The body of Muslim woman, killed in a German courtroom by a man convicted of insulting her religion, has been taken back to her native Egypt for burial.
As pessoas devem se preocupar mais, muito mais, com suas Próprias Vidas! Alguém disse (não consigo lembrar o nome certo, pois são inúmeros os depoimentos) que Michael Jackson agora não está mais sendo torturado pela "moral da civilização".
Julgamento com piadas infelizes que nunca entendi! A civilização "criou" seu manual de conduta moral se achando dona do certo e do errado. Grande tragédia!
Eu espero que todos aqueles que julgaram, fofocaram possam sentir na pele como foi o calvário e a tortura que Michael enfrentou. E, graças a Deus, Ninguém Morre, essa certeza eu tenho.
"Michael Jackson é bom exemplo do que pior tem acontecido. A IMPRENSA DEVE DESCULPAS a ele pela forma horrível como o tratou. Ele começou a morrer quando as acusações ganharam as manchetes. Em conluio com os acusadores, estava a mídia americana. Todos se lamentam, como se fosse uma tragédia nacional...Ninguém o ajudou. Viveu em infâmia."
(Gay Talese - jornalista e escritor norte-americano)
It's Not Too Late to Start Saving Lives in Nigeria
By Yinka Adeyemi
September 2001
Courtesy of AIDS News Service, Vol. 3, No. 2, a publication of Journalists Against AIDS (JAAIDS) Nigeria. www.nigeria-aids.org
In January of 2001, Mauritania, a country with one of the lowest reported HIV prevalence rates in Africa, took a step that Nigerian leaders neglected to take more than 15 years ago: The country's Senate held a Special Session on HIV/AIDS, inviting experts to speak on the nature of the epidemic, and to suggest ways to nip it in the bud, even as the epidemic ravages the rest of the African continent.
The Mauritanian Senate recognized the urgency of concerted action against the epidemic, and suggested the introduction of sexual education in schools as well as a privately managed national agency to play an advocacy role. It is a refreshing, bold step from a country about the size of a few local government areas in Nigeria.
Around 1989, when neighboring countries were reporting an outbreak of HIV/AIDS, Nigeria reported only 11 cases of HIV infection. Officials, unwisely and against every historical epidemiological trend, diverted attention from the virus, focusing instead on mosquitoes and malaria. As they did so, fuelled by apathy and delusion, the virus silently crept into the nooks and crannies of Nigeria, infecting millions and killing thousands.
Advertisement
Due to bad policy, many Nigerians will have to suffer, and many will die from the virus, barring the sudden development of an efficacious vaccine. Today, even if we take the grossly underestimated figures used by the Nigerian government, the country has a whopping 2.6 million HIV/AIDS cases. And this is primarily the result of callous inaction and arrogance on the part of government. Information was adequate, but officials simply refused to use it or even take it seriously.
It was a familiar pattern in many African countries, with the possible exception of Uganda and a few East African countries. Indeed, rather than begin early intervention to educate and stem the spread of HIV/AIDS, African countries initially engrossed themselves in a wasteful debate over the origin of AIDS.
It all probably started in 1985, at the First International Conference on Virus-Related Cancers in Dakar, Senegal, in which I participated along with the co-discoverer of HIV, Dr. Robert Gallo, and the head of the OAU Scientific Commission, Dr. Williams. It was at this conference that respected scientists articulated their theory about Africa as the origin of not only AIDS, but of many other frightening diseases also. For instance, Dr. Kevin De Cock argued that Ebola virus, Marburg virus and Lassa fever, all thought to be new diseases, "turned out to have been endemic in Africa." Meanwhile, Gallo aired his African-Monkey Connection theory.
Said Gallo at the Dakar Conference: "Viruses closely related to HTLV (Human Type Lymphotropic Virus), but distinct from it, have been isolated from Old World monkeys. This and other facts led us to propose that the ancestral origin of HTLV is Africa."
As I wrote in a syndicated column in 1985, to a people who, barely 20 years earlier were under the yoke of Western colonialism, the Africa-Monkey argument was another indication of racism by Western scientists. Therefore, because of our history of colonialism and slavery, the first impulse of African leaders and opinion formers was to defensively repudiate such Western claims with a display of nationalistic garb.
But while Africans were engaged in this needless debate, intense anti-HIV/AIDS efforts were going on in the West. Pressure groups were forming and national education campaigns on HIV were being launched everywhere.
