As the Commission now acknowledges, the warrant is only for major crimes and is being misused How is the EU going to stop the European arrest warrant, its fast-track extradition system, from being misused to prosecute bike thefts? At Fair Trials International we have been campaigning for years for a fairer European arrest warrant system, with a proportionality test to weed out trivial cases, as well as basic fair trial safeguards for people facing extradition. In a report out on Monday, the European commission acknowledges that the arrest warrant is being misused for low-level crimes. It urges European member states to sort out the problem themselves, by only using the warrant for what it was intended to do – prosecute or punish “major crimes”. However, the problem is that the law applying the arrest warrant does not say it can only be used for major crime and it contains no “proportionality test”. That is why countries such as Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with no prosecutorial discretion, must under their own law pursue every wanted person, no matter how minor the alleged crime. Take, for example, the case of a retired schoolteacher and grandfather facing extradition to Poland for going over his overdraft limit more than 10 years ago. The entire debt was repaid to the bank but he is still being sought to face trial for “theft”, although he has suffered three strokes and is in fragile health. Extradition has an enormous impact on individuals and their families, yet this “no questions asked” system leaves judges no real discretion to refuse warrants – even when there are serious human rights concerns about sending someone off to the other side of Europe to be prosecuted or imprisoned. Building a proportionality test into the system would mean amending the framework legislation by creating an amendment that every one of the 27 EU countries would then have to implement domestically. Though it has not ruled out legislative reform and has the power to recommend it, the commission would like to avoid this. The European arrest warrant is seen as an important symbol of mutual trust between EU countries, a flagship instrument forged in the wake of 9/11 in a spirit of stronger judicial co-operation across EU borders. In a union of 27 countries, all with distinct legal and penal cultures, it is not easy to build the trust necessary for this degree of mutual co-operation. The commission hopes that the slow but steady introduction of EU-wide basic defence safeguards will help to stem the growth in cases of injustice. The report recommends better statistical monitoring and more training for judges, who are asked to look at whether alternative measures are appropriate before reaching for the arrest warrant. Time will tell whether this is enough to stop the excessive use of this tick-box system by some countries (most notably Poland, which in 2009 issued 4,844 warrants compared to the UK’s 220). Although they are welcome and necessary, new EU laws guaranteeing basic defence rights such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter will not cure the flaws in the arrest warrant system nor eradicate injustice from its operation. Time is running out for EU countries to put their own houses in order. Urgent steps are needed to reform the European arrest warrant, to make sure it fights serious cross-border crime effectively without compromising fundamental rights in the process. Legislative change may be the only answer. European arrest warrant European commission European Union Europe Catherine Heard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As the Commission now acknowledges, the warrant is only for major crimes and is being misused How is the EU going to stop the European arrest warrant, its fast-track extradition system, from being misused to prosecute bike thefts? At Fair Trials International we have been campaigning for years for a fairer European arrest warrant system, with a proportionality test to weed out trivial cases, as well as basic fair trial safeguards for people facing extradition. In a report out on Monday, the European commission acknowledges that the arrest warrant is being misused for low-level crimes. It urges European member states to sort out the problem themselves, by only using the warrant for what it was intended to do – prosecute or punish “major crimes”. However, the problem is that the law applying the arrest warrant does not say it can only be used for major crime and it contains no “proportionality test”. That is why countries such as Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with no prosecutorial discretion, must under their own law pursue every wanted person, no matter how minor the alleged crime. Take, for example, the case of a retired schoolteacher and grandfather facing extradition to Poland for going over his overdraft limit more than 10 years ago. The entire debt was repaid to the bank but he is still being sought to face trial for “theft”, although he has suffered three strokes and is in fragile health. Extradition has an enormous impact on individuals and their families, yet this “no questions asked” system leaves judges no real discretion to refuse warrants – even when there are serious human rights concerns about sending someone off to the other side of Europe to be prosecuted or imprisoned. Building a proportionality test into the system would mean amending the framework legislation by creating an amendment that every one of the 27 EU countries would then have to implement domestically. Though it has not ruled out legislative reform and has the power to recommend it, the commission would like to avoid this. The European arrest warrant is seen as an important symbol of mutual trust between EU countries, a flagship instrument forged in the wake of 9/11 in a spirit of stronger judicial co-operation across EU borders. In a union of 27 countries, all with distinct legal and penal cultures, it is not easy to build the trust necessary for this degree of mutual co-operation. The commission hopes that the slow but steady introduction of EU-wide basic defence safeguards will help to stem the growth in cases of injustice. The report recommends better statistical monitoring and more training for judges, who are asked to look at whether alternative measures are appropriate before reaching for the arrest warrant. Time will tell whether this is enough to stop the excessive use of this tick-box system by some countries (most notably Poland, which in 2009 issued 4,844 warrants compared to the UK’s 220). Although they are welcome and necessary, new EU laws guaranteeing basic defence rights such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter will not cure the flaws in the arrest warrant system nor eradicate injustice from its operation. Time is running out for EU countries to put their own houses in order. Urgent steps are needed to reform the European arrest warrant, to make sure it fights serious cross-border crime effectively without compromising fundamental rights in the process. Legislative change may be the only answer. European arrest warrant European commission European Union Europe Catherine Heard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …As the Commission now acknowledges, the warrant is only for major crimes and is being misused How is the EU going to stop the European arrest warrant, its fast-track extradition system, from being misused to prosecute bike thefts? At Fair Trials International we have been campaigning for years for a fairer European arrest warrant system, with a proportionality test to weed out trivial cases, as well as basic fair trial safeguards for people facing extradition. In a report out on Monday, the European commission acknowledges that the arrest warrant is being misused for low-level crimes. It urges European member states to sort out the problem themselves, by only using the warrant for what it was intended to do – prosecute or punish “major crimes”. However, the problem is that the law applying the arrest warrant does not say it can only be used for major crime and it contains no “proportionality test”. That is why countries such as Poland, Lithuania and the Czech Republic, with no prosecutorial discretion, must under their own law pursue every wanted person, no matter how minor the alleged crime. Take, for example, the case of a retired schoolteacher and grandfather facing extradition to Poland for going over his overdraft limit more than 10 years ago. The entire debt was repaid to the bank but he is still being sought to face trial for “theft”, although he has suffered three strokes and is in fragile health. Extradition has an enormous impact on individuals and their families, yet this “no questions asked” system leaves judges no real discretion to refuse warrants – even when there are serious human rights concerns about sending someone off to the other side of Europe to be prosecuted or imprisoned. Building a proportionality test into the system would mean amending the framework legislation by creating an amendment that every one of the 27 EU countries would then have to implement domestically. Though it has not ruled out legislative reform and has the power to recommend it, the commission would like to avoid this. The European arrest warrant is seen as an important symbol of mutual trust between EU countries, a flagship instrument forged in the wake of 9/11 in a spirit of stronger judicial co-operation across EU borders. In a union of 27 countries, all with distinct legal and penal cultures, it is not easy to build the trust necessary for this degree of mutual co-operation. The commission hopes that the slow but steady introduction of EU-wide basic defence safeguards will help to stem the growth in cases of injustice. The report recommends better statistical monitoring and more training for judges, who are asked to look at whether alternative measures are appropriate before reaching for the arrest warrant. Time will tell whether this is enough to stop the excessive use of this tick-box system by some countries (most notably Poland, which in 2009 issued 4,844 warrants compared to the UK’s 220). Although they are welcome and necessary, new EU laws guaranteeing basic defence rights such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter will not cure the flaws in the arrest warrant system nor eradicate injustice from its operation. Time is running out for EU countries to put their own houses in order. Urgent steps are needed to reform the European arrest warrant, to make sure it fights serious cross-border crime effectively without compromising fundamental rights in the process. Legislative change may be the only answer. European arrest warrant European commission European Union Europe Catherine Heard guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
