Global Love Day
Love Begins With Me
May 1, 2007


Global Love Day 2007

We are just days away from the fourth annual Global Love Day this May 1st. Already we can sense the celebration of humanity beginning to pulse to a beat of a new rhythm on this planet. As each day brings us closer, we receive more information from people like you around the world letting us know what you are intending to do. This powerful intention is as potent as the events and gatherings themselves.

It is hard to believe that this fourth year is upon us as we can recall the beginning just moments ago when the idea for Global Love Day first emerged into our awareness. We knew it was a grand potential, yet each of you have made it a reality. Without the collective participation and ongoing encouragement that we continue to experience, Global Love Day may have remained as a nice idea. You made it real through your active participation, courage and genuine love.

The vision held within this day is perhaps best shared in the following statements which are also a part of our flyer and often incorporated in the proclamations which can all be viewed on this site.

We are one humanity on this planet.
All life is interconnected and interdependent.
All share in the Universal bond of love.
Love begins with self acceptance and forgiveness.
With tolerance and compassion we embrace diversity.
Together we make a difference through love.

Global Love Day is a symbol of the potential within each of us to manifest this vision as a living example of these words. We celebrate our oneness of humanity as we have traveled long and hard to understand and embody this awareness in our every day lives.

As you contemplate what you may wish to do to participate in your own way on May 1st, remember the following:

Think: Global Love Day
Feel: Love Begins With Me
Remember: May 1, 2007


Be a part of it. Spread the word.

http://thelovefoundation.com/
http://thelovefoundation.com/Global_Love_Day.htm

Good education is always regarded as an engine of opportunities, the rich and influential people still keep dorminating to ensure that their sons and duaghters are still becoming the rich and infuential of the system and thereby making education affordable only for the haves while the have-less remain always the same.

MEXICO CITY–Mexico's capital legalized abortion today, defying the church but delighting feminists in the world's second-largest Roman Catholic country.

Mexico City lawmakers voted 46 to 19 to pass a leftist-sponsored bill allowing women to abort in the first three months of pregnancy.

The vote split Mexico and prompted a letter last week from Pope Benedict urging Mexican bishops to oppose abortion.

Riot police kept rival groups of rowdy demonstrators apart outside the city's assembly building. Weeping anti-abortion protesters played tape recordings of babies crying and carried tiny white coffins.

"We did it," pro-abortion campaigners chanted after the vote.

The ban will remain in force in the rest of the country and anti-abortion campaigners are likely to challenge Mexico City's abortion law in the Supreme Court.

Only Cuba, Guyana and U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico allow abortion on demand in Latin America. Many other countries in the region permit it in special cases, including after rape, if the fetus has defects or if the mother's life is at risk.

Leftist deputy Enrique Perez Correa said Mexico was more liberal than its macho image portrayed.

"It appeared to be a conservative country ruled by the Church. We have now shown that is not the case," he said.

Church leaders threatened to excommunicate leftist deputies, mostly from the Party of the Democratic Revolution, who voted in favour of lifting the abortion ban.

"They will get the penalty of excommunication. That is not revenge, it is just what happens in the case of serious sins," said Felipe Aguirre Franco, the archbishop of Acapulco.

Opinion polls show Mexico's population of 107 million, of whom some 90 per cent are Catholic, is split over abortion.

Supporters of abortion rights, who are well represented in the capital, say 2,000 women die each year in Mexico due to abortions, often poor women who have to resort to unhygienic back-street clinics.

"Yes to abortion, no to hypocrisy," read a poster held by Teresa Rivera, 57, who said she had a clandestine abortion when younger and was dumped in the street still anesthetized by the abortionist. "Excommunicate me," said another banner held by a woman in her 20s.

"There are children dying of hunger, that is a worse sin," said Julia Klug, 54, dressed in a fake cardinal's outfit.

The Vatican's second-highest ranking doctrinal official, Archbishop Angelo Amato, denounced abortion and euthanasia yesterday as "terrorism with a human face."

Pope Benedict is to visit Brazil, the county with most Catholics, next month in his first trip to Latin America since becoming Pontiff.

Anti-abortion campaigners say a fetus three months into pregnancy is a human being.

"At 12 weeks, its heart is beating, it has little arms, little legs. It's innocent, it can't say, 'Don't take my life away,"' said Graciela Nunez, 46, protesting outside the city assembly hall.

Conservatives published a full page of symbolic death notices for unborn children in a newspaper today.

President Felipe Calderon, a practicing Catholic, has largely avoided speaking on the issue but First Lady Margarita Zavala entered the debate at the weekend, condemning abortion in a rare political comment.

Mexico City lawmakers have recently stirred up controversy by allowing gay civil unions and considering a euthanasia law. Further alarming the anti-abortion camp, Mexican lawmakers have filed a proposal in Congress for a national abortion law.

Some 8.6 million people live within Mexico City limits but the whole metropolitan area is one of the world's biggest conurbations, with some 18 million residents.

By Catherine Bremer
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/206866

Rich nations under pressure to honour G8 pledge to Africa
By Paul Vallely
Published: 22 April 2007

One of the most powerful lobby groups ever assembled will gather in Berlin this week to press the German chancellor, Angela Merkel - the current chair of the rich nations club, the G8 - to ensure that it keeps the promise it made to double aid to the world's poor.

The lobbyists are each the most respected figures in their field. At their head is the man who was until recently the world's most senior diplomat, Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations. At his side will be Robert Rubin, who heads the world's largest company, the American banking giant Citigroup, and who was twice US Treasury Secretary in the Clinton era. Other members include the Live8 mastermind, Bob Geldof, and Graca Machel, the wife of Nelson Mandela.

The group, which goes under the unglamorous name of the Africa Progress Panel, is being funded by the world's richest man, Bill Gates. It has been set up to police the promises made by the G8 at Gleneagles two years ago to double aid to Africa by 2010. The latest aid figures show that most rich nations are going back on those promises to an alarming extent.

The new panel had its first meeting, behind closed doors, in Geneva last week. Its members included the world's top anti-corruption campaigner, Peter Eigen, head of Transparency International, and Muhammad Yunus, who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for starting the Grameen Bank, which makes loans to the world's poorest people. Also present was the outgoing president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo. Tony Blair is expected to join the panel as soon as he stands down as Prime Minister.

The group settled upon a very different approach from previous initiatives. Rather than add to the pile of major dust-gathering reports on Africa, it will issue short, sharp bulletins monitoring failures to deliver - and pointing to the specific consequences they will have.

