Matador de Lagartos
Banned
Good chapter! Do you have any vote?View attachment 885029
(By locating headquarters of the New Development Bank in Shangai, the Chinese government wanted to increase its role on world markets)
After much deliberation and consideration, the Kremlin agreed to a foreign assistance in order to rescue the crew of the sunken submarine. Nevertheless, keeping a top secret military technology from the American hands was still a priority for Moscow. Therefore, the Russian government agreed to a joint rescue action by Navies of the two most pro-Russian governments in Europe – Germany and Italy. Nevertheless, to obtain approval for such plan from Berlin and Rome, Russia in an agreement reached behind closed doors, agreed to pay several billion dollars for Italian-German aid. At the end, the Italo-German rescue mission was successful as all sailors were rescued, which led to a significant improvement in the image of Germany and Italy in Russia, which in the longer term translated into economic and political benefits for Berlin and Rome. On the other hand, the American government was furious at Berlin and Rome and their cooperation with Russia, without consulting with Washington, which led to President Bush denouncing both Italy and Germany of breaking unity in NATO. In the meantime, under the pressure of pro-monarchist marches across the country, the Russian government agreed to issue a formal apology to the Romanov family for all the Soviet crimes committed against their family, though no monetary compensation from the government was made. Additionally, the Russians in a national referendum have decided that the Soviet patriotic song Wide is My Motherland would become a new anthem of the Union State, though with a changed lyric to better fit the current situation in Russia.
Leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa after a round of negotiations agreed to meet in Saint Petersburg with a goal of establishing BRICS as an intergovernmental organization focused on serving as an economic forum, enhancing economic and industrial cooperation, as well as a platform for solving diplomatic issues between the members states. Additionally, BRICS leaders agreed to establishment of the New Development Bank, which would support public or private projects in the member states through loans, guarantees, equity participation and other financial instruments. The bank is headquartered in Shanghai, China. The first regional office of the NDB is in Johannesburg, South Africa. The second regional office was established in 2003 in São Paulo, Brazil, followed by GIFT City, India and Moscow, Russia. Moreover, the Russian government decided to pursue stronger economic, industrial, military and cultural relations with India. During President Lukashenko's visit to New Delhi, a number of contracts were signed between both states, including an agreement for building by Russia new 6 nuclear reactors or a student-exchange program. Besides, during his visit, President Lukashenko confirmed Russia's support for India in gaining a seat at United Nations Security Council and Kashmir's belonging to India, which was negatively received in Pakistan and China, though officials in Beijing abstained from voicing their displeasure, fearing that it may cause negative reaction from Moscow.
A new gun control law was introduced by the government of Elvira Nabiullia, which included the following points:
1. A 3-day waiting period.
2. A background check.
3. Firearm safety training.
4. Permit required to own/purchase a firearm.
5. Citizens convicted of felony level crime could not purchase a firearm. Parolees convicted of lesser crimes would be forced by the law to complete their sentence before having purchasing ability restored.
6. Red flag law.
7. Citizens may not purchase military grade firearms.
8. A law should be created detailing proper storage.
9. No Concealed Carry.
10. Firearms forbidden in public places.
Following the increased number of migrants arriving in Russia, the government decided to introduce a reform of the immigration policy to handle the situation better. The new law included the following point:
- imposing immigration quotas;
- a priority given to qualified and skilled migrants;
- a priority given to migrants with countries close culturally, like Yugoslavia, Ukraine and Bulgaria;
- introduction of background checks;
- incentivizing immigration to Siberia and the Far East;
- very limited access to social benefits to newly-arrived migrants;
- to gain a Russian citizenship, the migrants would have to: EEU/ECU applicants will be eligible to apply for citizenship 5 years after staying in Russia, with all other applicants needing 5 years to gain Permanent Resident status and an additional 5 years before becoming eligible for applying for citizenship;
- No region in the Union State can have more than 25% of its people being immigrants or 1st generation naturalized citizens.
