Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 26)
Gaddafi’s corpse continues to attract impatient Misrata hordes

Queues continue at the meat cooler that houses the body of deposed dictator Muammar Gaddafi Ritha Mohammed crouched with a napkin to wipe the soles of his daughter’s shoes, which he feared might have picked up the dirt and stench that spilled from Colonel Gaddafi’s corpse, which still lies on public view in Misrata. “Just in case,” he said, as he cleaned the five-year-old. He quickly moved on to dust down the carry cot that held his new-born son who, like the four young girls in their new dresses, he had ushered in to see the dead despot. “I wanted them all to witness this. This will be a day we will all remember.” An impatient crowd seethed around Mohammed, shouting and surging against guards who had linked arms to prevent the meat cooler holding Gaddafi, his son Mutassim and his military chief, from being overrun. The three decaying bodies inside ought to have repelled the hordes. In Misrata, they did just the opposite. A growing throng of at least several thousand snaked throughout the day for a chance to see the ignominious end of a tyrant, who had been so terrifying and out of reach to them all for more than four decades. Now here he was vanquished and shrivelled. Even three days after Gaddafi’s death, it still hardly seemed possible. “He made our lives hell,” said Mohammed. “I wanted to see him dead with my own eyes. Who cares if it’s not dignified for him. That was not his first concern for any of the people here.” Many of the people queuing in the grounds of this vegetable market on the outskirts of Misrata said they had come to see Gaddafi’s corpse for the same reason. The ghoulish scene had an unedifying head-on-a-stake feel to it but it was also a collective closure for residents of a city that had suffered more than any other during eight grinding months of civil war. “There are so many rumours in Libya that it’s difficult to believe anything without verifying it,” said Tareq Zawabi, who had waited 90 minutes for the chance to survey the three corpses. “He didn’t look like I had imagined. He was a lot smaller.” As each day passes, the three bodies are becoming less and less suitable for public view. But uncertainty still surrounds their fate, with Gaddafi’s surviving family in Algeria demanding the remains for burial and Libya’s interim government not yet sure what to do with them. One of many obstacles facing Libya’s provisional leadership is its own human rights record, and the question of whether Gaddafi was killed in the minutes following his capture in Sirte. A forensic report in Misrata on Sunday concluded that Gaddafi had died from a bullet to the head. The finding added to the weight of evidence that suggests he was killed in the frantic minutes after his capture in Sirte, three hours to the east. It is still unclear who fired the fatal shot, and under what circumstances. Dr Othman al-Zintani, Libya’s chief pathologist, carried out the autopsy. He said it was “obvious” Gaddafi had died “from a gunshot wound to the head”. He did not elaborate but appeared to be referring to the neat entry wound clearly visible on the left side of Gaddafi’s head, and shown in numerous shots of his corpse screened around the world. Zintani said: “There are still several issues. We have to pass [the report] to the prosecutor general, but everything will be revealed publicly. Nothing will be hidden.” A Misrata rebel claimed to have witnessed Gaddafi’s final moment. “I was there when he was shot,” said Adam Zwabi, one of thousands of fighters who were chasing the remnants of Gaddafi’s loyalists last Thursday. “I heard the bullet and I saw him after he fell.” Libya’s National Transitional Council has changed its version of Gaddafi’s death, no longer suggesting he was killed in crossfire. Even the unit that captured him, know as Katiba Goran, are sanguine about how Gaddafi died. “Did anyone complain when the Americans shot Osama [bin Laden] in the head?” asked a rebel leader, Moustafa Zoubi, as he twirled on his desk the golden gun seized from Gaddafi’s luggage. “One of the resistance fighters became overcome with anger. He acted before anyone could stop him.” Nevertheless, the rebels have rearranged Gaddafi’s body to hide the bullet wound. His head has been tilted to the left, obscuring the entry point, just above his left ear. All three bodies have been wrapped in new grey blankets. How Gaddafi died does not seem to matter much in a city that seems inured to brutality. Throughout central Misrata, where ravaged buildings line sweeping boulevards, at least 10,000 people are thought to have been killed in months of fierce fighting. “The price for this freedom has been very, very high,” said Radwan Zwabi, as celebratory gunfire rattled nearby. “And I don’t know what’s been left behind. On the one hand, I celebrate this day, but the uncertainty is profound. What has Gaddafi done to these people, these young boys who killed him? They knew nothing else. But now they must learn something else, another way, or we will never move on.” The US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Britain’s defence secretary, Philip Hammond, both called on Sundayfor a full investigation into the circumstances of Gaddafi’s death. The Libyan revolutionaries’ image had been “a little bit stained” by Gaddafi’s death, Hammond told the BBC. “It’s certainly not the way we do things. We would have liked to see Colonel Gaddafi going on trial to answer for his misdeeds.” Muammar Gaddafi Libya Middle East Africa Arab and Middle East unrest Martin Chulov guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Sen. (R-SC) Lindsey Graham on Iraq Withdrawal: Obama ‘Failed’

Click here to view this media Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says President Barack Obama has made a “serious mistake” by planning to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. “I think in the last year he has made some very poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level,” Graham told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday. “I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago — not Washington — in terms of decisions.” “What about the argument that in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, al-Awlaki is gone and now Gaddafi is gone?” Wallace asked. “I give him credit for making good tactical decisions, killing bin Laden,” Graham admitted. “Not being able to close the deal in Iraq is a very serious mistake. Celebrating leaving with no troops behind is a serious mistake… He’s put in question our success in Afghanistan and he ended Iraq poorly. He fumbled the ball inside of the ten. I hope I’m wrong about what happens in Iraq, but they are dancing in the streets in Tehran.” “This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal. The military commander said we needed 15,000 to 18,000 [troops in Iraq]. We have none. So, that’s the bottom line here. At a time when we need troops in Iraq to secure the place against intervention by Iran and the bad actors in the region, we’re going to go into 2012 with none. It was his job, the Obama administration’s job to end this well. They failed.” John Amato: The serious mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. Why is Goober Graham on my teevee, again after saying that the GOP opposed the Libya mission because Obama was president? Qaddafi was captured for like an hour when when Lindsey was drooling over how much money we could make off their oil and resources. I’m no fan of these wars and deaths and drones and military tribunals, but if you’re a right winger or Independent, you should be thrilled with the president’s actions so far in national security, so these phony attacks really come off as being very petty. The troops had to leave because the Iraq government wanted them out . And the American people are clearly against both wars so I ask, why is Graham on my TV? There’s nobody else that wants to do interviews?

Continue reading …
Sen. (R-SC) Lindsey Graham on Iraq Withdrawal: Obama ‘Failed’

Click here to view this media Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says President Barack Obama has made a “serious mistake” by planning to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. “I think in the last year he has made some very poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level,” Graham told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday. “I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago — not Washington — in terms of decisions.” “What about the argument that in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, al-Awlaki is gone and now Gaddafi is gone?” Wallace asked. “I give him credit for making good tactical decisions, killing bin Laden,” Graham admitted. “Not being able to close the deal in Iraq is a very serious mistake. Celebrating leaving with no troops behind is a serious mistake… He’s put in question our success in Afghanistan and he ended Iraq poorly. He fumbled the ball inside of the ten. I hope I’m wrong about what happens in Iraq, but they are dancing in the streets in Tehran.” “This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal. The military commander said we needed 15,000 to 18,000 [troops in Iraq]. We have none. So, that’s the bottom line here. At a time when we need troops in Iraq to secure the place against intervention by Iran and the bad actors in the region, we’re going to go into 2012 with none. It was his job, the Obama administration’s job to end this well. They failed.” John Amato: The serious mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. Why is Goober Graham on my teevee, again after saying that the GOP opposed the Libya mission because Obama was president? Qaddafi was captured for like an hour when when Lindsey was drooling over how much money we could make off their oil and resources. I’m no fan of these wars and deaths and drones and military tribunals, but if you’re a right winger or Independent, you should be thrilled with the president’s actions so far in national security, so these phony attacks really come off as being very petty. The troops had to leave because the Iraq government wanted them out . And the American people are clearly against both wars so I ask, why is Graham on my TV? There’s nobody else that wants to do interviews?

Continue reading …
Sen. (R-SC) Lindsey Graham on Iraq Withdrawal: Obama ‘Failed’

Click here to view this media Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says President Barack Obama has made a “serious mistake” by planning to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of the year. “I think in the last year he has made some very poor, dangerous foreign policy decisions at the strategic level,” Graham told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday. “I would argue that Iraq and Afghanistan is being run out of Chicago — not Washington — in terms of decisions.” “What about the argument that in the last six months, bin Laden is gone, al-Awlaki is gone and now Gaddafi is gone?” Wallace asked. “I give him credit for making good tactical decisions, killing bin Laden,” Graham admitted. “Not being able to close the deal in Iraq is a very serious mistake. Celebrating leaving with no troops behind is a serious mistake… He’s put in question our success in Afghanistan and he ended Iraq poorly. He fumbled the ball inside of the ten. I hope I’m wrong about what happens in Iraq, but they are dancing in the streets in Tehran.” “This was a failure by the Obama administration to close the deal. The military commander said we needed 15,000 to 18,000 [troops in Iraq]. We have none. So, that’s the bottom line here. At a time when we need troops in Iraq to secure the place against intervention by Iran and the bad actors in the region, we’re going to go into 2012 with none. It was his job, the Obama administration’s job to end this well. They failed.” John Amato: The serious mistake was invading Iraq in the first place. Why is Goober Graham on my teevee, again after saying that the GOP opposed the Libya mission because Obama was president? Qaddafi was captured for like an hour when when Lindsey was drooling over how much money we could make off their oil and resources. I’m no fan of these wars and deaths and drones and military tribunals, but if you’re a right winger or Independent, you should be thrilled with the president’s actions so far in national security, so these phony attacks really come off as being very petty. The troops had to leave because the Iraq government wanted them out . And the American people are clearly against both wars so I ask, why is Graham on my TV? There’s nobody else that wants to do interviews?

Continue reading …
Former Democrat Congressman Scolds NBC’s Andrea Mitchell for Defending Obama on Meet the Press

During the roundtable segment on Sunday's Meet the Press , NBC's Andrea Mitchell typically acted as Barack Obama's press secretary defending the President from any and all criticism lodged by other panelists. Apparently having witnessed enough shameless advocacy from a so-called journalist, when Mitchell used the Occupy Wall Street movement to defend Obama's economic policies, former Democratic Congressman Harold Ford Jr. replied, “He's the President. Democrats can't criticize Republicans for catering to the Tea Party and not be, and not say to our Democratic Party you got to look beyond Occupy and be willing to do what's in the best interest of the country” (video follows with transcript and commentary): DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Harold Ford, it was none other than Steve Jobs in the new biography by Walter Isaacson who, who writes about him meeting with Obama, and this is how The Huffington Post reported it. Jobs telling Obama “`You're headed for a one-term presidency,' he said at their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly.” This is still the, the overhang they have to deal with. FMR. DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSMAN HAROLD FORD JR.: Look, their posture has been really bad. Their policies have not been nearly as bad. If you think about the beginning of his administration, people thought that he would pass card check, and there was great angst, concern and anxiety in the business community, particularly the retail community. He didn't do it. He's been… FORMER GENERAL ELECTRIC CEO JACK WELCH: Tragic. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: Right. Well, he didn't do it. The congressmen tried, but he didn't do it, and it didn't get, it didn't get done. Cars, banks, financial institutions, he's been great. The EPA regulations he's backed off on. But the posture and the language and the rhetoric has been just too overheated. And to, to Mr. Welch's point, you can't, you can't incentivize the type of things that he, that they incentivized in this bill. Two, you have huge balance sheets on the part of corporate America, meaning they're making money. You got to incentivize them, as the president has asked, to use that money to stimulate job creation. There's a way to do it, if you have some certainty around regulations and taxes. ANDREA MITCHELL: How does he follow that… FMR. REP. FORD JR.: And two, you've got 1.2, maybe 1.3 trillion sitting overseas. MR. WELCH: Mm-hmm. Yeah. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: Allow that money to come back. But… MS. MITCHELL: With Occupy Wall Street, how does he take that posture? FMR. REP. FORD JR.: He's the President, Andrea. He's the President. MS. MITCHELL: He's caught between two polar opposites. FMR. REP. FORD JR.: We Democrats, we Democrats can't criticize Republicans for catering to the Tea Party and not be, and not say to our Democratic Party you got to look beyond Occupy and be willing to do what's in the best interest of the country. Readers are encouraged to review the video of the entire fourteen minute segment to see additional instances of Mitchell acting more like Obama's press secretary than a journalist. As for Ford, it's nice to see there are still some Democrats that are willing to honestly discuss what's going on in the country without regard to Party. If only folks like Mitchell and her colleagues in the press behaved that way.

Continue reading …
Child six billion hopes for peace as population races on to next milestone

Adnan Nevic, 12, hopes child seven billion will see world peace. Is it possible in a world of growing competition for resources? In a modest flat in Visoko, near Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 12-year-old Adnan Nevic is playing with a globe. “America, Australia, Asia,” he says, pointing out the places he would like to visit on the slightly deflated blow-up toy. His favourite subject at school is geography and he wants to be a pilot when he grows up, the better to fulfil his dreams of global travel. That Adnan has such an international outlook is hardly surprising: at only two days old, he was held aloft in a Sarajevo hospital by the then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, to be snapped by the world’s news photographers. Of all the 80 million babies born that year, Adnan was chosen as the world’s six billionth living person . The UN calculates that the world will have its seventh billion person on 31 October; the global population will hit nine billion by 2050; and, according to a UN report due on Wednesday , by the end of the century there could be 16 billion people on the planet, although most experts consider this an unlikely scenario, at the very top end of the range of expectations. Adnan was born in 1999, chosen ostensibly at random but really as a symbol of hope after a bloody decade in the former Yugoslavia, which was also the birthplace of the five billionth baby, born in Zagreb in 1987. The four billionth person was born in 1974, and the three billionth in 1960, according to the UN. Before that, the world took much longer to add so many people: there were two billion people in 1927, and it took the whole of human history until 1804 to reach the point at which a whole billion people inhabited the planet at the same time. Adnan, as well as being a 12-year-old boy with aspirations to travel the globe, is an emblem of the rapidly growing world population that until recently has shown few signs of abating. Rising birth rates in many countries, particularly in the developing world, have combined with longer life expectancy and successes in reducing infant mortality to produce a total population that few used to predict was even possible. Adnan lives in a modest flat in the historic city. The cars parked outside are mid-range models not more than a few years old, the blocks are well-kept and the surroundings are pleasant though not affluent. Outside the block there is a solitary piece of graffiti, in blue spraypaint. It reads “Adnan”. He is a local celebrity. Most of the 78 million children born this year – and of the two to three billion expected in the next 40 years – will not be so lucky. The vast majority will be born into appalling privation, in slums in developing countries. Is the world failing these children? Last year, although enough food was produced to satisfy the world’s needs, at least one billion people went hungry, according to UN estimates. The same number lacked access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people still have no adequate sanitation. Most of the world’s population now live in towns and cities, not the countryside, for the first time in history. But the urban centres that people are joining are the world’s burgeoning megacities, in each of which tens of millions of people live in penury without electricity, water, toilets or enough to eat. Child seven billion will be born into a different world to that which Adnan entered – one threatened by terrorism, economic crisis, climate change and new wars unthought of in 1999. But the problems that the exploding population will unleash may, according to some commentators, make today’s crises seem mild. “Of all the interconnected problems we face, perhaps the most serious is the proliferation of our own species,” says Sir Crispin Tickell , a former British ambassador to the UN, now an environmental guru. “We are like a species out of control.” As population rises, this argument runs, consumption will increase and place an impossible strain on natural resources, from water supplies and agricultural land to fish in the ocean, as well as giving rise to runaway climate change as we burn ever more fossil fuels. One example of the kind of problem the planet will face has been this year’s devastating famine in the Horn of Africa . Drought was the primary cause, but it has been exacerbated by pressure on the land; the population of the region has doubled since the early 1970s. Mary Robinson, the former Irish president, told a recent meeting of the Aspen Institute : “Somalia shows the extent to which failure to learn from the famine in 1992, and our failure to prioritise the health of women and children, has become a global problem, one none of us can ignore.” This view is derided in some quarters, especially the US right, as “neo-Malthusian” – a pessimistic assumption of limit to the world’s bounty that has always been proved wrong in the past. Productivity – squeezing more food from less land, more energy from fewer resources – has kept pace with or exceeded population growth in the past, so why not in the future? Although fertility rates have declined slightly from their 1960s peak, there is now a demographic “bulge”, a boom in the number of young people, that will ensure growth continues at a clip for the next few decades. By around mid-century, if the predictions are right, population will for the first time in centuries begin a slow decline. These are just guesses. Many experts believe the UN’s nine billion to be a gross underestimate, and predict 11 billion or 12 billion as more likely. Previous predictions have been too low: the UN’s forecast in the early 1990s was that population would peak in 2050 at 7.8 billion, a level now virtually certain to be exceeded in the next 15 years. This year, the seven billionth person will not be named; instead, the UN is merely celebrating the arrival on 31 October. According to the UN, this is because all babies born around the time will be equally marked. But Adnan’s family suspect the real reason may be embarrassment. His parents have been bewildered by the way the UN has behaved since singling out their only child for attention. Since that day, they have received almost no communication from the organisation and certainly no support. “We saw Kofi Annan as almost like a godfather to him,” says Adnan’s father, Jasminko. “He held me up when I was two days old, but since then we have heard nothing from them,” says Adnan. The disappointment is palpable. Adan’s father is unwell, and his pension and a small stipend paid by Sarajevo as long as Adnan remains in education are the family’s only income. For the boy singled out as the five billionth person, the story is remarkably similar. Matej Gaspar is also aggrieved at the way the UN picked him out at birth and then ignored him for the rest of his life. Adnan and Gaspar are friends on Facebook and have discussed what they regard as their unfair treatment. It would not be surprising if the UN is touchy about its approach to population questions. For two decades, population concerns have been pushed to one side as governments have become increasingly sensitive about the issue. There are several reasons – fear on the part of rich countries of being seen to attempt to control the fertility of developing nations; an emphasis on other problems, such as diseases, that seemed less intractable; and religion, which took population firmly off the international aid agenda for the whole of George W Bush’s US presidency. Even usually outspoken green groups have censored themselves on the subject, avoiding the question of whether the number of people on the planet has an impact on our ecology in favour of pointing out that the west consumes a far larger share of available resources than the south. Some of this reticence is well-founded. Previous discussions under the heading of “overpopulation” implied that some of the world’s inhabitants were surplus to requirements, an unpleasant suggestion that carried overtones of eugenics. Population experts lament that these fears prevented a frank discussion for years of whether we should be trying to curb the growth of population in our own interests. Women’s rights are central to this framing of the argument. Hundreds of millions of women around the world, but mainly in developing countries, have families bigger than they wish, because they are being denied the ability to control their own reproductive health, according to Population Action International . Although the planet may be able to support billions more people than are forecast to join us, the question of how all of those new people can live decently, rather than in unnecessary misery, will not be answered by nature or technology but by politics. Whether our political systems can cope with the strain – of competition for resources, of the distribution of Earth’s natural wealth, of the potential for runaway climate change, and of the economic and social crises that will follow – without collapsing into destitution or war is a matter for conjecture. Asked what he hopes for the seven billionth child, Adnan is unhesitating: “I wish that the birth of the seven billionth child brings peace to the planet.” From someone else, this might sound like a pious cliche. But from Adnan’s fourth-floor bedroom window, you can look out to see another block of flats close by. More than 15 years after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina officially ended, the walls still bear the scars of hundreds of bullets. Population Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Child six billion hopes for peace as population races on to next milestone

Adnan Nevic, 12, hopes child seven billion will see world peace. Is it possible in a world of growing competition for resources? In a modest flat in Visoko, near Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina, 12-year-old Adnan Nevic is playing with a globe. “America, Australia, Asia,” he says, pointing out the places he would like to visit on the slightly deflated blow-up toy. His favourite subject at school is geography and he wants to be a pilot when he grows up, the better to fulfil his dreams of global travel. That Adnan has such an international outlook is hardly surprising: at only two days old, he was held aloft in a Sarajevo hospital by the then United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, to be snapped by the world’s news photographers. Of all the 80 million babies born that year, Adnan was chosen as the world’s six billionth living person . The UN calculates that the world will have its seventh billion person on 31 October; the global population will hit nine billion by 2050; and, according to a UN report due on Wednesday , by the end of the century there could be 16 billion people on the planet, although most experts consider this an unlikely scenario, at the very top end of the range of expectations. Adnan was born in 1999, chosen ostensibly at random but really as a symbol of hope after a bloody decade in the former Yugoslavia, which was also the birthplace of the five billionth baby, born in Zagreb in 1987. The four billionth person was born in 1974, and the three billionth in 1960, according to the UN. Before that, the world took much longer to add so many people: there were two billion people in 1927, and it took the whole of human history until 1804 to reach the point at which a whole billion people inhabited the planet at the same time. Adnan, as well as being a 12-year-old boy with aspirations to travel the globe, is an emblem of the rapidly growing world population that until recently has shown few signs of abating. Rising birth rates in many countries, particularly in the developing world, have combined with longer life expectancy and successes in reducing infant mortality to produce a total population that few used to predict was even possible. Adnan lives in a modest flat in the historic city. The cars parked outside are mid-range models not more than a few years old, the blocks are well-kept and the surroundings are pleasant though not affluent. Outside the block there is a solitary piece of graffiti, in blue spraypaint. It reads “Adnan”. He is a local celebrity. Most of the 78 million children born this year – and of the two to three billion expected in the next 40 years – will not be so lucky. The vast majority will be born into appalling privation, in slums in developing countries. Is the world failing these children? Last year, although enough food was produced to satisfy the world’s needs, at least one billion people went hungry, according to UN estimates. The same number lacked access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people still have no adequate sanitation. Most of the world’s population now live in towns and cities, not the countryside, for the first time in history. But the urban centres that people are joining are the world’s burgeoning megacities, in each of which tens of millions of people live in penury without electricity, water, toilets or enough to eat. Child seven billion will be born into a different world to that which Adnan entered – one threatened by terrorism, economic crisis, climate change and new wars unthought of in 1999. But the problems that the exploding population will unleash may, according to some commentators, make today’s crises seem mild. “Of all the interconnected problems we face, perhaps the most serious is the proliferation of our own species,” says Sir Crispin Tickell , a former British ambassador to the UN, now an environmental guru. “We are like a species out of control.” As population rises, this argument runs, consumption will increase and place an impossible strain on natural resources, from water supplies and agricultural land to fish in the ocean, as well as giving rise to runaway climate change as we burn ever more fossil fuels. One example of the kind of problem the planet will face has been this year’s devastating famine in the Horn of Africa . Drought was the primary cause, but it has been exacerbated by pressure on the land; the population of the region has doubled since the early 1970s. Mary Robinson, the former Irish president, told a recent meeting of the Aspen Institute : “Somalia shows the extent to which failure to learn from the famine in 1992, and our failure to prioritise the health of women and children, has become a global problem, one none of us can ignore.” This view is derided in some quarters, especially the US right, as “neo-Malthusian” – a pessimistic assumption of limit to the world’s bounty that has always been proved wrong in the past. Productivity – squeezing more food from less land, more energy from fewer resources – has kept pace with or exceeded population growth in the past, so why not in the future? Although fertility rates have declined slightly from their 1960s peak, there is now a demographic “bulge”, a boom in the number of young people, that will ensure growth continues at a clip for the next few decades. By around mid-century, if the predictions are right, population will for the first time in centuries begin a slow decline. These are just guesses. Many experts believe the UN’s nine billion to be a gross underestimate, and predict 11 billion or 12 billion as more likely. Previous predictions have been too low: the UN’s forecast in the early 1990s was that population would peak in 2050 at 7.8 billion, a level now virtually certain to be exceeded in the next 15 years. This year, the seven billionth person will not be named; instead, the UN is merely celebrating the arrival on 31 October. According to the UN, this is because all babies born around the time will be equally marked. But Adnan’s family suspect the real reason may be embarrassment. His parents have been bewildered by the way the UN has behaved since singling out their only child for attention. Since that day, they have received almost no communication from the organisation and certainly no support. “We saw Kofi Annan as almost like a godfather to him,” says Adnan’s father, Jasminko. “He held me up when I was two days old, but since then we have heard nothing from them,” says Adnan. The disappointment is palpable. Adan’s father is unwell, and his pension and a small stipend paid by Sarajevo as long as Adnan remains in education are the family’s only income. For the boy singled out as the five billionth person, the story is remarkably similar. Matej Gaspar is also aggrieved at the way the UN picked him out at birth and then ignored him for the rest of his life. Adnan and Gaspar are friends on Facebook and have discussed what they regard as their unfair treatment. It would not be surprising if the UN is touchy about its approach to population questions. For two decades, population concerns have been pushed to one side as governments have become increasingly sensitive about the issue. There are several reasons – fear on the part of rich countries of being seen to attempt to control the fertility of developing nations; an emphasis on other problems, such as diseases, that seemed less intractable; and religion, which took population firmly off the international aid agenda for the whole of George W Bush’s US presidency. Even usually outspoken green groups have censored themselves on the subject, avoiding the question of whether the number of people on the planet has an impact on our ecology in favour of pointing out that the west consumes a far larger share of available resources than the south. Some of this reticence is well-founded. Previous discussions under the heading of “overpopulation” implied that some of the world’s inhabitants were surplus to requirements, an unpleasant suggestion that carried overtones of eugenics. Population experts lament that these fears prevented a frank discussion for years of whether we should be trying to curb the growth of population in our own interests. Women’s rights are central to this framing of the argument. Hundreds of millions of women around the world, but mainly in developing countries, have families bigger than they wish, because they are being denied the ability to control their own reproductive health, according to Population Action International . Although the planet may be able to support billions more people than are forecast to join us, the question of how all of those new people can live decently, rather than in unnecessary misery, will not be answered by nature or technology but by politics. Whether our political systems can cope with the strain – of competition for resources, of the distribution of Earth’s natural wealth, of the potential for runaway climate change, and of the economic and social crises that will follow – without collapsing into destitution or war is a matter for conjecture. Asked what he hopes for the seven billionth child, Adnan is unhesitating: “I wish that the birth of the seven billionth child brings peace to the planet.” From someone else, this might sound like a pious cliche. But from Adnan’s fourth-floor bedroom window, you can look out to see another block of flats close by. More than 15 years after the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina officially ended, the walls still bear the scars of hundreds of bullets. Population Bosnia and Herzegovina United Nations Fiona Harvey guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Alex Salmond sure Scots will back SNP and vote for independence

Leader reiterates referendum will ask two questions, one on full independence and the second on fiscal autonomy The Scottish nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, threw down the gauntlet to Labour on Sunday, challenging the party to devise an enhanced devolution plan to put to Scottish voters alongside the independence option in the referendum. He declared he was confident, though, that Scots would back independence in the referendum due before the next Holyrood elections, in 2016. “In my heart, in my head, I think Scotland will become an independent country within the European community, with a friendly, co-operative relationship with our partners in these islands,” Salmond told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. Salmond confirmed on Saturday, in his keynote speech to the SNP conference in Inverness, that the referendum, planned for the second half of the five-year Scottish parliament, will consist of two questions. On Sunday he gave more details. The first question would be “a straight yes-no question [on] independence,” the SNP leader said. Alongside this would be “a second question, in the same way as we did in 1997, in which we’d offer a fiscal autonomy option”. He added: “I’m not for limiting the choices of the Scottish people, I leave that to Westminster.” Salmond singled out Labour’s former first minister for Scotland, Henry McLeish, as a person sympathetic to the “devo max” alternative – to whose proposals the SNP would listen. The challenge from Salmond poses a strategic question for the Labour party in Scotland, which has still not recovered from the drubbing it received in May’s Scottish elections. Labour is devolving more autonomy to the Scottish party, which is choosing a new leader. Some senior Scottish Labour politicians have recently shown interest in exploring some sort of devo max proposal. But there is little agreement on details and any such plan would go far beyond Labour’s 1997 devolution settlement. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in Scotland also face dilemmas about devo max options, since the coalition at Westminster is introducing a more limited set of devolution changes in the Scotland bill. Salmond said on Saturday that the SNP would “campaign, full-square, for independence in the coming referendum”. Angus Robertson MP, who is director of the independence referendum campaign, revealed that the party had ringfenced a £918,000 legacy left by Edwin Morgan, Scotland’s former national poet, or Makar, for the independence campaign. But the decision to allow a second option, short of the party’s holy grail, has disconcerted some SNP activists in Inverness, who believe that devo max could prove a popular alternative for undecided voters and blunt the drive to full independence. Margo MacDonald, the former SNP MSP, who is now an independent, accused Salmond of “hedging his bets”, in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper , saying that there was “no need for a second question”. Opinion polls in Scotland show substantial majorities opposed to independence, though there has been some movement since the SNP landslide. Privately, some activists fear the economic downturn will make voters fearful of taking a leap into the dark with Scotland’s future. However, there were few signs of doubt at the conference over the past four days. The SNP was brimming with confidence. One strategist said: “We will win because we’ve got religion and our opponents have not.” Salmond hopes his party has the wherewithal to win the independence referendum. But he has shown this weekend that he is prepared for an alternative that would keep the SNP in the game if Scots vote no. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, told the Andrew Marr Show: “The SNP have a mandate to get on with that referendum and they should stop shilly-shallying and get on with it.” The Nationalists had to answer some “big questions” about independence regarding issues including “currency, membership of the EU, and social security, pensions and so much else aside”. Murphy said: “It’s not enough to wave a flag and expect the people of Scotland to support breaking up the UK. It’s my country, it’s my flag, I’m a passionate Scot, I want what’s best for Scotland, and most people in Scotland believe what’s best for Scotland is remaining part of the UK and a big player in one of the most successful unions of nations ever seen on this Earth.” On currency, Salmond said an independent Scotland would keep sterling “until it was in Scotland’s economic advantage to join the euro – and that would be a decision of the Scottish people”. Scotland would also have its own army, navy and air force, he said, adding that “those armed forces would cooperate with our western allies in a range of engagements”. Scottish independence Scottish politics Scottish National party (SNP) Alex Salmond Scotland Labour Liberal Democrats Conservatives Martin Kettle guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Alex Salmond sure Scots will back SNP and vote for independence

Leader reiterates referendum will ask two questions, one on full independence and the second on fiscal autonomy The Scottish nationalist leader, Alex Salmond, threw down the gauntlet to Labour on Sunday, challenging the party to devise an enhanced devolution plan to put to Scottish voters alongside the independence option in the referendum. He declared he was confident, though, that Scots would back independence in the referendum due before the next Holyrood elections, in 2016. “In my heart, in my head, I think Scotland will become an independent country within the European community, with a friendly, co-operative relationship with our partners in these islands,” Salmond told the Andrew Marr Show on BBC1. Salmond confirmed on Saturday, in his keynote speech to the SNP conference in Inverness, that the referendum, planned for the second half of the five-year Scottish parliament, will consist of two questions. On Sunday he gave more details. The first question would be “a straight yes-no question [on] independence,” the SNP leader said. Alongside this would be “a second question, in the same way as we did in 1997, in which we’d offer a fiscal autonomy option”. He added: “I’m not for limiting the choices of the Scottish people, I leave that to Westminster.” Salmond singled out Labour’s former first minister for Scotland, Henry McLeish, as a person sympathetic to the “devo max” alternative – to whose proposals the SNP would listen. The challenge from Salmond poses a strategic question for the Labour party in Scotland, which has still not recovered from the drubbing it received in May’s Scottish elections. Labour is devolving more autonomy to the Scottish party, which is choosing a new leader. Some senior Scottish Labour politicians have recently shown interest in exploring some sort of devo max proposal. But there is little agreement on details and any such plan would go far beyond Labour’s 1997 devolution settlement. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in Scotland also face dilemmas about devo max options, since the coalition at Westminster is introducing a more limited set of devolution changes in the Scotland bill. Salmond said on Saturday that the SNP would “campaign, full-square, for independence in the coming referendum”. Angus Robertson MP, who is director of the independence referendum campaign, revealed that the party had ringfenced a £918,000 legacy left by Edwin Morgan, Scotland’s former national poet, or Makar, for the independence campaign. But the decision to allow a second option, short of the party’s holy grail, has disconcerted some SNP activists in Inverness, who believe that devo max could prove a popular alternative for undecided voters and blunt the drive to full independence. Margo MacDonald, the former SNP MSP, who is now an independent, accused Salmond of “hedging his bets”, in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper , saying that there was “no need for a second question”. Opinion polls in Scotland show substantial majorities opposed to independence, though there has been some movement since the SNP landslide. Privately, some activists fear the economic downturn will make voters fearful of taking a leap into the dark with Scotland’s future. However, there were few signs of doubt at the conference over the past four days. The SNP was brimming with confidence. One strategist said: “We will win because we’ve got religion and our opponents have not.” Salmond hopes his party has the wherewithal to win the independence referendum. But he has shown this weekend that he is prepared for an alternative that would keep the SNP in the game if Scots vote no. Jim Murphy, the shadow defence secretary, told the Andrew Marr Show: “The SNP have a mandate to get on with that referendum and they should stop shilly-shallying and get on with it.” The Nationalists had to answer some “big questions” about independence regarding issues including “currency, membership of the EU, and social security, pensions and so much else aside”. Murphy said: “It’s not enough to wave a flag and expect the people of Scotland to support breaking up the UK. It’s my country, it’s my flag, I’m a passionate Scot, I want what’s best for Scotland, and most people in Scotland believe what’s best for Scotland is remaining part of the UK and a big player in one of the most successful unions of nations ever seen on this Earth.” On currency, Salmond said an independent Scotland would keep sterling “until it was in Scotland’s economic advantage to join the euro – and that would be a decision of the Scottish people”. Scotland would also have its own army, navy and air force, he said, adding that “those armed forces would cooperate with our western allies in a range of engagements”. Scottish independence Scottish politics Scottish National party (SNP) Alex Salmond Scotland Labour Liberal Democrats Conservatives Martin Kettle guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fox and Werrity: Labour demands Cameron answers 10 key questions

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy challenges No 10 to reveal ‘the full extent of wrongdoing at the heart of government’ Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy has sent a list of 10 questions to David Cameron, which he says remain unanswered about Liam Fox’s use of his best friend Adam Werritty as his personal foreign envoy in defiance of parliamentary rules. In a letter sent on Sunday to No 10, Murphy demands that the prime minister “reveal the full extent of the wrongdoing which took place at the heart of government”. Murphy’s letter, seen by the Guardian, calls on Cameron to detail exactly who funded Werritty’s jetset lifestyle and whether they were seeking political favours from Fox in return. “We still do not know the full facts about the money trail which led to the resignation of the Rt Hon Member for North Somerset, we do not know the true role and motivations of Mr Werritty, and we do not know who exactly in the government met Mr Werritty and whether there was any prior knowledge of the former defence secretary’s activities.” Murphy also demanded a “categorical guarantee” that no other ministers have a similar unorthodox relationship with an unofficial adviser – a question Cameron has repeatedly refused to answer. Murphy’s letter also demands publication of a full list of all ministers, MPs and government officials that Werritty has met since the election. It has emerged that Werritty also met Gerald Howarth, minister for defence exports, and Lord Astor, Lords spokesman on defence, on “social occasions”, which suggests no civil servants were present. He also called on Cameron to publish a “full list” of the people and organisations that funded Pargav, the “slush fund” created to support Werritty’s lifestyle. “In particular will you provide the details of which IRG Ltd the cabinet secretary’s report makes reference to,” Murphy asks. There are more than 30 companies and organisations that use the initial IRG. Murphy said the cabinet secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report into Werritty’s activities failed to address serious issues that raise further questions that “go to the heart of trust in the government and the country’s political system”. The Labour MP for East Renfrewshire said Cameron’s “dismissal” of direct questions from Labour leader Ed Miliband during prime minister’s questions last week was “completely at odds with the transparency of which you have regularly spoken”. “As you have said in the foreword to the ministerial code, ‘people have lost faith in politics and politicians. It is our duty to restore their trust. It is not enough simply to make a difference. We must be different.’ It is your responsibility to give these words meaning by publicly providing answers to these questions,” Murphy said. “Throughout this scandal it has been clear that you have tried to avoid public association with it. It is not credible to continue to refuse to answer the questions about the actions of the individual you chose as your first defence secretary at such a crucial time for our country.” The letter was sent as reports emerged that William Hague, the foreign secretary, had told Fox to rein in Werritty after MI6 warned that the self-styled adviser was attempting to interfere in official government policy in Iran. The Guardian understands Werritty has held several meetings with Iranian opposition groups, who were led to believe that the 33-year-old was an official government adviser. The fresh revelations about Werritty’s role in Iran come a week after Hague told the BBC that the suggestion that Fox and Werritty were running a “completely separate [foreign] policy is a fanciful idea”. “One adviser or non-adviser, whatever he may have been to one minister, isn’t able to run a totally different policy from the rest of the government. And I think people can at least be reassured about that,” Hague told the Andrew Marr show last Sunday. Murphy also asked whether Cameron was aware that Howard Leigh, the Conservative party treasurer, introduced Fox to rich Tory donors who went on to fund Werritty. Number 10 has declined to comment. The parliamentary standards watchdog is already investigating whether Fox breached the rules by allowing Werritty to run a right-wing charity from his Portcullis House office. The City of London police are considering launching a fraud investigation into Werritty’s attempts to pass himself off as Fox’s official adviser by handing out Westminster-style business cards describing himself as “an adviser to the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP”. Additional reporting by Saeed Kamali Dehghan Liam Fox Adam Werritty Jim Murphy Labour David Cameron Conservatives Liberal-Conservative coalition Rupert Neate guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …