fufor's unregelmässige news

The Third Way: Belarus on International Affairs
Sergei Martynov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus
at the Non-Aligned Movement Ministerial Meeting on
Human Rights and Cultural Diversity,
September, 2007

This speech is one of many issued by ministers of the present government of Belarus to the world on the question of Human Rights. Today, particularly in the American academic world, Human Rights is normally a synonym for the causes on which the likes of George Soros place his money. Human Rights is a synonym for power, the power of the western liberal and internationalist world to impose its capitalist and consumerist pseudo-mortality on the world. This is done to lap up the tremendous productive capacity of the western world, where markets at home are absolutely exhausted through bizarre and irrational debt spending.

China just last week dumped more dollars on the world market. This was timed precisely when the American economy is slowing down, and just in time to elect the System’s candidate, Mr. Obama. Mr. Martynov’s statements, issued early in September, 2007, are also timed to coincide with this serious rupture in the American economy, upon which hangs American power and the fickle American populations support of the present System, vulgarly symbolized in the popular mind by “The President.”

Without understanding money and its relationship to “the mainstream,” one understands nothing about American or global politics. The western model of the state is “reactive,” that is, it is dominated by private capital (quite literally, since many government functions, are now farmed out to private firms), which acts unchecked in spreading its ideology worldwide. Therefore, in speaking of the world order, one is speaking of one dominated by capital, and those lackeys who seek to serve it in exchange for recognition, comfort and “prestige.”

Capital is global, in that is recognized no boundaries among ethnicities. It’s consumerist mode relies on a moral system of a vague “relativity,” so as to justify irrational patterns of behavior, now institutionalized in the mad rush over credit in the west. It violently rejects nationalism in that nationalists, specifically of a social-nationalist variety (as one might see in Burma, Belarus or Venezuela today), seek to create walls between its own responsibilities to its ethnic partners and that of consumerist capital. The Cold War was not a war against Marxism per se, as the western powers openly supported Marxism prior to World War II, but the national independence movements launched by social-nationalism, ones mixing a communal economic system with ethnic integrity and tradition. These are the worst nightmare of the monopolist: hence the hysterical denunciation from the establishment funded “left” and “right” against the countries mentioned above, countries, non-coincidentally, .that make up the heart of the social-nationalist and non-aligned movements–MRJ

***

Dear Colleagues,

The subject of this meeting, “Human Rights and Cultural Diversity,” has an immediate relation to the current geopolitical situation and is of great importance for Belarus, as well as for other countries of NAM [the Non-Aligned Movement–ed].

The world has not become more stable or secure after the collapse of the bipolar system. On the contrary, the world has lost its checks and balances. Today, the only center of power keeps on striving to shape the world according to its own self-interests and to impose its own ready-made pattern of development to be imported by other countries.

This is obviously a dead-end track. The ambition to construct a unipolar world based on forced usurpation of power through military superiority, on striving to control natural resources made it abundantly clear that such an approach lacks either grounds or prospects. We are convinced that the potential of the unipolar world is close to be exhausted, and the existing center of power will be unable to guarantee a long-term extrapolation of such a world order.

The Non-Aligned Movement is both able and warranted to encourage democratization of international relations. We should work together for a more fair multipolar world where there is a worthy place for all nations, big and small, developed and developing. The Non-Aligned Movement should acknowledge for itself, and press home to the others, a clear notion: such a world is not a matter of distant future, but a real world of immediate tomorrow for the global community.

Recognizing the right of countries for a diversity of ways to progress is an important starting point to forming such a multipolar system of international relations.

Our Movement truly embodies a diversity of political, economic, social and cultural systems of the world. Our primary task at present is not only to preserve our diversity for future generations, but also to transform it into a factor of power and role of the NAM. We are grateful to all the Non-Aligned Movement Members who have supported the appeal of His Excellency Alexander Lukashenko, President of the Republic of Belarus, at the 2005 World Summit and joined us in efforts to actively promote the principle of recognizing at the international level the diversity of ways to progress.

We in Belarus firmly believe: respect for diversity of values and cultures is a key to the universal respect for human rights. Human rights are not extraneous to any modern culture. Human rights are inherent for all nations. There is no doubt, that human rights and freedoms are a fundamental value of a democratic society. Their respect, and ensuring, is a clean feature of a state of the rule of law. However, imposing of political and economic sanctions, interference into internal affairs and enforcing a single model of democracy will never allow to achieve universal respect, for and effective protection of, human rights. It is high time to understand that democracy does not have universal forms, and democratic “standards” being imposed today might not be suitable for all the states.

Some states are striving to prove their superiority over the rest of the world by coercive measures. This does not entail anything but negative consequences for human rights. We must resist such measures with determination as they are incompatible with the international law and the UN Charter.

Belarus is firmly convinced, international co-operation in the field of human rights must be based on the principles of dialogue and equal partnership. These principles are embodied in the key documents of the Non-Aligned Movement. These very principles were taken by our delegation as guidance at the 61st session of the UN General Assembly, when Belarus initiated the adoption of the resolution “Promotion of equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on human rights.” We are grateful to NAM Member States for their full support for the said resolution.

Belarus stands for further advancement in the United Nations of the NAM basic human rights approaches. This will allow to fortify the first steps made in the Human Rights Council towards restoring the letter and spirit of the UN Charter in the field of human rights.

The principled stand of the NAM was instrumental in the adoption of important decisions in the UN human rights activity. The Non-Aligned Movement was able to succeed in protecting its interests in the institutional building of the Human Rights Council, in particular in rationalization of the special rapporteurs activities. This is a significant example of our abilities and assets. It proves that NAM Member States can consolidate decisions on important issues.

At the same time we must honestly admit, the Movement sometimes fails to demonstrate genuine solidarity. From time to time our opponents use our existing differences quite effectively to undermine the unity of NAM. Such attempts are taken year in and year out at the sessions of the UN General Assembly. This year is not going to be an exception either. At the forthcoming UN General Assembly session some countries may try to sow the seeds of strife among us and arrange a show flogging of countries, which afford to conduct independent domestic and foreign policy.

We must stand up strongly for political protection of the NAM Members subjected to external pressure. Otherwise there is only one option: we will be “pulled apart” one by one. And the next time those who kept silence or took compromising attitude may become an objective of such pressures themselves.

Many challenges threaten human rights today, one of the most outrageous of them being the widening economic gap between the rich and the poor and unprecedented poverty growth caused by present world economic order.

During the NAM Summit in Havana the Republic of Belarus, not by chance, stressed the need to enhance economic cooperation among our countries, members of the movement. We have all which is necessary to provide stable economic growth and development to the NAM Member States (human, financial and natural resources, knowledge and technology). If we manage to use them efficiently to the benefit of all our countries, then we could live without arrogant and politically motivated economic aid. Economic growth, raising the standard of living will allow us to satisfy the social and economic needs of people and to create necessary conditions for full enjoyment of their social, economic and civil rights. The NAM should, for this purpose, continue its strategic course for strengthening and expansion of South – South cooperation.

To strengthen significantly the role and authority of the NAM in international issues an active and consistent work of the NAM Chair and Troika is extremely important. We are grateful to Cuba and current Troika members for their valiant and active promotion of this cause. It is essential to keep the established pace of work.

We welcome furthered steps in this direction, particularly, creation of the NAM Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity in Tehran. We also come out in favor of expansion of the NAM Chair and Troika activities in establishing contacts with other large blocks and unions of states (the EU, G-8 and others). Such steps will meaningfully contribute to the Movement strengthening and its coming into being as an independent world center of political force, which should be our common goal.

Distinguished Mister Chairman,

A year ago at the Summit in Havana, we verified our positions and defined the main course of development for our Movement. Heads of our States and Governments adopted a comprehensive document as the Movement’s program for the forthcoming years. Our main task now is to implement these agreements in full measure, not merely to leave them on paper. Only two conditions are needed: genuine responsibility for the world’s future and political will to act. Together only we are able to defend our common values effectively, to resist foreign dictates, military threats, unfounded sanctions and economic discrimination.
http://tinyurl.com/26wtnl

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007

THE JEWISH REVOLT: CALIGULA VS. THE JEWS
by Constantin von Hoffmeister

According to the "Cambridge Ancient History," the Great Jewish Revolt started in 66 A.D. after the procurator Gessius Florus confiscated seventeen talents from the Temple. This ill-advised action on the part of the Roman occupant resulted in a protest by the Jews and a subsequent riot. Afterwards, Gessius allowed one of his cohorts to plunder parts of Jerusalem. This really set off a general revolt.

Naturally, the Jews also strived to attain equal rights of citizenship. They wanted to have the same status as the Gentile populace. The Zealots were a group of Jewish radicals (nowadays, the apt term to describe them would probably be "terrorists"). The Zealots believed that all means were justified to achieve the ends they envisioned and desired - namely, social justice and an end to Roman colonial oppression.

The Jews' anti-Roman sentiments were actually triggered much earlier. When Caligula was Emperor in 39 A.D., he declared himself a deity. He demanded that all religions should put a statue of his likeness in their respective places of worship. Naturally, the Jews, alone in the whole Empire, refused this imperial mandate. The reason was simple. They did not want to defile their Temple with a non-Jewish deity. Caligula was furious and threatened the Jews with punishment. Only his sudden death saved the Jews from Caligula's wrath.

According to "The World History of the Jewish People: The Herodian Period," "The memory of Caligula's decrees and the fear of a renewed threat of similar calamities henceforth cast a shadow on Judeo-Roman relations." (Avi-Yonah 139) It is quite clear that Caligula's act seems to have been unprecedented and was a grave strategic mistake. However, it does not seem odd when one considers that Caligula did not see his own divinity as symbolic (as previous Roman Emperors had) but rather as real. This fact makes Caligula's decision more understandable in a psychological sense, but it still seems puzzling as to why he would go to such lengths to have it imposed.

In "History of the Jews," Professor Graetz quotes Caligula's response to the Jews' refusal to have his statue erected (directed at some Judaean envoys), "So you are the despisers of God, who will not recognize me as the deity, but who prefer worshipping a nameless one, whilst all my other subjects have accepted me as their god." (187) This sums up the general attitude that the Gentile world had towards the Jews. The Gentiles were keenly aware that the Jews seemed to be exempt from many regulations that applied to the former. This obvious double-standard was a major factor in causing a rift between the Jews and the Gentiles. Caligula, the self-proclaimed "Godhead of Rome," simply voiced a concern that seemed to be rather prevalent at the time. Namely, that the Jews were fomenting dissent because of their traditions that seemed to be out of touch with the rest of the multi-ethnic Empire.

Caligula then continues in mocking the Jews' seemingly "strange" customs (obviously in order to amuse his fellow Pagans), "How is it that you do not eat pig's flesh, and upon what grounds do you hold your right of equality with the Alexandrians?" (Graetz 187) It is readily apparent that Caligula, like most Romans, did not view the Jews as equals, but rather as something alien, something hostile to the majority religions and traditions. It is precisely because of this attitude that the Roman Emperor seemed to have made the decision to test the Jews' willingness to submit to majority rule, meaning to bow down to the will of the Emperor - and therefore the will of the Roman state embodied within him. And, as it turned out, the Jews failed the test and Caligula was hurt in his pride and his affirmation that the Empire was supposedly unequivocally unified.

In "The Jewish War," Josephus Flavius wrote, "Now Caius Caesar did so grossly abuse the fortune he had arrived at, as to take himself to be a god, and to desire to be so called also, and to cut off those of the greatest nobility out of his country. He also extended his impiety as far as the Jews." (81) It is clear that Josephus was biased in his views concerning Caligula. The main reason for this bias is most probably the fact that Josephus was Jewish himself. Clearly, Josephus had a natural allegiance to his own tribe. Therefore, Josephus is quick in denouncing Caligula as "impious." By choosing such vocabulary, Josephus makes it abundantly clear that the Jews have the moral high ground since they - as opposed to the "crazy" Roman Pagan Caligula - must be the only "pious" people.

Ironically, it is precisely this kind of arrogance that made the Jews the target for Caligula's (and his fellow Romans') derision in first place! One could therefore argue that the Jews created the animosity that they feared themselves. The Jews' seemed to be incapable of compromise to save themselves or their traditions. It is henceforth not surprising that Caligula (as the individual deistic personification of the Empire as a whole) demanded that the Jews submit themselves or else be destroyed.

As Josephus wrote, "Accordingly, [Caligula] sent Petronius with an army to Jerusalem, to place his statues in the temple, and commanded him that in case the Jews would not admit of them, he should slay those that opposed it, and carry all the rest of the nation into captivity; but God concerned himself with these his commands." (81) Again, Josephus proves his Semitic bias with the last part of the quote. According to him, the Jewish God did not approve of Caligula's actions. This, in Josephus' eyes, must mean that the Romans' actions run diametrically opposed to God's record of approval. Again, the Jews' self-chosen exclusion from the all-encompassing society of Imperial Rome proves that they themselves could be held responsible for the reprising actions that Rome undertook against them.

One has to keep in mind that, before Caligula, "in the past, every emperor had shown considerable sympathy for Jewish rights." (Avi-Yonah 136) This shows that anti-Jewish sentiments were not at all endemic within Roman society. On the contrary, it seems that despite the Jews' continuous demands for special privileges, the various Roman Emperors remained exceedingly tolerant of the "chosen" tribe in Palestine, despite the Jews' intransigent insistence on their "special status." One cannot be surprised to learn that an Emperor of Caligula's caliber, a megalomaniac egocentric and a fiercely proud Pagan, turned the table by finally demanding that the Jews be on equal terms with the rest of the Empire.

Avi-Yonah says, "The emperor's insistence on his own divinity gave the anti-Jewish inhabitants of Egypt and Palestine a new occasion to denounce Jews." (137) Of course, since Avi-Yonah is a Jew he will not lay blame on his own people. Rather, he accuses the Egyptians and Palestinians of harboring an anti-Jewish bias that found a new way to vent itself with the Jews' refusal to bow down to Caligula's demands. One wonders why Avi-Yonah does not explain why the inhabitants of Egypt and Palestine were "anti-Jewish" in first place. It seems that it is precisely the Jews' refusal to incorporate themselves into the public domain that made the Gentiles behave antagonistically towards them. The "Caligula incident" was merely one example of Jewish arrogance.

In "The Jews in the Roman World," Michael Grant argues, "Nor, probably, did the Alexandrian Jews themselves altogether lack responsibility for this sharp worsening of relations with the Greeks. For, although their propagandist Philo does not tell us so, it seems that a modernist party among them, not content with its community's existing privileges, was also demanding - and perhaps partially usurping - the Alexandrian citizenship which, except as far as a few individuals were concerned, had always been reserved for the Greeks." (122)

This quote sums up the emblematic nature of the Jews' ever-increasing demand for privileges, warranted or not. On the one hand, the Jews were demanding that they be viewed as a separate entity, apart from the rest of Roman World while, on the other hand, they felt entitled to enjoy all the privileges that a regular citizen had - without sharing in the duties, of course. Grant even says that the Jews demanded these citizen rights in a "usurious" manner. This must have aggravated the Greeks' proud conscience of their noble heritage quite a bit. One could argue that the Greeks were justified in feeling that the Jews were asking for more than the Greeks themselves were entitled to.

Furthermore, Grant argues that the "Jews wanted to have an equal share in this communal citizenship, not only for reasons of prestige but because this would exempt them from the hated provincial poll-tax, which the Greeks were not required to pay." (122) It is poignant that the Jews were demanding material gains while at the same time shirking the duties that come along with this benefit. Hence, it was perfectly natural for the Greeks to protest the Jews' behavior as it was in clear violation of the equal rights of citizens. Why would the Greeks have to obey the emperor's demands while the Jews were refusing to do likewise?

It seems only fair (from the Greeks' point of view) that "the Greeks invaded the Jewish quarter itself and, forcing their way into its synagogues, erected statue a statue of Caligula in every one of them." (Grant 123) This act, as aggressive as it sounds, was a logical one. Not only did it manifest the Greeks' unswerving loyalty to the "divine" Emperor of Rome, it also showed their utter disdain and disapproval of the Jews' contempt for the imperial order and the natural state of affairs between the various subject peoples and Rome.

Grant argues that the Greeks' action "was an act of profanation, but one which the emperor's uncertain temperament made it difficult for the Jews to protest against." (123) While this statement might be true to some extent, it seems more likely that the Jews could hardly protest because they knew that they were in the wrong. After all, it was they that denied the overarching importance of imperial unity by adamantly obeying their own laws while ignoring the ones dictated by the majority.

In "A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy," Kevin MacDonald says "that Jewish political activity against the Romans often included threats of martyrdom if external signs of Roman domination were not removed from Jerusalem and the Temple. Only the Jews, of all Rome's subject peoples, were exempted from having to sacrifice to the Empire's gods (...)" (232) This quote serves to exemplify the Jews' (and especially, the Zealots') willingness to go to extreme lengths to achieve their objective, meaning their exclusive status of possessing "divine" rights that no other peoples deserve (from the Jews' perspective). Again, one can hardly blame the Greeks for acting the way they did. After all, the Greeks were only trying to prevent the Jews from usurping too much power in a realm that the Jews had no authority to put themselves into - namely, above other peoples.

MacDonald continues, "While this type of altruistic fanaticism [the Jews'] is highly compatible with a group evolutionary strategy perspective as developed here, such fanaticism seems excessive even within this context. [This] indicate[s] an extremely ingrained sense of national identity and ethnic separatism." (232) This statement might sound a little extreme, but it explicates quite simply that the Jews in Roman times where an in-group that not only refused to tolerate the influence of the outside world, but it also refused to acknowledge the laws that governed its own existence. No matter what the Jews of that period claimed, it remains an indisputable fact that they were "outside of mainstream society," both within the matrix of the Roman Empire itself and the realm of its various colonies.

In "A History of the Jews," Abram Leon Sachar writes, "This extraordinary compactness, preserved decade by decade in a day of easy assimilation, often drew upon the Jews the reproach of exclusiveness. The Greek grammarian and commentator on Homer, Apion, was never tired of reiterating this charge against the Jews, and, in 38 B.C. (sic), he headed a delegation of Alexandrians to complain to the Roman emperor, Caligula, that the Jews were haters of mankind. (...) Apion's charges were widely believed." (108)

This quote shows the extent to which Gentiles were willing to go to prove that the Jews were a menace to the majority populace of the Roman Empire. Apion did not have to convince most people that the charges he brought against the Jews were based on the truth. At least, this is what most Romans, Greeks and others believed. It was the behavior and alienating customs of the Jews that created the impression that they were "above the law." This is why they were universally despised and not trusted. Certainly, the Jews themselves did not do a lot, in terms of compromises and forthcomings, to alleviate this precarious state of affairs.

In "The History of Israel," Martin Noth says that "only the members of the religious community of Jerusalem would not and could not take part in the worship of the Emperor. For adopting this attitude they were hated by the others. " (423) It is hard not to realize the condescending attitude of this paragraph. The use of the word "others" automatically denigrates all Gentiles as being merely an amalgam of people that did nothing but persecute the seemingly "innocent" Jews. This sums up the general attitude of the Jews in the time of Caligula as well. They believed that they were justified in separating themselves from the rest of mankind, but they expected everybody else to treat them as "equals." This schizophrenic attitude (living separate but wanting to be equal) of the Jews did not work out for their benefit. On the contrary, it brought destruction on them and the peoples they came in contact with.

Bibliography

Avi-Yonah and Zvi Baras. "The World History of the Jewish People:
The Herodian Period." New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975.
Flavius, Josephus. "The Jewish War." Israel: Steimatzky, 1982.
Graetz, H. "History of the Jews." Philadelphia: The Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1902.
Grant, Michael. "The Jews in the Roman World." Dorset Press, 1984.
MacDonald, Kevin. "A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a
Group Evolutionary Strategy." Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1994
Noth, Martin. "The History of Israel." New York: Harper & Brothers,
1958.
Sachar, Abram Leon. "A History of the Jews." New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1935.
(yahoo.group)

The end of the plug? Scientists invent wireless device that beams electricity through your home
Friday June 8, 2007
DAVID DERBYSHIRE

Scientists have sounded the death knell for the plug and power lead.

In a breakthrough that sounds like something out of Star Trek, they have discovered a way of 'beaming' power across a room into a light bulb, mobile phone or laptop computer without wires or cables.

In the first successful trial of its kind, the team was able to illuminate a 60-watt light bulb 7ft away.

The team from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who call their invention 'WiTricity', believe it could change the way we use electricity and do away with the tangle of cables, plugs and chargers that clutter modern homes.



It could also allow the use of laptops and mobile phones without batteries.

The inspiration came when the lead researcher, Dr Marin Soljacic, was standing in his kitchen at night staring at his mobile phone.

"It was probably the sixth time that month that I was awakened by my cell phone beeping to let me know that I had forgotten to charge it. It occurred to me that it would be so great if the thing took care of its own charging," he said.

To turn this dream into reality, Dr Soljacic needed a way of transmitting power wirelessly.

Scientists have known for nearly two centuries that it is possible to transfer an electrical current from one coil of wire to another without them touching.

The phenomenon, called electromagnetic induction, is used in power transformers and electric motors around the world.

However, the coils in motors and transformers have to be close for power to pass from one to another. Attempting to transfer power over distances is impossible.

The breakthrough came when Dr Soljacic realised there was another way of transferring energy through the air.

Rather than sending power from a transmitter to a receiver as a conventional electromagnetic wave - the same form of radiation as light, radio waves and microwaves - he could use the transmitter to fill a room with a 'non-radiative' electromagnetic field.

Most objects in the room - such as people, desks and carpets - would be unaffected by the electromagnetic field. But any objects designed to resonate with the electromagnetic field would absorb the energy.

It sounds complicated, but the result demonstrated by the American team this month was a dramatic success. Using two coils of copper, the team transmitted power 7ft through the air to a light bulb, which lit up instantly.

The scientists say the technique works only over distances of up to 9ft. However, they believe it could be used to charge up a battery within a few yards of the power source connected to a receiving coil.

Placing one source in each room could provide enough power for an entire house.

The receiver and transmitter would not have to be in view of each other.

Professor Peter Fisher, another of the researchers, said: "As long as the laptop is in a room equipped with a source of wireless power, it would charge automatically without having to be plugged in. In fact, it would not even need a battery to operate inside such a room."


The researchers believe there is little to worry about on safety grounds, saying that magnetic fields interact weakly with living organisms and are unlikely to have any serious side effects.

Dr Soljacic said: "When my son was about three years old, we visited his grandparents' house. They had a 20-year-old phone and my son picked up the handset asking, 'Dad, why is this phone attached with a cord to the wall?' That is the mindset of a child growing up in a wireless world.

"Hopefully we will be getting rid of some more wires and batteries soon."
http://tinyurl.com/2f8hkj