View attachment 885031
(Unwillingly or not, German Chancellor Schröder became an agent of Russian interests in the European Union)
Finally, President Alexander Lukashenko and FSB Director Vladimir Putin have decided to begin an anti-atom campaign in the West, to force Europe and America into a dependence on import of Russian gas, oil and coal by sponsoring various pro-environmental anti-atom nongovernment groups, like Greenpeace, “Green” political parties, distribution of anti-atom propaganda in the West, influencing the public opinion through mass media, promotion of alternative to nuclear energy sources (which mainly happened to be exported by Moscow Russian gas). Furthermore, the Russian government began offering very generous bribes to Western politicians and other benefits in exchange for their support of the campaign against nuclear power and lobbying for gas imports from Russia. The campaign would result in a success, as during the tenure of Angela Merkel, Germany would decide for the Energiewende (German for 'energy turnaround'), which would be a transition by Germany to a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply. The new system intends to rely heavily on renewable energy (particularly wind, photovoltaics, and hydroelectricity), energy efficiency, and energy demand management. In theory, it sounded very good, but in practice the German government would fail in the energy transition, which will push Germany into total dependence on Russian gas supplies. Using this dependence, Moscow will force Berlin to act as a representative of Russian interests in the European Union, that is, Germany, using its dominant position in the European Union, will try to combat nuclear energy in other member countries through EU regulations, which will work entirely to Russia's economic and political advantage.
Soyuz TM-32 was a crewed Soyuz spaceflight which was launched on April 28, 2001, and docked with the International Space Station two days later. It launched the crew of the visiting mission ISS EP-1, which included the first paying space tourist Dennis Tito, as well as two Russian cosmonauts. The Soyuz TM-32 remained docked to the station until October; during this time it served as the lifeboat for the crew of Expedition 2 and later for the crew of Expedition 3. In October, it landed the crew of ISS EP-2, who had been launched by Soyuz TM-33. TM-32 carried a three-man crew (two Russians and one American, the latter not a professional astronaut) to the International Space Station, ISS. It docked automatically with the ISS at 07:57 UT on April 30, 2001, just a few hours after the space shuttle Endeavour on mission STS-100 undocked. The launched crew stayed for a week and returned in Soyuz TM-31, which had been docked to (or nearby) the station since November 2000 functioning as "lifeboat" for the onboard crew (Expedition 1 and 2). As the new lifeboat for Expedition 2 and later Expedition 3, TM-32 stayed docked at the station for six months (except for a brief move between docking ports) and finally, on October 31, brought home two cosmonauts and an ESA astronaut who had arrived a week earlier in Soyuz TM-33.
View attachment 885032
(Junichiro Koizumi - a stateman who revived the Japanese economy)
On 26 April 2001, Junichiro Koizumi was appointed to the postion as Prime Minister of Japan and elected president of the Liberal Democratic Party. Within Japan, Koizumi pushed for new ways to revitalise the moribund economy, aiming to act against bad debts with commercial banks, privatize the postal savings system, and reorganize the factional structure of the LDP. He spoke of the need for a period of painful restructuring in order to improve the future. To design policy initiatives in 2001 he used the new Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy (Keizai Zaisei Seisaku Tanto Daijin) or CEFP. It issued an annual planning document, "Basic Policies for Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform". It planned a major reorganization of the central government, and shaped economic policy in cooperation with key cabinet members. To meet the challenge of economic stagnation CEFP took an integrated approach, a worldwide economic view, and, promoted greater transparency; its philosophy was neoliberal. In the fall of 2002, Koizumi appointed Keio University economist and frequent television commentator Heizō Takenaka as Minister of State for Financial Services and head of the Financial Services Agency (FSA) to fix the country's banking crisis. Bad debts of banks were dramatically cut with the NPL ratio of major banks approaching half the level of 2001. The Japanese economy has been through a slow but steady recovery, and the stock market has dramatically rebounded. The GDP growth for 2004 was one of the highest among G7 nations, according to the International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Takenaka was appointed as a Postal Reform Minister in 2004 for the privatization of Japan Post, operator of the country's Postal Savings system.
Koizumi moved the LDP away from its traditional rural agrarian base toward a more urban, neoliberal core, as Japan's population grew in major cities and declined in less populated areas, although under current purely geographical districting, rural votes in Japan are still many times more powerful than urban ones. In addition to the privatization of Japan Post (which many rural residents fear will reduce their access to basic services such as banking), Koizumi also slowed down the LDP's heavy subsidies for infrastructure and industrial development in rural areas. These tensions made Koizumi a controversial but popular figure within his own party and among the Japanese electorate. Considering both his neoliberal policies and his appeal to populist ideas, Koizumi's political ideology has been characterized "as a populist version of neoliberalism (or as a variant of the populist right) rather than neoliberal populism." Although Koizumi's foreign policy was focused on closer relations with the United States and UN-centered diplomacy, which were adopted by all of his predecessors, he went further, supporting the US policies in the War on Terrorism. He decided to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces to Iraq, which was the first military mission in active foreign war zones since the end of the World War II. Many Japanese commentators indicated that the favorable US-Japan relation was based on the Koizumi's personal friendship with the US President George W. Bush. White House officials described the first meeting between Koizumi and Bush at Camp David as "incredibly warm", with the two men playing catch with a baseball. Since leaving office, he has defended his decision to send Japanese troops to Iraq. In the North Korean abductions and nuclear development issues, Koizumi took more assertive attitudes than his predecessors. Although Koizumi did not initially campaign on the issue of defense reform, he approved the expansion of the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) and in October 2001 they were given greater scope to operate outside of the country. Some of these troops were dispatched to Iraq. Koizumi's government also introduced a bill to upgrade the Defense Agency to ministry status; finally, the Defense Agency became the Japanese Ministry of Defense on 9 January 2007.
Koizumi has often been noted for his controversial visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, starting on 13 August 2001. He visited the shrine six times as prime minister. Because the shrine honors Japan's war dead, which also include many convicted Japanese war criminals and 14 executed Class A war criminals, these visits drew strong condemnation and protests from both Japan's neighbours, mainly China and South Korea, and many Japanese citizens. China and South Korea's people hold bitter memories of Japanese invasion and occupation during the first half of the 20th century. China and South Korea refused to have their representatives meet Koizumi in Japan and their countries. There were no mutual visits between Chinese and Japanese leaders from October 2001, and between South Korean and Japanese leaders from June 2005. The standstill ended when the next prime minister Abe visited China and South Korea in October 2006. In China, the visits led to massive anti-Japanese riots. The president, ruling and opposition parties, and much of the media of South Korea openly condemned Koizumi's pilgrimages. Many Koreans applauded the president's speeches criticizing Japan, despite the South Korean President's low popularity. When asked about the reaction, Koizumi said the speeches were "for the domestic (audience)". Although Koizumi signed the shrine's visitor book as "Junichiro Koizumi, the Prime Minister of Japan", he claimed that his visits were as a private citizen and not an endorsement of any political stance. China and Korea considered this excuse insufficient. Several journals and news reports in Japan, such as one published by Kyodo News Agency on 15 August 2006, questioned Koizumi's statement of private purpose, as he recorded his position on the shrine's guestbook as prime minister. He visited the shrine annually in fulfillment of a campaign pledge. Koizumi's last visit as prime minister was on 15 August 2006, fulfilling a campaign pledge to visit on the anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II.
Eleven months after his resignation as prime minister, Koizumi revisited the shrine on 15 August 2007, to mark the 62nd anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II. His 2007 visit attracted less attention from the media than his prior visits while he was in office. Koizumi was at certain points in his tenure an extremely popular leader. Most people know him very well due to his trademark wavy grey hair. His outspoken nature and colourful past contributed to that; his nicknames included "Lionheart", due to his hair style and fierce spirit, and "Maverick". During his tenure in office, the Japanese public referred to him as Jun-chan (the suffix "chan" in the Japanese language is used as a term of familiarity, typically between children, "Jun" is a contraction of Junichiro). In June 2001, he enjoyed an approval rating of 80 percent. In January 2002, Koizumi fired his popular Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka, replacing her with Yoriko Kawaguchi. A few days before the sacking of Tanaka, when she was filmed crying after a dispute with government officials, Koizumi generated controversy with his statement "tears are women's ultimate weapons". Following an economic slump and a series of LDP scandals that claimed the career of YKK member Koichi Kato, by April Koizumi's popularity rating had fallen 30 percentage points since his nomination as prime minister. Koizumi was re-elected in 2003 and his popularity surged as the economy recovered. His proposal to cut pension benefits as a move to fiscal reform turned out to be highly unpopular. Two visits to North Korea to solve the issue of abducted Japanese nationals only somewhat raised his popularity, as he could not secure several abductees' returns to Japan. In the House of Councilors elections in 2004, the LDP performed only marginally better than the opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), winning 32 more seats than the latter obtained.
In 2005, the House of Councilors rejected the contentious postal privatization bills. Koizumi previously made it clear that he would dissolve the lower house if the bill failed to pass. The Democratic Party, while expressing support for the privatization, made a tactical vote against the bill. Fifty-one LDP members also either voted against the bills or abstained. On 8 August 2005, Koizumi, as promised, dissolved the House of Representatives and called for snap elections. He expelled rebel LDP members for not supporting the bill. The LDP's chances for success were initially uncertain; the secretary general of New Komeito (a junior coalition partner with Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party) said that his party would entertain forming a coalition government with the Democratic Party of Japan if the DPJ took a majority in the House of Representatives. Koizumi's popularity rose almost twenty points after he dissolved the House and expelled rebel LDP members. Opinion polls ranked the government's approval ratings between 58 and 65 percent. The electorate saw the election in terms of a vote for or against reform of the postal service, which the Democratic Party and rebel LDP members were seen as being against. The September 2005 elections were the LDP's largest victory since 1986, giving the party a large majority in the House of Representatives and nullifying opposing voices in the House of Councilors. In the following Diet session, the last to be held under Koizumi's government, the LDP passed 82 of its 91 proposed bills, including postal privatization. A number of Koizumi-supported candidates known as "Koizumi Children" joined the Diet in this election and supported successive LDP governments until the 2009 elections, when most were defeated.
View attachment 885034
(The Agra Summit - a lost chance for lasting peace between India and Pakistan)
The Agra summit was a historic two-day summit meeting between India and Pakistan which lasted from 14–16 July 2001. It was organized with the aim of resolving long-standing issues between India and Pakistan. At this meeting, a proposal was made to drastically reduce nuclear arsenals, and other issues involving the Kashmir dispute, and cross-border terrorism. However, the negotiations broke down and the process was collapsed so the Agra treaty was never signed. Earlier in 1999, during Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee's visit to Pakistan, both countries had acceded and successfully ratified the Lahore Declaration and pledged to make joint efforts for peace and stability in South Asia. The Kargil war was a major blow to the Lahore treaty and it stalled the treaty as the relations between two countries suffered a serious setback. General Musharraf is widely believed to be a strategic mastermind and brain behind the Kargil war. On 11 March 2001, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called upon both India and Pakistan to retain the spirit of the Lahore Declaration, saying that it would require restraint, wisdom, and constructive steps from both sides. Finally, the framework for negotiations of the Agra treaty began with talks in New Delhi between President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in July 2001.
After much diplomatic efforts, the Agra summit started amid high hopes of resolving various disputes between the two countries including the five decades old Kashmir issue. Both sides started the summit with hopefulness and in a spirit of good will; especially President Musharraf who used the phrases "cautious optimism", "flexibility" and "open mind" to describe his views for the summit. The Indian President, K. R. Narayanan, also promised to take "bold and innovative" measures and to discuss the "core issue" between the two countries. Various rounds of one-to-one talks were held between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee. On the first day, a 90-minute one-on-one session was held and the two leaders discussed the Kashmir issue, cross-border terrorism, nuclear risk reduction, release of prisoners of war, and commercial ties. There were high hopes in Pakistan that both the leaders would arrive at an agreement and a joint statement or declaration would be made at the end of the summit as the two leaders plunged into serious talks. Despite reservations from the Indian Government, President Musharraf also held face-to-face meetings with the top Kashmiri leadership represented by the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. The most important agenda of Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in the Indo-Pak summit was to stress upon the economic betterment of the people of Kashmir, for which he invited a dialogue with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference.
Quote:
"Pakistan has been seeking a solution to J&K in accordance with the wishes of the "Kashmiri people". I am certain that the primary wish of every single Kashmiri, whether from the Kashmir valley or Jammu, Ladakh, Pakistan occupied Kashmir, the Northern areas or the Shaksgam Valley, is to live in peace, security and freedom, so that he can make economic progress. We should constantly strive to provide him with this fundamental right. Most of the Kashmiris have their elected representatives, through whom they express their legitimate aspirations. We are also willing to listen to all other streams of Kashmiri opinion, however small the minority they represent, as long as they abjure violence. It is in this spirit that we had offered to talk to the representatives of the All Parties’ Hurriyat Conference."
The talks and peace process, however, collapsed and no signatures were attained for the Agra treaty. The talks faced a number of obstacles.According to the Indian scholar, Gaurav Kampani, there were three major reasons for the Indian government's reluctance in accepting Pakistan's assurances at face value. First, the Vajpayee government did not trust President Pervez Musharraf and the establishment that he represents in Delhi. In India alone, it was widely felt that it was Musharraf who sabotaged joint peace efforts of Pakistan Prime minister Navaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the Lahore Summit in 1999. Second, India was not satisfied with Pakistan's pledge to halt cross-border infiltrations; thirdly the Indian government had plans for holding regional elections in Indian Kashmir in October 2002. Similarly, Indian leadership considered Musharraf's refusal to give up support to the cross-border insurgency in Kashmir as the reason behind the failure of the Agra Summit in June 2001. Despite the failure of the talks, General Pervez Musharraf joined Vajpayee to call on the two countries to bury their past. He also invited the Indian Prime Minister to visit Pakistan as he felt that the issues between Pakistan and India were much more complicated and could not be resolved in a short time. Following the August 2001 Agra summit, India reiterated the necessity of implementing the Simla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration. It said that India would support the Simla Agreement, the Lahore Declaration, and the issue of cross-border terrorism. On 6 July 2015, A. S. Dulat, former chief of the Research and Analysis Wing, India's external intelligence agency, revealed that L.K. Advani played a role in the collapse of the Agra Summit.
View attachment 885035
The 27th G8 summit was held in Genoa, Italy, on 20–22 July 2001 and is remembered as a highpoint of the worldwide anti-globalization movement as well as for human rights violations against demonstrators. The Group of Seven (G7) was an unofficial forum which brought together the heads of the richest industrialized countries: France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada starting in 1976. The G8, meeting for the first time in 1995, was formed with the addition of Russia. In addition, the President of the European Commission has been formally included in summits since 1981. The summits were not meant to be linked formally with wider international institutions; and in fact, a mild rebellion against the stiff formality of other international meetings was a part of the genesis of cooperation between France's president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and West Germany's chancellor Helmut Schmidt as they conceived the initial summit of the Group of Six (G6) in 1975. The G8 summits during the 21st-century have inspired widespread debates, protests and demonstrations; and the two-or three-day event becomes more than the sum of its parts, elevating the participants, the issues, and the venue as focal points for activist pressure. The 27th G8 summit was the first summit for Japanese Prime Minister Junichirō Koizumi and US President George W. Bush.
The summit was intended as a venue for resolving differences among its members. As a practical matter, the summit was also conceived as an opportunity for its members to give each other mutual encouragement in the face of difficult economic decisions. The overall theme of the summit was ways to reduce poverty. Topics discussed at the meeting included an evaluation of the Enhanced HIPC Initiative which involved debt forgiveness to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries, the Global Health Fund, the global digital divide, the environment, and food security. Although the main summit was from July 20 to the 22nd, the summit was preceded by a meeting of the G8 foreign ministers on the 18th and 19th. The summit was overshadowed by riots in the city after a crackdown by police targeting anti-globalisation groups and the death of 23-year-old Carlo Giuliani, leading some to talk of a deliberately followed strategy of tension. Before the summit, significant controversies and ridicule among local people and media focused on the security plans (such as fences going through streets and inside houses) and image provisions (such as the prohibition to dry up the laundry). The Genoa G8 Summit protest, from July 18 to July 22, 2001, was a dramatic protest, drawing an estimated 200,000 demonstrators. Dozens were hospitalized following clashes with police and night raids by security forces on two schools housing activists and independent journalists. People taken into custody after the raids have alleged severe abuse at the hands of police. Demonstrators accused the police of brutality and denying them their right to non-violent protest. They believe that G8 summits are non-legitimate attempts by eight of the world's most powerful governments to set the rules for the planet at large. Police and many politicians argued that attempting to blockade a meeting is in itself a violent event and an attempt to impede the workings of democratically elected governments.
The G8 meeting was held inside a "Red Zone" in the center of town that had been declared off-limits for non-residents and surrounded by a barricade, leaving protesters no chance to communicate with summit delegates. Fears of a terrorist attack at the time had also led to an air exclusion zone around the city, as well as the stationing of anti-aircraft missiles. Only one activist, Valérie Vie, secretary of a French branch of ATTAC, managed to publicly breach the Red Zone barrier, but was immediately arrested by police agents. There were also several border riots ahead of the summit, as police attempted to prevent suspected activists from entering Italy. The Italian government suspended freedom of movement entitled by the Schengen Treaty for the duration of the G8 summit, in order to monitor the movement of the many protesters arriving from across the European Union. Many demonstrators were injured and dozens more arrested over the course of the event. Most of those 329 arrested were charged with criminal conspiracy to commit destruction; but they were in most part released shortly thereafter because judges declared the charges invalid. Police continued to raid social centers, media centers, union buildings and legal offices across Italy after the summit as part of ongoing investigations. Over 400 protesters and about 100 among security forces were injured during the clashes. On July 20, a 23-year-old activist Carlo Giuliani of Genoa, was shot dead by Mario Placanica, a Carabiniere, during clashes with police. Images show Giuliani picking up a fire extinguisher from the ground and approaching the carabinieri's vehicle with it before he was shot and then run over twice by the Land Rover. Placanica was acquitted from any wrongdoing, as judges determined he fired in self-defence and to the sky but a flying stone deflected the bullet and killed Giuliani. The idea that the stone killed Giuliani has been however questioned on the basis of a security video and the stone being covered in blood while the balaclava through which it should have wounded Giuliani was intact. Videos and photos show that the stone was dipped in blood and placed beside Giuliani's head minutes after his death suggesting an attempt to conceal the police responsibility. Later tribunals including the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that Giuliani was killed directly by the bullet. Activist Susanne Bendotti was struck by a vehicle and killed while attempting to cross the French-Italian border at Ventimiglia to get to the Genoa demonstration.
View attachment 885036\
(Russian troops entering Macedonia)
In the meantime, the changing political landscape in the Eastern and Southern Europe caught the attention of the United States and the Union State. Firstly, after a near decade of political union with Romania, Moldova regained its independence, as a result of a referendum. The reason for the Moldovan' deep discontent was political and economic marginalization on the part of Bucharest, and the Romanian government's inconsistent economic policy toward Moldova. After independence, however, Moldova remained a member of the European Union and NATO. Nevertheless, the attention of the world was focused on the situation surrounding Macedonia, as the United States and Russia were locked in a diplomatic crisis over which side would be responsible for quelling the ongoing Albanian insurgency in Macedonia. On the one hand, the Macedonian President requested NATO support in dealing with insurgents, and as a result NATO troops arrived in Macedonia from Albania and Greece. At the same time, the Macedonian government, ignoring the president's decision, made a similar request to Moscow, which also met with the approval of the Russian government. The Russian government, being aware of NATO's entry into Macedonia, quickly deployed troops to Macedonia, which were stationed in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Confusion at the top of the Macedonian government led to a diplomatic crisis, as NATO and Russian forces claimed to be in Macedonia legally and the other side did not. The whole situation was not helped by the fact that Macedonia was virtually occupied by NATO and Russian troops and divided - NATO controlled the west and south of the country, while Russia occupied the north and east of Macedonia. Both President Bush and President Lukashenko, in international forums, accused the opposing side of illegal actions and imperialism. On the one hand, President Bush accused Russia of colonialism, while President Lukashenko claimed that the current situation was evidence of American imperialism, and President Bush himself, in his view, was acting like a cowboy.
View attachment 885037
The 2001 World Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was held at the Durban International Convention Centre in Durban, South Africa, under UN auspices, from 31 August to 8 September 2001. The conference covered several controversial issues, including redress for transatlantic slavery and the second-class citizenry issue in Palestine-Israel.The language of the final Declaration and Programme of Action produced by the conference was strongly disputed in these areas, both in the preparatory meetings in the months that preceded the conference and during the conference itself. Two delegations, the United States and Israel, withdrew from the conference over objections to a draft document equating Zionism with racism. The final Declaration and Programme of Action did not contain the text that the U.S. and Israel had objected to, that text having been voted out by delegates in the days after the U.S. and Israel withdrew. In parallel to the conference, a separately held NGO Forum also produced a Declaration and Programme of its own, that was not an official Conference document, which contained language relating to Israel that the WCAR had voted to exclude from its Declaration, and which was criticized by then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and many others. The NGO Forum ended in discord. Mary Robinson lost the support of the United States in her office of High Commissioner, and many of the potential political aftereffects of the conference were annulled by the September 11, 2001 attacks. The attacks took place just three days after the conference ended, entirely eclipsing it in the news, and significantly affecting international relations and politics. The conference was followed by the 2009 Durban II conference in Geneva, which was boycotted by ten Western countries. A commemorative Durban III conference in September 2011 in New York has also drawn significant criticism and was boycotted by 14 Western countries. During preparatory meetings in Geneva, text that linked Zionism to racism was placed in brackets, with the expectation that it would be replaced by text that referred to violations of the rights of Palestinians. The U.S. had already threatened to boycott the conference should the conference draft documents include text that could be in any way interpreted as linking Zionism to racism. Mary Robinson had also said that regional political conflicts should not be imposed upon the agenda of the conference. The Australian, the Canadian, and some European delegations shared the U.S. view. The Arab position was stated by the Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Moussa: "Israel's racist actions against the Palestinian people have to be dealt with in an international conference that aims to eradicate racism. Arab countries are not expecting the Durban conference to be a venue for dealing with the Arab- Israeli peace process, but they certainly expect that the Israeli racist practices against the Palestinian people will not be overlooked." The Arab delegates were not insistent upon language that specifically equated Zionism with racism. It had been suggested that they were trying to revive United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (issued 1975, annulled 1991) which stated that "Zionism is a form of racism.". Their position was that they were, rather, trying to underline that the actions being committed by Israel against Palestinians were racist. This stance was in part influenced by the U.S. threat of boycott, which would have made it impractical to insist upon harsh language condemning Israel or equating the suffering of the Palestinians with that of Holocaust victims. According to one Arab diplomat, no Arab state except for Syria had insisted upon any language linking Israel to racist practices.
At the start of the Geneva meeting, the text had been presented that comprised six bracketed paragraphs dealing with "Zionist racist practices", including an appeal for Israel "to revise its legislation based on racial or religious discrimination such as the law of return and all the policies of an occupying power which prevent the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons from returning to their homes and properties", and a suggestion for the need "to bring the foreign occupation of Jerusalem by Israel together with all its racist practices to an end". By the end of the meeting, all of this text had either been removed or toned down. One such phrase removed was a mention of "holocausts" suffered by other peoples, which had been seen as an affront to the memory of the Jewish victims of the Nazi holocaust. South African diplomats had already told Arab and Muslim countries that they would have to offer text that could describe the current situation without using such language as "ethnic cleansing practices against Palestinians". Nonetheless, the United States, objecting to the remaining text, decided to send a low-level delegation, headed by Ambassador Michael Southwick, to the Conference, rather than have United States Secretary of State Colin Powell attend himself. German officials criticized this decision, and the United States Congressional Black Caucus urged him to attend. The Anti-Defamation League urged him to stay away. On 3 September 2001, after four days of deadlocked negotiations that did not reach agreement on language, the United States and Israeli delegations withdrew from the conference. Both United States Secretary of State Colin Powell and Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel Shimon Peres stated that this was done with regret. The low-level U.S. delegation had kept a low profile throughout conference proceedings until that point, with delegates working quietly in sub-committee meetings, without (unlike in earlier conferences) giving news briefings or off the record statements to journalists, to change the text of the draft declaration, to make it less forceful and less specific against Israel, and to bring it into line with U.S. foreign policy goals with respect to the International Criminal Court (see United States and the International Criminal Court) by removing language that strengthened the ICC. The draft documents had stated "deep concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism" and talked of the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority". Alternative proposals, which the U.S. had supported, from Norway, acting as a mediator, and Canada were rejected by Israel.
Despite Colin Powell's denunciation of the "hateful language" that "singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse" in the draft text and U.S. delegate Tom Lantos's statement that the conference had been "wrecked by Arab and Islamic extremists", some saw the U.S. delegation's withdrawal as not being entirely related to the language on Israel, but attributed it also, in part, to a reluctance on the part of the U.S. to address the issue of slavery. The withdrawal of the U.S. and Israel was taken as a warning by many delegates that there was a strong possibility of Canada and the E.U. states withdrawing as well if no compromise was reached. Several reports had the Europeans staying on solely in order to help South Africa salvage the Conference. After the withdrawal, senior conference officials became highly involved in the rewriting of the Declaration — something that critics maintained they should have also been doing before that point. In the end, the Conference delegates voted to reject the language that implicitly accused Israel of racism, and the document actually published contained no such language. Several countries were unhappy with the final text's approach to the subject, but all for different reasons. Syria and Iran were unhappy because their demands for the language about racism and Israel had been rejected by the Conference, the latter continuing its insistence that Israel was a racist state. Australia was unhappy with the process, observing that "far too much of the time at the conference [had been] consumed by bitter divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advance the cause of combating racism". Canada was also unhappy. The language of the final text was carefully drafted for balance. The word "diaspora" is used four times, and solely to refer to the African Diaspora. The document is at pains to maintain a cohesive identity for everyone of African heritage as a victim of slavery, even including those who may have more European than African ancestors. The "victim" or "victims" of racism and slavery (the two words occurring 90 times in the document) are defined in only the most general geographic terms. The word "Jewish" is only used once, alongside "Muslim" and "Arab", and "anti-Semitism" is only used twice, once alongside its assumed counterpart of "Islamophobia" and once alongside "anti-Arabism". The difficulty that this generates is that it is politically impossible to act when the 219 calls for action in the Programme are couched in such generalities that only the "countless human beings" that the document explicitly talks of can be identified.