In Nigeria in 1985, it was difficult to meet one person who did not view HIV/AIDS as a "disease of the white man," and the African connection theory as more evidence of the Western association of Africa with everything negative. Well-meaning people who dared to preach abstinence or condom use as a way to curb the spread of HIV were routinely laughed at as victims of malicious Western propaganda. In the prevailing environment, therefore, many did not see the need for behavioral change. Unfortunately, that attitude persisted for years. Yet, many science writers knew that a major outbreak in Nigeria, with its 100 million people, was only a matter of time.
Such was the prevailing attitude in Nigeria, and it was the principal reason the National Action Committee on AIDS (NACA) was not inaugurated until last year. The Committee's work is cut out for it, and the challenges are daunting.
Although the death of popular musician Fela Anikulapo-Kuti and the admission by his world-renowned physician brother, Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti, that the musician died of AIDS has promoted some awareness and encouraged the use of condoms, many Nigerians still remain unpersuaded. A survey of some Nigerians, selected randomly over two weeks in January 2001, suggests that many are armed with information about the disease. But even those who reported adequate knowledge said they did not see any reason to wear condoms because, "I do not sleep around" or "I know the people I sleep with." Less than 5 percent said they would consider voluntary testing, while the majority said they would rather not know about their HIV status in order not to be ostracized by friends and family.
That is not an irrational fear in Nigeria today. Fela's brother suffered unprecedented assault in the press by commentators who accused him of a criminal vendetta against the more popular musician. Worse than ostracism is the likelihood of an HIV-infected person being fired from gainful employment.
There appears to be no recourse in Nigeria for such people who are wrongfully dismissed from their jobs. In a shocking case that resonated throughout Nigeria, a judge on January 22, 2001, disallowed a former hospital worker, Georgiana Ahamefule, who was dismissed from her job, from appearing in her defense out of fear that she would spread the virus in court! Her case remains unresolved.
The attitude of the judge underscores a desperate need in Nigeria for a national education program on HIV/AIDS, along with comprehensive programs to combat the virus, including condom use, vaccine tests, counseling and treatment.
Political leaders should begin to speak openly about the virus and participate in public blood screenings. Of course, it is probably too late for 2.6 million Nigerians, who, unfortunately, will eventually become the cadavers next door. But far too many Nigerians remain at risk. And they must be saved.
Yinka Adeyemi is a Columnist for the Daily Times of Nigeria and author of "A Media Handbook for HIV Vaccine Trials for Africa" published by UNAIDS.
Ah! Aproveito para destacar o Livro "Mulheres que Correm com os Lobos" (Clarissa Pinkola Estés)! Não deixe de Recuperar, Resgatar, colocar em Prática a Mulher Selvagem no seu sentido mais penetrante, latente, xamânico, seja qual for sua idade! Tenha orgulho da Natureza que habita seu Ser!
As the HIV response represents one of the soundest of all possible global investments, it is critical that commitment to HIV efforts be maintained and strengthened in the midst of these economic challenges - Report of the Secretary-General to the 63rd General Assembly.
Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, Minister of Health of South Africa addressed the General Assembly on 16 June 2009
Credit: UN Photo/Jenny Rockett
At the 63rd session of the General Assembly held in New York on 16 June 2009, the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon presented a report on the progress made in the implementation of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and the Political Declaration on HIV/AIDS. The first address by UN member states was delivered by Dr Aaron Motsoaledi, the new Minister of Health of South Africa. Speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Motsoaledi noted recent progress made in South Africa and in the SADC region in confronting AIDS.
This year’s report provides an update on developments in the AIDS response, looks forward to the agreed 2010 milestones, recommends key actions to accelerate progress and urges renewed commitment to the goal of universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support.
In June 2008, the General Assembly held a High-level Meeting on HIV/AIDS that assessed progress in the response to the global HIV epidemic. Reports from 147 countries showed that important progress had been made, including in the areas of access to antiretroviral therapy and the prevention of mother-to-child transmission.
However, the report shows that, despite such encouraging developments, considerable challenges remain, including significant access gaps for key HIV-related services. The pace of new infections continues to outstrip the expansion of treatment programmes, and commitment to HIV prevention remains inadequate. While funds available for HIV in low- and middle-income countries increased from $11.3 billion in 2007 to $13.7 billion in 2008, there has been a global economic downturn since the 2008 High-level Meeting.
As the HIV response represents one of the soundest of all possible global investments, it is critical that commitment to HIV efforts be maintained and strengthened in the midst of these economic challenges, report of the Secretary-General.
The Secretary-General’s report also highlights that despite the many commitments made by Member States to protect the rights of people living with HIV and people vulnerable to HIV infection, many countries have laws and policies that are inconsistent with the commitments and result in reduced access to essential HIV services and commodities.
In 2007, one third of countries reported that they still lacked laws to prohibit HIV-related discrimination, and many countries with anti-discrimination legislation have problems with adequate enforcement. A total of 84 countries reported that they have laws and regulations that present obstacles to effective HIV prevention, treatment, care and support for vulnerable subpopulations. Furthermore, some 60 countries have laws that restrict the entry, stay and residence of people living with HIV based on HIV-positive status only. Finally, an increasing number of countries have enacted overly broad laws that criminalize transmission or exposure to HIV, as well as non-disclosure of HIV status. Such measures are likely to lead people to avoid HIV testing, thereby undermining efforts to achieve universal access. Therefore, the report recommends that laws and law enforcement should be improved and programmes to support access to justice should be taken to scale to prevent discrimination against people living with HIV. HIV-related travel restrictions should be eliminated; the criminalization of HIV transmission should be limited to intentional transmission; and laws that burden or impede service access among sex workers, men who have sex with men and injecting drug users should be repealed.
Improved analytic methods have enabled countries to better characterize the magnitude and dynamics of their epidemics, to select appropriate interventions and tailor evidence-informed strategies to address their specific national context. The strategic tailoring of national responses magnifies the results of HIV programmes and reduces waste and inefficiency. Improved monitoring and evaluation systems also permit countries to revise national strategies as their epidemics evolve over time. In their efforts to closely align national strategies with actual national circumstances, countries should work to understand and address the social and structural determinants of HIV risk and vulnerability, such as gender inequalities, social marginalization and stigma and discrimination.
The HIV epidemic presents a long-term global challenge and requires a sustained commitment for an effective long-term response. As the coverage and quality of HIV programmes increase, the report calls to intensify efforts to strengthen the health, education, social welfare and other key sectors, and to integrate HIV with tuberculosis, sexual and reproductive health and other health services.
The long-term AIDS response will be sustainable only if substantially greater success is achieved in slowing the rate of new HIV infections, while providing optimal services for people living with HIV, the report underlines. Bringing to scale the appropriate mix of behavioural, biomedical and structural HIV-prevention strategies would more than halve the number of all new HIV infections between now and 2015. Access to such a combination of prevention strategies, however, remains sharply limited in most countries according to the Secretary-General’s report.
Finally, the report emphasizes that achieving national universal access targets by 2010 will require an estimated annual outlay of $25 billion within two years, necessitating renewed commitment from all providers of HIV-related funding. Sustaining an effective AIDS response will require unprecedented leadership at all levels, including from Governments, civil society and affected communities.
Be careful about International House in New York. I innocently applied for a housing in this place for 6 months, but I did not know it was actually a SCAM.
I went through a very bureaucratic process. First I had to pay a NOT REFUNDABLE 65 USD fee for the application. Then, there are admission criteria that I really think I was fulfilling, but I then received a letter telling me I was denied the housing.
I then asked why I was denied the place, and after 3 phone call attempts, the person told me that I did not fulfill the criteria in the same extent than other candidate, but could not explain why exactly or specifically.
She told me that it was like a university application!!!
I am really upset against International House, which basically steals international students or young people's money!!!!
I you feel you were in the same case and this is actually a SCAM, please write me a email at: sigar14@gmail.com.
The more we are the more powerful we will be.
O Frigorífico Bertin, maior exportador de carne e um dos maiores grupos do setor no mundo, está envolvido em uma série de escândalos relacionados às atividades na região Amazônica, financiadas pelo IFC (sigla em inglês para Corporação Financeira Internacional) – braço financeiro do Banco Mundial. De acordo com o jornal O Estado de S. Paulo, o frigorífico teria negociado com autoridades do Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis (Ibama) para evitar pagar multas por não respeitar leis ambientais e adquirir gado apreendido por um preço abaixo do mercado.
Bertin, que em 2007 recebeu R$ 90 milhões do IFC para desenvolver atividades da pecuária na Amazônia, foi multado três vezes pelo órgão nos últimos nove meses devido a irregularidades ambientais em seus frigoríficos localizados no Pará. No entanto, as multas que totalizam o valor de R$ 3, 4 milhões, não foram pagas. De acordo com Luciano Evaristo, diretor de Proteção Ambiental do instituto, as multas foram “esquecidas” pelos agentes locais do Ibama. Já a funcionária do órgão, Cleonice Aires Pereira, negou a afirmação de Evaristo, dizendo que a o “esquecimento das multas” foi uma decisão deliberada pelo Ibama.
O jornal descobriu ainda que, alguns dias depois de ser multado, o frigorífico comprou do instituto 3.046 cabeças de gado, que tinham sido apreendidas pelo Ibama. Bertin teria pago cerca de um quarto do preço de mercado, R$ 1,2 milhões. De acordo com funcionários do Ibama, o órgão teria deixado de cobrar as multas para vender, ilegalmente, o gado apreendido.
Segundo o deputado federal, Luciano Pizzatto (DEM), o ministro do Meio Ambiente, Carlos Minc, teria sido avisado pelo parlamentar sobre a negociação ilegal entre Bertin e o Ibama que, após o vazamento da informação, registrou, no final de abril de 2008, as multas oficialmente. A execução do registro no sistema do órgão foi feita em agosto de 2008.
Financiamento
As atividades do frigorífico começaram a se expandir na região amazônica em 2006. Atualmente, ela opera no Pará, Rondônia e Mato Grosso. Inicialmente, sua expansão foi financiada por um empréstimo controverso do IFC.
No último ano, Bertin recebeu um financiamento de US$ 1,7 bi, equivalente a R$ 3,3 bilhões. De acordo com um documento feito organizações não governamentais ao Banco Mundial, em março de 2007, o empréstimo do IFC foi aprovado sem respeitar os procedimentos internos no banco – omitindo a maior parte dos estudos ambientais e dando informação incompleta e enganosa ao conselho.
Segundo um estudo do Greenpeace que será lançado na segunda-feira (1), grande parte do gado do frigorífico é ilegal. A empresa, segundo o relatório, também está envolvida com o trabalho escravo.
A Associação Brasileira dos Exportadores de Carnes - em resposta ao estudo A Hora da Conta, feito pela organização Amigos da Terra - Amazônia Brasileira, reconheceu que seria impossível para qualquer grande frigorífico operar legalmente na Amazônia.
Segundo o diretor da organização, Roberto Smeraldi, esta situação “é uma consequência óbvia da deliberada falta de uma efetiva diligência por parte de brasileiros e instituições financeiras internacionais que subsidiam atividades pouco rentáveis se conduzidas na legalidade”
============================================
Text: Obama’s Speech in Cairo
Published: June 4, 2009
The following is a text of President Obama's prepared remarks to the Muslim world, delivered on June 4, 2009, as released by the White House.
=============================================
Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al—Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim—majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do today — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities — it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers — Thomas Jefferson — kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words — within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum — "Out of many, one."
Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores — and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations — to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes — and, yes, religions — subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared.
Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths — but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Quran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.
Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future — and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction — or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews —is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations — large and small — that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers — for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. The obligations — the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them — and all of us — to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab—Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage—taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.
Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it first-hand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit — for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action — whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know, I know — and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim—majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity — men and women — to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim—majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro—financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including America – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim—majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investment within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to his part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim—majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim—majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. Today, I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments, community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Quran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you
Luis Sabini é jornalista, editor da Revista Futuros e coordenador de Ecologia na disciplina de Direitos Humanos da Faculdade de Filosofia e Letras da Universidade de Buenos Aires (UBA), na Argentina. Confira a seguir a entrevista que ele concedeu à ANA.
Agência de Notícias Anarquistas > Como surgiu seu interesse por questões ambientais, natureza...
Luis Sabini < Tenho a impressão que desde muito pequeno, ligado com certo respeito e espanto pela natureza. De pequeno “trabalhei” em casa empacotando talheres de plástico. Causava-me má impressão terminar minhas curtas jornadas com as mãos “coloridas” dos talheres. Parecia-me insensato colocar na boca semelhantes utensílios. Logo, nos anos 60, uma série de artigos sobre doenças “industriais”, o aquecimento global e o derretimento das calotas polares, publicados no semanário Marcha, de Montevidéu (1939-1974), me pus definitivamente no campo ecológico.
