- Association de Protection de l'Environnement des Hautes-Laurentides (Dossier Uranium)
- Bedford Mining Alert (Ontario)
- British Columbia Land Owner's Rights Group
- Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (Quebec)
- Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
- Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium - CCAMU (Eastern Ontario)
- Ecojustice Canada
- kNOw-Uranium.ORG - Working Together to Keep the Ottawa River Watershed Uranium Free
- MiningWatch Canada
- No Uranium Mine Near Sharbot Lake
- Nuclear Information Resource Centre
- Ottawa Coalition Against Mining Uranium (OCAMU)
- Ottawa Riverkeeper/Sentinelle Outaouais
- The Equity (Shawville Weekly News)
- The LowDown to Hull and Back News (Wakefield Weekly News)
- The Pembina Institute
- Uranium Free British Columbia
- Western Mining Action Network
- Wise Uranium Project
- Yellowhead Ecological Association (British Columbia)
Showing posts with label Canam Uranium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canam Uranium. Show all posts
August 03, 2008
Great Canadian anti-uranium mining links
June 13, 2008
MNN: on the Canadian apology to the Indigenous
CANADA CONFESSES TO PART OF ITS CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITYTHERE HAS FINALLY BEEN AN OFFICIAL APOLOGY FOR ‘MURDER”, RAPE… SODOMY, PEDOPHILIA, GERM WARFARE, STERILIZATION, MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS AND WHO KNOWS MAYBE EVEN NECROPHILIA OF INDIGENOUS CHILDREN IN ORDER TO “STEAL” OUR LAND AND RESOURCES.
This is a start. Now we have to deal with other big
issues, sovereignty and resources.
Our people were kidnapped and held hostage for
three to four generations. Genocide is taking children
away and killing them. It was only a small part of a
bigger story of “gangsterism” and greed. Don’t be
fooled! That evil program is still in full swing.
Canada has no intention to stop. They continue
to drive us off our land, to criminalize us,
incarcerate us and to refuse to return control of
our land and resources to us.
We don’t like being lied to. Saying “sorry” doesn’t
cut it. Canada practically admitted to “murder” and
theft in the first degree. While Prime Minister Harper
was reciting his apology in the House of Commons,
a permanent injunction was being granted to the city
of Brantford to stop us from going onto our own
lands to stop illegal development and to bring in the
army if necessary. What forked-tongued two-faced
hypocrisy! Anywhere else in the world when a people
are threatened with military force, it is a “declaration
of war”.
Every Canadian benefited from these crimes against
humanity. They came her from Europe with empty
hands. Stephen Harper said, “We are planning to
move on”. This means that the perpetrators of these
heinous crime have to be prosecuted in the
international courts. More important, Canada is
bound to the original relationship as “visitors” to our
land who made promises to live peacefully under the
Two Row Wampum Agreement. We are the land and
resources owners and they have to negotiate with us
to extend their stay.
Our future is tied to the Kaianereh’ko:wa, the law of
Onowaregeh, Turtle Island. We cannot “bury the
hatchet”! Planned murders of our children by the
church and state cannot be pardoned anywhere.
Canada broke international law to which they are
bound.
At this moment illegal deals are being made by the
government and its puppet band councils to
deceive the people. Fraud and corruption is used
to privatize under NAFTA every unsurrendered
river and stream in British Columbia to send our
water to California.
Is this desperation because Canada and the U.S.
or someone is trying to keep the colonial scam
going? Canada absolved the churches of
responsibilities. The program to murder school
children and to put them in unmarked graves was
not random. All the churches , Catholic, Anglican,
Presbyterian and United, stepped up to the plate to
do dirty deeds for the state. It was part of the
“pogram” to remove us completely to claim
Onowaregeh, Turtle Island. What kind of special
education does it take to forget that it’s wrong to
kill kids?
Harper admitted they did not know our culture, our
traditions and did not respect our basic human
rights. They still don’t. Now that they have clearly
admitted to being “busted”, shouldn’t the genocide
stop?
The colonizers must respect our sovereignty,
identity and culture. To start, they must stop all
uranium and diamond mining, clear cutting and
contamination of our environment. Stop trying to
put us away in jails and holding cells to punish us
for protecting the environment. Every single piece
of Turtle Island, our resources and possessions
must be returned to us so we can regnerate the
natural beauty and health of Turtle Island.
Nothing is going to change if they can help it. To
stop racism and lies the true history has to be
taught in every school. Our education and
language programs have to be improved. Clean
water and decent homes have to be provided to
all of us. All the elements that work together to
demoralize our young people and incite them to
commit suicides have to be stopped.
Canada is going to put up a monument as a
symbol of this apology. Take down those
hideous monuments to the true murderers of our
people like Champlain, Humphrey Gilbert,
Laverendrye, DeDenonville, Amherst and other
scoundrels. Towns are still named after these
mass murderers. Get rid of that depiction of the
tied up Indian in bondage on the Clock Tower of
the Parliament Buildings. We cannot rebuild our
nations on monuments or empty words. Real
reconciliation means restoring the traditional
homelands and resources of the various
Indigenous people who have been dispossessed.
Anything less is a farce.
Canada stage managed this performance. It was
sickening to see colonial lap dog Phil Fontaine
of the Assembly of First Nations accept Harper’s
apology on our behalf. It was a pre-written script
probably by government spinners. We were
never asked if we wanted him to accept this
apology or to even accept it. The supporting
remarks were made by the heads of colonially
funded “puppy dog” organizations that jump to
their “master’s” commands.
The money being offered to some of the victims
is our own money. Any profit from our lands held
in trust is “blood money”. We want an economy.
Stop depriving us and forcing us out of our
communities. Release all our trust funds
immediately. Everything that was “kicked back”
to the Vatican must be returned to us. These
churches that committed these atrocities have
investments from our lands worth billions and
have declared stock portfolios well over $100
million. Release these to us. Give us our funds
that the Canadian government holds as “trust
funds”, namely the “Indian Fund”, the
“Consolidated Revenue Fund” and the
“Contingent Liability Fund”.
All levels of government should stop issuing
illegal permits for exploitation of our lands and
resources. Stop using our land and resources as
collateral to borrow on international money
markets.
The Queen and all the other “carpet baggers” who
head the corporate criminal organizations that
murder, rape and pillage us and our possessions
should now be prosecuted in the international
court for their crimes.
Our parents were threatened with imprisonment
if they did not release their children to the control
of the church and state. How long does it take to
forget what our children saw – other children
being murdered and even being forced to help
bury them. They were deliberately given
contagious diseases from which many died.
There was out-and-out murder of over 50,000
at the hands of teachers, priests, nuns and staff.
Our children were used in experiments by German
doctors in the 1930’s and then disposed of. The
children were threatened to never tell anyone
about it.
It was the “I Apologize” Show, with Phil in a war
bonnet, with smudging, all players with their
scripts in hand and an audience seated
strategically around. Someone on cue even
yelled from the House of Commons gallery, “Way
to go, Phil. You are our leader”. This government
sanctioned desperado is not our leader! The
sanitized plot did not include murder, torture,
sterilization, kids witnessing killings and medical
experiments on them.
You, the abusers, are in dire need of healing. In
Australia the prime minister apologized to the
Aborigines and they now live under a form of
‘martial law’! What will happen now when the army
is brought in on us as happened in 1990?
Kahentinetha Horn
MNN Mohawk Nation News
May 20, 2008
Oh, happy news! BuZh to give Saudi Arabia enriched uranium
Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
Posted on May 20, 2008 by dandelionsalad
Democracy Now!
May 20, 2008
As US Threatens Iran Over Enriching Uranium, Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
The Bush administration has pledged to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program, including supplying enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The agreement came out of President Bush’s visit to the Saudi kingdom last week, during which Bush also pledged new US assistance in guarding Saudi oil reserves.
Harvey Wasserman, one of the founders of the grassroots movement against nuclear power. He is senior editor of the Ohio-based freepress.org and the editor of nukefree.org.
democracynow.org
. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
***
Bush promises Enriched Uranium to Saudis for cheap gas
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
April 30, 2008
Michael Bryant, MY MP, you represent PEOPLE not corporations!!
There is nothing lawless about these demonstrations.
Ontario is involved in CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
and creating political prisoners.
Compelling reasons to keep negotiating
Posted 3 hours ago
Six Nations people have been negotiating with the federal and provincial governments for two years over a land claim at Caledonia.
Tyendinaga Mohawks have occupied a quarry at Deseronto for more than a year as part of another land claim.
And last year, people of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation took over land near Sharbot Lake, protesting a proposed uranium mining operation. That protest resulted in the jailing of Bob Lovelace.
There are common themes running through all three situations:
they are contentious developments that are opposed by the local natives, and sometimes their non-native supporters;
natives accusing the provincial government of not negotiating with them in a timely manner;
protests spilling over onto public roads;
arrests by OPP officers often involving violent clashes;
Ontario Provincial Police telling the public they will deal only with the public disturbances, not the land-claim issue;
the provincial government saying it will deal only with the land claims, not the disturbances.
The manner in which the province and the provincial police have been dealing with these situations is guided by one crucial lesson: the fatal shooting of native protester Dudley George in 1995 by an OPP officer during the Ipperwash standoff.
This is a good thing. We don't want any more deaths or bloody confrontations. But this also places a greater onus on native groups to be responsible.
Last week, Tyendinaga Mohawks erected a blockade on a busy highway. Police moved in and took it down peacefully.
On Friday afternoon, protest leader Shawn Brant was arrested and charged with various crimes not related to the blockade. A group of his supporters moved in, smashing a police cruiser's window and injuring two officers.
By Friday night, Six Nations Mohawks had thrown up a blockade at a highway interchange near Caledonia in support of Shawn Brant.
Brant and the Tyendinaga protesters, meantime, were essentially disowned by the band council. "There must be an end to road blockades, violence, and any conduct that has the potential to further inflame the situation," said Chief Donald Maracle.
Confused? Many Ontarians are frustrated with these eruptions of lawlessness, but also with the lack of progress in land claims talks.
The opposition Conservatives this week pressed Michael Bryant, the province's aboriginal affairs minister, to cut off all talks until the barriers in Caledonia were removed. Bryant replied: "
If there is not negotiation taking place and the parties aren't talking, then how on Earth would progress be made?"Recently, Bryant said negotiations were on again.
It is precisely Bryant's job to keep all sides at the table. The reasons for urgent action are compelling: heightening native and non-native tensions; violent clashes between police and natives; radical native groups hijacking the agenda from legitimate representatives; and good people like Bob Lovelace being detained for peacefully standing his ground.
Article ID# 1006938
February 17, 2008
Inside Track: Close-Up on Clinton
by Ximena Ortiz
02.08.2008
Senator Hillary Clinton excelled in the recent rounds of primary voting with those constituencies that her carefully preened message seemed to target. Regardless of who ends up winning the primary race, Clinton has proven her political acumen by appreciating the numbers of voters that would not only favor the broad strokes with which she outlines some of her key foreign-policy positions, but would also remain undisturbed by the varying positions she has taken on other pivotal issues, such as the Iraq War and challenges posed by Iran.
While Clinton has broad experience to highlight on the campaign trail, she appeared to have been at a considerable disadvantage on the substance of some of her positions, vis-à-vis her main rival Senator Barack Obama, who proved in a 2002 speech his foresight of the troubles to come in Iraq. Not only did Clinton cast in 2002 her widely discussed vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she also in December 2003 sharply criticized President Bush for possibly having an exit strategy in Iraq—a position Clinton is now campaigning on—and called for more troops to be sent to the theater. And when she was asked directly about the politically risky position that then-Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean had taken in opposition to the Iraq War, Clinton maintained neutrality.
Clinton has also been notably successful in addressing the potentially damaging revelations about the context in which former President Bill Clinton praised Kazakhstan’s autocrat, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 2005. Shortly before the primary’s critical Super Tuesday, the New York Times revealed in a front-page article that the former president had made the statements and trip to Kazakhstan alongside a key donor to his foundation, and that the donor later received a lucrative contract to mine uranium in that country.
The Voters
According to exit polls, Clinton did well with those voters that said they valued experience and presumably favored her exposure to Washington’s political process—a quality that Obama’s supporters appeared to take exception to. The elderly favored Clinton as did those of that were generally less affluent and those that had less education. Obama claimed those voters that said they wanted to see change and were especially concerned about the war in Iraq.
Those polls indicate that Clinton seemed to understand that large numbers of voters wanted only a modicum of change and would support an experienced Washington “insider” able to work with so-called special interests in negotiating deals on the issues that mattered to them, such as health care, the sub-prime mortgage crisis and other matters. Indeed, these were some of the qualities that the New York Times cited in its editorial endorsing Clinton.
But apart from the general preferences and demographics of voters exhibited in exit polls, it is difficult to determine who Clinton’s supporters are, why they voted for her and what her mandate is. Do the primary voters that supported Clinton favor ending America’s military adventures in the Middle East, or do they want Washington to more aggressively confront Iran, possibly militarily? Do they support a multilateral approach to addressing some of the key foreign-policy issues of today, or do they believe America should act unilaterally? Given the diversity of Clinton’s positions, her supporters could easily believe in any of these juxtaposing positions.
According to pollsters, Clinton struggles with voters that consider themselves independents. But according to some anecdotal exit interviews with voters, Obama’s call for change may have been a negative with other constituencies. In an article about the broad (if qualified) support that Jewish voters are giving Hillary Clinton in New York City and Long Island, Jewish Week reported that one voter said: “I never thought I would say so, but I voted for Hillary. . . . But more importantly, I voted against Obama. He scares me.”
And though Clinton is now making her plan to withdraw troops a cornerstone of her campaign, one Brooklyn voter told the newspaper: “I feel Obama doesn’t have the experience. . . . If he pulls the troops out of Iraq there’ll be chaos, Iran will get the upper hand and that’s no good for Israel, that’s for sure. Israel’s a big concern, it has to be.” If there is confusion about what Clinton’s current positions are, it may be due to the seeming disparity of some her positions.
On Iran
Clinton’s much-discussed support for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization, has prompted some critics, including Obama, to charge the senator with potentially providing Bush with the political pretext to take America to war with Iran. Obama was absent from the vote and later said he would have voted against it. But some of Clinton’s own statements on Iran are perhaps more noteworthy.
Given her campaign call to end the war in Iraq and “repair all the relationships that have been damaged by President Bush, on [this] very continent [and] across the globe” (January 28, 2008, Hartford, Connecticut), some of Clinton’s backers may expect that she would preside over a less-bellicose foreign policy. But on Iran those expectations may be unwarranted. During a speech in Princeton University on January, 19, 2006, Clinton accused the Bush Administration of not being forceful, or unilateral, enough on Iran:
I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
Clinton’s also appeared to suggest that a draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq should be completed to potentially confront Iran more aggressively:
Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq. . . . I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.
Those statements may be surprising to those voters who thought they were supporting a conclusion to America’s military activity in the Middle East by supporting Clinton. Indeed, in some of her more recent speeches—such as the July speech in Des Moines—Clinton has strongly suggested that Iran could be dealt with through negotiation and has not reiterated her position that she would not “take any option off the table.” In that July speech she said: “Unfortunately, for most of the past six years, President Bush has adopted a simple and fundamentally flawed strategy for dealing with these countries: we don't talk to bad people.” She added, “I think you agree with me that we strongly disagree with this approach. Even during the Cold War, we never stopped speaking to the Soviet Union. Even when they had thousands of missiles pointed at us. . . . We know this approach can be as effective now as it was back then.” She added, “When I am president, we will deal with Syria and Iran right from the beginning, we will engage them in open, frank, tough-minded discussions about the status of Iraq. And we will convey our strong, bi-partisan position that Iran cannot be allowed obtain nuclear weapons.”
On Iraq
When MSNBC’s Tim Russert interviewed Hillary Clinton in December 7, 2003, some key Democrats, including the then-ascendant Howard Dean—had taken bold stances in opposition of the Iraq War. As Russert notes, some key Democratic strategists had warned against such a stand:
Let me turn to the domestic situation. Leon Panetta, who was your husband’s chief of staff, had this to say about Howard Dean the other day: ‘There clearly are concerns about Dean’s ability to appeal to the entire country, particularly on national security issues. . . . There is concern about how does [Dean’s antiwar campaign] play out a year from now? How can you compete with President Bush on the national security front? There’s some concern about whether Dean can rise to the occasion on these issues.’ Do you believe that Howard Dean has the experience in foreign policy and national security and the temperament to be president of the United States?
In the interview, Clinton sidestepped the opportunity to defend Dean’s stance, which she could have done even while declining to back a particular nominee. Clinton said, “Well, Tim, I’m not going to comment on any of the nominees, because I have taken a neutral position.” Further, she took a stance that seems broadly reflective of Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, in lambasting the way the Iraq War had been prosecuted, but not the war itself or even the decision to go to war.
Importantly, in that same interview, Clinton took aim at the Bush administration for contemplating what she perceived as a potential exit strategy from Iraq, now a central element of her platform: “It is clear that there is some concern that the process in Iraq for elections is being driven not by the conditions on the ground in Iraq but by the time table for our own elections. That the administration is intent upon some kind of exit strategy, some kind of transition before our elections,” said Clinton.
And in contrast to the Democrats that were calling for a conclusion to the war, Clinton advocated for sending more troops to Iraq. When Russert asked Clinton: “So if the president came forward and said, ‘We need another 50,000 American troops for Iraq,’ you’d look at that favorably?” Clinton responded, “I would look at it very carefully and I would say, ‘You know, let’s get the job done.’”
And later in the interview, Clinton’s statement on Iraq sounded strikingly similar to that used by Bush administration officials. She said: “And I think that, given the globalization of information and communication, we have to be very forthright in saying, you know, ‘Failure is not an option. We are going to stay the course,’ but we’ve got to figure out what the course is.”
Also, on Iraq Clinton has been dropping some of the caveats she placed on her earlier statements regarding the war. Last week in Hartford she said, “I believe we can restore American leadership and moral authority in the world, beginning with ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home within sixty days of when I become President.” She did not again reference “leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities,” as she did in her 2006 Princeton address, without specifying just what size a “smaller contingent” would be. And in “Hillary Clinton’s Plan for to End the War in Iraq as President,” available on Clinton’s official website, she again does not make mention of such a contingent. The last sentence of the plan does reads: “She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.” Clinton does not specify the size such specialized units would be, where they would be based, or whether they will have authority to strike only in Iraq, or beyond.
And though Clinton criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more unilaterally and forcefully on Iran in Princeton in 2006, she has also promised to repair America’s broken relationships and to address the challenges of Iraq, in the wake of a U.S. drawdown of troops, through a multilateral framework. “As it stands now, the United States is shouldering far too great a share of the financial burden for rebuilding Iraq,” said Clinton in her July speech in Des Moines. “As of February 2007, foreign donors had made good on only about 4 billion dollars of the 15 billion in pledges from the Madrid Conference. Some wealthy Gulf nations have come up especially short. Countries around the world also have a stake in Iraq's future—and they should contribute to securing it.” Clinton does not specify, though, how the nations that would be disinvited from negotiations with Iran would be inclined to donate to billions of dollars to Iraq in wake of a military mission they originally objected to
On Kazakhstan and Bill Clinton
On Sunday in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Clinton defended the statements made by her husband during his visit to Kazakhstan, alongside the Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who was later awarded a uranium-mining deal that had been sought by large multinationals with broad experience in the region. Bill Clinton had suggested that Nazarbayev could become head of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which promotes human rights and democracy, despite Hillary Clinton’s criticism of the leader for his repressive policies. Giustra subsequently donated $31 million to Bill Clinton’s foundation.
When asked about the trip and her husband’s statements, Clinton said:
The Kazakhstan issue highlights part of the difficulty in parsing the positions of Senator Clinton from those of her husband. Many commentators are correctly reticent to hold the senator responsible for some of the policies and statements of the former president, and it is perhaps partly due to that restraint that the senator’s response to the Kazakhstan issue has not received greater coverage. Still, Clinton should be held accountable for her own statements regarding the former president, particularly if they are inconsistent.
Regardless of whether Clinton did or did not contradict herself on Kazakhstan and other issues, the senator appears to have neutralized those questions with graceful facility. And while Clinton did not demonstrate any remarkable foresight or political valor on Iraq, she can be forgiven for some evolution of her positions as conditions in that country deteriorated. Still, voters and the media should press her to elaborate on some of her vaguer current positions. And both can legitimately question whether, as president, Clinton would act in the long-range interests of the country or turn a keener eye on the political temperaments of the moment.
While Clinton has broad experience to highlight on the campaign trail, she appeared to have been at a considerable disadvantage on the substance of some of her positions, vis-à-vis her main rival Senator Barack Obama, who proved in a 2002 speech his foresight of the troubles to come in Iraq. Not only did Clinton cast in 2002 her widely discussed vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq, she also in December 2003 sharply criticized President Bush for possibly having an exit strategy in Iraq—a position Clinton is now campaigning on—and called for more troops to be sent to the theater. And when she was asked directly about the politically risky position that then-Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean had taken in opposition to the Iraq War, Clinton maintained neutrality.
Clinton has also been notably successful in addressing the potentially damaging revelations about the context in which former President Bill Clinton praised Kazakhstan’s autocrat, Nursultan Nazarbayev, in 2005. Shortly before the primary’s critical Super Tuesday, the New York Times revealed in a front-page article that the former president had made the statements and trip to Kazakhstan alongside a key donor to his foundation, and that the donor later received a lucrative contract to mine uranium in that country.
The Voters
According to exit polls, Clinton did well with those voters that said they valued experience and presumably favored her exposure to Washington’s political process—a quality that Obama’s supporters appeared to take exception to. The elderly favored Clinton as did those of that were generally less affluent and those that had less education. Obama claimed those voters that said they wanted to see change and were especially concerned about the war in Iraq.
Those polls indicate that Clinton seemed to understand that large numbers of voters wanted only a modicum of change and would support an experienced Washington “insider” able to work with so-called special interests in negotiating deals on the issues that mattered to them, such as health care, the sub-prime mortgage crisis and other matters. Indeed, these were some of the qualities that the New York Times cited in its editorial endorsing Clinton.
But apart from the general preferences and demographics of voters exhibited in exit polls, it is difficult to determine who Clinton’s supporters are, why they voted for her and what her mandate is. Do the primary voters that supported Clinton favor ending America’s military adventures in the Middle East, or do they want Washington to more aggressively confront Iran, possibly militarily? Do they support a multilateral approach to addressing some of the key foreign-policy issues of today, or do they believe America should act unilaterally? Given the diversity of Clinton’s positions, her supporters could easily believe in any of these juxtaposing positions.
According to pollsters, Clinton struggles with voters that consider themselves independents. But according to some anecdotal exit interviews with voters, Obama’s call for change may have been a negative with other constituencies. In an article about the broad (if qualified) support that Jewish voters are giving Hillary Clinton in New York City and Long Island, Jewish Week reported that one voter said: “I never thought I would say so, but I voted for Hillary. . . . But more importantly, I voted against Obama. He scares me.”
And though Clinton is now making her plan to withdraw troops a cornerstone of her campaign, one Brooklyn voter told the newspaper: “I feel Obama doesn’t have the experience. . . . If he pulls the troops out of Iraq there’ll be chaos, Iran will get the upper hand and that’s no good for Israel, that’s for sure. Israel’s a big concern, it has to be.” If there is confusion about what Clinton’s current positions are, it may be due to the seeming disparity of some her positions.
On Iran
Clinton’s much-discussed support for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization, has prompted some critics, including Obama, to charge the senator with potentially providing Bush with the political pretext to take America to war with Iran. Obama was absent from the vote and later said he would have voted against it. But some of Clinton’s own statements on Iran are perhaps more noteworthy.
Given her campaign call to end the war in Iraq and “repair all the relationships that have been damaged by President Bush, on [this] very continent [and] across the globe” (January 28, 2008, Hartford, Connecticut), some of Clinton’s backers may expect that she would preside over a less-bellicose foreign policy. But on Iran those expectations may be unwarranted. During a speech in Princeton University on January, 19, 2006, Clinton accused the Bush Administration of not being forceful, or unilateral, enough on Iran:
I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
Clinton’s also appeared to suggest that a draw-down of U.S. troops from Iraq should be completed to potentially confront Iran more aggressively:
Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq. . . . I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.
Those statements may be surprising to those voters who thought they were supporting a conclusion to America’s military activity in the Middle East by supporting Clinton. Indeed, in some of her more recent speeches—such as the July speech in Des Moines—Clinton has strongly suggested that Iran could be dealt with through negotiation and has not reiterated her position that she would not “take any option off the table.” In that July speech she said: “Unfortunately, for most of the past six years, President Bush has adopted a simple and fundamentally flawed strategy for dealing with these countries: we don't talk to bad people.” She added, “I think you agree with me that we strongly disagree with this approach. Even during the Cold War, we never stopped speaking to the Soviet Union. Even when they had thousands of missiles pointed at us. . . . We know this approach can be as effective now as it was back then.” She added, “When I am president, we will deal with Syria and Iran right from the beginning, we will engage them in open, frank, tough-minded discussions about the status of Iraq. And we will convey our strong, bi-partisan position that Iran cannot be allowed obtain nuclear weapons.”
On Iraq
When MSNBC’s Tim Russert interviewed Hillary Clinton in December 7, 2003, some key Democrats, including the then-ascendant Howard Dean—had taken bold stances in opposition of the Iraq War. As Russert notes, some key Democratic strategists had warned against such a stand:
Let me turn to the domestic situation. Leon Panetta, who was your husband’s chief of staff, had this to say about Howard Dean the other day: ‘There clearly are concerns about Dean’s ability to appeal to the entire country, particularly on national security issues. . . . There is concern about how does [Dean’s antiwar campaign] play out a year from now? How can you compete with President Bush on the national security front? There’s some concern about whether Dean can rise to the occasion on these issues.’ Do you believe that Howard Dean has the experience in foreign policy and national security and the temperament to be president of the United States?
In the interview, Clinton sidestepped the opportunity to defend Dean’s stance, which she could have done even while declining to back a particular nominee. Clinton said, “Well, Tim, I’m not going to comment on any of the nominees, because I have taken a neutral position.” Further, she took a stance that seems broadly reflective of Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, in lambasting the way the Iraq War had been prosecuted, but not the war itself or even the decision to go to war.
Importantly, in that same interview, Clinton took aim at the Bush administration for contemplating what she perceived as a potential exit strategy from Iraq, now a central element of her platform: “It is clear that there is some concern that the process in Iraq for elections is being driven not by the conditions on the ground in Iraq but by the time table for our own elections. That the administration is intent upon some kind of exit strategy, some kind of transition before our elections,” said Clinton.
And in contrast to the Democrats that were calling for a conclusion to the war, Clinton advocated for sending more troops to Iraq. When Russert asked Clinton: “So if the president came forward and said, ‘We need another 50,000 American troops for Iraq,’ you’d look at that favorably?” Clinton responded, “I would look at it very carefully and I would say, ‘You know, let’s get the job done.’”
And later in the interview, Clinton’s statement on Iraq sounded strikingly similar to that used by Bush administration officials. She said: “And I think that, given the globalization of information and communication, we have to be very forthright in saying, you know, ‘Failure is not an option. We are going to stay the course,’ but we’ve got to figure out what the course is.”
Also, on Iraq Clinton has been dropping some of the caveats she placed on her earlier statements regarding the war. Last week in Hartford she said, “I believe we can restore American leadership and moral authority in the world, beginning with ending the war in Iraq and bringing our troops home within sixty days of when I become President.” She did not again reference “leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities,” as she did in her 2006 Princeton address, without specifying just what size a “smaller contingent” would be. And in “Hillary Clinton’s Plan for to End the War in Iraq as President,” available on Clinton’s official website, she again does not make mention of such a contingent. The last sentence of the plan does reads: “She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.” Clinton does not specify the size such specialized units would be, where they would be based, or whether they will have authority to strike only in Iraq, or beyond.
And though Clinton criticized the Bush administration for failing to act more unilaterally and forcefully on Iran in Princeton in 2006, she has also promised to repair America’s broken relationships and to address the challenges of Iraq, in the wake of a U.S. drawdown of troops, through a multilateral framework. “As it stands now, the United States is shouldering far too great a share of the financial burden for rebuilding Iraq,” said Clinton in her July speech in Des Moines. “As of February 2007, foreign donors had made good on only about 4 billion dollars of the 15 billion in pledges from the Madrid Conference. Some wealthy Gulf nations have come up especially short. Countries around the world also have a stake in Iraq's future—and they should contribute to securing it.” Clinton does not specify, though, how the nations that would be disinvited from negotiations with Iran would be inclined to donate to billions of dollars to Iraq in wake of a military mission they originally objected to
On Kazakhstan and Bill Clinton
On Sunday in an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, Clinton defended the statements made by her husband during his visit to Kazakhstan, alongside the Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who was later awarded a uranium-mining deal that had been sought by large multinationals with broad experience in the region. Bill Clinton had suggested that Nazarbayev could become head of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which promotes human rights and democracy, despite Hillary Clinton’s criticism of the leader for his repressive policies. Giustra subsequently donated $31 million to Bill Clinton’s foundation.
When asked about the trip and her husband’s statements, Clinton said:
Well, let me set the record straight. He went to Kazakhstan to sign an agreement with the government to provide low-cost drugs for HIV/AIDS, a growing problem in central Asia. While he was there, he met with opposition leaders and certainly spoke out about, you know, the hopes that we have to have a good relationship with that country.”She then suggested that the differences of her statements on Nazarbayev proved her independence from her husband and former president:
“I have been on record for many years against the anti-democratic regime, calling for changes, standing against efforts that would bring them into positions of leadership in the global community without their making changes. So I think it is clear that I will stand on my own two feet. I will say what I believe. And I will be a president who pursues policies that I think are in the best interests of our country.”But the clarity of Clinton’s argument became less apparent when Wallace pushed her further, and asked whether a difference in position between her and her husband on Kazakhstan would not cause some confusion. Clinton not only justified the position of her husband by pointing out that Vice President Cheney—who Clinton has criticized repeatedly in the past—had taken a similar one, she also strongly suggested that she did, in fact, agree with her husband’s statements and that they reflected the positions she would take as president as part of her counterterror strategy:
Well, Dick Cheney also went to Kazakhstan and praised the current regime. You know, you sometimes have to use both carrots and sticks to move these regimes to do what they should be doing. But I don't think there's any doubt about where I stand and what I intend to do. Obviously, these are difficult problems that require seasoned leadership. We have a lot of interests in that part of the world with natural resources and trying to make sure there's a bulwark against spreading extremism.
The Kazakhstan issue highlights part of the difficulty in parsing the positions of Senator Clinton from those of her husband. Many commentators are correctly reticent to hold the senator responsible for some of the policies and statements of the former president, and it is perhaps partly due to that restraint that the senator’s response to the Kazakhstan issue has not received greater coverage. Still, Clinton should be held accountable for her own statements regarding the former president, particularly if they are inconsistent.
Regardless of whether Clinton did or did not contradict herself on Kazakhstan and other issues, the senator appears to have neutralized those questions with graceful facility. And while Clinton did not demonstrate any remarkable foresight or political valor on Iraq, she can be forgiven for some evolution of her positions as conditions in that country deteriorated. Still, voters and the media should press her to elaborate on some of her vaguer current positions. And both can legitimately question whether, as president, Clinton would act in the long-range interests of the country or turn a keener eye on the political temperaments of the moment.
Ximena Ortiz is a senior editor at The National Interest.
February 16, 2008
Ontario Algonquin uranium protest chief is jailed
Friends,
"Maybe we are going to use nuclear weapons before anyone else, but I'd be wary of saying it out loud."- Robert Cooper, an influential shaper of European foreign and security policy in Brussels. [from the Guardian article noted.]
Algonquin chief to serve jail term
By Bruce Ward, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, February 15, 2008An aboriginal leader who defied the law by staging protests at a potential uranium mining site near Sharbot Lake was sentenced Friday to six months in jail for contempt of court.
The jail sentence makes Robert Lovelace, co-chief of Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, "a political prisoner," said lawyer Chris Reid, who represented Mr. Lovelace in the case.
"Bob Lovelace is a political prisoner and he is in jail because (Ontario Premier) Dalton McGuinty and (Aboriginal Affairs Minister) Michael Bryant refused to consult with this community. The Ardoch Algonquin have made numerous proposals to Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bryant to have discussions to peacefully resolve the issue around uranium mining in their territory."
"They instructed their lawyers to sit in court this week and say nothing while the lawyers for the mining company asked for six-month jail terms and punitive fines. The fact that Mr. Lovelace is in jail today is one hundred per cent the fault of Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Bryant.
Paula Sherman, co-chief of the Ardoch Algonquin, was also sentenced to six months by Justice Douglas Cunningham in a Kingston court yesterday after being found guilty of contempt of court.
But Ms. Sherman, the single mother of three children, was spared jail time in return for agreeing to obey the court injunctions. This means she must stay away from the site and not participate in any protests there.
Mr. Lovelace was also fined $25,000, and Ms. Sherman $15,000. Although Ms. Sherman will not be behind bars, the judge ruled that she must pay the fine.
Both co-chiefs had admitted taking part in protests on the property, near Sharbot Lake, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Kingston. Two court rulings had granted Frontenac Ventures Corp., a mining exploration company, access to the site to carry out test drilling for uranium.
Protesters from both the Shabot Obaadjiwan and Ardoch Algonquin First Nations occupied the disputed site from late June to mid-October last year, defying court injunctions that ordered them off the site and gave police the authority to arrest them.
The Algonquin protesters maintain the site is on their land. They are concerned that uranium drilling could lead to environmental contamination.
The occupation ended after the Ontario government agreed to mediation talks. But the protests began again this month after those talks failed.
Mr. Reid also said the Algonquin community was also fined $10,000.
"This is a community that has no funding from anywhere. They raise money through concerts and bake sales. They are not funded by the federal government. So they'll lose out. The community is essentially bankrupted by this decision."
The statement of defence in the case, which challenged the constitutional validity of the Ontario Mining Act, was struck out by the judge.
"When your statement of defence is struck out, you're gone," said Mr. Reid. "You can't bring motions, you can't do anything.
"The punishment for contempt of court is all about punishing people because, instead of going to court to seek remedies against the government, they used what he (the judge) called self-help. It seems utterly perverse to me to say were going to punish you for that by kicking you out court. This kind of decision, it leaves people nothing to lose. Any rational person would ask, if you're going to kick people out of the court, how can you then expect them to not use self-help?"
The blockade began when the Algonquins discovered that Frontenac Ventures Corporation had begun removing trees and blasting rock to prepare for exploration for uranium near Sharbot Lake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