SS architect of final solution hated life in hiding and wrote letter to West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer, a new book reveals For more than a decade after the second world war, his whereabouts were officially unknown. Adolf Eichmann, chief architect of the Holocaust, had escaped from an American POW camp, slipped into Italy and on to a ship bound for Argentina. The West German government, busy rebuilding the country and rehabilitating its reputation, knew from at least 1952 where he was living, yet never made any real attempt to bring him to justice. But a new book claims Eichmann had wanted to return to his motherland and claim his place in history several years before he was captured by Israeli intelligence in 1960 and put on trial in Jerusalem. In 1956, Eichmann wrote an open letter to the West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. “It is time to relinquish my anonymity and introduce myself,” wrote Eichmann, who was then living under the name Ricardo Klement in a suburb of Buenos Aires. “Name: Adolf Otto Eichmann. Occupation: SS Obersturmbannführer a. D [lieutenant colonel].” The letter was supposed to be published by an Argentinian company with Nazi sympathies, although it never saw the light of day. It was unearthed from German state archives by historian Dr Bettina Stangneth in Hamburg, whose book, Eichmann Before Jerusalem, is published in Germany this week. In the letter to Adenauer, Eichmann, then aged 50, suggests he should be allowed home to tell the young people of Germany what really happened under Hitler. “How long fate will allow me to live, I don’t know, but I know that someone has to be the one to tell future generations about these events,” he said, neglecting to mention that “these events” involved the mass murder of millions of people. “I had a big role in leading and directing these programmes,” he added. Eichmann ran the “Jewish section” at the Reich security head office, the SS organisation responsible for fighting “enemies of the Reich”. In practice, this meant it was his job to work out how best to deport Jewish people to concentration camps. He took great joy in figuring out the most profitable and effective way of carrying out mass murder: it was he and his unit who dreamt up the idea of the authorities and the police robbing the victims before deportation. Stangneth said Eichmann was unhappy with his lowly life in Argentina, where he was a rabbit farmer. He craved the power and recognition he enjoyed in the Third Reich. “That’s why he wrote the letter to Adenauer – because he wanted to be famous,” said Strangneth. “He wanted to claim his part in history alongside Adolf Hitler. “He wanted to be put on trial in Germany and give his version of events. Of course, if that had happened, he would have been given a very different trial from the one he got in Jerusalem. There was no death penalty in Germany by then, so he would certainly not have been executed.” Nearly 50 years since Eichmann was hung in Israel, awkward questions are now being asked in Germany about the country’s role in bringing him to justice or otherwise. A series of articles in Der Spiegel magazine recently have suggested West German secret agents knew full well where Eichmann was following his escape, but were never ordered to recapture him. Following Eichmann’s kidnapping by the Mossad in May 1960, Adenauer’s government held a crisis meeting, where they agreed they should do everything to make clear that “Eichmann was a stooge of Himmler’s SS” and that he was not an authorised agent of Germany. A foreign ministry official is noted as saying it was crucial that “leading figures in West Germany” were not harmed by the trial. The latest edition of the magazine claims Adenauer personally sent an agent from the German secret service, the BND, to monitor the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. Adenauer told a spy called Rolf Vogel to observe the trial in the guise of a reporter and influence it where possible. “You must go to the Eichmann trial for me,” wrote Adenauer, according to secret papers unearthed by Der Spiegel, which describes Vogel’s deployment as was “one of the most delicate diplomatic/secret service operations in the history of West Germany”. Der Spiegel claims Adenauer was terrified that the Nazi past of one of his most trusted aides, Hans Globke, his chief of staff at the chancellery, would be exposed by the trial. Adenauer reportedly went as far as discreetly trying to pay Eichmann’s legal fees because he was terrified that if he didn’t, the Eastern bloc would, and his Soviet enemies would attempt to influence the trial for their own ends. But when the media got wind of the plot, back in 1961, the plan was shelved, and the 100,000 deutschmarks already sent by Germany ended up with the Israelis, said Der Spiegel. In the event, Eichmann did not expose any high-ranking West German parliamentarians or civil servants. A week after Eichmann was executed on 13 May 1962, Adenauer met Israel’s deputy defence minister, Shimon