IFFF und Völkerrecht : UNO-Charta versus ATT (Arms Trade Treaty)

Halten wir uns zu oberst an die UN-Charta! Ihre Relevanz ist glasklar vorrangig und jeder versteht sie.

Die UN-Charta ist die international gültige UN-Verfasssung, auf die sich alle Mitgliedstaaten rechtsgültig verpflichtet haben. Nach unserer deutschen Verfassung (Artikel 25) hat dieses Rechtsgefüge Vorrang vor nationalem Recht. Rechtshierarchisch sind Verträge, auch internationale Verträge dem Normengefüge der UN-Charta bindend verpflichtet. Der ATT gehört in die Kategorie internationale Waffenkontrollabkommen und gilt erst dann als bindendes Recht, wenn er ratifiziert ist, ob das eventuell gar eine Ratifizierung aller Vertragsunterzeichner zur vorherigen Voraussetzung hat, wäre zu prüfen.**

Die UN-Charta, die Konstitution also, der völkerumspannenden Institution UNO ist aber, ob sie allzeit eingehalten wird und die nötige Beachtung findet oder nicht, bereits bindendes Rechtsgut. Die Präambel, aus der ich untenstehend zitiere, bringt das Bestreben und das Verlangen der Unterzeichnerstaaten im Namen ihrer Völker im Jahre 1945 ganz klar zum Ausdruck, nämlich:

„ … to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our life- time has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples…"

In sofern, ist die Verfassung der UNO in ihrer Ganzheit auch Richtschnur für Friedenskräfte.

Wir als Internationale Frauenliga für Frieden und Freiheit, also als internationale NGO und vorrangig Friedensorganisation sollten uns immer wieder darauf berufen. Der Wunsch aller Völker ist immer noch derselbe und die Friedensbedrohung ist nicht geringer geworden. Wir müssen daher die Charta eben als "verpflichtende Richtschnur", als Leitmotiv, als Orientierungspunkt nutzen, gerade weil unsere Politiker das nicht tun.

Ich vermische und verwechsle da nichts. Ich vertrete eine Position, die allderdings durchaus nicht unumstritten ist, was mir nur zu bewusst ist. Die herrschende Meinung ist noch immer die Meinung der Herrschenden. Ich habe in diversen Geschichtslehrbüchern, in Lexika, in Textbüchern noch einmal nachgeschlagen. Meist wird dort das Völkerrecht minimiert, relativiert oder im militärischen Sinne umgedeutet. Ich war ja staatlich bestallte PW- und Geschichtslehrerin, von daher kenne ich vielfältige Quellen.

Die Charta ist aber für uns Friedensarbeiterinnen tägliches Arbeitswerkzeug und in der Tat nur so gut, wie wir Friedensorganisationen und wie die Völker sich dafür stark machen und sich darauf berufen. Wir müssen unsere Politiker in ihrem Tun und Lassen daran messen.

Der ATT* nun, dessen aktueller Rechststatus, bzw. den Stand seiner Ratifizierung anheim gestellt , ist, wie andere internationale Vertragsregelungen der UN-Charta rechtsnormenhierarchisch also nachrangig. ***Soll er aber doch in Kraft treten und wirksam werden! Dagegen scheint doch gar nichts zu sprechen, außer der Zögerlichkeit unserer Mächtigen. An der kriegerischen Poltitik ändern wird sich damit kaum etwas. Dies  ist aber möglich durch die strikte Beachtung der UN- Charta. Darauf, liebe Freundinnen, zielt mein Argument. Wir haben also eine größere Aufgabe, als uns um ein Einzelvertragswerk zu scharen! Wir müssen weiter schauen und denken.

Dazu kommt unbedingt, die notwendige, unumgängliche Beachtung der gegenwärtigen Konfliktszenarien und Friedensbedrohungen, die eben nichts mit dem Stand des ATT zu tun haben oder wenn, dann nur ganz marginal. 

Wir müssen Stellung gegen die Kriegsshysterie unserer Leitmedien beziehen. Das bedeutet, mutig und mit Sachverstand darauf hinzuweisen, dass die Krim (ähnlich wie einst Deutschland!) mit Russland und sogar nach eindeutigem Referendumsbeschluss und ohne Gewaltanwendung wieder vereinigt wurde und keineswegs annektiert, wie es allerorten unter falscher Bezugnahme auf Völkerrecht behauptet wird. Unsere Aufgabe als Frauenfriedens-Vereinigung  ist  hier Richtstellung. So sehe ich meine, wenn auch äußerst mühevolle Aufgabe. Es ist natürlich nicht leicht, gegen den scheinbaren Konsens der vordergründigen Mehrheit anzuschwimmen.