Already there is much that ought to concern them. Gleneagles promised two main things. The first - writing off almost $40m (£20m) in debts - has been done, releasing large amounts of cash for African governments to spend on making health care and education better available. All the evidence is that such spending is, thanks to a closer scrutiny on African governments, being better targeted than ever before.

But the second promise - doubling aid to Africa by 2010 - is well behind target. Global aid actually fell 2.7 per cent last year, and is set to fall again this year. Aid to Africa increased by only 2 per cent, though that figure rises to 9 per cent if donations through institutions like the World Bank are included. "The figures are scandalous," said Jamie Drummond, head of Geldof's lobby group Data (Debt Aids Trade Africa). "This is insufficient progress on the G8 promises to end extreme poverty in Africa."

British aid is up - by 13.1 per cent - and so, to the surprise of many campaigners, is that of the US; the Bush administration has almost doubled the share of American GDP spent on aid over the past six years. But France's aid is up only 1.4 per cent and Germany's by a bare 0.9 per cent. Japan's has fallen and Italy's is down a massive 30 per cent.

One area for which the G8 have come up with extra cash is in the fight against Aids. The number of Africans receiving anti-retroviral drugs has grown from only 50,000 to a million. But on this, and on issues such asgetting more children into school, small successes need scaling up to meet the Gleneagles promises, as well as those made in 2000 in the Millennium Development Goals, aimed at halving world poverty by 2015. July will mark the halfway point in the MDG process. The money for all that is simply not there.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2472162.ece

A member of the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels precision flight team has crashed during an air show in Beaufort, South Carolina.

ABUJA, Nigeria (Reuters) -- Nigeria's presidential election was so badly flawed that it should be cancelled and held again, the biggest local election observer group said on Sunday.

"We are going to call for a rerun of elections. You cannot use the result from half of the country to announce a new president," Innocent Chukwuma, chairman of the Transition Monitoring Group, told Reuters.

He said the official electoral commission had not been prepared for Saturday's vote.

"In many parts of the country elections did not start on time or did not start at all," Chukwuma said.

The election was marred by violence, intimidation and fraud, a far cry from the credible democratic vote many had hoped would usher in the first handover from one civilian president to another since Nigerian independence from Britain in 1960.

European Union observers have also expressed concern about Saturday's vote, saying they had witnessed violence, ballot stuffing and a big shortfall in voting slips.

Polling stations in some areas did not open until just before the closing time of 5 p.m. (1600 GMT).

First results emerging in the northwestern state of Sokoto on Sunday showed the ruling People's Democratic Party (PDP) ahead, as is widely expected across the country.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/22/nigeria.elections.reut/index.html

HAPPY
EARTH DAY











www.earth911.org

The march to our duty here, not merely to ourselves, but to our surroundings, must proceed. God wills it.
by William H. O'Connell

I was hungry. I was cold. But I was also free. Free not to get up in the morning, not to go to bed at night, free to get drunk if I liked, to dream... to hope.
by Edith Piaf

UNITED NATIONS, April 17

Britain and China faced off on Tuesday in the first United Nations Security Council debate on climate change, with Britain pushing the issue and China saying the 15-member body had no competence to deal with it.

The British foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, who presided over the meeting, argued that the potential for climate change to cause wars made it an issue for the Security Council, the most powerful United Nations body, but one that has a mandate to deal only with international peace and security.

“Our responsibility in this Council is to maintain international peace and security, including the prevention of conflict,” said Ms. Beckett, whose country holds the current Council presidency. “An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict, such as migratory pressures and competition for resources.”

She noted that President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, whose economy depends on hydropower from a reservoir depleted by drought, had called climate change “an act of aggression by the rich against the poor.”

“He is one of the first leaders to see this problem in security terms,” she said. “He will not be the last.” She called the debate “a groundbreaking day in the history of the Security Council.”

But China’s deputy ambassador, Liu Zhenmin, was blunt in rejecting the session. His nation’s economy is growing fast and still depends heavily on coal and other fossil fuels that scientists say are contributing to climate change.

“The developing countries believe that the Security Council has neither the professional competence in handling climate change, nor is it the right decision-making place for extensive participation leading up to widely acceptable proposals,” he said.

Russia, China, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa, among others, also said the Security Council was not the place to take concrete action, though no resolution is expected.

Pakistan argued against the debate on behalf of 130 developing nations, with many saying the Council was encroaching on more democratic bodies, like the 192-member United Nations General Assembly.

Other developing nations, like Peru and Panama and small island states, among the most threatened by climate change, agreed with Britain. So did Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. “Projected changes in the earth’s climate are thus not only an environmental concern,” Mr. Ban said. “And, as the Council points up today, issues of energy and climate change can have implications for peace and security.”

The United States, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases that spur climate change, opposes mandatory caps on emissions but has instead pushed alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

The acting American ambassador, Alejandro D. Wolff, said the issue must be dealt with in a way that does not effect economic growth and development.

Most industrial nations, including the European Union, agreed with Britain. As did Papua New Guinea, head of the Pacific small island states, which fear they may disappear under rising oceans levels as the earth warms up.

“The dangers that the small island states and their populations face are no less serious than those nations threatened by guns and bombs,” Ambassador Robert Guba Aisi of Papua New Guinea told the Council.

Italy’s deputy foreign minister, Vittorio Craxi, said members should support Mr. Ban’s effort to create a new United Nations Environmental Organization to coordinate action on climate change.

“It is clear that climate change can pose threats to national security,” said Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan. “In the foreseeable future climate change may well create conditions or induce circumstances that could precipitate or aggravate international conflicts.”

BERLIN, April 17 (Reuters) - A leading corruption watchdog expressed serious concern on Tuesday that a crisis involving World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz could hurt the institution's wider anti-corruption efforts.

In a statement, Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) said "serious errors of judgment" had been made in the case, adding that a swift resolution was critical if the bank was to meet its goal of reducing world poverty.

Wolfowitz faces intense pressure to resign his post following revelations he approved a high-paying promotion for his bank-employee girlfriend before she was assigned to work at the U.S. State Department.

"Transparency International is deeply concerned that the current controversy could negatively affect the bank's wider anti-corruption efforts, in particular the Governance and Anti-corruption Strategy," the body said.

The group said the World Bank's credibility depended on its top officials upholding the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

Wolfowitz, whose appointment to the presidency in mid-2005 was controversial because of his role as an architect of the Iraq war while at the Pentagon, has refused to step down.

