PUB: Contests » Creative Writers' Circle - Creative writing contests and more!

    Thank you everyone who entered our previous contest with the 9-30-10 deadline.  Click here to see the results.
 
     This contest is being generoustly sponsored by Serenity Sales...
Serenity Sales is the parent company of many hobbies that bring individuals
serenity!  They focus on two key areas -- Children's Mystery Novels (Nancy Drew,
Hardy Boys, Dana Girls, and the like).  They proudly exhibit their hobby by
restoring cover artwork from dustjackets of that genre of writing!   The prizes
this month will be:  Top) --- $60 gift certificate enough to purchase a framed
print from any of the restorations they create as seen in their ebay store ---
(Serenity Sales) ::: use the same link you have now to the ebay store >>> 2nd
Place --- $35 gift certificate or UNFRAMED print .... 3rd Place $25 gift
certificate or two sets of MAGNETS... (8 in total).

 

   Current Contest Prompt:

 

     

 

 

 

     Silver moonlight spilled across the wilderness, shining like a searchlight on snow-dusted mountain peaks and filling the valleys like floodwater. Ara stood in the shadow of a tall oak, sheltered from the unusual nighttime brightness. Traveling in the revealing moonlight didn’t feel safe, but neither did the woods. Those closely clustered trees were older than her grandparents and could hide too many things beneath their dense canopy - not so much as a single drop of moonlight touched the forest floor. Behind Ara, her mare nickered. She felt the animal’s breath on her shoulder, followed by a soft nudge. She didn’t want to stand still any longer. Well, neither did Ara. She swung into the saddle, clutching a familiar strand of blue beads that had been mined out of the very mountains she faced. She heeled her mare forward and wondered for what must have been the hundredth time where Jon was now.

 

 

   Submission Deadline:   February 28, 2011 (extended deadline - see 'news')

   Word Limit:  3,500

   Prizes:  

           First Place: $25  cash+ $60 Serenity Sales Gift Certificate    
                                            (Enough for a framed restoration print.)        

             Second Place: $15 cash +
 $35 Serenity Sales Gift Certificate
                                                (Enough for an unframed restoration print.)
    

             Third Place:  $25 Serenity Sales Gift Certificate

                              (Enough for two sets of magnets.)

 

 

 

 

 

PUB: Hot Topic Poetry Competition | The Creative Competitor

hot topic poetry competition

1st Prize:£150

2nd Prize:  £100

3rd Prize: £75

 Closing date: January 24th 2011

 Entry fee: £2.50

 The theme for this poetry competition is all about topical/ current subjects. The environment, the war, the cost of living, or  anything that affects you or those around you.

Use any emotion that you feel  and create a poem that has us hanging on to every word.

The style is open and can be serious or humorous but it must be original and previously unpublished.

Maximum 40 lines.

Please submit your poem by email to info@creative-competitor.co.uk and add Hot Topic Poetry  to the subject line.

Please write your poem in the body of the email.

Yahoo! Buzz

One Response to “hot topic poetry competition”

  1. [...] http://creativecompetitor.com/competitions/hot-topic-poetry-competition Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)FREE feminist Jewish poetry contestFREE short essay contest on ‘an unconventional topic’3 poetry contests (one is free) [...]

     

 

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> -->

 

PUB: Levis Reading Prize, VCU Department of English

Levis Reading Prize
VCU Department of English




The Department of English at Virginia Commonwealth University is pleased to announce The 2010 Levis Reading Prize has been awarded to Peter Campion for his collection The Lions, published by the University of Chicago Press.

Previous prizes have gone to Katie Ford for her collection Colosseum, Matthew Donovan for Vellum, Joshua Weiner for From the Book of Giants, Ron Slate for The Incentive of the Maggot, Spencer Reece for The Clerk's Tale, David Daniel for Seven-Star Bird, Susan Aizenberg for Muse, Steve Scafidi for Sparks from a Nine-Pound Hammer, Nick Flynn for Some Ether, Joel Brouwer for Exactly What Happened, Sandra Alcosser for Except by Nature, and Belle Waring for Dark Blonde.

In memory of Larry Levis, the distinguished poet and teacher who was our colleague until his untimely death in 1996, the Department of English at Virginia Commonwealth University aims to encourage poets early in their careers by sponsoring an annual award for the best first or second book of poetry. Now with over a decade of wiiners, the award continues to raise the cultural appreciation of great poetry while advancing the careers of emerging writers.

The Levis Reading Prize is presented on behalf of VCU's MFA in Creative Writing Program. Sponsors include the VCU Department of English, James Branch Cabell Library Associates, Friends of the Library, the VCU Libraries, the VCU Honors College, Barnes & Noble @ VCU Bookstore, the VCU College of Humanities and Sciences, with additional funding provide by the family of Larry Levis.

Entries may be submitted by either author or publisher, and must include a copy of the book (48 pages or more), a cover letter, and a brief biography of the author including previous publications. (Entries from vanity presses are not eligible.) The book must have been published in the previous calendar year. Entrants wishing acknowledgment of receipt must include a self-addressed stamped postcard.

The annual entry deadline is January 15th. Materials received after that date will be returned unopened. Because we cannot guarantee their return, all entries will become the property of the VCU Department of English.

Judges come from faculty of the VCU Department of English and MFA Program in Creative Writing.

The winner receives an honorarium of $1500 and are invited, expenses paid, to Richmond to present a public reading in the following fall.

Send all materials to

Levis Reading Prize
VCU Department of English
900 Park Avenue, Hibbs Hall, Room 306
P.O. Box 842005
Richmond, VA 23284-2005

For further information, call 804.828.1329 or email englishgrad@vcu.edu

 

INFO: Breath of Life—The Meters, Les Nubians, 13 versions of "Killing Me Softly With His Song"

We kick the week into action with New Orleans’ funkiest, The Meters, and then chill and dance to the grooves of Les Nubians, and close out with thirteen takes on "Killing Me Softly With His Song" featuring Roberta Flack, Jimmy Smith, Amii Stewart, Blue Mitchell, Omara Portuondo, The Fugees, Kermit Ruffins, Lauryn Hill, Studio Allstars, Roland Hanna, Inspiration, Luther Vandross, and Voices Unlimited.

http://www.kalamu.com/bol/

 

 

While these songs might not sound as innovative as P-Funk or Earth, Wind & Fire, nor as pure as James Brown but The Meters have something none of the aforementioned had—even as I admit that the aforementioned were overall more important in the development of the music. You can listen to every record ever made and you will not find a calculus of funk like The Meters mastered. This is a higher authority of rhythm. Indeed, The Meters were so funky that they made a nationally renowned outfit like Booker T & The MGs sound like a Guy Lombardo pseudo, wanna-be-funky outfit.

—kalamu ya salaam

REVIEW: Report—NEW REPORT URGES CHANGES IN U.S. FOOD AID TO HAITI > HaitiAnalysis.com

by Roger Annis (Haiti Liberte)

An important new study on the right to food in Haiti was published in December. It examines the impact that foreign food aid programs have had on Haiti, U.S. programs in particular.

The report is based on surveys of families in the region surrounding the town of Hinche in central Haiti. It is entitled "Sak Vid Pa Kanpe: The Impact of U.S. Food Aid on Human Rights in Haiti." The title draws on a Haitian proverb, lamenting that a sack cannot stand if it is empty. It is a powerful metaphor for the importance of food and sustenance to a human's capacity to "stand" and function.

"Sak Vid Pa Kanpe" finds that while U.S. food aid may provide nourishment to many people, it fails to improve long-term food security and therefore interferes with basic human rights.

The study's four authors are the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law, Partners In Health, the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights, and Zanmi Lasante, the Haitian health agency allied with Partners In Health.

*Existing policy has "disastrous" results*

The report argues that the right to food is a basic human right. Nothing controversial there; any government in the world will say it follows that principle in its aid programs. But the report shows this is anything but the truth. There is very little of a rights-based approach in the food aid programs of the United States, and most other big powers for that matter.

"The realization of the right to food requires more than temporary alleviation of hunger," the report says. It traces U.S. policy towards Haiti over the past several decades and concludes: "While coercing Haiti to nearly eliminate its import tariffs on rice, reduce investments in agriculture, and focus on a few crops for export, the United States gradually increased shipments of its own agricultural commodities to Haiti."

The result has been "a disastrous effect on Haitians' ability to produce food for domestic consumption and has created Haitian dependence on the importation of food." In 1986, Haiti produced 80% of the food it consumed. By 2008, that figure was 42%. In the wake of the earthquake and now the cholera outbreak, the gap between local agricultural production and imported aid is widening every more.

Researchers for the report found that in the region of Hinche, food aid did fill important gaps in people's needs but did not eliminate hunger. Nearly 90% of people responding to the survey - and over 80% of their young children - had gone to sleep hungry in the month before the survey because there was not enough food.