ANA > Você também fez parte da Comunidad del Sur no Uruguai, foi preso político, viveu no exílio...
Luis < Falar desses “pequenos capítulos” de minha vida... daria um livro... A Comunidade Del Sur foi um “invento” que abracei em minha juventude, com nenhuma experiência e muita garra. Pouco a pouco fui aprendendo que era praticamente o oposto do que se devia praticar. Como já havia visto que se passava em relação ao catolicismo e ao comunismo, que as ideologias declaravam uma coisa e que na realidade faziam exatamente o contrário.
A Comunidade Del Sur era uma experiência política verticalista que declarava ser horizontalista, foi se convertendo em uma empresa com êxito, que afirmava ser anticapitalista, defendia publicamente a liberdade e vivíamos uma vida cotidiana absolutamente regida por “deveres”. Por isso, a quantidade de pessoas que se interessaram por essa experiência foram centenas, mas a permanência no grupo sempre se reduziu a poucas dezenas, e no momento mais “intenso” apenas dez, ou cinco, fazendo algumas distinções.
Foi um patético engano. Não no sentido vulgar ou jurídico, mas no seu sentido filosófico. Por isso, se chegou a delírios como “a construção do novo homem”, que em geral não se conhece porque o alcance da Comunidade Del Sur tem sido pequeno. Salvo dentro da “família anarquista” onde se há feito muito pouco, mas existe um culto a ela.
ANA > E a revista “Futuros”, como nasce?
Luis < “Futuros” nasceu como uma necessidade minha. Nos anos 90 tive a alegria de ter uma coluna em uma pequena revista, mas com importante valor histórico “Cadernos de Marcha” (“filha” de Marcha, mais precisamente). Ainda que a coluna não fosse assim tão “livre” como eu esperava, era a forma que eu tinha de “ajustar as contas” com muitas questões políticas e ecológicas tão mal argumentadas, segundo o meu modo de ver, claro.
Mas o Cadernos fechou abruptamente depois de um trágico acidente automobilístico, que terminou com a vida da diretora de produção e do diretor editorial (filha e neto do fundador de “Marcha”, Carlos Quijano).
Voltei a estar “bloqueado”, ou melhor dizendo, o tempo de jornalista free-lance, de ter artigos quando são aceitos... Isso fez com que eu me decidisse a “fazer” uma revista.
ANA > A revista aborda temas e lutas ambientais, certo?
Luis < Em “Futuros” tratamos de questões que consideramos importantes e que não figuram nas agendas midiáticas, ou, quando sim, estão com idéias enviesadas, graças aos capitalistas de plantão. Falamos de questões como o problema alimentar do mundo, das comidas “sujas”, da invasão de aditivos químicos no cotidiano, ou de outra invasão que sofremos na última década, de alimentos transgênicos, que nos obrigam consumir sem nem ao menos sabermos se são ou não organismos geneticamente modificados.
Claro que não nos atemos somente a esta questão; também ao aquecimento global, as assimétricas relações entre o centro e a periferia, e a fé incondicional no Tecnocientífico...
Mas também abordamos questões diretamente ecológicas, ainda que ligadas a outras questões como o destino das populações aborígenes, tanto na América como na África, a questão Palestina etc.
Relacionando todos esses assuntos: agrotóxicos, transgênicos, o avanço do capitalismo, da monocultura na atividade rural, temos textos muito interessantes com a contribuição de Rui Namorado Rosa, Mohamed Habib e Expresso Zica.
ANA > É possível ser ecologista sem ser anticapitalista?
Luis < Não. Definitivamente, não. Uma verdadeira consciência ecológica enfrenta radicalmente o discurso da propriedade privada e, sobretudo, o do lucro.
ANA > Uma vez o pensador Cornelius Castoriadis disse que a ecologia é subversiva, pois ela é intrinsecamente contra o capitalismo. Concorda?
Luis < Sim, estou de acordo, com a afirmação de Castoriadis. Com essa e com muitas outras de suas reflexões sobre o poder burocrático. Ainda que eu discorde muitíssimo de algumas lamentáveis visões de Castoriadis sobre a ex-União Soviética e os EUA, nos anos 80, quando eram “as duas grandes superpotências” do planeta.
ANA > Qual a sua principal crítica às ONGs ambientalistas?
Luis < A maioria, não todas, são financiadas por grupos que atuam geralmente com fundos dos ditos “primeiro mundo”, para trabalhos nos “subúrbios” do planeta. Isso cria um desequilíbrio, uma desigualdade difícil de superar. Ainda que se fale da igualdade entre todos os seres humanos, esse tipo de suporte só acentua as diferenças.
Por outro lado, o trabalho é de grupos fomentados pela iniciativa privada. Temos aí uma questão importante: combate-se sem querer o estatal e o público, que são coisas diferentes, mas que são “varridas” conjuntamente.
E a imensa maioria das ONGs ambientalistas se dedicam a encarar um único ponto, o tema que “quita” a problemática de seu verdadeiro caráter, inter-relacionado com outras questões ou temas. Fazer um trabalho ambientalista mediante métodos que desconhece o abc ecológico, as interpelações que existem não são muito boas.
ANA > No Brasil há centenas, milhares de ONGs ambientalistas, mas pouca luta ambiental efetiva, agitação de mentes e corpos. A maioria delas está voltada para a “educação ambiental”, com uma perspectiva de consumo, capitalista e financiadas com dinheiro público ou privado. Isso também se passa na Argentina, Uruguai...
Luis < Exatamente. É necessário lembrar-se de onde provém a febre de ONGs... Vem do “primeiro mundo”, quando o mundo enriquecendo se distancia mais do mundo empobrecido e o Banco Mundial e outras organizações filantrópicas decidem “ajudar” aos pobres que têm seus estados destruídos pela dívida e pelo roubo, com organizações não governamentais, é afirmar que organizações privadas que vem “finalizar” a tarefa do neoliberalismo: a destruição do público e o enaltecimento do privado.
ANA > Hoje, as grandes empresas gastam milhões de dólares por ano com publicidade nas TVs, jornais, rádios e Internet para divulgar suas “Políticas de Responsabilidade Social e Ambiental”. E normalmente adornadas com imagens de paisagens exuberantes, crianças sorrindo... Tudo uma hipocrisia?
Luis < Talvez não sejam em todos os casos, ou, ao menos, seja uma minúscula parcela de “bens intencionados”. Em alguns casos quem leva a cabo as tais “políticas de responsabilidade social” acreditam no que querem, na “ajuda” deles. Acredito que a maioria das vezes se trata de gente “boa” que não quer se corromper tanto e que aposta em “medidas corretivas”, menores, para obter a consciência limpa sem mudar radicalmente, sem perder privilégios, sem modificar a imagem do mundo que têm e onde eles são os privilegiados.
“Crises de consciência” e hipocrisia andam muito perto, a linha é tênue. Talvez a hipocrisia seja quando a consciência é a da mentira, e seja franca e forte.
ANA > E o que falar do tal “desenvolvimento sustentável”? Atualmente também não há muita farsa por trás destas palavras?
Luis < Certamente. Por trás das “ataduras” que tratava de explicar na resposta anterior. O empresário quer um desenvolvimento sustentável, mas não quer perder todas as vantagens que lhe é outorgado em sua empresa, seu “capital de giro”, sua ganância. Com isso, o “desenvolvimento sustentável” se faz mais propagandístico, mais espetacular do que qualquer outra coisa.
ANA > O curioso, e irônico, é que quem mais fala em “desenvolvimento sustentável” no Brasil, como a petroleira Petrobras e a mineradora Vale, são exatamente as empresas que mais agridem a natureza. É a mesma coisa na Argentina, não?
Luis < Claro! Isso é quase uma lei! Quem mais tem a ocultar a contaminação, por exemplo, só pode mostrar-se “preocupado” com ela. A literatura nos mostra que na História temos muitos exemplos semelhantes de comportamento. Mercantis que posam de generosos, soberbos que fingem ser humildes...
ANA > Qual é a questão ambiental mais urgente na Argentina?
Luis < A perda da biodiversidade.
ANA > E qual sua avaliação da luta ambiental na Argentina?
Luis < A luta ambiental na Argentina é pobre, pobríssima. Mas está avançando. Há que se pensar na seguinte questão: quando tivemos a “invasão” dos organismos geneticamente modificados em todo o mundo, apenas dois países tiveram sua implementação sem problemas, sem discussões, dentro dos vinte ou mais países que questionam essa questão. Os dois únicos países que nada questionaram foram a Argentina e os EUA. Com proporções pequeníssimas de resistência de pessoas, grupos, jornalistas, que estiveram contra essa abominação.
A Argentina viveu com Menem uma miragem coletiva, que fez pensar que aceitando a tudo, estariam entrando no grupo do “Primeiro Mundo”. Mas, já faz algum tempo, a luta e a consciência ecológica vem aumentando.
O povo de Esquel (Patagônia argentina) enfrentou sozinho ao governo e a uma transnacional mineradora e evitou mediante um referendo que se instalasse nas montanhas vizinhas. Isso foi histórico!
Existem muitas populações enfrentando as mineradoras, que só querem resultados máximos para suas extrações, independente do resultado negativo para os habitantes das regiões que são exploradas.
Há uma incipiente tomada de consciência contra o acúmulo do lixo. E agora, finalmente, em 2009, começamos a ver a consciências do perigo da soja “transgênica”.
ANA > O Mar Aral, que alimentava aos países da URSS agora é um deserto improdutivo, por obra da "revolução verde" do Estado soviético. África vai caminhando pelo mesmo caminho, se transformando em outro deserto, os monocultivos e os transgênicos têm devastado este continente e sua ação se aprofunda cada vez mais. Em sua opinião, por que há grande dificuldade para avançar com o tema, preservação e luta ambiental ante às contundentes evidências para, pelo menos, deter essa destruição?
Luis < Porque os interesses econômicos são muito fortes! E porque os paradigmas dominantes no plano tecnocientífico seguem o mesmo “otimismo” tecnológico e à idéia de progresso. Isso ocorre quando tanto a direita quanto a esquerda utilizam o mesmo “espectro ideológico”. Por isso é tão difícil enfrentar essa situação...
ANA > Acredita que somos testemunhas de um genocídio, suicídio ambiental por obra do capitalismo de Estado ou de mercado?
Luis < Sim. Os grandes laboratórios planetários estão espalhando muito sua influência e a guerra contra as “pragas”, os vírus, as bactérias etc., estão procurando deixar um planeta sem microflora nem microfauna. E essa situação, só tende a piorar e transformar a biodiversidade para finalmente, empobrecer toda a vida planetária. Como já foi explicado em 1974, com a invocação do Cacique Seattle, em 1855, ante os “avanços da civilização”.
ANA > Crê que este planeta pode nos sustentar com nossa atual população, cada vez mais crescente?
Luis < Creio que a humanidade tem perdido em ritmo biológico de crescimento vegetativo. O problema é que alguns querem limitar a população de pobres, outros afirmam que a culpa é do “crescimento demográfico”, quando da verdade o problema maior é a exploração dos países periféricos, o que da natureza, o esgotamento dos recursos naturais pela condição capitalista e a comodidade dos consumidores ricos, a contaminação generalizada...
ANA > Você se identifica com o “decrescimento”?
Luis < Parece-me sensato adotar alguma forma de "decrescimento" ao menos de "crescimento zero", estratégia estacionária contra o impulso tecnológico que nos leva, me parece, a um abismo planetário.
ANA > Efetivamente o tema ambiental conseguiu certo grau de penetração no anarquismo?
Luis < Sim. O anarquismo tem boas condições ideológicas para incorporar o tema ambiental, pela questão de defesa do “natural”, que por certo não existe entre todos os seres humanos, mas mesmo assim, acredito eu, que todos, pelo menos, deveriam tentar aprender a respeitar.
ANA > Uma mensagem final, esperançadora para os leitores? Obrigado!
Luis < Acreditar na vida, aprender que todo o planeta é nosso único barco, e que temos por isso que sermos próximos uns aos outros. Temos que ajudar em todas as vertentes de luta: acabar com o racismo, o chauvinismo e os sentimentos de superioridade que o europocentrismo configurou por mais de meio milênio, como também tantas outras “civilizações” também igualmente racistas como os romanos, os astecas e tantos outros.
Tradução: Palomilla Negra
Encontrei o pequeno texto abaixo em um site da internet que não existe mais, o link antigo não funciona, de toda forma se você ainda não tem um Amor, não desista, e se você já tem reserve horas e horas para praticar, à sua maneira, o ato mais lindo e significativo da vida, aprenda o que ainda quase ninguém sabe fazer!!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"A grandeza do sexo é muito mais do que a penetração com um pénis. Trata-se da exploração das várias maneiras de excitar o seu parceiro. É explorar as várias maneiras de se excitar. Trata-se de descobrir novas formas de excitação e redescobrir as velhas.
