Critial Legal (not Lawyers) Conference

The Critical Legal Conference celebrates its 24th happening in London at the Law School , Birkbeck College , with a conference that tackles the theme of 'Walls' in an aim to renew and challenge our understanding of the structures, process, barriers and limits that bar possibilities. Below you will find our call for papers that invites your participation in this venture. The conference takes place on 14-16 September 2007. Further details may be found at our website www.criticallegalconference.com.

'We have a maxim in the House of Commons, and written on the walls of our houses, that old ways are the safest and surest ways.' - Chief Justice Edward Coke

The early stages of the 21st century feature an increasing deployment of the structures of separation. Walls manifest themselves in a plethora of discourses, places and aspects of life, in both material and figural constellations: the niqab and the face, the Palestinian/Israeli and the US/Mexico Wall, the North-South divide, immigration and integration, democracy and totalitarianism, ideology and religion, detention centres and the law, and even divisions within the critical study of law itself.

'Walls' are some of the most active of objects. In either their physical or figural manifestations, they do obvious things: they create an inside and an outside, they divide internally and externally, they bring together populations and shred them apart, they demand unity and exclusion, they provide security and become the symbols of resistance, they produce discourse and inequalities, death and a life that resembles it. To be precise walls play an active role in the destruction and the government of life. But what most surprises us is their silent participation, through well sedimented emotions and knowledges of ourselves and the world, which blocks our view and limits our horizons of visibility and possibility. Walls may feed our fears and anxieties, but also may propel us to move beyond them, to look over the conditions that limit our thought, action and imagination - in fact, walls demand thought, action and imagination, they demand that we think of them as active objects. Walls may become the very materiality of creativity, releasing into our world different outlooks and possibilities: Dostoyevsky wrote The Priest and the Devil on his prison walls; The Sex Pistols single Holidays in the Sun demanded “go over the Berlin Wall” publicising the division of a city; or Banksy, who appropriates public walls though his (political) graffiti.

The Critical Legal Conference invites us to participate in re-thinking and re-imagining Walls, along with the material conditions that contribute to their construction and active/silent participation in dividing worlds, views and populations. This is not necessarily a call to tear down the Walls (perhaps they can serve a valid purpose strategically), rather it is a call to think which ramparts are worth defending, and which should be allowed to fall? And beyond such militaristic tropes this is a call to think the regeneration of some of their more productive and radical effects, to think the possibility of Walls and the possibilities beyond them.

We welcome papers and participation from students and academics that work in the fields of social theory and the humanities, socio-legal and critical legal studies, activists and people from the arts.

Please submit papers to stream leaders (email addresses available on from www.criticallegalconference.com/programme.html, please follow links to the stream you are interested in), or email the committee at clc2007@bbk.ac.uk.

The Call for Papers closes on Friday the 13th of July 2007.

www.criticallegalconference.com

Best,

CLC Committee 2007

Anti-Capitalist conference

Social and Cultural Movements Group, Edge Hill University

3rd International Conference

on the theme of

Anti-Capitalism: Movement of Movements?

Edge Hill University
18th - 20th September 2007.

The radical movement politics of the 21st century has thus far been anti-capitalist politics - a fusion of anti-globalisation, ecology, anti-war and left politics that has sought to counter the machinations of states, supranational organisation in a globalising world and corporate power. Often called the ?movement of movements? it represents a critical alliance of disparate movements along a common set of broad themes around democracy, peace, ecology, anti-imperialism and opposition to the pernicious and debilitating impacts of contemporary capitalism. Seem variously as a development from and triumph of movement politics, a reassertion of left critique in radical politics and a new strategic challenge to the contemporary capitalism of empire, the politics of identity and consumption and resurgent neo-conservatism, the task of understanding, theorising and critically engaging with anti-capitalism is a critical step in thinking where it goes next and how it builds a momentum of radical resistance to capitalism in its democratic and authoritarian forms.

This conference seeks to offer a space for constructive critical engagement, the airing of key conceptual, intellectual and political debates and contributions that reflect the diverse range of analyses of anti-capitalism in its global manifestations. We welcome papers and contributions from academics and activists on: theories and conceptual debates in anti-capitalism; theory and politics of the anti-capitalism movement(s); understanding anti-capitalist movement politics; anti-capitalism and social movements in a global context and across the globe.

The conference last from the morning of Wednesday 19th to the early afternoon of Friday 21st September. There are residential and non-residential conference tariffs and a limited number of reduced tariff available.

Deadline for Submissions for Abstracts for Papers - 30th June 2007
Deadline for Registration for the Conference - 31st July 2007
Deadline for Papers to be available for advance
Circulation - 31st August 2007
Key note speakers to be notified shortly

This conference is organised in conjunction with Historical Materialism: International Journal of Critical Marxist Theory

Contact: Roger Spalding, Social and Cultural Movements Group, Edge Hill University, St. Helen?s Road, Ormskirk, Lancs L39 4PQ, UK e-mail:spaldr@edgehill.ac.uk

Economic, social and cultural rights are human rights

The Economist magazine asked a very important question on 22 March 2007: "Are not access to jobs, housing, health care and food basic rights too?" According to The Economist, such rights are not human rights: "...few rights are truly universal, and letting them multiply weakens them."

Amnesty International disagrees. The right to adequate food, the highest attainable standard of health and education are as much human rights as are freedom of expression or the right to a fair trial. Nearly sixty years ago, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted recognising the principle that human rights are universal and indivisible -- that all human rights should be enjoyed by all people. This is at the heart of AI's mission.

Although Amnesty International disagrees with the views expressed in The Economist, we encourage debate on this issue. It is widely recognised that nobody can enjoy their civil and political rights unless their economic, social and cultural rights are also respected, protected and fulfilled. Similarly, people cannot enjoy their economic, social and cultural rights unless their civil and political rights are also respected.

But, don't take our word for it, here's your chance to make up your own mind:

Read the original articles in The Economist:
Leader: Stand up for your rights
Many rights, some wrong


Then read the responses from (sent to Economist and also to AI):

Independent polls (see Edelman's Public Trust Barometer) show AI consistently tracking above most commercial and NGO brands in Western Europe and significantly increasing its support in the US. " -- Lilian Goncalves, the Chair of Amnesty International's International Executive Committee


There is growing recognition of the vision that moved the drafters of the Universal Declaration, that it is impossible to enjoy one set of rights without the other. " -- Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (also published on the Economist site)


Human rights organizations like Amnesty have ample evidence to show how greater attention to economic, social and cultural rights supports development efforts by focusing attention on the disadvantaged and providing the standard against which governments can be held accountable for lack of progress on health indicators over time." -- Mary Robinson, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; former President of Ireland; current President of Realizing Rights - the Ethical Globalization Initiative (also published on the Economist site)


There is nowadays a broad international understanding about a holistic approach to human rights, and a close inter-relationship between civil, political, economic and social rights. " -- Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights


... I commend Amnesty International for lending support for social and economic rights that are in no way a “distraction” and which complement the traditional rights which The Economist has always championed." -- Justice Richard Goldstone, former Justice, Constitutional Court of South Africa, and former Chief Prosecutor to the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (also published on the Economist site)


Amnesty were human rights pioneers in the 1960s. Today, by taking economic, social and cultural rights seriously, they remain in the human rights vanguard." -- Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to the highest attainable standard of health (also published on the Economist site)


Almost 60 years ago -- during the Cold War -- the whole world agreed in consecrating economic, social and cultural rights as fundamental human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. " -- Catarina de Albuquerque, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the United Nations Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 and includes both civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights, as do international human rights treaties adopted 40 years ago." -- Nicholas Howen, Secretary General of the International Commission of Jurists


When western powers drew up the UDHR post-World War Two they deliberately framed rights as universal, inalienable and indivisible (i.e. for everyone, can't be taken away, can't be separated) " -- Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International (also published on the Economist site)


Economic and social rights bring a much needed focus on accountability to development discussions, underscoring the legal as well as moral obligation to guide public policy towards the fulfilment of all dimensions of human well-being. " -- Eitan Felner, Executive Director, Center for Economic and Social Rights


Since their inclusion in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 - which was greatly inspired by FDR's Four Freedoms speech in 1944 in which freedom from want figured with great prominence - economic and social rights have been enshrined in scores of national constitutions. " -- Scott Leckie, Founder and Executive Director of the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)


Pursuing economic and social rights is not about fad or political vogue. It is about something altogether more old-fashioned: justice. " -- David Geer, Executive Director, INTERIGHTS, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights


Ultimately, the attempt to separate out economic rights from civil rights is a fool's errand: you cannot protect one without the other. " -- Dr Eric Metcalfe, Barrister and Director of Human Rights Policy, JUSTICE


It is unacceptable that more than 850 million human beings continue to go hungry everyday despite repeated – and repeatedly breached - commitments of governments and intergovernmental organizations." -- Flavio Valente, Secretary General, FIAN International, International Human Rights Organisation for the Right to Food


The distinction between civil and political rights and economic and social rights is fallacious; it ignores the complexity of human life and the fact that both categories of rights are integral to a life of dignity and freedom. " -- Julieta Rossi and Suad Elías of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights


Amnesty's concern is to ensure that all political systems respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To imply otherwise is ignorant or malicious. "-- Chip Pitts, Lecturer, Stanford Law School; President, Bill of Rights Defense Committee; Immediate Past Chair, Amnesty International USA; Former Chief Legal Officer, Nokia Inc. (also published on the Economist site)

Global Warming Suspicions and Confusions by Justin Podur

In recent years, a number of important contributions have influenced the growing debate on global warming. Paul Baer and Tom Athanasiou's book, Dead Heat, from a few years ago, was excellent. Noam Chomsky's latest book, Failed States, mentions global warming as one of the three more urgent problems humanity faces (the others being war and the lack of democratic institutions to deal with problems). George Monbiot's new book, Heat, provides a workable set of proposals for stabilizing the climate without draconian sacrifice (except commercial flight).

Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth cuts back and forth between cogent explanations of climate science and self-aggrandizement (Gore on the farm, Gore walking to the stage, Gore changing planes at the airport, Gore doing product placement typing on his Mac computer). Properly filtered, however, it provides an excellent introductory lecture on climate change. I wish that it had come from someone else, someone who hadn't vice-presided over the Iraq sanctions regime and the bombing of Yugoslavia. But the fact that Gore made it popular doesn't make it a sham. The terms of discussion for any major problem are usually set by elites, with the rest of us trying to sort out truth from falsehood and sensible policy from corporate propaganda after the fact.

Scientific issues, like any issues, take work and time to understand. Those who can't take the time to delve into the issues, and no one can delve into everything, look for credible sources. To leftists, Gore is simply not a credible source. He is seen as an apologist for the powerful interests he served while in office and callous about the people who suffered under his rule. Furthermore, leftists are suspicious of any elite consensus, including a scientific one. They know that dubious science is often trotted out to state why some regressive policy or other is justified. Leftists therefore need people credible to them to go back and do what Gore and Flannery did - to explain the basics of climate science. Much of what they would explain would be the same as Gore does, and the same ways - but it would not come from a tainted source, nor would it be tainted by political campaigning. Both Baer/Athanasiou's Dead Heat and Monbiot's Heat accept the scientific consensus on global warming and do not spend much time on the basic science, leaving that field to people like Gore and popular science writers like Tim Flannery, who wrote The Weather Makers.

The first problem for leftists trying to understand climate science is that they cannot trust Gore and they cannot automatically trust the scientific consensus. The next problem is that the best-known proposed solutions for dealing with the problem are flawed. The Kyoto Protocol, for example, is completely inadequate for stabilizing emissions. Carbon emissions trading and markets are designed to provide incentives to corporate emitters. Biofuels, in the form of palm oil and sugarcane plantations, are helping to displace peasants through paramilitary massacre in Colombia, contributing to dangerous food shortages, and in any case cause CO2 emissions just like fossil fuels do. If credible science is mixed with dubious pro-corporate policy, which is what Gore has to offer, leftists might feel the sensible thing to do is reject the whole package.

They need not do so, however. Monbiot's book, Heat, is principally about climate policy, and what policies would be necessary in order to stabilize the climate. He is not an advocate for carbon markets, which he recognizes as providing incentives to corporate polluters. What he does advocate, as Baer & Athanasiou advocated in Dead Heat, is a per-capita emissions quota, the same for everyone in the world. If only a certain amount of total CO2 emission is compatible with a stable climate, then the right to emit ought to be the same for everyone. Baer & Athanasiou's book, and their website, ecoequity.org, discuss a stabilization policy based on a per capita emissions quota. They argue that, because people in poor countries emit much less than their right and people in rich countries emit much more, a credible stabilization policy would include both reduction of emissions in the rich countries and the reduction of global inequality. Monbiot's book focuses on feasible technological and policy changes for bringing the CO2 emissions of first-world countries down to the per-capita quota. By showing that the worst emitters could achieve the necessary reduction without significant suffering, Monbiot debunks the notion that stabilizing the climate requires brutal austerity or the continuation of third-world poverty.

Monbiot is also clear on another point: that the impacts of global warming, like environmental problems in general, are not the same for everyone. Many environmentalists, including climate activists, believe that because we all have to live on the planet, we can all agree that environmental problems must be solved. But the wealthy and powerful have always been able to insulate themselves from the effects of environmental problems. They appropriate the territories and resources they want and leave others to starve or die. The hardest hit peoples, in countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia, are those who are already suffering tremendously. Hurricane Katrina in the United States is another case of how "natural" disaster does not unite elites with people but, instead, can be used to entrench ever more regressive relations.

If elites also control the parameters of discussion on a problem such as global warming, they can be expected to advocate not solving it, as they know their interests will be served regardless. If elites are advocating solutions, they will advocate solutions that will protect their interests, whether these actually solve the problem or not. Advocacy of ignoring or denying the problem is the model for parts of the petroleum industry, right-wing politicians and movements, and their PR machinery, which Monbiot calls "the Denial Industry". Advocacy of "solutions" that serve elite interests is the model for advocates of carbon markets and watered-down versions of Kyoto.

This leaves leftists, who oppose elite agendas, with two options. First, their suspicion of the sources on the science can lead them to the position that the scientific consensus is wrong. Alternatively, they can accept the science and then reject elite proposals for dealing with the problem and propose alternative policy suggestions in light of their own values and priorities, which is what I believe Monbiot has done, and Baer/Athanasiou before him.

Recent essays by leftists Alexander Cockburn, Denis Rancourt, and David Noble, in contrast, take the first position. They are reacting to a recent change in elite strategy on the problem of global warming. The initial elite strategy was that of complete denial, and it was successful in delaying any action on climate change for crucial years. The recent change of strategy by part of the elite (prompted perhaps by increasing evidence in every field that global warming is happening) seems to be to try to co-opt and control the discussion, if not of the problem itself, then of the possible solutions for it. These three activists (Cockburn, Rancourt, & Noble, or CRN) have reasonable suspicions of this rapid change of elite strategy and its expression in media hype about climate change. Their reactions, however, are in error. If their views are adopted by many leftists, elites will be able to claim that leftists are anti-science and anti-green, when what people most need are sensible green proposals that are also in accord with values of justice, equality, and solidarity.

In an essay on Counterpunch, Alexander Cockburn makes a number of claims about climate science that indicate a dismissal of the scientific consensus. He claims there is "zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend," for example. But the mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 causes warming ("the greenhouse effect") is well understood. So is the fact that anthropogenic production of CO2 is increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And so, too, is the current warming trend, which Cockburn acknowledges. Cockburn seeks to break the chain of reasoning (from CO2 causing warming, to anthropogenic increases of CO2 in the atmosphere contributing to warming) by suggesting that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 do not change atmospheric CO2 levels. He does so by referring to some data on CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from the 1920s and 1930s that say when anthropogenic emissions were low due to the Great Depression CO2 in the atmosphere did not change. He interprets this to mean that "it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels." But it is the very fact that CO2 is long-lived in the atmosphere (compared to water vapour, for example) that makes emissions of it such a serious problem. Even if the data he presents are accurate (the most reliable records of atmospheric CO2 begin in the 1960s) they cannot be taken to mean what he says they do. They could, instead, simply mean that there is a lag between changes in CO2 emission and changes in atmospheric concentration. One analogy a reader of the article at realclimate.org suggested was this: if you are filling a bathtub and turn off the tap, the bathtub does not instantly empty, nor does the fact that it doesn't empty make it impossible to assert a connection between the tap and the amount of water in the tub.

Cockburn was also answered in more general terms by Monbiot, who cautioned against dismissing an entire body of science with a series of fairly random assertions. Some of Cockburn's specific scientific claims were answered by climate scientists at realclimate.org. Cockburn was using his scientific claims as part of a larger argument that the market in CO2 emissions was like the market in papal indulgences during medieval times - a release for people's consciences that made profits for elites (the church in medieval times, corporations today) while exploiting people's guilt (for sin then or emissions now) without fundamentally changing anything. This valid point about carbon markets is thus combined with a dismissal of climate science and global warming as a serious problem using a number of false and discredited claims as evidence. This is too bad, because it will make readers doubt his other insights, and it abets the climate deniers.

Denis Rancourt, a physics professor and activist at the University of Ottawa, published a similar essay on his blog some weeks ago. In it, he sets out some of the standard scientific claims presented by denial industry spokespeople. These include notions that water vapor and solar radiation are the real culprit, not CO2 emissions, that warming is not such a big deal, and other arguments. Realclimate.org explain how water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and an important one, but it is much more short-lived in the atmosphere than CO2, and this makes it a "feedback", not a "forcing" like CO2 is. Realclimate.org also explains solar forcing: There are fluctuations in solar radiation, but they are not sufficient to explain the warming trend, nor would even the presence of significant solar radiation fluctuations make CO2 irrelevant. They also explain the lag between CO2 and temperature in the glacial record. Another useful resource to accompany Rancourt's essay is this collection of Q/A on "How to talk to a climate skeptic", by Coby Beck.

Rancourt's essay ends with a long list of "selected supporting references", but there are no citations for his individual claims, and therefore no way of knowing what references he has selected or whether it actually supports what he is saying. In between making his own scientific claims, which we are supposed to accept on his authority as a physicist, he argues that scientists are not to be believed and the scientific consensus is not to be trusted because "scientists are simple beings" who follow the herd. There is a contradiction here, between Rancourt making scientific claims in his blog, which we are supposed to accept because he is a scientist, and his attacking all scientists and all of science as conformist and conservative, which we are to accept on his authority, perhaps because of his inside knowledge of scientists.

I disagree with Rancourt on this entire issue of science. While science can be manipulated and a few scientists can always be found to provide the right statement for the right price (whether on climate, tobacco, or pharmaceuticals) I believe there are some things that can be known about the natural world, and scientists have uncovered some of these things, including about the climate system. How this knowledge is spun or used or ignored is another matter. But the appeal of science is that, given time and effort, we can understand things about the world. While this is no reason to completely defer to scientists, it is reason to give weight to arguments that are supported by the cumulative efforts of thousands of people who have spent time and care looking into an issue - more weight, in any case, than arguments recycled from the petroleum-funded denial industry.

In contrast, Rancourt's anti-science arguments suggest that there is no way to get at an objective understanding of the climate or, by extension, any other situation. Rancourt leaves readers to accept only his authority. The political or policy core of Rancourt's essay is, again, an attack on CO2 markets. He advocates various leftist policies, and argues that leftists should advocate these without reference to CO2 emissions or global warming, which is, to him, a dangerous diversion. By combining discredited scientific claims about global warming, an attack on science itself, and leftist positions on numerous issues, Rancourt has associated decent left positions with discredited and false claims and arguments.

David Noble, a friend of Rancourt's, a professor at York University and an activist, was, according to Rancourt's blog, inspired by Rancourt to write about the "global climate coup" for Canadian Dimension. Noble's argument is that global warming politics have derailed the global justice movement and diverted it into the dead end of CO2 markets. He shows how elite think-tanks and corporations have endorsed "solutions" to global warming that will increase their profits and power. His research on the corporate connections of various groups, first of the denialist persuasion, and then of the market-solutions persuasion, is useful. But he loses most of his credibility in his introduction, which implies that global warming is a funny joke:

"Don't breathe. There's a total war on against CO2 emissions, and you are releasing CO2 with every breath. The multi-media campaign against global warming now saturating our senses, which insists that an increasing CO2 component of greenhouse gases is the enemy, takes no prisoners: you are either with us or you are with the"deniers." No one can question the new orthodoxy or dare risk the sin of emission."

His credibility is further harmed by his conclusion, in which he calls Monbiot a dupe of the elite group that is creating hype about global warming, whose message Monbiot "unwittingly peddles with such passion." Noble calls Monbiot's book "embarrassing in its funneled focus and its naive deference to the authority of science... as if there was such a thing as science that was not also politics." Unlike Cockburn and Rancourt, Noble does not get into dubious scientific claims, but he does present global warming as if it is a diversionary elite campaign, or simply a joke, and not a serious problem. He could have made his case that elites are trying to divert attention from actual solutions to the problem (the substantive part of Monbiot's book, only the introduction of which Noble quotes) and towards creating new markets and new privileges and powers for themselves without so flippantly dismissing concern about the climate, presenting that concern as nothing more than an elite agenda, or suggesting that all science was politicized. By doing so, he associates a useful critique of elite cooptation of climate politics with a misrepresentation of the problem, its urgency, and the potential for solutions.

The strength of Monbiot's book is its presentation of a set of policies that could stabilize the climate in accord with values of justice and equity. Monbiot is as hard on phony capitalist climate schemes as Cockburn, Rancourt, or Noble (CRN) are, but he does not rest his political analysis on an attack on a body of science (as Cockburn and Rancourt do), or on an attack on science itself (as Rancourt and Noble do). The problem with these authors' mixing sensible policy proposals and cautions with false scientific claims and an anti-science tone is analogous to the problem of Gore's mixing of sensible science with elite agendas. If suspicion of Gore and elite CO2 market advocacy can drive leftists like CRN towards a position denying that global warming is a problem, then a reliance on discredited science or anti-science positions by leftists like CRN can drive people away from leftists (and leftists certainly don't need more ways of driving people away). The need is for leftists to understand and explain the science of global warming and to think of and advocate proposals for solving the problem in accord with values of equality and solidarity. Both Monbiot and Baer/Athanasiou have done some of that work. Instead CRN reject the science and dismiss the solutions like Kyoto or CO2 markets not because they are inadequate (which they are) or because they serve elite agendas (which they do), but because they conclude that there is no problem to solve in the first place. CRN are trying to open the wrong debate. Rather than a debate over the validity of discredited scientific positions, what is needed is a debate on how to resist the elite agendas that have led to the warming, then to its denial, and that now seek to co-opt movements for change. On this, I hope CRN might eventually agree.


Justin Podur is a writer and editor for ZNet. He can be reached at justin@killingtrain.com.

Halliburton

WHAT'S NEW ON CORPWATCH
Holding Corporations Accountable
<< http://www.corpwatch.org >>

Houston, May 15, 2007: CorpWatch and its partners today released an alternative
annual report on Halliburton titled: "Goodbye Houston" The new report was
prepared in association with Halliburton Watch and the Oil & Gas Accountability
Project.
http://corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14482


The new report (the fourth in the series) is being issued on the eve of
Halliburton 's annual general meeting in Woodlands, Texas, on Wednesday, May
16th, 2007. An in-depth, hard-hitting report, "Goodbye Houston," provides a
detailed look at Halliburton's military and energy operations around the world
as well as its political connections. It includes a series of recommendations
for the company and its shareholders as well as for the United States
policymakers.

Halliburton is one of the 10 largest contractors to the U.S. military. It has
earned over $20 billion from the U.S.military in war-related contracts in Iraq
since the March 2003 invasion. This cash bonanza may well be over because of
the cancelation of its two most lucrative contracts: oil infrastructure
reconstruction and military base support.

"With the loss of its two biggest taxpayer-funded contracts in Iraq,
Halliburton has decided that its future lies outside the United States. The
company decision to move its headquarters to Dubai could spell a major
financial loss to the U.S. Treasury," says Pratap Chatterjee, co-director of
CorpWatch.

"Given the multiple ongoing investigations into Halliburton 's alleged
wrongdoing, policymakers should closely scrutinize Halliburton 's latest move,
and whether it will allow the company to further elude accountability,� said
Charlie Cray, co-director of Halliburton Watch and director of the Center for
Corporate Policy. �Moreover, this underscores the need for Congress to bar
companies that have broken the law, or avoided paying taxes, from receiving
federal contracts.�

"Goodbye Houston" also documents

* how Halliburton may have broken the law by employing private security guards
like Blackwater and Triple Canopy; the Triple Canopy guards have been alleged
to have shot at unarmed Iraqis for sport

* Halliburton truck drivers allege the company failed to adequately protect
them in Iraq

* new military audits which show deliberate concealment of high overheads

* new lawsuits allege that company management in Iraq and Kuwait knowingly
wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars

Today as the military slows its purchases of Halliburton services in Iraq, the
company is diversifying into such profitable areas the provision of direct
services to the oil and gas industry abroad.

* Halliburton has finally admitted that its executives may have been involved
in bribery and political meddling Nigeria

* Halliburton 's hydraulic fracturing operations in the United States have
continued to have disastrous impacts on the environment, including community
water supplies

* Halliburton has been accused of substandard work on offshore operations in
Brazil, and is under investigation for no-bid contracts in Algeria

Hands off the People of Iran

I am writing to ask for your support for a recently launched campaign,
Hands Off the People of Iran.

The initiative for this campaign has come from Iranian organisations
and individuals. Our aim is to oppose any attack on Iran and at the
same time give solidarity to the fight of the Iranian people against
their oppressive, theocratic regime. We believe it is essential to
emphasise both messages - no to military intervention and no to the
regime.

Hands Off the People of Iran's founding statement can be read on our
website at www.hopoi.org and, if you agree with its aims, we would
very much appreciate your support as a signatory. The list of people
who have signed up so far is shown on the website.

The campaign has already gained the support of many activists from
politics, the labour movement, academia, the arts, media and
entertainment, including:

· Labour MPs Diane Abbot, John McDonnell and Harry Cohen;
· Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell;
· Fire Brigades Union president Mick Shaw;
· Academics Noam Chomsky, Moshe Machover and Sheila Rowbotham;
· Journalists Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and John Pilger;
· Authors Naomi Klein, William Blum and Nafeez Ahmed;
· Singer-songwriters Peggy Seeger and Tom Robinson;
· Film-maker Ken Loach and scriptwriter Jimmy McGovern;
· Comedians Bill Bailey and Mark Steel.

We have contacts with students, workers' and women's organisations
that are struggling for their democratic rights in Iran. These
movements are firmly against any US-sponsored military attack or
intervention. They are also in daily struggle with the Islamic
Republic.

Hands Off the People of Iran is being set up in a number of European
countries and aims, as a matter of urgency, to extend itself
internationally. Currently, meetings are taking place throughout
Britain and Ireland and an organisation has been set up to dynamically
build the campaign.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Steve Cooke
Hands Off the People of Iran
www.hopoi.org

steve@hopoi.info
+44 (0) 7752 270430

A Letter from Michael Moore: 'Sicko' is Socko in Cannes!

May 23rd, 2007

Friends,

Well, as you may have read by now, our premiere of "Sicko" at the Cannes Film Festival has been an overwhelming success. The 2,000 people inside the Lumiere Theater were alternately in tears and laughing during the two-hour film -- and when it was over, they gave it a standing ovation that seemed to go on for nearly 15 minutes! Many came up to me and said (and critics seem to agree) that this is my best film yet. I don't know about that, and it seems weird to compare any of these movies in the first place. But I do feel safe in saying that I am very, very happy with this film and I can't wait to show it to you when it opens on June 29th.

Cannes is a crazy place. There are film lovers here from nearly every country in the world. And then there are the people in "show business." These dark forces have virtually ruined this art form (invented by the French and nurtured to brilliance by the country I call home). There are so many bad, awful films now and less and less people are going to the movies. Many who run Hollywood believe that the American people are too stupid to enjoy a film that respects their intelligence.

At the press screening for "Sicko," the Wall Street Journal reported that hardened reporters and critics wept. Even those who have been harsh to me in the past, or who have not agreed with my politics, were moved. Aside from my stated desire that "Sicko" ignite a fire for free, universal health care (and a larger wish that we, as Americans, do a better job of treating each other with a true sense of solidarity and respect), I continue to hope that I can make a contribution to the art of cinema and give people a good reason to get out of the house for a few hours.

At my festival press conference, the only negative word came from the Canadians. Two critics didn't like all the nice things I said about their health care system. Yes, Canadian health care has its flaws, but when I asked the two critics if they would exchange their health care cards for mine, they said "No!" Of course they wouldn't. Canadians live longer than we do and their infant mortality is not as high as ours. Their system is underfunded because their leaders have been trying to push for more American-style health care.

The rest of the week has been good and I am now on my way back to the U.S. The New York Post reported Sunday that the Bush administration, in addition to going after me for filming scenes in or near Cuba, may now go after the 9/11 rescue workers I took with me to get the medical care they were denied by our own government. I couldn't make up irony like this if I wanted to, and I will do whatever is necessary to defend the human right of these true American heroes to receive the medical attention they deserve.

We've also received word that the HMO and pharmaceutical industries are gearing up to fight "Sicko." We received so many great whistleblower letters while we were making the movie from employees of these companies. We'd like to hear from you again! Send us the internal memos and any other plans you run across at the company copying machine or internet server. It will help to stay ahead of whatever they are up to, and it will also give us a chance for a bit of fun at the industry's expense.

I will soon have a special section of my website devoted to "Sicko." Until then, we'll move forward toward our June 29th release date. Hope to see you all there that weekend!

Yours,
Michael Moore
michael@michaelmoore.com
MichaelMoore.com

Imprisoning a Whole Nation by John Pilger

Israel is being allowed to destroy the very notion of a state of
Palestine and is imprisoning an entire nation. That is clear from the latest
attacks on Gaza, whose suffering has become a metaphor for the tragedy
imposed on the peoples of the Middle East and beyond. These attacks,
reported on Britain's Channel 4 News, were "targeting key militants of
Hamas" and the "Hamas infrastructure." The BBC described a "clash"
between the same militants and Israeli F-16 aircraft.
Consider one such clash. The militants' car was blown to pieces by a
missile from a fighter-bomber. Who were these militants? In my
experience, all the people of Gaza are militant in their resistance to their
jailer and tormentor. As for the "Hamas infrastructure," this was the
headquarters of the party that won last year's democratic elections in
Palestine. To report that would give the wrong impression. It would suggest
that the people in the car and all the others over the years, the
babies and the elderly who have also "clashed" with fighter-bombers, were
victims of a monstrous injustice. It would suggest the truth.
"Some say," said the Channel 4 reporter, that "Hamas has courted this
[attack] ..." Perhaps he was referring to the rockets fired at Israel
from within the prison of Gaza which killed no one. Under international
law an occupied people has the right to use arms against the occupier's
forces. This right is never reported. The Channel 4 reporter referred
to an "endless war," suggesting equivalents. There is no war. There is
resistance among the poorest, most vulnerable people on earth to an
enduring, illegal occupation imposed by the world's fourth largest military
power, whose weapons of mass destruction range from cluster bombs to
thermonuclear devices, bankrolled by the superpower. In the past six
years alone, wrote the historian Ilan Pappé, "Israeli forces have killed
more than 4,000 Palestinians, half of them children."
Consider how this power works. According to documents obtained by
United Press International, the Israelis once secretly funded Hamas as "a
direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO
[Palestine Liberation Organization] by using a competing religious
alternative," in the words of a former CIA official.
Today, Israel and the US have reversed this ploy and openly back
Hamas's rival, Fatah, with bribes of millions of dollars. Israel recently
secretly allowed 500 Fatah fighters to cross into Gaza from Egypt, where
they had been trained by another American client, the Cairo
dictatorship. The Israelis' aim is to undermine the elected Palestinian government
and ignite a civil war. They have not quite succeeded. In response, the
Palestinians forged a government of national unity, of both Hamas and
Fatah. The latest attacks are aimed at destroying this.
With Gaza secured in chaos and the West Bank walled in, the Israeli
plan, wrote the Palestinian academic Karma Nabulsi, is "a Hobbesian vision
of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed,
cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and
extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism and co-opted
collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of today ..."
On 19 May, the Guardian received this letter from Omar Jabary
al-Sarafeh, a Ramallah resident: "Land, water and air are under constant sight
of a sophisticated military surveillance system that makes Gaza like The
Truman Show," he wrote. "In this film every Gazan actor has a
predefined role and the [Israeli] army behaves as a director ... The Gaza strip
needs to be shown as what it is ... an Israeli laboratory backed by the
international community where human beings are used as rabbits to test
the most dramatic and perverse practices of economic suffocation and
starvation."
The remarkable Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has described the
starvation sweeping Gaza's more than a million and a quarter inhabitants and
the "thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people unable to
receive any treatment ... The shadows of human beings roam the ruins ...
They only know the [Israeli army] will return and they know what this
will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more
death and destruction in monstrous proportions."
Whenever I have been in Gaza, I have been consumed by this melancholia,
as if I were a trespasser in a secret place of mourning. Skeins of
smoke from wood fires hang over the same Mediterranean Sea that free
peoples know, but not here. Along beaches that tourists would regard as
picturesque trudge the incarcerated of Gaza; lines of sepia figures become
silhouettes, marching at the water's edge, through lapping sewage. The
water and power are cut off, yet again, when the generators are bombed,
yet again. Iconic murals on walls pockmarked by bullets commemorate the
dead, such as the family of 18 men, women and children who "clashed"
with a 500lb American/Israeli bomb, dropped on their block of flats as
they slept. Presumably, they were militants.
More than 40 percent of the population of Gaza are children under the
age of 15. Reporting on a four-year field study in occupied Palestine
for the British Medical Journal, Dr. Derek Summerfield wrote that
"two-thirds of the 621 children killed at checkpoints, in the street, on the
way to school, in their homes, died from small arms fire, directed in
over half of cases to the head, neck and chest – the sniper's wound." A
friend of mine with the United Nations calls them "children of the
dust." Their wonderful childishness, their rowdiness and giggles and charm,
belie their nightmare.
I met Dr. Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist who heads one of several
children's community health projects in Gaza. He told me about his latest
survey. "The statistic I personally find unbearable," he said, "is that
99.4 percent of the children we studied suffer trauma. Once you look at
the rates of exposure to trauma, you see why: 99.2 percent of the study
group's homes were bombarded; 97.5 percent were exposed to tear gas;
96.6 percent witnessed shootings; 95.8 percent witnessed bombardment and
funerals; almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed."
He said children as young as three faced the dichotomy caused by having
to cope with these conditions. They dreamt about becoming doctors and
nurses, then this was overtaken by an apocalyptic vision of themselves
as the next generation of suicide bombers. They experienced this
invariably after an attack by the Israelis. For some boys, their heroes were
no longer football players, but a confusion of Palestinian "martyrs" and
even the enemy, "because Israeli soldiers are the strongest and have
Apache gunships."
Shortly before he died, Edward Said bitterly reproached foreign
journalists for what he called their destructive role in "stripping the
context of Palestinian violence, the response of a desperate and horribly
oppressed people, and the terrible suffering from which it arises." Just
as the invasion of Iraq was a "war by media," so the same can be said of
the grotesquely one-sided "conflict" in Palestine. As the pioneering
work of the Glasgow University Media Group shows, television viewers are
rarely told that the Palestinians are victims of an illegal military
occupation; the term "occupied territories" is seldom explained. Only 9
percent of young people interviewed in the UK know that the Israelis are
the occupying force and the illegal settlers are Jewish; many believe
them to be Palestinian. The selective use of language by broadcasters is
crucial in maintaining this confusion and ignorance. Words such as
"terrorism," "murder" and "savage, cold-blooded killing" describe the
deaths of Israelis, almost never Palestinians.
There are honorable exceptions. The kidnapped BBC reporter Alan
Johnston is one of them. Yet, amidst the avalanche of coverage of his
abduction, no mention is made of the thousands of Palestinians abducted by
Israel, many of whom will not see their families for years. There are no
appeals for them. In Jerusalem, the Foreign Press Association documents
the shooting and intimidation of its members by Israeli soldiers. In one
eight-month period, as many journalists, including the CNN bureau chief
in Jerusalem, were wounded by the Israelis, some of them seriously. In
each case, the FPA complained. In each case, there was no satisfactory
reply.
A censorship by omission runs deep in western journalism on Israel,
especially in the US. Hamas is dismissed as a "terrorist group sworn to
Israel's destruction" and one that "refuses to recognize Israel and wants
to fight not talk." This theme suppresses the truth: that Israel is
bent on Palestine's destruction. Moreover, Hamas's long-standing proposals
for a ten-year cease-fire are ignored, along with a recent, hopeful
ideological shift within Hamas itself that amounts to a historic
acceptance of the sovereignty of Israel. "The [Hamas] charter is not the Quran,"
said a senior Hamas official, Mohammed Ghazal. "Historically, we
believe all Palestine belongs to Palestinians, but we're talking now about
reality, about political solutions ... If Israel reached a stage where it
was able to talk to Hamas, I don't think there would be a problem of
negotiating with the Israelis [for a solution]."
When I last saw Gaza, driving towards the Israeli checkpoint and the
razor wire, I was rewarded with a spectacle of Palestinian flags
fluttering from inside the walled compounds. Children were responsible for
this, I was told. They make flagpoles out of sticks tied together and one
or two will climb on to a wall and hold the flag between them, silently.
They do it when there are foreigners around and they believe they can
tell the world.

Irene Khan: Freedom from fear

On 10 December 2006, while the world celebrated International Human Rights Day, I was in Jayyus on the West Bank. The small village is now divided by the Wall - or more accurately a high iron fence. Built in defiance of international law, and ostensibly to make Israel more secure, the Wall's main effect has been to cut off the local Palestinian population from their citrus groves and olive orchards. A once prosperous farming community is now impoverished.

"Every day I have to suffer the humiliation of checkpoints, petty obstructions and new restrictions that stop me from getting to my orchard on the other side. If I cannot cultivate my olives, how will I survive?" cried one angry Palestinian farmer.

As I listened to him, I could see in the distance the neat red roofs and white walls of a large and prosperous Israeli settlement. I wondered if those who lived there believed that a Wall threatening the future of their neighbours could truly enhance their security.

Earlier that week, I had visited Sderot, a small town in the south of Israel, which had been subjected to rocket attacks from Palestinian groups in Gaza.

"We are frightened," one young woman resident told me. "But we know that there are women like us on the other side who are also suffering, who are also afraid, and who are in a worse situation than us. We feel empathy for them, we want to live in peace with them, but instead our leaders promote our differences and create more distrust. So we live in fear and insecurity."

This brave Israeli woman understood what many world leaders fail to comprehend: that fear destroys our shared understanding and our shared humanity. When we see others as a threat, and are ready to negotiate their human rights for our security, we are playing a zero-sum game.

Her message is sobering at a time when our world is as polarized as it was at the height of the Cold War, and in many ways far more dangerous. Human rights - those global values, universal principles and common standards that are meant to unite us - are being bartered away in the name of security today as they were then. Like the Cold War times, the agenda is being driven by fear - instigated, encouraged and sustained by unprincipled leaders.

Fear can be a positive imperative for change, as in the case of the environment, where alarm about global warming is forcing politicians belatedly into action. But fear can also be dangerous and divisive when it breeds intolerance, threatens diversity and justifies the erosion of human rights.

In 1941, US President Franklin Roosevelt laid out his vision of a new world order founded on "four freedoms": freedom of speech and of religion; freedom from fear and from want. He provided inspirational leadership that overcame doubt and unified people. Today far too many leaders are trampling freedom and trumpeting an ever-widening range of fears: fear of being swamped by migrants; fear of "the other" and of losing one's identity; fear of being blown up by terrorists; fear of "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction.

Fear thrives on myopic and cowardly leadership. There are indeed many real causes of fear, but the approach being taken by many world leaders is short-sighted, promulgating policies and strategies that erode the rule of law and human rights, increase inequalities, feed racism and xenophobia, divide and damage communities, and sow the seeds for violence and more conflict.

The politics of fear has been made more complex by the emergence of armed groups and big business that commit or condone human rights abuses. Both - in different ways - challenge the power of governments in an increasingly borderless world. Weak governments and ineffective international institutions are unable to hold them accountable, leaving people vulnerable and afraid.

History shows that it is not through fear but through hope and optimism that progress is achieved. So, why do some leaders promote fear? Because it allows them to consolidate their own power, create false certainties and escape accountability.

The Howard government portrayed desperate asylum-seekers in leaky boats as a threat to Australia's national security and raised a false alarm of a refugee invasion. This contributed to its election victory in 2001. After the attacks of 11 September 2001, US President George W Bush invoked the fear of terrorism to enhance his executive power, without Congressional oversight or judicial scrutiny. President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan whipped up fear among his supporters and in the Arab world that the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur would be a pretext for an Iraq-style, US-led invasion. Meanwhile, his armed forces and militia allies continued to kill, rape and plunder with impunity. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe played on racial fears to push his own political agenda of grabbing land for his supporters.

Only a common commitment based on shared values can lead to a sustainable solution. In an inter-dependent world, global challenges, whether of poverty or security, of migration or marginalization, demand responses based on global values of human rights that bring people together and promote our collective well-being. Human rights provide the basis for a sustainable future. But protecting the security of states rather than the sustainability of people's lives and livelihoods appears to be the order of the day.

FEAR OF MIGRATION AND MARGINALIZATION
In developed countries, as well as emerging economies, the fear of being invaded by hordes of the poor is being used to justify ever tougher measures against migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers, violating international standards of human rights and humane treatment.

Driven by the political and security imperatives of border control, asylum procedures have become a means for exclusion rather than protection. Across Europe, refugee recognition rates have fallen dramatically over the years, although the reasons for seeking asylum - violence and persecution - remain as high as ever.

The hypocrisy of the politics of fear is such that governments denounce certain regimes but refuse to protect those escaping from them. The harsh policies of the North Korean government have been condemned by western governments but these same governments are far less vocal about the fate of some 100,000 North Koreans reportedly hiding in China, hundreds of whom are deported forcibly to North Korea every week by the Chinese authorities.

Migrant workers fuel the engine of the global economy - yet they are turned away with brutal force, exploited, discriminated against, and left unprotected by governments across the world, from the Gulf states and South Korea to the Dominican Republic.

Six thousand Africans drowned or were missing at sea in 2006 in their desperate bid to reach Europe. Another 31,000 - six times higher than the number in 2005 - reached the Canary islands. Just as the Berlin Wall could not stop those who wanted to escape Communist oppression, tough policing of the borders of Europe is failing to block those seeking to escape abject poverty.

In the long term, the answer lies not in building walls to keep people out but in promoting systems that protect the rights of the vulnerable while respecting the prerogative of states to control migration. International instruments provide that balance. Attempts to weaken the UN Refugee Convention or shun the UN Migrant Workers Convention - which no western country has ratified - are counter-productive.

If unregulated migration is the fear of the rich, then unbridled capitalism, driven by globalization, is the fear of the poor. Booming markets are creating enormous opportunities for some, but also widening the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots". The rewards of globalization are heavily skewed, both across the world and within countries. Latin America is burdened with some of the highest levels of inequality in the world. In India, there have been average growth rates of 8 per cent over the past three years, but more than a quarter of its population still lives below the poverty line.

These statistics reveal the dark underbelly of globalization. The marginalization of large swathes of humanity should not be treated as the inevitable cost of global prosperity. There is nothing inevitable about policies and decisions that deny individuals their economic and social rights.

Amnesty International's growing programme of work on economic and social rights is laying bare the reality of people's fear: that in many parts of the world people are being tipped into poverty and trapped there by corrupt governments and greedy businesses.

As the demands for mining, urban development and tourism put pressure on land, across Africa, Asia and Latin America, entire communities - millions of people - are being forcibly evicted from their homes with no due process, compensation or alternative shelter. Often, excessive force is used to uproot them. Development-induced displacement is not a new problem, yet little appears to have been learnt from past experience. In Africa alone, more than 3 million people have been affected since 2000, making forced evictions one of the most widespread and unrecognized human rights violations on the continent. Carried out in the name of economic progress, in reality they leave the poorest of the poor homeless and often without access to clean water, health, sanitation, jobs or education.

Africa has long been the victim of the greed of western governments and companies. Now, it faces a new challenge from China. The Chinese government and Chinese companies have shown little regard for their "human rights footprint" on the continent. The deference to national sovereignty, antipathy to human rights in foreign policy, and readiness to engage with abusive regimes, are all endearing China to African governments. But for those same reasons, African civil society has been less welcoming. The health and safety standards and treatment of workers by Chinese companies have fallen short of international standards. As the biggest consumer of Sudan's oil and a major supplier of its weapons, China has shielded the Sudanese government against pressure from the international community - although there are some signs that it may be modifying its position.

Weak, deeply impoverished, and often profoundly corrupt states have created a power vacuum into which corporations and other economic actors are moving. In some of the most resource-rich countries with the poorest populations, big business has used its unbridled power to gain concessions from governments that deprive local people of the benefits of the resources, destroy their livelihoods, displace them from their homes and expose them to environmental degradation. Anger at the injustice and denial of human rights has led to protests that are then brutally repressed. The oil-rich Niger Delta in southern Nigeria, torn by violence for the past two decades, is a case in point.

Corporations have long resisted binding international standards. The United Nations must confront the challenge, and develop standards and promote mechanisms that hold big business accountable for its impact on human rights.The need for global standards and effective accountability becomes even more urgent as multinational corporations from diverse legal and cultural systems emerge in a global market.

The push for land, timber and mineral resources by big conglomerates is threatening the cultural identity and daily survival of many Indigenous communities in Latin America. Subjected to racial discrimination and driven into extreme poverty and ill-health, some of the groups are on the brink of collapse.

Against this background, the failure of the 2006 UN General Assembly to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was yet another unfortunate testimony to powerful interests trumping the very survival of the vulnerable.

Although the rich are getting richer every day, they do not necessarily feel any safer. Rising crime and gun violence are a source of constant fear, leading many governments to adopt policies that are purportedly tough on crime but in reality criminalize the poor, exposing them to the double jeopardy of gang violence and brutal policing. Ever higher levels of criminal and police violence in Sao Paulo and the presence of the army on the streets of Rio de Janeiro in 2006 demonstrated the failure of Brazil's public security policies. Providing security to one group of people at the expense of the rights of another does not work. Experience shows that public security is best strengthened through a comprehensive approach that combines better policing alongside provision of basic services such as health, education and shelter to the poor communities; so that they feel they too have a stake in a secure and stable society.

At the end of the day, promoting economic and social rights for all is the best approach to addressing the fears of the rich as well as the poor.

FEAR BREEDS DISCRIMINATION
Fear feeds discontent and leads to discrimination, racism, persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and xenophobic attacks against foreigners and foreign-born citizens.

When governments turn a blind eye to racist violence, it can become endemic. In Russia, hate crimes against foreigners and minorities are common, but until recently were rarely prosecuted because they fed into the nationalist propaganda of the authorities.

As the European Union expands eastwards, the acid test of its commitment to equality and non-discrimination will be the ts treatment of its own Roma population.

From Dublin to Bratislava, anti-Roma attitudes remain entrenched, with segregation and discrimination in education, health and housing and exclusion from public life persistent in some countries.

In many western countries, discrimination has been generated by fears of uncontrolled migration and, post-9/11, aggravated by counter-terrorism strategies targeting Arabs, Asians and Muslims. Fear and hostility on one side have led to alienation and anger on the other.

Increasing polarization has strengthened the hands of extremists at both ends of the spectrum, reducing the space for tolerance and dissent. Incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are increasingly evident. In many parts of the world, anti-western and anti-American sentiments are at an all-time high, as demonstrated by the ease with which some groups fomented violence following the publication in Denmark of cartoons that many Muslims found offensive.

The Danish government rightly upheld free speech but failed to affirm strongly and immediately its commitment to protect Muslims living in Denmark from discrimination and social exclusion. The Iranian President called for a debate to promote the denial of the historical fact of the Holocaust. The French parliament passed a bill making it a crime to deny that the Armenians suffered genocide at the hands of the Ottomans.

Where should the line be drawn between protecting free speech and stopping incitement of racial hatred? The state has an obligation to promote non-discrimination and prevent racial crimes, but it can do that without limiting freedom of speech. Freedom of expression should not be lightly restricted. Yes, it can be used to propagate lies as well as truth, but without it there is no way to argue against lies, no way to seek truth and justice. That is why speech should be curtailed only where there is clear intent to incite racial or religious hatred, not where the purpose is to express opinion, however distasteful.

In Albert-Engelman-Gesellschaft MBH v Austria (January 2006) the European Court of Human Rights described freedom of expression as "one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual's self-fulfilment... freedom is applicable not only to 'information' or 'ideas' [that are deemed acceptable] but also to those that offend, shock or disturb; such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no 'democratic society'."

FEAR OF DISSENT
Freedom of expression is fundamental to the right to dissent. Where there is no dissent, the right to free speech is endangered. Where there is no dissent, democracy is stifled. Where there is no dissent, tyranny raises its head.

Yet, freedom of expression and dissent continue to be suppressed in a variety of ways, from the prosecution of writers, journalists and human rights defenders in Turkey, to political killings of left-wing activists in the Philippines.

In the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, the only form of protest arguably left to detainees is hunger strike. In 2006, some 200 detainees who resorted to it were force fed by tubes inserted through the nose - a particularly painful and humiliating method. When three men were reported to have committed suicide, the US taskforce commander at Guantánamo described it as "asymmetrical warfare".

National security has often been used as an excuse by governments to suppress dissent. In recent years, heightened fears about terrorism and insecurity have reinforced repression - or the risk of it - in a variety of ways.

"Old fashioned" abuses of freedom of expression, assembly and association have gained a new lease of life in North Africa and the Middle East. In liberal democracies, the ever-widening net of counter-terrorism laws and policies poses a potential threat to free speech. In 2006, for example, the UK adopted legislation to create a vaguely defined crime of "encouraging terrorism", incorporating the even more baffling notion of "glorifying terrorism".

In the USA, the authorities showed more interest in hunting down the source of the leak behind the story in The Washington Post on CIA "black sites", than in investigating the policies that led to the establishment of these secret prisons in the first place in contravention of international and US laws.

The authoritarian drift in Russia has been devastating for journalists and human rights defenders. Having intimidated or taken over much of the Russian press, President Vladimir Putin turned his attention to Russian and foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 2006 with a controversial law to regulate their funding and activities. In a public relations exercise just prior to the meeting of the G8, he met with a group of international NGOs, including Amnesty International. Informed of the damaging impact of his NGO law on civil society in Russia and urged to suspend it pending further consultations on amendments, he responded: "We did not pass this law to have it repealed." Three months later the Russian Chechen Friendship Society, a human rights NGO working to expose violations in Chechnya, was closed down under the new law.

Unfortunately, Russia is not the only country seeking to silence independent voices on human rights. From Colombia to Cambodia, Cuba to Uzbekistan, governments have introduced laws to restrict human rights organizations and the work of activists, branding them disloyal or subversive, prosecuting those who dare to expose human rights violations, and launching smear campaigns with the help of unscrupulous media in an effort to instil fear and de-legitimize the work of activists.

In an age of technology, the Internet has become the new frontier in the struggle for the right to dissent. With the help of some of the world's biggest IT companies, governments such as those in Belarus, China, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia are monitoring chat rooms, deleting blogs, restricting search engines and blocking websites. People have been imprisoned in China, Egypt, Syria, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam for posting and sharing information online.

Everyone has the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs without fear or interference. Amnesty International, with the support of the UK newspaper The Observer (which published Amnesty International's first appeal in 1961), launched a campaign in 2006 to show that human rights activists will not be silenced, online or offline, by governments or big business.

FREEDOM FOR WOMEN
The pernicious relationship between discrimination and dissent is playing out most vividly in the arena of gender. Women activists have been arrested for demanding gender equality in Iran, murdered for promoting education of girls in Afghanistan, and subjected to sexual violence and vilification around the world. Women working on issues of sexual orientation and reproductive rights have been especially targeted, marginalized and attacked.

Women human rights defenders are doubly endangered: as activists and as women - for their work as well as for their identity. They are attacked by both state and society, not only because they expose human rights abuses, but also because they challenge patriarchal power structures and social and cultural conventions that subjugate women, condone discrimination and facilitate gender violence. Women's human rights have suffered in recent years from the twin trends of backlash and backtrack. The backlash on human rights in the context of counter-terrorism has affected women as well as men. And in an environment of fear and religious fundamentalism, governments have backtracked on their promise to promote gender equality.

Violence against women - in all societies around the world - remains one of the gravest and most common human rights abuses today. It thrives because of impunity, apathy and inequality.

One of the most blatant examples of impunity is the conflict in Darfur, where incidents of rape rose in 2006 as armed conflict increased and spread to neighbouring areas of Chad. One of the most insidious examples of apathy is Guatemala, where more than 2,200 women and girls have been murdered since 2001, but very few cases have been investigated and even fewer prosecuted. There are many examples of the impact of inequality, but possibly one of the saddest is the high levels of maternal and infant mortality - for example in Peru - due to discrimination in health services.

Billions of dollars are being spent to fight the "war on terror" - but where is the political will or the resources to fight sexual terror against women? There was universal outrage against racial apartheid in South Africa - where is the outrage against gender apartheid in some countries today?

Whether the perpetrator is a soldier or a community leader, whether the violence is officially sanctioned by the authorities or condoned by culture and custom, the state cannot shirk its responsibility to protect women.

The state has the obligation to safeguard a woman's freedom of choice, not restrict it. To take an example, the veil and headscarf of Muslim women have become a bone of contention between different cultures, the visible symbol of oppression according to one side, and an essential attribute of religious freedom according to the other. It is wrong for women in Saudi Arabia or Iran to be compelled to put on the veil. It is equally wrong for women or girls in Turkey or France to be forbidden by law to wear the headscarf. And it is foolish of western leaders to claim that a piece of clothing is a major barrier to social harmony.

In the exercise of her right to freedom of expression and religion, a woman should be free to choose what she wants to wear. Governments and religious leaders have a duty to create a safe environment in which every woman can make that choice without the threat of violence or coercion. The universality of human rights means that they apply equally to women as well as to men. This universality of rights - universality both in understanding and in application - is the most powerful tool against gender violence, intolerance, racism, xenophobia and terrorism.

FEAR OF TERRORISM
It is in the sphere of terrorism and counter-terrorism that fear's most harmful manifestations flourish. Whether in Mumbai or Manhattan, people have the right to be secure and governments have the duty to provide that security. However, ill-conceived counter-terrorism strategies have done little to reduce the threat of violence or to ensure justice for victims of attacks, and much to damage human rights and the rule of law.

Thwarted in 2004 by the courts from pursuing its policy of detaining people indefinitely without charge or trial, the UK government has resorted increasingly to deportation, or to "control orders" that allow the Home Secretary effectively to place people under house arrest without criminal prosecution. Suspects are thus condemned without ever being convicted. The essence of the rule of law is subverted while its form is preserved.

Japan introduced a law in 2006 to fast-track deportation of anyone deemed by the Minister of Justice to be a "possible terrorist". People's fate will no longer be determined on the basis of what they have done but on the omniscient ability of governments to predict what they might do!

Unfettered discretionary executive power is being pursued relentlessly by the US administration, which treats the world as one big battlefield for its "war on terror": kidnapping, arresting, detaining or torturing suspects either directly or with the help of countries as far apart as Pakistan and Gambia, Afghanistan and Jordan. In September 2006, President Bush finally admitted what Amnesty International has long known - that the CIA had been running secret detention centres in circumstances that amount to international crimes.

Nothing so aptly portrays the globalization of human rights violations as the US government's programme of "extraordinary renditions". Investigations by the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and a Public Enquiry in Canada, have provided compelling evidence confirming Amnesty International's earlier findings of the complicity, collusion or acquiescence of a number of European and other governments - whether democratic like Canada or autocratic like Pakistan. Over the past few years, hundreds of people have been unlawfully transferred by the USA and its allies to countries such as Syria, Jordan and Egypt. In this shadowy system they risk enforced disappearance, torture and other ill-treatment. Some have ended up in Guantánamo, US-run prisons in Afghanistan or CIA "black sites".

Lawyers cannot petition the authorities, seek judicial review or demand fair trial for those held in secret detention for the simple reason that no one knows where and by whom they are being held. International monitoring is impossible for the same reasons.

The US administration's double speak has been breathtakingly shameless. It has condemned Syria as part of the "axis of evil", yet it has transferred a Canadian national, Maher Arar, to the Syrian security forces to be interrogated, knowing full well that he risked being tortured. Pakistan is another country that the US administration has courted and counted as an ally in its war on terror - notwithstanding concerns about its human rights record.

Thankfully, there appears to be a growing realization in many countries that security at all costs is a dangerous and damaging strategy. European institutions are becoming more rigorous in their demand for accountability and courts less willing to give in to governments' claims. The Public Enquiry in Canada called for an apology and compensation by the Canadian authorities for Maher Arar and for investigation into other similar cases. Reports by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament are leading to calls for greater scrutiny of security services. Arrest warrants have been issued in Italy and Germany against CIA agents.

A clear momentum has been created in favour of transparency, accountability and an end to impunity.

But the USA has yet to embrace this momentum. President Bush persuaded a Congress in pre-election fever to adopt the Military Commissions Act, negating the impact of the 2006 Supreme Court judgement in Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and making lawful that which world opinion found immoral. The New York Times described it as "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy".

The US administration remains deaf to the worldwide calls for closing down Guantánamo. It is unrepentant about the global web of abuse it has spun in the name of counter- terrorism. It is oblivious to the distress of thousands of detainees and their families, the damage to the rule of international law and human rights, and the destruction of its own moral authority, which has plummeted to an all-time low around the world - while the levels of insecurity remain as high as ever.

US Supreme Court Justice Brennan wrote in 1987: "After each perceived security crisis ended, the United States has remorsefully realized that the abrogation of civil liberties was unnecessary. But it has proven unable to prevent itself from repeating the error when the next crisis came along."

A new US Congress raises hopes that things may yet take a different turn, and that Democrats and Republicans will come to see a bipartisan interest in restoring respect for human rights at home and abroad, demanding accountability, setting up a commission of inquiry and either repealing or changing the Military Commissions Act substantially in line with international law.

FREEDOM FROM VIOLENCE
When global values of human rights are swept aside with impunity, parochial interests raise their head, often driven by sectarian, ethnic and religious groups, sometimes using violence. Although their practices are often contrary to human rights, in a number of countries they are gaining support with ordinary people because they are seen to be addressing the injustices that governments and the international community are ignoring.

Meanwhile governments are failing to provide the leadership to bring these groups to account for their abuses, and instead appear to be feeding the very factors that foster them.

In Afghanistan, the government and the international community have squandered the opportunity to build an effective, functioning state based on human rights and the rule of law. Rampant insecurity, impunity and corrupt and ineffective government institutions, combined with high unemployment and poverty, have sapped public confidence, while thousands of civilian deaths resulting from US-led military operations have fuelled resentment. The Taleban has capitalized on the political, economic and security vacuum to gain control over large parts of the south and east of the country.

A misguided military adventure in Iraq has taken a heavy toll on human rights and humanitarian law, leaving the population embittered, armed groups empowered and the world a much less secure place. The insurgency has morphed into a brutal and bloody sectarian conflict. The government has shown little commitment to protect the human rights of all Iraqis. The Iraqi police forces, heavily infiltrated by sectarian militia, are feeding violations rather than restraining them. The Iraqi justice system is woefully inadequate, as former President Saddam Hussain's flawed trial and grotesque execution confirmed.

If there is to be any hope of a shift in the apocalyptic prognosis for Iraq, the Iraqi government and those who support it militarily must set some clear human rights benchmarks - to disarm the militia, reform the police, review the justice system, stop sectarian discrimination and ensure the equal rights of women.

In the Palestinian Occupied Territories, the cumulative impact of measures by the Israeli authorities, including increasingly severe restrictions on freedom of movement, expansion of settlements and the building of the Wall inside the West Bank, has strangled the local economy. Ordinary Palestinians are caught between interfactional fighting of Hamas and Fatah, and the reckless shelling of the Israeli army. With no justice and no end to occupation in sight, a predominantly young Palestinian population is being radicalized. No truce will survive and no political process will succeed in the Middle East if impunity is not addressed, and human rights and security of people are not prioritized.

In Lebanon, sectarian divisions have further deepened in the aftermath of the war between Israel and Hizbullah. The lack of accountability for current and past abuses - including during this recent war, and political assassinations and enforced disappearances during the civil war (1975-1990) - is a source of grievance that is being exploited by all sides. The government is under pressure to concede more space to Hizbullah. There is a real risk that the country could plunge into sectarian violence once again.

One commentator predicts a nightmare scenario of failing states from the Hindu Kush to the Horn of Africa, with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia as bookends, and Iraq, the Occupied Territories and Lebanon at the core of this band of instability. Others speak of the revival of a Cold War mindset of "them and us" in which powerful states seek to fight their enemies through proxy wars in someone else's backyard. The prognosis for human rights is dire.

A FUTURE FREE OF FEAR
One can get sucked into the fear syndrome or one can take a radically different approach: an approach based on sustainability rather than security.

The term sustainability may be more familiar to development economists and environmentalists, but it is crucial too for human rights activists. A sustainable strategy promotes hope, human rights and democracy, while a security strategy addresses fears and dangers. Just as energy security is best provided through sustainable development, human security is best pursued through institutions that promote respect for human rights.

Sustainability requires rejecting the Cold War tradition of each super power sponsoring its own pool of dictatorships and abusive regimes. It means promoting principled leadership and enlightened policies. Sustainability requires strengthening the rule of law and human rights - nationally and internationally. Elections have drawn a lot of international attention, from Bolivia to Bangladesh, Chile to Liberia. But as the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Iraq have shown, creating the conditions in which people can cast their ballots is not enough. A bigger challenge is to promote good governance, including an effective legal and judicial structure, the rule of law based on human rights, a free press and a vibrant civil society.

A properly functioning system of rule of law at the national level is the ultimate safeguard for human rights. But such a system of law, if it is to be truly just, must embrace women and the poor. The majority of poor people today live outside the protection of the law. Including them in a meaningful way requires giving effect to economic and social rights in public policy and programmes. In too many countries, women continue to be denied equality before the law. Equal access of women to all human rights is not only a precondition for sustaining human rights, but also for economic prosperity and social stability.

Sustainability requires revitalizing UN human rights reform. Humiliated and sidelined by its most powerful members and ignored by governments such as Sudan and Iran, the credibility of the UN Security Council has suffered badly. Yet when the UN fails, the authority of its powerful member states is also eroded. It is in the USA's own interest to discard the "pick and choose" approach to the UN and recognize the value of multilateralism as a crucial means of promoting greater stability and security through human rights.

The UN Human Rights Council appears to be displaying some worrying signs of factionalism reminiscent of its predecessor institution. But it is not too late to change. Member countries can play a constructive role - and some, including India and Mexico, are indeed doing so - to make the Council more willing to tackle human rights crises and less open to political selectivity and manipulation.

The new UN Secretary General too must assert himself to show leadership as a champion of human rights. The UN's responsibility for human rights is a unique one that no other entity can usurp. All organs and officials of the UN must live up to it.

Sustainability in human rights terms means nurturing hope. From the many examples in 2006, we can draw lessons for the future.

The ending of the decade-long conflict in Nepal, with its attendant human rights abuses, was a clear example of what can be achieved through collective effort. The UN and interested governments, working with national political leaders and human rights activists in the country and abroad, responded to the powerful call from the people of Nepal.

International justice is critical for sustaining respect for human rights, and in 2006 Nigeria finally handed over former Liberian President Charles Taylor to the Special Court for Sierra Leone to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity.The International Criminal Court (ICC) began its first prosecution against a warlord from the Democratic Republic of the Congo for recruiting child solders. The Lord's Resistance Army, a Ugandan rebel group, is next on the ICC's list, as are perpetrators of the atrocities in Darfur. In pressing for accountability of armed groups as well as government actors, the ICC is setting an important precedent at a time when armed groups are flexing their muscles with brutal consequences for human rights.

A massive campaign by civil society organizations moved the UN General Assembly in 2006 to adopt a resolution to start work on an Arms Trade Treaty. Proliferation of arms is a major threat to human rights and the willingness of governments to bring it under control is an important step towards achieving "freedom from fear".

These positive developments - and many more - have happened because of the courage and commitment of civil society. Indeed, the single most significant sign of hope for transforming the human rights landscape is the human rights movement itself - millions of defenders, activists and ordinary people, including members of Amnesty International, who are demanding change.

Marches, petitions, virals, blogs, t-shirts and armbands may not seem much by themselves, but by bringing people together they unleash an energy for change that should not be underestimated. Darfur has become a household word for international solidarity thanks to the efforts of civil society. The killings unfortunately have not stopped, but civil society will not allow world leaders to forget Darfur as long as its people are unsafe. Gender justice has a long journey still to make, but the campaign by Iranian human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi for equality of women in Iran is lighting a flame that will not die down until the battle has been won. The campaign for the abolition of the death penalty goes from strength to strength thanks to civil society.

People power will change the face of human rights in the 21st century. Hope is very much alive.