Television Review 'A Distant Shore'
The D-Day Heroes Who Weren’t White ret
new_york_times:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/arts/television/24heff.html
By VIRGINIA HEFFERNAN
Published: February 24, 2007
With his garrison cap, steady gaze and square jaw, Allen Price of the 3275th Quartermaster Service Company, Omaha Beach, looks like another avatar of the Greatest Generation. He even complains as those superhumans do: levelly, economically, without anger or sadness.
National Archives
An African-American color guard, from “A Distant Shore.”
“You see these movies,” he says. “Like ‘The Longest Day’ — you don’t see no African-Americans. ‘Private Ryan’ — no African-Americans.”
“Where was the balloon barrage outfit?” he continues. “Service company? Fort battalion? They didn’t show you any of that.”
Sixty-three years after he and nearly 2,000 other African-Americans participated in the American invasion of Normandy, he allows himself a trace only of irony. The significant contributions of African-American soldiers to D-Day — little known, even to the buffs to end all buffs who manage the minutiae of Second World War history — are the starting point for “A Distant Shore: African Americans of D-Day,” which has its premiere tonight on the History Channel.
With this enlightening program, the History Channel continues to home-school viewers on a complex national history of its own devising, complete with a thoroughgoing aesthetic and ideology. This time, the channel’s idiosyncrasies mean that black octogenarian servicemen appear on screen: a rare sight indeed during Black History Month, which is known more frequently for featuring civil rights advocates, artists, musicians and academics — men and women with leftist or pacifist aspects who, let’s just say, leave their garrison caps at home.
What we hear tonight are not Toni Morrison-style home-front lamentations, but war stories from a foreign land: slain buddies and precision equipment that was blown to smithereens its first time out. The armed forces were entirely segregated until 1948, and the black companies at D-Day were typically kept from combat. But, as another veteran, Carl Watson, says: “We did anything that the combat soldiers needed. Set up gas dumps. Set up ammunition dumps. Processed some of the soldiers that were killed.”
That “processing,” as we all know, was some of the grimmest and most necessary work on and after D-Day, and the African-American soldiers who were there, like all soldiers at the beachhead, remember the trauma of the gore above all else. But some also recall the bruising prejudice of basic training in Texas, where they were forced to ride in the back of the bus when they went to town, as well as the way white officers interfered with the heroes’ welcome they received in England while they waited to ship out across the channel.
Having served valiantly, the seven who are interviewed here — and who returned from the war to face contemptuous discrimination in the very country they had defended — appear to be living well, in bright and well-loved houses that the documentary permits viewers to examine discreetly. That’s where the channel’s aesthetic comes in: in a style that matches the reserve of its subjects, the film refrains from spending time — any time at all — on their wounded bodies.
Instead, they’re all shot in dignified light, many in uniform. One man, whose leg was lost in the war, describes the injury; while he’s talking, the camera leaves him to his privacy, showing instead a ship from the period, its hull torn open by enemy fire.
For anyone who believes that the documentary form is exhausted — and certainly that there are no more documentaries to be made about World War II — this is a stunning counterexample. For American schoolchildren, it ought to be required viewing, during Black History Month or any month.
Monday, 30 June 2008
Tuesday, 24 June 2008
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Secret of the 'Lost' Tribe that wasn't
PETER BEAUMONT Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008 LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - Jun 22 2008
They are the amazing pictures that were beamed around the globe: a handful of warriors from an "undiscovered tribe" in the rainforest on the Brazilian-Peruvian border brandishing bows and arrows at the aircraft that photographed them.
Or so the story was told and sold. But it has now emerged that, far from being unknown, the tribe's existence has been noted since 1910 and the mission to photograph them was undertaken in order to prove that "uncontacted" tribes still existed in an area endangered by the menace of the logging industry.
The disclosures have been made by the man behind the pictures, José Carlos Meirelles (61), one of the handful of sertanistas -- experts on indigenous tribes -- working for the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, Funai, which is dedicated to searching out remote tribes and protecting them.
In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.
Meirelles admitted that the tribe was first known about almost a century ago and that the apparently chance encounter that produced the now famous images was no accident.
"When we think we might have found an isolated tribe," he told al-Jazeera, "a sertanista like me walks in the forest for two or three years to gather evidence and we mark it in our [global positioning system]. We then map the territory the Indians occupy and we draw that protected territory without making contact with them. And finally we set up a small outpost where we can monitor their protection."
But in this case Meirelles appears, controversially, to have gone out to seek and find the uncontacted tribe in an area where it was known to be living.
According to his account, the Brazilian state of Acre offered him the use of an aircraft for three days. "I had years of GPS coordinates," he said.
Meirelles had another clue to the tribe's precise location. "A friend of mine sent me some Google Earth coordinates and maps that showed a strange clearing in the middle of the forest and asked me what that was," he said. "I saw the coordinates and realised that it was close to the area I had been exploring with my son -- so I needed to fly over it."
For two days, Meirelles says, he flew a 150km-radius route over the border region with Peru and saw huts that belonged to isolated tribes. But he did not see people. "When the women hear the plane above, they run into the forest, thinking it's a big bird," he said. "This is such a remote area, planes don't fly over it."
What he was looking for was not only proof of life, but firm evidence that the tribes in this area were flourishing -- proof in his view that the policy of no contact and protection was working. On the last day, with only a couple hours of flight time remaining, Meirelles spotted a large community.
"When I saw them painted red, I was satisfied, I was happy," he said. "Because painted red means they are ready for war, which to me says they are happy and healthy defending their territory."
Survival International, the organisation that released the pictures along with Funai, conceded on Saturday that Funai had known about this nomadic tribe for about two decades. It defended the disturbance of the tribe, saying that, since the images had been released, it had forced neighbouring Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives, as a result of the international media attention.
Activist and former Funai president Sydney Possuelo agreed that -- amid threats to their environment and doubt over the existence of such tribes -- it was necessary to publish the pictures.
But the revelation that the existence of the tribe was already established will provoke awkward questions over why a decision was made to try to photograph them -- a form of contact in itself -- in order to make a political point.
Meirelles, one of only five or so genuine sertanistas, has no regrets, arguing that the pictures and video released to the world were powerful and indisputable evidence to those who say isolated tribes no longer exist.
"Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists -- now we have the pictures."
But he is determined to keep the tribe's location secret -- even under torture, he says. "They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else." -- guardian.co.uk
They are the amazing pictures that were beamed around the globe: a handful of warriors from an "undiscovered tribe" in the rainforest on the Brazilian-Peruvian border brandishing bows and arrows at the aircraft that photographed them.
Or so the story was told and sold. But it has now emerged that, far from being unknown, the tribe's existence has been noted since 1910 and the mission to photograph them was undertaken in order to prove that "uncontacted" tribes still existed in an area endangered by the menace of the logging industry.
The disclosures have been made by the man behind the pictures, José Carlos Meirelles (61), one of the handful of sertanistas -- experts on indigenous tribes -- working for the Brazilian Indian Protection Agency, Funai, which is dedicated to searching out remote tribes and protecting them.
In his first interviews since the disclosure of the tribe's existence, Meirelles described how he found the group, detailed how they lived and how he planned the publicity to protect them and other tribes in similar danger of losing the habitat in which they have flourished for hundreds of years.
Meirelles admitted that the tribe was first known about almost a century ago and that the apparently chance encounter that produced the now famous images was no accident.
"When we think we might have found an isolated tribe," he told al-Jazeera, "a sertanista like me walks in the forest for two or three years to gather evidence and we mark it in our [global positioning system]. We then map the territory the Indians occupy and we draw that protected territory without making contact with them. And finally we set up a small outpost where we can monitor their protection."
But in this case Meirelles appears, controversially, to have gone out to seek and find the uncontacted tribe in an area where it was known to be living.
According to his account, the Brazilian state of Acre offered him the use of an aircraft for three days. "I had years of GPS coordinates," he said.
Meirelles had another clue to the tribe's precise location. "A friend of mine sent me some Google Earth coordinates and maps that showed a strange clearing in the middle of the forest and asked me what that was," he said. "I saw the coordinates and realised that it was close to the area I had been exploring with my son -- so I needed to fly over it."
For two days, Meirelles says, he flew a 150km-radius route over the border region with Peru and saw huts that belonged to isolated tribes. But he did not see people. "When the women hear the plane above, they run into the forest, thinking it's a big bird," he said. "This is such a remote area, planes don't fly over it."
What he was looking for was not only proof of life, but firm evidence that the tribes in this area were flourishing -- proof in his view that the policy of no contact and protection was working. On the last day, with only a couple hours of flight time remaining, Meirelles spotted a large community.
"When I saw them painted red, I was satisfied, I was happy," he said. "Because painted red means they are ready for war, which to me says they are happy and healthy defending their territory."
Survival International, the organisation that released the pictures along with Funai, conceded on Saturday that Funai had known about this nomadic tribe for about two decades. It defended the disturbance of the tribe, saying that, since the images had been released, it had forced neighbouring Peru to re-examine its logging policy in the border area where the tribe lives, as a result of the international media attention.
Activist and former Funai president Sydney Possuelo agreed that -- amid threats to their environment and doubt over the existence of such tribes -- it was necessary to publish the pictures.
But the revelation that the existence of the tribe was already established will provoke awkward questions over why a decision was made to try to photograph them -- a form of contact in itself -- in order to make a political point.
Meirelles, one of only five or so genuine sertanistas, has no regrets, arguing that the pictures and video released to the world were powerful and indisputable evidence to those who say isolated tribes no longer exist.
"Alan García [the President of Peru] declared recently that the isolated Indians were a creation in the imagination of environmentalists and anthropologists -- now we have the pictures."
But he is determined to keep the tribe's location secret -- even under torture, he says. "They can decide when they want contact, not me or anyone else." -- guardian.co.uk
$105million Undersea Resort for Fiji
An artist’s impression of an undersea suite for the new Poseidon Underwater Resort being built on a ‘mystery island’ in Fiji.
Mystery surrounds a multi million dollar undersea resort, being constructed in Fiji, in more ways than one.
Called the Poseidon Mystery Island, the project on an unnamed island in Fiji is being built at an estimated cost of $US105 million.
The Poseidon website says: "The exact location of Poseidon Resort's Mystery Island is still, well, a mystery."
Fiji's trade and investment promotion body, the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau, does not appear to know anything about this project
at all. A questionnaire sent by fijilive.com last year to FTIB said the bureau was unaware of this project.
But it appears the resort is on the verge of finishing with September this year given as the completion date.
The project is being developed by Poseidon Resorts, whose president, Bruce Jones has a background that includes 20 years of work in
submarine sea technology. Jones and his team of engineers have been designing the hotel since 2001, with the help of a hotel management
team.
"Accessible by elevator and nestled in the crystal clear waters of a 5000 acre Fiji lagoon, the Poseidon Undersea Resort is the world's
first seafloor resort and the only place that visitors can spend the night 40 feet underwater in incomparable luxury," the website proclaims.
According to the website, the Poseidon Mystery Island comprises about 225 acres and is about a mile long. It boasts pristine waters that
range to 90 feet (27.4 metres) in depth replete with abundant sea life. Just outside the lagoon, the reef plunges into an abyss,
providing virgin territory to explore with the resort's submersibles.
The website says the island and its lagoon are within a coral atoll, the remnants of a long inactive volcano. At one time, the island
housed a thriving copra plantation.
Beginning in early 2009, a select group of the world's adventure travelers and undersea enthusiasts will have the opportunity to stay
on the island for weeklong visits, enjoying two nights underwater and four nights in beachfront and over-water bungalows.
The website also encourages corporate companies to say here, saying it is an unforgettable way to celebrate their successful managers and
staff or great customers.
An elevator will transport guests 40 feet (12 metres) under the sea where they will find 24 suites and one luxury apartment with all the
comforts expected from a top rated hotel.
Measuring 33 feet by 17 feet (10 mts by 5.1 mts) the 24 standard undersea hotel suites comprise 550sq ft (51 mts) of floor space. The suites are built as detachable stand-alone modules that can be placed underwater when neutrally buoyant and mated to the main corridor assembly.
