|
The NI
feedback section provides an ongoing opportunity to
debate the content of New Internationalist magazine.
To respond to articles or letters you have read, simply
click the "have your say.." text above and fill
in the form, or email: letters@newint.org.
Your feedback may be published in the print and/or online
edition of New Internationalist magazine. If you
do not wish your feedback to be published, please mark
it clearly "NOT FOR PUBLICATION".
World
Parliament
I strongly support the calls made in George Monbiot’s
article ‘A Parliament
for the Planet’ (NI
342).  However,
he does not mention the work of the Inter-Parliamentary
Union (www.ipu.org),
the international organization of national parliaments.
It is the main focal point for worldwide parliamentary
dialogue, working for peace and co-operation among peoples
and for the expansion of representative democracy. Over
100 national parliaments are currently members.
The
IPU works on a number of global issues, from sustainability
to international peace and security and human rights.
Over the next few years the IPU’s reach will extend
to cover the Bretton Woods Institutions and it should
have fully ratified Observer Status within the UN in
the next few months, a position it already holds with
the World Trade Organization.
I
firmly believe that the parliamentary election process
leads to the highest possible level of representation.
This type of representation can, and should, be extended
to a global level.
Tony
Colman MP
London, England
Don’t
reinvent the wheel
You have two truly great, even persuasive, articles
in Another World Is Possible NI
342. First, George Monbiot’s brilliant
piece in favour of the sheer necessity of a ‘world
parliament’ to take on the now rampant power of
US multinationals – especially, he might have added,
the arms industries. Second, your own collective updating
of the principles of the planet’s greatest revolution,
the 1789 French one.
But
instead of paraphrasing abstract ‘world governance’
utopian academics, why does not Monbiot build on Tony
Benn’s admirable sense of practicality and advocate
the democratization of the UN General Assembly and a
wholly revolving Security Council? George’s alternative
of totally new world constitution meetings would be
a recipe taking years to achieve.
As
far as the French Revolution goes, as internationalists
we should not repeat its mistakes. Only the Girondin
section under Brissot and some of the Parisian sans-culottes
championed women’s rights and women leaders such
as Madame Roland. And many of them were either executed
or declared clinically insane for their social demands
for equality in the fields of education, careers and
so on. Our 2002 revolution for new internationalism
in fulfilment of the lost 1789 spirit must be gender
and children’s-rights specific.
Larry
Iles
Brighton, England
No
UN mandate for Bush
George Monbiot’s article (‘A
Parliament for the Planet’, NI
342) states ‘[George Bush’s] attack
on Afghanistan was retrospectively legalized by the
United Nations Security Council’. This is incorrect,
for the Security Council has never passed a resolution
supporting the bombings. There have, however, been widespread
media reports that Security Council members expressed
‘unanimous support’ for the air strikes and
that Kofi Annan ‘expressed approval of the strikes
based on the UN Charter’ for the military action.
|
the
Security Council has never passed a resolution
supporting the bombings
|
None
of these reports have a basis in fact. The Security
Council has never passed a resolution stating it approves
of the attacks, as can be verified by visiting the UN
website at http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm
. Kofi Annan has never ‘approved’ of the airstrikes,
nor has he ever stated they conform to the UN Charter,
as can be seen by examining his statement on the air
strikes at http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm7985.doc.htm
Despite the media spin, the UN has never ‘retrospectively
legalized’ the military action.
Dr
John Touchie
Brisbane, Australia
We
need alternatives
I strongly disagree with Jeremy Seabrook (‘Unchaining
Captive Hearts’, NI
342) when he denies the need to define an alternative
to global capitalism. We may not need a ‘watertight,
all-embracing paradigm’. But we need ideas. Because
the apostles of global capitalism do share a common
set of values which is transforming our world, fast.
Global
capitalism does not believe that the rich and powerful
have any responsibility towards others. We used to think
otherwise: we called it solidarity. Present-day corporations
just use their workforce and the communities where they
operate to make as much money as possible. Not long
ago businesses took pride in ideas of responsibility
and mutual dependence. We used to take for granted that
the provision of good public services for all was sacred.
It seems now that the freedom of the markets must take
priority. Politicians were expected to have a vision.
Now it seems natural that they utter whatever inanities
will get them elected, then push their true agenda.
A whole set of standards we used to take for granted
(however imperfect their practical application) has
been quietly disposed of by the champions of global
capitalism.
We
must devise an alternative set of principles for our
world. Those old-fashioned ideas (solidarity, responsibility,
public good, meaningful public debate) seem to me a
good starting point.
Miguel
Sopena
London, England
The
right to dream
I read with interest ‘The
Right to Rave’ by Eduardo Galeano (Another
World is Possible NI
342) though at first I could not comprehend
why we should ask for a right to rave or dream.
But
later, when gathering some information on the Palestine-Israel
conflict I came across Noam Chomsky’s ‘Towards
a New Cold War’. He vividly describes the story
of a Palestine owner of an art gallery whose exhibits
were confiscated by the Israeli security forces as offensive
materials. The gallery owner lamented that they would
soon pass a Dream Security Law and throw us in prisons
for daring to dream about liberty and independence –
and the prisons would be filled with Palestinians.
In
this way I came to understand the very good reasons
for demanding the right to dream!
Mahinda
Hattaka
Colombo, Sri Lanka
The
vision thing
Another World is Possible (NI
342) was a balm to the soul. We all need dreams
in order to imagine a new and different world before
we can start to transform them into action.
Gina
Behrens
Wingello, Australia
Unholy
trinity
I would like to thank Jordi Pigem for an excellent article
(‘The Altered
Landscape’, NI
342) putting recent events into something of
a cosmic perspective, a welcome change from the avalanche
of analysis coming from the ‘left’ that all
sounds so much the same. However, part of the ‘new
vision’ we need must be clearly stated as embracing
the demise of white supremacy and patriarchy. We have
to recognize the unholy trinity of global capitalism-white
supremacy-patriarchy for what it really is: a social
and institutional expression of evil which must be wholly
transformed. Somewhere in our souls we know that this
is all part of a great ongoing struggle between a dualism
that cannot be escaped – right and wrong, truth
and lie, and that in each act we make, one side of the
equation is fortified.
Samantha
Smart
Minneapolis, US
Vox
poverty
Jeremy Seabrook (‘Unchaining
Captive Hearts’, NI
342) is right to point out that the voice of
the poorest people often goes unheard. However, perhaps
he could have given some space to the organizations
around the world which are trying to redress the balance?
I
volunteer for ATD Fourth World ( www.atd-uk.org
), an NGO which has frequently brought people from the
poorest areas of the world to talk to so-called experts
at the United Nations and elsewhere. In the UK it runs
the Policy Forum project which is getting Cabinet Ministers,
civil servants and other professionals to sit down with
and listen to people on the receiving end of social
policies.
Kate
Evans
Hayes, England
Not
saved yet
In your Chronicle
2001 (NI
342), you state on page 37 that the Government
of British Columbia endorsed a proposal to save 20 critical
areas in the Great Bear Rainforest. While this is true,
as Chris Genovali of the Raincoast Conservation Society
recently stated ‘The 20 “protected” areas
have not, as of yet, been legislated and there is evidence
that the Liberal Government and coastal logging companies
are attempting to erode the central coast agreement.’
We
now have a right-wing government which is determined
to undo anything progressive that has been done by the
outgoing government. It is not a sure thing that these
areas will be protected, and so it may be premature
to celebrate victory!
Dan
Lewis & Bonny Glambeck
Tofino, Canada
 
 top of the page
Want
to email us feedback or an attached document just to
go on the website? Email it to:
letters@newint.org
|