Não deve ser envergonhado quando se trata de prazer sexual. Os parceiros que exploram o sexo seguro um com o outro podem descobrir novas formas de excitação sexual. Podem ser claros sobre como e onde gostam de ser acariciados. Podem ajudar-se mutuamente a gozar o sexo ainda mais. O jogo do sexo sem penetração é chamado Satisfação Mútua. Muitas pessoas têm relações com penetração vaginal porque pensam que é assim que deve ser. Durante muito tempo homens e mulheres foram ensinados que o bom sexo significava apenas ter um orgasmo durante uma penetração vaginal. Não há nada de mais falso. A maioria das mulheres não tem orgasmos através da estimulação vaginal. A maioria delas atinge orgasmos quando o clítoris é estimulado - sendo ou não penetradas pelo pénis. O homens também gostam do sexo sem penetração, mesmo quando sentem vergonha de dizer. Relações sexuais sem penetração com muitos parceiros podem ser mais seguras que com penetração apenas com um parceiro."
Pétalas arrancadas e ressecadas
São como caixas amontoadas no velho distante
Você cuidou da obra fosca e inacabada?
Gotas do seu suor ainda estão naquele lugar
Agora, sólidas, formam um desenho que retrata sua urgência
As pétalas acordaram na fumaça de costume e misturam a reviravolta
Assustadas, sem a lembrança da coragem esquecida
Uma pequena folha verde, fraca, quase perdendo sua cor
Veio me contar da sua batalha árdua
Para amanhecer e renascer todo dia
E eu escutei segurando o único fio de esperança
Que me chama escondido num cantinho do meu coração
Você cuidou da obra inacabada que te feriu?
Reparei suas finas veias
Que suportam as intempéries
Um risco miúdo de água ainda corre alí
Doce, é como afeto que envolve e repara
O peso da situação que aperta demais e faz até buraco
Sua segurança é a Deusa da criação
Essa minúscula continuidade herdou a oração
Que no chão abre viga
E dele solta o fogo que espirra
E, assim abraça a sina com o esplendor que germina.
E você, sabe se a obra inacabada ainda brilha?
Consegue cuidar dela?
I fredags kom ett utkast på ett nytt klimatavtal som förhoppningsvis kommer att antas på mötet i Köpenhamn i december.
Avtalet har ett antal valmöjligheter, det mest progressiva handlar om att de rika länderna ska minska sina utsläpp med 85 procent till 2050 och med 40-45 procent redan 2020. Det känns som de har tagit frågan på allvar.
Someone had asked when the If Satan Series would start and even asked a question. Should you be in doubt how to make m add it, mail me at ippnigeria@gmail.com or call me on 08064464545. No flash. However, they got me thinking with he response below.
Take it .....
Okechukwu Okorie at 6:44am May 22 via Facebook Mobile
We have many 'Satans' around. So it shd be normal. I'll quickly bcom a Nigerian politician and use him for jobs.
'Fiyinfolu Olugbile at 7:34am May 22
Feel? Send him packing kia masa.
Aliu Nelson at 8:49am May 22
akinbo, u should realise that d devil does not always wear horns, sometimes he appears as chocolate coated candy. we probably live with satan everyday of our lives without realising it
Adebayo Waidi Gbenro at 9:29am May 22
i will be very happy,because the real devil lives in peoples heart.
Ifeanyi Uba at 10:07am May 23
i would go over to his crib and ask him if he is really responsible for all the times people say "it was the devil's work"?
Jimmy Ogunnowo at 6:30am May 24 via Facebook Mobile
I will send OPC there sharp sharp
Ojo Afolabi at 8:27am May 24
oti di ab'esu pin'le niyen
Mbasekei:easily walk in d door and negotiate with him
Akinola:so its either i find another appartment or send him packing if the house is mine
Phillip:I will let him know that God is greater than him
if satan lives next door, I knw it willk be a quiet zone at least people will keep off from you. He may end up being a nice neighbor since he also needs company. Esu
I guess we can ask "If Satan could grant a bad wish for you, what would you ask from him ?"
