conclusion when she was holding her high office (during the final years of the Clinton presidency, 1997-2001), followed her sound assessment of the thinking of most Americans by completely reversing it. She said, “What has to happen is we need to really work harder on partnerships.” Partnerships? Wouldn’t partnerships with other nations involve us in whatever squabble any one of them might find themselves? George Washington urged that our nation “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Thomas Jefferson cautioned against “entangling alliances.” John Quincy Adams stated that America’s policy should not have us roaming the earth “seeking monsters to destroy.” But Madeleine Albright wants our nation to tighten relationships with other countries via “partnerships” which are the very opposite of the wise counsel given by America’s early leaders. In 1949, Secretary of State Dean Acheson led the charge that persuaded Congress to approve the creation of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Originally linking the United States and Canada with 14 European nations, the treaty has been expanded in recent years to include a total of 28 nations — with others clamoring to sign up. NATO’s 14 brief articles include this whopper: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” Not only that, the treaty makes note of the fact that the organization derives its authority to exist from the Charter of the United Nations that requires all of the alliance’s actions to be duly reported to the world body. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan is a NATO project. Whatever happens or fails to happen there is NATO’s call, and the current leader of NATO is Denmark’s Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The alliance’s Military Commander is General Knud Bartles, also from Denmark. Talk about a “far cry” from the thinking of America’s early leaders. Albright pointed to the Ukraine crisis without noting that the United States is already involved through supplying weaponry to that nation’s government. And Ukraine’s officials have already expressed interest in joining NATO. They obviously want the United States committed to being their defender. What do treaties like NATO produce? It’s worth noting that the U.S. Constitution’s required congressional declaration of war before militarily entering a conflict got bypassed in the Vietnam struggle. The U.S. involvement there obtained its authorization from a NATO duplicate called SEATO (Southeast Asia Treaty Organization). What our forces did or were prevented from doing in that costly struggle was determined by SEATO. The favored policy of America should be “non-intervention.” It’s not isolationism; it’s good sense. A final curious note must be mentioned here. Albright’s choice of the word “partnership” likely was deliberate. U.S. leaders are promoting passage of economic partnerships with the European Union (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership; TTIP) and Asian/Pacific nations (Trans-Pacific Partnership; TPP). Just as NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] unnecessarily involved our nation in many ways with Canada and Mexico, these new “partnerships” would entangle the United States with many more nations economically and politically while diluting sovereignty even further. Passage of both should be blocked. But be forewarned: The word “partnership” is the current coverup for treaty, alliance, or free trade agreement. And Madeleine Albright, who really favors more entanglements, surely knows why she chose it. John F. McManus is president of The John Birch Society and publisher of The New American. This column appeared originally at the insideJBS blog and is reprinted here with permission." Source - The New American - here. More like 'another way to pillage the world'. No chance of US foregoing any of the joys of 'partnership', or abandoning NATO or any of the tools that serve corporate American interests. So if corporate America goes to war; heed the call and die for global corporate profits.

UKRAINE and US 'boy scouts'

California has worked with Ukrainian troops Guido J. Portante Jr., Special to The Desert Sun 6:43 p.m. PDT July 26, 2014 After the breakup of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991, the leadership of our country in the Defense Department and the administration saw an opportunity to keep those countries that were once a part of the Soviet Union and newly independent on the path to democracy. Further, they wanted to minimize instability in the region by supporting the principals of responsible government within those countries. In the early 1990s, a national program called Partnership for Peace, now called State Partnership Program, was established by our government. The State Partnership Program is an innovative program managed by the National Guard Bureau given to each participating state to execute. The State Partnership Program is an extraordinary effort by the U.S. to familiarize newly independent countries with American values and principles, to include law, public safety, agriculture, business, and military capabilities and training. Further, helping to build long-term national security strength for the newly independent nation’s we partnered with. In this process, we strengthened the national security of the United States. And, we built a coalition of forces that are mutually supportive to each other. California has been aligned with the country of Ukraine since 1993. Many states throughout our country and their National Guards are aligned with countries such as Alabama with Romania, Georgia with Georgia. There are currently 48 states that are aligned with countries of the old Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries and the debunked country of Yugoslav. [Debunked Yugoslavia?] Countless exercises revolving around peace keeping, homeland defense, military and cultural exchanges have been conducted. The National Guard’s dual federal and state mission make this program ideal for guard units to promote democratic institutions at the national, state and local levels of governments. The National Guard of each state is responsible to the federal government in time of war and national emergency. It also is responsible to each state governor for state emergencies such as natural disasters or civil unrest. The latter is important in working with partnered countries. I had an opportunity to train with the military members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and with Ukraine’s political leaders. We developed programs that were conducted both in the Ukraine and in California. Integrated into these military exercise, were cultural exchanges between the two partners. These exercises shared lessons learned, ideas and concepts of both cultures. They promoted the American way of life, while taking into consideration those issues facing a new independent country on the road to democracy. The success of this program lies in the partnered nation’s participation when fighting alongside of us in Iraq and Afghanistan. The cost to partner in the State Partnership Program has been low and has paid dividends. With our continued sharing of interpersonal relationships with each partnered country, we can enhance each newly independent nations chance to succeed at democracy, freedom and the ability to prosper as a people and a nation. When individuals get to know each other while sharing the belief for freedom and democracy we begin to find out that as people we are all cut from the same mold. Getting along becomes much easier. For those who might want to tear us apart, the job becomes harder. Guido J. Portante Jr. of Rancho Mirage is a retired U.S. Army brigadier general. http://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/07/26/california-worked-ukraine-troops/13227433/

PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

Partnership for Peace
[wikipedia]

Blue      = NATO (1994)
Orange = Partnership for Peace (PfP)
Green    = Current NATO members (former PfP members)
Red        = aspiring PfP states [wikipedia]

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) is a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) program aimed at creating trust between NATO and other states in Europe and the former Soviet Union; 22 states are members.  It was first discussed by the Bulgarian Society Novae, after proposed as an American initiative at the meeting of NATO ... in 1993, and formally launched ... January 1994 (NATO summit in Brussels, Belgium). [wikipedia]

Partnership for Peace is now:  the State Partnership Program (SPP) - here.


Following is a list of other partners to the US State Partnership Program:

(transcribed from Wikipedia)

Bahamas (C'wealth) Bangladesh Belize Bolivia Botswana Cambodia Chile Columbia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Ghana Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Indonesia Jamaica (C'wealth) Jordan Kazakhstan Kyrgyz Republic

Liberia  Mongolia Morocco Nicaragua Nigeria Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Senegal South Africa Suriname Tajikistan Thailand Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Uruguay Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands

---------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT

Partnership for Peace (now 'State Partnership Program') sounds like an altruistic US government sponsored 'boy scouts' mission spreading the message, getting together to grow, share, develop and commune with underprivileged and unenlightened 'boys' from all over the world.

But, hey, there's dividends to be had by the US, at a bargain basement low outlay.

I'd wager that these US dividends are enormous.

The Program is seen to:

• Strengthen national security of the US.
• Build a 'coalition of forces' for mutual support.
• Be ideal for promotion of 'democratic institutions' at NATIONAL, STATE and LOCAL levels of external participating governments.

The Program also happens to:

• Provide MILITARY connections.
• POLITICAL leader connections.
• Afford promotion of 'the American way of life' -- and, let's be real -- whatever the US agenda wishes to promote.

The article indicates involving participating nations in supporting US military causes and actions is key to the success of the Program.

And there's plenty to be said for making individual connections that the Program affords.

It looks like the US has been dabbling (with this single arm of the worldwide dabbling machine) in Europe since the early 1990s -- and in Ukraine since 1993.

Is anybody else blown away by that?  

It means that the US (and its agenda) has had 20 years to gain -- and execute -- influence at a military, political, individual or personal, cultural, government, national, state and local level, in the Ukraine.

It looks like there's something to be said for these evangelistic 'boy scout' missions beyond borders and, yes, they most definitely pay dividends given enough time communing around 'Camp US Love-in'.

UN - COMICS - INDOCTRINATION OF CHILDREN

MARVEL COMICS [Parent Company] Marvel Entertainment, LLC (The Walt Disney Company) [Founded 1939] as Timely Comics [Headquarters Location] 135 W. 50th Street, New York City Spider-Man X-Men Wolverine Fantastic Four Iron Man Hulk Thor Captain America Silver Surfer Avengers Green Goblin Doctor Octopus Magnet Doctor Doom Loki Galactus Thanos Red Skull .. locations that mirror real-life cities. [wikipedia]

THE AVENGERS The Avengers are Earth's foremost major organization of costumed superhuman crimefighters, adventurers and heroes dedicated to safeguarding the world from any threat beyond the power of conventional peacekeeping forces or any which any of them can't handle alone. Founded several months after the incorporation of the hero team Fantastic Four, the Avengers became the first superhuman team to be granted full official government sanctions by the National Security Council of the United States, the General Assembly of the United Nations, and later by the international intelligence/law enforcement agency S.H.I.E.L.D.. [...] United Nations Charter Captain America, at that time called simply the Captain, immediately reorganized the team with the hero Gilgamesh and the temporary members Mister Fantastic and the Invisible Woman of the Fantastic Four. Captain America soon reassembled all known members and associates to the rebuilt Avengers Mansion, claiming that all heroes may consider themselves on reserve and ready for service, although an active team of seven members (plus two reserves) would be the primary response team. Also at this time, the Avengers negotiated with the United Nations, earning global jurisdiction by pledging to serve under a U.N. charter as it had previously the United States. http://marvel.wikia.com/Avengers_%28Earth-616%29

2008 - UN - MARVEL COLLABORATION ANNOUNCED In 2008, Marvel announced plans to release a series of educational comics the following year in partnership with the United Nations, depicting Spider-Man alongside UN Peacekeeping Forces to highlight UN peacekeeping missions. [wikipedia]

BBC Article The UN recently announced a union with the comic book company, Marvel. Together, they aim to print a special comic that will see the superhero fight alongside UN aid workers and peacekeepers. Marvel scribes have offered to pen the work for free. The UN is now seeking private backing so it can distribute 1m free copies to American schoolchildren. The project's creator, the French producer Romuald Sciora, says he hopes it will then be translated into European languages. UN's top man on the project says critics are missing the point. Amir Dossal leads the UN Partnerships Office, which is putting up half the money for the project. He told the BBC it was not intended to promote the UN per se, but rather to inform children about UN humanitarian causes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7172016.stm

2008 - Blogger - Jack Central Late last month, the UN announced it would be working with Marvel Comics to develop a comic book for youth set in a fictional war-torn country where superheroes work alongside UNICEF aide workers and UN peacekeepers. The UN initially plans to distribute its comic book to one million U.S. children, and then hopes to translate the comic in other languages and include a game and DVD to distribute alongside the book to children in other countries. To many people around the world, the image of the United Nations has been shaken due to a variety of accusations the organization has faced. In January 2000, the United Nations was sued for the first time in its history for alleged complicity in the crime of genocide, which drove hundreds of thousands Rwandan Tutsis from their homes. Two women claimed that the UN soldiers—whose task it was to defend their families—either handed them over to their killers or ran away, according to a report from the BBC in January 2000. Other alleged reports have sprung up against the UN, like the account of an Irish soldier serving as a United Nation peacekeeper in Eritrea, Africa in 2002 who was caught making pornographic videos of local women. So the idea to put this somewhat propaganda-like creation into the malleable minds of youngsters seems conniving. http://jackcentral.com/opinion/2008/01/un-enlists-marvel-spider-man-to-improve-image/

Perhaps this is old news for most people, but this Spider-man collaboration with the UN is news to me.


What's interesting is the subject matter of the comics overall and how the content of these comics may shape the minds of those being entertained by superheroes saving the day.


The references to government and political entities appear to be standard references (see Avengers above). 

The Spider-man and UN announcement made the news in 2008 because in the real world -- and not the Marvel comic book world of heroes and villains -- the UN arranged to collaborate with Marvel, and aimed to distribute Marvel superhero UN mission themed comics to children in the US and beyond.


The UN Partnerships Office said at the time that it was to:  

"... inform children about UN humanitarian causes."

Children need to know about UN political pursuits (slash humanitarian missions) -- why?

The United Nations organization Another supranational political system that does not precisely fit any of the conventional classifications of such systems is the United Nations, a voluntary association of most of the world’s nation-states. Its membership had grown from an original 51 states to more than 190 by the early 21st century. [here]

Might the UN be motivated to foster passive acceptance in younger generations of an ideal, purely altruistic, UN whose motives and aims shall not be questioned?

Without knowing more about international politics and the workings of humanitarian organisations and their role in international politics, I can't see the big picture.

However, I am highly suspicious of supranational bodies and of humanitarian organisations that play a role on the global political stage.

MH17 - Bishop's on Abbott's US mission | Shorten's swinging by | Joe Biden's hovering

JULIE BISHOP AND TONY ABBOTT

Yahoo News July 20, 2014, 1:43 pm Julie Bishop heads to US Australia is taking a lead role in pushing for an international investigation in the crash, with Ms Bishop on her way to the US. Ms Bishop is expected to touch down in Washington for meetings before launching a lobbying offensive at the United Nations in New York. "[Ms Bishop] is there to lead our work at the UN. She's there to give focus to our work at the UN and so that the world knows just how seriously Australia is taking this and there are 36 people who call Australia home who have been snuffed out," Mr Abbott said. Australia wants tougher action from the Security Council, believing a press statement calling for an independent international investigation is not enough. It wants a binding resolution from members and is drafting the text to put to the Security Council for a vote. It would need Russia's support. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten will also travel to the US this week for high-level talks on a range of issues, including the Malaysia Airlines tragedy. Mr Shorten is attending the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, and will meet US vice-president Joe Biden and deputy state secretary William Burns. While he is there, Mr Shorten will be briefed by Australia's representatives at the UN about efforts to secure an investigation into the MH17 crash. ...extract...full @... SOURCE - Yahoo News - here.

Australian-American Leadership Dialogue (AALD) AALD is a not-for-profit NGO, founded as a 'private diplomatic initiative',  drawing together Australian and US achievers from government, the community and the corporate sector, in pursuit of promoting closer Australian-US understanding and ties. Official site AALD - here

--------------------------------------
COMMENT

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's headed to the US on Abbott's mission:   gaining top mileage for US-Australian political advantage.

Bill Shorten, Labor opposition leader, is also headed over for talks; which is strange to a new political watcher.

One would think the opposition would take information directly from the government of the day, rather than have independent discussions.

Shifty Joe Biden is waiting and hovering, and there's even an Aussie-US hybrid NGO in the package.

Shorten's attending AALD, which was formed by Phil Scanlan and his US wife, Julie Singer Scanlan, back in 1992; with the support of Republican President George H W Bush.  

GHW Bush came after Reagan; Clinton followed this Bush and GHW Bush's son, George W Bush, followed Clinton. 

AALD's Scanlan, described as an exceptional networker on his NGO's site, is a former managing director of Coca-Cola Amatil and has now joined the 'strategic advisory board' of Bridge Growth Partners, a New York private equity fund, specialising in technology and financial services.  

Scanlan also happens to be a former Australian Consul-General in New York, before the short-lived Gillard government appointment of Steve Bracks in the role.

Steve Bracks was soon dismissed by Tony Abbott's newly elected Liberal government, in favour of appointing 'Liberal powerbroker Nick Minchin' in Abbott's stead.

Here's some Michin background and what Bill Shorten had to say about on matter of Minchin's appointment:

Mr Minchin ... held several posts in the [Liberal] Howard government, including finance minister. He was instrumental in the then Coalition opposition changing its stance on supporting an emissions trading scheme proposed by the then Rudd government." Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said the appointment of Mr Minchin showed the Coalition government’s jobs priorities were wrong. ''The Abbott government will fight for Liberal politicians - they just won’t fight for ordinary people,'' he told reporters in Perth. The government had ''ripped up the rule book'' with the appointment of Mr Minchin. SOURCE - SMH - here.

Don't know much about Bill Shorten, but I'm impressed he stood up for Bracks.

-------------------------------------------

OTHER SOURCES

http://www.afr.com/p/business/companies/us_pe_fund_bridge_growth_seeks_tech_zSRp3stk0aFpIIz7AJxNxM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/former-victoria-premier-steve-bracks-gets-new-york-diplomatic-role/story-fn59nm2j-1226645536753

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-powerbroker-nick-minchin-appointed-consulgeneral-to-new-york-20140214-32ns5.html

Steve Coogan on Angelina Jolie's humanitarian efforts

CLARIFICATION - ALISTAIR CAMPBELL - STEVE COOGAN INTERVIEW - see Tokyo Rose current post - for interview clarification particulars - here.  GQ clarification - here.
-------------------------------------

Steve Coogan brands Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts 'off putting': 'I have more respect for a star that does something difficult

Wednesday 09 July 2014


Angelina Jolie’s humanitarian efforts have been the subject of high praise by most of her peers.

Most recently, the actress was honoured with the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award at the Governor's Ball in November 2013 – a renown accolade she earned for her work as the co-founder of the Prevent Sexual Violence Initiative and as a special envoy for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

But not all are as impressed by her charity work. In discussion with Tony Blair’s former Director of Communications Alastair Campbell – published by British GQ – Steve Coogan called Jolie’s effort’s "off-putting" and called for "celebrities" to butt out of international affairs and stick to their day jobs.

"Though I have been involved politically, I find people who are in the public eye for something else who suddenly start voicing opinions about everything else quite irritating," Coogan is quoted as saying.

"What? Like Angelina Jolie going out campaigning with William Hague?" Campbell added, referencing Jolie’s tireless campaigning to address the issue of rape in war zones.

"I do find it a bit off-putting," Coogan responded.

"If you are trying to do something charitable there is always a double-edged sword, because it is good PR for the celebrity.

"Better to do it than not do it, but I have much more respect for a celebrity that goes out [campaigning] about something really difficult."

Elsewhere in the interview, Coogan also voiced his opinion on the controversial Scottish Independence debate. His vote in the September referendum, if he had one, would resolutely be a "no".

"I don't want them to become independent," he said. "The reason I don't like Ukip is because I think we should be pro-European, a more not less cohesive world. Insularity isn't good."

source:  Independent
-------------------------------------
COMMENT

Coogan's an entertainer/producer.

The issue isn't whether or not the PR benefits the celebrity.

The issue is the worldwide platform and PR machinery that these celebrities command; the degree of influence on public perception; and the political (or other) agendas behind the emotive issues and causes etc that celebrities endorse.

The celebrity-politico-humanitarian aspect of Hollywood (and beyond) deserves its own study.

So he's bought into the notion of 'European' and 'cohesive' identity, while nationalism is now considered 'insularity'?






Wow.


MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN THIS POST IS AFFECTED BY FOLLOWING:

THERE'S BEEN A CLARIFICATION OF INTERVIEW WITH STEVE COOGAN BY ALISTAIR CAMPBELL.

ALISTAIR CAMPBELL'S GQ - CLARIFICATION ... HERE.