About 70 per cent of the room is enveloped in 4 inch (100 millimeter) thick clear acrylic allowing spectacular sights of individual coral
gardens and the ocean beyond.
There are also 48 bungalows (locally known as bures) on the island, 24 beachfront (boasting their own enclosed courtyards) and 24 additional
bungalows are suspended above the waters of the tropical lagoon.
The website says that today only two sea floor underwater habitats are operating, both in the Florida Keys: The US Aquarius, a private
NOAA-sponsored scientific research habitat in 50 feet (15 mts) of water and Jules Undersea Lodge, a successful three-room underwater
motel accessible only to trained divers.
However, other projects are also underway and include Hydropolis, a 220-suite hotel in Dubai, and the Shanghai Shimao Wonderland in
Shanghai. Both also plan to open in 2009.
Anyone wanting to stay at Poseidon (which will also have a couple of submarines for guests) will have to sink $US15,000 into the underwater
experience ($US30,000 for a couple sharing a room).
The package includes private plane transport from a Fiji airport to the resort. The cost for exclusive use of Poseidon Mystery Island is
US$3,000,000 for seven days and six nights.
For reservations, interested people have been asked to contact Poseidon's specially trained reservations staff after March 17, 2008.
Jones is quoted in the New York Times as saying that they have already had tens of thousands of inquiries from people saving up. He is hoping
to open other underwater resorts in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.
Mystery surrounds a multi million dollar undersea resort, being constructed in Fiji, in more ways than one.
Called the Poseidon Mystery Island, the project on an unnamed island in Fiji is being built at an estimated cost of $US105 million.
The Poseidon website says: "The exact location of Poseidon Resort's Mystery Island is still, well, a mystery."
Fiji's trade and investment promotion body, the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau, does not appear to know anything about this project
at all. A questionnaire sent by fijilive.com last year to FTIB said the bureau was unaware of this project.
But it appears the resort is on the verge of finishing with September this year given as the completion date.
The project is being developed by Poseidon Resorts, whose president, Bruce Jones has a background that includes 20 years of work in
submarine sea technology. Jones and his team of engineers have been designing the hotel since 2001, with the help of a hotel management
team.
"Accessible by elevator and nestled in the crystal clear waters of a 5000 acre Fiji lagoon, the Poseidon Undersea Resort is the world's
first seafloor resort and the only place that visitors can spend the night 40 feet underwater in incomparable luxury," the website proclaims.
According to the website, the Poseidon Mystery Island comprises about 225 acres and is about a mile long. It boasts pristine waters that
range to 90 feet (27.4 metres) in depth replete with abundant sea life. Just outside the lagoon, the reef plunges into an abyss,
providing virgin territory to explore with the resort's submersibles.
The website says the island and its lagoon are within a coral atoll, the remnants of a long inactive volcano. At one time, the island
housed a thriving copra plantation.
Beginning in early 2009, a select group of the world's adventure travelers and undersea enthusiasts will have the opportunity to stay
on the island for weeklong visits, enjoying two nights underwater and four nights in beachfront and over-water bungalows.
The website also encourages corporate companies to say here, saying it is an unforgettable way to celebrate their successful managers and
staff or great customers.
An elevator will transport guests 40 feet (12 metres) under the sea where they will find 24 suites and one luxury apartment with all the
comforts expected from a top rated hotel.
Measuring 33 feet by 17 feet (10 mts by 5.1 mts) the 24 standard undersea hotel suites comprise 550sq ft (51 mts) of floor space. The suites are built as detachable stand-alone modules that can be placed underwater when neutrally buoyant and mated to the main corridor assembly.
About 70 per cent of the room is enveloped in 4 inch (100 millimeter) thick clear acrylic allowing spectacular sights of individual coral
gardens and the ocean beyond.
There are also 48 bungalows (locally known as bures) on the island, 24 beachfront (boasting their own enclosed courtyards) and 24 additional
bungalows are suspended above the waters of the tropical lagoon.
The website says that today only two sea floor underwater habitats are operating, both in the Florida Keys: The US Aquarius, a private
NOAA-sponsored scientific research habitat in 50 feet (15 mts) of water and Jules Undersea Lodge, a successful three-room underwater
motel accessible only to trained divers.
However, other projects are also underway and include Hydropolis, a 220-suite hotel in Dubai, and the Shanghai Shimao Wonderland in
Shanghai. Both also plan to open in 2009.
Anyone wanting to stay at Poseidon (which will also have a couple of submarines for guests) will have to sink $US15,000 into the underwater
experience ($US30,000 for a couple sharing a room).
The package includes private plane transport from a Fiji airport to the resort. The cost for exclusive use of Poseidon Mystery Island is
US$3,000,000 for seven days and six nights.
For reservations, interested people have been asked to contact Poseidon's specially trained reservations staff after March 17, 2008.
Jones is quoted in the New York Times as saying that they have already had tens of thousands of inquiries from people saving up. He is hoping
to open other underwater resorts in the Caribbean, the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean.
Lessons to Be Learnt
22/06/2008 | 11:00
Lessons to Be Learnt
I resisted writing about the fate of the polar bear that came ashore and was subsequently shot dead earlier in the month. But, now that the event has repeated itself, I feel that I have to express my disappointment about the issue.
As the reports go, when the first polar bear reached the shore on June 3, a crowd of spectators quickly gathered on the road near the animal. When the police finally arrived they decided to euthanize the bear because there was no equipment available on hand to catch it live, nor to put it to sleep. With heavy fog in the mountains and the bear approaching the crowd the police neither wanted to risk losing sight of it nor allow it to get too close to the bystanders.
The fact that according to Egill Steingrímsson, chief veterinarian in Blönduós, there were narcotics available is infuriating: “I even had narcotics in my trunk and if the narcotics gun would have been sent by flight it would have arrived within an hour,” Steingrímsson said.
He also criticized the police for not having closed the road so that the bear would not have posed a threat to the public. And this relates to my first question. Why on earth didn’t the police close the road? Surely it would have bought them some time to consider other options.
Anyway, with the first bear down, shouldn’t some lessons have been learnt from the experience? Sure, only a couple of weeks passed before the second bear was spotted, but Minister for Environment Thórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir announced that everything would be done to catch the bear alive.
Experts were even flown in from Denmark with a cage and the necessary equipment. Yet, somehow the bear was also killed this time around. When the bear headed towards the sea, the experts on hand claim it moved too quickly and instead of shooting it with a tranquilizer, they euthanized it once it began swimming away.
This was the first attempt at catching a polar bear live in Iceland and the Ministry of Environment has announced that it is working on an operation plan for future incidents. But, it’s not like these were the first two bears to have visited Iceland.
Polar bears have been visiting Iceland for almost 1200 years, the last being in 1993, and while the situation may have been different in the early days, we’ve all known for some time now that these animals are in trouble – they were recently listed as being threatened on the US Endangered Species List – and it’s simply not acceptable to kill them.
Although, Icelandic law does state that a bear can be killed if it threatens humans or cattle, personally I think the interpretation of this law needs to be reviewed. But, don’t give me the argument that has recently been circulating that although polar bears may be endangered elsewhere in the world killing them in Iceland is justified since they swim from neighboring Greenland, where some claim their numbers are plenty.
Did the bear really need to be killed? If there was time to kill it, wasn’t there also time to shoot it with a tranquilizer gun? I wasn’t there at the time and I’ve never lived on a farm in remote north Iceland, so perhaps I appear arrogant for assuming that there really were other options, but it is difficult to accept that things couldn’t have turned out in favor of the bear.
As even Environment Minister Sveinbjarnardóttir stated: “We have an obligation towards that animal,” though she is also satisfied that no other option existed at the time and that the best course of action was taken.
I find what the farmer, who spotted the first bear, said pathetic: “I did not fancy the idea of it roaming in my grasslands.” But, what perhaps shocks me the most, is not the fact that not one, but two, polar bears were killed, but the photos and videos posted in the Icelandic media afterwards.