Peres, and asked him to thank the prime minister, Ben Gurion, for the way the trial was conducted. “It was excellent,” said Adenauer, “and I will never forget it.” In August 1962, the Adenauer government donated 240m marks to Israel’s military programme. Holocaust Second world war Germany Europe Judaism Israel Helen Pidd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Anti-monarchy group claims north London council’s refusal to let it hold a street party is politically motivated A street party for republicans wishing not to celebrate the royal wedding has been banned by a north London council. The anti-monarchy pressure group Republic has complained that its application to close a street in Covent Garden for its party has been turned down by Camden council . The council claims that it told the group to provide a management plan and consult local residents and it failed to do so. The decision left Republic vowing to take court action. Its executive officer Graham Smith complained: “This is a disgraceful attack on the rights of republicans to make their voice heard and to hold a fun and peaceful event. Camden council is allowing a few vocal residents and businesses to veto any event they do not support … (It) is seeking to silence and marginalise us without any legitimate reason. “We can only assume this is a politically motivated ban and we will challenge it all the way.” The organisation may be able to claim the support of two unlikely recruits. David Cameron told readers of the Sun that the wedding on 29 April would be a chance for everyone to come together and celebrate the great things about the country: “People who want to come together to celebrate with their neighbours should go ahead. We’ve done our bit by ripping up red tape.” Joining in, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) insisted that royal wedding party organisers should not be fobbed off by “jobsworths” trying to prevent them. The organisation said it was concerned that health and safety would be used as an unfounded excuse to stop celebrations. Judith Hackitt, the chair of the HSE, said: “Volunteers should feel confident to organise celebrations, taking simple measures based on common sense without having to worry about obligations under health and safety law at all. I want to encourage people to challenge those who tell you something can’t be done for health and safety reasons – it’s too easy an excuse to trot out. “There’s nothing in health and safety law to prevent anyone from celebrating the royal wedding – in fact, HSE encourages everyone who wants to throw a party to go right ahead. If someone tells you that you can’t have a get-together to mark the nuptials of Prince William and Kate, then challenge them. Health and safety is about looking out for any legitimate things that might spoil people’s fun on the day, not to stop people doing anything at all.” The organisation’s website says that while organisers should consult councils to secure road closures and permission to sell alcohol, those organised on a non-commercial basis would not fall foul of restrictive rules and regulations preventing them from going ahead. The prime minister claimed on Monday that about 4,000 street parties were known to be going ahead – though that is many fewer than at the time of the wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the summer of 1981. A spokeswoman for Camden council said that permission for Republic’s celebration in Earlham Street, just off Shaftesbury Avenue, had been refused: “We asked them to come to us with a management plan and after consulting local residents and they did not do so. There were objections from local residents and businesses and significant concerns from the police about the potential for disorder. We have allowed other street parties.” Royal wedding Republicanism London Monarchy Stephen Bates guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sinn Féin president prepared to act as mediator in effort to end violence following murder of police officer Ronan Kerr Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams has offered himself as a mediator in talks with dissident republicans in a move to secure an end to their violence. Adams said he or any member of his party would be prepared to facilitate discussions. He also called on the legitimate political organisations representing dissidents to say stop to violence. The Louth TD’s demand came after thousands of people turned out in Omagh on Sunday for a Walk of Peace, a week after the murder of Catholic police officer Constable Ronan Kerr in a car bomb attack . On Sunday police investigating the murder were granted an extra five days to question a 33-year-old man arrested on Friday. Two other men have been detained by detectives investigating the booby trap bomb attack that killed the 25-year-old officer. On Friday police were given a further five days to question the other 26-year-old and 40-year-old already in custody. Dissident republicans opposed to the peace process were blamed for the attack and they are also believed to have been behind a 500lb van bomb police discovered near the border town of Newry on Thursday. Kerr was leaving his home to start work at Enniskillen police station in County Fermanagh when he was killed. Despite Adams’s offer it is unlikely that the dissident republican groups will heed his call for an end to their armed campaigns. The Real IRA, Continuity IRA and Óghlaigh na hÉireann regard the Sinn Féin leadership as having sold out on traditional republican values. Gerry Adams Northern Ireland UK security and terrorism Henry McDonald guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …With radiation continuing to spew from six damaged nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japanese authorities will expand the evacuation zone around the plant from 12 to 18 miles, reports Reuters . Engineers said they were no closer to restoring the nuclear facility’s cooling system, an essential step to getting the reactor under…
