Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Canada to boycott UN Durban race declaration event

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-25-10 05:57 PM
Original message
Canada to boycott UN Durban race declaration event
Source: Agence France Presse

Canada will not participate in events next year at the United Nations commemorating the 2001 Durban Declaration on racism, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced Thursday.

"Our government has lost faith in the Durban process," he told a press conference. "We will not be part of this event, which commemorates an agenda that promotes racism rather than combats it."

Nine governments including Canada, the United States, Australia, Israel, Germany and Britain boycotted last year's Durban II talks because of fears of anti-semitism. Kenney claimed that those fears were fulfilled when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the conference as a platform to launch a virulent attack on Israel.

Ahmadinejad's speech sparked a temporary walkout by delegates of 23 European states, and overshadowed the core issue of rising racism, discrimination and xenophobia.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hH70lGTXcEObqHYp55UuwmXdIuNQ?docId=CNG.8a715e6abb8e8888f916a64a424e6b92.5a1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-25-10 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Durbin 1 wuzn't nuthin' but shit and Durbin 2 won't be nuthin' but shit, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYMdaveNYI Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-25-10 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. Canada has the right idea. They
usually do, like how they give their citizens healthcare, and all.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-25-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. +1000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L.Torsalo Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-26-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. EEEdjit.
Canada has become a pale mirror of the USA. So progressive is Canada that retirees who live outside Canada now have to fork over some 25% of their pension income; just because they live outside Canada. It's become a shitty place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-25-10 08:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-26-10 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. This is a bit extreme. Trouble to whom? Alexander the Great when he invaded?
Edited on Fri Nov-26-10 12:50 AM by McCamy Taylor
Trouble to the Mongols when they invaded? Trouble to the Ottomans? Maybe trouble to the British or the US?

Persia has been the victim of one invader after the other. Right now US oil companies want its oil. That is why we keep threatening Iran.

How many attacks has North Korea launched on our allies? How many times has the US ignored this deliberate provocation. And yet, Japan is well within rocket range, same as Israel is to Iran and Japan is probably more important to US economic wellbeing than Israel. So, why don't we have a bunch of people demanding that we invade North Korea? Easy. North Korea has no oil.

I am amazed that DU allows this sort of blanket condemnation of a whole culture. You write

"fuck the Persians...been trouble makers for thousands of years....
this tribal shit is really getting old".

Care the take some cheap shots at the Irish? Maybe the Japanese?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HEyHEY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-26-10 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. That said, stay outta their way and they usually stay outta yours
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-26-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. When last did the "Persians" invade another country
that didn't invade them first? Or when last did they overthrow a US President or a British PM and install a dictator who tortured his opponents and made sure to direct revenues from US or British industry back to Iran?

In the 1950s the CIA and MI6 conspired to overthrow the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh because he was threatening to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, then under tight control by the British using the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, later to become that outstanding corporate citizen known as British Petroleum - much loved and respected by many Americans, I'm sure.

As a result of the CIA/MI6 conspiracy, the Shah was placed on the throne as a dictator and his notorious and much feared secret police, the SAVAK were trained in the fine art of torturing and executing the Shah's opponents by CIA and Israeli experts, and the oil profits continued to flow to the West. Unfortunately for them, the Brits had to give up their monopoly on Iranian oil and share it with the US for the US assistance provided in subverting democracy.


A 'great venture', overthrowing the government of Iran
by Mark Curtis From Lobster 30

This is a slightly abridged version of part of chapter four of Mark Curtis's book The Ambiguities of Power: British Foreign Policy since 1945 (Zed Press, 1995).


In August 1953 a coup overthrew Iran's nationalist government of Mohammed Musaddiq and installed the Shah in power. The Shah subsequently used widespread repression and torture in a dictatorship that lasted until the 1979 Islamic revolution. The 1953 coup is conventionally regarded primarily as a CIA operation, yet the planning record reveals not only that Britain was the prime mover in the initial project to overthrow the government but also that British resources contributed significantly to the eventual success of the operation. Two first-hand accounts of the Anglo-American sponsorship of the coup - by the MI6 and CIA officers primarily responsible for it - are useful in reconstructing events. (1) Many of the secret planning documents that reveal the British role have been removed from public access and some of them remain closed until the next century - for reasons of 'national security'. Nevertheless, a fairly clear picture still emerges. Churchill later told the CIA officer responsible for the operation that he 'would have loved nothing better than to have served under your command in this great venture'. (2)

In the 1950s the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - later renamed British Petroleum - which was managed from London and owned by the British government and British private citizens, controlled Iran's main source of income: oil. According to one British official, the AIOC 'has become in effect an imperium in imperio in Persia'. Iranian nationalists objected to the fact that the AIOC not only made revenues from Iranian oil 'greatly in excess of the revenues of the Persian government but dominates the whole economic life of Persia, and therefore impairs her independence'. (3) The AIOC was recognised as 'a great foreign organisation controlling Persia's economic life and destiny'. The British oil business fared well from this state of affairs; the AIOC made £170 million in profits in 1950 alone. (4)

Iranians could also point to AIOC's effectively autonomous rule in the parts of the country where the oilfields lay, its low wage rates and the fact that the Iranian government was being paid royalties of 10% or 12% of the company's net proceeds, whilst the British government received as much as 30% of these in taxes alone. (5) Shown the overcrowded housing afforded to some of the AIOC workers, a British official commented: 'Well, this is just the way all Iranians live'. (6)

snip

The British priority was to support political 'stability' in the country, in effect by aiding Iranian parliamentarians and Prime Ministers 'to preserve the existing social order from which they profit so greatly' (9) - as did, it might be added, British oil interests. One difference with the National Front (of which Musaddiq was the leader)was that its members were, according to the Ambassador in Iran,'comparatively free from the taint of having amassed wealth and influence through the improper use of official positions; they can therefore attack the majority deputies, few of whom are in the same happy condition without fear of dangerous counter-attacks'. (10)

snip

The go-ahead for the coup was finally given by the US in late June - Britain by then already having presented a 'complete plan' to the CIA (54) - and Churchill's authorisation soon followed, the date being set for mid-August. (55) That month, the head of the CIA operation met with the Shah, the CIA director visited some members of the Shah's family in Switzerland, whilst a US army general arrived in Tehran to meet 'old friends', among them the Shah and General Zahidi. (56)

When the coup scenario finally began, huge demonstrations proceeded in the streets of Tehran, funded by CIA and MI6 money, $1 million dollars of which was in a safe in the US embassy (57) and £1.5 million which had been delivered by Britain to its agents in Iran, according to the MI6 officer responsible for delivering it. (58)

According to then CIA officer Richard Cottam, 'that mob that came into north Tehran and was decisive in the overthrow was a mercenary mob. It had no ideology. That mob was paid for by American dollars.' (59) One key aspect of the plot was to portray the demonstrating mobs as supporters of the Communist Party - Tudeh - in order to provide a suitable pretext for the coup and the assumption of control by the Shah. Cottam observes that agents working on behalf of the British 'saw the opportunity and sent the people we had under our control into the streets to act as if they were Tudeh. They were more than just provocateurs, they were shock troops, who acted as if they were Tudeh people throwing rocks at mosques and priests'. (60) 'The purpose', Brian Lapping explains, 'was to frighten the majority of Iranians into believing that a victory for Mussadeq would be a victory for the Tudeh, the Soviet Union and irreligion'. (61)

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L.Torsalo Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-26-10 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. and your comment
just adds to tribalism. How did we become so stoooooopid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC