Posts Tagged ‘Grossbritannien’

Großbritannien / Ägypten: Schwarzer Tag

Freitag, Juli 11th, 2014

“Egyptian statue Sekhemka sells for nearly £16m

A 4,000-year-old Egyptian statue expected to raise about £6m has sold for £15.76m at Christie's of London.

10 July 2014 Last updated at 19:43 GMT

Northampton Borough Council auctioned the Sekhemka limestone statue to help fund a £14m extension to Northampton Museum and Art Gallery.

However, Arts Council England had warned the council its museum could lose its accreditation status.

The Egyptian ambassador to Britain said the council should have handed the statue back if it did not want it.

Sekhemka statue

The limestone statue is 30in (76cm) high and it was "gifted" to Northampton in 1880

Sekhemka statue

The statue of Sekhemka – who was a royal chief, judge and administrator – shows him reading a scroll

His Excellency Ahsraf Elkholy

His Excellency Ahsraf Elkholy, the Egyptian Ambassador, condemned the sale

Before the sale, His Excellency Ahsraf Elkholy, the Egyptian Ambassador, condemned the sale as an "an abuse to the Egyptian archaeology and the cultural property".

He said: "Our objection starts from this basic principle: how can a museum sell a piece in its collection when it should be on display to the public?"

The ambassador said: "We are concerned this piece may be moved into a private collection.

‘Darkest cultural day’

"A museum should not be a store. Sekhemka belongs to Egypt and if Northampton Borough Council does not want it then it must be given back.

"It's not ethical that it will be sold for profit and also not acceptable. The council should have consulted with the Egyptian government."

Christie's said it would reveal details of the new owner later.

Protesters gathered outside Christie's before the sale said they wanted the statue to be returned to Egypt's Ministry of Antiquities.

Sue Edwards, from the Save Sekhemka Action Group, who travelled from Northampton to the auction, said: "This is the darkest cultural day in the town's history.

"The local authority has made a huge mistake but we will continue our fight to save Sekhemka."

Loss of Arts Council England accreditation would make the museum ineligible for a range of future grants and funding, however the leader of the council David Mackintosh said he did not see why this should happen.

Northampton Museum funding:

  • £900,000 annual budget, according to Northampton Borough Council
  • £166,000 granted in 2012 by Arts Council England for two projects and £69,000 granted in 2014 to digitise the museum's collection of 10,000 shoes online
  • £615,000 Heritage Lottery Fund total grants for various projects

He said that having kept Arts Council England "informed of our actions and plans… we see no reason why we should not retain our accredited status".

The statue has not been on display for four years, and no-one had asked to see it in that time, he said.

"It's been in our ownership for over 100 years and it's never really been the centrepiece of our collection," he told BBC Look East.

"We want to expand our museum and to do that we need to raise the money."

 

(Quelle: BBC News.)

Marshall-Inseln: Geduldsfaden gerissen

Montag, April 28th, 2014

“Pazifischer Inselstaat vs. Atommächte

Marshall-Inseln verklagen Atomstaaten vor dem IGH wegen Pflichtverletzung zur Nichtabrüstung

Von Lars Kramm
Lehrbeauftragter für Umweltvölkerrecht an der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg

Am 25. April 2014 hat die Regierung des kleinen pazifischen Inselstaates der Marshallinseln beim Internationalen Gerichtshofs (IGH) gleichzeitig neun separate Anträge gegen neun Staaten eingereicht und sie beschuldigt, sich nicht an ihre Verpflichtungen in Bezug auf die frühzeitige Beendigung des nuklearen Wettrüstens und zur nuklearen Abrüstung zu halten. Die beklagten Staaten sind die offiziellen und nicht-offiziellen Atommächte: China, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Indien, Israel, Nordkorea, Pakistan, Russland und die USA.

Während sich alle neun Anträge auf die gleiche Sachlage beziehen, unterscheidet der Antragsteller zwischen den Staaten, die die obligatorische Gerichtsbarkeit des Gerichtshofes gemäß Art. 36 II IGH-Statut anerkannt haben (Indien, Pakistan und Großbritannien) sowie denjenigen Staaten, die, wie die Marshall-Inseln, Vertragsparteien des Atomwaffensperrvertrages (NVV) sind (China, Frankreich, Russland und USA). Der NVV oder auch Vertrag über die Nichtverbreitung von Atomwaffen wurde 1968 von den drei damaligen Atommächten USA, Großbritannien und UdSSR unterzeichnet und trat 1970 in Kraft. Bis heute schlossen sich insgesamt 189 Staaten diesem Vertrag an.

Im Bezug auf die NVV-Vertragsstaaten führt der Antragssteller konkret eine Verletzung von Art VI NVV an, in dem es heißt: “Jede Vertragspartei verpflichtet sich, in redlicher Absicht Verhandlungen zu führen über wirksame Maßnahmen zur Beendigung des nuklearen Wettrüstens in naher Zukunft und zur nuklearen Abrüstung sowie über einen Vertrag zur allgemeinen und vollständigen Abrüstung unter strenger und wirksamer internationaler Kontrolle.” Die Marshall-Inseln machen geltend, dass die Beklagten durch ihre nicht aktive und redliche Verfolgung des Ziels von gutgläubigen Verhandlungen über wirksame Maßnahmen zur baldigen Beendigung des nuklearen Wettrüstens und zur nuklearen Abrüstung, gegen ihre Verpflichtungen aus dem NVV und dem Völkergewohnheitsrecht verstoßen haben und kontinuierlich dagegen verstoßen. Der Antragsteller wirft den Vertragsstaaten weiter vor, inter alia gegen Resolutionen der Generalversammlung der Vereinten Nationen zu verstoßen, die einen Verhandlungsbeginn fordern, ein negatives und obstruktives Verhalten im Hinblick auf die frühzeitige Abschaffung der Kernwaffen an den Tag zu legen und wiederholt ihre Absicht kundzutun, sich in den kommenden Jahrzehnte auf ihr Kernwaffenarsenal stützen zu wollen. Der Antragsteller fordert zudem vom Gerichtshof, die Vertragsstaaten zu verpflichten, ihre Verpflichtungen innerhalb eines Jahres nach dem Urteil zu erfüllen. In Bezug auf die nicht NVV-Vertragsstaaten führt der Antragssteller an, dass die Verpflichtungen aus Artikel VI NVV nicht nur Vertragsverpflichtungen darstellen, sondern auch unter dem Völkergewohnheitsrecht für alle Staaten gelten.

Das Interesse der Marshall Inseln am weltweiten nuklearen Waffenarsenal kommt nicht von ungefähr: von 1946 bis 1958 nutzen die USA die Inseln für Atomwaffentests und ihre Spuren sind noch heute insbesondere auf dem Bikini Atoll sichtbar. Es ist auch nicht das erste Mal, dass sich der IGH mit Art. VI NVV auseinandersetzt. Bereits in seinem Gutachten über die Völkerrechtswidrigkeit des Einsatzes von Nuklearwaffen hat der IGH sich zu seiner Bedeutung geäußert. Dabei stellte er fest, dass der rechtliche Charakter dieser Verpflichtung über eine bloße Verhaltensverpflichtung hinausgeht. Er sagte, es gehe um zwei Verpflichtungen: zum einem das konkrete Ergebnis und Ziel herbeizuführen und die Annahme eines bestimmten Verhaltens, nämlich das nach Verhandlungen über die Angelegenheit im guten Glauben. Gut 18 Jahre nach dem IGH-Gutachten gibt es immer noch keine Anzeichen dafür, dass die Atomstaaten Konsequenzen aus dem Gutachten gezogen haben. Daher wird das Verfahren insbesondere für Großbritannien wichtig, das als einziger Beklagter sowohl die obligatorische Gerichtsbarkeit des IGHs anerkannt hat als auch Vertragsstaat des NVVs ist.”

 

(Quelle: Institut für Friedenssicherungsrecht und Humanitäres Völkerrecht der Ruhr-Universität Bochum.)

Hinweis

Siehe auch: IALANA unterstützt Klage der Marshallinseln

USA: Erster!

Montag, April 14th, 2014

“2013 World Military Spending: US+Allies Outspend Russia+China Four-to-One

Trends in world military expenditure, 2013

 


http://www.scribd.com/doc/217412495/Trends-in-world-military-expenditure-2013 “

 

(Quelle: Jobs Not Wars.org)

BRD: Projekt Münchhausen gegen Kriegslügen

Montag, März 31st, 2014

“Projekt Münchhausen

Jeder Stifter einer Weltreligion verhieß Frieden, und zwar im Diesseits, zu erreichen durch Toleranz, Barmherzigkeit, Menschlichkeit. Staatsgründer taten es ihnen gleich und schrieben in ihre Grundgesetze: All men are created equal (Unabhängigkeitserklärung der USA). Großartige, kluge Worte. Und doch ist die menschliche Geschichte geprägt von Gewalt und Krieg, deren Beute von wenigen eingesackt wurde und dessen Leid von den Vielen getragen werden musste.

Wie gelang es und gelingt es in fast allen Gesellschaftsformationen, die Menschen gegeneinander in Stellung und zu Mord und Totschlag zu bringen und dies noch als gute und ehrenvolle Taten zu verkaufen? Die Massenmörder schrieben und schreiben die Geschichte, sie ließen sich den Titel ‚Der Große’ zumessen, und der Tod auf dem Schlachtfeld wurde zum Heldentod verklärt, während die ‚Kollateralschäden’ ignoriert wurden. Interessen obsiegen über Ethik und Moral.

Das Projekt Münchhausen fordert alle auf, die Geschichten der großen und kleinen Kriegslügen zu erzählen, mit denen die Menschen zur Gewalt gegen einander verführt wurden – von den Kreuzzügen, über den angeblich Gerechten Krieg, den Tonking-Zwischenfall an den Küsten Vietnams, bis zur dreisten Lüge des US-Außenministers über die Atombomben des Saddam Hussein und dem Militär als letztem Mittel der angeblich Humanitären Intervention?

Wir müssen uns befreien von dem Spinnengewebe der Lügen und Legitimationsideologien, die unsere Mitmenschen zu Feinden und Feindbildern und uns zu Gewalt gegen sie in der globalisierten Gesellschaft machen wollen. Das Projekt Münchhausen soll dazu einen Beitrag leisten. (…)

• Die Lügengeschichte des Monats März

Es begann mit einer Lüge – Kosovo-/Jugoslawienkrieg 1999

• Die Lügengeschichte des Monats Februar

Münchhausen und die Bundeswehr in Mali

• Weitere Lügengeschichten

Krieg gerecht gelogen

1990 – Lügen am Golf 1990

1964 – Der Zwischenfall von Tonking oder wie man einen erwünschten Krieg inszeniert

1867/68 – Der Krieg des britischen Empire gegen den Kaiser von Äthiopien

 

(Quelle: Aachener Friedensmagazin Aixpaix.de)

USA: Drone Nation

Dienstag, Dezember 3rd, 2013

“Drone Nation

Drone Nation
Source: Homeland-Security-Degree.org

The American love affair with drones (officially called unmanned aerial vehicles) extends to both military and law enforcement uses. The U.S. isn’t the only country that uses drones, but it is the most regular user in the world.

Which Countries Have Drones?

The biggest owners of military drones in the world:
U.S. 670
France 23
Germany 9
Italy 5
Turkey 32
U.K. 7
Russia 3
China 11
India 39
Iran 1
Israel 29
Note: Numbers are minimums, as many countries’ levels are unknown.

Business is Booming

Global spending on unmanned aerial vehicles will surge in the next 10 years, rising by a predicted 128 percent.
Projected global spending on drones
2014 $5,200,000,000
2023 $11,900,000,000
Ranked drone spending over the next decade by region
1st U.S.
2nd Asia-Pacific
3rd Europe

Terror From Above?

The U.S. has been widely criticized for its use of drones to fight terrorism. In Pakistan alone, the U.S. has launched thousands of drone strikes since 2004.
Fatalities in Pakistan from U.S. drone attacks (since 2004)
Children 175
Civilians 535
Other 2,390*
High-profile targets 49
* The U.S. classifies all adult men in Pakistan as potential terrorist targets in casualty calculations

Targeting Americans?

Many Americans assume these devices are used only to launch offensives in foreign countries. That’s a false assumption. Over the years, dozens of agencies across the U.S. have used drones for a variety of purposes, many of them classified.

drones-thumb

Sources:

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.ne
http://www.livingunderdrones.org
http://www.motherjones.com
http://www.avionics-intelligence.com
http://www.theguardian.com

 

(Quelle: HOMELAND SECURITY DEGREE GUIDE.)

Grossbritannien: Wenn’s mehr nicht ist

Dienstag, Oktober 30th, 2012

“How the UK rejects refugees fleeing sexualized violence

By Natasha Walter/Guest Blogger — October 26, 2012

When I met Angelique she had been living on the streets of London for some time. She was walking from one end of the city to the other, looking for places to sleep and food to eat. One day she met a man who took an interest in her and gave her some money. As a result, she became pregnant. “Then I had real problems,” she told me. Yet for seven months of her pregnancy, Angelique kept walking.

It was London, after all, that she had hoped would provide some respite. A native of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angelique had already lived through horror. Her father had been a politician. During the civil war, rebel soldiers had come to the family compound, burned their house, and killed Angelique’s parents. She had been taken to prison, where she was made the sex slave of the prison governor.

“Once or twice a week, the guards would fetch me to come to his room and he would rape me,” she told me.

One night he took her out of the prison to his house, and when he fell asleep she decided to try to escape. “I thought to myself: There are two possibilities if I run now. Either they will kill me, or God will save me.”

So she ran into the bush and managed to get to the house of a friend of her late father’s, who paid an agent to take her out of Congo. She didn’t know she was heading to London—when she got here, she spoke little English. Despite the persecution she’d experienced, she was refused asylum.

Text-Text-Textl

Protesters seeking better treatment for refused asylum seekers. (lewishamdreamer)

I met Angelique while working as a journalist at the Guardian newspaper. I was writing about women’s rights in all sorts of contexts, from London to Kabul, and began researching the lives of refugees. Angelique’s experiences rebuked me as a feminist. I have spent much of my life writing about women’s rights, and have published two books that deal with equal pay, pornography, and other familiar issues. Talking to Angelique made me realize that I was living among women whose needs for self-determination and protection were altogether ignored.

When I looked further into the issue, I realized that Angelique was not alone; many women had suffered similarly after fleeing sexualized violence. And so I established a nonprofit organization called Women for Refugee Women. At WRW, we believe that women who cross borders to find safety deserve dignity and a fair hearing. We believe that if more women speak up on behalf of refugee women, our governments will ensure that they are treated more fairly in the asylum process.

This is an urgent issue. WRW recently published research into the experiences of women who have been turned down for asylum in the UK. We found that nearly half of these women had been raped in their home countries, and two-thirds had experienced gender-related persecution. Yet, the UK Home Office admits, 74 percent of women who applied for asylum in 2010 were refused in an initial decision.

We’ve found that some of the women who are refused are disbelieved—told they are liars. Others are trivialized, told that their experiences are not serious enough to form the basis of an asylum claim. I have known women who were refused because the Home Office told them there was no evidence they were actually married to their violent husbands, even when they were able to supply marriage certificates and photographs, and others who were told there was no evidence that they had been tortured—even when their bodies bore the scars.

When refused asylum, women can be made destitute, detained, or returned to their countries. Living destitute makes them vulnerable to further sexualized violence and exploitation. As one woman who responded to our research after she had been refused asylum said, “I was forced to sleep with a man for me to have accommodation and food. I was forced to go and be a prostitute for me to survive.” And the emotional effect of refusal can be devastating: Over half of the women we spoke to had contemplated suicide.

Despite the large numbers of refugees worldwide, only a very small proportion will find their way to the West in their search for sanctuary. As we’ve seen, those who do often struggle to find safety. While the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees—the fundamental legal document that delineates who is a refugee, what their rights are, and the legal obligations of states, which was adopted in 1951—commits its signatories to give protection to those who are in danger of persecution on grounds of “race, religion, nationality, particular social group or political opinion,” there is no direct reference to sex or gender. The UK-based nonprofit organization Asylum Aid recently found that the UK Home Office displays a “striking failure” to understand the nature of the persecution experienced by women. Like Angelique, those who have suffered through rape, female genital mutilation, honor crimes, forced marriage, or forced prostitution find only hostility from the West.

For me, the journey from being a writer to being an advocate for refugee women has had a steep learning curve. I have realized I do not have to travel to Afghanistan or Albania or Saudi Arabia—all places I visited as a journalist—to meet women who are survivors of forced marriage, rape as persecution, or forced prostitution. These women surround us in the West, but they are too often unseen and unheard. Every Monday, about 50 women refugees come to classes in the basement of our WRW office building in London. I walk among them and hear them speaking in Lingala, in Arabic, in Amharic. I know that each of them has a story of persecution and survival that we would struggle to imagine. I want more citizens to listen to these stories, and to work with us for a more equal world for these women.

And what about Angelique? She found a decent lawyer and is able to remain in the UK for now. She is bringing up her daughter and working in a nursing home. She has learned English and supports other women going through the asylum process.

I am struck by her determination, but I know that there are many more Angeliques out there: women who have fled persecution yet are denied a fair hearing. In the UK and beyond, many refugee women are now organizing and speaking out to demand changes to the asylum decision-making process and an end to the destitution and detention of those who seek asylum. You can support them by raising awareness of their actions through your networks; sign up for our e-newsletter at www.refugeewomen.co.uk or follow us on twitter at @4refugeewomen if you would like to know more. Let’s work together to ensure refugee women are given a chance to rebuild their lives.

Click here to read the story of Saron, an Ethiopian woman who was raped and is now lost amid the asylum system in the UK.”

 

(Quelle: Women Under Siege Project.)