Planning For The First Birthday Of Your Baby Boy

Posted on July 22, 2018July 22, 2018Categories Real Estate

Submitted by: Criss White

Your baby boy is turning one and this extra-special occasion needs to be marked in a spectacular way. Organizing a birthday party celebration with loved ones is the best way to commemorate the occasion.

Though your little boy is still far from understanding everything that is going on, love and attention will certainly be sensed. Having a first birthday party will make your boy feel happy and extra-special.

You can either have a small family party or you could invite friends and their children. It depends on your desires and on the type of celebration that you are imagining.

Who Will be Attending the Party?

Before you start planning, you will have to finish working on the guest list. This important decision will affect all other areas of party preparation.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkxfpL3hI6o[/youtube]

How many people are you going to invite? Will you keep the party solely to your family, are guests going to bring their children along? Having a party for kids signifies thinking about activities and games that little ones will enjoy.

When you make the guest list, you will have to come up with the invitations. You can certainly invite guests over the phone or by e-mail but a printed invitation will be more special, just like the occasion is.

The invitation should provide information about two aspects of the party: the fact that it is dedicated to a baby boy and the fact that this is his first birthday.

You can achieve that through the shape and colors used in the invitation. It can be cut out in the shape of number one. Blue color will hint that the birthday person is a boy. You can browse various websites to look for invitation ideas and the best wording for this special occasion.

Ask guests to RSVP by a certain date and to mention whether they will be bringing kids along. Once you have the final guest list, you will be capable of moving on with the party planning process.

Decorations, Food and Party Items

You can have many types of decorations for the first birthday of your baby boy. The easiest way to approach the issue is to get blue balloon designs and banners that mention the name of the birthday boy and his age.

Decorations can also be selected on the basis of the party theme.

The theme you choose has to be something that your boy likes and enjoys animals, favorite sports, vehicles or spacecraft. Have pictures drawn, balloons coming in certain shapes and beautiful banners.

Food is very important during a kid s birthday. Make sure that you have a medley available for the needs of the younger visitors. Finger foods, juices, sodas and fresh fruits are all suitable. The birthday cake will be most impressive if it corresponds to the theme and the nuance of the party decorations.

You can organize a very special celebration for your baby boy s first birthday without spending much time and effort on preparations. Get everyone in the family involved, even the birthday boy. What truly matters is getting the entire family together and having some quality time with each other. Enjoy each part of the process and have as much fun as possible.

About the Author: Criss White writes about babies, pregnancy, and celebrations, like

baby shower ideas for boys

. For more articles, visit Criss s website about

baby shower ideas

.

Source:

isnare.com

Permanent Link:

isnare.com/?aid=955457&ca=Family+Concerns

Chinas Msr: A Strategic View From India}

Posted on July 17, 2018July 17, 2018Categories Public Relations

Chinas MSR: A strategic view from India

by

Alka

Wikipedia

CONNECTIVITY

MSR

Chinese President Xi Jinping rolled out the ambitious Silk Road plan in late 2013. The project which aims to connect Southeast Asia with Europe through the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean is being founded on economic benefits for the entire region. There is no doubt that such a plan would strengthen the regions connectivity and bolster Asias economic integration. However, the road map to realizing this plan has serious underlying strategic implications for India, which cannot be ignored.

The Strategic Lens

Looking at the MSR against the backdrop it was launched, it becomes difficult to ignore security and strategic undertones of the project. President Xi announced the initiative during his visit to Indonesia in 2013, at a time when Chinas neighbours were beginning to voice their concerns over the developments in the South China Sea. The Scarborough Shoal incident in 2012 had garnered international attention to the disputes and with the change in Chinese leadership in 2013 there was a new sense of nationalism in defending what China considered its own. If Deng Xiaoping advocated hide your strength and bide your time[1], the current leadership is advocating a stronger foreign policy to achieve the great Chinese dream[2]. To achieve this dream, China will have to emerge as a strong leader, be a responsible security provider and influence the security and economic environment globally. Establishing a favorable status quo in the South China Sea was only a natural choice.

Chinese assertiveness in fortifying its claims in the South China Sea flows naturally from Beijings maritime outlook linked to its path to be a great power. It caused tensions in Southeast Asia with the Philippines and Vietnam defending their claims with equal vigor and protesting Chinese actions on the matter. Soon, Chinas immediate neighbors were alleging Beijing of intimidation and bullying leading to souring of ties between Beijing and some of its Southeast Asian countries. The South China Sea also put ASEAN to test as a regional institution and brought forward its weaknesses and challenges. As Chinas relationship with ASEAN members entered troubled grounds, other disputing nations turned to extra regional powers for support and to stabilize the situation. China opposed international engagement on the issue and continues to warn US and other nations to not aggravate the situation.

However, one cannot aim to be a great power with poor relations with its own neighbours. In September and October 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang ventured on a charm offensive[3] visiting Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Brunei, and Vietnam as well as attended the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the East Asia Summit (EAS) in an effort to mend ties and foster better relations. Chinas charm offensive incidentally coincided with Washingtons government shutdown at home, leading to an American absence at regional platforms during the time. As the international community began to debate a weakening American influence in the region- due to Washingtons commitments in other parts of the world- China took the opportunity to present itself as a regional leader both in the economic and security space. At APEC and EAS, China emphasised on regional connectivity and cooperation presenting itself as a credible alternative to lead and manage the issues in Asia, to begin with. It was also at this point that China took the mantra of Asia for Asians[4] which is essentially to imply that there is now a time to create a structure and security framework which can be conceived, run and sustained by Asia and perhaps led by Beijing. China adopted the policy of win-win[5] cooperation where it will help its regional partners develop, as it marches down the path of growth and development itself.

Xi Jinping announced the launch of the MSR during his trip to Indonesia[6] capitalizing on the need for better regional connectivity and infrastructure development. Whether viewed from the economic lens or security, there was no denying Asias need for connectivity corridors and the market available for it. The rise of China and its ambitions to realize the great Chinese dream too, relies heavily on better connectivity within the region and beyond.

If China was being assertive in the South China Sea, it was also being a leader in presenting alternatives addressing economic needs of the region. Whether it is Vietnam or the Philippines in Southeast Asia or India on the west of Malacca, Chinese economic opportunities are as difficult to ignore as its underlying strategic implications.

Sino-Indian Competition/Great Power Rivalry

China and India are both rising powers and considered to be two giants of Asia. However, Indias lack of a leadership directive for the region has placed China ahead of the game in some sections. Beijings growing economic weight and its domestic reforms has allowed China to project its influence in regions far from its shores. Chinas slow and steady increasing presence in the Indian Ocean has forced India to re-evaluate its own maritime policies. The MSR connects the Western Pacific to Europe through the Indian Ocean, an area of primary interest to India and the Indian navy. It is in fact a theatre of geo-politics where India considers itself an eminent power. In the Indian Ocean, it gives China leverage in regional politics in an area which is otherwise considered as Indias sphere of strategic influence. It presents Beijing as a credible regional leader, willing to address challenges through cooperation; which India is struggling to articulate at this point in time. More so, it brings China to proximity of Indian interests challenging New Delhis way of engagement with its neighborhood.

However, for Chinas dreams to materialize, it will have to increase its presence in other parts of the world. If China is no match for the world super power militarily, U.S. is no match to Chinas economic initiatives supported by a credible investment framework. Chinas connectivity map for the world could place Beijing at the great powers table, increasing its influence and stake in world politics.

It is important to note at this point, that great power rivalry of the 21st century appear to be different than what history suggests. China is not looking to overthrow American dominance in the world, at least not yet. It has benefitted immensely from the current security order and is only looking to present itself as a parallel leader. Instead of a bipolar world, China is looking to create a multipolar world[7]where it can be a strong leader with great power abilities. Establishments such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) are an example of Chinese leadership without breaking down existing mechanisms. Much to Washingtons disappointment, the AIIB presents China as a credible actor in addressing Asias economic concerns. The example of AIIB is also suggestive of what China can accomplish through economic initiatives. Despite strong opposition from US, traditional American allies such as the UK and Australia signed up for the initiative. It is also indicative of a changing geo-political trend toward a multipolar world and more so, a shift from the post Cold War order as far as security and strategic initiatives go.

For the smaller island nations of IOR, Chinese investments mean an alternative to a space traditionally dominated by one player- India. Where India lacked a vision, China rolled out a structured framework in achieving its foreign policy goals. New Delhi had little choice but to join the AIIB, given its economic benefits and Indias own need for capital to boost its infrastructure gap. However, Indias decision to join the MSR has not been that easy, even though it compliments New Delhis own connectivity and infrastructure development plans. Whether the MSR was an intentional strategic initiative or not does not rule out the fact that it is yielding benefits toward Chinese ambitions of becoming a global power.

Security Concerns

The security concerns in the maritime space at large can be summed up in the words of Admiral Scott H. Swift, Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet. Addressing a conference on maritime security in Canberra, Admiral Swift noted On one side is a potential return of might makes right after more than seventy years of stability. On the other is a continuum of the international rules based system that has served us all so well,[8] which one do we choose? Arguably the region is involuntarily turning toward adopting new security architecture as an effect of current geo-political shifts. As new powers continue to rise and claim a stake in security frameworks, established rules and norms are bound to be challenged. It is this change which is so uncertain, is creating concerns and strategic suspicion regarding new developments in the region.

India and China has interacted with each other since ancient times. However, the two Asian giants are only starting to communicate in the maritime space now, unfortunately in a hostile environment. How the rising powers of the region manage this new relationship with overlapping strategic interests will shape the new security order in the region. The issue is not about rising powers, it is an accepted custom that every developing nation with great power ambitions, will question and contest established norms. The issue is the rules and norms that follow this rise and how the global community accepts it. The issue for India is how the new norms affect New Delhis strategic and economic interests? China, at this point has more economic and strategic clout than India at the global stage. India is no match to Chinese ambitious connectivity plans and is forced to open its own projects to Chinese investments. While opening up to Chinese investments can be credited to the new government with a pragmatic China policy[9], New Delhi has to balance between infrastructure needs and strategic interests. A serious security concern with Chinas connectivity plan is the growing relationship between Beijing and Islamabad. Gwadar is not a stop on the MSR map and Beijing has a bilateral economic corridor with Pakistan- China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), rather than as part of the Road initiative. Regardless of Pakistans absence from the MSR map, Chinese engagements with Pakistan would ultimately merge with the MSR, creating a serious security concern for India.

The current government is conscious of Indias dire need to improve connectivity at home and beyond esp. in the border areas. If Modis government is pragmatic enough to identify the economic benefits of Chinas infrastructure initiatives, it is also conscious of undermining New Delhis strategic outreach. Speaking at a conference on Asian Connectivity, Indias Foreign Secretary warned against the reality that others may see connectivity as an exercise in hard wiring that influences choices[10]. The other issue with Chinas connectivity projects, in particular the MSR is the lack of clarity in the structure and roadmap in realizing the initiative. Where there has been a clear mandate on how the project will be achieved and what are the stakes involved, India has responded positively regardless of strategic concerns. A case in point is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), where India is the second highest stakeholder in a Chinese initiative competing with established mechanisms to fund and address regional economic needs. New Delhi does not see the clarity of the AIIB structure while considering the MSR. Chinas MSR is much rather a work in progress, where Beijing is gauging reactions before it unveils a fully developed plan, if there is one. For a nation which always defines a clear plan, method and process to its economic initiatives, the MSR is rather weak in its structural layout. It took Beijing almost 18 months to issue an official document on the MSRs road map.[11]

When compared with active Chinese engagement in the Indian Ocean region, the MSR unfortunately leans heavy on strategic implications. Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean is no longer a possibility, but a reality. Although at this point, it is not easy for China to project power militarily in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR); investments in the island nations of the IOR through the MSR or at a bilateral level would give Beijing a legitimate foothold into the affairs of the IOR. A significant economic investment would invariably increase Chinas stakes in the region laying the foundation for its military which naturally follows economic interests. Chinas growing engagement with Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives, the docking of submarines in Sri Lanka, the Gwadar port and the China-Pakistan Economic corridor only add to Indias suspicions regarding the MSR. Beijing is making headway in port development in the region providing an insight into Chinese ownership of these ports in others territory. While the debate about turning these ports into bases could be regarded as hawkish, the possibility of an increase in Beijings military facilities in the region is not far from reality. It is true that a military base does not serve the same purpose as a military facility esp. during times of war; these facilities can serve immense strategic leverage in a world where nations are looking to project influence while avoiding armed conflicts. It would be naive to consider Beijing did not calculate the strategic leverage the MSR would provide, if materialized. It would be more so, to think China is wrong in iits ambitions; every rising power has the right to expand its presence and India would do it too, if it could. It is Indias own great power ambitions, which make it necessary to weigh Chinese strategic imperatives of the MSR.

The Road Ahead

As this essay has laid out above, there are serious security concerns regarding Chinas MSR. These concerns mostly surround Indias own strategic influence in the region, rather than worrying about China dominating the connectivity game or getting ahead of India. What is the best way to respond to MSR that would address Indias infrastructure needs without compromising New Delhis strategic interests? Unfortunately, there is no one answer to that question. India will have to pick and choose invitations to different initiatives based on its interests weighing its advantages and loses, if any. Where India sees opportunity, it supports corridors which are a part of the larger One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative such as the Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar (BCIM) corridor.

The point to remember- China is not the only option India has to bridge its infrastructure needs, although it may have the most capital to invest. Japan and U.S. are quickly emerging as good alternatives for India and Tokyo is competing with Beijing in its infrastructure diplomacy. While India continues to weigh the strategic pros and cons of joining the MSR, it can expand collaborations with Japan to boost its connectivity corridors. New Delhi is already opening its doors to Japan in areas which has traditionally been closed to foreign investments. The Modi government has welcomed Japanese investments in Indias Northeast region[12] and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands[13] areas with incredible geo-political advantage.

Indo-Japanese relationship enjoys more trust than the Sino-Indian relationship. If the new geo-political shift in Asia is deepening competition and rivalry, it is also opening up avenues for cooperation between nations of the region. If China is being vague in laying out its MSR policy, then New Delhi should take advantage of the current space to collaborate with other nations of the region. Japan is enthusiastic with its launch of Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (PQI) which coincides with Indias now Act East policy[14]. Tokyos PQI appear modest in its scale and scope but it compliments Indias situation. Chinas rise and its consequent affect on regional security have put India on a pedestal at the regional level opening up areas of cooperation. This of course could not have been achieved without New Delhis shift in its policies to step away from its isolationist mode and engage better with friends and partners, old and new. Indias initiatives such as Make in India which has a certain focus on port development, is being supported by Japan. Tokyo in 2015 committed $12 billion[15] to Indias Make in India program and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) announced an increase in loans to Indias initiatives[16]. The positive outcome is India has choices to take forward its ideas and India is willing to take a decision on these choices. The political will to take a new look at the region, re-evaluating Indias international engagement policies, considering the ongoing geo-political shifts is a trademark of the current government. It is time India took a realistic approach to issues surrounding its interests. Indias policy on economic and security collaborations may have served New Delhis interests in the Cold War and its immediate era, but the current security environment demands a fresh outlook, if India wants to remain relevant in the geo-political environment. While the pace of this shift may be slow compared to regional expectations, it is a significant development and needs to be recognized.

As far as China is concerned, India is engaging with Beijing in building a more robust economic corridor through BCIM and is participating in AIIB, shaping the discourse on connectivity corridors. If the MSR does not address Indias security concerns, India should turn to its next best alternative to achieve its development goals.

If the MSR truly comes to life, it can only benefit India while giving New Delhi the time to scope out its strategy to deal with the security concerns. China is looking to be a responsible leader breaking free from the notion of a free loader riding on the current order. In laying out a vision to integrate Asia economically, Beijing is displaying its leadership qualities. It is unlikely that China will restrict Indias use of the ports and corridors built through the MSR, simply because India was not a member of the initiative. There may be limitations on concessions and privileges for not being a member, but Beijing has failed to formulate a clear plan on the structure of membership, its rights, stakes and responsibilities. As of now, the MSR appears to be more at a bilateral level, which can later be connected to present as a bigger project.

Any development that has been made in port infrastructure in the IOR is the result of bilateral agreement between nations rather than the outcome of a grand strategic plan to integrate the region. India has laid out its own plan to boost its port facilities and increase its maritime trade capacities.

India in April 2016 launched the inaugural Maritime India Summita global platform for investors to explore potential business opportunities in the Indian Maritime Sector[17]. There is recognition within Indias new leadership that New Delhi has long ignored its maritime frontier and the economic opportunities from a strong maritime industry. Mod

I have been working in an organisation named observer research foundation which seeks to lead and aid policy towards building a strong and prosperous India in a fair and equity world. For more details visit us our links CHINA, CHINA FOREIGN POLICY, COMMENTARIES, GOVERNANCE AND POLITICS, GP-ORF SERIES, INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY

Article Source:

eArticlesOnline.com}

Two nuclear submarines collide in the Atlantic Ocean

Posted on July 17, 2018July 17, 2018Categories Uncategorized

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Nuclear ballistic missile submarines Triomphant, from France, and HMS Vanguard, of the British Royal Navy, collided deep under the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the night between February 3 and 4, despite both vessels being equipped with sonar. The collision caused damage to both vessels but it did not release any radioactive material, a Ministry of Defence (MOD) official confirmed Monday.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said nuclear security had not been breached. “It is MOD policy not to comment on submarine operational matters, but we can confirm that the U.K.’s deterrent capability was unaffected at all times and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety. Triomphant had struck ‘a submerged object (probably a container)’ during a return from a patrol, damaging the sonar dome on the front of the submarine,” he said.

A French navy spokesman said that “the collision did not result in injuries among the crew and did not jeopardise nuclear security at any moment.” Lack of communication between France and other members of NATO over the location of their SLBM deterrents is believed to be another reason for the crash.

According to Daily Mail, the vessels collided 1,000ft underwater in the Bay of Biscay (Golfe de Gascogne; Golfo de Vizcaya and Mar Cantábrico), a gulf of the North Atlantic Ocean. It lies along the western coast of France from Brest south to the Spanish border, and the northern coast of Spain west to Punta de Estaca de Bares, and is named for the Spanish province of Biscay, with average depth of 5,723 feet (1,744 m) and maximum depth is 9,151 feet (2,789 m).

Each submarine is laden with missiles powerful enough for 1,248 Hiroshima bombings, The Independent said.

It is unlikely either vessel was operating its active sonar at the time of the collision, because the submarines are designed to “hide” while on patrol and the use of active sonar would immediately reveal the boat’s location. Both submarines’ hulls are covered with anechoic tile to reduce detection by sonar, so the boats’ navigational passive sonar would not have detected the presence of the other.

Lee Willett of London’s Royal United Services Institute said “the NATO allies would be very reluctant to share information on nuclear submarines. These are the strategic crown jewels of the nation. The whole purpose of a sea-based nuclear deterrent is to hide somewhere far out of sight. They are the ultimate tools of national survival in the event of war. Therefore, it’s the very last thing you would share with anybody.”

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band GCB, ADC of the United Kingdom, the most senior serving officer in the Royal Navy, said that “…the submarines came into contact at very low speed. Both submarines remained safe. No injuries occurred. We can confirm the capability remains unaffected and there was no compromise to nuclear safety.”

“Both navies want quiet areas, deep areas, roughly the same distance from their home ports. So you find these station grounds have got quite a few submarines, not only French and Royal Navy but also from Russia and the United States. Navies often used the same nesting grounds,” said John H. Large, an independent nuclear engineer and analyst primarily known for his work in assessing and reporting upon nuclear safety and nuclear related accidents and incidents.

President of the Royal Naval Association John McAnally said that the incident was a “one in a million chance”. “It would be very unusual on deterrent patrol to use active sonar because that would expose the submarine to detection. They are, of course, designed to be very difficult to detect and one of the priorities for both the captain and the deterrent patrol is to avoid detection by anything,” he said.

The development of stealth technology, making the submarines less visible to other vessels has properly explained that a submarine does not seem to have been able to pick out another submarine nearly the length of two football pitches and the height of a three-story building.

“The modus operandi of most submarines, particularly ballistic-missile submarines, is to operate stealthily and to proceed undetected. This means operating passively, by not transmitting on sonar, and making as little noise as possible. A great deal of technical effort has gone into making submarines quiet by reduction of machinery noise. And much effort has gone into improving the capability of sonars to detect other submarines; detection was clearly made too late or not at all in this case,” explained Stephen Saunders, the editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships, an annual reference book (also published online, on CD and microfiche) of information on all the world’s warships arranged by nation, including information on ship’s names, dimensions, armaments, silhouettes and photographs, etc.

According to Bob Ayres, a former CIA and US army officer, and former associate fellow at Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, however, the submarines were not undetectable, despite their “stealth” technology. “When such submarines came across similar vessels from other navies, they sought to get as close as possible without being detected, as part of routine training. They were playing games with each other – stalking each other under the sea. They were practising being able to kill the other guy’s submarine before he could launch a missile.Because of the sound of their nuclear reactors’ water pumps, they were still noisier than old diesel-electric craft, which ran on batteries while submerged. The greatest danger in a collision was the hull being punctured and the vessel sinking, rather than a nuclear explosion,” Ayres explained.

Submarine collisions are uncommon, but not unheard of: in 1992, the USS Baton Rouge, a submarine belonging to the United States, under command of Gordon Kremer, collided with the Russian Sierra-class attack submarine K-276 that was surfacing in the Barents Sea.

In 2001, the US submarine USS Greeneville surfaced and collided with Japanese fishing training ship Ehime Maru (????), off the coast of Hawaii. The Navy determined the commanding officer of Greeneville to be in “dereliction of duty.”

The tenth HMS Vanguard (S28) of the British Royal Navy is the lead boat of her class of Trident ballistic missile-capable submarines and is based at HMNB Clyde, Faslane. The 150m long, V-class submarine under the Trident programme, has a crew of 135, weighs nearly 16,000 tonnes and is armed with 16 Trident 2 D5 ballistic missiles carrying three warheads each.

It is now believed to have been towed Monday to its naval base Faslane in the Firth of Clyde, with dents and scrapes to its hull. Faslane lies on the eastern shore of Gare Loch in Argyll and Bute, Scotland, to the north of the Firth of Clyde and 25 miles west of the city of Glasgow.

Vanguard is one of the deadliest vessels on the planet. It was built at Barrow-in-Furness by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd (now BAE Systems Submarine Solutions), was launched on 4 March, 1992, and commissioned on 14 August, 1993. The submarine’s first captain was Captain David Russell. In February 2002, Vanguard began a two-year refit at HMNB Devonport. The refit was completed in June 2004 and in October 2005 Vanguard completed her return to service trials (Demonstration and Shakedown Operations) with the firing of an unarmed Trident missile.

“The Vanguard has two periscopes, a CK51 search model and a CH91 attack model, both of which have a TV camera and thermal imager as well as conventional optics,” said John E. Pike, director and a national security analyst for http://www.globalsecurity.org/, an easily accessible pundit, and active in opposing the SDI, and ITAR, and consulting on NEO’s.File:Triomphant img 0394.jpg

“But the periscopes are useless at that depth. It’s pitch black after a couple of hundred feet. In the movies like ‘Hunt for Red October,’ you can see the subs in the water, but in reality it’s blindman’s bluff down there. The crash could have been a coincidence — some people win the lottery — but it’s much more possible that one vessel was chasing the other, trying to figure out what it was,” Pike explained.

Captain of HMS Vanguard, Commander Richard Lindsey said his men would not be there if they couldn’t go through with it. “I’m sure that if somebody was on board who did not want to be here, they would have followed a process of leaving the submarine service or finding something else to do in the Navy,” he noted.

The Triomphant is a strategic nuclear submarine, lead ship of her class (SNLE-NG). It was laid down on June 9, 1989, launched on March 26, 1994 and commissioned on March 21, 1997 with homeport at Île Longue. Equipped with 16 M45 ballistic missiles with six warheads each, it has 130 crew on board. It was completing a 70-day tour of duty at the time of the underwater crash. Its fibreglass sonar dome was damaged requiring three or four months in Drydock repair. “It has returned to its base on L’Ile Longue in Brittany on Saturday under its own power, escorted as usual by a frigate,” the ministry said.

A Ballistic missile submarine is a submarine equipped to launch ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Ballistic missile submarines are larger than any other type of submarine, in order to accommodate SLBMs such as the Russian R-29 or the American Trident.

The Triomphant class of strategic missile submarines of the French Navy are currently being introduced into service to provide the sea based component (the Force Océanique Stratégique) of the French nuclear deterrent or Force de frappe, with the M45 SLBM. They are replacing the Redoutable-class boats. In French, they are called Sous-Marin Nucléaire Lanceur d’Engins de Nouvelle Génération (“SNLE-NG, literally “Device-launching nuclear submarine of the new generation”).

They are roughly one thousand times quieter than the Redoutable-class vessels, and ten times more sensitive in detecting other submarines [1]. They are designed to carry the M51 nuclear missile, which should enter active service around 2010.

Repairs for both heavily scraped and dented, missile-laden vessels were “conservatively” estimated to cost as much as €55m, with intricate missile guidance systems and navigation controls having to be replaced, and would be met by the French and British taxpayer, the Irish Independent reported.

Many observers are shocked by the deep sea disaster, as well as the amount of time it took for the news to reach the public. ”Two US and five Soviet submarine accidents in the past prove that the reactor protection system makes an explosion avoidable. But if the collision had been more powerful the submarines could have sunk very quickly and the fate of the 250 crew members would have been very serious indeed,” said Andrey Frolov, from Moscow’s Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

“I think this accident will force countries that possess nuclear submarines to sit down at the negotiating table and devise safety precautions that might avert such accidents in the future… But because submarines must be concealed and invisible, safety and navigation laws are hard to define,” Frolov said, noting further that there are no safety standards for submarines.

The unthinkable disaster – in the Atlantic’s 41 million square miles – has raised concern among nuclear activists. “This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order. The collision of two submarines, both with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons onboard, could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed,” said Kate Hudson, chair of Britain’s Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

“This is the most severe incident involving a nuclear submarine since the Russian submarine RFS Kursk K-141 explosion and sinking in 2000 and the first time since the Cold War that two nuclear-armed subs are known to have collided. Gordon Brown should seize this opportunity to end continuous patrols,” Hudson added. Despite a rescue attempt by British and Norwegian teams, all 118 sailors and officers aboard Kursk died.

“This reminds us that we could have a new catastrophe with a nuclear submarine at any moment. It is a risk that exists during missions but also in port. These are mobile nuclear reactors,” said Stephane Lhomme, a spokesman for the French anti-nuclear group Sortir du Nucleaire.

Nicholas Barton “Nick” Harvey, British Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for North Devon has called for an immediate internal probe. “While the British nuclear fleet has a good safety record, if there were ever to be a bang it would be a mighty big one. Now that this incident is public knowledge, the people of Britain, France and the rest of the world need to be reassured this can never happen again and that lessons are being learned,” he said.

SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson MP for Moray has demanded for a government statement. “The Ministry of Defence needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world’s second-largest ocean,” he said.

Michael Thomas Hancock, CBE, a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Portsmouth South and a City councillor for Fratton ward, and who sits on the Commons defence committee, has called on the Ministry of Defence Secretary of State John Hutton to make a statement when parliament sits next week.

“While I appreciate there are sensitive issues involved here, it is important that this is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It’s fairly unbelievable that this has happened in the first place but we now need to know that lessons have been learnt. We need to know for everyone’s sakes that everything possible is now done to ensure that there is not a repeat of the incident. There are serious issues as to how some of the most sophisticated naval vessels in the seas today can collide in this way,” Mr. Hancock said.

Tory defence spokesman Liam Fox, a British Conservative politician, currently Shadow Defence Secretary and Member of Parliament for Woodspring, said: “For two submarines to collide while apparently unaware of each other’s presence is extremely worrying.”

Meanwhile, Hervé Morin, the French Minister of Defence, has denied allegations the nuclear submarines, which are hard to detect, had been shadowing each other deliberately when they collided, saying their mission was to sit at the bottom of the sea and act as a nuclear deterrent.

“There’s no story to this — the British aren’t hunting French submarines, and the French submarines don’t hunt British submarines. We face an extremely simple technological problem, which is that these submarines are not detectable. They make less noise than a shrimp. Between France and Britain, there are things we can do together….one of the solutions would be to think about the patrol zones,” Morin noted, and further denying any attempt at a cover-up.

France’s Atlantic coast is known as a submarine graveyard because of the number of German U-boats and underwater craft sunk there during the Second World War.

Race to save Chilean miners trapped underground from spiralling into depression continues

Posted on July 17, 2018July 17, 2018Categories Uncategorized

Thursday, September 2, 2010

It has emerged that the 33 Chilean miners trapped underground after the mine they were working in collapsed could be brought to the surface in a shorter time than was initially feared. While officials publicly announced that the men would not be brought to the surface until Christmas, sources inside technical meetings have revealed that they could in fact be on the surface by early November. The news comes as families were allowed to speak by radio-telephone to their trapped loved ones on Sunday. Over the weekend, video images filmed by the miners emerged showing the miners playing dominoes at a table and singing the Chilean national anthem. The miners also used the camera to send video messages to their families on the surface, saying that they regularly broke into tears, but were feeling better having received food and water.

The grainy nightvision images, filmed on a high definition camcorder that was sent down a small shaft to the mine, show the men in good spirits, chanting “long live Chile, and long live the miners.” They are unshaven and stripped to the waist because of the heat underground, and are seen wearing white clinical trousers that have been designed to keep them dry. Giving a guided tour of the area they are occupying, Mario Sepúlveda, one of the miners, explains they have a “little cup to brush our teeth”, and a place where they pray each day. “We have everything organized,” he tells the camera. Gesturing to the table in the center of the room, he says that “we meet here every day. We plan, we have assemblies here every day so that all the decisions we make are based on the thoughts of all 33.” Another unidentified miner asks to rescuers, “get us out of here soon, please.” A thermometer is shown in the video, reading 29.5C (85F).

As the film continues, it becomes evident that the miners have stuck a poster of a topless woman on the wall. The miners appear shy, and one man puts his hand to his face, presumably dazzled by the light mounted on the cameraman’s helmet. One miner sent a message to his family. “Be calm”, he says. “We’re going to get out of here. And we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your efforts.” Another said that the miners are “sure that there are people here in Chile that are big people, that are powerful people, that are intelligent people, and they have the technology and they will all work together to get us out of here.” Speaking to the camera, one says: “we have had the great fortune that trapped in this mine there are good, professional people. We have electricians, we have mechanics, we have machine operators and we will let you know that while you are working to rescue us on the surface, we are down here ready to help you too.” It has been reported that Mario Gómez, 63, has become the group’s “spiritual leader”, having worked in the mines for over fifty years. He has requested that materials to build a shrine be sent down to the cavern.

Upon seeing the video in a private screening, family members, who are living in a small village of tents at the entrance to the San José copper-gold mine—which they have named Camp Hope—were elated. “He’s skinny, bearded and it was painful to see him with his head hanging down, but I am so happy to see him alive”, said Ruth Contreras, the mother of Carlos Bravo, who is trapped in the mine. The video, of which only a small portion has been released to the public, shows the miners, many of them wearing helmets, cracking jokes and thanking the rescuers for their continued efforts. The supplies are being sent to the men through a small shaft only twelve centimeters wide, and a laboratory has been set up with the purpose of designing collapsible cots and miniature sandwiches, which can be sent down such a narrow space.

CNN reported on Friday that “officials are splitting the men into two shifts so one group sleeps while the other works or has leisure time .. On average, each man has lost 22 pounds (10 kilograms) since they became trapped three weeks ago, and dehydration remains a threat. But a survey of the men indicates that at least nine miners are still too overweight to fit through the proposed rescue shaft. Initially, the miners survived by draining water from a water-cooled piece of equipment. To stay hydrated in the 90-degree mine, each miner must drink eight or nine pints of water per day.”

But while there are jubilant celebrations on the surface that the miners are alive, officials are now nervous that the miners could become depressed, trapped in a dark room the size of a small apartment. Chilean health minister Jaime Mañalich said that, on the video, he saw the telltale signs of depression. “They are more isolated, they don’t want to be on the screen, they are not eating well”, he said. “I would say depression is the correct word.” He said that doctors who had watched the video had observed the men suffering from “severe dermatological problems.” Dr. Rodrigo Figueroa, head of the trauma, stress and disaster unit at the Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, explained that “following the euphoria of being discovered, the normal psychological reaction would be for the men to collapse in a combination of fatigue and stress … People who are trained for emergencies – like these miners – tend to minimize their own needs or to ignore them. When it is time to ask for help, they don’t.” NASA has advised emergency workers that entertaining the miners would be a good idea. They are to be sent a television system complete with taped football matches. Another dilemma facing Mañalich is whether the miners should be permitted to smoke underground. While nicotine gum has been delivered to the miners, sending down cigarettes is a plan that has not been ruled out.

With the news that drilling of the main rescue tunnel was expected to begin on Monday, officials have informed the media that they hope to have the miners out of the mine by Christmas—but sources with access to technical meetings have suggested that the miners could actually be rescued by the first week of November. A news report described the rescue plan—”the main focus is a machine that bores straight down to 688m and creates a chimney-type duct that could be used to haul the miners out one by one in a rescue basket. A second drilling operation will attempt to intercept a mining tunnel at a depth of roughly 350m. The miners would then have to make their way through several miles of dark, muddy tunnels and meet the rescue drill at roughly the halfway point of their current depth of 688m.” Iván Viveros Aranas, a Chilean policeman working at Camp Hope, told reporters that Chile “has shown a unity regardless of religion or social class. You see people arriving here just to volunteer, they have no relation at all to these families.”

But over the weekend, The New York Times reported that the “miners who have astonished the world with their discipline a half-mile underground will have to aid their own escape — clearing 3,000 to 4,000 tons of rock that will fall as the rescue hole is drilled, the engineer in charge of drilling said Sunday … The work will require about a half-dozen men working in shifts 24 hours a day.” Andrés Sougarret, a senior engineer involved in operating the drill said that “the miners are going to have to take out all that material as it falls.”

The families of those trapped were allowed to speak to them by radio-telephone on Sunday—a possibility that brought reassurance both the miners and those on the surface. The Intendant of the Atacama Region, Ximena Matas, said that there had been “moments of great emotion.” She continued to say that the families “listened with great interest and they both felt and realized that the men are well. This has been a very important moment, which no doubt strengthens their [the miners’] morale.” The phone line is thought to be quite temperamental, but it is hoped that soon, those in the mine and those in Camp Hope will be able to talk every day. “To hear his voice was a balm to my heart … He is aware that the rescue is not going to happen today, that it will take some time. He asked us to stay calm as everything is going to be OK … He sounded relaxed and since it was so short I didn’t manage to ask anything. Twenty seconds was nothing”, said said Jessica Cortés, who spoke to her husband Víctor Zamora, who was not even a miner, but a vehicle mechanic. “He went in that day because a vehicle had broken down inside the mine … At first they told us he had been crushed [to death].”

Esteban Rojas sent up a letter from inside the mine, proposing to his long-time partner Jessica Yáñez, 43. While they have officially been married for 25 years, their wedding was a civil service—but Rojas has now promised to have a church ceremony which is customary in Chile. “Please keep praying that we get out of this alive. And when I do get out, we will buy a dress and get married,” the letter read. Yáñez told a newspaper that she thought he was never going to ask her. “We have talked about it before, but he never asked me … He knows that however long it takes, I’ll wait for him, because with him I’ve been through good and bad.”

Chile’s President-elect’s battle with delinquency becomes personal

Posted on July 17, 2018July 17, 2018Categories Uncategorized

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Late on Thursday, at approximately 21:20 local time, the home of Cristián Larroulet, the nominated Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency under President-elect Sebastián Piñera of Chile, was burglarized while his wife and son were home alone. Two suspects physically assaulted them, before making off with valuables.

Future Ministry Larroulet lives in the Santiago commune of Las Condes. Two subjects, presumed to be teenage delinquents, were surprised to find Larroulet’s wife, María Isabel Philippi, and son, Matías (aged twenty), on the premises. The two suspects, who used metal beams as weapons, proceeded to tie up their two victims with shoe laces, and assault them. Within ten minutes the suspects, whom the Chilean media describes as “anti-socials”, rampaged the home, leaving with jewelry, electronics including a laptop and an iPod, and other items.

Piñera arrived at the home at 00:10 hours on Friday in solidarity and support of Larroulet and his family. Both the identity and whereabouts of the two suspects is unknown at this time. The Chilean Carabineros (the uniformed national police) of the OS-9 force will continue with a full investigation. Larroulet stated on Friday morning that both his wife and son are in good condition following what he described as a “very raw experience.”

In the 1990’s, Chile’s crime rate was below that of the United States. In the past decade, however, Chileans have experienced an increase in violent burglary crimes, which are currently rated as moderate to high. One of Piñera’s main campaign promises was to combat crime in Chile, having posted billboards throughout the country reading, “Delinquents, your party is over.” Larroulet has criticized the politics directing citizen security under the current government party, the Concertación, stating, “I have no doubt that those governing the Concertación are missing a clearer political determination for combating delinquency,” adding “the importance is in condemning these acts and voice that combating delinquency is a priority for all Chileans.”

News briefs:May 12, 2006

Posted on July 16, 2018July 16, 2018Categories Uncategorized

The time is 18:00 (UTC) on May 12th, 2006, and this is Audio Wikinews News Briefs.

Contents

  • 1 Headlines
    • 1.1 Oil Blast in Nigeria, 200 feared dead
    • 1.2 Preliminary tests show Iran could have highly enrichted uranium: UN
    • 1.3 Giorgio Napolitano elected Italian president
    • 1.4 Israeli gasoline supplier to Palestinians cuts supply
    • 1.5 USA Today reports NSA obtained call histories from communications companies
    • 1.6 Australian emergency telephone service lost in Southern NSW, ACT
  • 2 Closing statements

G20 protests: Inside a labour march

Posted on July 16, 2018July 16, 2018Categories Uncategorized
Wikinews accredited reporter Killing Vector traveled to the G-20 2009 summit protests in London with a group of protesters. This is his personal account.

Friday, April 3, 2009

London – “Protest”, says Ross Saunders, “is basically theatre”.

It’s seven a.m. and I’m on a mini-bus heading east on the M4 motorway from Cardiff toward London. I’m riding with seventeen members of the Cardiff Socialist Party, of which Saunders is branch secretary for the Cardiff West branch; they’re going to participate in a march that’s part of the protests against the G-20 meeting.

Before we boarded the minibus Saunders made a speech outlining the reasons for the march. He said they were “fighting for jobs for young people, fighting for free education, fighting for our share of the wealth, which we create.” His anger is directed at the government’s response to the economic downturn: “Now that the recession is underway, they’ve been trying to shoulder more of the burden onto the people, and onto the young people…they’re expecting us to pay for it.” He compared the protest to the Jarrow March and to the miners’ strikes which were hugely influential in the history of the British labour movement. The people assembled, though, aren’t miners or industrial workers — they’re university students or recent graduates, and the march they’re going to participate in is the Youth Fight For Jobs.

The Socialist Party was formerly part of the Labour Party, which has ruled the United Kingdom since 1997 and remains a member of the Socialist International. On the bus, Saunders and some of his cohorts — they occasionally, especially the older members, address each other as “comrade” — explains their view on how the split with Labour came about. As the Third Way became the dominant voice in the Labour Party, culminating with the replacement of Neil Kinnock with Tony Blair as party leader, the Socialist cadre became increasingly disaffected. “There used to be democratic structures, political meetings” within the party, they say. The branch meetings still exist but “now, they passed a resolution calling for renationalisation of the railways, and they [the party leadership] just ignored it.” They claim that the disaffection with New Labour has caused the party to lose “half its membership” and that people are seeking alternatives. Since the economic crisis began, Cardiff West’s membership has doubled, to 25 members, and the RMT has organized itself as a political movement running candidates in the 2009 EU Parliament election. The right-wing British National Party or BNP is making gains as well, though.

Talk on the bus is mostly political and the news of yesterday’s violence at the G-20 demonstrations, where a bank was stormed by protesters and 87 were arrested, is thick in the air. One member comments on the invasion of a RBS building in which phone lines were cut and furniture was destroyed: “It’s not very constructive but it does make you smile.” Another, reading about developments at the conference which have set France and Germany opposing the UK and the United States, says sardonically, “we’re going to stop all the squabbles — they’re going to unite against us. That’s what happens.” She recounts how, in her native Sweden during the Second World War, a national unity government was formed among all major parties, and Swedish communists were interned in camps, while Nazi-leaning parties were left unmolested.

In London around 11am the march assembles on Camberwell Green. About 250 people are here, from many parts of Britain; I meet marchers from Newcastle, Manchester, Leicester, and especially organized-labor stronghold Sheffield. The sky is grey but the atmosphere is convivial; five members of London’s Metropolitan Police are present, and they’re all smiling. Most marchers are young, some as young as high school age, but a few are older; some teachers, including members of the Lewisham and Sheffield chapters of the National Union of Teachers, are carrying banners in support of their students.

Gordon Brown’s a Tory/He wears a Tory hat/And when he saw our uni fees/He said ‘I’ll double that!’

Stewards hand out sheets of paper with the words to call-and-response chants on them. Some are youth-oriented and education-oriented, like the jaunty “Gordon Brown‘s a Tory/He wears a Tory hat/And when he saw our uni fees/He said ‘I’ll double that!'” (sung to the tune of the Lonnie Donegan song “My Old Man’s a Dustman“); but many are standbys of organized labour, including the infamous “workers of the world, unite!“. It also outlines the goals of the protest, as “demands”: “The right to a decent job for all, with a living wage of at least £8 and hour. No to cheap labour apprenticeships! for all apprenticeships to pay at least the minimum wage, with a job guaranteed at the end. No to university fees. support the campaign to defeat fees.” Another steward with a megaphone and a bright red t-shirt talks the assembled protesters through the basics of call-and-response chanting.

Finally the march gets underway, traveling through the London boroughs of Camberwell and Southwark. Along the route of the march more police follow along, escorting and guiding the march and watching it carefully, while a police van with flashing lights clears the route in front of it. On the surface the atmosphere is enthusiastic, but everyone freezes for a second as a siren is heard behind them; it turns out to be a passing ambulance.

Crossing Southwark Bridge, the march enters the City of London, the comparably small but dense area containing London’s financial and economic heart. Although one recipient of the protesters’ anger is the Bank of England, the march does not stop in the City, only passing through the streets by the London Exchange. Tourists on buses and businessmen in pinstripe suits record snippets of the march on their mobile phones as it passes them; as it goes past a branch of HSBC the employees gather at the glass store front and watch nervously. The time in the City is brief; rather than continue into the very centre of London the march turns east and, passing the Tower of London, proceeds into the poor, largely immigrant neighbourhoods of the Tower Hamlets.

The sun has come out, and the spirits of the protesters have remained high. But few people, only occasional faces at windows in the blocks of apartments, are here to see the march and it is in Wapping High Street that I hear my first complaint from the marchers. Peter, a steward, complains that the police have taken the march off its original route and onto back streets where “there’s nobody to protest to”. I ask how he feels about the possibility of violence, noting the incidents the day before, and he replies that it was “justified aggression”. “We don’t condone it but people have only got certain limitations.”

There’s nobody to protest to!

A policeman I ask is very polite but noncommittal about the change in route. “The students are getting the message out”, he says, so there’s no problem. “Everyone’s very well behaved” in his assessment and the atmosphere is “very positive”. Another protestor, a sign-carrying university student from Sheffield, half-heartedly returns the compliment: today, she says, “the police have been surprisingly unridiculous.”

The march pauses just before it enters Cable Street. Here, in 1936, was the site of the Battle of Cable Street, and the march leader, addressing the protesters through her megaphone, marks the moment. She draws a parallel between the British Union of Fascists of the 1930s and the much smaller BNP today, and as the protesters follow the East London street their chant becomes “The BNP tell racist lies/We fight back and organise!”

In Victoria Park — “The People’s Park” as it was sometimes known — the march stops for lunch. The trade unions of East London have organized and paid for a lunch of hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries and tea, and, picnic-style, the marchers enjoy their meals as organized labor veterans give brief speeches about industrial actions from a small raised platform.

A demonstration is always a means to and end.

During the rally I have the opportunity to speak with Neil Cafferky, a Galway-born Londoner and the London organizer of the Youth Fight For Jobs march. I ask him first about why, despite being surrounded by red banners and quotes from Karl Marx, I haven’t once heard the word “communism” used all day. He explains that, while he considers himself a Marxist and a Trotskyist, the word communism has negative connotations that would “act as a barrier” to getting people involved: the Socialist Party wants to avoid the discussion of its position on the USSR and disassociate itself from Stalinism. What the Socialists favor, he says, is “democratic planned production” with “the working class, the youths brought into the heart of decision making.”

On the subject of the police’s re-routing of the march, he says the new route is actually the synthesis of two proposals. Originally the march was to have gone from Camberwell Green to the Houses of Parliament, then across the sites of the 2012 Olympics and finally to the ExCel Centre. The police, meanwhile, wanted there to be no march at all.

The Metropolitan Police had argued that, with only 650 trained traffic officers on the force and most of those providing security at the ExCel Centre itself, there simply wasn’t the manpower available to close main streets, so a route along back streets was necessary if the march was to go ahead at all. Cafferky is sceptical of the police explanation. “It’s all very well having concern for health and safety,” he responds. “Our concern is using planning to block protest.”

He accuses the police and the government of having used legal, bureaucratic and even violent means to block protests. Talking about marches having to defend themselves, he says “if the police set out with the intention of assaulting marches then violence is unavoidable.” He says the police have been known to insert “provocateurs” into marches, which have to be isolated. He also asserts the right of marches to defend themselves when attacked, although this “must be done in a disciplined manner”.

He says he wasn’t present at yesterday’s demonstrations and so can’t comment on the accusations of violence against police. But, he says, there is often provocative behavior on both sides. Rather than reject violence outright, Cafferky argues that there needs to be “clear political understanding of the role of violence” and calls it “counter-productive”.

Demonstration overall, though, he says, is always a useful tool, although “a demonstration is always a means to an end” rather than an end in itself. He mentions other ongoing industrial actions such as the occupation of the Visteon plant in Enfield; 200 fired workers at the factory have been occupying the plant since April 1, and states the solidarity between the youth marchers and the industrial workers.

I also speak briefly with members of the International Bolshevik Tendency, a small group of left-wing activists who have brought some signs to the rally. The Bolsheviks say that, like the Socialists, they’re Trotskyists, but have differences with them on the idea of organization; the International Bolshevik Tendency believes that control of the party representing the working class should be less democratic and instead be in the hands of a team of experts in history and politics. Relations between the two groups are “chilly”, says one.

At 2:30 the march resumes. Rather than proceeding to the ExCel Centre itself, though, it makes its way to a station of London’s Docklands Light Railway; on the way, several of East London’s school-aged youths join the march, and on reaching Canning Town the group is some 300 strong. Proceeding on foot through the borough, the Youth Fight For Jobs reaches the protest site outside the G-20 meeting.

It’s impossible to legally get too close to the conference itself. Police are guarding every approach, and have formed a double cordon between the protest area and the route that motorcades take into and out of the conference venue. Most are un-armed, in the tradition of London police; only a few even carry truncheons. Closer to the building, though, a few machine gun-armed riot police are present, standing out sharply in their black uniforms against the high-visibility yellow vests of the Metropolitan Police. The G-20 conference itself, which started a few hours before the march began, is already winding down, and about a thousand protesters are present.

I see three large groups: the Youth Fight For Jobs avoids going into the center of the protest area, instead staying in their own group at the admonition of the stewards and listening to a series of guest speakers who tell them about current industrial actions and the organization of the Youth Fight’s upcoming rally at UCL. A second group carries the Ogaden National Liberation Front‘s flag and is campaigning for recognition of an autonomous homeland in eastern Ethiopia. Others protesting the Ethiopian government make up the third group; waving old Ethiopian flags, including the Lion of Judah standard of emperor Haile Selassie, they demand that foreign aid to Ethiopia be tied to democratization in that country: “No recovery without democracy”.

A set of abandoned signs tied to bollards indicate that the CND has been here, but has already gone home; they were demanding the abandonment of nuclear weapons. But apart from a handful of individuals with handmade, cardboard signs I see no groups addressing the G-20 meeting itself, other than the Youth Fight For Jobs’ slogans concerning the bailout. But when a motorcade passes, catcalls and jeers are heard.

It’s now 5pm and, after four hours of driving, five hours marching and one hour at the G-20, Cardiff’s Socialists are returning home. I board the bus with them and, navigating slowly through the snarled London traffic, we listen to BBC Radio 4. The news is reporting on the closure of the G-20 conference; while they take time out to mention that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper delayed the traditional group photograph of the G-20’s world leaders because “he was on the loo“, no mention is made of today’s protests. Those listening in the bus are disappointed by the lack of coverage.

Most people on the return trip are tired. Many sleep. Others read the latest issue of The Socialist, the Socialist Party’s newspaper. Mia quietly sings “The Internationale” in Swedish.

Due to the traffic, the journey back to Cardiff will be even longer than the journey to London. Over the objections of a few of its members, the South Welsh participants in the Youth Fight For Jobs stop at a McDonald’s before returning to the M4 and home.

Australian cricket tour of Zimbabwe cancelled

Posted on July 15, 2018July 15, 2018Categories Uncategorized

Monday, May 14, 2007

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said his government has decided to not let the national cricket team go to Zimbabwe.

“We don’t do this lightly, but we are convinced that for the tour to go ahead there would be an enormous propaganda boost for the Mugabe regime,” Howard told ABC television. “The [Robert] Mugabe regime at present is behaving like the Gestapo towards its political opponents, the living standards of the country are probably the lowest of any in the world and you have an unbelievable rate of inflation.”

Reactions from Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe came quickly.

“The Australians are mixing politics with sport and the decision shows how desperate the Howard government is to isolate Zimbabwe,” junior information minister Bright Matonga told Agence France-Presse.

“Australia is one of the worst human rights violators in this whole world. Look what they have done to the aborigines and yet they have the audacity to stand up and claim to have the moral authority to condemn us. This is also a racist ploy to kill our local cricket since our cricket team is now dominated by black players as we slowly transform cricket from being an elite sport.”

‘Net Neutrality Amendment’ fails in U.S. House

Posted on July 15, 2018July 15, 2018Categories Uncategorized

Saturday, June 10, 2006

On Thursday, Congress turned down the “Net Neutrality Amendment” to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (COPE Act) 269-152.

The COPE Act is designed to make it easier for telecommunications companies to offer cable TV service and strengthen competition. Proponents hope it would lower the price of high-speed Internet for consumer by enabling Internet service providers to bundle phone, data, video and mobile phone services. The act is the first major telecommunications bill to come before Congress in over a decade, and it passed by 321-101 vote on Thursday.

Portions of the “Net Neutrality” amendment to the COPE Act sought to assure that communication companies who provide Internet services treated all data delivery passing through their connections equally. It specified that each broadband provider has the duty “not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet.” The amendment’s passage would have prevented AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other broadband providers from charging content providers like Google, Yahoo, Amazon or eBay for priority access to their networks. Democrats were largely in favour of the legislation with 140 Ayes and 58 Noes, whereas only 11 Republicans voted for the measure, with 211 against.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi argued that “The imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden Web-based small businesses and start-ups,” and that “They would also hamper communications by noncommercial users, those using religious speech, promoting civic involvement and exercising First Amendment freedoms.”

The phone companies and their Congressional allies argued that the restrictions in the amendment would discourage investment in upgrading networks. Chief technology officer for BellSouth William L. Smith told the Washington Post that telephone companies should be able to charge companies for having their content load faster than that of competitors. “If I go to the airport, I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first-class ticket,” Smith said. “In the shipping business, I can get two-day air or six-day ground.”

The legislation has been subject to intense lobbying by telecommunication companies on one side, and content providers on the other. The bill is due to be discussed next in the Senate, where lobbying efforts from both sides are expected to intensify. The White House said that it supports the current bill.