A head reeling corporate scandal has been exposed. Satyam the fourth largest software giant of India has finally agreed its misdeeds. The fraud is above Rs.7000 crores. In the own words of Ramalinga Raju, 54 year old USA MBA returned founder chairman of Satyam “The gap in balance sheet arose because of inflaed profits over several years—Every attempt to eliminate the gap failed—It was like riding a tiger and not knowing how to get off without being eaten--. Reacting to this many of India Inc members termed it as an “isolated case”. When we dig deep into other corporate finances it will be clear that many are involved in such kind of fraudulence. In the past Worldcom, Xerox, Enron, Daewoo motors and other corporate bigwigs fell to the scandal games. The recession webbed AIG, Fannie Mae, Fradie Mac, General Motors, Citibank, and other companies point towards the spiraling corporate crisis for a long period of time. It is a matter of time and luck for others to get trapped by the public for forgeries and frauds.

Private sector came with a big bang accusing public sector companies as unaccountable and inefficient. After the full circle it is clear there is no thick line between the two. Whether public or private there is a thin line of ethics. What we need urgently to reform the corporate and any other sector of the society is generating higher ethical standards in all walks of life. The common problem across the board is the absence of moral values, responsibility shouldering and accountability.

After TCS, Infosys and Wipro, Satyam holds the big name in the Indian software. The company is listed in the NYSE. It has 185 Fortune 500 companies with 53,000 employees on its pay roll which cost Rs.5040 last year. Following the World Bank’s debarring Satyam for 8 years for data stealing, investors’ objection to buying of Ramalinga Raju’s family companies like Maytas Properties and Maytas Infra for $1.56bn, DSP Merrill Lynch contract cancellation due to material accounting irregularities and other complex issues, Raju decided to surrender.

In collision with auditors and other important players, Satyam has fudged its accounts and balance sheets. In the Q2 September 2008, company announced a revenue of Rs.2,700cr. But the actual income was Rs.2,112cr which was less than Rs.688 cr lesser than the actual revenue. A 24% inflated revenue projection to boast to the shareholders and attract more investors. It also inflated cash and bank balances of Rs.5,040cr, Rs.376cr non-existent accrued interest, understated liability of Rs.1,230cr and overstated debtor position of R.490cr. The shareholders of Satyam are worst affected. The crisis wiped out Rs.9,376 crore in one day. From Rs.179.1 per share it fell down Rs.39.9 which is a loss of 78%.

Despite the presence of world’s best auditing company – Pricewater Coopers, M. Rammohan Rao, the dean of Indian School of Business, Harvard University’s Krishna Palepu and former cabinet secretary T.R. Prasad in the board of Satyam the scandal has happened. Pricewater Coopers, the company’s auditors, board members including Dr. Rammohan Rao should be penalized for oversight into this mega scandal.

More heads will roll if the scam is investigated length and breadth. Who’s who of the Indian governance system may have to face the axe. Due to the many political and crucial skeletons hidden in the Satyam cupboard, the full truth may not be out. Ramalinga Raju with the help of prorich pro criminal lawyers will come out on bail and roam freely with little dented image. After all his acquired wealth and real estates can keep his generations to come in the high social pedestal. Those who have money will be revered by the millions. This scandal is a death bell rang to the rich people, intellectuals, media and corporate world. They must organize their knowledge and wisdom properly to advise investors. Till then people like Ramalinga Raju can brand his company “Satyam” – truth and do Asatyam – false deeds.

The open pronouncement of India to be the future superpower creates nervousness among its close rivals. China is one of the prominent nations which are gravely concerned about India’s rising. Coupled with the neck to neck race of India with China in economy and other crucial areas, the high visibility of Indians in the international arena increases the communist nation’s anxieties. Although the Chinese leaders deny any antagonism towards India, in secrecy they aid all efforts to block India’s growth. For diplomatic brownie points they continue to speak high of India’s growth and achievement. One can notice these double standards of China from the near past events.

India did not get Chinese support for the candidature of Shasi Tharoor in the UN secretary general election. In the 2016 olympics bid India was not helped by Chinese. In the latest episode China blocked UN attempts to ban JUD (Jawud ud Dawa) the rechristened JeM (Jasheer e Mohammad) the deadly anti-India terror outfit operating from Pakistan.

It is nothing but natural for China to hinder India’s development indirectly. Any direct anti-India activities will be detrimental for the communist nation. Hence all possible support is given by China to Pakistan to checkmate India. This support is historical and more nearly half a century old. Aftermath of India’s independence Jawaharlal Nehru tried to close in with China and he succeeded little bit. But the over ambitions of China and conquer of Tibet strained both the nation’s relationships.

From late fifties to late eighties China was living in global isolation. Both its internal troubles and external hostility made China to soft tune in the international arena. Slowly it was preparing for the major global assault. Without much of its cards to the outer world, China built up its infrastructure and internal economy. There was a major transition in the political setup too. In the mid nineties elder communist leaders paved way for the younger generation. A strong economic foundation and one party rule helped the present political leaders to anchor strongly their image in the global arena.

The Chinese leaders are well aware of their weakness. Cleverly they managed to withstand global criticisms on the human rights in Tibet and conducted successfully the Beijing Olympics. Along with the strong diplomatic team the Chinese administration has conquered most of the Asian countries. Now they are quickly penetrating into the African continent. America, Europe and Australia often censor China for its poor human rights record. But they matter less when China has already brought rest of the world into its fold.

India must be aware of these underhand networks. Any threat to its development can emanate from anyone who is afraid of its growth. China is the potential nation spotted in India’s radar. Although the visibility is very thin Chinese role cannot be denied.

The United States of America was one of the potential aids to anti-India activities in the past. After the collapse of Soviet Union and the immediate threat posed by China, America is turning towards India. Green signal to the nuclear deal can be seen as anti-China syndrome of the Americans. In the nineties USA supplied F-16 aircrafts to Pakistan which was used for anti-India operations.

Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman, former director of intelligence of Los Alamos Laboratory in the forthcoming book, “The Nuclear Express: A political history of the bomb and its proliferation” that a nuclear weapon test was conducted for Pakistan by China on the Lop Nor test site on May 26,1990.

K. Subramanyam writes (TOI, 7.1.2009 P.18) “The Reed disclosure should dispel the mistaken impressions held by some Indians that the Indian nuclear test in May 1998 justified Pakistan going nuclear openly and that robbed India of the advantage of its conventional superiority because mutual number nuclear deterrence got established. In fact, Pakistan, by May 1998, not only had nuclear weapons while India had not yet conducted a specifically designed weapons test.”

From the past experiences it is clear that India is yet to learn practical lessons to chart its future course of development. Any amateur diplomacy would not leverage India’s success. First of all India must learn to soft tune its ambitions and strengthen its basics. It must fully use the 20 million strong diaspora. Any open reactions to China, Pakistan or any other nation should be stopped. The media must be reined in to stop giving run commentary on each and every strategy move of the nation. In this regard all those in the government should be stopped from leaking crucial information.

Trucks play a pivotal role in the Indian economy. Over 70% of the nation’s freights are moved by truckers. Needless to say their welfare is very important for the country’s development. Overburdened by the high cost diesel, harassments by the police and tax collectors, increasing cost of the spare parts and operating expenses make trucker owners frustrated. They wanted the government to seriously pay heed to their requests. More than 2 lakh truck operators have complained to the surface transport ministry for the early solution to their problems. The ministry is not able to solve all their requests because most of the truckers’ problems involve other ministries.

The truck owners want Rs.10 per litre cut in the diesel costs. They want an uniform 4% VAT on diesel. Scrapping of registration & return filling requirements in the new Carriers Act. Reducing tyre prices by 30-35%. Interest free truck loans and increasing the tenure of truck loans. Finally truckers demand reducing the national permit fee from Rs.5000 to Rs.1,500.

Chandrajit Singh Lohara, president of All India Motor Transport Congress (AIMTC), an apex transporters body, which has over 4,000 associations affiliated to it says ‘we had a meeting with the transport secretary. Despite being fully aware of our demands and our concerns, the government has done nothing. We will go ahead with our call and the impact would be felt fro Monday itself. The loss due to transporters strike is pegged at Rs.28,000 crores per day.

The retail prices of the vegetables in Delhi shoot up by 15% to 20%. Tomato price went up from Rs. 12/kg to Rs.15. Potato price has gone up from Rs.5 to Rs. 7 per kg. similarly onion price has gone up from Rs.17 to Rs.20. Despite the increase in the availability of the vegetables the prices have gone up.

Up, UP & AWAY
The Rising
Wholesale prices of vegetables at Azadpur Mandi

Items January 2 January 6
(Per quintal)
Potato 262 275
Onion 1,525 1,625
Tomato 560 620
Brinjal 300 450
Cabbage 300 337
Cauliflower 450 425

Prices of A-grade vegetables
All figures in Rs

Source: TOI, 7.1.2009, p.2

In the larger interests of the people who are reeling under recession, the government should act urgently to bring truckers back on the road. Any delay in the response will complicate the lives of ordinary people who depend on low cost vegetables and provisions. All the genuine concerns of the truckers should be addressed without any effort to cheat them with temporary assurances.

Sixty seven 24x7 news channels in India more often create nuisance than feeding information. Its strategies to survive in the business clouds media ethics. Result of the fight for media survival is the loss of credibility. In most of the cases news channels breach their line of control and end up in messing up others lives. The sixty hour coverage of Mumbai shootout proved to be the final warning to the media. The Government of India is ready with a law to rein in the media during the crisis hours. All socially concerned people will welcome this decision but the government will be cautioned not to use its control to crush the required media freedom.

The information & broadcasting ministry has finally put in a draft after securing the green signal from the law ministry. The draft is an amendment of the cable television network rules 1994. After receiving inputs from other ministries and public the draft will be put into final implementation. Instead of allowing news channel to cover crisis situation freely an authorized officer will provide information with footages. This is sensible and should be implemented with adequate sincerity to provide information to the public.

The programme code proposed in rule 6(1)(o) forbids telecast which:
• Contains live coverage of war, violent law and order situation or operations where security forces have to overcome terrorists or other hostile groups. However, with the approval of the authorized officer, such delayed carriage of live feed as may be specified may be permitted at its discretion.
• Contains details of identity, number and status of hostages or information regarding the number of security personnel involved or the methods employed by them in a hostage situation.
• Contains live-contact including live phone-in calls and interviews with victims or security personnel or other technical personnel involved or the perpetrators of crime,arson, violence while the violence or the criminal activity is in progress.
• Contains coverage of operational details in respect of war or any other security operations except as disclosed by the authorized officer.

The News Broadcaster Association has the same set of rules to be imposed on its members. Apart from forbidding the live telecast of terrorist operations, interview with terrorists or victims near ones the proposed law prevents channels from repeated telecast of archival footage carrying the world ‘live’.

The draft also prohibits “close-ups and extended images of blood or gore, dismembered or disfigured limbs of bodies or images of the dead or seriously wounded people or violence which may seriously distress or offend substantial number of viewers or cause public panic and incite further violence or compromise the dignity of the dead”.




It is doubt that the media must be prevailed upon to avoid heavy social damages. At the same time the Government should not misuse its media reining in act to fudge in the information. The officer in-charge should be responsible for all the information sharing. If there is any leakage of information to select channels then he should be held responsible and punished immediately. Apart from triggering government control of news flow the act may trigger a large-scale corruption in the news feed. Under these circumstances an independent media regulatory mechanisms should be put in place for the better functioning of the news channels.

The inconvenient truths about the West and Zimbabwe


WAY FORWARD: Arthur Mutambara

•In this article, MDC leader Arthur Mutambara looks at the difficulties in implementing the September 15 GPA, the unhelpfulness of western interventions in Zimbabwe's domestic politics while interrogating existing strategies for achieving democracy in Zimbabwe:


THE year 2008 was a very difficult one for us as a nation. Since the inconclusive harmonised elections held on March 29, there has been a political impasse in our land. The country has been without a legitimate government. Our economy has virtually collapsed, while disease and starvation are ravaging our people. Hopelessness and despair characterise and define the national psyche. There has been complete leadership failure across the board, within Zimbabwe, in the region and in the international community.
As we start a new year, let us reflect on some of the major debates that are shaping our politics as we exit 2008. Of particular interest in this treatise are the uncomfortable realities and challenges that sometimes we shy away from confronting. In particular we seek to slay that elephant in the national living room: How ignorant and unstrategic external involvement in the Zimbabwean discourse does more harm than good.

We seek to argue that in the year 2008, brazen and crass Western shenanigans have actually undermined the opposition and strengthened Robert Mugabe. More importantly, it is our submission that the uninformed and reckless foreign policy positions of Western governments, in particular the US and the UK, have negatively impacted our national interest. Zimbabweans have to clearly understand this for our collective fortunes to be different in the year 2009.

The ‘Mugabe Must Go’ Chorus

As we exited 2008, in the month of December, there was a crescendo of demands for the departure of Mugabe from the political stage. There is nothing new and creative in this Mugabe must go mantra. The trouble is that many people and institutions on this track suffer from the disease of the heart being in the right place, while the mind is not being applied. One needs both a good heart and a good mind.

Some of us have been singing the Mugabe must go mantra for the past 21 years, to no avail. Incidentally, Western governments disagreed with us in 1988 when we turned against the Zanu PF regime. Now they patronise us, as if they understand why Mugabe must go, better than us, his Zimbabwean victims.

We have been fighting Mugabe for two decades, where have you been America and Europe? Why did you support Mugabe in the late 1980’s when we were opposing him? Why did you actively back him during Gukurahundi? We never heard you say ‘Mugabe must go’ during that period. Instead you gave him prestigious awards on both sides of the Atlantic.

We can understand it if your defence is that you are slow learners and late bloomers where our matters are concerned. We can accept that. But it then also means you must take your cue from us who understand the Zimbabwean terrain better. You must accept that you are essentially ignorant, unstrategic, and hence ineffective where African matters are concerned. While you seek to assist us in our struggles for change, your brazen behaviour effectively undermines us and strengthens our opponents. You must listen to us and not the other way round.

The December 2008 ‘Mugabe must go’ chorus was as pathetic as it was both unimaginative and predictable. It started with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, Bishop John Sentamu and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, in that order. As soon as they were done, David Milliband and Condi Rice came in to support the “many” voices of African leaders. Thereafter, it was Gordon Brown, George Bush, Sarkozy, and Merkel. Then every European leader and their grandmother joined in, supporting the “many” voices of African leaders. To crown it all, there was an incompetent dash to the UN Security Council, where everything came crumbling down: what an embarrassing non-event. Why was anyone surprised by this unmitigated failure? Was there ever a method in the madness? What was to be the logical conclusion of the chorus?

First and foremost there was no African leader who had spoken. So whom, were the Western leaders purporting to support? Soon after Odinga spoke, he was contradicted by his own Foreign Minister. This means he was not speaking on behalf of Kenya or President Kibaki. Bishop Sentamu does not speak for any African country. Well, the same for Tutu; he is a good African who speaks for no African nation. For him to be effective he should work on convincing the South African political leadership to adopt his views.

Interesting enough, even the usually reckless and unimaginative Ian Khama was not part of the African voices. So when these American and European leaders went into chorus, who were they supporting? In a continent of 53 countries, the US and UK could not convince a single African President to be part of their elegant chorus.

If the Western leaders were indeed just supporting themselves, why did they lie that they were supporting voices of African leaders? If they care about what African leaders think, why did they not spend enough time convincing the real African leaders of the correctness of Western positions and thereafter, have the African leaders speak first?

Surely if, for example, Presidents Kgalema Motlanthe, Armando Geubuza, José Eduardo dos Santos, Jakaya Kikwete and Mwai Kibaki had taken a particular collective position on Zimbabwe, and Western governments had come in to support them, there would have been some traction.

But no, the Western powers chose to create their own pseudo African leaders, and then force a world chorus. This was sure to fail. Beyond the chorus, there was no real strategy to resolve the crisis in Zimbabwe. There was no specific action that the US and the UK were going to take after the chorus. Would it not have been logical to back the slogans with both procedural plans and proper African buy-in?

It seems the rationale was that Mugabe was just going to fall off the Zimbabwe political stage because of the deafening sound of Western leaders repeating the same meaningless message. How pathetic! Well, shame on them for trivialising the legitimate struggle of our people.

The Avenues through which Mugabe Can Go

There are three ways Mugabe can be removed from the Presidency and leadership of Zimbabwe: (1) use of violence or arms of war (2) peaceful mass uprising or demonstrations (3) free and fair elections.

The use of violence to drive out Mugabe has been suggested in certain quarters. What has not been done is an interrogation of what form this will take, its meaning, consequences and the aftermath. One way a violent overthrow can be envisaged is to have American and British troops invade Zimbabwe as they did in Iraq. Of course they can get rid of Mugabe that way.

However, Western forces will have to bleed on Zimbabwean soil in the process. It will not be a walk in the park. After the US misadventure in Somalia, where American marines were slaughtered in the streets of Mogadishu, the debate in the US Senate was very instructive. The key sentiment was quite unequivocal, “That entire country of Somalia is not worth a single American life. We should never allow American lives to be lost in defence of these worthless African countries.”

That was the attitude then. Has anything changed? Jendayi Frazer, Condi Rice and George Bush, are you now ready to bleed in pursuit of African freedom and prosperity? If you are not prepared to have US marines killed in Zimbabwe, please just shut up on the issue of military intervention to remove Mugabe.

Let us assume for a minute that these Western leaders are serious players and not just careless talkers. They can then actually bring their troops into Zimbabwe and get the job done. After Mugabe is gone the Saddam way, what happens next? What has US military intervention produced in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we have democratic outcomes in these countries? Are they peaceful, democratic and prosperous nations? Why would the Zimbabwean outcome be any different? If not, then why should this even be considered as an option?

In terms of foreign armies invading Zimbabwe, it is only Western nations that are worth analysing as we have attempted above. Only two African countries, Botswana and Kenya, have expressed an appetite for physical confrontation with Zimbabwe. We will not even dignify Botswana’s posturing with too much discussion. They have no army but an incompetent police force which has no capacity to invade a desert much less a country with Zimbabwe’s military experience. Raila Odinga does not speak for the Kenyan government, so the analysis ends there. If only he could start by convincing his own government, we will have more to say about the efficacy of his utterances.

The other version of violence that can certainly topple Mugabe is an armed struggle waged by Zimbabweans themselves in the same way that ZANLA and ZIPRA executed war against Ian Smith. How feasible and practical is this proposition at this point in time and within the geopolitical context of the SADC region? Is it even a desirable alternative for the people of Zimbabwe? We believe there are no affirmative responses to either of these questions.

The second possible method by which Mugabe can be deposed is through peaceful mass uprisings or demonstrations. Do we have the capacity as Zimbabweans to execute these? What do the gallant efforts of the NCA and WOZA teach us. How many of us join their brave marches? How many Zimbabweans joined the soldiers when they went on the rampage on the streets of Harare?

It is clear that the appetite for an ‘Orange Revolution’ in Zimbabwe has still to be developed, before a mass uprising becomes a realistic platform to drive Mugabe out. Our politicians within the opposition movement also have to be ready to assume the sacrifices that this option entails. Where political leaders go into hiding at the slightest threat of persecution, we fail to see how this option can be brought to fruition.

This leaves us with the third and only avenue for the departure of Mugabe, that is, through free and fair elections. The question then becomes how do we achieve a free and fair election in Zimbabwe? Certainly not through demanding harmonised elections today which will be conducted under June 27 conditions. Needless to say, in such a plebiscite, Mugabe will capture the Presidency and the current combined opposition majority in Parliament will be completely reversed.

Let us be strategic. Our people and country are not election ready at the moment. We need to go through a transitional period in which we resolve the humanitarian crisis afflicting our people, carry out national healing, begin economic recovery, and more importantly adopt a new people-driven democratic constitution. This is the bridge that Zimbabwe needs in its march to democracy. After that, we can then carry out free and fair elections. If Mugabe participates in those elections, he will be defeated. This is the only practical way that will lead to Mugabe’s departure.

The Global Political Agreement of September 15, 2008, seeks to facilitate such a possibility. Folks, this is as good as it gets. Unfortunately, Mugabe will have to be part of the transition, as we explain in the next section. Brown and Bush must get over their foolish, uninformed and unstrategic obsession with Mugabe going today. If they cannot explicitly articulate how they are going to remove him, they should please just back off, and allow our country to move on. We have to save Zimbabwean lives that are being lost needlessly.

Why Mugabe Cannot Go Away Through Talks

The election results from March 29, 2008, produced no outright winner both in Parliament and at the Presidency. The June 27 re-run was an illegitimate farce, so we are stuck with the March inconclusive outcome. As democrats, we must accept that this means that Mugabe and his party are as much a factor as Tsvangirai and his party are.

Short of a new set of elections or change of leadership by their parties, it means neither Tsvangirai nor Mugabe can be negotiated away. On what basis can we have a negotiated agreement that excludes Robert Mugabe? If we accept the March results as legitimate, he is a leader of a party which has 99 MPs vs. 100 for MDC-T, 30 Senators vs. 24 for MDC-T. He came second to Tsvangirai, 43.2% vs. 47.8%. More importantly Mugabe currently possesses the Presidency of Zimbabwe, yes illegitimately. Well, at law they say that possession is 90% of ownership.

The fact that Mugabe has this power of incumbency is the reason why Arthur Mutambara is still on trial in the Supreme Court, Tendai Biti has treason charges around his neck, activists are being abducted, and Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister-designate, had a torrid time getting a passport. This means Mugabe is in charge of the Zimbabwean State. Given this reality on the ground, and the electoral outcome of March 29, 2008, (which because of our lack of strategic thinking we have all sanitised as a legitimate outcome), it is foolishness to think that you can negotiate Mugabe out of power, and somehow miraculously achieve a power sharing arrangement that excludes him.

In terms of democratic practice it will be unjust, and in terms of real politick it will be impossible. Oh yes, on the basis of the March 29 results, Mugabe should be part of any power sharing transitional authority in Zimbabwe, since he is President of a Party well represented in both legislative houses, and he came second in the inconclusive Presidential race. We might not like these democratic circumstances, but we have to live with that reality.

Politics is an art of the possible, as Bismarck once famously said. In the current Zimbabwean political landscape, the possibilities belong to both Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai. They need each other. We can debate the specific role that Mugabe should play. For now that debate was settled by Mugabe, Tsvangirai and Mutambara when they signed the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Mugabe is President-designate and Morgan Tsvangirai is Prime Minister-designate. But, are we saying that GPA is the only show in town? No, absolutely not.
Alternative Frameworks to the GPA

A lot of debates and thinking has gone into crafting alternatives to the agreement of September 15, 2008. Unfortunately, it has been a comedy of errors and unsophisticated hallucinations. Even well respected international bodies like the International Crisis Group (ICG) have been found miserably wanting. Renowned conflict resolution experts, civic society leaders and Western pundits have shown astonishing lack of creativity and imagination.

The starting point in establishing an alternative path for Zimbabwe consists of grasping a clear understanding of why we are having challenges in implementing the current GPA. The new formulation must then robustly illustrate how it will avoid these current challenges. Beyond this, the efficacy, process details, timelines and milestones of any new strategy must then be clearly articulated. None of the critics of the current GPA has even begun to do any of the above.

Among a number of obstacles to consummation, the major challenge we have faced in executing the Zimbabwean GPA is the inability to achieve sufficient buy-in from the two major protagonists in the political impasse: Zanu PF and MDC-T. They are the critical players in any national transitional discussion, because any agreed arrangement will require legal effect through a constitutional amendment in parliament. Such a change will require a two thirds majority which can only be achieved by the participation of both Zanu PF and MDC-T, as a minimum requirement.

None of the proposals from the ICG, the civic society groups (both national and regional), or the arrogant and ignorant international community has addressed this simple challenge: How are you going to ensure that both MDC-T and Zanu PF will embrace your new grand proposal? If one or both of them do not accept your framework what are you going to do? Please, this is commonsensical. Anyone seeking to resolve the Zimbabwean crisis democratically and within the laws of Zimbabwe must apply their mind to this critical success factor: the show stopper.

The busy bodies at the ICG and in civic society do not even have the capacity to appreciate the existence of the problem, much less the intellect to develop the requisite solution. We are not saying it is impossible to develop an alternative negotiated framework to the September GPA. We are emphasising that it will require good and rigorously working minds to come up with one.

The reasons why we insist on fixing and then implementing the current flawed and imperfect GPA is because at some point the buy-in between the two key protagonist was achieved through the signatures of the MOU on July 21, 2008, and the GPA on September 15, 2008. Yes, there are disagreements now, but there are two agreed reference points. The key players and their teams have been actively negotiating the political impasse from March 29, 2008, and now four months after signing the GPA there are still implementation challenges.

Yes, this is bad and regrettable. However, let us be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. If we adopt a completely new process, how and when are we going to convince the two key players to start working towards an MOU? Are you going to get that MOU signed soon, and after that how much time will be required to get to a new GPA of sorts? Furthermore, while we embark on these new processes that require time and resources what will be happening to the suffering people of Zimbabwe, the collapsed economy, and the destroyed industrial base? Given the hardened positions of the two protagonists at the moment, can you even begin to sell the new path to them?

The most bizarre, irritating and clearly ineffective critics of the current GPA are those that premise their proposals by denouncing one of the two key protagonists. Usually it is Mugabe and his Zanu PF who are dismissed. How do you even conceptualise a negotiated outcome without the involvement of the Zanu PF group? We thought it was common cause that you do not make peace with your friends, but with your opponents.

One would expect someone of Jendayi Frazer’s stature to understand all this. How does she say that the US supports the negotiated power sharing, but insists that Mugabe must not be involved? Making these statements while defying the consistent advice that she received from all the South African leaders that she interacted with means that Frazer is insulting the SA leadership at every level. By this disrespectful conduct, she is humiliating both SADC and the AU.

In this situation, with respect to the US-proposed dialogue framework, who will be the principals, negotiators, facilitators and guarantors? South Africa is the only country with leverage on Zimbabwe. To bring any kind of change in Zimbabwe you have to work with SA, and not insult or humiliate them. Anyone serious about the Zimbabwean agenda must grasp this.

Jendayi, I assume that she is supportive of Mr Tsvangirai and she wants him to succeed. Does she actually have any respect for him? He signed the GPA in which Mugabe is designated as the President. Is it that she thinks Mr. Tsvangirai does not know what is good for him and therefore she has to lead him every step of the way?

By the way, it is not true that the US government supported the agreement when it was signed. For the record, both the US and the UK were opposed to the GPA from the beginning. They did not like the fact that Mugabe was both Head of State and Chairman of Cabinet, and they despised the GPA positions on land reform and sanctions. Everyone knows this. We are not children.

The US and the UK are now taking advantage of the delay in implementation of the agreement to savage and destroy the GPA. Do Frazer and her government have a workable alternative framework to the current GPA, together with an enforcement mechanism? And what is this that she said about the weakness and incompetence of her favorite GPA principal? Did she not say the following; “Tsvangirai is too weak and incompetent for us to allow him to be in an inclusive government with Mugabe. He will be completely outmaneuvered. Tsvangirai is not as strong as Odinga. If he was, we would have allowed him to get into the GNU with Mugabe?”

How can she possibly say such insulting remarks about her favorite opposition leader? With friends like these, who needs enemies? Incidentally, did she share her views about Tsvangirai with him? Why not? Anyway, who is she to allow or disallow African leaders? Does the US government have locus standi to do this? From where does she derive such legal, political or moral authority? Would a reverse scenario where international players seek to influence US politics be acceptable to the US?

Jendayi, can’t you see that you are ruining the opposition you seek to assist, and strengthening Mugabe that you seek to destroy? You are foolishly confirming everything that Mugabe has said about the opposition: that we are puppets. Moreover, Mugabe’s strengths are Africa, Pan-Africanism and anti-Imperialism. Any foreign policy that undermines African leaders and African institutions plays right into Mugabe’s game plan. Why can’t Western diplomats master these basics? Why do we have a premonition that most of the destructive grandstanding by Western governments is meant for their domestic constituencies?

More specifically, US foreign policy is always characterised by double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty all rooted in the pursuit of US permanent interests. We seriously hope that incoming US President Obama and his new team will depart from this ignorant, ruinous and ineffective foreign policy that effectively undermines its intended beneficiaries, strengthens the targeted villains, while blighting the US standing in the World.

Things have to change in 2009. We are not naïve. We know that the general thrust of the US foreign policy objective is largely independent of both the individual who is the US President and the Party they belong to. However, we hope the policy execution, nuances and tactics will be different. Zimbabweans have great expectations.

Collapse of the Mugabe Regime

It is clear that the Mugabe regime will not collapse because of economic decay, mass starvation or epidemics such as cholera. The formal economy collapsed way back when. The regime survives on the informal sector and through rent-seeking behaviours. Yes, ordinary people are perishing and will continue to do so, but the regime will not collapse. Can we all come to grips with this?

The diamonds of Chiadzwa, the Platinum Mines, and assistance from friendly nations such as DRC, Angola, China and Russia will see the regime pull through another 5-10 years. Of course this will be at major cost to the population. Zimbabweans should care about this.

However, to the external players that suggest that we must wait for the collapse of the regime at any cost, the needless loss of life in pursuit of the departure of Mugabe is a small price to pay. After all, the lives lost are Black lives which are not equivalent to White lives. Since September 15, 2008, we have had Western governments encouraging the continuation of suffering and death of our people in the misguided belief that this will lead to the collapse of the Mugabe regime. Well, this will not happen, and our people are dying in vain. All Zimbabwean leaders must understand this.

We must collectively take responsibility for the calamity afflicting our country. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai are equally culpable for the failure to work together. They are effectively working against the interests of their supporters and the generality of our citizenry. The two leaders are more concerned about a misguided power play executed at the expense of Zimbabwean lives. They have blood on their hands. The US and UK governments who are specifically undermining SADC efforts to establish an inclusive government in Zimbabwe are complicit in this crime against humanity.

In the case of these Western governments, they are driven by racism and utter disrespect for African lives. As Africans, our position is that not a single Zimbabwean life should be used as a stick to inflict pain on Robert Mugabe. People’s lives are too important to be used as ineffective political tools and weapons. We all know that Mugabe will not collapse because of cholera, mass starvation and a collapsed economy, so why are we supporting this ineffective strategy?

Nevertheless, let us deceive ourselves for a moment and assume the game plan works and the Mugabe regime actually collapses through the existing crisis. Why are we assuming that such a demise of Mugabe will lead to a democratic outcome? We saw what happened in Guinea when their dictator died. Did the opposition take over? Nope. If the Mugabe regime collapses, it is most likely that the army will take over. Some ambitious and gutsy colonel or general will step in. Our democratisation processes will, resultantly, regress at least 10 years.

There is absolutely no way Tsvangirai and his Party will be the beneficiaries of the collapse of Robert Mugabe. Quite to the contrary, the Zanu PF regime will make sure they collapse together with Tsvangirai and MDC-T. Do the current abductions, confessions and dubious trials of activists mean anything to anyone? MDC-T will not exist after the demise of Mugabe. I hope Tsvangirai understands this in no uncertain terms. I wish our brazen and unintelligent Western friends will do more listening and thinking.

This Mugabe must collapse strategy is not in the best interest of Zimbabwe. A regime change agenda achieved through a scorched earth policy is not what we need in our country. It will not benefit anyone. As Zimbabweans, we should think seriously about options that will allow us to continue to build, brick by brick, our democratic institutions.

Opportunity for a New Beginning

The year 2009 presents us with an opportunity for a new beginning. However, for this to be achieved, we have to learn some difficult lessons from inconvenient truths. We have to do things differently. We must embrace self-criticism as part of our best practices, and adopt an interrogative and questioning attitude to all stakeholders, including those that purport to support our struggles and our national interest.

In the struggle for a peaceful, democratic and prosperous Zimbabwe, it is not enough to be right. It is not enough to be a victim or to have the higher moral authority. The victims must behave well. Those with moral high ground must be driven by principles and values. Those on the right side of history must be thoughtful and strategic. Those that support victims of despotic regimes must apply their analytical skills. Good heart, bad mind will not cut it.

In all this, we must always put the people first. We must cherish servant leadership. Only then can we succeed. While external players and events affect our country, we must take responsibility for our own circumstances. We should be at the centre of our struggles and be the drivers of our nation building processes. We must have enough leadership strength to define and determine both the terms of reference and frameworks through which foreigners participate in the affairs of our nation.

In 2009, Zimbabweans must set the agenda and own the rules of the game. We must be masters of our own destiny. The critique of external influences that has been proffered should not be used to absolve us as citizens. We as Zimbabweans, created the current socio-political and economic crisis, and we will be the primary drivers and developers of the sustainable answers. And yes, a people do get a government that they deserve. Let us all be the change we wish to see in the year 2009.

Arthur G.O. Mutambara is president of MDC

http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mutambara4.19221.html

West flouting universality rule

By Reason Wafawarova in SYDNEY, Australia

YET again the world watches in utter disgust as Israel engages in its ritual killings of innocent Palestinian civilians and children, just because the Israeli ruling elite are of the belief that "this is the time for fighting", according to Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister.

The British and the Americans awkwardly blame "Palestinian aggression" for the brutalities of Israel and they dimly mumble something remotely linked to a call for restraint.

Meanwhile, Israeli authorities are reported to be arrogantly declaring a no time frame continued bombardment of Gaza.

The principle of universality is perhaps the most elementary of all moral truisms. However, when one is confronted with United States and Israeli exceptionalism, there is this flat rejection of universality in the Western intellectual, moral and political culture.

Formally the post-war consensus as enshrined in the United Nations Charter’s Article 51, on principles governing the use of force remains in effect.

The brutal and unacceptable aggression by Israel on Palestinians brings to light this revealing and disturbing scenario that portrays a shift in the spectrum of opinion in Western elite circles.

While none of them are willing to be honestly barbaric enough to openly and explicitly reject the post-World War II consensus, the truth is that the consensus is being ignored and is deemed too extreme to consider under the Israeli "special circumstances".

The only time the consensus is rigorously preached by Western politicians is during public discussions and electoral politicking.

The end of the last millennium and the beginning of this was characterised by a forceful articulation of a departure from the post-war consensus.

Nato’s bombing of Serbia, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 rape of Iraq are classic expressions of this departure and arrogant deviation.

The Western intellectual and political culture has coined the phrase "illegal but legitimate" to try and give a face of decency to this terrorism.

The enthusiastic support by Western intellectuals for resort to violence they deem to be legitimate is, of course, a gross violation of the principle of universality.

It is a violation enshrined in the historical and somewhat racial prejudices that say only the "unpeople of this world" (as Mark Curtis would put it) are liable to crime and barbarity.

When one takes a look at George W. Bush’s doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", as articulated in the US National Security Strategy of September 2002, then it is interesting to see how what applies to the US has become unacceptable banditry for all others, unless they are authorised allies and client states of the US.

The post-war consensus still reaffirms the stand of the world on war — that is the world outside what the West calls "the international community", namely itself.

The declarations of Sadc and the African Union on the political impasse in Zimbabwe only received crude derision from Western circles.

This is the standard reaction to the "bleatings" of the lesser peoples of this world.

When the Declaration of the South Summit of 2000 was made, firmly rejecting the "so-called right of humanitarian intervention", the same committed derision from the West was poured mercilessly.

The accompanying detailed and sophisticated analysis of neo-liberal globalisation was thoroughly ignored in the West, just like the Sadc resolution that says there must be an inclusive government in Zimbabwe "forthwith".

Back to the Bush doctrine of "anticipatory self-defence", a US "senior official", later confirmed to be Condoleezza Rice, outlined that the phrase refers to "the right of the United States to attack a country that it thinks could attack it first".

This is the same lady who concluded that international court jurisdiction has "proven inappropriate for the United States", and that the US is not subject to "international law and norms" generally.

While the majority of American and Western citizens hold the view that force can only be used when there is strong evidence that a country is in imminent danger of being attacked, the elitist view is apparently very different.

The idea of exceptionalism was evident as early as the time of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Both the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials were flawed, if the least were to be said. They were founded on rejection of the principle of universality.

In order to bring the defeated war criminals to justice, it was deemed necessary to devise definitions of "war crime" and "crime against humanity". The tribunal’s chief counsel for war crimes, Telford Taylor, explained how this was done.

Said Taylor: "Since both sides had played the terrible game of urban destruction — the Allies far more successfully — there was no basis for criminal charges against the Germans or Japanese, and, in fact, no such charges were brought . . . Aerial bombardment had been used so extensively and ruthlessly on the Allied side as well as the Axis side that neither at Nuremberg nor Tokyo was the issue made a part of the trials."

The operative definition of "crime" became: Crime that you committed or carried out but we did not. By this logic, the Nazi war criminals were absolved each time the defence could show that their US and UK counterparts carried out the same crimes.

On these grounds, the tribunal excused Admiral Karl Donitz from "breaches of the international law of submarine warfare" on the grounds of testimony from the British Admiralty and US Admiral Nimitz that America and the UK had carried out the same crimes from the first days of the war.

While it can be argued that neither side was punished for these crimes, it remains clear that the approach discredited international law, as well as subsequent tribunals like the Yugoslavia Tribunal and the Special Court for Sierra Leone at The Hague.

Washington’s self-exemption from international law and the fundamental principle of universality, together with Israel’s blatant breaches of international law and every peace treaty in existence, are clear indicators of a world headed for disaster.

When one considers the behaviour of the US at international level, the practice of exceptionalism is understandable.

If the West entertained for a moment the principle of universality and also accepted for once that every country, just like the US, has the right of "anticipatory self-defence" against terror or those "they think might attack" them first, then countries like Iran, Cuba and Nicaragua in the 1980s would have been entitled to attack the US whichever way possible, given the involvement in very serious terrorist attacks against them, including blatantly advertised threats of attack on the part of Iran. Such conclusions are considered utterly outrageous, of course.

Well, an inquiry by British journalists in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks found out that, "Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington", which "raises the possibility that bin Laden, far from launching the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon out of the blue, was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US threats".

This, by US and UK standards, must be legitimate anticipatory self-defence; unthinkable as it is.

In similar fashion one could argue that Japan’s bombing of US colonies, Hawaii and the Philippines, was legitimate anticipatory self-defence since the American Press was awash with details of how American planes were capable of "burning down Tokyo, a city of rice-paper and wood houses" — all from bases in Hawaii and the Philippines.

On November 15, 1941, US General George C. Marshall explained that "there won’t be any hesitation about bombing civilians".

This provided far more justification for anticipatory self-defence than anything so far conjured up by Bush, Blair, Ehud Olmert or anyone else from the Allied West.

We all know the implications of applying these elementary moral principles. The general meaning and implications of international law are clear enough for anyone to understand, much as law is subject to a scope of interpretation.

Washington and Israel’s unilateral ‘‘right’’ to resort to force is nothing but arrogant behaviour motivated by the might of military supremacy.

This military supremacy is the only explanation that can be given when Condoleezza Rice writes in Foreign Affairs (2000) condemning the "reflexive appeal . . . to notions of international law and norms, and the belief that the support of many states — or even better, of institutions like the United Nations — is essential to the legitimate exercise of power."

Rice reiterated that the US needs not to conform to "illusory norms of international behaviour", or "adhere to every international convention and agreement that someone thinks to propose."

It is interesting to note that the US expects every country apart from its clients and allies to rigorously obey these norms, not as they are but as the US interprets them; or else countries risk facing what befell Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile or Zimbabwe.

According to the Clinton doctrine, America is entitled to resort to "unilateral use of military power in order to ensure uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources".

This, of course, does not apply to other countries. They are not even allowed access to their own resources and Zimbabwe is just paying heavily for accessing its own land.

Nicaragua, Grenada, Laos and other countries were invaded by the US for claiming ownership of their own resources.

The Israeli forces are massacring Palestinians today for their own land and all that can be heard from the US and the UK are feeble and faint calls for restraint.

They speak louder against a cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe. They shout raucously for regime change in Zimbabwe and they even advocate the use of force, something they condemned with the holiest of anger when Russia invaded Georgia earlier this year.

Zimbabweans need to look at these world events objectively and surely we cannot all be fooled by the same people all the time.

Zimbabwe we are one and together we will overcome.

It is homeland or death!

l Reason Wafawarova is a political writer and can be contacted on wafawarova@yahoo.co.uk or reason@rwafawarova.com or visit www.rwafawarova.com

Today, tewelve days into a campaign of extermination by Israel, the Gaza strip is the largest open-air prison camp the world has seen. Commentators the world over are outraged by the carnage of the 1.5-million Gazans and the complicity of bourgeois governments in the West. True to form, the US vetoed a UNSC resolution condemning the ground offensive of yesterday, but no one should expect anything different. The UN is the pocket toy of the US, serving its interests. What is needed, amidst the condemnation of Israel’s aggression and the West’s (the EU and US) support for it, complicity of the Arab bourgeoisie and the pressure-politics of Hamas, is a political perspective that can carry the working class in the Middle East beyond the nationalist and religious concoctions on offer. First, however, we need to take a look at the argument justifying the Israeli state’s campaign of terror in Gaza.

There is one single view (the rest are mere regurgitations of the same thing) in support of Israel’s butchery in Gaza. Israel acts in self-defence, the view holds. It (Israel, it is) had no choice but to respond to the rocket attacks of Hamas on its population in southern Israel. Hamas, it says, broke the peace agreement by firing rockets into Israel and Israel exhibited great restraint by clutching the last fragile semblances of peace. Rubbish! There is nothing peaceful in a policy of lebensraum and starving a population to death through apartheid walls and unremitting incursions. An oppressed people have an inviolable right to free themselves from their oppressors by any means necessary, with their own organisations and methods of struggle. Going from one military adventure to another, now Lebanon, now Gaza, destroying entire civil societies are hardly actions of peace.

It is correct to defend Hamas against Israel’s state violence and the assassination of its leaders. But Hamas’ political outlook is a trap for the people it defends. It (Hamas) does not base its actions on the building of working class organs and a considered linking up with the working class across the Arab world. The call for the creation of some sort of state in Gaza de-linked from another mini-state in the West Bank is exactly the sort of balkanisation the working class and its allies in the Middle East can ill afford. It fuels the bankrupt policies of the Zionist regime, for the Israeli state yearns for the solution to expel the million odd Arabs living in its cities. This so-called “two-state phase” will be a fundamental step back for the struggling Palestinian people.

It is unlikely that Hamas will embrace an outlook basing its resistance against the US-Israeli violence on politics that transcend the national boundaries of Gaza and Israel, but this is exactly what is necessary. There must be a sustained effort to link the struggles of the working class of Gaza with the struggles of Israeli workers. Israel is a society based on tremendous inequality and the political reawakening of working class struggles in the Middle East, marked by the last few days’ popular outbursts against Israel and the rotten bourgeois Arab governments, is proof of an objective basis for a consistently working class policy of struggle in the region. No other process will bring lasting peace to Gaza, let alone the region.

The current unleashing of violence by Israel on Gaza is aimed at installing some government acceptable to the diktats of Israel — a sort of Middle East regime change. No doubt, beneath this all lies the incessant rivalry between the dollar and the euro. There is no need to justify the methods of struggle of the people of Gaza and their organisations. What is necessary is to measure these with the interests of the working class, refashion the tools of struggle and drive Israel and all bourgeois interests out with the hammer of mass working class action and the anvil of Gazan and Israeli worker solidarity.

The genocide taking place in Gaza has split the world acutely into 2 classes; Politicians and non-Politicians. Those in Politics had their shameful 'neutral' stance and every other person with consience had an opposite stance. This is one of the cases that suggest that their might be a little hope in the future of this world...

Jewish Women Occupy Israeli Consulate in Toronto

Toronto: Wednesday January 8, 2009 Time: 10:25 am

A diverse group of Jewish Canadian women are currently occupying the Israeli consulate at 180 Bloor Street West in Toronto. This action is in protest against the on-going Israeli assault on the people of Gaza.

The group is carrying out this occupation in solidarity with the 1.5 million people of Gaza and to ensure that Jewish voices against the massacre in Gaza are being heard. They are demanding that Israel end its military assault and lift the 18-month siege on the Gaza Strip to allow humanitarian aid into the territory.

Israel has been carrying out a full-scale military assault on the Gaza Strip since December 27, 2008. At least 660 people have been killed and 3000 injured in the air strikes and in the ground invasion that began on January 3, 2009. Israel has ignored international calls for a ceasefire and is refusing to allow food, adequate medical supplies and other necessities of life into the Gaza Strip.

Protesters are outraged at Israel's latest assault on the Palestinian people and by the Canadian government's refusal to condemn these massacres. They are deeply concerned that Canadians are hearing the views of pro-Israel groups who are being represented as the only voice of Jewish Canadians. The protesters have occupied the consulate to send a clear statement that many Jewish-Canadians do not support Israel's violence and apartheid policies. They are joining with people of conscience all across the world who are demanding an end to Israeli aggression and justice for the Palestinian people.

The group includes: Judy Rebick, professor; Judith Deutsch, psychoanalyst and president of Science for Peace; B.H. Yael, filmmaker; Smadar Carmon, an Canadian Israeli peace activist and others.

Spokespersons for the group will be outside the Israeli consulate: Dr. Miriam Garfinkle: 416-731-6605 mgarfinkle@sympatico.ca Cathy Gulkin: 416-697-0768 cgulkin@rogers.com

TakingITGlobal hosted a Live Chat just before the holidays on Youth Migration, which turned out to provide an interesting portrait of just what youth are facing when they attempt to take advantage of the 'shrinking world' and 'increasing connectivity' we're all meant to be benefiting from as a consequence of globalization. If the sarcasm in that last sentence wasn't obvious then I should explain that what we all understood from the portrait drawn by our speakers of Youth Migration in our day and age was that it is not necessarily made easier by 'globalization' and that it is in fact often a dangerous, disappointing and victimizing experience.

Migration is one of those issues that is especially relevant to youth but for some reason is not readily recognized as a youth issue, or is not often associated with youth when it is discussed at higher levels. Migration is a youth issue because youth are the largest group affected by, participating in and victimized by migration. It is similar in this way to an issue like HIV/AIDS, which is affecting youth more than anyone else, and yet youth are so often left out of the processes and policies addressing it.

Youth decide to migrate to another country for countless reasons - education, work, living conditions, etc - and you might think that now it must be easier than ever for this to happen. Thanks to new communication technology youth are more aware than any other generation of what is going on in the world around them, the internet lets us learn about opportunities in distant places and increasing international travel makes it more likely that we can get to those opportunities. I think most of us will have heard at one time or another how globalization and communication technology are bringing us all closer together and breaking down the geographical, political and technological barriers that used to separate us - right?

The opposite is happening for the majority of youth migrants. What we learned during the Live Chat is that globalization has created new barriers to keep people out, rather than breaking down the old ones. It seems that the greater connectivity globalization has created amongst economies and industries has increased the dangers of migration, because it has narrowed the channels for legal migration, therefore forcing more and more youth to attempt illegal migration. The global free market economy, Naomi Onaga (Director of Migrants Rights International) explained, makes keeping certain people in their countries working for low wages attractive and therefore channels for legal migration narrow except in the case of temporary labourers. Temporary labourers are denied citizenship, job freedom, and residency. They become vulnerable to abuse by employers because of this. The type of low-wage labour they are allowed to participate in means that they will bring little skill or knowledge back to their native communities.

It all makes for a pretty bleak picture, made worse by the dangerous journeys ahead of those who attempt to illegally migrate. Migrants - most often youth - are drowning while attempting to cross from North Africa to Spain or Italy, dying in the desert attempting to enter the USA, or are becoming victims of forced migration. If they make it to their destinations they will likely be greeted by a population that is mostly hostile to them, and sees them as dangerous.

The whole discussion had a special relevancy for me, because I will soon be a migrant myself. Leaving Canada for an overseas opportunity, but I'm lucky, because I will be migrating legally, will enjoy all of my rights and be relatively safe while doing it - or as safe as anyone can expect to be on an international flight these days. The Live Chat really sharpened those inequalities that mean that I will be able to take advantage of an opportunity in a different country, and others will face nothing but misery for trying to do the same.

To try and not end on a bad note, there are those working towards international recognition of migrants, more opportunities for legal, safe migration and, maybe most importantly, opportunities for work, education and a better life for youth in their home countries and communities. These people include the speakers who took time out of their busy schedules on December 18 - International Migrants Day - to join our Live Chat.

The biggest hurdle of all might be to change people's perception of migration and migrants themselves. I thought the image above was a great way to think about that issue. Of course, technically refugees and migrants are considered to be in different categories, but I think it speaks to the same fear of foreigners, immigrants, migrants or refugees being 'dangerous' or 'bad'. In fact, communities that welcome these people and make the best use of their skills benefit from them. Einstein is a pretty good example.

These are the organizations that supported our Live Chat on Youth Migration:

Migrants Right International
December 18
Young People We Care

Bombs, rockets and artillery shells .. Against whom??
Against unarmed civilians
Against large and small to kill them and kill the rest scared frightened
The move, sheltering from the fire and Charybdis
Every place of the bombing of the exhibition
The bombing led to the elimination of the day, entire families
Today the massacres that has no precedent in modern history
The Arab peoples have not only unable demonstrations
Demonstrations is the language of the people now
Hearts of the people burned the killings, the excessive and brutal,
To the moment of this writing 30% of the victims children under the age of ten
What Israel is doing at this time rooted in the Arab mind the idea of Israeli racism.
I am wondering now where the Peace Now movement and Israeli peace activists Or that now is the time for war and does not override the voice of the war, What is happening now in Gaza is a crime of genocide is a crime in order to kill the children of these atrocities.
If the war was directed to Hamas or the guilt of children and women
Israel , Enough of this barbarity,
Israel , Enough bloodshed,
I need Ehud Barak imagine, one of his sons in place of one of the young men who were martyred What would be his reaction?
What is happening in Gaza, ending the idea of psychological acceptance of the other in this case, the other is a cold-blooded killer of children and women
And will not be able to Arab intellectuals, or peace activists to speak anymore about peace and accepting the other
Is this what Israel wants??!!
from other side i am thinking about
What we must look to here??
To recall the Egyptian Ambassador from Tel Aviv,
life will not stop there, and that the moratorium on the export of gas will not lead Israel to its knees on her, "What is needed is not the knees, and stop the movement of life in the Tel Aviv, and we can not , in practice, to do so, but the whole objective is that they understand, and understand others in the world that we are able to do something, especially if this thing will be delivers us from this sense of helplessness!
The Sense of disability in this case is the inability to provide immediate alternative available, the most serious, and that the provision of this alternative, which is in our hand, this will raise us «sense» that haunts every citizen, everywhere in Cairo
BUT I will Never Ever be Disabile and I wil never ever me and all the Youth in Arab World feel the Disability
Raise us this sense of helplessness, even if the outcome is just a sense that we all did what we must do, regardless of the type of result to be achieved on the ground,
What is required is a mere waste of sense!
It is not true, that the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, they are in our hands to this point
And to the right, that Egypt had what you can do on the ground, if it were, from the recall of our ambassador from Tel Aviv, and the end of the Egyptian government's compliance with the rule of the judiciary, not to export gas to Israel.
thir is Somthing Missing , BUt Still I have Hope and never ever any one will sttop me dreaming in PEACE

Hi All,

I was wondering how to hold an online Model UN, to provide experience to all the people, rather than only those who can afford to travel.
Do you people have any ideas?
Please send these ideas to me.

Thank you

Regards,
Wajahat

The visually challenged people face innumerable problems. From performing day-to-day activities to functioning in the occupation they do not have easy sailing. Many innovative techniques have helped the visually challenged persons to overcome the hurdles. Louie Braille opened the gates through a self-help reader. From then onwards broad minded people are constantly striving to help the visually challenged people throughout the world.

The Times of India, 5.1.2009, p.1 reports
T.V. Raman was a bookish child who developed a love of maths and puzzles at an earl age. That passion didn’t change after glaucoma took his eyesight at the age of 14. What changed is the role that technology and his own innovations played in helping him pursue his interests.

Born and raised in Pune, Raman, 43, went from relying on volunteers to read him textbooks at IIT Bombay to leading a largely autonomous life in Silicon Valley, where he is a highly respected computer scientist and an engineer at Google.

Along the way, Raman built a series of tools to help him take advantages of objects not designed with blind users in mind. They ranged from a Rubik’s Cube covered in Braille to a software program that can take complex mathematical formulas and read them aloud, which became the subject of his Ph.d dissertation at Cornell Univerity. He also built a version of Google’s search service tailored for blind users.

Raman is now working to modify the latest gadget that he says could make life easier for the blind.; a touchscreen phone. “what Raman does is amazing.” Said Paul Schroeder, vice-president for programs and policy at the American Foundation for the Blind, which conducts research on technology that can help visually impaired people.

Some of his innovations may help make gadgets and web services more user-friendly for everyone. Instead of asking how something should work if a person can’t see, he says he prefers to ask, “How should something work when the user is not looking at the screen?”

T.V. Raman is now working to modify the latest technological gadget that he says cold make life easier for blind people. Such systems could prove useful for drivers or anyone else who could benefit from eyes-free access to a phone. They could also appeal t aging baby boomers with fading vision who want to keep using technology they’ve come to depend on.

With no buttons to guide the fingers on its glassy surface, the touchscreen cellphone may seem a particularly daunting challenge. But Raman said that with the right tweaks, touch-screen phones-many of which already come equipped with GPS technology and a copas-could help blind people navigate the world.

“How much of a leap of faith does it take for you to realize that your phone could say, “walk straight and within 200 feet you’ll get to the intersection of X and Y’” Raman said. “This is entirely doable.”

Adovcates for the blind have long complained that technology companies have done a generally poor job of making their products accessible. The web, while opening many opportunities for blind people, is still riddled with obstacles. And sophisticated screen-reader software, which turns documents and web pages into synthesized speech can cost more than $1,000 in US Even with a screen reader, many sites are hard to navigate

Some pages are just poorly designed, like e-commerce sites where the checkout button is an image that isn’t labeled so screen readers can find it.

We need more Ramans to put a smile on the under privileged people of the world. There is less doubt that technology can play a proactive role in this mission. But the human touch is very crucial. Whatever technology can aid the physically challenged people will become irrelevant if the attitude of the normal people are antagnostic towards them.

Northeast – India’s rising sun is less known to the outside world for its natural wealth and charming beauty. More people know seven sister states of the region for its violence. One fifth of the 50 million population of the northeast live below poverty line. Governance is missing in most parts of the region. The local tribal leaders enjoy their seats without doing much for the people. On the other hand the leaders of northeast complain about the neglect of the region by the centre. In fact both are responsible for the worst socio-economic stagnation in the region. Till the beginning of the nineties the government of India gave step-motherly treatment to the region.

The coalition politics, neo-liberal economy and the increasing relevance of tourism economy brought a new focus on the region. With 35 parliamentary seats and 8 states, northeast gave a political handle to the emerging BJP. It almost clinched deals with the existing leaders of the region who are frustrated with the Congress politics. In Arunachal Pradesh BJP shrewdly converted a long time congressman Gegong Apong into a BJP man. It also succeeded in capturing two parliamentary seats there and infused a hope to capture the seat in few years time. BJP’s fast growth in the region alerted Congress party. When it came to power in 2004 it started the Ministry of NorthEast.

The new liberal economy connected the region with the rest of the India. Mobile phones, satellite television, internet and increase in the number of flights to the region gave a new life to northeast. There is a large-scale migration of the people to other parts of the country. Delhi boasts a huge northeastern population. The attitude of rest of India towards the regions people also alienates them. In college hostels, theatres, railways stations, airports, a northeasterner is always asked “which country are you from?” Despite these problems, most of the people of the region to proud to be Indians. The government should capitalize this sentiments. Before that it should deliver what it promised to the region. In the first step it should talk to all the 12 active and 20 inactive terrorist groups and find a lasting solution to their separatist demands. All of them should be given autonomy package and brought into the political mainstream.

Without finding a solution to the violence northeast is going towards a worst phase in its life. In 2008 alone insurgency has claimed 1,057 lives. This is nearly twice the number of people who were killed in Kashmir violence in the year (539). According to the Anthropological Survey of India report, out 635 tribes in India 213 reside in the region. It is no doubt that the region is highly sensitive and needs full time concentration of the central government.


NorthEast: The Forgotten War

Civilians Security Personnel Terrorists Total

1994-2005 7,056 1,886 4,613 13,555