The U.S. government has backed Wolfowitz and urged leading European countries to withhold judgment until the World Bank's 24-nation board decides on his future.

http://www.alertnet.org

The planned institution, to be based in Geneva, would hold annual conferences to advance humanitarian causes, promote peace and reduce poverty. It has already received strong support from both federal and cantonal governments.

Kofi Annan, former secretary general of the United Nations, is spearheading a project to create an international humanitarian forum in Geneva, according to media reports. Annan has already chosen to “retire” to the canton but it appears he will remain busy in his retirement. The forum, to be launched in September, would be similar to the World Economic Forum in Davos, only it would be devoted to advancing humanitarian causes, promoting peace and reducing poverty.

Annan has already expressed his interest in these issues, while head of the UN. The idea of a humanitarian forum has received the strong support of the Swiss federal government. And it is believed to be backed by Swiss president Micheline Calmy-Rey, who has made the promotion of an international Geneva one of her priorities.

“The federal department of foreign affairs is in contact with various partners – institutions and individuals – concerning this project for a new foundation in Geneva,” said Jean-Philippe Jeanerat, spokesman for the department. Kofi Annan “will play a central role” in the new institution, he said. In the style of the WEF, the humanitarian forum will invite world decision-makers to speak about humanitarian issues. Annan, a “master” in the art of diplomacy and communication, has an address book that would be the envy even of Klaus Schwaab, the head of the WEF, a report in La Tribune de Genève indicated.

The anticipated new home of a secretariat for the humanitarian forum is the Rigot villa, a building owned by the canton of Geneva, near the Place des Nations. The building would be made available to the forum at no cost. In addition, the canton and the federal government have promised financial support although the amount has not been revealed.

http://www.tdg.ch

"Everybody thinks of changing humanity and nobody thinks of changing oneself."
-- Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist (1828-1910)

Until China started to worry a little about its image as the 2008 Beijing Olympics drew closer, the Chinese were seen as the stumbling block to any meaningful international intervention in Darfur, the miserable corner of western Sudan where deaths number in the hundreds of thousands and 2 million terrorized people are on the run. But a groundbreaking new poll shows that China's official policy may have been out of line with public opinion among the Chinese people, who strongly support action anywhere human rights abuses are severe.

Early this month, results of a joint public opinion survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org showed that 58 percent of Chinese citizens polled thought that the Security Council had the right (20 percent) or the responsibility (38 percent) to authorize an intervention to stop the killing in Darfur.

That was a higher percentage than in Argentina, Poland or Thailand, for example. The strongest supporters of Security Council action in Darfur were France (84 percent), the United States (83 percent) and Israel (77 percent). French and American respondents also showed the most support for sending their own troops to Darfur—not something Washington favors.

The poll was conducted with local research organizations in 17 countries, including an institute associated with Beijing University for the China survey. Chinese foreign ministry officials were briefed on the findings.

The Chinese public's endorsement of Security Council action was even more pronounced when asked not specifically about Darfur but more broadly about UN action to stop abuses. China led all nations with 76 percent of those polled saying that the council has the responsibility to protect people from severe rights violations such as genocide "even against the will of their own governments." (74 percent of Americans agreed.) And 72 percent of Chinese said the Security Council "should have the right to authorize the use of military force…to prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide."

At the UN, where a summit of world leaders endorsed the "responsibility to protect" concept in 2005, China has generally been reluctant as a permanent member of the Security Council to support international military action or even strong sanctions in troubled countries. So the results of this poll lead to a number of questions, among them whether in an age when information is easier to obtain the Chinese are much more aware of situations in Africa such as Darfur, and are willing to take a personal stand.

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (PIPA), which publishes WorldPublicOpinion.org, said that while it hasn't always been easy to poll in China, for this survey "we were able to ask all of the questions that we wanted without any interference at all." Kull, who is also the editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, works with the research firm Globescan in framing surveys.

"We're always asking questions about the reliability of the data we're getting, particularly when we're dealing with authoritarian governments," said Kull, who called the Chinese results in this poll "striking." PIPA has also done polling in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where there was initial resistance to public opinion polls.

"We track all polling that is done in these countries," he said. "We have interns who do nothing but look for new data, and we are building a very large database. We're constantly comparing the findings to see if they corroborate each other. It's not easy to fabricate data, and there are ways to test data to see if there are problems. Things tend to hang together in a certain way."

The current poll also tested attitudes toward the UN in general. "We have an extraordinary set of questions here about [what people think] about the UN and what they want the UN to do," said Kull. "It's really quite amazing: virtually universal support for a much stronger UN, a much more robust UN with a standing peacekeeping force, regulating universal arms trade, go into any country to inspect for human rights violations….It's quite a story."
Kull said he is finding that a growing number of research and marketing firms around the world want to join in his surveys. "People have a desire to participate in something like this," he said. "Our goal is basically to pull together a comprehensive understanding of world public opinion, and we're testing it everywhere we can find it."

http://www.unausa.org

UN Building in Montenegro Goes Green
by Alanda Perry

A new building in Montenegro, the most recent country to join the United Nations, will be the first UN structure to incorporate environmentally-friendly technology. The building, to be constructed on a riverbank in Montenegro's capital city of Podgorica in 2008, was designed by Daniel Fügenschuh. This "Eco Shared Premises" will house all of the UN agencies working in Montenegro—including the UN Development Program, World Health Organization, UN Children's Fund, UN Refugee Agency and other UN consultants.

The location on the riverbank is a crucial part of the building's "green" design. River water will cool the building in the summer, and after being heated by solar technology, warm the building in the winter. The environmentally-sound features don't stop there, however: large gaps in the roof will create natural lighting and ventilation, and solar panels above will power the building while providing natural shade.

The innovative design of the UN building in Montenegro demonstrates the rising interest in environmental concern at the UN. While UNEP has been an important leader on environmental issues since its inception in 1972, the issue of protecting the planet has spilled over into the wider UN system. In February, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its latest report, which calls the evidence of global warming "unequivocal." The report was produced by about 600 scientists from 40 countries, and its findings have sparked a global conversation about climate change. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has declared action on climate change one of his top priorities. In an address to a student conference on global warming on March 1, Ban said, "the danger posed by war to all of humanity—and to our planet—is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming." Along with the Darfur crisis and its repercussion in Sudan, Chad and the Central African Republic, as well as the status of Kosovo, the Security Council placed climate change on the top of the list for its discussions this month.

Changes to the building sector could have an impressive impact on slowing carbon emissions. According to a report released by UNEP at the end of March, the building sector uses 30 to 40 percent of energy worldwide. Most of the energy is used after construction, largely through lighting and temperature regulation. Commenting on the report, Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said, "By some conservative estimates, the building sector worldwide could deliver emission reductions of 1.8 billion tons of C02. A more aggressive energy efficiency policy might deliver over two billion tons, or close to three times the amount scheduled to be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol."

While the new UN building in Montenegro will incorporate cutting-edge green technology, many of the steps that can be taken to reduce energy use in building are quite modest. For example, Steiner noted that, based on estimates by the International Energy Agency (a intergovernmental organization that is not part of the UN system), switching from traditional incandescent light bulbs to fluorescent bulbs could achieve more than half of the emission reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol. States that sign the Kyoto Protocol agree to mandatory restrictions on the amount of greenhouse gasses they can produce in order to try to slow global warming. In a press release about the new report, Oliver Luneau, chairman of UNEP's Sustainable Construction and Building Initiative, suggested several other low-cost solutions, including using sun shading, natural ventilation and recycled building materials.

To learn more about the new UN building in Montenegro, check out http://content.undp.org/go/newsroom/march-2007/environment-un-building-montenegro-20070329.en.
For more information about the impact of the building sector on carbon emissions, read the full UNEP report at www.unep.fr.

NEW DELHI: In a shocking revelation, a government commissioned survey has found that more than 53% of children in India are subjected to sexual abuse, but most don’t report the assaults to anyone.

The survey, released on Monday and which covered different forms of child abuse — physical, sexual and emotional — as well as female child neglect, found that two out of every three children have been physically abused.

Parents and relatives, persons known to the child or in a position of trust and responsibility were mostly found to be the perpetrators of child sexual abuse in the country. According to the women and child development ministry-sponsored report, which assumes greater significance in the backdrop of the Nithari killings that brought into focus the issue of children’s safety, those in the age group of 5-12 years reported higher levels of abuse.

While releasing the survey, women and child development minister Renuka Chowdhury said, "Child abuse is shrouded in secrecy and there is a conspiracy of silence around the entire subject. The ministry is working on a new law for protection of children’s rights by clearly specifying offences against children and stiffening punishments."

The survey, carried out across 13 states and with a sample size of 12,447, revealed that 53.22% of children reported having faced one or more forms of sexual abuse, with Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Delhi reporting the highest percentage of such incidents. In 50% of child abuse cases, the abusers were known to the child or were in a position of trust and responsibility and most children did not report the matter to anyone.

The survey, sponsored by WCD ministry and carried out by the NGO Prayas in association with Unicef and Save the Children, found that over 50% children were subjected to one or the other form of physical abuse and more boys than girls were abused physically. The first-ever survey on child abuse in the country disclosed that nearly 65% of schoolchildren reported facing corporal punishment — beatings by teachers — mostly in government schools.

Of children physically abused in families, in 88.6% of the cases, it was the parents who were the perpetrators. More than 50% had been sexually abused in ways that ranged from severe — such as rape or fondling — to milder forms of molestation that included forcible kissing.

The study also interviewed 2,324 young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, almost half of whom reported being physically or sexually abused as children. When it comes to emotional abuse, every second child was subjected to emotional assault and in 83% of the cases, parents were the abusers

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Good morning; please be seated. Thank you for your warm hospitality. It's a pleasure to be here at Legion Post 177, Fairfax, Virginia. I appreciate you inviting me. And I've come to share some thoughts about service to our country, this war we face, and the need for the United States Congress to make sure our troops have what is necessary to complete their mission. (Applause.)

Bob Sussan greeted me coming in. I appreciate you, Commander, greeting a fellow from Post 77 -- we dropped the "1" in Houston. (Laughter.) He not only presented me with a cake, he gave me a chance to express my gratitude to the Legion, its members and the service you provide for those who wear the uniform today.

I appreciate the example you have set. You know, there's something to be said for a country where people serve something greater than themselves, where people in this era volunteer in the face of danger to defend the United States of America. And those who have worn the uniform in the past have set such a powerful example for our brave men and women who wear the uniform today and I thank you for that a lot -- I don't know if you know that or not -- but the example of our veterans have inspired many to wear the uniform today.

I find the history of this post interesting, Bob. In November of 1944, a group of World War I veterans gathered here in Fairfax to form an organization to help the troops returning from the battlefield in Word War II. Veterans said, "What can I do to help a fellow veteran?" The founders rallied support for the soldiers and the sailor and the airmen and the Marines. In other words, these veterans understood what it meant to be in war, what it meant to be far from home, and they provided necessary support for our troops.

And when they came back from war, they helped make the transition to civilian life. In other words, there was somebody there available to help them, somebody to -- "Brother or sister, how can I help you? What can I do to help you after you have served our country?" It's a proud American tradition and a tradition being carried on here at Post 177, and I thank you for that a lot.

Today, the men and women at this post visit the wounded in our military hospitals. And I thank you for going to Walter Reed in Bethesda. You know, we're going to make sure that the care is superb care. I went over there the other day and I made it clear to the care-givers that there were some bureaucratic snafus that were unacceptable. Secretary Gates and our military folks will clean that up. But the care that our troops get from the doctors and nurses is superb care, and we owe those people in the front lines of providing care for the wounded a real debt of gratitude, just like we owe the families and the soldiers the best health care possible.

I appreciate very much the ROTC scholarships you provide, particularly for George Mason University students. I'm a big believer in education; I know you are, as well. But rather than talking on the subject, you're acting, and I appreciate that a lot. But, more importantly, the students do, too.

And thanks for sending the care packages to our troops. It matters. Iraq and Afghanistan are far away from home -- a little different from the wars you fought, however; there is email today -- (laughter) -- and cell phones. But, nevertheless, there is a sense of loneliness that can sometimes affect our troops, and the fact that you would take time to send them care packages to remind those who wear the uniform that you support them, a stranger reaches out to them and offers support, I thank you a lot for that.

This is an unusual era in which we live, defined on September the 11th, 2001. See, that's a date that reminded us the world had changed significantly from what we thought the world was. We thought that -- we thought that oceans and friendly neighbors could protect us from attack. And, yet, on that day, less than 20 miles from this post, an airplane crashed into the Pentagon and killed 184 men, women and children. An airplane driven by fanatics and extremists and murderers crashed into the Pentagon. And as you know, on that day nearly 3,000 people died in New York that day. And more would have died had not the people on United Flight 93 showed incredible courage and saved no telling how many lives here in Washington, D.C. by taking that plane to the ground.