Continue reading …
Aftershock of magnitude 7.1 hits north-east of country one month after quake and tsunami killed 28,000 people Japan temporarily issued tsunami warnings for parts of the north-east coast on Monday following a powerful aftershock exactly a month after a magnitude-9 earthquake created huge waves that killed an estimated 28,000 people. NHK, the public broadcaster, warned of a tsunami up to 2 metres high on the coast of Ibaraki prefecture after the magnitude-7.1 quake. Although the waves were estimated to be much smaller than those that devastated Japan’s north-east coast on 11 March, the meteorological agency warned people in Ibaraki to evacuate to higher ground. The warnings were later lifted. The aftershock came as the government announced it was widening the evacuation zone around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant due to high levels of accumulated radiation and rising fears about the long-term effects on residents’ health. The government’s chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, said the current 12-mile (20km) evacuation zone would be extended to five other communities, including the village of Iitate, which lies 25 miles from the plant. The village’s 5,000 residents were told to prepare to leave their homes, although the evacuation would not take place immediately as radiation levels presented no immediate threat to health. The Asahi newspaper said the zone would be widened to 19 miles in some areas, depending on wind direction, adding that residents would be given about a week to prepare. “We have made a new decision about evacuations based on data analysis of accumulated radiation exposure information,” Edano told a news conference. “There is no need to evacuate immediately.” About 70,000 people living within 12 miles of Fukushima Daiichi have already been evacuated, and another 130,000 living inside a band 12 to 19 miles away have been told to leave voluntarily or remain indoors due to disruption to supply lines and services. Engineers at the plant say that although progress has been made in containing radioactive water that has built up beneath reactors, they are still no closer to restoring damaged cooling systems. Until repairs are made they cannot cool overheated fuel rods that could cause a major leak of radiation if they go into full meltdown. The government had ignored pressure from the International Atomic Energy Agency and environmental groups to widen the evacuation zone. The US has advised its citizens not to go within 50 miles of the plant. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a spokesman for Japan’s nuclear safety agency, apologised for the anxiety caused by radiation leaks, and warned that the cooling systems could take months to repair. “It’s still difficult to give a timeline regarding when we can resolve the problem,” Nishiyama said. “We are very sorry for the evacuees who are anxious to see the problem resolved.” The governor of Fukushima prefecture, Yuhei Sato, criticised the decision first to ask people in the area to stay indoors, then to consider leaving and now to prepare for evacuation. “Residents are very confused about what to do,” he said. Earlier, Sato refused to meet the president of the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, Masataka Shimizu, who had travelled to Fukushima to apologise to the prefecture’s people. The tsunami warning was a reminder of the events of a month ago, which were marked across the country by a moment’s silence at 2.46pm. More than 14,000 people are still missing, and 152,000 survivors are living in evacuation centres. Reflecting on the damage to his prefecture, which is also at the centre of the nuclear power crisis, Sato said: “My chest has been ripped open by the suffering and pain that this disaster has caused the people of our prefecture. I can’t find the words to express my sorrow.” The prime minister, Naoto Kan, placed a message in newspapers in several countries, including Britain, China and the United States, thanking the international community for its support. Kan said the generosity shown towards Japan in its time of need demonstrated the human capacity for kizuna , or bonds of friendship, and vowed that Japan would emerge a stronger nation. “We deeply appreciate the kizuna our friends from around the world have shown and I want to thank every nation, entity, and you personally, from the bottom of my heart,” he said. Japan disaster Japan Natural disasters and extreme weather Nuclear power Energy Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …