Freedom House started publishing in 1973 and its aim was to provoke a discussion about the levels of political freedom. Even if the survey rated the level of freedom in all the countries in the world, actually it was concerned with the measurement of political democracy. Only one person performed the first surveys without any research staff. This may be an advantage because of the possible biases that a research staff might have. The survey was also considered by some as too rightist, and Freedom House itself continues to have a somewhat pro-Republican reputation. The critics were usually too general with no emphasis on the indicators or other elements of the surveys. As any survey that contains a large number of cases this also gives only a rough account of the development of democracy. It often disregards certain nuances that are connected to the relations between institutions, or how certain institutions as well as procedures take different shapes from country to country.

Gastil (1991) notices that the first period surveys were concerned with more institutional features that often, as in the case of Latin America, do not reveal a real democratic development. Even if several Latin American countries have relatively open elections there is an oligarchy that transforms elections in something symbolic.

Freedom House provides a minimal definition of democracy as being “a political system in which the people choose their authoritative leaders freely from among competing groups and individuals who were not designated by the government. Freedom represents the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination” (Freedom House 2002). Contradicting this definition, among the criteria they consider in rating political systems one can also find ‘socioeconomic rights?, ‘freedom from war?, ‘freedom from gross socioeconomic inequalities? and ‘property rights? (Gastil 1991: 32-3; Ryan 1994: 10-1).

The Freedom House ratings rely on a published checklist of political liberties and civil rights, but it has never been announced how this checklist is actually used in the process of rating the state of political and civil rights. By political rights the survey refers to permitting people to freely take part in the political process that represents the method by which the policymakers are chosen to make effective decisions. By civil liberties Freedom House means “the freedoms to develop views, institutions, and personal autonomy apart from state” (Freedom House: 2002).
Each country is analyzed using as references descriptions in news, books or scientific journals. Already here it is easy to notice a first possible caveat. A change in a year in a country might not affect the rating of the country immediately and there is an inevitable element of subjectivity introduced by relying on a single judge. It bears stressing though that as time passed, the number of available sources increased and the checklist started to become more complex. Now the sources have increased in number and are based on information provided by the web and from the several institutions and non-governmental organizations.

As the sources increased in number, the staff of Freedom House increased rapidly. In this way all countries of the planet could come to be covered. But inevitably there remains a great deal of uncertainty in the validity of the ratings regarding little known underdeveloped countries. This critique can be addressed to all world surveys since they inevitably depend on sources of information that are easy to access.

Freedom House divides territories into related and disputed. Related territories refer to colonies, protectorates and island dependencies of sovereign states between the two not being any serious political disputes. Puerto Rico, Hong Kong and French Guyana are in this category. These are enjoying a large range of political liberties and the majority is categorized as “free”. Disputed territories are areas in sovereign states that are dominated by a minority that is in a violent dispute with the majority and its status is threatened. Usually the majority of population from these territories wants to secede from the sovereign state. Examples might be Tibet, Kashmir and Abkhazia. For these territories Freedom House assigns labels of “Free”, “Partly free” and “Not free” without giving scores. The same status enjoy the micro-states like Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Rapanui (Easter Island), Falkland Islands, Niue, Norfolk Island, Pitcairn Islands, Savalbard and Tokelau. Uninhabited territories like Johnston Atoll owned by the US are excluded from the survey.

Freedom Houses uses seven-point scales for rating political rights and civil liberties, but the exact coding rules remain unknown. The freest rating is one and the least free is seven. This seven-point rating was maintained over time because changing the scale would lead too much confusion. The simple average of the scores on the two scales is converted into a three-point categorization of the countries as ‘free?, ‘partly free? and ‘not free?. The cutoff points between the three categories seem to have been established entirely arbitrarily, just as the rule about the equal weighting of the two sub-dimensions.

Even at the aggregation stage one can find certain inconsistencies. The countries rated by the two checklists (political rights and civic liberties) were considered free if the points received were 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2 and not free when receiving 7-7, 7-6, or 6-7. The problem is with the ‘partly free? category because it could happen that a country that has 6-5 is deemed not free in one year and partly free a year later, with no change in rating.

While the high correlation between the two ratings allowed the categorizing the countries into subgroups, from another perspective the correlation actually seems to high in that Freedom House’s ratings of political and civil liberties are apparently more closely correlated with each other than with other ratings of how democratic the political system is, prepared by different groups of scholars (cf. Figure 3 of Munck and Verkuilen 2002). Thus it appears that some countries get consistently higher (or lower) rating on both Freedom House scales than they would seem to deserve given alternative scholarly ratings of the state of political democracy.

The Checklist of Political Rights is as follows:
1. Chief authority elected by a meaningful process
2. Legislature recently elected by a meaningful process

Alternatives for 1 and 2:
a. no choice and possibility of freedom
b. no choice but some possibility of rejection
c. government or single-party selected candidates
d. choice possible only among government-approved candidates
e. relatively open choices possible only in local elections
f. open choice possible within restricted range
g. relatively open choices possible in all elections

3. Fair elections laws, campaigning opportunity, polling and tabulation

4. Fair reflection of voters preferences in distribution of power
- parliament, for example, has effective power

5. Multiple political parties
- only dominant party allowed effective opportunity
- open to rise and fall of competing parties

6. Recent shifts in power through elections

7. Significant opposition vote

8. Free of military or foreign control

9. Major group or groups denied reasonable self-determination

10. Decentralized political power

11. Informal consensus; de facto opposition power

The investigator determines the presence or absence of these elements in the political process and checks other aspects of the system that might determine some negative or positive effects on the democratic process. Below we briefly note some possible sources of error, which, implicitly, are assumed to cancel out each on the aggregate by the Freedom House survey methodology and be randomly distributed across referees, countries and criteria.

Electoral Process: One extreme is that of inherited monarchies or the communist system in which election is performed by simple appointment. Even if there are elections they may be completely meaningless. Then a more democratic system can have election with one candidate but there is the possibility of rejection. All these are controlled electoral systems but with a higher or lower degree of freedom.

Multiple Parties: Not every system that has multiple parties is automatically more democratic. The dominant party systems in Asia have dominant party systems with more parties in opposition. But the activities of these parties are under tight control so that always the party in government could win.

Does elections cause meaningful change? Even if it can happen that one party wins more elections, if a party has support over 70% percent in several elections then something is wrong. Another indicator is the size of the opposition. If a party has over 90 % in elections, the opposition is nonexistent. In this case we can hardly speak about democratic election.

Military Influence: In this case cases range from countries that do not have armies like Iceland to cases in which the military rules directly. These armies usually come to power through the use of force and do not have any kind of legitimacy. The army is a legitimate pressure group in society as long as it does not use force in achieving its ends. The Latin American states have a tradition of having army influence in politics and the measurement of the degree of influence might be problematic. What is important is to keep in mind that the item should measure the level of political violence as a means in preserving power.

Self-determination: This item measures the degree of possibility of meaningful participation in the political process. People should not feel outsiders to the political system and there should be some apparatuses that promote specific, local interests. It is about the degree of autonomy and decisional power of local governments.
Decentralization of Political Power: The indicator tests how groups from periphery can get access to center and have success in politics. One example might be the access of Scottish nationalists to the parliament in UK that shows the level of decentralization of institutions.

De-facto Opposition Parties and Consensus: In any country there should be a minimum level of general consensus so the electoral process would not become a mean of division in society. The electoral process should be an arbiter of diverging interests.

The Checklist for Civil Liberties is as follows (here the survey is looking for patterns and balances in activities, rather than failures to observe particular human rights standards):
12. Media/literature free of political censorship
a. Press independent of government
b. Broadcasting independent of government

13. Open public discussion

14. Freedom of assembly and demonstration

15. Freedom of political or quasipolitical organization

16. Nondiscriminatory rule of law in politically relevant cases
a. Independent judiciary
b. Security forces respect individuals

17. Free from unjustified political terror or imprisonment
a. Free from imprisonment or exile for reasons of conscience
b. Free from torture
c. Free from terror by groups not opposed to the system
d. Free from government-organized terror

18. Free trade unions, peasant organizations, or equivalents

19. Free businesses or cooperatives

20. Free professional or other private organizations

21. Free religious institutions

22. Personal social rights: including those to property, internal and external travel, choice of residence, marriage and family

23.Socioeconomic rights: including freedom from dependency on landlords, bosses, union leaders, or bureaucrats

24.Freedom from gross socioeconomic inequality

25.Freedom from gross government indifference or corruption

http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/ http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictoria/

The first component has sections on nationhood and citizenship; the rule of law; civil and political rights; economic and social rights.

The second has sections on free and fair elections; the democratic role of political parties; government effectiveness and accountability; civilian control of the military and police; minimizing corruption.

The third has sections on the media in a democratic society; political participation; government responsiveness; decentralization.

There is a fourth section devoted to the international dimensions of democracy, which includes issues of governmental autonomy from external control, as well as the supportiveness of government policy towards democracy abroad.

The actual questionnaire according to sections has the following questions.

Section 1: Nationhood and Identity

1.1 How inclusive is the political nation and state citizenship of all who live within the territory?
1.2 How far are cultural differences acknowledged, and how well are minorities protected?
1.3 How much consensus is there on state boundaries and constitutional arrangements?
1.4 How far do constitutional and political arrangements enable major societal divisions to be moderated or reconciled?
1.5 How impartial and inclusive are the procedures for amending the constitution?

Section 2: The rule of law and access to justice

2.1 How far is the rule of law operative throughout the territory?
2.2 To what extent are all public officials subject to the rule of law and to transparent rules in the performance of their functions?
2.3 How independent are the courts and the judiciary from the executive, and how free are they from all kinds of interference?
2.4 How equal and secure is the access of citizens to justice, to due process and to redress in the event of maladministration?
2.5 How far do the criminal justice and penal systems observe due rules of impartial and equitable treatment in their operations?
2.6 How much confidence do people have in the legal system to deliver fair and effective justice?

Section 3: Civil and political rights

3.1 How free are all people from physical violation of their person, and from fear of it?
3.2 How effective and equal is the protection of the freedoms of movement, expression, association and assembly?
3.3 How secure is the freedom for all to practices their own religion, language or culture?
3.4 How free from harassment and intimidation are individuals and groups working to improve human rights?

Section 4: Economic and social rights

4.1 How far is access to work or social security available to all, without discrimination?
4.2 How effectively are the basic necessities of life guaranteed, including adequate food, shelter and clean water?
4.3 To what extent is the health of the population protected, in all spheres and stages of life?
4.4 How extensive and inclusive is the right to education, including education in the rights and responsibilities of citizenship?
4.5 How free are trade unions and other work-related associations to organise and represent their members? interests?
4.6 How rigorous and transparent are the rules on corporate governance, and how effectively are corporations regulated in the public interest?

Section 5: Free and fair elections

5.1 How far is appointment to governmental and legislative office determined by popular competitive election, and how frequently do elections lead to change in the governing parties or personnel?
5.2 How inclusive and accessible for all citizens are the registration and voting procedures, how independent are they of government and party control, and how free from intimidation and abuse?
5.3 How fair are the procedures for the registration of candidates and parties, and how far is there fair access for them to the media and other means of communication with the voters?
5.4 How effective a range of choice does the electoral and party system allow the voters, how equally do their votes count, and how closely does the composition of the legislature and the selection of the executive reflect the choices they make?
5.5 How far does the legislature reflect the social composition of the electorate?
5.6 What proportion of the electorate votes, and how far are the election results accepted by all political forces in the country and outside?

Section 6: Democratic role of political parties

6.1 How freely are parties able to form, recruit members and campaign for office?
6.2 How effective is the party system in forming and sustaining governments in office?
6.3 How free are opposition or non-governing parties to organize within the legislature, and how effectively do they contribute to government accountability?
6.4 How fair and effective are the rules governing party discipline in the legislature?
6.5 How far are parties? effective membership organizations, and how far are members able to influence party policy and candidate selection?
6.6 How far does the system of party financing prevent the subordination of parties to special interests?
6.7 To what extent do parties cross ethnic, religious and linguistic divisions?

Section 7: Government effectiveness and accountability

7.1 How far is the elected government able to influence or control those matters that are important to the lives of its people, and how well is it informed, organized and resourced to do so?
7.2 How much public confidence is there in the effectiveness of government and its political leadership?
7.3 How effective and open to scrutiny is the control exercised by elected leaders and their ministers over their administrative staff and other executive agencies?
7.4 How extensive and effective are the powers of the legislature to initiate, scrutinize and amend legislation?
7.5 How extensive and effective are the powers of the legislature to scrutinize the executive and hold it to account?
7.6 How rigorous are the procedures for approval and supervision of taxation and public expenditure?
7.7 How comprehensive and effective is legislation giving citizens the right of access to government information?

Section 8: Civilian control of the military and police

8.1 How effective is civilian control over the armed forces, and how free is political life from military involvement?
8.2 How publicly accountable are the police and security services for their activities?
8.3 How far does the composition of the army, police and security services reflect the social composition of society at large?
8.4 How free is the country from the operation of paramilitary units, private armies, and warlordism and criminal mafias?

Section 9: Minimizing corruption

9.1 How effective is the separation of public office from the personal business and family interests of office holders?
9.2 How effective are the arrangements for protecting office holders and the public from involvement in bribery?
9.3 How far do the rules and procedures for financing elections, candidates and elected representatives prevent their subordination to sectional interests?
9.4 How far is the influence of powerful corporations and business interests over public policy kept in check, and how free are they from involvement in corruption, including overseas?
9.5 How much confidence do people have that public officials and public services are free from corruption?

Section 10: The media in a democratic society

10.1 How independent are the media from government, how pluralistic is their ownership, and how free are they from subordination to foreign governments or multinational companies?
10.2 How representative are the media of different opinions and how accessible are they to different sections of society?
10.3 How effective are the media and other independent bodies in investigating government and powerful corporations?
10.4 How free are journalists from restrictive laws, harassment and intimidation?
10.5 How free are private citizens from intrusion and harassment by the media?

Section 11: Political participation

11.1 How extensive is the range of voluntary associations, citizen groups, social movement’s etc. and how independent are they from government?
11.2 How extensive is citizen participation in voluntary associations and self-management organizations, and in other voluntary public activity?
11.3 How far do women participate in political life and public office at all levels?
11.4 How equal is access for all social groups to public office, and how fairly are they represented within it?

Section 12: Government responsiveness

12.1 How open and systematic are the procedures for public consultation on government policy and legislation, and how equal is the access for relevant interests to government?
12.2 How accessible are elected representatives to their constituents?
12.3 How accessible and reliable are public services for those who need them, and how systematic is consultation with users over service delivery?
12.4 How much confidence do people have in the ability of government to solve the main problems confronting society, and in their own ability to influence it?

Section 13: Decentralization

13.1 How independent are the sub-central tiers of government from the center, and how far do they have the powers and resources to carry out their responsibilities?
13.2 How far are these levels of government subject to free and fair electoral authorization, and to the criteria of openness, accountability and responsiveness in their operation?
13.3 How extensive is the co-operation of government at the most local level with relevant partners, associations and communities in the formation and implementation of policy, and in service provision?

Section 14: International dimensions of democracy

14.1 How free is the governance of the country from subordination to external agencies, economic, cultural or political?
14.2 How far are government relations with external donors and international institutions based on principles of partnership and transparency?
14.3 How far does the government support UN human rights treaties and respect international law?
14.4 How far does the government respect its international obligations in its treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, and how free from arbitrary discrimination is its immigration policy?
14.5 How consistent is the government in its support for human rights and democracy abroad?

The answer on all these questions mentioned is given according to a five-point scale from very high, to very low, with high, middling or ambiguous and low in between.

The criteria according these points are to be awarded are not mentioned because they are supposed to be awarded by country experts according to their own criteria.

The assessment methodology of has now been tested in the eight pilot countries and was published in 2001. The pilot study covered Bangladesh, El Salvador, Italy, Kenya, South Korea, Malawi, New Zealand and Peru. The purpose of the pilot project is just to assess the usefulness of methodology on different countries and not to be a pilot project of a broader research. The development of the methodology of democracy assessment is supposed just to create tools that can be of use to people interested in democracy assessment.

The possibility of democracy assessment according to above mentioned methodology is available on the IDEA project ?State of Democracy? web site, but the largest number of actual attempts did not went further from the second group of questions.

http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/ http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictoria/

Politics is something we hold dear in America. Whether we’re hoping for a red state or a blue state, or cherishing fondness for elephants or donkeys, politics has become one of out favorite spectator sports. We even have T-shirts and bumper stickers bearing slogans for our hopefuls.

And maybe that’s where it should end. I hate to say this, but you probably already know it: not that many people look great in T-shirts. They’re just not universally flattering, and they also make you look as if you’re getting ready for a 5K run or an afternoon of washing the car. Politics is supposed to be a classy business – so maybe you should try showing your colors in a way that shows partisanship but is universally embraced as an elegant statement.

There is nothing that inspires confidence like a well-dressed person. For a man hoping to run our country – or have influence on the choices of others who will vote for the person who is going to run this country – a suit is the one, definitive choice of attire that speaks to its wearer’s self-assurance and competence. A well-cut shirt, perfectly shined shoes, and a classic tie are de rigueur with a good suit, as are cufflinks.

Cufflinks are a tiny but elegant touch to your attire. They not only serve a function – holding the cuffs of your shirt closed – but they also give you an opportunity to impart a little originality to your ensemble. They can range from the simplest engraved discs to sports logos and professional images such as T-squares for architects and computer chips for tech types.

And – just in time for the Democratic national Convention in Denver and the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis – you can now buy cufflinks that promote the party of your choice!

The Republican Party, with its traditional nickname “Grand Old Party,” boasts as its mascot the mighty elephant. The elephant became associated with the Republicans after a November 7, 1874 cartoon – illustrated in Harper’s Weekly by the famous cartoonist, Thomas Nast – depicted an elephant demolishing the flimsy “planks” of the Democratic Party. Since that time, the GOP has used the elephant to symbolize strength and unity.

The Republican Party unofficially adopted red as its color in 2000, following the 2000 election. During the time that ballots were being counted, all major television broadcast networks used the color to represent states won by Republicans, with states swept by the Democrats denoted by the color blue.

If wearing elephants and the GOP moniker doesn’t fit your political taste, try a pair of cufflinks emblazoned with the trademark donkey of the Democratic Party. The donkey has been the emblem of the Democrats for 180 years – ever since Andrew Jackson ran for president!

At that time, Jackson’s opponents tried to label him a “jackass” for his populist views. Cunning Jackson, however, turned the tide on that smear tactic by adopting the jackass as his own symbol. He included it on all of his campaign materials. During his presidency, Jackson was characterized as a donkey by the press because of his stubbornness.

The symbolism seeped into the American consciousness, and in 1837, the donkey first appeared in a cartoon. The cartoonist was making fun of the long-retired Jackson who still fancied himself the head of the Democratic Party and tried constantly to bend it to his will. Although the cartoonist was not specifically referring to the party when he drew the jackass – he was actually depicting Jackson – the nation misunderstood, and equated the creature with the party.

Be sure that when you go to the polls this year, you leave no hanging chads – or sleeves! Get yourself a pair of patriotic, partisan cufflinks, and show the world how you’d like to see the country run!

Whether your interests are in silver, gold, artistic, sports, or other theme-related cufflinks we’ve got you covered. Cufflink Aficionado carries a broad range of men’s cufflink products designed to meet each connoisseur’s individual style and interest. Our selection of Political Party cufflinks are sure to top off that perfect look!

Since the reports contain qualitative information only, they cannot be directly used for the purposes of the Global Democracy Award. However, they are a uniquely rich source of information on exactly those matters that, as we argued above, should be most relevant for this project. With some investments of additional labor, the information contained in the reports could be subjected to a content analysis and thus yield quantitative information that can usefully supplement and precise the much rougher information provided by the Freedom House scores. We estimate that, depending on the depth and aspired to standards of the content analysis, this extra labor amount to anywhere between 100 and 600 hours of skilled labor for the coding of approximately 200 countries for a particular year. The required qualification is approximately that of a social science post-graduate student. The investment of additional labor could help countering the charge that the quantitative data gained this way simply reflects the opinion of the US administration. To further dissipate such charges, similar reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International can be used as checks and/or additional pieces of information on the same issues.

Using their raw material it may be possible to develop a set of indicators, each measured on a rather simple scale, perhaps as mere presence or absence of particular kinds of events, or perhaps operationalized by 0 (absent), 0.5 (somewhat present) and 1 (present). Since the country reports are not conducted by a single methodology and have different focus for different categories of countries, a more sensitive scale could be problematic, mainly because they register only present violations and rarely talk about improvements. Also, if something like extrajudicial execution, disappearances or torture exist then the number of victims is not so relevant for the state of democracy as the fact that those things do happen. The issue that can be important is whether those events are part of the system, whether they are policy instruments in some way and sanctioned by the government, or whether they are consequence of the unaccountable actions of individual government officials or agencies, and consequence of the lack of control over them. This could be distinction between 1 and 0.5. Maybe a higher score can also be added to indicate particularly frequent and big events that signify significant deterioration in conditions.

A similar content analysis was already carried out for 1980-1987 by Poe and Tate (1994), and the data set was later updated to include the years between 1988 and 1993. Two coders independently coded the State Department data on five-point scales and their coding showed a high degree of agreement (gamma .98), which suggests that the conversion of the State Department data into quantitative scores can indeed be done fairly reliably. Analyses reported by Poe and Tate (1994) show that the State Department reports tend to paint a somewhat less favorable picture about systems with left-wing governments than the parallel reports by Amnesty International, but it is certainly hard to tell which of the two sources have and exactly what kind of bias in evaluating the human rights record of different regimes.

The methodology of the reports themselves is as follows. Each year, the Secretary of State issues a press release on the state of the human rights in the world. The reports are prepared by each embassy of the United States. The embassies corroborate and gather information on human rights violations, state of democracy and the rights of workers. The sources are from all over the political spectrum including government officials, jurists, armed forces sources, journalists, human rights monitors, academics and labor activists.

The embassy issues a first draft that is sent to Washington and reviewed by the Bureau of Democracy. Human Rights, and Labor, together with the other State Departments corroborate analyze and edit the reports. This information is corroborated with sources from U.S., other human rights groups, foreign government officials, representatives from the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, experts from the media and academia. The principle is to ensure that all relevant information is included and objectively and thoroughly evaluated. That is why consultants on workers issues, military and police, women’s rights issues and legal ones are all taken into consideration.

There are no indexes to evaluate the performance of a country from one year to another. There are mostly descriptions of human rights situation as well as the state of democratic process. There are some guiding issues that are present in each evaluation and provide a basis of comparison between countries from one year to another.

First there is a description of the political institutions and general features of the countries. Then each of the following issues is discussed with explanations, examples and evaluations:

Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life – includes murder with the government involvement, killing by police forces or unintended killings made by police without due process of law.

b. Disappearance: this section covers cases where there is a political reason in which victims and perpetrators have not been found.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – this section takes into account physical, mental pain caused with intent. It also covers prison conditions.

d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile: covers situations when detainees are held by police without being charged or there is no public hearing before being charged.

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial – describes the judicial system and assesses the degree of independence the courts enjoy. It also takes into account whether trials are public and correct.

f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence – covers the right to receive foreign publications and to be free from state coercion like forced abortion and sterilization.

Section 2 covers Respect for Civil Liberties, including:

a. Freedom of Speech and Press – sees whether these freedoms exists and it describes them.

b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association – evaluates the ability of individuals to exercise these rights.

c. Freedom of Religion – describes the extent of government interference in the right of free worshipping any religious belief.

d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration and Repatriation – discusses the status of ‘refugees? and it includes the forced resettlement.

Section 3 covers Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government – this covers the freedom of political choice and citizens? ability to affect changing of laws.

Section 4 covers Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Non governmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights – discusses whether the state permits free functioning of human rights groups and whether there is any pressure on these groups.

Section 5 covers Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion, Disability, Language, or Social Status, addressing discrimination and abuses existent in regulations and laws and societal violence of women. It has subsections on homosexuals, women and children.

Section 6 covers the state of Worker Rights in the following fields:

a. The Right of Association
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
c. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor
d. Status of Child Labor Practices and Minimum Age for Employment
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
f. Trafficking in Persons

In each section there is a description of the legal framework as well as events that violated human rights. The report also contains how the legislation changed regarding human rights. It mentions the presence or absence of the legal framework on a human rights issue or human rights violation.

The 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are currently accessible at the http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/c1470.htm address. The main problem is that there is no coding procedure that can be used in quantitative analysis. The reports offer simple descriptions of different human rights violations. To compare one country to another by reading the whole material is a difficult task. Each year 5000 pages of reports are released. The analysis is qualitative and it catches the diversity of each context properly. The data could be used for a fine measurement tool of democratic performance. A major advantage is the predictable and prompt availability of the information: according to US federal law the country reports have to be submitted to Congress by February 25th each year.

The countries covered include the following:
Africa: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, Congo, Republic of, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

In East Asia and the Pacific: Australia, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, China (Includes Hong Kong and Macau), China (Taiwan only), East Timor, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of, Korea, Republic of, Laos, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Federated States of, Mongolia, Nauru, New Zealand, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Vietnam.

In Europe and Eurasia: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, The, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the Western Hemisphere: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela.

In the Near East and North Africa: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the occupied territories, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen.
In South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka.

http://sites.google.com/site/arturvictoria/

http://sites.google.com/site/cliparturvictori

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s energy policy spokesman Joachim? Pfeiffer said the new cabinet as early as 2010, a substantial reduction of subsidies on solar power company lines.

Pfeiffer told reporters in Berlin, since 2009, Germany’s solar power generation increased by 3,000 MW, while the global solar panel prices plummeting, which causes the government had to begin to reduce solar power electricity price subsidies.

“The Government will re-evaluate in 2011,” Renewable Energy Law “effect, but the solar power industry, electricity price subsidies will begin early next year to adjust.” Ruling in the new partnership with Merkel Liberal Democratic Party on the next four years after the end of the energy policy consultations, Pfeiffer revealed the news to the media.

Under “Renewable Energy Law”, the German grid companies to purchase solar electricity price is 0.43 euros per kWh (0.64 U.S. dollars). While with the solar panels and other production equipment at lower prices, subsidy reduction, but compared to normal power, or 0.2 euros per kWh is much higher. Tariff policy of the Liberal Democratic Party that has raised electricity prices in Germany, to slash the amount of subsidies.

Pfeiffer also said that the period of use of nuclear power plants has become the focus of debate right coalition cabinet. In 2002, SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder from the ruling party, Germany adopted a law on nuclear power plants. The Act requires nationwide to stop the construction of new nuclear power plants, nuclear power plants already running must also be closed in 2021. The early elections, center-right coalition that is that its nuclear policy in the new position, that for a long period of time to protect the German nuclear power is still an important means of energy supply balance. After the election a TV In his speech, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made it clear that nuclear energy is a “transition energy”, there will also be in Germany, “a period of time.” According to sources in Berlin, the use of nuclear power in Germany will be at least 8 to 10 years in the position of the Liberal Democratic Party on this issue the most active.

However, Merkel tendency will be held in May 2010 after the state elections announced a new policy on nuclear power development. She worried that the use of nuclear power plants to extend the period of 17 would lead to her own Christian Democratic Union / Christian Social Union lost the densely populated Rhine? Westphalia area ballot (in the region polls showed most voters opposed to nuclear power plant lifetime extension ), which will allow the CDU / CSU to become a minority in the Senate, hardly the smooth implementation of their political views. Liberal Democratic Party does not acknowledge this. LDP energy experts Goode? Popular view that the election is not a reason to postpone the decision, “the nuclear issue, the Government must make a decision early next year.”

Related topics: Heating industry: Do you worry about the heat it? Related Reading: Industry change the Government’s strong popularity of solar water heater Surprisingly Tieli Board cows were using solar water heater

Tea:’s Procuratorate, the first to benefit from using solar energy

We are high quality suppliers, our products such as China Removable Switch Sticker , China Removable Wall Stickers for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Wall Sticker Clock.

The United States is no longer the representative democracy our founders conceived because of a glaring flaw in our Constitution: it allows individuals to make a career of public office. This creates a critical conflict of interest for politicians between their own ambitions and their responsibility as representatives of the American people.

These “careerists” gradually lose their principles in acceding to campaign contributors, heeding opinion polls, and following their political party’s line. Career Congressional members, many of whom have been in office most of their adult lives, have usurped much of the sovereignty of the electorate. This has become a government of the people, by the politicians, and for the special interests, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln.

Self-serving, entrenched Republican and Democratic politicos create costly and harmful programs to secure votes. These programs increase Americans’ reliance upon the government, while diminishing our initiative, self-sufficiency, and self-esteem. The average employed American is paying higher payroll taxes than income taxes – for programs from which he or she may never be the beneficiary. These programs, such as unemployment insurance, welfare, Social Security, and Medicare, make recipients completely dependent on the government.

Incumbents seek “earmarks” and “pork” to reinforce their constituents’ loyalty at the polls. Earmarks are expenses that conference committees attach, without a vote by Congress, to approved spending bills. In 2004 and 2005, there were an astonishing 15,268 earmarks that squandered over $40 billion from the U.S. Treasury on non-essential projects, such as the infamous “Alaskan bridge to nowhere.” And in 2007, despite all the political posturing about reform, there was $10 billion of wasteful pork – with the House Appropriation Committee alone writing over $4 billion in earmarks as of November 2007. These funds would be better used to significantly reduce our national debt. Instead, members of both political parties indulge in this underhanded funding; self-serving legislators use their earmarks, an unnecessary waste our tax money, to support their ambitions to remain in office.

Legislators constantly battle to reach their goal of being part of the powerful, majority political party. Fortunately, the contentious battle between the parties has prevented the United States from becoming an oligarchy. Unfortunately, the polarizing battle for dominance has increased enmity to ethnic proportions. We have a dysfunctional government because the bitter partisanship precludes the ability to compromise. The mean-spirited pettiness of either minority party discredits the administration’s performance, blocks appointees, obstructs important legislation, and convenes endless committee hearings for harassing purposes. Sadly, we have no loyal opposition. The divisiveness, which conceals the theft of our sovereignty and the abuse of the legislators’ power, is so extensive that it affects the entire country. Unfortunately, we are so engrossed in this vitriolic rivalry between the political parties that we are unaware that career politicians are exploiting our government. We have been mislead into thinking that members of the opposing political party are the adversaries, while it is actually the career politicians, skillfully looking out for themselves, who are the bad guys. Politicians use the opposing political party as a scapegoat to divert the attention of voters from their own failings.

The art of leadership, as displayed by really great popular leaders in all ages, consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention into sections. – Adolph Hitler

We can eliminate the ability of office holders to make a career out of civil service by limiting each federal elected office to a single term and guarantee the perpetuation of our representative, democratic Republic.

Hello, I am bobby James from United States. By profession i am Professor of Social Studies. i have a long experience to write the articles about the politics and freedom.

The very low turn-out at the polls by the Tamils in Northeast Sri Lanka, clearly due to fear, mistrust and despise for these elections, have sent a clear message to the international community that they have hardly any faith in this Sri Lankan form of ethnic-majoritarian democracy and its mode of elections. The government of Sri Lanka in its attempt to justify it as a democratic government and to deceive the international community, imposed the election on Tamil people in an environment of oppression and occupation.

The Tamil people that participated in the election, however, have elected the political party, the Tamil National Alliance that has been championing for their legitimate political aspirations. While congratulating the elected members of the TNA, the President of GTF, Rev. Dr. S.J.Emmanuel said “the Tamil people have sent two messages very eloquently: one of them is that they do not believe in the Sri Lankan political system that is imposed on them, and the other is by electing a party that has been voicing for their freedom, they are conveying their desire for liberation.” He added “GTF will be working closely with TNA in addressing the day-to-day need of the Tamil people as well as their political aspirations.”

GTF calls upon the Tamil people to sink any differences caused by the election, and unite under the common goal of freedom. It calls upon the Tamil Diasporas and their organisations to unite and engage themselves with the international institutions and governments and work towards achieving a political resolution where all the peoples of the island can live peacefully side by side with freedom and dignity.

Media Contact:

Tel: +44 (0) 7958 590 196

Email: surensurendiran(at)globaltamilforum(dot)org

About GTF:

Global Tamil Forum is a consortium of Tamil organizations around the world. It harnesses the skills and the knowledge of the members of the forum, well-wishers and others including mainstream decision makers in the international governments, institutions and organizations with the aim of alleviating the sufferings of the Tamil community in the Island of Sri Lanka and to further their right to self determination within a democratic framework under pinned by the international law, its covenants and conventions. The forum was set-up in 2009 with the support of many International Tamil community organizations. For more information and our mission and vision statements please contact info(at)globaltamilforum(dot)org and/or visit: www.globaltamilforum.org

“In our country’s competitive campaign environment, candidates are hard-pressed to get their message to voters without a strategy that’s supported by a solid foundation of fundraising,” said Scott Dworkin, Founder & CEO, Bulldog Finance Group. “For years, fundraising has been a challenge for candidates and nonprofits because of its segmented and elusive nature. It’s our goal to mitigate the challenges around fundraising to make the process easy, efficient, cost-effective, and most importantly, results driven.”

Bulldog Finance Group utilizes a variety of modern strategies to scale beyond traditional fundraising tactics. In addition to call time and donor prospecting, the firm specializes in Internet marketing, social media networking, messaging and event execution. Furthermore, Bulldog Finance Group works daily with every division of a typical campaign structure, including the candidate and the communications, media and field teams to continuously provide counsel on opportunities to maximize the campaigns’ fundraising results.

Marty Stone, President of Stone’s Phones, and former Finance Director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee commented on the official launch of Bulldog: “I’ve worked with Bulldog Finance Group on multiple occasions and have always been impressed by their work and results. They truly bring a new attitude to Democratic fundraising.”

Bulldog Finance Group is already working with several candidates (http://www.bulldogfinancegroup.com/page/candidates)to bolster their fundraising efforts, including Larry Kissell (NC-08) for U.S. Congress, Rudy Moise (FL-17) for U.S. Congress and Lori Albin for Maryland State Assembly among others. The company also works with progressive causes (http://www.bulldogfinancegroup.com/page/causes), including the Young Democrats of America.

“Bulldog Finance Group is providing my campaign with an organized and efficient fundraising strategy,” said Rudy Moise, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Florida’s 17th Congressional District. “My entire Bulldog team is dedicated to the success of my candidacy.”

Bulldog Finance Group’s services include, but aren’t limited to:

• Development and execution of short-term and long-term finance plans

• National fundraising

• Personal network management

• National, state and local donor prospecting, activation and reactivation

• Database building/results tracking

• Candidate, staff and volunteer training

• PAC fundraising

• Compliance training and consulting

• Internet marketing/social media networking

• Efficiency & organization best practices

• Messaging and issue framing

For more information on Bulldog Finance Group, visit www.bulldogfinancegroup.com.

About Bulldog Finance Group:

Bulldog Finance Group specializes in fundraising for Democratic Party candidates and progressive causes at the local, state and federal levels. The firm’s unique mix of seasoned political, fundraising, campaign and communications experts enables it to help Democrats maximize their fundraising potential. Bulldog Finance Group represents first-time candidates, seasoned incumbents and nonprofits, among others. The firm provides its clients with national strategy, modern tactics and an organizational structure on the foundation of an efficient fundraising campaign. Expert fundraising specialist Scott Dworkin founded Bulldog Finance Group in 2009. For more information, visit www.bulldogfinancegroup.com.

Contact:

Evan Goldberg

Senior Vice President

Bulldog Finance Group

202-263-4628

evan(at)bulldogfinancegroup(dot)com

This press release has been reprinted from PRWEB

The focus of this year’s forum is “Reasserting diplomacy and mediation in a fragmented world”, focusing on the utility of mediation versus that of military force to resolve conflicts. How can mediation and diplomacy be made more relevant and effective? Issues will include experiences of negotiating with organised Islamist groups; assessments of the potential for dialogue in Afghanistan and Pakistan; and the threat of North Korea’s nuclear proliferation to peacemaking.

Participants will share their perspectives on conflict resolution and mediation in an informal setting behind closed doors.

The retreat will be inaugurated on 16 June 2009 with an opening speech by Liberian Foreign Minister, Olubanke King-Akerele. Participants to this year’s events include Jonas Gahr Store, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, President Olusegun Obasanjo, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary- General for the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Dr Surin Pitsuwan, Secretary-General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Mr Ahmed Abdisalam Adan, Former Deputy Prime Minister of Somalia, and Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Former United States Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs.

The event is co-hosted by the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Geneva-based mediation organisation, the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD Centre). It is part of a process known as the Oslo forum – an on-going series of informal and discreet retreats for those actively engaged in peace processes around the world. It features an annual global gathering in Oslo, Norway, and regional events in Asia and Africa.

Chatham House Rules prevail at the Oslo forum: the discussions are completely private and quotes during the meetings may not be attributed. However, some participants have agreed to be interviewed by journalists.

If you would like to arrange for an interview, for photographs of participants and the event or to know more about the work of the HD Centre, please contact Flore Brannon on +41 22 908 1157.

Participants:

Mr Ahmed Abdisalam Adan

Former Deputy Prime Minister of Somalia; Managing Partner & Director of Programs, HornAfrik Media Inc.

Dr Ziad Abu Amr

Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council

Mr Barney Afako

Legal Adviser to the Ugandan Peace Negotiations in Juba

Ambassador Yasushi Akashi

Representative of the Government of Japan on Peace-Building, Rehabilitation, and Reconstruction in Sri Lanka

Ambassador Hiruy Amanuel

Head, InterGovernmental Authority on Development Capacity Building Program against Terrorism

Ms Francesca Bomboko

Member of the Steering Committee, World Movement for Democracy; founder of the Bureau d’Etudes, de Recherche et de Consulting International

Ambassador Merete Brattested

Ambassador of Norway to the Kingdom of Thailand

Atty Sedfrey M Candelaria

Government of the Republic of the Philippines Panel Member, Peace Negotiating Panel for Talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines- National People’s Army- National Democratic Front

Mr John Carlin

Senior International Writer, El Pais

Dr Mohamed Ibn Chambas

Executive Secretary, Economic Community of West African States

Mr Luc Chounet-Cambas

Project manager, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Sir Robin Christopher

Secretary-General, Global Leadership Foundation

Mr Chris Coleman

Chief, Policy Planning and Mediation Support Unit, United Nations Department of Political Affairs

Professor Nieves Confesor

Panel Chairperson, Government of the Republic of the Philippines – Peace Negotiating Panel for Talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines- National People’s Army- National Democratic Front

Professor Chester Crocker

Professor of Strategic Studies, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

Mr Alastair Crooke

Co-Director and Founder, Conflicts Forum

Ambassador James Dobbins

Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center, Rand

Ms Lyse Doucet

Presenter, British Broadcasting Corporation World

Mr Jan Egeland

Director, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs

Mr Vegard Ellefsen

Political Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

The Honourable Gareth Evans

President, International Crisis Group

Professor Ezzedine Choukri Fishere

Distinguished Visiting Lecturer, Political Science Department, American University, Cairo

Ambassador Chas Freeman

Former President, Middle East Policy Council

Mr Hans Jacob Frydenlund

Deputy Director General and Head of the Africa II-section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Minister Jonas Gahr Store

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Norway

Mr David Gardner

Chief Leader Writer and Associate Editor, Financial Times

Mr Kenny Gluck

Senior Adviser, African Union/United Nations Joint Mediation Support Team

Mr David Gorman

Mediation Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Mr Vasu Gounden

Founder and Executive Director, African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes

Ambassador Thomas Greminger

Head, Political Affairs Division IV / Human Security, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland

Mr Martin Griffiths

Director, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Ambassador Tim Guldimann

Senior Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Advocate Mojanku Gumbi

Legal Adviser, South African Presidency

Ambassador Jon Hanssen-Bauer

Special Envoy for the Peace Process in Sri Lanka, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Ambassador Tore Hattrem

Ambassador of Norway to Sri Lanka

Ms Priscilla Hayner

Director, International Center for Transitional Justice, Geneva Office

Professor Nicholas Haysom

Director, Political and Peacekeeping Unit, Office of the United Nations Secretary-General

Mr Kamal Hyder

Correspondent, Al Jazeera International ( English )

Ambassador Mona Juul

Deputy Permanent Representative, Norwegian Mission to the United Nations in New York

Ambassador Bjørn Janis Kanavin

Head, Afghanistan/Pakistan Section, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Ambassador Denis Keefe

Ambassador of the United Kingdom to Georgia

Minister Olubanke King-Akerele

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Government of Liberia

Mr Pierre Krähenbühl

Director of Operations, International Committee of the Red Cross

Professor Radha Kumar

Director, Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Millia University,New Delhi

Ambassador Ramtane Lamamra

Peace and Security Commissioner, African Union

Mr James LeMoyne

Senior Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue; former Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General for Colombia

Mr Isaac Maposa

Director, The Zimbabwe Institute

Mr C Andrew Marshall

Deputy Director, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Mr Ian Martin

Head, United Nations Board of Inquiry into incidents in Gaza

Ambassador Haile Menkerios

United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs

President Olusegun Obasanjo

Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary-General for Democratic Republic of Congo Crisis

The Honourable Santa Okot

Member of the Lord Resistance Army Delegation; former Member of Parliament in Uganda

Ambassador Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah

Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Somalia

The Honourable Professor Ramasamy Palanisamy

Deputy Chief Minister of Penang, Malaysia

Mr Frank Pearl

High Commissioner for Peace, Colombia

Mr Geir Pedersen

Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Ambassador Thomas Pickering

Former United States Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs

Dr Surin Pitsuwan

Secretary-General, Association of Southeast Asian Nations

Mr Jonathan Powell

Senior Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Sir Kieran Prendergast

Senior Adviser, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue; former United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs

Ms Meredith Preston McGhie

Acting Regional Director for the Africa office, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Ms Elisabeth Rehn

Independent Expert, Crisis Management and Gender; former Minister of Defence, Finland

Mr Ying Rong

Vice President and Director of the South Asian Studies Center, China Institute of International Studies

Mr Carne Ross

Executive Director, Independent Diplomat

Ambassador Salim Ahmed Salim

Former Special Envoy on the Darfur Conflict, African Union; former Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity

Mr Tamrat Samuel

Director, Asia and the Pacific Division, United Nations Department of Political Affairs

Dr Johannes Schachinger

Mediation Focal Point, General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union

Dr Jennifer Schirmer

Senior Researcher and Director, Program on Armed Actors and Peace Dialogues, University of Oslo

Mr Michael Semple

Independent Analyst; former Deputy European Union Special Representative for Afghanistan

Ambassador Svein Sevje

Ambassador of Norway to Sudan

General Sir Rupert Smith

Former Deputy Supreme Commander Allied Powers Europe; former Deputy Supreme Commander, British Armed Forces

Minister Erik Solheim

Minister of the Environment and International Development, Norway

Mr Tomas Stangeland

Assistant Director General, Section for Peace and Reconciliation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Professor Stephen Stedman

Professor of Political Science and Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University

Lt General Lazaro K Sumbeiywo ( rtd )

Chief Executive Officer, Moi Africa Institute; former Special Envoy for the Inter Governmental Authority on Development Peace Process in Sudan

Dr Azzam Tamimi

Director, Institute of Islamic Political Thought

Ambassador Roeland van de Geer

European Union Special Representative for the African Great Lakes Region

Dr Michael Vatikiotis

Asia Regional Director, Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Ambassador Francesc Vendrell

Diplomat in residence; visiting professor, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University; former European Union Special Representative for Afghanistan

Mr Johan Vibe

Deputy Director General and Head of the Section for Peace and Reconciliation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway

Ms Teresa Whitfield

Senior Fellow and Director of United Nations Strategy, Centre on International Cooperation, New York University

Mr Rahimullah Yusufzai

Editor, The News International, Peshawar

The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue is an independent organisation dedicated to improving the global response to armed conflict. It mediates directly between belligerents and helps others to do the same. The HD Centre is active in approximately 15 conflicts around the world, some of which are necessarily confidential.

###

This press release has been reprinted from PRWEB

The Department of State and the US Embassy in Colombo, Sri Lanka compiled the report based on the limited information that was available at the time due to tight restrictions on freedom of movement and access. The report stated, “there are allegations that GSL (Government of Sri Lanka) restrictions on access were part of a systematic attempt to hide violations of IHL (International Humanitarian Law) and human rights abuses. Some governments and organizations that were contacted during the preparation of this report indicated that they have additional information that may pertain to relevant incidents but were unwilling to provide it at this time for a variety of reasons, including fears for the safety of their sources.” USTPAC fears that it is very likely that there are many more atrocities against the Tamil people that have not yet been brought to light and urges the authorities to obtain the complete story.

Key Findings

It is important to highlight the key findings in the report, which clearly show:

• There have been tensions between the Tamils and the Sinhalese, the two major communities in Sri Lanka, since Sri Lanka gained independence in 1948. The Sinhalese-dominated Government of Sri Lanka and their mono-ethnic Sinhala military forces have been battling Tamil separatist militants since 1976 and have directed a large number of their attacks against the Tamil population as a whole in the Northeastern province.

• The vast majority of the alleged crimes were committed by the Government of Sri Lanka and its agents. This is in total violation of the role and responsibility of a state-actor in an internal conflict, including application of the Principles of Distinction and Proportionality. These crimes constitute violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and various treaties, protocols, and conventions to which the Government of Sri Lanka is a party.

• The deliberate and intentional nature of attacks against known civilian targets and the utter disregard for Tamils’ well-being by the Sri Lankan armed forces. The events and incidents reported clearly make a strong case for IHL violations and crimes against humanity directed at the Tamil population as a whole. Even worse, the GSL (Govt. of Sri Lanka) directed the Tamil population to seek refuge in GSL-designated “no fire zones,” but is alleged to have fired into these “no fire zones.” The GSL declared a 48-hour ceasefire to allow civilians to leave the “no fire zone,” but arbitrarily cut short the ceasefire period and began firing.

• Government of Sri Lanka forces killed captives and combatants seeking to surrender. Even more shocking, the military forces killed combatants after the combatants reached a surrender agreement with the government.

• The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the Tamil militant separatist group engaged in child recruitment and forcibly prevented the escape of IDPs, further exasperating the plight of the Tamil people. Even though the LTTE was not recognized as a state actor, the LTTE as a party to the US, EU, Japan and Norway-brokered 2002 ceasefire agreement with the GSL was required to comply with IHL requirements.

• The systematic denial of essential goods and services to Tamil regions, including food and medicine, aimed at the weakening and destruction of the Tamil civilian population. The description of the inhumane conditions that Tamils of the region are undergoing is one of deliberately induced starvation, malnutrition, lack of medical care, disease, and deaths. Again, these are IHL violations and crimes against humanity directed at the Tamil population.

• Large-scale, arbitrary and extra-judicial arrests, torture, killings, and disappearances of Tamils. The Government of Sri Lanka and its armed forces have acted with shocking impunity in deliberately and intentionally eliminating large numbers of Tamil civilians. These are very serious violations of IHL and systematic crimes against humanity directed against the Tamil people.

Other Recent Similar Reports

It is worth noting that this report from the Department of State is fourth in a series of recent reports all depicting serious violations of human rights and crimes against humanity committed by the Government of Sri Lanka against the Tamil people.

• The EU Commission Report on Human Rights Conditions in Sri Lanka, October 19, 2009. (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/october/tradoc_145152.pdf)

• The Human Rights Watch reports, for instance September 22, 2009. (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/09/22/sri-lanka-world-leaders-should-demand-end-detention-camps)

• Amnesty International Bulletin urging the release of all people held in IDP camps, October 8, 2009. (http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/sri-lanka-displaced-now-trapped-between-military-and-impending-monsoon-2)

• The International Crisis Group, “The Situation in Sri Lanka”, October 1, 2009. (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=6335&l=1)

Not the first time

While the events described in the Department of State report are terrible in their own right, it must not be forgotten that IHL violations and crimes against humanity have been directed against Tamils in Sri Lanka for decades by the GSL’s armed forces and paramilitaries. There has been essentially no effort expended to-date by the Government of Sri Lanka to bring perpetrators of crimes against Tamils to justice. Instead, these criminal methods have become tools in an effort to subjugate and marginalize Tamils, Tamil identity, and Tamil culture in Sri Lanka, along with ethnic cleansing, colonization of the Tamil homeland and forced assimilation.

Accountability

“There are two ways such crimes can be prevented in the future. One is accountability for past crimes, and the second is solving the underlying root causes of the conflict. Having documented these serious violations, our Government cannot conduct business as usual with Sri Lanka,” said the USTPAC spokesperson.

USTPAC endorses the calls made by Human Rights Watch(Link: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/22/sri-lanka-us-war-crimes-report-details-extensive-abuses ) urging our Government and Congress to act on the report’s findings. Specifically, USTPAC calls for:

• The crimes against humanity aimed at Tamils in Sri Lanka must be investigated by a UN agency or an international independent commission, followed by an international effort undertaken to bring all perpetrators and instigators of such crimes to justice.

• The US should impose restrictions on all financial aid and other assistance to Sri Lanka until such commission’s work is complete and any subsequent judicial proceedings have reached logical conclusion. The US should also revoke any special trade status granted to Sri Lanka and refrain from promoting investments in Sri Lanka.

Solving the Underlying Root Causes of the Conflict

The second and equally important initiative to prevent future crimes against Tamils in Sri Lanka is to solve the underlying root causes of the conflict.

The report identified some of the root causes where it says, “[following the colonial period, which was characterized by perceived British favoritism toward Tamils, the Sinhalese majority government enacted a series of nationalistic laws, one of which made Sinhala the official language in 1956. That same year more than 100 Tamils were killed in widespread violence after Tamil parliamentarians protested the new laws. A law enacted in 1972 made Buddhism the nation’s primary religion. Most Tamils are Hindu.”

The USTPAC urges the US Government and Congress to take bold steps and lead a UN effort to study the conflict’s origins, define a framework for a solution, and help monitor its implementation and enforcement. “Our government must change its policy toward Sri Lanka, from support for what we have considered a friendly, democratic state, to action that will persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to end crimes against the Tamils, bring justice for those wronged and completely restructure the state to allow for a Tamil voice, preservation of the Tamil identity and full participation for Tamils in the life of the society,” said the spokesperson for USTPAC.

In the past our government has taken bold steps to resolve similar ethnic conflicts in Northern Ireland and Kosovo and recently began playing a leadership role in Kashmir, Somalia and Darfur. It is USTPAC’s hope that our government will review the findings of this report with Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh during his visit to Washington DC this November and take a lead role to help steer a solution to address the Tamils legitimate grievances, as well as bring peace and prosperity to both the Tamils and Sinhalese communities.

For further information call 202 595 3123.