One image, which appeared on the front pages of the newspapers after the first bear was shot, shows the armed men who killed it observing the bloodied animal. After the incident repeated itself, pictures of onlookers taking photos of the second slain bear as well as the video of the killing of the first were posted on news website mbl.is.
Were these images supposed to shock audiences and increase debate about the topic? From an outsider’s point of view, they look shamefully barbaric.
Now with the prospect of more polar bears on the horizon, something urgently needs to be done to decrease the risk of this ever happening again.
ZR – zoe_robert3@hotmail.com
Lessons to Be Learnt
I resisted writing about the fate of the polar bear that came ashore and was subsequently shot dead earlier in the month. But, now that the event has repeated itself, I feel that I have to express my disappointment about the issue.
As the reports go, when the first polar bear reached the shore on June 3, a crowd of spectators quickly gathered on the road near the animal. When the police finally arrived they decided to euthanize the bear because there was no equipment available on hand to catch it live, nor to put it to sleep. With heavy fog in the mountains and the bear approaching the crowd the police neither wanted to risk losing sight of it nor allow it to get too close to the bystanders.
The fact that according to Egill Steingrímsson, chief veterinarian in Blönduós, there were narcotics available is infuriating: “I even had narcotics in my trunk and if the narcotics gun would have been sent by flight it would have arrived within an hour,” Steingrímsson said.
He also criticized the police for not having closed the road so that the bear would not have posed a threat to the public. And this relates to my first question. Why on earth didn’t the police close the road? Surely it would have bought them some time to consider other options.
Anyway, with the first bear down, shouldn’t some lessons have been learnt from the experience? Sure, only a couple of weeks passed before the second bear was spotted, but Minister for Environment Thórunn Sveinbjarnardóttir announced that everything would be done to catch the bear alive.
Experts were even flown in from Denmark with a cage and the necessary equipment. Yet, somehow the bear was also killed this time around. When the bear headed towards the sea, the experts on hand claim it moved too quickly and instead of shooting it with a tranquilizer, they euthanized it once it began swimming away.
This was the first attempt at catching a polar bear live in Iceland and the Ministry of Environment has announced that it is working on an operation plan for future incidents. But, it’s not like these were the first two bears to have visited Iceland.
Polar bears have been visiting Iceland for almost 1200 years, the last being in 1993, and while the situation may have been different in the early days, we’ve all known for some time now that these animals are in trouble – they were recently listed as being threatened on the US Endangered Species List – and it’s simply not acceptable to kill them.
Although, Icelandic law does state that a bear can be killed if it threatens humans or cattle, personally I think the interpretation of this law needs to be reviewed. But, don’t give me the argument that has recently been circulating that although polar bears may be endangered elsewhere in the world killing them in Iceland is justified since they swim from neighboring Greenland, where some claim their numbers are plenty.
Did the bear really need to be killed? If there was time to kill it, wasn’t there also time to shoot it with a tranquilizer gun? I wasn’t there at the time and I’ve never lived on a farm in remote north Iceland, so perhaps I appear arrogant for assuming that there really were other options, but it is difficult to accept that things couldn’t have turned out in favor of the bear.
As even Environment Minister Sveinbjarnardóttir stated: “We have an obligation towards that animal,” though she is also satisfied that no other option existed at the time and that the best course of action was taken.
I find what the farmer, who spotted the first bear, said pathetic: “I did not fancy the idea of it roaming in my grasslands.” But, what perhaps shocks me the most, is not the fact that not one, but two, polar bears were killed, but the photos and videos posted in the Icelandic media afterwards.
One image, which appeared on the front pages of the newspapers after the first bear was shot, shows the armed men who killed it observing the bloodied animal. After the incident repeated itself, pictures of onlookers taking photos of the second slain bear as well as the video of the killing of the first were posted on news website mbl.is.
Were these images supposed to shock audiences and increase debate about the topic? From an outsider’s point of view, they look shamefully barbaric.
Now with the prospect of more polar bears on the horizon, something urgently needs to be done to decrease the risk of this ever happening again.
ZR – zoe_robert3@hotmail.com
Rape, Weapon of War
BBC News - June 20, 2008
The UN Security Council has voted unanimously in favour of a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war.
The document describes the deliberate use of rape as a tactic in war and a threat to international security.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said violence against women had reached "unspeakable proportions" in some societies recovering from conflict.
The UN is also setting up an inquiry to report next June on how widespread the practice is and how to tackle it.
Human rights groups hailed the resolution as historic.
'Silent war'
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan said China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam had all expressed reservations during the negotiations, asking whether rape was really a matter for the security council.
But the US-sponsored resolution was adopted unanimously by the 15-member council.
It's a very effective weapon, because the communities are totally destroyed
Maj Gen Patrick CammaertFormer UN peacekeeper
Raped for opposing Mugabe
It described sexual violence as "a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group".
The document said that the violence "can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security".
During the debate in the council, Mr Ban said: "Responding to this silent war against women and girls requires leadership at the national level."
"National authorities need to take the initiative to build comprehensive strategies while the UN needs to help build capacity and support national authorities and civil societies," he added.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the world now recognised that sexual violence profoundly affected not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations.
Other speakers identified the former Yugoslavia, Sudan's Darfur region, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Liberia as regions where deliberate sexual violence had occurred on a mass scale.
Deterrent?
The former commander of the UN peacekeeping force in eastern Congo, Maj Gen Patrick Cammaert, told the BBC he had personally witnessed its impact.
"It's a very effective weapon, because the communities are totally destroyed," he said.
"You destroy communities. You punish the men, and you punish the women, doing it in front of the men."
In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, some 40 women are raped every day, our correspondent says.
Sometimes women are even raped by peacekeepers who are supposed to be protecting them, she adds.
The question is whether those in conflict zones who use rape in war will be at all deterred by the new measures, she says.
The UN Security Council has voted unanimously in favour of a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war.
The document describes the deliberate use of rape as a tactic in war and a threat to international security.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said violence against women had reached "unspeakable proportions" in some societies recovering from conflict.
The UN is also setting up an inquiry to report next June on how widespread the practice is and how to tackle it.
Human rights groups hailed the resolution as historic.
'Silent war'
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan said China, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam had all expressed reservations during the negotiations, asking whether rape was really a matter for the security council.
But the US-sponsored resolution was adopted unanimously by the 15-member council.
It's a very effective weapon, because the communities are totally destroyed
Maj Gen Patrick CammaertFormer UN peacekeeper
Raped for opposing Mugabe
It described sexual violence as "a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group".
The document said that the violence "can significantly exacerbate situations of armed conflict and may impede the restoration of international peace and security".
During the debate in the council, Mr Ban said: "Responding to this silent war against women and girls requires leadership at the national level."
"National authorities need to take the initiative to build comprehensive strategies while the UN needs to help build capacity and support national authorities and civil societies," he added.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the world now recognised that sexual violence profoundly affected not only the health and safety of women, but the economic and social stability of their nations.
Other speakers identified the former Yugoslavia, Sudan's Darfur region, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Liberia as regions where deliberate sexual violence had occurred on a mass scale.
Deterrent?
The former commander of the UN peacekeeping force in eastern Congo, Maj Gen Patrick Cammaert, told the BBC he had personally witnessed its impact.
"It's a very effective weapon, because the communities are totally destroyed," he said.
"You destroy communities. You punish the men, and you punish the women, doing it in front of the men."
In the Democratic Republic of Congo alone, some 40 women are raped every day, our correspondent says.
Sometimes women are even raped by peacekeepers who are supposed to be protecting them, she adds.
The question is whether those in conflict zones who use rape in war will be at all deterred by the new measures, she says.
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Bid to Halt Tuna Decline
Tuna Populations at Risk International Agency Challenged to Stop Over-fishing WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 19, 2008) -- A historic meeting next week may decide the fate of tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, one of the world’s most important marine resources. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has an opportunity at its annual meeting June 23 – 27 in Panama City, Panama, to reverse a trend of inaction, and take concrete steps to stop the decline of tuna stocks. Failure of the IATTC to compromise effectively in the past has blocked the consensus required for the adopt ion of binding resolutions. A coalition of organizations representing the international conservation community and the tuna industry agrees that urgent action is needed. The coalition is calling upon the Commission to follow the advice of its scientific staff to adopt time and area closures to protect tuna, and implement a research program to investigate how to manage fish aggregating devices (FADs) to reduce the capture of non-target species. Bigeye and yellowfin tuna populations are falling and the average size of captured fish is shrinking, a clear sign that those tuna are in dire need of conservation measures. At the same time, the size and efficiency of fishing fleets continue to increase. As fish become less abundant, their market value rises, and operators invest more in technology resulting in more pressure on the stocks. In the face of declining populations, some nations are demanding the right to increase the size of their fishing fleets. “Despite a clear legal mandate and declining tuna stocks, three international meetings of the IATTC held over the past year have failed to produce measures to protect the very resource upon which not only the tuna industry, but the health of the Pacific marine ecosystem depends,” said Scott Henderson, director of marine conservation at Conservation International. “This is truly the ‘tragedy of the commons’ in action,” observed Meghan Jeans, Pacific fish conservation manager for U.S.-based Ocean Conservancy. “The health of the ocean environment, the long term sustainability of tuna stocks and the interests of many are being put at risk by the short-sighted self interest of a few,” she added. The IATTC is responsible for the conservation and management of fisheries for tunas and other species taken by tuna-fishing vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean. It is comprised of 16 member countries. A fundamental problem underlying IATTC’s failure to adopt effective science-based conservation measures is the inability of member states to negotiate measures agreed to by all. Humane Society International’s vice president Kitty Block remarked, “As it currently stands, there is every incentive to block consensus and none to reach it. If, instead, the fishery were shut down until consensus is reached, member countries would undoubtedly work harder to agree on effective management measures.” In 2007, representatives of the IATTC agreed to be more proactive in mitigating and preventing tuna stock declines and to undertake a comprehensive review of its performance. This review has yet to begin despite continuing stock declines. “The IATTC once had an enviable track record of following scientific advice, conserving tuna populations and tackling major conservation issues like dolphin mortality,” said Dr. Bill Fox, World Wildlife Fund vice president of fisheries. “It needs to recapture that spirit and dedication, perhaps using the new management ideas and methods it is exploring like property rights for fishermen.” “For conditions to improve, conservation groups, the tuna industry and seafood consumers need to cooperate and play a more effective role in promoting the adoption of responsible management measures,” said Randi Thomas, vice president of sustainability at the National Fisheries Institute. Humane Society International is the international arm of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's largest animal protection organization — backed by 10.5 million Americans, or one of every 30. For more than a half-century, The HSUS has been fighting for the protection of all animals through advocacy, education, and hands-on programs. Celebrating animals and confronting cruelty — On the web at www.hsi.org. Ocean Conservancy promotes healthy and diverse ocean ecosystems and opposes practices that threaten ocean life and human life. Through research, education, and science-based advocacy, Ocean Conservancy informs, inspires, and empowers people to speak and act on behalf of the oceans. In all its work, Ocean Conservancy strives to be the world's foremost advocate for the oceans. For more information, please visit: www.oceanconservancy.org Conservation International (CI) applies innovations in science, economics, policy and community participation to protect the Earth’s richest regions of plant and animal diversity and demonstrate that human societies can live harmoniously with nature. Founded in 1987, CI works in more than 40 countries on four continents to help people find economic alternatives without harming their natural environments. For more information about CI, visit www.conservation.org. For more than 45 years, WWF has been protecting the future of nature. The largest multinational conservation organization in the world, WWF works in 100 countries and is supported by 1.2 million members in the United States and close to 5 million globally. WWF’s unique way of working combines global reach with a foundation in science, involves action at every level, from local to global, and ensures the delivery of innovative solutions that meet the needs of both people and nature. Go to worldwildlife.org to learn more. The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is the leading seafood industry advocate representing all aspects of the seafood community from water to table for over 60 years. For more information, please visit:www.aboutseafood.com.
http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/160717/1/
http://uk.oneworld.net/article/view/160717/1/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
