(Click to enlarge)
Animated version and moreHERE
Friday, 3 June 2011
TED Talk - Malcolm McLaren: Authentic creativity vs. karaoke culture
How does one find authentic creativity? In his last talk before passing away, Malcolm McLaren tells remarkable stories from his own life, from failing school to managing the Sex Pistols. He argues that we're living in a karaoke culture, with false promises of instant success, and that messiness and failure are the key to true learning.
Via
Via
France presents plan to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe presented a peace plan to the Palestinian Authority Thursday during a visit to Ramallah, meant to revive stalled talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
The peace plan, Juppe said, is largely based on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last month, which called for a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps.
However, while Obama focused on guaranteeing Israel's security, the French initiative is concerned with "security for the two states (Israel and Palestine)," Juppe told a news conference with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the central West Bank city.
The plan had already been shown to President Mahmoud Abbas in Rome Wednesday.
The French initiative sets a one-year deadline for resolving the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, which Obama referred to without time-lines.
Juppe said he did not expect the Palestinians to respond to his proposal immediately, adding that he was scheduled to meet later Thursday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem to present the French plan to the prime minister as well.
"The situation here cannot continue," he said. "We are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone," he said.
Juppe was referring to Palestinian plans to address the United Nations in September, asking for full membership in the UN as a state with recognized borders.
He did not specify whether France would support the proposed UN resolution, reiterating the French position, as stated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, that "if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities, adding "all options are open."
Juppe said he hopes the French plan, which he claims has European Union and U.S. backing, will receive further credibility during a proposed international peace conference France wants to host in late June or early July.
The conference would be an expansion of a planned economic conference, also referred to as Paris II. France wants to host the economic conference in June in order to enlist aid for the Palestinian Authority for the next three years, according to Fayyad.
The Paris II conference "is primarily a Palestinian interest," said Fayyad in response to a question if the PA would accept an invitation to the proposed international peace conference.
"We also want it to have very clear political dimensions that would lead to the one thing we all want, and that is an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders," the Palestinian prime minister said.
Juppe said he expected Palestinians and Israelis to take time to discuss the French peace plan before responding to it.
Official Palestinian sources told the German Press-Agency DPA that Abbas told Juppe after the Rome meeting he will convene with the Palestinian leadership to discuss the plan before he gives his final answer.
@'Haaretz'
The peace plan, Juppe said, is largely based on U.S. President Barack Obama's speech last month, which called for a resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps.
However, while Obama focused on guaranteeing Israel's security, the French initiative is concerned with "security for the two states (Israel and Palestine)," Juppe told a news conference with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the central West Bank city.
The plan had already been shown to President Mahmoud Abbas in Rome Wednesday.
The French initiative sets a one-year deadline for resolving the issues of Jerusalem and refugees, which Obama referred to without time-lines.
Juppe said he did not expect the Palestinians to respond to his proposal immediately, adding that he was scheduled to meet later Thursday with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem to present the French plan to the prime minister as well.
"The situation here cannot continue," he said. "We are convinced that if nothing happens between now and September, the situation will be difficult for everyone," he said.
Juppe was referring to Palestinian plans to address the United Nations in September, asking for full membership in the UN as a state with recognized borders.
He did not specify whether France would support the proposed UN resolution, reiterating the French position, as stated by President Nicolas Sarkozy, that "if nothing happens between now and September, France would act according to its responsibilities, adding "all options are open."
Juppe said he hopes the French plan, which he claims has European Union and U.S. backing, will receive further credibility during a proposed international peace conference France wants to host in late June or early July.
The conference would be an expansion of a planned economic conference, also referred to as Paris II. France wants to host the economic conference in June in order to enlist aid for the Palestinian Authority for the next three years, according to Fayyad.
The Paris II conference "is primarily a Palestinian interest," said Fayyad in response to a question if the PA would accept an invitation to the proposed international peace conference.
"We also want it to have very clear political dimensions that would lead to the one thing we all want, and that is an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders," the Palestinian prime minister said.
Juppe said he expected Palestinians and Israelis to take time to discuss the French peace plan before responding to it.
Official Palestinian sources told the German Press-Agency DPA that Abbas told Juppe after the Rome meeting he will convene with the Palestinian leadership to discuss the plan before he gives his final answer.
@'Haaretz'
The Spanish Revolution
Tracklisting:
1. They shall not pass
2. El tren blindado
3. Ay Carmela
4. People again
Luc - bass, guitar, backing-vocals
Katrin - drums, hand-clapping, backing-vocals
Terrie - guitars, hand-clapping, backing-vocals
G.W. Sok - voice
John - voice, hand-clapping, backing-vocals
plus:
Dolf - guitar, hand-clapping
Cobie - hand-clapping, backing-vocals
Released in June 1986
Recorded at Emma's Koeienverhuurbedrijf in Amsterdam, NL
Produced by Dolf Planteydt
Originally released as a 144 page photobook + double 7" on Ex Records.
I bought this just as I left Amsterdam to move to Australia. I remember going in to a record shop with about 500 albums that I just couldn't bring out here and could not resist this wonderful package. My favourite photo in the book is members of the CNT assassinating a statue of christ!
UPDATE:2011
Thursday, 2 June 2011
How Dean Acheson could come back to haunt Barack Obama
If there isn't a diplomatic breakthrough, Palestinians and their supporters will seek a resolution supporting recognition of a Palestinian state this fall at the United Nations. President Obama has already said that "symbolic" resolutions won't produce a Palestinian state, a statement which all but promises an American veto. The script appears to be already written. States supportive of Palestine will introduce a resolution. Washington will veto it, and everyone else will yell and scream as they always do when America uses its veto to back Israel at the UN.
But that should be the end of the story, right? After all, the United Nations Charter makes clear that both the Security Council and the General Assembly must be involved in the admission of new members to the organization. Article 4, paragraph 2 is explicit: "The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." And in the Security Council, past precedent makes clear that the veto can be used on admission decisions. In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union used the veto frequently for this purpose in the 1950s and 1960s.
There is a wrinkle however. Palestinian diplomats are now suggesting that they'll use a tactic called "Uniting for Peace" to bypass the expected American veto in the Security Council and have the General Assembly decide the matter of Palestine's admission:
At the time, the Americans wanted some way for the United Nations to express its continued support for the UN intervention in defense of South Korea (that intervention was authorized by the Security Council while the Soviet ambassador was boycotting the body). The Americans hit upon the idea using the General Assembly and they argued that the assembly--which was, at the time, quite pro-Western--could take up matters under consideration by the Security Council when the Council was paralyzed by the veto.
It was a terrible reading of the UN Charter--and the Soviets howled--but it served the immediate purpose. The General Assembly passed a clutch of resolutions supporting the UN's efforts in Korea. Some American allies at the time, including the British, quietly warned that the tactic might come back to bite the West. But Washington wasn't listening. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote, "present difficulties outweighed possible future ones."
Those future difficulties came soon enough. By the 1960s, the composition of the General Assembly had changed dramatically as decolonization proceeded. What had once been a friendly forum for the United States became quite unfriendly. And so the United States quietly let the Uniting for Peace tactic drop. It's been picked up from time to time by other states --and it was last used in 1997, also on Israel-Palestine issues--but there's never been a definitive ruling on its legality or precisely how it can be used. No permanent member of the Security Council will lend support to an idea that challenges their power, and most other states have decided it's not worth challenging the Council's powers--and its powerful members-- so directly.
Some states might not mind forcing the issue now. The great majority of states resent the use of the veto power in any case, and that specific frustration could now meld with a broader discontent about the continued failure of attempts to reform the Security Council. The precedent of U.S. support for Uniting for Peace will be a useful arrow in their quiver. All the passionate American quotes about unreasonable blockages of the Security Council and the true purposes of the UN Charter will be thrown in the face of American diplomats. President Obama may soon be wishing that Acheson and the State Department's lawyers had kept their bright ideas to themselves.
But there is a small consolation for the United States: if the Palestinian statehood resolution does become a broader fight about the powers and prerogatives of the Security Council, at least Washington won't be alone.
David Bosco @'FP'
(Thanx Son#1!)
But that should be the end of the story, right? After all, the United Nations Charter makes clear that both the Security Council and the General Assembly must be involved in the admission of new members to the organization. Article 4, paragraph 2 is explicit: "The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." And in the Security Council, past precedent makes clear that the veto can be used on admission decisions. In fact, both the United States and the Soviet Union used the veto frequently for this purpose in the 1950s and 1960s.
There is a wrinkle however. Palestinian diplomats are now suggesting that they'll use a tactic called "Uniting for Peace" to bypass the expected American veto in the Security Council and have the General Assembly decide the matter of Palestine's admission:
The Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said Wednesday that the Palestinians will seek an emergency session of the General Assembly known as "Uniting for Peace" to override any veto.Ridiculous, right? You can't rewrite the UN Charter simply by passing a resolution in the General Assembly. It is ridiculous. Unfortunately for Washington, it was the United States that thought up the Uniting for Peace resolution. It was the brainchild of U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson and his State Department lawyers, who were searching for a way around the Soviet Union's Security Council veto during the Korean War.
At the time, the Americans wanted some way for the United Nations to express its continued support for the UN intervention in defense of South Korea (that intervention was authorized by the Security Council while the Soviet ambassador was boycotting the body). The Americans hit upon the idea using the General Assembly and they argued that the assembly--which was, at the time, quite pro-Western--could take up matters under consideration by the Security Council when the Council was paralyzed by the veto.
It was a terrible reading of the UN Charter--and the Soviets howled--but it served the immediate purpose. The General Assembly passed a clutch of resolutions supporting the UN's efforts in Korea. Some American allies at the time, including the British, quietly warned that the tactic might come back to bite the West. But Washington wasn't listening. As U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote, "present difficulties outweighed possible future ones."
Those future difficulties came soon enough. By the 1960s, the composition of the General Assembly had changed dramatically as decolonization proceeded. What had once been a friendly forum for the United States became quite unfriendly. And so the United States quietly let the Uniting for Peace tactic drop. It's been picked up from time to time by other states --and it was last used in 1997, also on Israel-Palestine issues--but there's never been a definitive ruling on its legality or precisely how it can be used. No permanent member of the Security Council will lend support to an idea that challenges their power, and most other states have decided it's not worth challenging the Council's powers--and its powerful members-- so directly.
Some states might not mind forcing the issue now. The great majority of states resent the use of the veto power in any case, and that specific frustration could now meld with a broader discontent about the continued failure of attempts to reform the Security Council. The precedent of U.S. support for Uniting for Peace will be a useful arrow in their quiver. All the passionate American quotes about unreasonable blockages of the Security Council and the true purposes of the UN Charter will be thrown in the face of American diplomats. President Obama may soon be wishing that Acheson and the State Department's lawyers had kept their bright ideas to themselves.
But there is a small consolation for the United States: if the Palestinian statehood resolution does become a broader fight about the powers and prerogatives of the Security Council, at least Washington won't be alone.
David Bosco @'FP'
(Thanx Son#1!)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
