DOCSLIB.ORG

Terrorism. International

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Terrorism. International INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ‘WAR ON TERRORISM’: POST 9/11 RESPONSES BY THE UNITED STATES AND ASIA PACIFIC COUNTRIES 43 International Law and the ‘War on Terrorism’: Post 9/11 Responses by the United States and Asia Pacific Countries Stephen P Marks* Introduction Terrorism is not a new challenge to international order,1 although the influence of the United States has resulted in significant rethinking of the international law and politics of terrorism since the attacks on the US of 11 September 2001, which has had ramifications in all regions, including the Asia Pacific. An unresolved issue of international law is whether and to what extent those attacks have justified the claim that there is a ‘new paradigm’ in international law. The following pages will examine responses to terrorism under the traditional paradigm with particular reference to the Asia Pacific region, and under the so-called new paradigm proposed by the government of the United States in the context of its ‘war on terrorism.’ I. The International Law and Politics of Responses to Terrorism under the Traditional Paradigm Under international law, the phenomenon of terrorism has been defined in various treaties; the rules governing the use of force have been applied to regimes and * François-Xavier Bagnoud Professor of Health and Human Rights, Harvard University, and Visiting Professor, City University of Hong Kong. This article is based on a lecture given on 9 March 2006 at City University of Hong Kong in the Eminent Speakers Lecture Series. The research assistance of Mr Ronald Yu for the section on the Asia Pacific region is gratefully acknowledged. Parts of this article draw on material used in an earlier article in 14 Michigan State J Int’l L (2005). 1 Acts currently characterized as terrorism date back to ancient times. The term itself derives from the régime de la terreur following the French Revolution, which resulted in ten of thousands of people being put to death in France between 1793-1794. From the perspective of international law, efforts to deal with the phenomenon go back at least to 1937, when the League of Nations drafted the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Terrorism. 43 ASIA PACIFIC LAW REVIEW, Vol 14 No 1 © LexisNexis, 2006 44 STEPHEN P MARKS organizations that commit or support terrorism; and states have developed mechanisms of international cooperation in law enforcement to apprehend and prosecute criminal activity related to terrorism. The United States has actively enlisted these elements of the traditional paradigm in its post 9/11 responses to terrorism. A. Terrorism Defined Terrorism is normally understood to refer to ‘...criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes ...’2 It is the object of 13 multilateral and 7 regional treaties, which define and provide for criminalization of specific acts relating to such behaviour as hijacking,3 bombing,4 financing of terrorism5 and nuclear terrorism.6 The report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change7 said in 2004 that terrorism ‘attacks the values that lie at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations: respect for human rights; the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians; tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict.’8 It also alluded to the fact that ‘terrorism flourishes in environments of despair, humiliation, poverty, political oppression, extremism and human rights abuse; it also flourishes in contexts of regional conflict and foreign occupation; and it profits from weak State capacity to maintain law and 2 This definition is used in numerous UN resolutions, such as the Declaration to Supplement the 1994 Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, UN Doc A/Res/ 51/210, 17 December 1996, Annex. 3 See the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts committed on Board Aircraft (1963), the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970), the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (1971). 4 See the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 52/164 of 15 December 1997, entered into force on 23 May 2001. 5 See the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999), adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 54/109 of 9 December 1999, entered into force on 10 April 2002. 6 See the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 59/290 of 13 April 2005, opened for signature on 14 September 2005. 7 ‘A more secure world: our shared responsibility.’ Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN Doc A/59/565, 2 December 2004. 8 Id, para 145. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ‘WAR ON TERRORISM’: POST 9/11 RESPONSES BY THE UNITED STATES AND ASIA PACIFIC COUNTRIES 45 order.’9 The divergent geopolitical perspectives reflected in this language have hampered efforts to achieve consensus on a definition in the context of the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, with which the UN has been grappling since 1996.10 Although there seems to be consensus that terrorism amounts to the deliberate targeting of civilians,11 the failure to agree on a definition relates in large part to the insistence by Islamic countries that terrorism must be defined by the intention of the act and not exclusively by the consequences or victims, so that attacks in defense of ‘national liberation’ movements and ‘self- determination’ might not be defined as terrorism. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s response to this view was: ‘I understand and accept the need for legal precision. But let me say frankly that there is also a need for moral clarity. There can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent civilian life, regardless of cause or grievance.’ The ad hoc committee working on the draft ended its February-March 2006 session without consensus but expressing its ‘strong resolve’ to finalize the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism.12 B. Use of Force Against Regimes and Organizations That Support Terrorism The traditional paradigm of international law governing the use of armed force across borders against presumed authors of terrorist acts and governments that support them is found in article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations on the use of force, Chapter VII on peace enforcement, and article 51 on self-defense. Accordingly, the Security Council must determine that an act of aggression or threat to international peace and security has occurred and then authorize the use 9 Id. The language is reminiscent of numerous earlier resolutions and reports, which referred to ‘the underlying causes...which lie in misery, frustration, grievances and despair.’ See, for example, A/Res/36/109 of 10 December 1981, entitled ‘Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms, and study of the underlying causes of the forms of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an attempt to effect radical changes.’ 10 See ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Ninth session (28 March-1 April 2005)’, UN doc. A/60/37, pp 23- 29. Further issues regarding the definition may be found in Martin Scheinin, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, UN doc E/CN4/2006/98, 28 December 2005, paragraphs 26- 50. 11 The 2005 World Summit Outcome simply stated ‘We strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.’ 2005 Summit Outcome, UN doc. A/Res/60/1, 24 October 2005, para 81. 12 ‘Report of the Ad Hoc Committee established by General Assembly Resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, Tenth session (27 February-3 March 2006)’, UN doc A/61/37 (Supp), 3 March 2006. 46 STEPHEN P MARKS of force for the restoration of international peace and security. The US response to 9/11 was indeed to use such force by going to war in Afghanistan for the purpose, as it explained to the UN, ‘to prevent and deter further attacks on the United States.’13 This action was for the most part in line with the traditional paradigm of international law, since the Security Council found that the failure by the regime in power to deliver up terrorists was in violation of international law and that its behavior was a threat to international peace and security.14 The US took the precaution of ensuring that the Security Council, in Resolution 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001, recognized ‘the inherent right of individual or collective self- defense...’15, which provided the principal legal basis for the use of force.16 As will be explained below, the US has claimed that the war in Iraq was legal as a preemptive or preventive attack under the ‘new paradigm’. It also advanced another legal justification under the traditional paradigm, namely, that military action was authorized under earlier Security Council Resolutions (namely resolutions 679 and 687 of 1991) as a result of Iraq’s failure to comply with Security Council Resolution 1441. In Resolution 1441, the Council found Iraq in ‘material breach’ of its resolutions and gave it ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations,’ adding that Iraq ‘will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.’ The US and the UK deemed it within their powers to determine when the failure to comply would be operative and what the ‘serious consequences’ would be.17 Many have argued that this link with earlier resolutions was an ex post facto justification of a predetermined decision to invade Iraq.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Regime Change Consensus: Iraq in American Politics, 1990-2003
    THE REGIME CHANGE CONSENSUS: IRAQ IN AMERICAN POLITICS, 1990-2003 Joseph Stieb A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the College of Arts and Sciences. Chapel Hill 2019 Approved by: Wayne Lee Michael Morgan Benjamin Waterhouse Daniel Bolger Hal Brands ©2019 Joseph David Stieb ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Joseph David Stieb: The Regime Change Consensus: Iraq in American Politics, 1990-2003 (Under the direction of Wayne Lee) This study examines the containment policy that the United States and its allies imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War and argues for a new understanding of why the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. At the core of this story is a political puzzle: Why did a largely successful policy that mostly stripped Iraq of its unconventional weapons lose support in American politics to the point that the policy itself became less effective? I argue that, within intellectual and policymaking circles, a claim steadily emerged that the only solution to the Iraqi threat was regime change and democratization. While this “regime change consensus” was not part of the original containment policy, a cohort of intellectuals and policymakers assembled political support for the idea that Saddam’s personality and the totalitarian nature of the Baathist regime made Iraq uniquely immune to “management” strategies like containment. The entrenchment of this consensus before 9/11 helps explain why so many politicians, policymakers, and intellectuals rejected containment after 9/11 and embraced regime change and invasion.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust
    Glasses of those murdered at Auschwitz Birkenau Nazi German concentration and death camp (1941-1945). © Paweł Sawicki, Auschwitz Memorial 2021 INTERNATIONAL DAY OF COMMEMORATION IN MEMORY OF THE VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST Programme WEDNESDAY, 27 JANUARY 2021 11:00 A.M.–1:00 P.M. EST 17:00–19:00 CET COMMEMORATION CEREMONY Ms. Melissa FLEMING Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications MASTER OF CEREMONIES Mr. António GUTERRES United Nations Secretary-General H.E. Mr. Volkan BOZKIR President of the 75th session of the United Nations General Assembly Ms. Audrey AZOULAY Director-General of UNESCO Ms. Sarah NEMTANU and Ms. Deborah NEMTANU Violinists | “Sorrow” by Béla Bartók (1945-1981), performed from the crypt of the Mémorial de la Shoah, Paris. H.E. Ms. Angela MERKEL Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany KEYNOTE SPEAKER Hon. Irwin COTLER Special Envoy on Preserving Holocaust Remembrance and Combatting Antisemitism, Canada H.E. Mr. Gilad MENASHE ERDAN Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations H.E. Mr. Richard M. MILLS, Jr. Acting Representative of the United States to the United Nations Recitation of Memorial Prayers Cantor JULIA CADRAIN, Central Synagogue in New York El Male Rachamim and Kaddish Dr. Irene BUTTER and Ms. Shireen NASSAR Holocaust Survivor and Granddaughter in conversation with Ms. Clarissa WARD CNN’s Chief International Correspondent 2 Respondents to the question, “Why do you feel that learning about the Holocaust is important, and why should future generations know about it?” Mr. Piotr CYWINSKI, Poland Mr. Mark MASEKO, Zambia Professor Debórah DWORK, United States Professor Salah AL JABERY, Iraq Professor Yehuda BAUER, Israel Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    NOTES Introduction 1. Robert Kagan to George Packer. Cited in Packer’s The Assassin’s Gate: America In Iraq (Faber and Faber, London, 2006): 38. 2. Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004): 9. 3. Critiques of the war on terror and its origins include Gary Dorrien, Imperial Designs: Neoconservatism and the New Pax Americana (Routledge, New York and London, 2004); Francis Fukuyama, After the Neocons: America At the Crossroads (Profile Books, London, 2006); Ira Chernus, Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin (Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO and London, 2006); and Jacob Heilbrunn, They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons (Doubleday, New York, 2008). 4. A report of the PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century, September 2000: 76. URL: http:// www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (15 January 2009). 5. On the first generation on Cold War neoconservatives, which has been covered far more extensively than the second, see Gary Dorrien, The Neoconservative Mind: Politics, Culture and the War of Ideology (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1993); Peter Steinfels, The Neoconservatives: The Men Who Are Changing America’s Politics (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1979); Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005); Murray Friedman ed. Commentary in American Life (Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2005); Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From the Cold War to the Culture Wars (Madison Books, Lanham MD; New York; Oxford, 1997); and Maria Ryan, “Neoconservative Intellectuals and the Limitations of Governing: The Reagan Administration and the Demise of the Cold War,” Comparative American Studies, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2018/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2018 Public sitting held on Monday 3 September 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2018 Audience publique tenue le lundi 3 septembre 2018, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, sur les Effets juridiques de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos de Maurice en 1965 (Demande d’avis consultatif soumise par l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Republic of Mauritius is represented by: H.E. Sir Anerood Jugnauth, G.C.S.K., K.C.M.G., Q.C., Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues of the Republic of Mauritius, as Head of Delegation (from 3 to 5 September 2018); Mr. Nayen Koomar Ballah, G.O.S.K., Secretary to Cabinet and Head of the Civil Service, Mr. Dheerendra Kumar Dabee, G.O.S.K., S.C., Solicitor General, H.E. Mr. Jagdish Dharamchand Koonjul, G.O.S.K., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Mauritius to the United Nations in New York, Ms Shiu Ching Young Kim Fat, Minister Counsellor, Prime Minister’s Office, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Holocaust Awareness Week
    HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK JANUARY 23-26, 2017 The College of Social Sciences and Humanities, the Holocaust Awareness Committee, and the Northeastern Humanities Center invite you to a series of commemorative and educational events that reflect on the Holocaust's legacy in the 21st century. Personal Confrontations With the Past northeastern.edu/hac ABOUT HOLOCAUST AWARENESS WEEK The Holocaust Awareness Committee at Northeastern University publicly remembers the Holocaust each year, not only as historical fact and a memorial to its millions of victims, but also as a warning that the horrors of the past must never be repeated. The programs that we present bear witness to the Holocaust's events and explore issues arising out of the war of extermination against Jews and other groups targeted by the Nazis. Speakers ask how lessons learned from the Holocaust can be applied to our own historical moment. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Northeastern Holocaust Commemoration The Portraitist: Wilhelm Brasse and Photography Ethics in Auschwitz Alison Campbell The Search for Meaning: Survivors' Children and Their Choice of a Life in the Law Rose Zoltek-Jick Monday, January 23 4:30 - 6 p.m. Cabral Center 40 Leon Street Reception to follow. Philip N. Backstrom, Jr. Survivor Lecture Series A Talk with Holocaust Survivor Anna Ornstein Tuesday, January 24 12:30 - 2 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Lunch will be served. Bill Giessen Film Screening What Our Fathers Did: A Nazi Legacy Followed by Q&A with Philippe Sands, Screenwriter Moderated by Professor Natalie Bormann Wednesday, January 25 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Raytheon Amphitheater 120 Forsyth Street Hors d'oeuvres will be served during the film.
    [Show full text]
  • Advocating for Better Protection for Conflict-Affected Populations: Legal Action Against UK Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia for Use I
    HPG briefing note Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations Legal action against UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict Gemma Davies July 2021 Lessons learned Partnerships and collaboration within and outside the humanitarian sector are critical in strengthening advocacy for better protection of civilians affected by conflict, through leveraging respective expertise and sharing risk. Where litigation is part of a broader advocacy campaign there should be coherence in legal and advocacy strategies, with trade-offs identified at the outset. A theory of change with scenario mapping would support this. Strategic litigation can be an effective advocacy tool for humanitarian actors. Renowned legal expertise, a well-evidenced and well-resourced strategy and a persuasive case are central to maximising the chances of success. Risks can be mitigated and shared through collective advocacy once the potential risks have been jointly assessed. About the author Gemma Davies is a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) at ODI Readers are encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. ODI requests due acknowledgement and a copy of the publication. For online use, we ask readers to link to the original resource on the ODI website. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners. This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. How to cite: Davies, G. (2020) ‘Advocating for better protection for conflict-affected populations: UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in the Yemen conflict’.
    [Show full text]
  • WSI China Security Vol.4 No.1 Winter 2008
    30 Contents More Carrot Than Stick: Beijing’s Emerging Taiwan Policy 3 Chong-Pin Lin Peace Agreement: The Long Road Ahead 30 Huang Jiashu Wild Card: A Democratic Taiwan 42 Ted Galen Carpenter Peace or War: Taiwan at a Critical Juncture 61 Peng Guangqian Ensnared by Beijing: 70 Washington Succumbs to the PRC’s Diplomacy of Panic Alan Wachman Whither Taiwan-China Relations? 94 Arthur S. Ding Time for “New” Thinking on Taiwan 113 Wang Jianwei Change: Mainland’s Taiwan Policy 130 Chu Shulong & Guo Yuli How China “Wins” a Space War 137 Brian Weeden Projects of the World Security Institute China Program In addition to China Security, the World Security Institute China Program, in partnership with Chen Shi China Research Group, has a variety of on-going projects in our Beijing and Washington offices. The World Security Institute is a non-profit organization committed to independent research and journalism on global affairs. All of our projects attempt to increase the understanding of China in the United States and internationally and to deepen an international dialogue. hina-U.S. Dialogue on Space – is dedicated to strengthening security in space by fostering dialogue between Cthe two potential economic, political and military competitors in outer space. We enhance transparency and discussion on space between the two countries by educating the public and policymakers on each other's space programs and long-term policies. www.wsichina.org/space/ orning China news digest - is a twice-weekly news Mdigest that combines the most important and up-to-date, domestic Chinese news via email. The project aims to improve the understanding of China amongst international policy practitioners and the public by increasing the accessibility of Chinese news.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2019/20 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2019 Public sitting held on Thursday 12 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) ____________________ VERBATIM RECORD ____________________ ANNÉE 2019 Audience publique tenue le jeudi 12 décembre 2019, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Yusuf, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Gambie c. Myanmar) ________________ COMPTE RENDU ________________ - 2 - Present: President Yusuf Vice-President Xue Judges Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa Judges ad hoc Pillay Kress Registrar Gautier - 3 - Présents : M. Yusuf, président Mme Xue, vice-présidente MM. Tomka Abraham Bennouna Cançado Trindade Mme Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde MM. Bhandari Robinson Crawford Gevorgian Salam Iwasawa, juges Mme Pillay M. Kress, juges ad hoc M. Gautier, greffier - 4 - The Government of the Republic of The Gambia is represented by: H.E. Mr. Abubacarr Marie Tambadou, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Republic of The Gambia, as Agent; Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia, Mr. Philippe Sands, QC, Professor of International Law at University College London, Barrister-at-Law, Matrix Chambers, London, Mr. Payam Akhavan, LLM, SJD (Harvard), Professor of International Law, McGill University, member of the Bars of New York and the Law Society of Ontario, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Ms Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of New York and the District of Columbia, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond East West Street Personal Stories and Political Directions
    BEYOND EAST WEST STREET PERSONAL STORIES AND POLITICAL DIRECTIONS EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL BOOK FESTIVAL 26 AUGUST 2017 I began to write East West Street late in 2010, after I first visited the city of Lviv. I travelled to the city in response to an invitation to deliver a lecture, on my work as an academic and as a barrister, on the law and cases of mass killing. This work touched on ‘genocide’ (concerned with the protection of groups) and ‘crimes against humanity’ (concerned with the protection of individuals). I accepted the invitation because I hoped to find the house where my grandfather Leon Buchholz was born in 1904. I wanted to understand the recesses of an unspoken family history and recover my hinterland and sense of identity. I found a remarkable city and, eventually, Leon’s house. 1 The Polish poet Józef Wittlin describes the essence of the city, and ‘being a Lvovian’, in his wonderful, slim volume Móy Lwów, first issued in 1946 and last year published in English for the first time by Pushkin Press – with wonderful photographs by Diana Matar – as City of Lions. To be a Lvovian, he wrote, is ‘an extraordinary mixture of nobility and roguery, wisdom and imbecility, poetry and vulgarity.’ He reminds his readers that ‘nostalgia even likes to falsify flavours too, telling us to taste nothing but the sweetness of Lwów today . but I know people for whom Lwów was a cup of gall.’ East West Street was published six years later, in late May 2016, by which time I had come to understand why Lviv was a cup of gall for my grandfather, a place of which he never spoke to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 12/21/2011 12:08:07 PM U.S
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 12/21/2011 12:08:07 PM OMB NO. 1124-0002; Expires February 28, 2014 u.s. Department of Justice Supplemental Statement Washington, DC 20530 Pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended For Six Month Period Ending Nov 2011 (Insert date) I-REGISTRANT 1. (a) Name of Registrant (b) Registration No. Orion Strategies LLC 5437 (c) Business Address(es) of Registrant 918 Pennsylvania Ave SE Washington DC 20003 2. Has there been a change in the information previously furnished in connection with the following? (a) If an individual: (1) Residence address(es) Yes • No • (2) Citizenship Yes • No D (3) Occupation Yes • No D (b) If an organization: (1) Name Yes D No 0 (2) Ownership or control Yes • No H (3) Branch offices Yes • No 0 (c) Explain fully all changes, if any, indicated in Items (a) and (b) above. IF THE REGISTRANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, OMIT RESPONSE TO ITEMS 3, 4, AND 5(a). 3. If you have previously filed Exhibit C1, state whether any changes therein have occurred during this 6 month reporting period. Yes • No D If yes, have you filed an amendment to the Exhibit C? Yes • No • If no, please attach the required amendment. 1 The Exhibit C, for which no printed form is provided, consists of a true copy of the charter, articles of incorporation, association, and by laws of a registrant that is an organization. (A waiver of the requirement to file an Exhibit C may be obtained for good cause upon written application to the Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mccain: a Third Term for the Bush Agenda
    The McCain U Syllabus Table of Contents Introduction • MEMO: John McCain: A Third Term for the Bush Agenda Chapter 1: Economy • The Winning Argument: John McCain’s Economic Policies • REPORT: McCain Adopts ‘Entire’ Norquist Agenda, Will Double The Bush Tax Cuts • What You Need To Know About McCain’s Economic Plan • McCain Would Give America’s 200 Largest Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Breaks • McCain’s Budget Would Create Largest Deficit In 25 Years, Largest Debt Since WWII • Earmark Accounting Leaves Two Thirds Of McCain Tax Proposal Unfunded • Sen. McCain's HOME Plan: Late to the Party with a Flawed Plan • John and Cindy McCain would reap $373,429 if McCain’s tax proposal were enacted • Income Disparity And Wealth Consolidation Show Eerie Resemblances To 1928 • Ex-Reagan Official: McCain Claim On Corporate Expensing Is ‘So Intellectually Dishonest It’s Outrageous’ • Douglas Holtz-Eakin Vs. Douglas Holtz-Eakin On Corporate Expensing • The McCain Deficit: Douglas Holtz-Eakin Continues To Debate With Himself Chapter 2: Health care • The Winning Argument: John McCain’s Health Care Proposals • Elizabeth Edwards: Why Are People Like Me Left Out Of Your Health Care Proposal, Sen. McCain? • Elizabeth Edwards On The Inequitable Individual Market • What You Need To Know About McCain’s Health Care Plan • REPORT: McCain Plan Doles Out $2 Billion In Tax Cuts For The Biggest Health Insurers • John McCain’s Health Care Plan Means High Paperwork Costs • McCain’s Cost-Containment Plan: Reduce Access to Health Insurance • McCain’s Health Care Death
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Postbellum
    THE RUSSIA POrtFOLIO Georgia Postbellum Lincoln A. Mitchell ast summer’s war in Georgia brought Re-examining our relations with both Russia into sharp focus several key components and Georgia in light of Europe will be a compli- L of U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold cated undertaking, not least because of the di- War period, and raised major questions about verse views toward Russia within the European the future of U.S. relations with Russia, Geor- Union. In general, the East European countries gia and most of the former Soviet region. The are far more concerned about an imperial Rus- war was also a wake-up call (to those who may sia, while the West European countries are more somehow have still been asleep): The post-Cold concerned about maintaining economic and War period—a time marked by a prostrate Rus- other ties with Russia, lest conflict push the Eu- sia and virtually unchecked American power in ropean experiment beyond its breaking point. the region—is over. In this new post-post-Cold These differences are highlighted whenever War period, the challenge for U.S. policymak- the word “Georgia” is spoken within European ers is to craft a strategy that recognizes both the Union council chambers. Many East European potential danger Russia poses to its neighbors elites believe that NATO membership for Geor- and the limits to U.S. influence in the region— gia (as well as Ukraine) should be fast-tracked; limits that have only grown tighter thanks to any other course of action would seem to reward the ongoing global economic crisis.
    [Show full text]