Home » 2011 » February (Page 3)

Constitutional Knowledge Critical, According to Greg Lawson of Together We Stand and keepyourpay.com

San Antonio, TX (PRWEB) September 7, 2005

With the passing of Chief Justice Rehnquist, our priority should be finding a justice who has the same degree of respect for the Constitution. It is because people are not familiar with the Constitution, that our rights are being eroded, according to Gregory Lawson of Together We Stand. He says another problem is the federal judiciary, which often chooses to subvert and undermine the Constitution, rather than to uphold it, as they swore an oath to do.    

Gregory says, “Our government routinely implements laws that are clearly not authorized by the Constitution. They can get away with it because 99% of Americans have never read the Constitution. Many of those that have, don’t really have a clear understanding of it”. He goes on to say that this is the reason for the bloated, intrusive system of government we find ourselves living under today.

Lawson can offer the following insights that should be of interest to all Americans:

1. How is it that Americans are so unfamiliar with the Constitution, and how can this be corrected.

2. Give a few examples of laws that we have which are in violation of the Constitution.

3. Why would the government make such laws?

4. Why is it important to appoint justices that strictly interpret the Constitution?

Lawson is also the author of a new E-book entitled, “The Declaration of Independence & The Constitution Explained”. This book is available, pre-release on his Website, for only $ 5.

For more information you can visit his Website at www.keepyourpay.com. If you would like to interview Gregory Lawson he can be contacted by calling 210-481-2195.


Related The Constitution Press Releases

Nice Citizenship And Freedom photos

A few nice Citizenship and Freedom images I found:

Citizenship and Freedom
Image by elycefeliz
20/100 Possibilities~ 100 Possibilities Project set


Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African American clergyman, activist and prominent leader in the American civil rights movement.


I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds.

Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest — quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" — one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope.

With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood.

With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day — this will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning:
My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.
Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim’s pride,
From every mountainside, let freedom ring!
And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!



Lajos (Louis) Kossuth
Citizenship and Freedom
Image by dbking
Lajos "Louis" Kossuth (Ľudovít Košút in Slovak) (Monok, September 19, 1802–Turin, March 20, 1894) was a Hungarian lawyer, politician and Regent-President of the Kingdom of Hungary in 1849. He was widely honored during his lifetime, including in the United Kingdom and the United States, as a freedom fighter.

Lajos Kossuth was born at Monok, a small town in the county of Zemplén as the oldest of four children. His father belonged to the minor nobility, had a small estate and was a lawyer by profession. The ancestors of the Kossuth family have lived in the county of Turóc (Slovak: Turiec) since the 13th century. They had spoken Slovak language in the past and Lajos’ uncle, Juraj Košút, with whom Lajos used to spend his holidays, had remained a strong Slovak nationalist/patriot. The partly Slavic ancestry of Kossuth never became the topic of political debates because the family was part of the ruling Hungarus nobility of the Kingdom of Hungary. Also, Lajos considered himself a full Magyar (in the ethnic sense) and, interestingly, even openly denied the mere existence of a Slovak nation. The mother of Lajos Kossuth, Karolina Weber was of Lutheran German descent so Kossuth has Magyar, Slovak and German roots.

Early years
His mother raised the children as strict Lutherans. Kossuth completed his education at the Piarist college of Sátoraljaújhely and one year in the Calvinist college of Sárospatak and the University of Pest-Buda (now Budapest). Aged nineteen, he entered his father’s legal practice. He was popular locally, and having been appointed steward to the countess Szapáry, a widow with large estates, he became her voting representative in the county assembly and settled in Pest. He was subsequently dismissed on the grounds of using estate funds to pay a gambling debt.

Entry into national politics
Shortly after his dismissal by Countess Szapáry, Kossuth was appointed as deputy to Count Hunyady at the National Diet. The Diet met during 1825–1827 and 1832–1836 in Pozsony, then capital of Hungary. Only the upper aristocracy could vote, however, and Kossuth took little part in the debates. At the time, a struggle to reassert a Hungarian national identity was beginning to emerge under able leaders – most notably Wesselényi and the Széchenyis. In part, this was also a struggle for reform against the stagnant Austrian government. Kossuth’s duties to Count Hunyady included reporting on Diet proceedings in writing, as the Austrian government, fearing popular dissent, had banned published reports. The high quality of Kossuth’s letters led to their being circulated in manuscript among other Liberal magnates. Readership demands turned his output into the editing of an organized parliamentary gazette (Országgyűlési tudósítások); spreading his name and influence further. Orders from the Official Censor halted circulation by lithograph printing. Distribution in manuscript by post was forbidden by the government, although circulation by hand continued.

In 1836 the Diet was dissolved. Kossuth continued to report (in letter form), covering the debates of the county assemblies. This new-found publicity gave the assemblies national political prominence. Previously they had had little idea of each others’ proceedings. His skilful embellishment of the speeches from the Liberals and Reformers further enhanced the impact of his newsletters. The government in vain attempted to suppress the letters, and other means having failed, he was in May 1837, with Wesselényi and several others, arrested on a charge of high treason. After spending a year in prison at Buda awaiting trial, he was condemned to four more years’ imprisonment. His strict confinement damaged his health, but he was allowed to read. He greatly increased his political knowledge, and also acquired, from the study of the Bible and Shakespeare, a thorough knowledge of English.

The arrests had caused great indignation. The Diet, which reconvened in 1839, demanded the release of the prisoners, and refused to pass any government measures. Metternich long remained obdurate, but the danger of war in 1840 obliged him to give way. Wesselényi had been broken by his imprisonment, but Kossuth, partly supported by the frequent visits of Teresa Meszleny, emerged from prison unbroken. Immediately after his release Kossuth and Meszleny were married, and she remained a firm supporter of his politics. The Roman Catholic priests refused to bless the marriage as Kossuth would not convert to Meszleny’s religion. This experience influenced Kossuth’s firm defense of mixed marriages.

Journalist and political leader
Kossuth had now become a national icon. He regained full health in January 1841 and was appointed editor of Pesti Hírlap, a new Liberal party newspaper. Notably, the government agreed to grant a licence. The paper achieved unprecedented success, soon reaching the then immense circulation of 7000 copies. A competing pro-government paper, Világ, started up but it only served to increase Kossuth’s visibility and add to the general political fervour.

The first Kossuth statue in Hungary. Miskolc, Erzsébet squareSzéchenyi, the great reformer, publicly warned Kossuth that his appeals to the passions of the people would lead the nation to revolution. Kossuth, undaunted, did not stop at the publicly reasoned reforms demanded by all Liberals: the abolition of entail, the abolition of feudal burdens and taxation of the nobles. He went on to broach the possibility of separating from Austria. By combining this nationalism with an insistence on the superiority of the Magyars to the Slavonic inhabitants of Hungary, he sowed the seeds of both the collapse of Hungary in 1849 and his own political demise.

In 1844, Kossuth was dismissed from Pesti Hírlap after a dispute with the proprietor over salary. It is believed that the dispute was rooted in government intrigue. Kossuth was unable to obtain permission to start his own newspaper. In a personal interview Metternich offered to take him into the government service. Kossuth refused, and spent the next three years without a regular position. He continued to agitate on behalf of both political and commercial independence for Hungary. He adopted the economic principles of List, and was the founder of a "Védegylet" society – whose members consumed only Hungarian produce. He also argued for the creation of a Hungarian port at Fiume.

In autumn 1847, Kossuth was able to take his final key step. Due to the support of Lajos Batthyány during a keenly fought campaign, he was elected to the new Diet as member for Pest. He proclaimed: "Now that I am a deputy, I will cease to be an agitator." He immediately became chief leader of the Extreme Liberals. Ferenc Deák was absent. Batthyány, István Széchenyi, Szemere and József Eötvös, his political rivals, felt that his personal ambition and egotism led him to assume the chief place, and to use his parliamentary position to establish himself as leader of the nation; but before his eloquence and energy all apprehensions were useless. His eloquence was of that nature, in its impassioned appeals to the strongest emotions, that it required for its full effect the highest themes and the most dramatic situations. In a time of rest, though he could never have been obscure, he would never have attained the highest power. It was therefore a necessity of his nature, perhaps unconsciously, always to drive things to a crisis.

Regent of Hungary
The crisis came, and he used it to the full. On March 3, 1848, shortly after the news of the revolution in Paris had arrived, in a speech of surpassing power he demanded parliamentary government for Hungary and constitutional government for the rest of Austria. He appealed to the hope of the Habsburgs, "our beloved Archduke Franz Joseph" (then 17 years old), to perpetuate the ancient glory of the dynasty by meeting half-way the aspirations of a free people. He at once became the leader of the European revolution; his speech was read aloud in the streets of Vienna to the mob by which Metternich was overthrown (March 13), and when a deputation from the Diet visited Vienna to receive the assent of Emperor Ferdinand to their petition it was Kossuth who received the chief ovation. Batthyány, who formed the first responsible government, appointed Kossuth the Minister of Finance.

With amazing energy he began developing the internal resources of the country: re-establishing a separate Hungarian coinage, and using every means to increase national self-consciousness Characteristically, the new Hungarian bank notes had Kossuth’s name as the most prominent inscription; making reference to "Kossuth Notes" a future byword. A new paper was started, to which was given the name of Kossuth Hirlapja, so that from the first it was Kossuth rather than the Palatine or the president of the ministry whose name was in the minds of the people associated with the new government. Much more was this the case when, in the summer, the dangers from the Croats, Serbs and the reaction at Vienna increased. In a great speech July 11 he asked that the nation should arm in self-defence, and demanded 200,000 men; amid a scene of wild enthusiasm this was granted by acclamation. When Jellachich was marching on Pest he went from town to town rousing the people to the defence of the country, and the popular force of the Honved was his creation. When Batthyány resigned he was appointed with Szemere to carry on the government provisionally, and at the end of September he was made President of the Committee of National Defence.

From this time he was a virtual dictator. The direction of the whole government was in his hands. Without military experience, he had to control and direct the movements of armies; he was unable to keep control over the generals or to establish that military co-operation so essential to success. Arthur Görgey in particular, whose great abilities Kossuth was the first to recognize, refused obedience; the two men were very different personalities. Twice Kossuth deposed him from the command; twice he had to restore him. It would have been well if Kossuth had had something more of Görgey’s calculated ruthlessness, for, as has been truly said, the revolutionary power he had seized could only be held by revolutionary means (by which it is usually meant, revolutions can only be effected by dictatorship, repression and bloodshed); but he was by nature soft-hearted and always merciful; though often audacious, he lacked decision in dealing with men. It has been said that he showed a want of personal courage; this is not improbable, the excess of feeling which made him so great an orator could hardly be combined with the coolness in danger required of a soldier; but no one was able, as he was, to infuse courage into others.

During all the terrible winter which followed, his energy and spirit never failed him. It was he who overcame the reluctance of the army to march to the relief of Vienna; after the defeat of Schwechat, at which he was present, he sent Bem to carry on the war in Transylvania. At the end of the year, when the Austrians were approaching Pest, he asked for the mediation of Mr Stiles, the American envoy. Windisch-Graetz, however, refused all terms, and the Diet and government fled to Debrecen, Kossuth taking with him the Crown of St Stephen, the sacred emblem of the Hungarian nation. In November 1848, Emperor Ferdinand abdicated in favour of Franz Joseph. The new Emperor revoked all the concessions granted in March and outlawed Kossuth and his colleagues. In April 1849, when the Hungarians had won many successes, after sounding the army, he issued the celebrated declaration of Hungarian independence, in which he declared that "the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, perjured in the sight of God and man, had forfeited the Hungarian throne." It was a step characteristic of his love for extreme and dramatic action, but it added to the dissensions between him and those who wished only for autonomy under the old dynasty, and his enemies did not scruple to accuse him of aiming for Kingship. For the time the future form of government was left undecided, but Kossuth was appointed regent-president (to satisfy both royalists and republicans). The hopes of ultimate success were frustrated by the intervention of Russia; all appeals to the western powers were vain, and on August 11 Kossuth abdicated in favor of Görgey, on the ground that in the last extremity the general alone could save the nation. Görgey capitulated at Világos to the Russians, who handed over the army to the Austrians. Görgey was spared – at the insistence of the Russians. Reprisals were taken on the rest of the Hungarian army. Kossuth steadfastly maintained until his death that Görgey alone was responsible for the humiliation.

Escape and Triumphant Tour of England and America
Kossuth’s time in power was at an end. A solitary fugitive, he crossed the Turkish frontier. He was hospitably received by the Turkish authorities, who, supported by the British, refused, notwithstanding the threats of the allied emperors, to surrender him and other fugitives to Austria. In January 1850 he was removed from Vidin, where he had been kept under house arrest, to Shumla, and thence to Kütahya in Asia Minor. Here he was joined by his children, who had been confined at Pozsony/Pressburg (Bratislava); his wife (a price had been set on her head) had joined him earlier, having escaped in disguise.

In September 1851 he was allowed to leave Turkey on an American man-of-war. He first landed at Marseille, where he received an enthusiastic welcome from the people, but the Prince-President Louis Napoleon refused to allow him to cross France.

On October 23 he landed at Southampton and spent three weeks in Britain, where he was generally feted. Addresses were presented to him at Southampton, Birmingham and other towns; he was officially entertained by the Lord Mayor of London; at each place he spoke eloquently in English for the Hungarian cause; and he indirectly caused Queen Victoria to stretch the limits of her constitutional power over her Ministers to avoid embarassment, and eventually helped cause the fall of the government in power.

Having learnt English during an earlier political imprisonment with the aid of a volume of Shakespeare, his spoken English was ‘wonderfully archaic’ and theatrical. The Times, generally cool towards the revolutionaries of 1848 in general and Kossuth in particular, nevertheless reported that his speeches were ‘clear’ and that a three-hour talk was not unusual for him; and also, that if he was occasionally overcome by emotion when describing the defeat of Hungarian aspirations, ‘it did not at all reduce his effectiveness’. At Southampton, he was greeted by a crowd of thousands outside the Lord Mayor’s balcony, who presented him with a flag of the Hungarian Republic. The Corporation of London accompanied him in procession through the City, and the way to the Guildhall was lined by thousands of cheering people. He went thereafter to Winchester, Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham; at Birmingham the crowd that gathered to see him ride under the triumphal arches erected for his visit was described, even by his severest critics, as 75,000 individuals. Back in London he addressed the Trades Unions at Copenhagen Fields in Islington. Some twelve thousand ‘respectable artisans’ formed a parade at Russell Square and marched out to meet him. At the Fields themselves, the crowd was enormous; the Times estimated it conservatively at 25,000, while the Morning Chronicle described it as 50,000, and the demonstrators themselves 100,000.

The Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, who had already proved himself a friend of the losing sides in several of the failed revolutions of 1848, was determined to receive him at his country house, Broadlands. The Cabinet had to vote to prevent it; Queen Victoria reputedly was so incensed by the possibility of her Foreign Secretary supporting an outspoken republican that she asked the Prime Minister, Lord John Russell for Palmerson’s resignation, but Russell claimed that such a dismissal would be drastically unpopular at that time and over that issue. When Palmerston upped the ante by receiving at his house, instead of Kossuth, a delegation of Trade Unionists from Islington and Finsbury, and listened sympathetically as they read an address that praised Kossuth and declared the Emperors of Austria and Russia ‘despots, tyrants and odious assassins’, it was noted as a mark of indifference to Royal displeasure. This, together with Palmerston’s support of Louis Napoleon, caused the Russell government to fall and Palmerston himself to take office.

In addition, the indignation which he aroused against Russian policy had much to do with the strong anti-Russian feeling which made the Crimean War possible.

From Britain he went to the United States of America: there his reception was equally enthusiastic, if less dignified. He was the second foreign citizen to make a speech in the National Statuary Hall (Lafayette being the first).

Later Exile and Death
Gradually, his autocratic style and uncompromising outlook destroyed any real influence among the expatriate community. Other Hungarian exiles protested against his appearing to claim to be the only national hero of the revolution. Count Casimir Batthyány attacked him in The Times, and Szemere, who had been prime minister under him, published a bitter criticism of his acts and character, accusing him of arrogance, cowardice and duplicity. He soon returned to England, where he lived for eight years in close connection with Mazzini, by whom, with some misgiving, he was persuaded to join the Revolutionary Committee. Quarrels of a kind only too common among exiles followed. Hungarians were especially offended by his continuing use of the title of Regent. He watched with anxiety every opportunity of once more freeing his country from Austria. An attempt to organize a Hungarian legion during the Crimean War was stopped; but in 1859 he entered into negotiations with Napoleon III, left England for Italy and began the organization of a Hungarian legion, which was to make a descent on the coast of Dalmatia. The Peace of Villafranca made this impossible.

From then on, Kossuth remained in Italy. He refused to follow the other Hungarian patriots, who, under the lead of Deák, negotiated the 1867 Compromise (Ausgleich), and the ensuing amnesty. It is doubted whether Emperor Franz Joseph would have allowed the amnesty to extend to Kossuth. Publicly, Kossuth remained unreconciled to the house of Habsburg, and committed to a fully independent state. Though elected to the Diet of 1867, he never took his seat. He continued to remain a widely popular figure, but did not allow his name to be associated with dissent or any political cause. A law of 1879, which deprived of citizenship all Hungarians who had voluntarily been absent ten years, was a bitter blow to him. He displayed no interest in benefitting from a further amnesty in 1880.

In 1890, a delegation of Hungarian pilgrims in Turin recorded a short patriotic speech delivered by the elderly Lajos Kossuth. The original recording on two wax cylinders for the Edison phonograph survives to this day, although barely audible due to excess playback and unsuccessful early restoration attempts. Lajos Kossuth is the earliest born person in the world who has his voice preserved.

He died in Turin on the 20th of March 1894; his body was taken to Budapest, where he was buried amid the mourning of the whole nation, Mór Jókai delivering the funeral oration. A bronze statue was erected, by public subscription, in the Kerepesi Cemetery. Many regard Kossuth as Hungary’s purest patriot and greatest orator.

Many points in Kossuth’s career and character will probably always remain the subject of controversy. His complete works were published in Hungarian at Budapest in 1880-1895. The fullest account of the Revolution is given in Helfert, Geschichte Oesterreichs (Leipzig, 1869, &c.), representing the Austrian view, which may be compared with that of C Gracza, History of the Hungarian War of Independence, 1848-1849 (in Hungarian) (Budapest, 1894). See also E. O. S., Hungary and its Revolutions, with a Memoir of Louis Kossuth (Bohn, 1854); Horvath, 25 Jahre aus der Geschichte Ungarns, 1823-1848 (Leipzig, 1867) H Maurice, Revolutions of 1848-1849. Stiles, Austria in 1848-1849 (New York, 1852); Szemere, Politische Charakterskizzen: III. Kossuth (Hamburg, 1853); Louis Kossuth, Memoirs of my Exile (London, 1880); Ferenc Pulszky, Meine Zeit, mein Leben (Pressburg, 1880); A Somogyi, Ludwig Kossuth (Berlin, 1894).

Today the main square of Budapest with the Hungarian Parliament Building is named after him and the Kossuth Memorial is an important scene of national ceremonies. Almost every town in Hungary has its own Kossuth Street or Kossuth Square and a statue of Kossuth, with the first public statue of him being the one in Miskolc, erected in 1898. The memorials of Lajos Kossuth in the territories lost by Hungary after World War I were sooner or later demolished in neighbouring countries. A few of them was re-erected following the fall of Communism by local councils or private associations. They play an important role as symbols of national identity of the Hungarian minority. The most important memorial outside the present-day borders of Hungary is a statue in Rožňava (hun: Rozsnyó), that was knocked down two times but restored after much controversy in 2004. The only Kossuth statue that remained on its place after 1920 in Romania stands in Salonta (hun: Nagyszalonta). The demolished Kossuth Memorial of Târgu-Mureş (hun: Marosvásárhely) was re-erected in 2001 in the little Székely village of Ciumani (hun: Gyergyócsomafalva). In Serbia there are two statues of Kossuth in Stara Moravica (hun: Ómoravica or Bácskossuthfalva) and Novi Itebej (hun: Magyarittebe). Memorials in Ukraine are situated in Berehove (hun: Beregszász) and Tiachiv (hun: Técső). Additionally, a bust of Lajos Kossuth is housed in the US Capitol Building in Washington D.C.

The small town of Kossuth, Mississippi in the United States is named in honor of Lajos Kossuth.

The largest county in Iowa, Kossuth County, is named in honor of Lajos Kossuth. In front of the County Court House in Algona, Iowa, (the county seat) stands a statue of the freedom fighter.

Other statues of Kossuth remain sprinkled throughout the U.S., including in University Circle in Cleveland, Ohio. There is also a Kossuth Park at the intersection of East 121st Street and East Shaker Boulevard, just west of Shaker Square, in Cleveland.

Kossuth Road in Cambridge Ontario Canada

Citizenship and Freedom
Image by Okinawa Soba


Perhaps the boys in the photo are studying "Engrish" ? HELLO KITTY ! LET’S SPORTS ! GET !!!

A few moons ago, I posted a shot taken inside a GIRLS Elementary school : www.flickr.com/photos/24443965@N08/2369860061/in/set-7215…

Now, it’s the BOYS turn…in real 3-D. The year is 1904.

So, do we have some kind of strict Islamic thing going on here ? Boys and Girls educated separately ? Back in 1904, was separation of the sexes at this age a normal thing in all the civilized world ?

LAURA INGALLS WILDER (Little House on the Prairie) and LUCY MAUD MONTGOMERY (Anne of Green Gables) would tell us that [North America, at least] was co-ed from day one of the late 19th century. I also notice that in all of my 19th Century Western photos of North American school groups, the kids were all mixed together.

But I have friends and family in the USA that attended either "All Boys" or "All Girls" schools for a part of their lives. I can’t say that either system — co-ed or separate classrooms — produced a more spectacular class of human being as some kind of endorsement of a particular choice in the matter.

On the other hand, some reports show that for certain subjects, and at certain ages, keeping the boys and girls apart is beneficial to both.

Ok. That’s in the classroom. But what about outside the classroom ?

And…….what about MODERN DAY JAPAN ??? !

I have been to numerous schools, and in every case I can recollect, the BOYS all sat on one side, and the GIRLS all sat on the other in the same classrooms. "Separate but Equal". (Hmmmm….where have I heard THAT before?)

But it goes even deeper.

In an AMAZING, BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES cultural experience in Okinawa, Japan, I would daily drive by the local BUS STOPS where the kids were all waiting for the School Buses in the morning. The US MILITARY DEPENDENT KIDS were all of them, male and female, MIXED TOGETHER in a big group, chatting away with their friends of both sexes. And there, at the same bus stop, only a few feet away, the JAPANESE KIDS were always in TWO groups — one male, one female — chatting away, and keeping at least 10 feet of open space between the two groups. I can’t say that I have ever seen a more graphic "sexual" display of comparative cultural norms and values demonstrated in real time. It seems to say that, at least culturally speaking, that the "die is cast" — even at such young ages.

I saw this every day, for years on end. And NO RELIGION was involved.

CULTURE. Can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

By the way, according to data published by a US Military "Family Advocacy Services", approximately 80% of marriages between Japanese women and US Servicemen stationed in Japan since WW2 have ended in divorce.

Open for discussion.

PS. As I write this in 2008, Pakistani senators are defending the practice of BURYING YOUNG WOMEN ALIVE who were judged guilty by tribal elders of having engaged in a relationship with men not of their tribe…….." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage

Nothing was mentioned about burying MEN alive for the same "infraction".

How about BURNING WOMEN ALIVE as a matter of course ? Here is a reverse situation, where a MINORITY rules a majority, and imposes their own culture on the masses…with a tongue-in-cheek twist of logic to make the masses conform :

"……….A story for which British General Napier is famous involves a delegation of Hindu locals approaching him in India, and complaining about prohibition of Sati, often referred to at the time as suttee, by British authorities. This was the custom of BURNING WIDOWS ALIVE on the funeral pyres of their husbands. The exact wording of his response varies somewhat in different reports, but the following version captures its essence:

‘You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.’……………." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_James_Napier (Thanks to flickr commenter 驢馬跡 for pointing out that story and link)

This brings up a related concept of "Extraterritoriality". A situation, defined by treaty, that allows certain minority populations (such as Embassies, Military Bases, Business Communities, etc) to conduct things in their own cultural and legal ways without interference by the host country. Note that in ALL CASES today, these exceptions apply ONLY to transient populations related to the purpose and existence of the foreign enclave, and NOT to those foreigners who immigrate for the purpose of forsaking their OLD COUNTRY for residence or citizenship in the NEW COUNTRY.


PREDICTION : There will come a day when Western "Democracies", in their misguided "political correctness", will extend the right of EXTRATERRITORIALITY to ALL FOREIGN TOURISTS, IMMIGRANTS (both legal and illegal), and ENEMY SPIES, and allow all "immigrant populations" from opposing systems to mete out justice and punishment within their own cultural-religious groups — even if such "local justice" is in direct abrogation of the "higher laws" of the host nation where the immigrants live. FURTHER PREDICTION : Immigrants who hold different cultural values than their host nation will extend their "local justice" to those outside their groups, especially when offended by those exercising freedoms not available to the cloistered immigrants. FURTHER PREDICTION : The human species will eventually revert to the stone age.

WHAT I HOPE FOR : That some flickr member will predict that my predictions will NEVER come true !

Now, excuse me while I go BURN MY WIFE ALIVE. I’ve just started a new religion where I can do that BEFORE I die, and not after. The "Politically Correct" Democrats in DC have already given me full TAX EXEMPT STATUS. And since I am bankrupt as well, they have passed a bill in Congress to bail me out, and also provide funds for my wife’s funeral pyre in order to respect my religious and cultural rights ! Woo Hoo !

Was Jesus a Myth? Part 2

The second half of the debate between Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

The United Nations, India and the Gulf War (1990-2001)

Note: This article was written in 2001

Historical Background
Throughout history, the Gulf region has been rife with all kinds of coups, disputes, crises and wars. The overthrow of Mossadeq (1951), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six Days War (1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) were some of the crises that marred the region since the Second World War.

The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of many long-standing disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, besides other causes such as the emergence of Iraq as a great military power after the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam’s ambitions in the absence of democratic ideals in the Arab world and the intra Arab-Gulf relations.

When Iraq became independent in 1932, it began to assert territorial claims against Kuwait. Iraq claimed that Kuwait has been under the Ottoman Empire as a district of Basra, and that since Iraq is the successor of the empire, Kuwait naturally becomes a part of Iraq. Before 1990, Iraq had attempted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq on at least two occasions. The first occurred in the late 1930s when King Ghazi of Iraq made demands to unify Kuwait with Iraq. But that demand soon died down when King Ghazi mysteriously died in an accident on 4 April, 1939.

The second occasion occurred in 1961 when Britain and Kuwait formally terminated their relationship under the treaty of January 1899.[1] Iraq, under General Abdul Karim Qasim again made an attempt to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq. On 2 July, 1961, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the problem. Under paragraph 2, Article 35 of the United Nations, both Iraq and Kuwait submitted their complaint to the UN. The UN Security Council, however, could neither diffuse the crisis nor pass any resolution due to the use of its veto by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went along with the Iraqi view and stated that, “The Security Council’s most immediate task in this situation is to condemn the actions of the colonial power and to take measures which lead to the immediate withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Kuwait.”[2] In the absence of any proper agreements in the UN, the Arab League stepped in and came up with an alternative solution to the problem. It accepted Kuwait’s independence and vowed to defend Kuwait against any external threats or aggression. Iraq, however never really accepted Kuwait’s independence.

With the passage of time, the dispute simmered down. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War almost completely overshadowed the Kuwait-Iraq issue and the matter was laid to an uneasy rest during the war. Although several meetings were held between Kuwait and Iraq, the matter could not be settled and it continued until 2 August, 1990 when the dispute took a completely new turn.

In the months preceding the invasion, Saddam made several threatening charges against Kuwait among which are the extraction of Iraqi crude oil by Kuwait in the Rumailah oilfield and Kuwait’s illegal possession of Warba, Bubiyan and Failaka Islands. Saddam accused Kuwait of ‘overproduction’ of oil, which Iraq regarded as “… a kind of war against Iraq.” This overproduction, Saddam claimed, depressed oil prices and raised the revenue of Kuwait which did nothing to help Iraq. He warns Kuwait that its overproduction was “a poison dagger in Iraq’s back,” and that it was “an evil against Iraq… an American plot to deplete Iraq’s oil revenues…” Saddam also threatened to use force “… to put things right… cutting a few throats is better than cutting the means of living.”[3]

The Crisis
Things finally came to a head after the failed Jeddah meeting of 31 July and 1 August, 1990 between Iraq and Kuwait, when, on 2 August, 1990, 100,000 Iraqi troops and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait with little resistance. Iraq announced soon after that it would withdraw when the situation stabilises and when the “Free Provisional Government of Kuwait” asks them to withdraw.[4] This announcement proved to be a complete sham because on 28 August 1990, Kuwait was formally annexed to Iraq and declared as the 19th Iraqi province. By 4 November, it was announced that Kuwait “no longer exists and that the world should forget about Kuwait’s independence.”

After several resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council condemning the action and imposing sanctions on Iraq, Resolution 678 was finally passed on 29 November 1990 that authorises the coalition forces to “restore international peace and security in the area” by the use of “all necessary means.” The Council, in what it termed a “pause of goodwill” gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to end its occupation of Kuwait.

In the intervening period, many diplomatic efforts for a peaceful resolution to the crisis were undertaken. The Nonaligned Movement (NAM), the League of Arab States, the European Community, France and four permanent members of the Security Council (Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia and Yemen) forwarded their peace plans, but due to lack of international support, no viable solutions could be found. The 9 January 1991 talks between the US Secretary of State, James Baker and Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz did not make any headway either. A last minute effort by the UN Secretary General was also “unfortunately unsuccessful.” As the Secretary General’s efforts yielded no results and as the deadline came to an end, he remarked, “No one, and no nation can, except with a heavy heart – resort to the other ‘necessary means’ implied by the resolution 678 (1990), knowing in advance that tragic and unpredictable consequences can follow.”

What followed next was the transformation of “Operation Desert Shield” to “Operation Desert Storm.” From 17 January, for the next six weeks, Iraqi military facilities and other installations were bombed. This had serious effect on Iraqi military strength, for, when the ground offensive began at 4am local time on 24 February 1991; the US-led coalition forces met little resistance and easily succeeded in liberating Kuwait on 27 February 1991.

The United Nations and the Gulf Crisis
Soon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council met in an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. The Council, at its 2932 meeting on 2 August 199o adopted Resolution 660. The resolution stated that the Security Council was “alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait… by the military forces of Iraq,” and it “condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait” and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally.” This resolution was adopted with 14 votes with one abstention (Yemen). The League of Arab States (LAS), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Nonaligned Movement (NAM), Nordic States, Western European Union (WEU), NATO, OPEC, World Bank and ICAO have, in their own terms also condemned the invasion.

As Iraq failed to comply with the Security Council Resolution 660, the UN Security Council, on 6 August adopted Resolution 661 which imposes mandatory arms and economic sanctions on Iraq. Iraq, however, calls it “iniquitous and unjust,” “precipitous,” and aimed at starving the Iraqi people.[5] This resolution was adopted with Cuba and Yemen abstaining.

Iraq continued to stand defiant and on 7 August 1990 declared its “comprehensive, eternal and inseparable merger” with Kuwait. With no sign of Iraqi withdrawal or compliance with resolutions 660 and 661, Resolution 662 was adopted on 9 August 1990 which declared the annexation of Kuwait “null and void.” Two other resolutions were adopted by the end of the first month of the crisis. On 18 August the Security Council adopted Resolution 664 which demanded the release of foreign nationals held in Iraq. Resolution 665, adopted on 25 August, calls upon member states to cooperate with the exiled Kuwaiti Government and to stop and search all ships travelling to or leaving Iraq.

Resolution 666, adopted on 13 September 1990 addressed the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It directed the Sanctions Committee to pay particular attention to “children under 15 years of age, expectant mothers, maternity cases, the sick and the elderly” in the determination of food supplies among the civilian population.

The closure of all diplomatic missions in Kuwait by Iraq prompted the Security Council to adopt Resolution 667 on 16 September which expressed the Council’s outrage and its demands for “the immediate release of those foreign nationals as well as all nationals,” and “protect the safety and well-being of diplomatic and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait.”

Resolution 669 of 24 September 1990, “entrusts the (Sanctions) Committee… with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50” of the UN Charter.[6] The very next day, on 25 September, Resolution 670 confirmed that the sanction against Iraq “applies to all means of transport including aircraft.” It called upon member states to impose an air embargo on Iraq and Kuwait.

On 29 October 1990, the Council, in its Resolution 674 demands that Iraq “desist from taking any third state nationals hostage” and to stop its mistreatment and oppression of either Kuwaitis or foreign nationals. On 28 November 1990, yet another resolution was adopted by the Council. Resolution 677 condemns the Iraqi attempt to alter the demographic composition of the Kuwait population and the destruction of population records.

Iraq’s refusal to comply with any of the Council’s resolutions finally led to the passing of Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 which authorises the use of “all necessary means” to uphold and implement the resolutions. This resolution was adopted with 12 in favour, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen) and 1 abstention (China). Although the words “the use of force” were not used, it was clearly implied, as the United States maintained. The US said after the voting, “Today’s resolution is very clear. The words authorise the use of force.”[7] The Council gave “Iraq one final opportunity as a pause of goodwill” till 15 January 1991 to comply with the resolutions. This resolution was the first resolution since 27 June 1950 when the Security Council adopted a resolution that authorises the use of force in Korea.

What followed was a flurry of diplomatic activities undertaken by different countries and regional organisations. The UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar’s last-ditch efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw failed. Then, the dateline of 15 January 1991 expired. On 16 January, nothing happened; like the lull before a storm. Then all hell broke loose on 17 January with allied forces pounding Iraqi positions. The start of air campaigns was reported by the US to the Security Council on the same day.[8] Saddam Hussein announced on Iraq radio that the “Mother of all Battles” had started. On 22 January 1991, the UN Secretary General appealed to Iraq to comply with the Council resolutions. Later on, he urged Iraq to put “this tragic situation on the road to a peaceful solution.”[9] Several private meetings of the Security Council were held during February and March. But these meetings could not yield any fruitful results.

On the morning of 24 February 1991, ground offensive started and soon, on 27 February, Kuwait was liberated. On 27 February, Iraq announced that it agreed to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 660 of 1990 and all other resolutions.[10] Iraq also informed the Security Council of the withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, while adding that “American and other pro-aggressor forces” are continuing their attack on the withdrawing Iraqi forces.[11] The coalition operations were stopped at midnight 27-28 February 1991. By 4 March 1991, the Kuwaiti Government resumed its functions in Kuwait City.

Looking back at Resolution 678, we can find some inconsistencies and discrepancies in its provisions. The wordings of the resolution – “use (of) all necessary means” was too vague in the first place, and this led to a number of interpretations. The US interpreted it as the authorisation of the use of force. It can be said that it was a US victory when the resolution was passed. In a speech before the resolution was put to vote, the US representative to the Security Council said, “If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, then other necessary measures, including the use of force, should be authorised.”[12] It can also be seen that the resolution was not in conformity with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter though the resolution stated that it acts “under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” For instance, Article 42 (under Chapter VII) states that forces may be used only when the economic sanctions are inadequate. Article 46 states that “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.” These provisions were not followed at all under resolution 678. It did not give enough time for the sanctions to take effect. This was also the Indian view.[13] The resolution also did not mention any Military Staff Committee. Moreover, with the abstention of China from the resolution, it failed to have the required concurrence of the five permanent members.

On 27 February 1991, it was President Bush who ordered the ceasefire and who proclaimed ‘victory’. The Secretary General, on 28 February said, “We hope it is the beginning of the end of this terrible tragedy.”

On 2 March 1991, resolution 686 was adopted by a vote of 11 in favour, 1 against (Cuba) and 3 abstentions (China, India and Yemen). While reaffirming that all the resolutions adopted before continue to have “full force and effect”, it laid down several preconditions for the ceasefire which Iraq was obliged to immediately implement. It also recognised that during the implementation of resolution 686, the right to use “all necessary measures” under resolution 678 will “remain valid.”

Resolution 687 was adopted on 3 April 1991 which finally and formally declared a ceasefire. This resolution was adopted by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Yemen and Ecuador). Some of the main provisions of the resolution included guarantee of boundary and allocation of islands between Iraq and Kuwait, deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone, destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles, UN inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical and missile capabilities, return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, payment of compensation by Iraq, continuation of sanctions, repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals, renouncement of the practice of terrorism and declaration of ceasefire.

Iraq called this resolution “unjust” and “iniquitous” and was “an unprecedented assault” on Iraq.[14] But Iraq, having no other choice, had to accept the resolution on 6 April 1991.[15] This resolution was also criticised in the following words: “It was not a negotiated agreement but a unilaterally formulated one, imposed on Iraq. The peace was dictated. The Council exceeded its powers because its Charter nowhere empowers the UN to impose a settlement on parties to a dispute.”[16] With the Iraqi acceptance of the resolution, the ceasefire formally came into effect.

Post-War Situation and the UN
Soon after the ceasefire, the UN took steps to actively participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Iraq and Kuwait. Several UN missions and teams went to Iraq and Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation there. Their reports highlighted hunger, thirst, disease, desolation, destruction and death. According to one report, 170,000 children under five would die in 1991 because of the war and economic sanctions. It was remarked, “The situation was absurd. While UN and other agencies were struggling with totally inadequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, another UN body, the Security Council was insisting that Iraq be denied the opportunity to sell its own oil in order to buy food, medicines and other supplies.”[17]

A direct effect of the ceasefire resolution, particularly the continuation of sanctions was that “There now began a massive onslaught on the Iraqi civilian population – denied the means to rebuild a totally shattered social and industrial infrastructure, denied uncontaminated drinking water, denied medical facilities, and denied food in adequate quantities. The US policy represented one of the most comprehensive campaigns of biological warfare – denying relief to a diseased and starving people – in modern times.”[18]

Some more resolutions were adopted later that year – 688 (5 April); 692 (20 May); 697, 699 and 700 (17 June); 706 and 707 (15 August); 712 (19 September); 713 (25 September); 715 (11 October) – dealing with the post-war situation and reparation in Iraq.

In retrospect, it can be said that the Gulf War was not an UN war at all. The UN was marginalised on all occasions. It was the US that ran the whole operation. The US, it seemed, was clearly intent on using force right from the beginning. Even before the invasion of 2 August 1990, the US having knowledge of the threat did not warn the UN and made no efforts to stop it. It never directly negotiated with Iraq after the ‘storm’ nor was the UN asked to act as mediator.[19]

When the war finally came, the UN Secretary General remarked that “… the war in the Gulf is not UN war, and the World Body has no control over it… we are informed through the Security Council about military operation but after they have taken place.”[20] He also said, “We cannot consider it as an UN war in the sense that there is no UN flag. They are not in blue UN helmets. There is no UN control over military operations.”

Several peace plans came forward from different quarters, even from Iraq. However, none of them could succeed in bringing the war to an end, for; they are rejected by the US. The UN could do nothing. “The Americans had used the Security Council when it suited them, calling it into session again and again when Iraq invaded Kuwait and accepting resolutions critical of Iraq in order to ratify its own condemnation of Iraq. But once the war began, the Americans with enthusiastic British support, did all they could to stop the Security Council playing any part, and when they failed to hold the line, made sure its proceedings were in secret. Perez de Cuellar, who should have been a man at the centre of events, was never consulted and never informed of what was going on.”[21]

India and the Gulf Crisis
Historically, there have always been good relations between India and Iraq. Therefore when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, India was in a big dilemma. Neither did India want to offend Saddam Hussein nor did it want to go against the UN. India decided to toe the middle line for sometime by making a statement that, “India was opposed to the use of force in any form of relations between states.”

The major policy objective of India under Prime Minister VP Singh was the repatriation of the 170,000-180,000 Indians stranded in Kuwait. From August, Air India started massive airlifting operations and by October, almost 160,000 Indians were returned home. The VP Singh government later denounced the Iraqi invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi force from Kuwait. However, India did not take any further steps to resolve the crisis. After resolution 661 was adopted, India’s import of crude oil from Iraq stopped. This greatly affected India’s earnings and India had to as the UN for assistance.[22]

On November 1990, there was a change of government in India. VP Singh was replaced by Chandrasekhar of Janata (S). The Chandrasekhar government too remained a passive spectator to the Gulf Crisis. There were no active diplomatic efforts on the part of India to diffuse the crisis. However, there were some shifts in the Indian stand now. There was a general impression that India was toeing the US line. India now blamed Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the crisis.

Just before the air campaign, the Foreign Minister VC Shukla and the Deputy Foreign Minister Digvijay Singh visited several countries to bring about some solution to the problem, but to no avail. When the war finally came, India maintained a conspicuous silence. The Indian peace proposal fell on deaf ears. The late Rajiv Gandhi also put forward his peae-package while criticising the government for reducing India to a “hapless spectator.” His main focus was on the replacement of the US-led coalition by a UN force and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.[23]

Adding to the confusion was the discourse that US planes were being refuelled at Bombay since 9 January 1991. It caused a great political turmoil in India, when major political parties started to point their fingers at each other. The Congress, the Janata Dal and the left parties severely criticised the government for being an ‘ally’ of the US. The BJP on the other hand, backed the government arguing that India must support the UN and extend all help to the coalition forces.[24]

Some analysis pointed out that the government’s decision to permit the refuelling was because of the improved relations between the US and India. Besides, the economic situation in India had forced it to ask an IMF loan of 1.8 billion dollars. Then, three days after the loan was sanctioned, the refuelling started. No one believed that this was a coincidence.[25]

Though the government resisted and dogged the salvo of criticisms for some time, the Congress’s threat to withdraw support led the government to stop the refuelling facility provided to the Americans.

The Nonaligned Movement also came in for a lot of criticisms for its actions (or more appropriately, inactions). Iraq and Kuwait are both members of the NAM. The first high-level meeting of NAM to discuss the Gulf Crisis was held on 11 September 1990. This meeting was attended by the Indian Foreign Minister IK Gujral. It was announced that NAM would set up a ‘catalyst group’ to bring the crisis to an end.

The Belgrade meeting of NAM on 11 February 1991 produced no desired results. But it was decided that they should send a team to both the sides. The team to visit Baghdad on 23 February was to be composed of the Foreign Ministers of India, Cuba, Iran and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the ground war however blew the plan into oblivion. NAM could no longer play any role as the focus was on the UN and the US.

India’s role through the war fared no better. When the Iraqi invasion took place, India was not a member of the Security Council; therefore it did not take part in any of the meetings of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. India however expressed its support to the UN. India’s dilemma began only after 1 January 1991 when it became a member of the Security Council. India abstained, along with China and Yemen in the first voting of the first resolution after 678 on 2 March 1991.

India voted for the ceasefire resolution (687) after certain clauses were changed with its insistence. India had reservations with some provisions relating to the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and also with the provisions relating to the destruction of Iraqi nuclear weapons because India had apprehensions that they would have further implications on the Kashmir issue and India’s own nuclear programme.[26]

Throughout the war, India was criticised for not playing any decisive role, and seems to be only interested in the repatriation of the stranded Indians in Kuwait and in the continuation of its oil supplies. Besides, India did not take any decisive steps as a regional leader and as an important member of NAM to diffuse the crisis. The provision of refuelling facilities and its subsequent withdrawal also showed India’s indecisiveness and reluctance to play any pro-active role in international politics. It also seems that India’s role “… ended up in solving neither Iraq nor Kuwait and certainly not our own country.”[27]

However, to arrive at a balanced assessment of India’s role in the crisis, certain factors must be understood. In the first place, the government in India was a minority government. The Janata (S) had only 68 members out of 473 in the Lok Sabha. The Congress support with 193 members was vital to its survival. Thus, it was unable to act decisively. The subsequent shift in India’s foreign policy towards the US-led coalition should also be seen in the light of the economic situation in India. This shift may also have been caused by certain elements within the government that are pro-US. Moreover, India, through NAM could not act because of the attitudes of the coalition force under the US as well as that of Saddam Hussein.

Post-War Developments (up to 2001): a chronology
1992: The UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 (1991) had allowed Iraq to sell petroleum worth up to 1,600 million dollars over a six months period, the revenue from which was to be controlled by the UN. Iraq in 1992 rejected the terms of the resolutions and withdrew from all negotiations on this issue. Resolution 778 was adopted on 2 October 1992 to put pressure on Iraq to accept resolutions 706 and 712. Iraqi request to lift sanctions was rejected.

1993: In 1993, UN weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq. Another team abruptly left Iraq after Iraq refused the setting up of surveillance equipments at its missile testing locations. For the rest of the year, talks between the UN and Iraq remained inconclusive.

1994: In March 1994, another Iraqi request to lift sanctions was again rejected. With this, a division within the Council emerged. Russia, France and China are in favour of lifting the sanctions. On October, in an apparent move to draw attention to its plight, Iraq moved its forces towards Kuwait. Iraq announced later that it would withdraw. Prompted by this, the Council on 10 October passed resolution 949 that warns Iraq to desist from using its forces against its neighbours or the UN. By December, it was announced by the head of UNSCOM that he believed Iraq no longer have any nuclear or ballistic weapons.

1995: In 1995, another resolution (986) was adopted that was aimed at the partial resumption of exports of Iraqi oil. In the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the UN held at New York during 22-24 October 1995, the Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz said, “unipolarism” led to “hasty application of… sanctions and the use of armed force.” This has “deprived… people of their basic human rights…” and led to “the death of thousands of children, women and the elderly due to lack of food and medication.”[28]

1996: In early January 1996, Iraq indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue on a ‘oil-for-food’ agreement with the UN. After several rounds of talks, it was finally agreed that up to 4000 million dollars worth of Iraqi oil would be sold a year to purchase food and medicine. On 27 March, the Council adopted resolution 1051 that established a system to monitor all exports to Iraq that could be used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. This was apparently prompted by the announcement made by the head of UNSCOM Rolf Ekeus that Iraq was in possession of missiles and biological weapons.

1997: After the deliberate violation of the air exclusion zone by Iraq in April and the subsequent remark of the US president that Saddam is the biggest threat and the refusal of Iraq to allow arms inspectors to work, the Council passed yet another resolution (1115) on 21 June 1997, warning Iraq that more sanctions may come. In October, the Revolutionary Command Council criticised the high proportion of Americans in UNSCOM. Resolution 1137 was adopted that warned Iraq to stop expelling US personnel. In December, Iraq suspended oil exports.

1998: Oil exports from Iraq resumed in January. Security Council resolution 1153 adopted on 20 February doubled the six-monthly income permitted to the Iraqi government to 5200 million dollars. Resolution 1175 of June continued the distribution plan of humanitarian supplies. Iraq was also permitted to improve its oil productions. Just when it seems that things will get better, the ‘discovery’ of VX spoilt it all. In December, the US and UK launched attacks on Iraq. This elicited widespread demonstrations across the Middle East.

1999: In January, after the French proposal of replacement of UNSCOM was opposed by the US, Iraq voted in parliament renouncing all previous commitments made to the Security Council. In March, reports came that the CIA has been using UNSCOM as a cover for operations in Iraq. New demands were made for the replacement of UNSCOM by a new system of monitoring. In December, the Council adopted Resolution 1284 that replaced UNSCOM by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which was charged with monitoring Iraq.

2000: In January, the IAEA inspectors went into Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq had a deep impact on the civilian population. In February, the ICRC reported that infant mortality had trebled since 1990, and water supplies had deteriorated. Air strikes still continued.[29]

2001: In mid-January, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War stated, “Kuwait deserved invasion” and warned that Baghdad would fight back if the US continued its anti-Iraq policy under the new US President George W. Bush.[30] On 16 February, about two dozen US and British warplanes bombed five “military targets” in and around Baghdad in the biggest strike against Iraq since 1998. In response, Iraq announced that “… their aggression will achieve nothing but failure.”[31] This strike came under criticisms from China, Russia, France, India, Egypt, Syria, Canada and Turkey who felt that the US and Britain had overstepped their line. They agreed that strikes must be sanctioned by the Security Council.
Prime Minister AB Vajpayee slams the US for its air raid and said that India was in favour of lifting sanctions, and that the no-fly zones “do not come within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions.”[32]

Again on 22 February, US warplanes strike Iraqi’s air-defence targets in northern Iraq. These strikes were followed by large demonstrations with the demonstrators calling for jihad.

As the current process of sanctions, strikes, inspection, verification and the likes continue, it is very likely that Iraq could use it in his own favour. Using the “sympathy strategy”, Iraq can get oil deals from France, Russia and China. Moreover, with more frequent attacks on Iraq, more Gulf War allies are now siding with Iraq, Egypt and Syria had already signed trade agreements with Iraq. Even within the Security Council, the crack has become more vocal in their criticism of the embargo imposed on Iraq. The Iraqi people do not have much of a choice except to rally behind Saddam Hussein.[33]

However, the US and UK are still very firm in their commitment to contain Saddam Hussein who had been labelled by them as the most dangerous man in the world. On the other hand, Iraq is determined to stay defiant. Iraq now asserts that UN arms inspectors will never be allowed back into the country.[34] Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan exhorted the Security Council to find a common ground on Iraq.

It is now very important that both the sides change their attitude before talking about peace. To assure any lasting peace, it is imperative to strike at the roots of instability. For this, the Persian Gulf countries need to be well integrated, embark on confidence building measures, create regional alliance and common security and build up non-offensive defence.[35]

Even after ten years, the crisis in the Gulf is still to be solved. One is left to wonder when it will be. For the moment, however, the end of the crisis is nowhere in sight.

June 2001


[1] Agreement between the British government and the Sheikh of Kuwait regarding the non-reception of foreign representatives and non-cession of territory to foreign powers or subjects, 23 January 1899 in Lauterpacht et al (eds) The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents (1991)

[2] Security Council Official Records (SCOR), sixteenth year, 958th meeting, 5 July 1961, paras 55, 65

[3] Iraq TV, 8pm (IST), 17 July 1990. Quoted in Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy: Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait. Genesis, Consequences and Conflict Resolution (New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1993) p. 67

[4] S/PV, 2932, 2 August 1990

[5] UN Document S/20503, 13 August 1990

[6]  Article 50 of the UN Charter states, “If preventive or enforcement measures against any State are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of these measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to solution of the problems.”

[7] S/PV, 2963, 29 November 1990

[8]  UN Document S/22090, 17 January 1991

[9]  UN Document S/22172, 30 January 1991

[10]  UN Document S/22275 and S/22276, 27 February 1991

[11]  UN Document S/22274, 27 February 1991 and S/22288, 28 February 1991

[12] UN Document S/PV 2963, 29 November 1990

[13] JK Baral and JN Mahanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis: The Response of a Minority Government,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-84.

[14] UN Document S/22496, 6 April 1991

[15] UN Document S/22480, 11 April 1991

[16] Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy, p. 139

[17] Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq: Sanctions, Law and National Justice,( Basingstoke; Macmillan, 2nd Edition, 1998) p. 52

[18] Geoff Simons, Iraq-Primus Inter Pariahs: A Crisis Chronology, 1997-1998 (Basingstoke; Macmillan, 1999) p. 54

[19] Pierre Salinger, “The United States, The nited Nations and the Gulf War,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, Autumn 1995, pp. 593-613

[20] UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar in an interview to PTI-TV, 5 February 1991

[21] John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, Saddam’s War: The Origins of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response (London; Faber and Faber, 1991) p. 200

[22] UN Document  S/21711, 5 September 1990

[23] The Times of India (New Delhi), 21 January 1991.

[24] JK Banal and JN Mohanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis,” p. 374-75

[25] Ibid. p. 377

[26] Ibid. p. 383

[27] Deccan Herald, 19 April 1991

[28] Address by Taha M. Marouf, Iraq Vice President in UN at 50: Statements by World Leaders, New York, 22-24 October 1995 (NY;UN, 1996)

[29] Middle East and North Africa 2001 (London, Europa Publications 2000, 47th Edition 2001, 2000) pp. 578-599

[30] Hindustan Times, (New Delhi) 16 January 2001

[31] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 17 February 2001

[32] Times of India (New Delhi), 18 February 2001

[33] Times of India (New Delhi) 21 February 2001.

[34] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 February 2001

[35] Farah Naaz, “Security in the Persian Gulf,” Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, March 2001, pp. 2257-2271

The author has a Ph. D. in International Politics from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

His areas of interest are Southeast Asia, Southern Africa and Latin America and writes mainly on the politics of regional integration in these areas. He also writes on issues pertaining to South Asia, particularly on India’s Northeast.

Article from articlesbase.com

STATE OF THE UNION Egypt Suspends the Constitution

STATE OF THE UNION Egypt Suspends the Constitution

also check me out on www.facebook.com and twitter.com
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Latest Freedom Of Information auctions

Freedom of Information eBay auctions you should keep an eye on:

[wprebay kw=”freedom+of+information” num=”33″ ebcat=”-1″]
[wprebay kw=”freedom+of+information” num=”34″ ebcat=”-1″]

Crisis in World Economy and the Proposed New Model for Sustainable Development

Crisis in World Economy and the proposed New Model for sustainable development.

The ongoing turmoil in world economy raised the doubt that present model of capitalism cannot be sustained for environmental and social reasons. Respected thinkers and scientists have pointed to this reality. Now we should look ahead to a new system that is sustainable and humane. Otherwise whatever wealth is created would be wiped out by environmental disasters and social upheavals. Whole system is complicated by lack of transparency. It is not clear where all the money gets invested. Hedge funds are cloaked in secrecy- even bailout money has disappeared with no effect to the economy. Even now nobody knows which are the real bad toxic assets, so stock market is also not recovering.

In this treatise some key issues in this crisis are discussed and a new  model is proposed that will engineer a balanced global society  globally conscious, active and sustainable.   

Regarding overpaid CEOs

Let us ponder over some news those captured the attention across the globe. Washington Mutual Chief Executive Alan Fishman could walk away with more than 18 million dollar in salary, bonuses and severance after less than three weeks on the job as golden parachute from flight WaMu in danger, according to the terms of his employment agreement. Lehman Brothers was handing out 23 million dollar to three executives just days before it collapsed. It paid 2.5 BILLION dollar bonus fund after failing. CEO of American Express saw his pay go up much more than double although shares price nosedived. Hewlett Packard CEO destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost 100 million dollars in total payments. Exactly same is the case with Informix Software CEO. The list goes on and on. It means what?  This isn’t a diatribe against CEO pay. Point is failure has become a recipe for financial success of CEOs especially in America by virtue of their intelligent manipulation and abuse of power.  Martin Whitman, economist and the great advocate of capitalism opined that apart from corruption another reason as to why a free market situation is probably doomed to failure is very exorbitant levels of executive compensation.

 Regarding free-market economy

I do not think free market is really free. Those who say they favor a free market are speaking in a relative term.  In an absolutely free-market economy, all capital, goods, services, and money flow are unregulated by the government. There is simply no free market yet, given the degree of state intervention in even the most capitalist of countries. For example US government took an 80% stake in AIG in return for an 85 billion dollar investment to save the company. Recent news of Citi bank is being given a bail out package of 326 billion dollars and Jaguar’s requirement of 1 billion pound for sustaining economic meltdown are significant. Under pure capitalist theory, none of these actions should’ve been taken; the government should have stood by idly while the economy tanked. So how can a free market be free if it’s regulated?  The fall out of free market economy such as black Market, underground economy, Drug trade essentially justifies government’s intervention to remedy the situation and establishes the argument against free market as an impractical ideal that engenders vested wealthy interests. Experiments in absolute adherence to free market principles evince signal failures in Military, Road, Health Care, Civic Amenities, Education, R & D etc. Free- market economy is a fantasy – outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system with opposing interests and different distributions of wealth. Time and again world is realizing this fact is a harder way. Hence I align with those critics who are in favour of a planned economy  as advocated by socialism and who associate markets with greed  as the basis of capitalism. I believe it is inherently immoral. More over one practical objection is that free market economy does not take into account the externalities i.e. effects of transactions that affect third parties, such as the negative effects of Global Warming that brought world to Apocalypse in foreseeable future. I guess that in well-run industrial economies like Japan, Singapore and China, there is marriage between government and the private sector, each benefiting from the other. Any temporary prosperity on an extremely austere free market concept can crumble like a pack of cards, like it happened in USA.

Regarding Nationalisation and regulation.

 What does the US federal government taking control of financially crumbling mortgage holders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a bail out package of staggering 800 billion?  Why on the earth Fed and other regulators are coming into the picture particularly for some of those that got overextended with the subprime and other kind of mortgage debt? Nationalization occurs when full or partial control is taken of private financial institutions, usually to avert a crisis. Scandinavian nations successfully averted an economic meltdown through nationalization in the early 1990s, and in recent times. US government is taking similar actions. It looked at the global fallouts and how politically they will be viewed by the world powers. So they bailed out finance industries, but not agreeing so easily to the auto industry. these issues are interlinked with power, military, oil.

 Regarding mortgage financing

It was the proponents of Capitalism who supported advantage of loan facilities and low interest rates for houses to be owned by people at low income group. There was enormous marketing effort to dupe people into it.  Logic was simple. If one buys house, he will also buy complimentary household goods like furniture, Fans, AC, Cars etc. creating a demand pull in the economy. Banks also extended the moratorium on interest and principle up to 5 years to convince the borrowers. When crisis occurs, should we brand common people as “lazy bummers”? Similarly it is unfair to blame the common investors for lost speculative fortune when Stock Market is institutionalized by system as a socially and ethically valid means of income.

Regarding targeting CEOs

In our capitalist system, you’re free to earn what you can, and what the market will bear- this logic does not hold water since big companies are increasingly depending on public money for a bail out. Hence I support newest trend of shareholders in raising questions and putting pressure on boards and compensation committees to make sure compensation is fair but not excessive. The interesting News was that US Law Makers asked blunt questions to CEOs like Wagoner, Nardelli, Mulally of GM, Chrysler and Ford who came to the Capital Hill with a begging bowl for 25 Billion of Tax Payers money, when each one of them preferred to fly in their individual Private Jets, when as many as 24 non stop flights fly daily from Detroit to Washington. Lifestyle and salary should definitely be a valid question when companies are using public money. That is why companies are facing “say on pay” resolutions from shareholders. The board of directors should have taken this role, but instead they normally abdicate it. Most CEOs considers keeping board members happy as their primary duties. For example taking the board members on an all-expenses paid trip to a five-star international resort, allowing his compensation to spiral out of control, which is nothing but intelligent corruption and abuse of power.

Myth regarding the CEOs’ ‘sheer value-add’ in the corporate world.

For a company to become successful entails billions of variables, which are oftentimes beyond the ambit of human ability of one individual. Even with our full regard on Narayanmurthy’s ability, we must accept Infosis’s success was primarily on account of flattening effect of world by Internet revolution in 92.  Jerry Yang, co founder of Yahoo, considered to be a great CEO, had to step down amid mounting pressure from investors after he botched takeover talks with Microsoft Corp. and failed to broker an online advertising agreement with Google Inc. Many CEOs were rated highly for certain techno bubble, which turned out to be utterly divorced from any business purpose whatsoever. Of course there is positive effect too- it attracts lot of investment and accelerates the pace of innovation. The trophy cases of HP CEO with so many industry awards and accolades were crucified for her destructive reign of terror with “Silicon Valley greed.” Hence it is fundamentally wrong to empower one individual so much for the success and failure of an organization. In Japanese and Chinese model, system is ascribed more powerful than an individual.  Once CEOs become all-powerful, their executive staff is reluctant to challenge them. Instead, the natural tendency is for these dominant leaders to become cocooned from reality. They are told only what they want to hear and hear only what they want to be told. Sequestered from the rest of the company, they lose the pulse of the business eventually.

Regarding Capitalism vs. Socialism

By virtue of the extremely clever indoctrination, a spin-off of media advertising especially of US kind, our thought process is getting clouded driving us towards more personal interest, freedom and power than social responsibility. Do we really need large waves of money sloshing daily around the planet for benefit of only a few, waves often generated by speculation capable of dislocating economies? Do we need larger and larger corporations which concentrate economic power into fewer and fewer hands? When seen in this light, capitalism has a shadow side. Economy in its root sense means acquiring the basic material things we need to lead a human life: food, shelter, energy, etc. But this is something quite different than a quest for a so-called higher standard of living. This really is the unending quest for a higher level of consumption. Our material needs are finite. After a certain point we are simply embellishing them. Then we begin to distort them making them the carriers of our own disordered desires.  Recent news of bra and panty for men in Japan is the right example for such disorder. We need shelter but we don’t need 50,000 square feet trophy homes when billions of people can’t even afford a shanty. Now we are living in a time when we don’t even feel shame. We have become so much closeted within ourselves that even with the back up of enormous fortune, we feel unsafe with the slightest possibility of economic meltdown.  Capitalism propels us to become shameless consumers and run our lives according to the design of the contemporary social machine, which foreshadows world destruction, whereas our true nature favours a life closer to nature. If American Capitalism is a kind of religion with its own dogma, then its God is Money and its driving force is Greed.  The fall out of this ruthless system is obscenities of unemployment, homelessness and economic insecurity and hence is not sustainable in its present form. The whole system is designed to make fewer and fewer people richer and richer at the cost of resources of the multitude. It definitely operates below the level of consciousness and no longer works for us.  I understand one very simple thing – goods and services generated in an economy must be shared equitably in a population. Otherwise those who will be deprived will take resort to unethical or socially unacceptable means- theft, dacoity, terrorism, drug, killing, cheating, narrow politics and what not.   Recent examples of everyday terrorism, Piracy, Mao attacks, dark killing are the pointers to this fact.   

Even in USA people are facing dark side of capitalism when blue collar Americans have been losing jobs because of outsourcing and off shoring in the mask of progress for real intention of more profit.  What is the social damage? Skills for manufacturing a certain product developed over the years are getting lost in the society.  Capitalist countries use capitalist ideals as a matter of convenience.  When Government owns hospitals, libraries, transportation systems, utilities, army, Navy, Air Force, forests and national perks- yet, who would call these institutions examples of socialism?  Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy by ending the waste, duplication and inefficiency of capitalist industries. Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose – profit maximization. As per Capitalism profit is also a cost, cost of staying in the business. Under Socialism goods are produced for use and to satisfy the needs of all the people. Under this system everyone could live comfortably with no giant gaps between rich and poor. Is it not really humane? Just because a system is not strictly as per lower merits of human nature say greed, it should not be rejected. Socialism talks about higher sense of our human values and existence.  After Industrial resolution act 1956 in India, socialistic pattern of economy in India has produced wonderful developments in sectors till seventies. Hence we can infer that Socialistic system can produce wonderful results under certain conditions and social environment.  However I do agree classical form of Socialism may not take into account of the Individual brilliance and creative pursuit, which is probably its one of its weaknesses.

The New Model

Having said this, we should find out whether there can be a balance between the two systems and what kind of mechanism society should develop so that one can approximate the ideals of good life in his individual life and in the life of community of which he is a member. I feel it is possible to have our modern global economy while being socially, culturally & environmentally responsible at the same time. Society has go through a difficult paradigm shift in personal values, which will instill a degree of awareness in our mind as opposed to the blind, materialistic way we are living.

I have thought of one model that will engineer a balanced global society that is globally conscious, active and sustainable. Way out is to lead humanity by the collective wisdom of most talented people in a society or country- a kind of meritocracy.  Mechanism to harness collective wisdom will be -say for any policy and contentious issue, opinions of most eminent people of the country will be  collected by a network of computers and looking into the wisdom of eminent people who are most knowledgeable on the subject under consideration, decision can be made in real time. Their services can be hired at a cost; they can be selected based on the track record etc. Decisions can be taken in National forum if discussion and debate are warranted. Experiments, research and its implications can be interpreted by eminent people only and that is why collective wisdom as instrumentality for decision support system may be a model worth trying for. One may argue country does not need only dry knowledge culled from books. There must be leaders to make certain things happen. Yes leaders are required. But a leader can be chosen by collective wisdom, which should be supremely empowered. A leader will resort to collective wisdom for at least for major decision. The collective wisdom is likely to veer country to right direction. Humanity has to go though different experiments and whatever evolved as better model will be accepted and perfected in course of time. We should never be blind to state that capitalism or the socialism is the right system with dogmatic finality.

The author is a senior executive in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and lives in Kolkata with his wife and daughter. He is a Mechanical Engineer with Masters degree in Business management and has 22 years’ of experience in cutting edge technolgies in different companies in India and abroad.

Article from articlesbase.com

More Income Tax Vs Freedom Articles

Italy: Libya considering constitutional reforms

Italy: Libya considering constitutional reforms
Libyan authorities are considering constitutional changes as they try to cope with a week of unrest by anti-government protesters demanding political and economic reforms, the Italian foreign ministry said Sunday.
Read more on AP via Yahoo! News

MCA on track to hold EGM
KUALA LUMPUR: MCA are on track to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) next month to amend the party constitution and pave the way for a postponement of the party election, provided enough delegates agree to such a requisition.
Read more on New Straits Times

Executive Speaker Lineup for The Great Conversation? Finalized

Executive Speaker Lineup for The Great Conversation™ Finalized

Seattle, Washington (PRWEB) February 17, 2011

Aronson Security Group (ASG), announced the final line-up for keynote speakers to speak at their 10th Annual Security Summit & Expo as well as opened registration for the real world case studies featuring the industry’s top technology vendors.

The following executives will be featured on the main stage of the ASG Security Summit and through the online webcast of The Great Conversation™:

    Mike Howard, CSO for Microsoft Global Security and Brett Arsenault, CISO for Microsoft will speak on how to navigate the strategic landscape between information and physical security
    Bill Bozeman, CEO of PSA Security Network will provide insights and industry updates on the Security Market
    Lorna Koppel, CISO for Kohler Company will present on how to build the next generation of security architecture
    Jeffery Slotnick, a recent addition, is President of Setracon, Inc. and a Regional Vice President for ASIS International. He will be presenting on how to build a resilient organization through security
    Bob Hayes, Managing Director of the Security Executive Council will focus on looking to 2020 as a long-range goal for better physical and logical security, innovation, risk mitigation and intelligence
    Ron Worman, CEO of The Sage Group™ will be the Master of Ceremonies for the event
    Phil Aronson, CEO of Aronson Security Group (ASG) is the host of this Great Conversation event

“The Great Conversation™ allows us to explore how our industry can share ideas, create best practices, learn from thought leaders and help to develop new solutions to top security challenges” said Phil Aronson, Aronson Security Group’s CEO.

The Summit will also feature Breakout Sessions where the theories, espoused by the keynote speakers and exhibited by the technology vendors, manifest into actual case studies which will help guide security executives and their teams in implementing them into their own organizations.

Breakout sessions will include a focus on multiple industries, topics and security challenges including:

    Data center security
    Demonstrating the business value of security
    The future of security in the transportation industry
    Innovation, integration, and interoperability

Ron Worman, CEO of The Sage Group™ and this year’s Master of Ceremonies, brings not only a wealth of security business knowledge but has worked to develop key relationships in the industry for over 10 years. “The Summit brings together over 350 security executives in Seattle with thousands of others online through the webcast” said Worman. “This unique forum allows manufacturers, consultants, and end users to join in a collaborative conversation. If you are part of the security industry, this is an event you don’t want to miss.”

About ASG:

Aronson Security Group (ASG) is the premier independent integrator of enterprise security solutions. Building on a strong reputation for engineering and service for over 45 years, ASG provides engineering excellence, world-class service, and security expertise to premier regional and national organizations. http://www.aronsonsecurity.com

About the ASG Security Summit & Expo:

The ASG Security Summit & Expo is an annual event for physical and logical security leaders in virtually all industries including healthcare, government, retail, transportation, manufacturing and critical infrastructure that allows them to leverage the knowledge and experience of industry thought leaders as well as their own peers.


About The Great Conversation™:

Supported by the Security Executive Council, a global network of security executives, and PSA, the largest community of security integrators in the world, the Great Conversation brings together a global security network in a series of events anchored by an online conversation platform. These events facilitate the sharing of ideas and experience between security practitioners, integrators and manufacturers that enhance the value of security in participating organizations. http://www.greatconversationevents.com



Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.

Project Camelot Conf.- Richard Dolan UFOs and the National Security State, 1973-1991

UFOS AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE THE COVER-UP EXPOSED, 1973 1991, with Richard M. Dolan. Richard Dolan was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1962. He holds an MA in History from the University of Rochester and a BA in History from Alfred University. He earned a Certificate in Political Theory from Oxford University and was a Rhodes Scholar finalist. Prior to his interest in anomalous phenomena, Dolan studied US Cold War strategy, Soviet history, and international diplomacy. In 2000, he published a 500-page study, UFOs and the National Security State. This is the first volume of a two-part historical narrative of the national security dimensions of the UFO phenomenon from 1941 to the present. Included are the records of more than fifty military bases relating to violations of sensitive airspace by unknown objects, demonstrating that the US military has taken the topic of UFOs seriously indeed. Dolan has appeared on numerous television documentaries for the History Channel, Sci Fi Channel, as well as BBC and European networks. He appears regularly on radio stations throughout the US, including Coast to Coast, and has been a featured speaker at conferences internationally. In 2006, he hosted a six-episode series, Sci Fi Investigates, produced by NBC for the Sci Fi Channel. Dolan has published numerous articles on anomalous phenomena, science, and the intelligence community. In 2003, he was a founding member of Phenomena, a magazine dedicated to leading edge issues
Video Rating: 5 / 5