The new economics of hunger

Amid brutal convergence of events to hit global market, poor suffer most
by Anthony Faiola
The Washington Post

The globe's worst food crisis in a generation emerged as a blip on the big boards and computer screens of America's great grain exchanges. At first, it seemed like little more than a bout of bad weather.

In Chicago, Minneapolis and Kansas City, traders watched from the pits early last summer as wheat prices spiked amid mediocre harvests in the United States and Europe and signs of prolonged drought in Australia. But within a few weeks, the traders discerned an ominous snowball effect -- one that would eventually bring down a prime minister in Haiti, make more children in Mauritania go to bed hungry, even cause American executives at Sam's Club to restrict sales of large bags of rice.

As prices rose, major grain producers including Argentina and Ukraine, battling inflation caused in part by soaring oil bills, were moving to bar exports on a range of crops to control costs at home. It meant less supply on world markets even as global demand entered a fundamentally new phase. Already, corn prices had been climbing for months on the back of booming government-subsidized ethanol programs. Soybeans were facing pressure from surging demand in China. But as supplies in the pipelines of global trade shrank, prices for corn, soybeans, wheat, oats, rice and other grains began shooting through the roof.

Slide show: A silent tsunami
U.N. chief calls food price rise a global crisis
Video: Cramer discusses food, fuel prices
Quiz: How eco-savvy are you?

At the same time, food was becoming the new gold. Investors fleeing Wall Street's mortgage-related strife plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into grain futures, driving prices up even more. By Christmas, a global panic was building. With fewer places to turn, and tempted by the weaker dollar, nations staged a run on the American wheat harvest.

Foreign buyers, who typically seek to purchase one or two months' supply of wheat at a time, suddenly began to stockpile. They put in orders on U.S. grain exchanges two to three times larger than normal as food riots began to erupt worldwide. This led major domestic U.S. mills to jump into the fray with their own massive orders, fearing that there would soon be no wheat left at any price.

"Japan, the Philippines, [South] Korea, Taiwan -- they all came in with huge orders, and no matter how high prices go, they keep on buying," said Jeff Voge, chairman of the Kansas City Board of Trade and also an independent trader. Grains have surged so high, he said, that some traders are walking off the floor for weeks at a time, unable to handle the stress.

"We have never seen anything like this before," Voge said. "Prices are going up more in one day than they have during entire years in the past. But no matter the price, there always seems to be a buyer. . . . This isn't just any commodity. It is food, and people need to eat."

Beyond hunger

The food price shock now roiling world markets is destabilizing governments, igniting street riots and threatening to send a new wave of hunger rippling through the world's poorest nations. It is outpacing even the Soviet grain emergency of 1972-75, when world food prices rose 78 percent. By comparison, from the beginning of 2005 to early 2008, prices leapt 80 percent, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Much of the increase is being absorbed by middle men -- distributors, processors, even governments -- but consumers worldwide are still feeling the pinch.

The convergence of events has thrown world food supply and demand out of whack and snowballed into civil turmoil. After hungry mobs and violent riots beset Port-au-Prince, Haitian Prime Minister Jacques-Édouard Alexis was forced to step down this month. At least 14 countries have been racked by food-related violence. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is struggling for political survival after a March rebuke from voters furious over food prices. In Bangladesh, more than 20,000 factory workers protesting food prices rampaged through the streets two weeks ago, injuring at least 50 people.

To quell unrest, countries including Indonesia are digging deep to boost food subsidies. The U.N. World Food Program has warned of an alarming surge in hunger in areas as far-flung as North Korea and West Africa. The crisis, it fears, will plunge more than 100 million of the world's poorest people deeper into poverty, forced to spend more and more of their income on skyrocketing food bills.

"This crisis could result in a cascade of others . . . and become a multidimensional problem affecting economic growth, social progress and even political security around the world," U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said.

The new normal

Prices for some crops -- such as wheat -- have already begun to descend off their highs. As farmers rush to plant more wheat now that profit prospects have climbed, analysts predict that prices may come down as much as 30 percent in the coming months. But that would still leave a year-over-year price hike of 45 percent. Few believe prices will go back to where they were in early 2006, suggesting that the world must cope with a new reality of more expensive food.

People worldwide are coping in different ways. For the 1 billion living on less than a dollar a day, it is a matter of survival. In a mud hut on the Sahara's edge, Manthita Sou, a 43-year-old widow in the Mauritanian desert village of Maghleg, is confronting wheat prices that are up 67 percent on local markets in the past year. Her solution: stop eating bread. Instead, she has downgraded to cheaper foods, such as sorghum, a dark grain widely consumed by the world's poorest people. But sorghum has jumped 20 percent in the past 12 months. Living on the 50 cents a day she earns weaving textiles to support a family of three, her answer has been to cut out breakfast, drink tea for lunch and ration a small serving of soupy sorghum meal for family dinners. "I don't know how long we can survive like this," she said.

Countries that have driven food demand in recent years are now grappling with the cost of their own success -- rising prices. Although China has tried to calm its people by announcing reserve grain holdings of 30 to 40 percent of annual production, a number that had been a state secret, anxiety is still running high. In the southern province of Guangdong, there are reports of grain hoarding; and in Hong Kong, consumers have stripped store shelves of bags of rice.

Liu Yinhua, a retired factory worker who lives in the port city of Ningbo on China's east coast, said her family of three still eats the same things, including pork ribs, fish and vegetables. But they are eating less of it.

"Almost everything is more expensive now, even normal green vegetables," said Liu, 53. "The level of our quality of life is definitely reduced."

In India, the government recently scrapped all import duties on cooking oils and banned exports of non-basmati rice. As in many parts of the developing world, the impact in India is being felt the most among the urban poor who have fled rural life to live in teeming slums. At a dusty and nearly empty market in one New Delhi neighborhood this week, shopkeeper Manjeet Singh, 52, said people at the market have started hoarding because of fear that rice and oil will run out.

"If one doesn't have enough to fill one's own stomach, then what's the use of an economic boom in exports?" he said, looking sluggish in the scorching afternoon sun. He said his customers were asking for cheaper goods, like groundnut oil instead of soybean oil.

Even wealthy nations are being forced to adjust to a new normal. In Japan, a country with a distinct cultural aversion to cheaper, genetically modified grains, manufacturers are risking public backlash by importing them for use in processed foods for the first time. Inflation in the 15-country zone that uses the euro -- which includes France, Germany, Spain and Italy -- hit 3.6 percent in March, the highest rate since the currency was adopted almost a decade ago and well above the European Central Bank's target of 2.0 percent. Food and oil prices were mostly to blame.

In the United States, experts say consumers are scaling down on quality and scaling up on quantity if it means a better unit price. In the meat aisles of major grocery stores, said Phil Lempert, a supermarket analyst, steaks are giving way to chopped beef and people used to buying fresh blueberries are moving to frozen. Some are even trying to grow their own vegetables.

"A bigger pinch than ever before," said Pat Carroll, a retiree in Congress Heights. "I don't ever remember paying $3 for a loaf of bread."

Ill-equipped markets

The root cause of price surges varies from crop to crop. But the crisis is being driven in part by an unprecedented linkage of the food chain.

A big reason for higher wheat prices, for instance, is the multiyear drought in Australia, something that scientists say may become persistent because of global warming. But wheat prices are also rising because U.S. farmers have been planting less of it, or moving wheat to less fertile ground. That is partly because they are planting more corn to capitalize on the biofuel frenzy.

This year, at least a fifth and perhaps a quarter of the U.S. corn crop will be fed to ethanol plants. As food and fuel fuse, it has presented a boon to American farmers after years of stable prices. But it has also helped spark the broader food-price shock.

"If you didn't have ethanol, you would not have the prices we have today," said Bruce Babcock, a professor of economics and the director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. "It doesn't mean it's the sole driver. Prices would be higher than we saw earlier in this decade because world grain supplies are tighter now than earlier in the decade. But we've introduced a new demand into the market."

In fact, many economists now say food prices should have climbed much higher much earlier.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world seemed to shrink with rapidly opening markets, surging trade and improved communication and transportation technology. Given new market efficiencies and the wide availability of relatively cheap food, the once-common practice of hoarding grains to protect against the kind of shortfall the world is seeing now seemed more and more archaic. Global grain reserves plunged.

Yet there was one big problem. The global food trade never became the kind of well-honed machine that has made the price of manufactured goods such as personal computers and flat-screen TVs increasingly similar worldwide. With food, significant subsidies and other barriers meant to protect farmers -- particularly in Europe, the United States and Japan -- have distorted the real price of food globally, economists say, preventing the market from normal price adjustments as global demand has climbed.

If market forces had played a larger role in food trade, some now argue, the world would have had more time to adjust to more gradually rising prices.

"The international food trade didn't undergo the same kind of liberalization as other trade," said Richard Feltes, senior vice president of MF Global, a futures brokerage. "We can see now that the world has largely failed in its attempt to create an integrated food market."

In recent years, there has been a great push to liberalize food markets worldwide -- part of what is known as the "Doha round" of world trade talks -- but resistance has come from both the developed and developing worlds. Perhaps more than any other sector, nations have a visceral desire to protect their farmers, and thusly, their food supply. The current food crisis is causing advocates on both sides to dig in.

Consider, for instance, the French.

The European Union doles out about $41 billion a year in agriculture subsidies, with France getting the biggest share, about $8.2 billion. The 27-nation bloc also has set a target for biofuels to supply 10 percent of transportation fuel needs by 2020 to combat global warming

Slide show: A silent tsunami
U.N. chief calls food price rise a global crisis
Video: Cramer discusses food, fuel prices
Quiz: How eco-savvy are you?

The French, whose farmers over the years have become addicted to generous government handouts, argue that agriculture subsidies must be continued and even increased in order to encourage more food production, especially with looming shortages.

Last week, French Agriculture Minister Michel Barnier warned E.U. officials against "too much trust in the free market."

"We must not leave the vital issue of feeding people," he said, "to the mercy of market laws and international speculation."

Staff writers Dan Morgan, Steven Mufson and Jane Black in Washington and correspondents Ariana Eunjung Cha in Beijing, Emily Wax in New Delhi and John Ward Anderson in Paris contributed to this report.

Somalia/Ethiopia: Deliberate killing of civilians is a war crime

Amnesty International refutes statements made by the Ethiopian government on its report about a raid on the Al Hidya Mosque in Mogidishu on 19 April 2008. In the attack, Ethiopian forces killed at least 21 people, including 11 unarmed citizens inside the mosque, and detained at least 40 children and youths, aged 9 to 18. At least 10 others were killed by Ethiopian forces in the vicinity of the mosque.

Reports released by the organization are based on several cross-checked, independent sources such as family members of victims, testimonies gathered at the location, including individuals present in the mosque while the killings took place, and local Amnesty International contacts.

“Deliberately killing civilians is a war crime,” said Amnesty International. “We call on the Ethiopian government to ensure an independent investigation is carried out into the raid on the mosque and the subsequent treatment of those detained by its forces.”

Seven of the 21 killed at the mosque were reported to have had their throats cut, a form of illegal execution practised by Ethiopian troops in Somalia. Amnesty International has documented a pattern of these ‘throat-slitting’ executions, which often occur in security sweeps after attacks on Ethiopian forces in Somalia.Save as Draft

Somali media today reported that forces of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia have taken 18 of the children and youths detained by the Ethiopian forces at the Al Hidya mosque into custody at the Criminal Investigations Department of the Somali police. An additional 32 children and youths have been released, according to a TFG spokesperson. In line with international standards on the rights of the child, detention should only be as a last resort and for the minimum time possible. Amnesty International calls for the 18 who remain in detention to be charged with a recognized offence and brought before a court, or released.

Amnesty International again calls on the Ethiopian Government to commit to an independent investigation into the killings carried out during and after the Al Hidya mosque raid. Once such an investigation has been made, the findings should be made public and any Ethiopian soldiers implicated in the investigation should be brought to justice in line with international fair trial standards.

ACLU Disappointed With Supreme Court's Voter ID Decision

Decision Will Harm Eligible Voters, But Leaves Door Open To Future New Legal Challenges

WASHINGTON - In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to Indiana's most-restrictive-in-the-nation voter identification law. The American Civil Liberties Union's case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - consolidated with Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita - is an appeal of two lower court decisions that upheld the state's law requiring voters to present government-issued photo IDs in order to vote. The ACLU argued that the Indiana law creates an unconstitutional burden on voting rights.

"Today's decision minimizes the very real burden that Indiana's voter ID law places on tens of thousands of eligible voters who lack a government-issued identification while accepting at face value Indiana's unsubstantiated claim of voter fraud," said Ken Falk, Legal Director of the ACLU of Indiana and lead counsel on the case.

In January 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld Indiana's voter ID law by understating the right of every individual to vote without being subject to undue burdens imposed by the state. There is no evidence that Indiana's voter ID law is justified by any actual problem of voting fraud, which is already prohibited by various criminal statutes in the state. No cases of in-person voting fraud have been prosecuted in the state in recent history.

"We are very disappointed in today's decision, but it leaves the door open to future challenges in Indiana and elsewhere by registered voters who are denied their right to vote based on onerous and unconstitutional voter ID laws," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro. "We should be seeking ways to encourage more people to vote, not inventing excuses to deny citizens their constitutional voting rights."

The Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of voter ID laws has broad national significance with the 2008 election underway. Indiana is one of over 20 states that have passed restrictive voter ID laws, while other states are considering similar legislation. Plaintiffs in the ACLU's case include the Indianapolis branch of the NAACP as well as organizations representing the elderly, the homeless, and people with disabilities, along with two elected officials.

"As the dissent notes, Indiana's law will sadly but predictably have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities, or have disabilities," said Angela Ciccolo, Interim General Counsel with the NAACP.

Attorneys on the case, Crawford v. Marion County, are Shapiro of the national ACLU; Falk, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess and Gavin Rose of the ACLU of Indiana; Laughlin McDonald and Neil Bradley of the ACLU Voting Rights Project; Ciccolo, and Victor Goode of the national NAACP: and Pamela Karlan and Jeffrey Fisher.

For more information on this case, including legal briefs, go to www.aclu.org/ scotus/2007term/32592res20071106/ 32592res20071106.html

More information on the work of the ACLU Voting Rights Project is available at: www.votingrights.org

Iraq combat veteran speaks out about opposing the war while in Iraq

An Iraq combat veteran speaks out about opposing the war while in Iraq and after his discharge and what it’s like being called a “coward” and a “traitor” by war supporters.

Arrest Now!

Darfur, Sudan: Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb

1. The armed conflict in Darfur, Sudan

Since 2003 an armed conflict has been taking place in Darfur, Sudan, between the government of Sudan and several armed opposition groups (including different factions from the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM)). To counter the insurgency in Darfur, the government of Sudan has mobilised, armed and funded militia known as Janjawid. More than 200,000 people have died in the conflict in Darfur and over 2.3 million have been displaced from their homes.

2. Referral by the UN Security Council

On 31 March 2005 the United Nations Security Council determined that the situation in Sudan constituted a threat to international peace and security. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1593, referring "the situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002" to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

3. Prosecution by the ICC

The ICC Prosecutor opened an investigation into the situation in Darfur, Sudan, on 1 June 2005.

On 27 April 2007, after a 20-month investigation, two warrants of arrest were issued for two people, Ahmad Muhammad Harun (commonly known as Ahmad Harun) and Ali Muhammad Al Abd-Al-Rahman (commonly known as Ali Kushayb). The arrest warrants refer to war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed between August 2003 and March 2004, during several attacks allegedly carried out by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Janjawid on four West Darfur towns (Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar, Arawala) and surrounding areas. According to the arrest warrants, crimes were allegedly committed against civilians primarily from the Fur, Zaghawa and Masalit populations, resulting in the death of about 1,000 people.

What is the ICC?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent independent judicial body created by the international community to prosecute crimes such as genocide, other crimes against humanity and war crimes. Its Statute was adopted at an international conference in Rome on 17 July 1998.

4. The charges against Ahmad Harun

Ahmad Harun is currently Minister of State for Humanitarian Affairs of Sudan. From 2003 to 2005 he was Minister of State for the Interior. In this capacity he was in charge of the management of the "Darfur Security desk" and coordinated the different bodies of the government involved in the counter-insurgency, including the police, the armed forces, the National Security and Intelligence Service.

According to the ICC arrest warrant, he allegedly recruited, mobilised, funded and armed the Janjawid, with full knowledge that they would commit crimes against humanity and war crimes against the civilian population in Darfur. He also is alleged to have personally incited the Janjawid to attack civilians.

The arrest warrant against him lists 42 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including persecution, murder and forcible transfer.

5. The charges against Ali Kushayb

Ali Kushayb was an important leader of the Janjawid militia and a member of the Popular Defence Force. He was the aqid al-uqada ("colonel of colonels") in the Wadi Salih locality of West Darfur. By mid-2003 he allegedly commanded thousands of Janjawid militia.

According to the ICC arrest warrant, Ali Kushayb allegedly led the attacks on the villages of Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar and Arawala. He also allegedly enlisted, armed, funded and provided supplies to the Janjawid under his command.

The arrest warrant against him lists 50 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including persecution, murder, attacks against the civilian population and forcible transfer.

Ali Kushayb was said to have been arrested by Sudanese authorities in November 2006 in relation to incidents in South and West Darfur, which are different from those referred to by the ICC. However, he was released and is now said to be in Khartoum.

6. Sudan's obligation to arrest and surrender

The ICC has no police force with which to execute warrants. If suspects do not comply with warrants, the ICC needs to rely on cooperation by Sudan, other states and inter-governmental organizations.

At the same time as the arrest warrants, the ICC issued requests to the government of Sudan and to all states parties of the Rome Statute of the ICC for the arrest and surrender of Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb.

On 14 September 2007 the INTERPOL issued Red Notices for the two suspects.

The government of Sudan has publicly refused to surrender either Ali Kushayb or Ahmad Harun to the ICC. Although Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute, UN Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) requires Sudan to cooperate fully with the Court and provide any necessary assistance to the ICC and its Prosecutor.

What can you do?

Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb are wanted for trial at the ICC to establish their guilt or innocence concerning multiple counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Please write to the United Nations Security Council, urging it to:

* condemn Sudan's refusal to arrest and surrender Ahmad Harun and Ali Kushayb to the ICC;
* call on Sudan to enforce all ICC arrest warrants immediately;
* if the men travel outside Sudan, call on those states to arrest and surrender them to the ICC;
* take other effective measures to ensure that the two men are arrested and surrendered to the ICC.

Make a difference!
» Protect Human Rights in Colombia
» Stop Ruthless Arms Brokers that Fuel Deadly Conflicts

» CLICK HERE to take action on the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL WEBSITE.

Special comment: Condi goes too far

Olbermann: Secretary Rice’s comparison of Saddam to Hitler is not accurate

On "Fox News Sunday" Feb. 25, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice paralleled World War II with the state of Iraq when discussing what would happen if Congress were to revise the Iraq authorization:

We already know about her suggestion that the president could just ignore whatever congressional Democrats do about Iraq.

Keith Olbermann Special Commentary *MR BUSH YOU ARE A FASCIST!*

EDITORIAL: Pelosi HEARTS Bush!

Thank you, Larry King. When you bring it, YOU BRING IT! And last night, YOU BROUGHT IT!! Thanks to the few simple questions you asked Speaker Pelosi, viewers got a clearer insight into who Speaker Pelosi is, and how Speaker Pelosi feels - about President Bush, her self-described “day job,” and her Congressional opponent, Cindy Sheehan.

So how does Speaker Pelosi feel about President Bush? She likes him! She genuinely likes him. According to Pelosi, there’s nothing “personal” for her in the decisions and policies of George W. Bush. Why should it be personal? Nothing the President has done regarding the war has personally affected Mrs. Pelosi or her family. No Pelosis have been killed in Iraq, lost limbs, suffered traumatic brain injury, or committed suicide after returning home. And since Mrs. Pelosi dislikes the war, or so she proclaims, no young Pelosi will be prompted to fight it. So for Speaker Pelosi, the Iraq war, with its non-Pelosi casualties, will remain non-personal – and her relationship with its creator, George W. Bush, won’t be soured by her pain.

Still shouldn’t the war be more “personal” for Speaker Pelosi - and her feelings for its creator reflect the dislike she feels toward his war? Isn’t she mandated by her day job (as she calls her Speakership) and her Constitutional Oath to monitor impropriety and hold those accountable who do wrong?

Like Pelosi, I, too, have a day job, and colleagues with whom I disagree. Where I diverge from Pelosi in my relationships with my colleagues is if one committed an act that purposefully harmed another, IT WOULD BE VERY PERSONAL FOR ME! I would do everything possible to bring my colleague to justice – not needing sweeping Congressional powers or a Constitutional mandate to spur me on. George Bush’s policies have resulted in monumental harm and horror, yet his Madam Speaker colleague speaks of him fondly with a smile. That’s a filth I could never roll in. The strongest lye wouldn’t scrub me clean.

Throughout my life I have NEVER been a conspiracist. I demand much investigation before accepting a fact, but Pelosi’s steadfast protection of Bush renders me ever more suspicious. She removed all threats to Bush’s office when she ascended to her own. Impeachment, a Constitutional staple which should always be in play, was instantly “off the table.” In its stead were place settings and a candelabra – nourishing loyalty, starving our democracy. Mrs. Pelosi pays more attention to breaking bread than breaking rules. She prefers celebrations with the President (like the DeBakey event she describes to Larry King), to investigations of the President - which is what this nation needs.

As the President’s term draws closer to and end, calls for his impeachment wither, and Pelosi is further off the hook. But my impeachment juices were rallied last night by Pelosi’s acceptance of this architect of death.

Watching her effortlessly rattle off these Bush derelictions, Pelosi underscores the necessity for hearings

“he’s taken us into war, that he’s taken us into debt, that he’s taken us into recession, loss of life, reputation… the [in]capability of our military to protect America’s interests wherever it’s sent… missed opportunity on energy independence and reversing global warming…,”

but she always blocks their way. It makes one wonder – it makes ME wonder — why Mrs. Pelosi was so quickly persuaded to let Bush serve his full term? Mass murder aside, lying aside, torture aside, illegal surveillance aside, co-opting “Justice” aside, Speaker Pelosi just likes him!! HOW CAN YOU LIKE A MASS MURDERER?!

Here is the conversation (in video and text) between Speaker Pelosi and Mr. King:

King: What’s it like to work with the President?

Pelosi: The President and I have a fine relationship, I think.

King: Do you like him?

Pelosi: Personally, yes. It’s not anything personal. I just don’t like his policies. I think that he’s taken us into war, that he’s taken us into debt, that he’s taken us into recession, loss of life, reputation, [unintelligible], the capability of our military to protect America’s interests wherever it’s sent. It’s huge. I think missed opportunity on energy independence and reversing global warming is a missed opportunity. There’s so much we could have done but it’s just a matter of months and we’ll be able to do it.

King: My late friend Tip O’Neill told me he argued frequently with President Reagan but never with animosity.

Pelosi: No.

King: Do you [and the President] argue?

Pelosi: Yes, but I think he understands, as do I. He has to do what he has to do and I have to do what I have to do. And I have to try and find common ground and then stand my ground – the ground for the Congress when we don’t find that. But President was here yesterday [huge smile]. We gave the Congressional Gold Medal to Michael DeBakey [renowned heart surgeon]. Can you just imagine 99 years old?

King: Amazing.

Pelosi: We had a very amiable conversation. It’s not personal. And you know the President is not that kind of a person. He’s not a bitter kind of a person so – and I certainly respect our differences of opinion and I have very serious differences of opinion with the President.

There’s that “bitter” word again. I just wonder what George W. Bush could possibly be bitter about - that his mountain bike got scratched - or that Jeb outgrew his big brother? What the hell does this Speaker believe has not served this indulgent addict turned war criminal’s needs? She’s never let him down.

And now another big thanks to Larry King in his interview with Speaker Pelosi last night - for breaking corporate media’s silence on Cindy Sheehan’s campaign. Obviously there are huge differences between Pelosi and Sheehan. Pelosi is corporate roots. Sheehan is grassroots. Pelosi has green. Sheehan is green. Pelosi ignores the Constitution. Sheehan adores the Constitution. But the most glaring difference, as evidenced by the conversation above, is that for Pelosi this war is NOT personal, but for Sheehan it’s PERSONAL IN EVERY WAY. Sheehan lost her son in the war on Iraq. Sad that Speaker Pelosi, who has a son of her own, was so dismissive of Sheehan’s candidacy last night.

Cindy Sheehan first became famous when she begged George W. Bush to explain to her “for what noble cause my son [Casey] died,” but Mr. “Not Bitter” refused. George W. Bush, the man Speaker Pelosi shields from investigation, ignored the mother of a soldier who was killed. Yet Speaker Pelosi likes him!

Tell me, who should be in Congress in San Francisco – the protector and enabler of war criminals, or the person who battles the criminals and their war?

Here’s the conversation between Speaker Pelosi and Larry King (in video and text) that breaks the ban on corporate media’s refusal to cover Cindy Sheehan’s campaign. Thanks again to Larry King for addressing the campaign and for asking Speaker Pelosi if she’d debate Cindy Sheehan - a spectacularly democratic idea.

King: You mentioned Iraq. I guess the most famous anti-war activist, Cindy Sheehan, is gonna run against you.

Pelosi: Yes.

King: In the Democratic Primary?

Pelosi: No, as an Independent, I think.

King: She’s running as a [unintelligible]. How would you… would you debate her? How do you view that? I guess you share her views, don’t you?

Pelosi: Yeah, yes, well, god bless her. I think it’s a reflection of the dissatisfaction the people have that we have not been able to end war – but we were hoping that the President would have more – pay more attention to wishes that the American people - not turn a tin ear them to them and a blind eye to what’s actually happening in Iraq. But god bless her for her advocacy. Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Iraq and so she has all of my sympathy, respect for her sacrifice her family has made.

King: Surprised she picked you to run against?

Pelosi: I don’t even think about it. You know I have a day job…

Yes, Madam Speaker, you do have a “day job.” And your job description comes straight from the Constitution. Rather than continuing to protect and enable George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the rest of their cabal, why not abide by Article I Section 2 of the Constitution and initiate investigations of their acts? And how about debating Cindy Sheehan? It’s time to take your job personally, Mrs. Pelosi. The world is crumbling under your watch.

How ’bout HEARTING the Constitution rather than those who have torn it apart?

‘Justice for Darfur’ Campaign Launched

(The Hague, April 25, 2008) – One year after the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants for two war crimes suspects in Darfur, human rights organizations around the world are launching a “Justice for Darfur” campaign, calling for the two to be arrested.

The organizations behind the campaign, including Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, and Sudan Organization Against Torture, have joined forces to call on the United Nations Security Council, regional organizations and individual governments to press Sudan to cooperate with the ICC.

The ICC has been investigating crimes in the region following a decision three years ago by the UN Security Council to refer to it the situation in Darfur. One year ago – on April 27, 2007 – the ICC issued two arrest warrants against Sudan’s former State Minister of the Interior Ahmad Harun and “Janjaweed” leader Ali Kushayb for 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Today the two men – who face charges of persecution, rape, and killing of civilians in four West Darfur villages – remain at large.

“The thousands of people who suffered murder, rape and persecution in Darfur deserve justice,” said Dismas Nkunda, co-chair of the Darfur Consortium, a group of African and Middle Eastern nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). “Instead, all they have had is disdain from their own government, and empty words from the international community. It is time for that to change.”

The Sudanese government has publicly and repeatedly refused to surrender either Kushayb or Harun to the court. Instead, Harun has been promoted to state minister for humanitarian affairs, responsible for the welfare of the very victims of his alleged crimes. As well as having considerable power over humanitarian operations, he is responsible for liaising with the international peacekeeping force (UNAMID) tasked with protecting civilians against such crimes. The other suspect, Ali Kushayb, was in custody in Sudan on other charges at the time the ICC warrants were issued, but in October 2007 the government announced he had been released, reportedly due to “lack of evidence.”

“The Sudanese government has shown blatant disregard both for the authority of the Security Council and for the victims of their brutality,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch. “So far, Sudan has faced no consequences for this brazen snubbing of the court and the council”.

The members of “Justice for Darfur” are urging the UN Security Council to pass a resolution calling on Sudan to cooperate fully with the ICC and immediately arrest Harun and Kushayb and surrender them to the court.

“Now is the time for the Security Council to act to ensure that the men are arrested and surrendered to the ICC without further delay, as a first step towards ending impunity for the vast scale of horrific crimes committed in Darfur,” said Christopher Hall, senior legal adviser for Amnesty International’s International Justice Project.

The “Justice for Darfur” campaign organizers called on states and regional organizations – including the European Union, a strong supporter of the ICC and a key player in bringing the Darfur crimes to the ICC prosecutor – to press Sudan to cooperate with the ICC and comply with the warrants.

“Through the ‘Justice for Darfur’ campaign, organizations will work together to generate as much pressure as possible on the international community to follow through on its commitment to justice for the victims of these crimes,” said Moataz El Fegiery, executive director at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

The following organizations are part of the “Justice for Darfur” campaign: Action des chrétiens pour l’abolition de la torture - France Aegis Trust Amnesty International Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession Bahrain Centre for Human Rights Bahrain Human Rights Society Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies Center for Peace, Legal Advice and Psychosocial Assistance – Vukovar Civil Resource Development and Documentation Centre – Nigeria Coalition for the International Criminal Court Collectif Urgence Darfour Darfur Consortium Darfur Union UK Fédération Internationale des ligues des Droits de l’Homme Human Rights First Human Rights Watch International Criminal Court Student Network UK Kalangala District NGO Forum Land Center for Human Rights League of Human Rights Prepared Society Kenya Recherches et Documentation Juridiques Africaines Save Darfur Canada Society for Threatened Peoples International Socio-Economic Rights & Accountability Project Students Taking Action Now: Darfur – Canada Sudan organization against Torture UN Watch Waging Peace To view a letter from the “Justice for Darfur” campaign to the United Nations Security Council, please visit:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/24/darfur18636.htm To view a letter from the “Justice for Darfur” campaign to the European Union, please visit:

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/04/24/darfur18635.htm For more information on the “Justice for Darfur” campaign, please visit: www.justice4darfur.org

South Korea: Olympic Torch Spotlights China Rights Crisis

(Seoul, April 25, 2008) – South Korean President Lee Myung-bak should use the occasion of the Olympic torch’s passage in Seoul on April 27 to urge Beijing to stop arresting and repatriating North Korean refugees in China, Human Rights Watch said today. The torch relay, which up to now has been dogged by protests over China’s human rights abuses at home and in Tibet, will also pass through the North Korean capital Pyongyang on April 28, one place where protests are not expected.China is likely to welcome the torch’s protest-free leg in North Korea, where basic freedoms have been restricted for so long and on such a scale, that there is no known record in the past 50 years of any major public demonstration calling for political freedoms or human rights.

Members of Lee Myung-bak’s new administration have repeatedly vowed to speak out about human rights violations in North Korea, unlike the two previous South Korean governments that maintaineda policy of “engaging” North Korea, while keeping silent on human rights issues.

“President Lee’s commitment to speak out for North Koreans who suffer human rights abuses should not be limited to those inside North Korea,” said Elaine Pearson, Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch. “He should speak out for all North Koreans suffering human rights abuses, including those living in China.”

In an April 2008 report, “Denied Status, Denied Education: Children of North Korean Women in China”, Human Rights Watch documented how children of North Korean women living in northeast China (some born in North Korea, and others born in China to Chinese fathers and North Korean mothers), are denied legal identity and access to education. It also described how China summarily arrests and deports North Korean women back to North Korea, often separating them from their children.

“South Korea should call on China to ensure that all children go to school regardless of their legal status,” Pearson said. “It should also press China to stop arresting and summarily repatriating the children’s North Korean mothers.”

Under the North Korean penal code, leaving the country without state permission can be considered an act of treason, punishable by heavy penalties including imprisonment, forced labor, and in some cases the death penalty. This means that many of the North Koreans in China, most of whom left the country without state permission, are at a strong risk of persecution if they ever return. They would, therefore, qualify as refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention. As a state party to the convention, China has an obligation to investigate the risk North Korean women face if they were returned to North Korea and should not summarily arrest or repatriate them.

Under international law, and its own domestic laws, China is legally obligated to grant all children access to free elementary education, regardless of their nationality or legal status.

“To give the children access to elementary education, all China has to do is to respect its own laws and international conventions it already ratified,” Pearson said. “It is the right and humane thing to do.”

The Olympic torch is stopping in North and South Korea on its way to Beijing for the August 8, 2008 opening ceremony of the Olympic Games.