My attitude about the world changed, and I know the attitude about the world from a lot of folks here in America's attitude changed. It reminded me that the most solemn duty of your federal government is to protect the American people from harm. The most solemn duty we have is to protect this homeland. I vowed that day that we would go on the offense against an enemy; that the best way to defeat this enemy is to find them overseas and bring them to justice so they will not hurt the folks here at home.

In other words, we don't have the luxury of hoping for the best, of sitting back and being passive in the face of this threat. In the past we would say oceans would protect us, and therefore what happened overseas may not matter here at home. That's what changed on September the 11th. What happens overseas affects the security of the United States. And it's in this nation's interest that we go on the offense and stay on the offense. We want to defeat them there, so we don't have to face them here.

On 9/11, we saw that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away can bring death to our citizens. I vowed that if you harbor a terrorist you're equally as guilty as the terrorist. That's a doctrine. In order for this country to be credible, when the President says something, he must mean it. I meant it, and the Taliban found out that we meant what we said. And, therefore, we ended al Qaeda's safe haven in a failed state.

The two points I want to make is, doctrine matters, and secondly, a failed state can lead to severe consequences for the American people. And therefore it's in our interests not only to pursue the enemy overseas, so we don't have to face them here, it's in our interest to spread an alternative ideology to their hateful ideology. These folks do not believe in the freedom to worship. They don't believe that women have got an equal place in society. They don't believe in human rights and human dignity.

We believe that people have the right to worship the way they see fit. We believe all humans are created equal. We believe in dissent. We believe in public discourse. Our ideology is based upon freedom and liberty; theirs is based upon oppression. And the best way to secure this country in the long run is to offer up an alternative that stands in stark contrast to theirs.

And that's the hard work we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan the Taliban that ran that country and provided safe haven to al Qaeda, where thousands of people were able to train in order to be able to launch attacks on innocent people, innocent Americans, for example. That Taliban no longer is in power. And, in fact, there is a young, struggling democracy in Afghanistan.

The people in Afghanistan went to the polls and voted. President Karzai is now representing a government of and by and for the people. It's an unimaginable sequence of events. Had you asked people in the mid-1990s, is it possible for there to be a democracy in Afghanistan -- of course not. But there is a democracy in place, and it's in our interest to deny al Qaeda and the Taliban and the radicals and the extremists a safe haven. And it's in our interest to stand with this young democracy as it begins to spread its wings in Afghanistan.

And then we're doing the hard work in Iraq. I made a decision to remove a dictator, a tyrant who was a threat to the United States, a threat to the free world, and a threat to the Iraq people -- and the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. (Applause.)

And now we're undertaking the difficult and dangerous work of helping the Iraqi people establish a functioning democracy. I think it's necessary work to help them establish a functioning democracy. It's necessary because it is important for the moderate people -- people who want to live in peace and security -- to see what is possible in the Middle East. It is hard work because we face an enemy that understands the consequences of liberty taking root, and are willing to kill innocent lives in order to achieve their political objectives.

A minority -- and I emphasize "minority" -- of violent extremists have declared that they want to turn that country into a terrorist base from which to launch an ideological war in the Middle East and attacks on the United States of America. That is the stated objective of al Qaeda in Iraq. It's important that we listen to the enemy. It's important we take their threats seriously.

In contrast, however, the vast majority of Iraqis have made it clear they want to live in peace. After all, about 12 million of them went to the polls -- a feat that was, again, unimaginable in the mid-1990s. If you had said, can you imagine Iraqis being able to vote for a constitution and then a government under that constitution in the mid-1990s, they would have said, you're too idealistic, that's impossible. And, yet, that's what happened.

The terrorists, recognizing that this country was headed toward a society based upon liberty, a society based upon an ideology that is the opposite of what they believe, struck. And they struck by blowing up the Golden Mosque of Samarra, which is a holy shrine, a holy site. It's a site that a lot of people hold dear in their heart. And they were attempting to provoke retaliation by a segment of that society -- the Iraqi Shia. And they succeeded. And the result was a tragic escalation of violence.

And in the face of the violence -- in other words, there was reprisal, people said, we're going to get even, how dare these people do this -- and in the face of this violence, I had a choice to make. See, we could withdraw our troops from the capital of Iraq and hope that violence would not spiral out of control, or we could send reinforcements into the capital in the hopes of quelling sectarian violence, in order to give this young democracy time to reconcile, time to deal, with the politics necessary for a government that can sustain itself and defend itself to emerge.

I made the decisions after -- to reinforce. But I didn't do it in a vacuum. I called in our military commanders and experts, and I listened to a lot of opinions -- and there's a lot of opinions in Washington, D.C., in case you hadn't noticed. (Laughter.) The opinions that matter a lot to me are what our military folks think. After all, this is a military operation, and as the Commander-in-Chief, you must listen to your military and trust their judgment on military matters. And that's what I did.

They recognized what I recognized, and it's important for the American citizen to recognize this, that if we were to have stepped back from Baghdad before the Iraqis were capable of securing their capital, before they had the troops trained well enough to secure the capital, there would have been a vacuum that could have easily been filled by Sunni and Shia extremists, radicals that would be bolstered by outside forces. In other words, the lack of security would have created an opportunity for extremists to move in. Most people want to live in peace in Iraq. There are extremists who can't stand the thought of a free society that would have taken advantage of the vacuum. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country, and in time the violence could affect the entire region.

What happens in the Middle East matters here in America. The terrorists would have emerged under this scenario more emboldened. They would have said, our enemy, the United States, the enemy that we attacked, turns out to be what they thought: weak in the face of violence, weak in the face of challenge. They would have been able to more likely recruit. They would have had new safe haven from which to launch attacks. Imagine a scenario in which the extremists are able to control oil revenues to achieve economic blackmail, to achieve their objectives. This is all what they have stated. This is their ambition.

If we retreat -- were to retreat from Iraq, what's interesting and different about this war is that the enemy would follow us here. And that's why it's important we succeed in Iraq. If this scenario were to take place, 50 years from now people would look back and say, "What happened to those folks in the year 2007? How come they couldn't see the danger of a Middle East spiraling out of control where extremists competed for power, but they shared an objective which was to harm the United States of America? How come they couldn't remember the lesson of September the 11th, that we were no longer protected by oceans and chaos and violence, and extremism could end up being a serious danger to the homeland?"

That's what went through my mind as I made a difficult decision, but a necessary decision. And so rather than retreat, I sent more troops in. Rather than pull back, I made the decision to help this young democracy bring order to its capital so there can be time for the hard work of reconciliation to take place after years of tyrannical rule, brutal tyrannical rule.

And now it's time for these Iraqis, the Iraqi government, to stand up and start making some -- making some strong political moves. And they're beginning to. I speak to the Prime Minister quite often and remind him that here at home we expect them to do hard work; we want to help, but we expect them to do some hard work. And he reminds me, sometimes legislative bodies and parliaments don't move as quickly as the executive branch would like. (Laughter.) But he understands. He understands we expect them to spend money on their reconstruction, and they've committed $10 billion to do so.

They understand that when we said we were going to send more troops in, you need to send more troops into Baghdad, that we expect them to, and they have. They understand that when we work together to set up a security plan where there is a top military figure in charge of Baghdad's security from the Iraq side, that we expect somebody there who is going to be non-sectarian and implement security for all the people of Baghdad, they responded. See, the understand that. And now we expect them to get an oil law that helps unify the country, to change the de-Baathification law so that, for example, Sunni teachers that had been banned from teaching are allowed back in the classroom, and that there be provincial elections. And we'll continue to remind them of that.

In sending more troops -- in other words, in sending troops in, it is -- I recognize that this is more than a military mission. It requires a political response from the Iraqis, as well.

The Iraqi people, by the way, have already made a political response; they voted. (Laughter.) I also sent a new commander in, General David Petraeus. He is an expert in counterinsurgency warfare. He's been in Baghdad two months. A little less than half of -- only about half of the reinforcements that he's asked for have arrived. In other words, this operation is just getting started. There's kind of, I guess, knowledge or a thought in Washington that all you got to say is send 21,000 in and they show up the next day; that's not the way it works. (Laughter.) It takes a while for troops to be trained and readied and moved into theater. And that's what our military is doing now.

And there are some encouraging signs. There's no question it's violent, no question the extremists are dangerous people. But there are encouraging signs. Iraqi and American forces have established joint security stations across Baghdad. As you might remember, we had a strategy of clear, hold and build. Well, because we didn't have enough troops, nor did the Iraqis have enough troops, we would do the clear part, but we didn't do the hold part, and so it made it hard to do the build part. And now because of our presence and more Iraqi troops, along with coalition troops, they're deployed 24 hours a day in neighborhoods to help change the psychology of the capital, that for a while was comfortable in its security, and then violence began to spiral out of control. That's the decision point I had to make, do you try to stop it? And what I'm telling you is, according to David Petraeus, with whom I speak on a weekly basis, we're beginning to see some progress toward the mission -- that they're completing the mission.

Our troops are also training Iraqis. In other words, part of the effort is not only to provide security to neighborhoods, but we're constantly training Iraqis so that they can do this job. The leaders want to do the job. Prime Minister Maliki makes it clear he understands it's his responsibility. We just want to make sure that when they do the job, they've got a force structure that's capable of doing the job. So that's why I rely upon our commanders, like General Petraeus, that let me know how well the Iraqis are doing. So it's the combination of providing security in neighborhoods through these joint security stations, and training that is the current mission we're going through, with a heavy emphasis on security in Baghdad.

Iraqis see our forces out there, joint forces, both coalition and Iraqi forces, and they have confidence. And as a result of the confidence, they're now cooperating more against the extremists. Most people want to live in peace. Iraqi mothers, regardless of their religious affiliation, want their children to grow up in a peaceful world. They want there to be opportunities. They don't want their children to be subject to random murder. They expect our government to provide security. And when the government doesn't provide security, it causes a lack of confidence. And they're beginning to see more security, and so people are coming into the stations and talking about different -- giving different tips about where we may be able to find the extremists or radicals who kill innocent people to achieve political objectives.

We're using the information wisely. And I say "we" -- every time I say "we," it's just not American troops, there are brave Iraqi troops with us. Our forces have launched successful operations against extremists, both Shia and Sunni. My attitude is, if you're a murderer, you're a murderer, and you ought to be held to account. Recently, Iraqi and American forces captured the head of a Baghdad car bomb network that was responsible for the attacks that you see on your TV screens -- some of the attacks you see on your TV screen.

Look, these people are smart people, these killers. They know that if they can continue the spectacular suicide bombings they will cause the American people to say, is it worth it? Can we win? Is it possible to succeed? And that really speaks to the heart of the American people, I think. I mean, we are a compassionate people. We care about human life. And when we see the wanton destruction of innocent life, it causes us to wonder whether or not it is possible to succeed. I understand that.

But I also understand the mentality of an enemy that is trying to achieve a victory over us by causing us to lose our will. Yet we're after these car bombers. In other words, slowly but surely these extremists are being brought to justice by Iraqis, with our help. Violence in Baghdad, sectarian violence in Baghdad, that violence that was beginning to spiral out of control is beginning to subside. And as the violence decreases, people have more confidence, and if people have more confidence, they're then willing to make difficult decisions of reconciliation necessary for Baghdad to be secure and this country to survive and thrive as a democracy.

The reinforcements are having an impact, and as more reinforcements go in, it will have a greater impact. Remember, only about half of the folks we've asked to go in are there.

It's now been 64 days since I have requested that Congress pass emergency funding for these troops. We don't have all of them there. About half more are going to head in. We're making some progress. And 64 days ago, I said to the United States Congress, these troops need funding. And instead of proving [sic] that vital funding, the Democrat leadership in Congress has spent the past 64 days pushing legislation that would undercut our troops, just as we're beginning to make progress in Baghdad. In both the House and the Senate, majorities have passed bills that substitute the judgment of politicians in Washington for the judgment of our commanders on the ground. They set arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal from Iraq, and they spend billions of dollars on pork barrel projects and spending that are completely unrelated to this war.

Now, the Democrats who pass these bills know that I'll veto them, and they know that this veto will be sustained. Yet they continue to pursue the legislation. And as they do, the clock is ticking for our troops in the field. In other words, there are consequences for delaying this money. In the coming days, our military leaders will notify Congress that they will be forced to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts to cover the shortfall caused by Congress's failure to fund our troops in the field. That means our military will have to take money from personnel accounts so they can continue to fund U.S. Army operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

This $1.6 billion in transfers come on top of another $1.7 billion in transfers that our military leaders notified Congress about last month. In March, Congress was told that the military would need to take money from military personnel accounts, weapons and communications systems so we can continue to fund programs to protect our soldiers and Marines from improvised explosive devices and send hundreds of mine-resistant vehicles to our troops on the front lines. These actions are only the beginning, and the longer Congress delays, the worse the impact on the men and women of the Armed Forces will be.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, recently testified that if Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-April, the Army will be forced to consider cutting back on equipment repair and quality of life initiatives for our Guard and Reserve forces. The Army will also be forced to consider curtailing some training for Guard and Reserve units here at home. This would reduce their readiness, and could delay their availability to mobilize for missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If Congress fails to pass a bill I can sign by mid-May, the problems grow even more acute. The Army will be forced to consider slowing or even freezing funding for its depots, where the equipment our troops depend on is repaired. They will have to consider delaying or curtailing the training of some active duty forces, reducing the availability of those the force -- of those forces to deploy overseas. And the Army may also have to delay the formation of new brigade combat teams, preventing us from getting those troops into the pool of forces that are available to deploy.

So what does that mean? These things happen: Some of our forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq may need to be extended, because other units are not ready to take their places. In a letter to Congress, the Army Chief of Staff, Pete Shoemaker, recently warned, "Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures, which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families."

The bottom line is this: Congress's failure to fund our troops will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines. Others could see their loved ones headed back to war sooner than anticipated. This is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to our veterans, it's unacceptable to our military families, and it's unacceptable to many in this country.

The United States Senate has come back from its spring recess today. The House will return next week. When it comes to funding our troops, we have no time to waste. It's time for them to get the job done. So I'm inviting congressional leaders from both parties -- both political parties -- to meet with me at the White House next week. At this meeting, the leaders in Congress can report on progress on getting an emergency spending bill to my desk. We can discuss the way forward on a bill that is a clean bill: a bill that funds our troops without artificial timetables for withdrawal, and without handcuffing our generals on the ground.

I'm hopeful we'll see some results soon from the Congress. I know we have our differences over the best course in Iraq. These differences should not prevent us from getting our troops the funding they need without withdrawal and without giving our commanders flexibility.

The Democrat leaders in -- Democratic leaders in Congress are bent on using a bill that funds our troops to make a political statement about the war. They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay. (Applause.)

We are at war. It is irresponsible for the Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds they need to succeed. As the national commander of the American Legion, Paul Morin, recently put it, "The men and women of the armed forces in the theater of operations are dependent on this funding to sustain and achieve their military missions. This funding is absolutely critical to their success and individual well being." I thank the commander and the American Legion for their strong support on this issue. You do not make a political statement; you're making a statement about what is necessary for our troops in the field, and I am grateful. (Applause.)

I'm always amazed at the men and women who wear our uniform. Last week, before I went down to Crawford -- for a snowy Easter, I might add -- (laughter) -- I was in California at Fort Irwin. And I had a chance to visit with some who had just come back from Iraq and some who were going over to Iraq, and it just amazes me that these young men and women know the stakes, they understand what we're doing, and they have volunteered to serve. We're really a remarkable country, and a remarkable military, and therefore, we owe it to the families and to those who wear the uniform to make sure that this remarkable group of men and women are strongly supported -- strongly supported, by the way, during their time in uniform, and then after their time in uniform through the Veterans Administration. (Applause.)

I tried to put this war into a historical context for them. In other words, I told them that they're laying the foundation of peace. In other words, the work we're doing today really will yield peace for a generation to come. And part of my discussion with them was I wanted them to think back to the work after World War II. After World War II, we defeated -- after we defeated Germany and Japan, this country went about the business of helping these countries develop into democracies. Isn't it interesting a country would go to -- have a bloody conflict with two nations, and then help democracy succeed? Why? Because our predecessors understood that forms of government help yield peace. In other words, it matters what happens in distant lands.

And so today, I can report to you that Japan is a strong ally of the United States. I've always found that very ironic that my dad, like many of your relatives, fought the Japanese as the sworn enemy, and today one of the strongest allies in keeping the peace is the Prime Minister of Japan. Something happened between when old George H. W. Bush was a Navy fighter pilot, and his boy is the President of the United States. Well, what happened was the form of government changed. Liberty can transform enemies into allies. The hard work done after World War II helped lay the foundation of peace.

How about after the Korean War? Some of you are Korean vets, I know. I bet it would have been hard for you to predict, if you can think back to the early '50s, to predict that an American President would say that we've got great relations with South Korea, great relations with Japan, that China is an emerging marketplace economy, and that the region is peaceful. This is a part of the world where we lost thousands of young American soldiers, and yet there's peace.

I believe that U.S. presence there has given people the time necessary to develop systems of government that make that part of the world a peaceful part of the world, to lay the foundation for peace. And that's the work our soldiers are doing in the Middle East today. And it's necessary work. It is necessary because what happens in the Middle East, for example, can affect the security of the United States of America. And it's hard work, and we've lost some fantastic young men and women, and we pray for their families, and we honor their service and their sacrifice by completing the mission, by helping a generation of Americans grow up in a peaceful world.

I cannot tell you how honored I am to meet with the families of the fallen. They bear an unbelievable pain in their heart. And it's very important for me to make it clear to them that I believe the sacrifice is necessary to achieve the peace we all long for.

I thank you for supporting our troops. I thank you for setting such a fantastic example for a great group of men and women who have volunteered to serve our country. And thanks for being such fine Americans.

God bless. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070410-1.html

BEIRUT: As tensions soar in Lebanon after the government sent a request to the UN Security Council to consider "alternative ways and means" of establishing a special tribunal for the Hariri assassination, calls increased from local, regional and international quarters on Thursday for a return to inter-Lebanese dialogue.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters that the question of how to proceed with the tribunal had not yet been discussed by the UN Security Council.

Ban said he hoped that the Lebanese "would take the necessary measures, constitutionally, among themselves, through dialogue by promoting a national reconciliation."

However, he also said he understood the sense of frustration felt by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Security Council members over the tribunal.

Sources close to Speaker Nabih Berri told the Central News Agency on Thursday that Berri is concerned by the escalation in the political and security deadlock in Lebanon after the collapse of the latest attempt at dialogue between rival camps. Berri was said to have expressed his worry of a return to sectarian conflict, and noted that dialogue had succeeded in averting this "bitter pill" in past months.

He was quoted as saying that Lebanon was not "an island isolated from its surroundings," and urging all parties to find a solution to their differences "so that what is happening in Iraq, Morocco and Algeria does not spill over into Lebanon."

Responding to a speech made Sunday by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, MP Walid Jumblatt, a senior member of the ruling coalition, said that although the issue of the tribunal was among the first agreed during the national dialogue held last year, Nasrallah later "received instructions" to oppose the court.

In the latest diplomatic efforts, Egyptian Ambassador Hussein Darar said that an Arab initiative to resolve the crisis was "still on the table," but that Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa would not return to Lebanon until the Lebanese themselves made progress.

"We need to remember that all sides in Lebanon hailed the Arab initiative and called for an Arab solution. The Arab solution came, so what happened? Everyone needs to remember what they said and what they asked for and what they promised," Darar told reporters after a meeting with the Maronite bishop of Beirut, Boulos Matar.

"The secretary general will not return for the sake of returning; this is not what is required. What is needed is much more than that, for matters to move forward and for all [sides] to assume the responsibilities on their shoulders," he added.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Bukin told reporters after a meeting with Berri that recent comments by Mikhail Margelov, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the upper chamber of the Russian Parliament, reflected the Russian position on the crisis.

"In my view, this statement reflects Russia's concern over the current situation in Lebanon and the severe political crisis Lebanon is going through," Bukin said, "and as a matter of fact it reflects the well known official Russian position, in that Russia supports continuing the inter-Lebanese national dialogue to reach a political settlement to contentious issues."

Margelov warned on Wednesday that the "forceful, shortsighted approach" of the opposition would lead to the creation of the tribunal under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.

Bukin said that Russia was taking part in discussions with other Security Council members over the wording of a presidential statement from the council on the implementation of Resolution 1701, and expressed confidence that consensus would be reached on the draft. The proposed statement views with concern "reports on movements of unlicensed armed militants outside UNIFIL's area of operation" and reiterates a call to "dissolve and disarm all militias and armed groups in Lebanon." It also expresses the council's "deep worry over increasing reports of the unlawful transfer of arms across the Lebanese-Syrian border which constitutes a violation of [Resolution] 1701."

The statement "welcomes the determination of the Lebanese government and the steps it is taking to stop this movement in keeping with the relevant resolutions," and calls on Syria "to take additional steps to reinforce the monitoring of its border."

The statement, drafted by France, further notes with deep concern the continued detention of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hizbullah last July, encourages a rapid solution to the issue of Lebanese detainees in Israel and expresses concern over ongoing Israeli violations of Lebanese airspace. It also suggests that a permanent solution to the disputed Shebaa Farms lies in a delineation of the border between Syria and Lebanon.

Outgoing French President Jacques Chirac once more urged the international community to assume its responsibilities and establish the tribunal on Wednesday, after meeting with Jordan's king Abdullah in Paris.

A spokesperson for Chirac said France was eager to establish the court "within a realistic time frame" and that the aim of the tribunal was to "achieve justice and to be a deterrence to those who would resort to assassinations as a means to achieve political goals."

The spokesperson added that France hopes to see a "lasting peace in a democratic Lebanon that enjoys complete sovereignty."

The International Federation for Human Rights (IFHR) and several human rights bodies in Europe have issued a statement calling upon the EU to put on trial 37 suspects of the 1994 Rwandan genocide who are currently living in Europe.

"For the past 13 years, we have been calling on the International Community to take legal action against these Genocide perpetrators. We are interested in them being extradited rather than them standing trial abroad," the minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama reacted.


Speaking on the Government's position on the issue, Karugarama said that some countries have showed no interest in taking legal action against Genocide suspects living within their territories.

Among the countries listed by IFHR that are still harbouring Rwandan Genocide perpetrators include Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Norway, among others.

Karugarama said that Belgium has tried to make some of the genocide suspects face justice while other European countries do not have the will.

Over five people have been implicated and taken to courts of law in Belgium for taking a prime role in the Genocide.

Meanwhile, media reports quotes Alain Gauthier, a human rights campaigner representing Rwandans in France, as saying that there is still 'political brakes' in France that stops them from putting Rwandan genocide suspect on trial.

In their statement, IHRF says that European Governments have an obligation to investigate these allegations and where sufficient evidence exists, to bring these persons to justice.

Report sights France

The report says that many countries have failed to conduct investigations into the presence of genocide suspects living in their territories.

"This failure is most evidenced in France where not a single trial has resulted despite numerous investigations and prosecutions," the report states in part.

Currently senior genocide perpetrator like Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka, Laurent Bucyibaruta, Laurent Serubuga, Cyprien Kayumba and Sosthène Munyemana are still living under the French government's protection.

Since last year, the European Court of Human Rights has continuously condemned France for its inexcusable delays in arresting genocide fugitives in Paris.

Europe failing Justice

Pundits allege that European countries have failed to prosecute Genocide suspects in their countries.
In some European countries, their domestic laws often don't allow for genocide prosecutions. Recently, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda refused to transfer Michel Bagaragaza to Norway because of the absence of genocide legislation in that country.

However, the UK government is currently considering extraditing of Charles Munyaneza, Celestin Ugirashebuja, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Dr Vincent Bajinja (a.k.a. Brown) to face trials in Rwanda because of some difficulties in their law.

In May last year, Rwanda issued a list of 93 most wanted genocide suspects living abroad. 37 of them are said to be lining freely in European countries.

A recent CNN special on the late great Pope John Paul II was an eloquent account of the life and death of a man who demonstrated a form of leadership that is much too rare in the world -- moral leadership.

By far the most traveled pontiff, he constantly reached out to people all over the world demonstrating exceptional love and compassion for the poor and afflicted even as his own illnesses caused him discomfort and pain. He hoped his ability to carry on in the face of his own clearly visible suffering would give strength and confidence to others -- and it surely did. That`s leadership.

He was a man of peace who urged charity, forgiveness, and respect -- even for those who did not share his beliefs. He was firm and tenacious in his convictions, but somehow he avoided being arrogant or pompous.

He earned commendation and condemnation for his conservative views on family and sexual issues including divorce, birth control, celibacy for priests, and homosexuality as well as for his disapproval of anti-Semitism and his desire to end the Church`s official hostility toward Jews (he recognized the state of Israel and was the first Pope to enter a synagogue).

Pope John treated all religions with respect, hosting an international inter-faith meeting on peace after 9/11 and meeting with leaders of all faiths. He preached religious freedom, including the rights of Muslims to practice their faith, and was also the first pontiff to enter a mosque.

Yes, he had detractors, and his bold positions prevented him from being universally loved. Still, he was respected, not only by the millions who agreed with him but by millions more who did not. I think it`s safe to say he was known, loved, and admired by more people than any other leader on earth.

www.CharacterCounts.org.