STWR - Share The World's Resources

We all share a dream of peace in the Middle East. This afternoon I will review what has brought us to the present situation, the obstacles before us, and some things that must be done to bring peace and justice to the region.

My comments will focus on some aspects that are not usually discussed freely. I know how politically sensitive some of the issues are, but I'll be as accurate and frank as possible. I don't intend to run again for public office and can always rely on Secret Service protection!

The three most basic premises are quite clear:

1. Israel's right to exist - and to live in peace - must be recognized and accepted by Palestinians and all other neighbors;
2. The killing of innocent people by suicide bombs or other acts of violence cannot be condoned; and
3. Palestinians must live in peace and dignity, and permanent Israeli settlements on their land are a major obstacle to this goal.

Let me first review the official position of the United States. From Dwight Eisenhower through the road map of George W. Bush, our policy has been that Israel's borders coincide with those of 1949. The U.S. has consistently stated, since 1967, that U.N. Resolution 242 is binding on Israel as a foreign power that is occupying Palestine territory. To quote its key commitments:

Representatives of 96 member countries of FAO participating in the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) which concluded today in Porto Alegre recognized “the essential role of agrarian reform and rural development to promote sustainable development” of the planet.

The 21st century will be marked by a crucial debate: how can we make economic and social development compatible with the preservation of our natural environment?

The challenge is faced by developed and developing countries alike, but the burdens need to be more equally shared. The width of the divide between rich and poor countries has doubled over the last 40 years. While the developed world has benefited from the prosperity generated by economic progress, poor countries suffer the consequences of environmental degradation resulting from uncontrolled growth. Rich countries have unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. They are responsible for 41% of total carbon dioxide emissions, and their overall consumption of raw materials is four times greater than that of all other countries combined. With those conditions, there is no possibility of a sustainable future.

The scale of Brazil's natural assets is extraordinary: the Amazon region contains 20% of the planet's fresh water, and almost two-thirds of the country is still covered by natural vegetation. Against this backdrop we have been implementing policies that directly address our most pressing environmental concerns.

The last two years marked a vigorous economic recovery for Latin America following the long period of stagnation that began in 1998. However, a number of vulnerabilities remain despite the recent strong growth performance.

 

 

 

Especially worrisome is a potential deterioration in the international scenario over the short term causing a variety of difficulties for the region. Thus, the business community and the policy-makers have to take the necessary steps to make sure that the current positive trend continues.

The World Economic Forum on Latin America will bring together a select group of 250 leaders from business, government and civil society to identify the key regional priorities and to generate the insights necessary to develop pertinent strategic responses. Under the general theme of Building a Stronger Latin America in the Global Economy, the programme will focus on four core themes: Managing the Impact of Global and Regional Risks, Improving Competitiveness, Continuing the Integration Agenda and Re-evaluating the Investment Framework. The exclusive roundtable will be structured mainly around workshops and group discussions to reinforce interaction, ensuring the emergence of concrete proposals.

The most important things in life ­ like life itself ­ are priceless. But that doesn’t mean that issues involving the preservation of life (or a way of life), like defense, should not be subjected to cool, hard economic analysis.

Shortly before the current Iraq war, when Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey suggested that the costs might range between $100 and $200 billion, other officials quickly demurred. For example, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels put the number at $60 billion. It now appears that Lindsey’s numbers were a gross underestimate.

Concerned that the Bush administration might be misleading everyone about the Iraq war’s costs, just as it had about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaida, I teamed up with Linda Bilmes, a budget expert at Harvard, to examine the issue. Even we, as opponents of the war, were staggered by what we found, with conservative to moderate estimates ranging from slightly less than a trillion dollars to more than $2 trillion.

Guillermo Martinez was only 20 years old when he was shot in the back at close range by an agent of the U.S. Border Patrol in the state of California on December 30, 2005.

Scores of migrants have been shot by U.S. immigration enforcement officers. Most fail to make the headlines. But Martinez's death comes at the same time as a series of measures to further criminalize migrants--measures that are likely to increase the chances that more young men and women lose their lives on what has become the world's most contradictory border.

House Bill 4437, also known as the Sensenbrenner bill after its sponsor, was passed in the lower house last December. The bill calls for making illegal entry into the United States a felony, building approximately 700 miles of fence to staunch the flow of immigrants, and beefing up border security.

Both the title—“The Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Control Act”—and the logic of the law locate immigration squarely within the purview of the war against terrorism. But using an anti-terrorism lens on immigration issues obscures a much different reality.

In 1997 the world’s first water forum was held in Marrakech by the World Water Council, where it was agreed that a mandate was needed to develop a long-term ‘Vision for Water, Life and the Environment in the 21st Century.’

The challenge they set themselves almost ten years ago, has only increased in scale as meeting humanity’s needs for water in the face of increasing demand and depleting supply is now a huge issue facing many countries.

In 2000 the World Water Forum met for the second time in The Hague to thrash out what this Vision was and how it could materialise. It was noted that the world’s water resources needed to be managed to provide for future needs, and that responsibility and commitment was needed from the governments and stakeholders who had control over the policies which affect global water supplies. Central to this Vision are the principles of collaboration, partnership and innovation and the sharing of experience and knowledge of different organisations involved in global water politics.

At the dawn of the third millennium, three-quarters of the world's 852 million men and women suffering from hunger are found in rural areas and depend on agriculture for their survival. Most of them are landless farmers or have such tiny or unproductive plots of land that they cannot feed their families.