Dennoch ist es das friedenspolitische Gebot der Stunde.

Irene Eckert 31.03.14
_____
*Der Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) ist der Name eines multilateralen Vertrags, der den internationalen Handel mit konventionellen Waffen regeln soll. Am 2. April 2013 wurde das Abkommen verabschiedet, jedoch steht die Ratifizierung noch aus.^{[1] (WIKIPEDIA)
**Der Vertrag ist auf einer globalen Konferenz unter der Schirmherrschaft der Vereinten Nationen vom 2. bis 27. Juli 2012 in New York ergebnislos verhandelt worden. Am 7. November 2012 beschloss die UNO-Generalversammlung mit überwältigender Mehrheit, die Verhandlungen vom 18. bis 28. März 2013 wieder aufzunehmen.[10][11][12][13] Am 2. April 2013 wurde das Abkommen mit 154 zu 3 Stimmen bei 23 Enthaltungen verabschiedet und tritt nach Ratifizierung durch 50 UN-Mitgliedsstaaten in Kraft.}

R E F E R E N C E :

United Nations Nations Unies HEADQUARTERS • SIEGE NEW YORK, NY 10017
TEL.: 1 (212) 963.1234 • FAX: 1 (212) 963.4879
ODA/40-2014/ATT-CSP1
Disarmament / First Committee / Arms Trade Treaty
The Secretariat of the United Nations presents its compliments to the Permanent Mission of ... to the United Nations and has the honour to communicate the following information regarding options for taking decisions on the preparation of the First Conference of States Parties of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).
A number of States have informally approached the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) requesting clarification on the process of decision- making regarding the ATT in the period prior to its entry into force. This question was seen as particularly relevant given the decision by the General Assembly (resolution 68/31) of 5 December 2013 “to remain seized of the matter”.
The main points raised would be how and by whom decisions will be taken with respect to the organization of the first Conference of States Parties (CSP1) – which shall be convened within one year of the treaty’s entry into force – including its venue, duration, selection of the president of the conference, funding, and preparatory process.
Pursuant to the aforementioned request, the Secretariat of the United Nations has the honour to provide the following information.

•   The ATT text does not provide guidance on how decisions should be taken prior to the convening of CSP1.
  
•   In accordance with Article 17 of the ATT, CSP1 “shall be convened by the provisional Secretariat, established under Article 18, no later than one year following the entry into force of this Treaty”. The Treaty does not set out the modalities for setting up the provisional Secretariat.
  
•   Consequently, a decision on the organization of CSP1 would also need to entail a decision on the provisional Secretariat. Without the provisional Secretariat there would be no convenor for the CSP. 
  

tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia (videos with leaked phone call)

http://rt.com/news/tymoshenko-calls-destroy-russia-917/

Raymond Fredette

rfgalileo@bell.net

membre  associé

Centre interuniversitaire sur la science et la technologie

Université du Québec à Montréal

514 987-3000 #6583

bureau local  N-8260

Ukraine: Important to Make US Cooperate on Equal Terms

Problem of Ukraine: It’s Important to Make US Cooperate on Equal Terms Crimea has become part of Russia. The first hysterical reaction of US is over, now it starts to seek more balanced approaches. The policy of imposing sanctions against Russia has proven to be ineffective. Russia has become part of world economy in recent years and its contribution is enough to make the sanctions backlash. Now the West’s policy on Ukraine and Russia has started to acquire new traits... The Obama’s administration is ready to put up with the fact that Crimea becomes part of Russia in exchange for Russia’s refusal to defend its vital interests in Ukraine, including in the south-eastern part of the country...  Pavel DMITRIEV | 29.03.2014http://www.strategic-culture.org

A European "Gender-Equality-BÖLL-WILPF" Coming Together or More?

EUrope - A Gender Equality Project? 

Postscriptum  on  Women's  Berlin March-Meeting from  20th to 23rd 2014

Wilpf* is an offspring of the Suffragette's movement. It was  born in The Hague in 1915  out of a gathering of more than one thousand women, dedicated to challenge the ongoing slaughtering of World War I. In Zürich, in 1919 the organizational groundwork was laid down in the framework of aims and principles, that was to form Wilpf's  first constitution in 1924. Under the guidance of women such  as  US-social reformer Jane Addams, Dutch physician Aletta Jacobs and German lawyer Anita Augspurg the organization influenced the League of Nations and collected millions of signatures for total and universal disarmament. The rise of fascism in Europe and the new darkening  clouds with prospects for another global war caused controversial debates among the women's association. 

 Wilpf might have  have been more outspoken and stronger in their solidarity efforts then, but they were middle class ladies of the academic rank and file, mostly. And some of them were very courageous. Some lost their jobs, some their citizenships, some  their homes and some even their lives for their outspokenness.  Emily Green Balch, a national economist at prestigious Bryn Mawr College college lost her professorship post for her social leaning.

Other organizations compromised, too, in those days. We must as always evaluate the historical conditions, to do the actors justice. But we must not repeat the same mistakes over and over again as we live under new threats for another possible global war theater.

Wilpf lost many members during World II and even sections. But after the war   the organization  was among the first international bodies to be granted official NGO status with ECOSOC, an important UN agency.

In postwar USA, WILPF offered shelter to women who would have become victims of Mc Carthy's witch hunt during the fiercest cold war period. They had no other political home that WILPF in those days. WILPF did not participate in cold warfare, then.

But in 1954, under cold war pressure, WILPF international changed its constitution and made it weaker, in order to avoid  being labeled as pro communist. The red hunt could of course not be avoided by such concessions.

In the 80ies of the last century WILPF, carried by a global movement for disarmament and peace, made international headlines  through its STAR-Campaign, demanding to STopp All ARmament now. The STAR-logo was  translated in many languages. Having brought together over 10 000 women from all over the world  in Brussels on International Women's Day 1983, in   practically no time, was a big achievement in times without electronic communication gadgets.

In 2014, just before the 15th anniversary of the first post WWII aggression in Europe against former Jugoslawia that was started by  NATO on March 24th in 1999, Wilpfers from all over Europe gathered again.

Many women had come to help prepare the anniversary event scheduled for the Hague in 2015. Long term ex-president and ex international secretary Edith Ballantyne (91)  from Geneva was present. STAR-campaign coordinator of 1983, I. Eckert from Berlin accompanied her to the prestigious Heinrich Böll palace, opposite the "German  Theater" in Berlin Mitte, that had been founded in the twenties by stage director Max Reinhard. 

The residence of the Green Part'y Heinrich Böll** Foundation in Schumannstraße is right next to the Ukrainean embassy. 

The violent Ukrainean coup d'etat of end February was welcomed and even explicitly supported  by the  Böll-Foundation, supporting vigils for the "victims of the Russian aggression" outside the embassy building and inside their seat. The evening  before the joint WILPF/GREEN gathering Joschka Fischer *** and George Sorros  were invited as speakers.

Comprehensible under such conditions that WILPF-Europe  could not condemn what had happened in the Ukraine.

But, the "debates" also showed  a lack of expertise on  international law. This expertise  had contributed enormously to  the women's club's prestige for many years in the past.

Still astonishing that the relevance of the UN-Charta as  the major guideline to peace was put aside, while celebrating as the biggest achievement of the moment,  was WILPF having helped to introduce the  "the gender aspect into the  'ATT'-arms control agreement.

WILPF's international webside has the information, missing in Berlin:

"WILPF’S AMBITIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS

2013 featured important milestones for a better regulation of arms trade. The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) was adopted in April 2013, following seven years of discussion and negotiations. The ATT is the first ever legally binding regime that recognizes the link between gender-based violence and the international arms trade and WILPF was instrumental in making that element be in the text."

Emma Burgisser, a young lawyer, employed delegate from the Geneva office argued:

The ATT is more relevant than the UN-Charta, it is what gives it teeth.

Has Wilpf forgotten what it was founded for, one of its basic aims to achieve total and universal disarmament ? A  treaty for  arms control being celebrated as the greatest achievement of the day and an enormous contribution to world  peace? While our leaders are breaching international  law in its essence with every passing day.

The framework for anniversary preparations put forward for hours  by the same Ms  Emma Burgisser, who did want no questions before she had finished her lengthy  and sophisticated powerpoint presentation focused on fundraising. No theme seems to exist  at this point and no content, neither  have speakers  been forwarded and discussed.

If preparing for WILPF'S  100th anniversary in the Hague will make any sense in terms of peace building, conflict prevention, disarmament or women's issues, then sections will have to work on it speedily. Otherwise Hague 1915 will be another lost occasion for peace. The  most  likely very high registration fees of the event will enable participation for only some very privileged women or rich organization  This might serve purposes incompatible with WILPF's noble heritage.
Lets begin  discussing the  real issues now.

Remarks by Irene Eckert, STAR-coordiantor of 1983, member of WILPF since 1981, invited as lecturer by US - WILPF and other sections, ex president of Berlin branch.  

* WILPF means Women's International  League For Peace and Freedom and you can join.

** Heinrich Böll, nobel laureate for literature, peace activist of the eighties of last century.
***   Joschka  Fischer  German  foreign minister in 1999 for  the  Green Party, instrumentalising Auschwitz  (Human Rights) for participating in first post war engagement of Germany: 78 days bombing of Jugoslawia began MArch 24th 1999; the GREENS since then pro war party = " humanitarian interventions with military aims.

"Keine Regierungsbeteiligung, während Bundeswehr an Kriegen beteiligt." meint Sahra Wagenknecht, MDB/Die Linke

Der "Junge Welt" Journalist Rüdiger Göbel nimmt Sahra Wagenknecht in die ZAnge udn konfrontiert sie mit den richtigen Fragen, z.B.

Göbel "... Vor 15 Jahren haben SPD und Grüne das erste Mal seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg deutsche Soldaten in Kampfeinsätze geschickt. Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder ist – im Gegensatz zu den Grünen – mittlerweile geständig, vor kurzem hat er eingeräumt, der Krieg gegen Jugoslawien sei »völkerrechtswidrig« gewesen. Bei den 78tägigen Bombardements sind mehrere Tausend Menschen umgebracht worden, kein einziger Politiker oder Militär aus den NATO-Staaten hat sich dafür vor Gericht verantworten müssen. Wäre es nicht vornehmste Aufgabe für »DIE Opposition«, sich dafür stark zu machen, daß die Aggressoren endlich angeklagt werden?

Wagenknecht: Natürlich wäre es wünschenswert, Kriegsschuld und Verantwortung auch juristisch aufzuarbeiten. Aber auch das verlangt andere gesellschaftliche Kräfteverhältnisse. Das Problem beginnt damit, daß die USA sich gar nicht der internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit unterwerfen. Eines jedenfalls ist klar: Es wird keine Regierungsbeteiligung mit der Linken geben, solange die Bundeswehr an Kriegen beteiligt ist.

»Kaum Übereinstimmungen«

• 

  Die Linke muß eigenständige politische Inhalte vertreten, statt auf SPD und Grünen zu schielen. Ein Gespräch mit Sahra Wagenknecht

  Interview: Rüdiger Göpel mehr: http://www.jungewelt.de/aktuell/rubrik/schwerpunkt.php

Timoschenko-Tirade gegen Putin macht Furore.

• Dem Bastard in die Stirn schießen«

  
  Abrechnung in der Ukraine: Timoschenko-Tirade gegen Putin macht Furore. Polizei besetzt Zentrale der Nationalgarde und erschießt Führer des faschistischen »Rechten Sektors«.
  Von Reinhard Lauterbach http://www.jungewelt.de/2014/03-26/058.php 25.03.2014

Turkey: "Government Takes Warmongering Resolutions Towards Syria and Should Therefore Resign" Says Turkish Peace Association

"Turkey will be emancipated from the warmonger gang"  Zeynep  Beşpınar TPA 27.03.2014

Tape recording released today proofs clearly that Turkey has fallen into the hands of a criminal network. Foreign Minister, Undersecretary of MIT (National Intelligence Organization of Turkey) and senior bureaucrats from both military and civil wings of the State, are acting as a gang,  ready to commit every kind of crime in neighbouring Syria.

Since the beginning of the first clashes  in Syria, the 'Peace Association of Turkey' has named the events  as provocations stage managed by imperialism.  We have said that the Government of AKP played a leading role in this  scenario. We have expressed solidarity with the Syrian People and  we  underlined  the legality of the Damascus Government . We pointed out that the road, chosen by AKP, created a danger of Al Qaeda in Turkey. As peace association, we pointed out that the Turkish authorities should be tried as war criminals. We have documented these crimes issuing an international comprehensive report.

Those skeptical towards our attitude as of  peace-loving people, can see by now  that our claims  have once again been proven by reality. Our calling is  justified.

The war gang of the AKP, leading our country constitutes a disgrace for Turkey. The embarrassment must  be put aside by  fair judgement and  through bringing the gang leaders to court. The criminals must be sentenced. Once this will  be achieved our people will reestablish  fraternal solidarity  among all neighboring countries.

The illegal and unconstitutional acts  of  the Turkish Government once again   came to surface through  tape recordings published of  today. The AKP government should  no w resign immediately !

Orders of the  present  government have no longer  legitimacy. In case the Government  should take warmongering resolutions in panic, any ranks of the Turkish Armed Forces must  disobey instructions and should not be a further part of a possible  crime of outright aggression.

 Media  acting  as  collaborators  of a policy of aggression should mind their performance.

Warmongering policies of Ankara have arrived in a  dead end.

Peace Association Turkey

Agir contres Les plans terroristes du régime d'Erdogan en Syrie!

De nouveaux enregistrements fuités cette nuit par les hommes de la Confrérie de Fethullah Gülen, nouveau frère ennemi d'Erdogan, établissent la responsabilité flagrante du régime d'Ankara dans la guerre et le terrorisme en Syrie.

Ces "AKP-Leaks" impliquent directement le ministre turc des affaires étrangères Ahmet Davutoglu, le directeur des services secrets de la MIT Hakan Fidan, le conseiller du ministère des affaires étrangères Feridun Sinirlioglu et le chef-ajdoint de l'état-major turc Yasar Güler.

L'une de ces conversations compromettantes porte sur l'enclave turque en territoire syrien appelée " Suleyman Shah" où se trouve le mausolée éponyme du grand-père du fondateur de l'empire ottoman Osman Ier.

Les quatre conspirateurs invoquent le menace que fait peser le réseau terroriste Daech (EIIL) sur l'enclave comme prétexte à un assaut contre la Syrie. Le chef adjoint de l'état-major Yasar Güler évoque l'option de l'armement de 1000 djihadistes pour mener une opération en territoire syrien. 

Dans un autre enregistrement, le même Yasar Güler martèle : "Nous avons besoin d'un casus belli".

Mais le directeur du renseignement Hakan Fidan s'inquiète du risque de représailles, avouant que le frontière turco-syrienne échappe à tout contrôle.

Cela ne l'empêche pas de proposer une opération sous fausse bannière en territoire syrien: "S'il le faut, je peux envoyer quatre hommes en Syrie. Ces hommes pourraient lancer 8 missiles en direction du territoire turc. J'aurai ainsi suscité un casus belli. Nous pourrions même attaquer le mausolée de Suleyman Shah."

Comme nous l'évoquions dans un précédent article, à la veille des municipales prévues ce dimanche 30 mars, Erdogan tente de redorer son blason avec le sang syrien.

L'assaut des djihadistes syriens contre le village arménien de Kassab dans le Nord de la Syrie à partir du territoire turc n'est donc pas tombée pas du ciel.

La destruction du MIG syrien en territoire syrien par l'aviation turque fait partie d'une stratégie globale orchestrée par Erdogan avec le soutien d'Al Nosra, la branche syrienne d'Al Qaïda, des Turkmènes syriens pro-AKP, des agents turcs comme Selami Aynur abattu lundi par l'armée syrienne et des médias à sa solde comme Habertürk.

Cette formidable campagne médiatique, politique et militaire du gouvernement AKP à la veille des élections municipales survient au moment où il se trouve confronté à un scandale de corruption et une fronde populaire sans précédent.

-------------------------

URGENT

D'autres enregistrements vont arriver sous peu. Nous avons besoin de traducteurs turc/français, turc/anglais etc. 

Pour la paix en Turquie, en Syrie et dans le monde, il faut que la vérité explose à la figure des terroristes en col blanc de l'AKP et des terroristes en uniforme de l'OTAN.

Voici les enregistrements:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-1GooSDwJ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm7eg0-IjlI

Ukraine "It is Western Governments That Have Violated International Law and Sovereignty" FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

Western Unity Against Russia a Masterpiece of Illusion

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM  http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/author/cunningham

When US President Barack Obama opened his tour of Europe this week it had the unmistakable choreography of a scripted set piece: lights, camera, action etc. The storyline is a familiar trope. America, the shining beacon of democracy and human rights, comes to the rescue of European damsels in distress just before they are ravaged by bestial European recidivism for war.  European political figures of increasingly low caliber are indulging this American parody of reality by appearing to unite around Obama’s call for tougher sanctions against Russia. Britain’s David Cameron and his German and French counterparts, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, issued warnings of imposing economic penalties on Russian businesses and industries. Lots of bombast and melodrama were on cue, but there was a distinct lack of guts to follow.  For Obama’s European visit this week it seemed more than a coincidence that the president made his first public statement from an Amsterdam museum. The choice of such a rarefied venue to launch Obama’s shuttle diplomacy may at first seem odd.  As the Washington Post reported: «President Obama delved into a day of diplomacy Monday as he sought to rally the international community around efforts to isolate Russia following its incursion into Ukraine».  And yet the US president chooses a museum to begin this seemingly important diplomatic week? It was Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum where he pronounced on international law and the need for a unified response to sanction Russian «violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations». The American leader’s utterances were made while standing in front of Rembrandt’s masterpiece, The Night Watch. Completed in 1642, the life-size portrait of Dutch soldiers is considered to be among the world’s finest art collection. The painting, by the way, had to be put into secret storage between 1939-45 to save it from damage during World War II. Obama declared: «Europe and America are united in our support of the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people; we're united in imposing a cost on Russia for its actions so far». The subliminal message here is: Washington is coming to Europe as a rallying force for good, to defend democratic principles, civilized values and to defeat barbarity. Obama’s presumption has a deep resonance with American mythology of «exceptionalism» and benign power.  American actor-director George Clooney’s new World War Two film, Monuments Men, is an example of this syrupy American vanity and travesty of history. Clooney’s latest film –– about how a specially assigned American team led a mission to save European art collections from Nazi looting – tends to reinforce the American myth that it was they who rescued Europe from savage war and destruction during the 20th century. American intervention in the First and Second World Wars is, in the «exceptional» American national mythology, portrayed as a noble sacrifice that pulled Europe back from the brink of nihilism to the light of liberal democracy. Echoing this contrived chorus line, the Western media are casting Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, as the biggest threat to European peace since the end of the Cold War more than 20 years ago. Never mind the inescapable fact that it was Soviet Russia that largely defeated German fascism in 1945. But between the simplistic lines, there is plenty of evidence that the Washington-led allies are far from united or confident about their handling of Russia and the recent upheaval over Ukraine.  Firstly, there is a crisis of legitimacy for the so-called Western leaders. When the members of the Group of Seven were later photographed in The Hague huddled around a table with little flags indicating their nationalities, the gathering had all the gravitas of a school canteen. The G7 statement on the cancellation of the planned Group of Eight summit in Russia’s Sochi said: «We will suspend our participation in the G8 until Russia changes course and the environment comes back to where the G8 is able to have a meaningful discussion». That doesn’t sound like a statement with conviction. «We will suspend our participation…», not «we ban Russia», betrays a lot of anxious horse-trading among the elitist club to come up with a «unified» statement.  The crisis in legitimacy for Washington and its coterie of allies stems from the fact that these countries are no longer the economic powers that they once were. The centre of global economic gravity is shifting to the BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, among other emerging economies. Asia, Africa and Latin America are the future; North America and Europe are the past.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was not engaging in churlish politics of envy when he shrugged off the G8 forum as a redundant entity anyway. It is fact.  Thus, from this Western club, the threat of economic sanctions against Russia for alleged violations over Ukraine sounds decidedly hollow and impotent.  The Western crisis of political legitimacy is also manifest among its own public. This week saw a hammering for France’s ruling Socialist Party in local elections and the rise of the anti-establishment and deeply Euro-skeptic National Front. French President Francois Hollande’s personal poll rating has hit an all-time low, and this same chronic disaffection with the political class can be seen in other Western states too. Stagnant economies and record levels of poverty and unemployment are undermining the authority of incumbent Western leaders and governments.  So, despite attempts to muster gravitas and purpose over events in Ukraine and alleged wrongdoing by Russia, the Western public has no appetite to listen to sanctimonious political sermons. How can these politicians find the urgency and financial wherewithal to suddenly throw billions of dollars at Ukraine, when there is so much social need neglected closer to home?  Public disaffection with national governments is extended to the supranational European Union. This also explains the dramatic rise in the National Front in France and the growing popularity of similar anti-EU nationalistic parties elsewhere across Europe. A common theme is contempt for aloof European bureaucrats, who seem more interested in EU enlargement in tandem with ever-more economic austerity for citizens.  The notion that reviled European figures, such as Cameron and Hollande, are photographed with equally despised European bureaucrats Herman Van Rompuy and Jose Manuel Barroso – and that this image is supposed to somehow represent a strong, united popular front for American-led sanctions against Russia is laughable and illusory.  This cabal of politicians may have the appearance of unity, but what does such elite «unity» mean when they are increasingly diminished in the eyes of their own populations and the rest of the world? Even within this cabal, the apparent unity is unconvincing. The tougher sanctions that Washington has been pushing for have so far not been adopted by the European Union – despite the rhetoric.  Notably, German chancellor Angela Merkel pointedly refused to take the provocative line of «banning» Russia from the G8, which Washington, London and Paris would have preferred. Merkel contradicted the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who was earlier insisting that Russia had been suspended from the forum.  Merkel’s less confrontational attitude was also reiterated by Italian Foreign Minister, Frederica Mogherini, who reminded everyone that Russia is «an important [trading] partner» and that a forum of dialogue should not be closed.  Away from the G7 clique, both the Finnish and Belgian governments also cautioned against diplomatic confrontation with Moscow. EU and NATO member Norway said that it was canceling bilateral military arrangements with Russia, but it reportedly added that other areas of relations with Russia were to remain normal. Swiss President Didier Burkhalter said that his country would not be implementing US or EU sanctions against Russian financiers.  Many of the 300 million or so European citizens – in spite of the official attitude of some leaders – are well aware of the importance of bilateral trade with Russia. EU trade with Russia is tenfold the volume that exists between the US and Russia.  Top of the EU-Russian trade is oil and gas, which accounts for some one-third of average EU supply. In the eastern part of the bloc, the Russian supply of gas constitutes 80-100 per cent of total consumption. Germany’s commercial bond with Russia is of strategic importance, not just for Germany but for the rest of Europe too. German businesses sold $60 billion-worth of goods to Russia last year. Not surprisingly, the German business class is vociferously opposed to any further ratcheting up of sanctions against Russia. Germany’s export group, BGA, says any such move would be «catastrophic» for the more than 6,000 German companies that do business there.  Another German business figure, Eckhard Cordes, the head of the Eastern Committee, a powerful Russia-oriented business lobby, also expressed apprehension at the impact of sanctions. He told German media: «We have a strategic partnership . . . to bring our peoples together. And now we want to cover ourselves with sanctions? I find that difficult to imagine». That liability for Europe’s largest economy is an onerous constraint on Merkel. Der Spiegel commented on Merkel’s dilemma: «Her election victory last autumn was partly the result of her promise to protect Germany from unpleasantness related to the euro [currency] crisis. That is what they are now expecting from Berlin's course on the Ukraine crisis: security and stability». Across Europe, businessmen, industrialists, workers and general public understand that the bravado of economic sanctions against Russia – articulated by an increasingly unrepresentative and illegitimate political class – will hurt them the most – in their daily lives. The wider public knows that belligerent elites in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels have much less to lose from pursuing a confrontation with Russia. Perhaps in decades past, nations could be rallied around a flag with jingoistic political speeches. In today’s globalized economy, that kind of patronizing influence has expired, and any attempt to revive it is viewed with even more contempt. Paolo Scaroni, the head of Italian energy giant ENI, told the Financial Times in blunt terms: «We need Russian gas every day. They need our money every year or two years. If, in the middle of a tough winter, we don’t have Russian gas, we are in trouble. But Russia is not in trouble if they get our money the day after». Scaroni also confirmed what other energy analysts have said recently, namely, that the South Stream natural gas project from Russia to Europe has been thrown into uncertainty over the Ukraine tensions between Moscow and Brussels.  That project promised to boost gas supplies to the EU, which would probably have lowered costs to consumers. Now, thanks to the saber rattling of Washington and its tiny club of EU «leaders», that project is in jeopardy.  What this points to is a huge disconnect between politicians in Washington and Europe and the wider population. That disconnect stems from deep economic and social issues related to the demise of capitalist society, but the latest debacle with Russia over Ukraine is bringing the public disaffection to the fore. The Western public also knows that the Western news media are not telling the full story. The latter seem to be more committed to purveying a self-serving narrative for an elitist political agenda rather than revealing what is really at stake with regard to Ukraine.  Russian security measures on its border with Western-destabilized Ukraine and in the constitutionally reunited southern province of Crimea are distorted as monstrous acts of aggression. Russia’s legitimate cautionary national security measures are presented as an evil specter threatening to «splinter Europe» – in the words of German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. This cartoon-like portrayal is bereft of salient facts, facts that are known to the public from its access to alternative news media. Such as the fact that Washington and its European allies are the ones who initiated the unrest over Ukraine by overseeing a coup d’état in Kiev on February 23 – after three months of orchestrated street violence. It is Western governments that have violated international law and sovereignty – and not for the first time. The new unelected Western-backed regime in Kiev is composed of neo-Nazis and other fascists who have unleashed chaos and violence across Ukraine – the latest examples being attacks on pro-Russian officials and property, armed robberies of Russia-bound trains and the harassment of neutral media services.  There have been calls for mass murder and terrorism against Russian people by the coup plotters, including the Western elites’ darling pro-democracy princess, Yulia Timoshenko, who was recently caught relishing the idea of «whacking» Russians and turning Russian territory into ash from a nuclear strike.  But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story, as the Western elites might say. And that story is that Europe is nearly at war again because of «old barbaric habits». What’s more, it is America – «the brave, democratic America» – that is once again bringing Europe back to civilized peace and harmony, this time from Russian despotism, as opposed to Nazi fascism of before.  The trouble for Washington and its elite European allies is that the wider public is not buying this hackneyed narrative. The wider public rightly see US-led NATO aggression and lebensraum in Europe as the problem, not alleged Russian expansionism… On the same day that Obama was lecturing Europeans about international law and civilized norms, his National Security Advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul was writing in the New York Times opinion pages. McFaul, who was recently the ambassador to Russia, wrote an astounding falsification of history in which he declared that Vladimir Putin was «a revisionist autocratic leader [who] instigated this new confrontation… similar to the last century, the ideological struggle between autocracy and democracy has returned to Europe,» wrote McFaul. «We [the US] are ready to lead the free world in this new struggle». This elite Western narrative espoused by Obama and his club of bankrupt European non-entity politicians has by now alienated a global audience at home and around the world. Certainly not in the Rembrandt class, but most people can now see elite Western posturing as a masterpiece of illusion. http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/03/27/western-unity-against-russia-a-masterpiece-of-illusion.html

„UN–Sozialpakt: Ratifizierung für die Große Koalition kein Thema?– Für uns schon!“

Wir wollen auch gemeinsam mit Vereinen und Personen, die sich auf diesem Gebiet engagieren beratschlagen, wie wir die Realisierung der

sozialen Menschenrechte voranbringen können. Die Aktualität des Themas zeigen fast täglich neue verbreitete Nachrichten über die wachsende

Armutsspirale (Bericht des Deutschen Paritätischen Wohlfahrtsverbandes), das Armutsrisiko und die wachsende Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich (Studie des DIW Berlin).

Zeit: Donnerstag 10. April 2014, 19.00 Uhr

Ort: Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte (Robert-Havemann-Saal) Greifswalder Str. 4, 10405 Berlin (Tram M4 „Am Friedrichshain“)

 Mit freundlichen und solidarischen Grüßen

Eberhard Schultzwww.MenschenRechtsanwalt.de

www.sozialeMenschenrechtsStiftung.org

Veranstaltungsankündigung 10.4.2014:

„UN–Sozialpakt: Ratifizierung für die Große Koalition kein Thema?– Für uns schon!“

Die Veranstaltung soll im Rahmen der Berliner Stiftungswoche die Ziele und Projekte der Eberhard-Schultz-Stiftung für soziale Menschenrechte und Partizipation einer interessierten Öffentlichkeit bekannt machen.

Vor allem geht es um die Fragen:

·         Was sind soziale Menschenrechte?

·         Wie können wir die Umsetzung und Realisierung der sozialen Menschenrechte voranbringen?

·         Was bedeutet die von uns geforderte Einklagbarkeit der sozialen Menschenrechte für die Betroffenen?

·         Welche Bedeutung kommt der Ratifizierung des Zusatzprotokolls zum UN-Sozialpakt bei der Durchsetzung der sozialen Menschenrechte zu?

Wir wollen auch gemeinsam mit Vereinen und Personen, die sich auf diesem Gebiet engagieren beratschlagen, wie wir die Realisierung der sozialen Menschenrechte voranbringen können.

·         Eberhard Schultz, Menschenrechtsanwalt und Stiftungsgründer, Einführungsreferat zu Zielen und Projekten der Stiftung für soziale Menschenrechte

·         Eveline Lämmer und Doris Syrbe, Fördervereins Stille Straße 10 e.V. .- Mitglied der Volkssolidarität, Landesverband Berlin e.V., Praxisbericht: „Das Recht auf Mitbestimmung und Diskriminierungsfreiheit – Seniorinnen und Senioren aus Pankow  kämpften für Ihre Rechte“

·         Dr. Michael Wrase Inputreferat: “Das Recht auf Bildung als soziales Menschenrecht –was bedeutet die Durchsetzung als einklagbares Recht für die Betroffenen?”

Das Recht auf Bildung ist in Art. 13 des UN-Sozialpaktes als soziales Menschenrecht

garantiert. Die Anerkennung dieses Rechts für jedermann als unmittelbar anwendbares

und einklagbares Recht hat weitreichende Folgen, nicht zuletzt für das deutsche Schul-

und Bildungssystem. So können Diskriminierungen beim Zugang zum Schulsystem etwa

von Menschen mit unsicherem Aufenthaltstatus gerügt werden. Kinder mit einer

Behinderung haben einen Rechtsanspruch darauf, zusammen mit nicht behinderten

Kindern an einer allgemeinen Schule und nicht an einer Förderschule unterrichtet zu

werden. Nicht zuletzt ist der Staat dazu aufgerufen, gegen Bildungsarmut durch die

Gewährung von Sozialleistungen vorzugehen.

Der Referent ist Jurist und Mitarbeiter am Wissenschaftszentrum für

Sozialforschung(WZB) in der Projektgruppe der Präsidentin

Moderation: Dr. Sabine Schiffer, Leiterin des Instituts für Medienverantwortung und Botschafterin der Stiftung.

 Zeit: Donnerstag 10. April 2014, 19.00 Uhr

Ort: Haus der Demokratie und Menschenrechte (Robert-Havemann-Saal) Greifswalder Str. 4, 10405 Berlin (Tram M4 „Am Friedrichshain“)