THE G-20 IN PITTSBURGH
by Tom Over 9-23-09
<br><br>
On Tuesday, Sept 22, activists from Philadelphia, New York City, Pittsburgh and other cities held a mock funeral procession to demand better policies for addressing the AIDS pandemic, a day ahead of the arrival of delegates for the G-20.
<br><br>
The approximately 50 participants in the New Orleans-style funeral march drew a mix of interest, irritation, and amusement from onlookers in the business district of downtown Pittsburgh.
<br><br>
At the head of the funeral march where pallbearers carried a cardboard coffin, a man shouted into a microphone while someone else carried a portable amplifier, “when people with AIDS are under attack, what do we do ?” and marchers shouted in unison, “fight back!”
<br><br>
Amidst the early afternoon bustle of an weekday, the demonstrators repeated this call-and-answer and similar chants as the funeral march made its way around the perimeter of the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the site of the G-20 Summit later this week.
<br><br>
Erica Goldberg works with ACT UP Philadelphia. She said global health is not on the agenda of the G-20 Summit.
“One of the things that some of the G-20 nations have promised us is funding for the global fund to fight, TB, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. This is all really important, especially if we want to meet the United Nations’ Millennium goal of eradicating these diseases by 2015. As of right now, this won’t be met. We have to hold our leaders accountable. They are the ones making decisions for the poorer countries,” Goldberg said.
<br><br>
She commented on the timing of the demonstration. “We wanted this to be the first thing they (the G-20 delegates) see. They’re coming here tomorrow. We’re holding them accountable. This needs to be on the agenda.”
<br><br>
She said AIDS activists chose Sept 22, two days before the official start of the G-20 Summit, and one day before the arrival of the delegates, so as to not have to compete with other protests. Also, she said the AIDS activists figured there would be less of a chance of conflict with police if they staged their protest earlier in the week.
<br><br>
“We hope that this will hit the papers tomorrow, that it’s the first thing they see when they walk in, that they have this on their conscience and know we’re not going away,” Goldberg said. She urges people to contact legislators about supporting the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.
“President Obama, as much as I love him, went back on his promise to fulfill the funding,” Goldberg said.
<br><br>
She commented on how drug companies factor into all of this. “ Medication does not need to be this expensive. They can definitely lower their prices. We have big drug interests lobbying to prevent AIDS medication from getting” to developing nations.
<br><br>
Goldberg said debt cancellation for developing nations is a factor that comes into play.
“When you don’t cancel debts of nations and they have to pay back loans to the IMF and the World Bank, they won’t have the funds necessary for getting AIDS medication, or they might get the medication but can’t pay the health professional because of their debt.
<br><br>
She said vested interested motivated by huge profits stand in the way of doing a better job of addressing tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. “We have the power, the ability, and the medication.”
World News
BANGKOK, Thailand -- Unable to topple Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra after weeks of street protests, opponents are venting their fury by portraying him as Adolf Hitler, sparking a denouncement by Israel's embassy.
Thailand's recently emboldened English language newspapers, meanwhile, have plastered their pages with anti-Thaksin stories, rhetoric and vitriol.
"Fuck Thaksin," read graffiti displayed in a front-page photo in the respected Bangkok Post on Thursday (March 23).
That hand-written demand appeared on one of the big, mass-produced "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters waved by protesters to needle Thaksin -- a close ally of U.S. President George W. Bush and a former police officer who received a PhD in Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University in Texas.
The popular poster's "reward" offers 73 billion baht (1.8 billion U.S. dollars), the amount Thaksin's family pocketed, tax-free, by selling their Shin Corp. telecommunications empire on February 24 to the Singapore government's investment wing, Temasek Holdings.
Thailand's recently emboldened English language newspapers, meanwhile, have plastered their pages with anti-Thaksin stories, rhetoric and vitriol.
"Fuck Thaksin," read graffiti displayed in a front-page photo in the respected Bangkok Post on Thursday (March 23).
That hand-written demand appeared on one of the big, mass-produced "Wanted Dead or Alive" posters waved by protesters to needle Thaksin -- a close ally of U.S. President George W. Bush and a former police officer who received a PhD in Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University in Texas.
The popular poster's "reward" offers 73 billion baht (1.8 billion U.S. dollars), the amount Thaksin's family pocketed, tax-free, by selling their Shin Corp. telecommunications empire on February 24 to the Singapore government's investment wing, Temasek Holdings.
Several months ago during a casual conversation, I was described by someone as being a radical. When he first said it I didn't know whether I should laugh or be offended.
It never quite dawned on me until then that my standing up against spiritual homophobia, writing a gay spiritual book and producing and hosting a national black gay TV talk show would qualify me for radical status, but apparently in the minds of some it has.
Prior to this particular conversation, my mental concept of radicalism or the word radical represented outdated images of white women burning their bras in protest of anything male dominated or people chaining themselves to century old oak trees.
So now I asked myself, what exactly is a radical? Is it someone who marches down the street shouting, screaming, and decrying the injustices of the day? Or is it someone who commits outrageous acts of protest capturing his/her 3 minutes of fame on the evening news?
It never quite dawned on me until then that my standing up against spiritual homophobia, writing a gay spiritual book and producing and hosting a national black gay TV talk show would qualify me for radical status, but apparently in the minds of some it has.
Prior to this particular conversation, my mental concept of radicalism or the word radical represented outdated images of white women burning their bras in protest of anything male dominated or people chaining themselves to century old oak trees.
So now I asked myself, what exactly is a radical? Is it someone who marches down the street shouting, screaming, and decrying the injustices of the day? Or is it someone who commits outrageous acts of protest capturing his/her 3 minutes of fame on the evening news?
THE AMERICAN PRISON CAMP at Guantanamo Bay is on the southeast corner! of Cuba, a sliver of land the United States has occupied since 1903. Long ago, it was irrigated from lakes on the other side of the island, but Cuban President Fidel Castro cut off the water supply years ago. So today, Guantanamo produces its own water from a 30-year-old desalination plant. The water has a distinct yellow tint. All Americans drink bottled water imported by the planeload. Until recently, prisoners drank the yellow water.
The prison overlooks the sea, but the ocean cannot be seen by prisoners. Guard towers and stadium lights loom along the perimeter. On my last visit, we were escorted by young, solemn military guards whose nameplates on their shirts were taped over so that prisoners could not identify them.
The prison overlooks the sea, but the ocean cannot be seen by prisoners. Guard towers and stadium lights loom along the perimeter. On my last visit, we were escorted by young, solemn military guards whose nameplates on their shirts were taped over so that prisoners could not identify them.
Coverage and analysis of the recent Hamas victory in the Palestinian
parliamentary elections has been prolific. Most coverage, however, fails to
look at this event in a broad historical context, as one of many features of
the political and cultural landscape, and in so doing misses important
elements of the message sent by Palestinians to their leadership, the
international community and international civil society.
This election is one representation of the Palestinian unequivocal rejection of Israel's colonial and racist project of force-creation of a state exclusively for people of Jewish descent, not for the humans living within its borders or directly under its occupation. The reaction against this fundamental construct takes many forms, there are many different targets, but all those are borne from this fundamental fact.
This election is one representation of the Palestinian unequivocal rejection of Israel's colonial and racist project of force-creation of a state exclusively for people of Jewish descent, not for the humans living within its borders or directly under its occupation. The reaction against this fundamental construct takes many forms, there are many different targets, but all those are borne from this fundamental fact.
Foreign policy, legal and human rights authorities are raising serious questions about the credibility of the U.S. State Department’s annual report on human rights, released last week.
The response of Noah S. Leavitt, an attorney who has worked with the International Law Commission of the United Nations in Geneva and the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is typical. Leavitt said, "The sad reality is that because of the Bush Administration’s haughty unilateralism and its mockery of international prohibitions on torture, most of the rest of the world no longer takes the U.S. seriously on human rights matters.”
While most of the experts contacted find little fault with the accuracy of the report, they question whether U.S. human rights abuses committed in the “Global War on Terror” have diminished America’s authority to speak out on this issue.
The response of Noah S. Leavitt, an attorney who has worked with the International Law Commission of the United Nations in Geneva and the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is typical. Leavitt said, "The sad reality is that because of the Bush Administration’s haughty unilateralism and its mockery of international prohibitions on torture, most of the rest of the world no longer takes the U.S. seriously on human rights matters.”
While most of the experts contacted find little fault with the accuracy of the report, they question whether U.S. human rights abuses committed in the “Global War on Terror” have diminished America’s authority to speak out on this issue.
Last June 17, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, "If you think of the people down there (at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, (Osama bin Laden's) bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker."
Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department’s own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Mr. Rumsfeld’s. And, despite the millions of words journalists have written about GITMO during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.
One report, prepared by a team headed by Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey – who is a lawyer for two of the Guantanamo detainees – found that more than half of the terror suspects being held have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies.
Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department’s own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Mr. Rumsfeld’s. And, despite the millions of words journalists have written about GITMO during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.
One report, prepared by a team headed by Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey – who is a lawyer for two of the Guantanamo detainees – found that more than half of the terror suspects being held have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies.
Foreign policy and human rights experts appear to agree with a soon-to-be-released United Nations report calling on the U.S. to shut down its detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba – but most believe that simply closing it misses a larger point: What to do with the prisoners?
And many of those interviewed by us are fearful that the George W. Bush administration will use the source of the report – the admittedly flawed United Nations Human Rights Commission -- to discredit its findings.
Currently in draft but expected to be released shortly, the report found that U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees violates their rights to physical and mental health and, in some cases, constitutes torture. It urges the U.S. to close the facility and bring the captives to trial on U.S. territory, charging that Washington's justification for the continued detention is a distortion of international law.
Compiled by five U.N. envoys who interviewed former prisoners, detainees' lawyers and families, and U.S. officials, the report is the result of an 18-month investigation ordered by the Commission.
And many of those interviewed by us are fearful that the George W. Bush administration will use the source of the report – the admittedly flawed United Nations Human Rights Commission -- to discredit its findings.
Currently in draft but expected to be released shortly, the report found that U.S. treatment of Guantanamo detainees violates their rights to physical and mental health and, in some cases, constitutes torture. It urges the U.S. to close the facility and bring the captives to trial on U.S. territory, charging that Washington's justification for the continued detention is a distortion of international law.
Compiled by five U.N. envoys who interviewed former prisoners, detainees' lawyers and families, and U.S. officials, the report is the result of an 18-month investigation ordered by the Commission.
By terrorism standards the attacks of 9/11 were spectacularly successful, not only in the extent of death and destruction they produced, but in instilling a deep sense of horror in the American public. But the attacks were carried out with the crudest of instruments: commercial airliners hijacked by a dozen men armed only with boxcutters who then played out their roles as suicide bombers. In spite of the incredible boldness of the attacks, it was just another variation on an old theme. Nevertheless, there were those who claimed that terrorism had entered a new era, and that “9/11 changed everything.” This argument as we now know was largely self serving.
In Dayton, Ohio each year there is a celebration commemorating the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords which ended the war in Bosnia, one of
6 republics of Yugoslavia. That U.S.- brokered agreement has been praised because it stopped the killing in Bosnia. While that is true, less well known
but vastly more important, is the fact that the U.S. was mainly responsible for starting that war. This connection is somewhat analogous to destroying Iraq
and then seeking praise for plans to rebuild it. The word “Dayton” is now ensconced in the annals of U.S. imperialism.
Outside military intervention in Bosnia started in 1992 when NATO, controlled by the U.S., sent a group of about 100 personnel to Bosnia to establish a military headquarters. A NATO diplomat at that time let the cat out of the bag about the real reason for that action when he said that this operation was “a very cautious first step and we are definitely not making much noise about it. But it could be the start of something bigger…you could argue that NATO now has a foot in the door.”
Outside military intervention in Bosnia started in 1992 when NATO, controlled by the U.S., sent a group of about 100 personnel to Bosnia to establish a military headquarters. A NATO diplomat at that time let the cat out of the bag about the real reason for that action when he said that this operation was “a very cautious first step and we are definitely not making much noise about it. But it could be the start of something bigger…you could argue that NATO now has a foot in the door.”