Some 62% of surveyed aid recipients reported that they did not know how to prepare the food because it was unfamiliar while 11% of recipients received food that was inedible; 14% became ill from eating food aid.

The report says that one out of ten children under five years of age in Haiti is severely malnourished. One in three is chronically malnourished. This has a direct impact on the child mortality rate (five years of age and under), which is 72 per 1,000 live births.

Surveys of the camps of earthquake survivors in recent months have documented similar examples of malnutrition. (See, for example, "We've Been Forgotten": Conditions in Haiti's Displacement Camps Eight Months After the Earthquake, September 2010, Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.)

"In the short term, U.S. food aid in Haiti does reduce food insecurity for individual households receiving help," the report states. "But in the long term, food aid has been unable to ensure lasting, sustainable food security, an element of the right to food. Instead of supporting the agricultural production upon which so many Haitians depend, it has undermined the livelihoods of peasants and small farmers in Haiti."

*Unacceptable conditions of food aid*

The report looks at the negative consequences of tying food aid to the commercial interests of the donating country. In addition to the aforementioned consequence on local food production, it finds that imported food is very costly. Two thirds of "Title Two" food aid (the program under which the vast majority of U.S. food aid is provided) goes to cover transportation costs.

According to the report, in 2008, the United States spent 67 times more money on food aid to Haiti than in providing assistance to Haitian farmers.

The United States and Japan are among the few remaining countries in the world to tie food and other aid to procurement in their own countries. Whereas the proportion of aid that is tied is gradually falling in the world, it remains at nearly 100% in the U.S.

An article by Beverley Bell of Other Worlds, "Miami Rice": The Business of Disaster in Haiti details the destructive consequences of the commercialization of food aid on Haiti's rice producers. (See other excellent articles on Haitian agriculture by Beverley Bell and other authors on the website of Other Worlds.)

"Monetization" of food aid is another harmful practice. This is where charities and NGOs are permitted to sell donated food on local markets in order to finance their programs.

Recent Wikileaks revelations show that U.S. trade policies in agriculture are not the benign workings of the "free market," as proponents argue. The U.S. government has taken aggressive moves in Europe to break down barriers to the importation of genetically modified seeds patented by U.S. agricultural and chemical conglomerates.

Threats and aggressive moves have been used against successive Haitian governments to "open" Haiti's markets to U.S. imports.

*Cholera and agriculture*

A recent article by Haitian agronomist William Michel on the Haiti-Nation website looks at the impact of the cholera epidemic on the future of agriculture in Haiti. He says the date of cholera's arrival will go down in infamy among Haitian peasants in the same way that Sep. 11, 2001 has for many U.S. citizens.

The author expects the cost of rice, vegetables and other crops will rise due to a host of reasons, including the need to procure uncontaminated water for processing. Demand will likely drop out of fear that food in contaminated. The epidemic began in Haiti's most fertile agricultural region, the Artibonite River valley.

Indeed, a Nov. 20 article in French entitled "Cholera: Artibonite rice producers in trouble" on the website of the UN Mission to Stabilize Haiti (MINUSTAH), the foreign occupation force, says that wholesale rice buyers in Port-au-Prince have stopped buying rice from the Artibonite valley, forcing farmers there to lower prices that are already below production costs.

"Sak Vid Pa Kanpe" proposes recommendations for U.S. government policy makers, including:

-- Cease the policy whereby food aid must originate from U.S. sources. Boost Haitian agricultural production through local purchasing and assistance to local producers.

-- End the policy ("monetization") that allows NGOs and charities to sell U.S. food aid.

-- Institute full transparency and disclosure of foreign aid, and cooperate with the Haitian government and agencies in planning aid programs.

-- Ensure meaningful participation of Haitians in all U.S. assistance programs to Haiti.?

The same consortium of groups which authored "Sak Vid Pa Kanpe" produced the 2008 report "Woch nan Soley: The Denial of the Right to Water in Haiti," which noted that the politically motivated "actions taken by the United States [in 2001] in blocking IDB development loans earmarked for water projects in Haiti were a direct violation of the U.S. government's human rights obligations."

"Sak Vid Pa Kanpe" is a welcome addition to the growing trove of books and studies which illustrate how U.S. food aid, whose main beneficiary is U.S. agribusiness, has sabotaged Haiti's food sovereignty rather than promoting it.

To read or download "Sak Vid Pa Kanpe," and for more information on the groups who wrote it, go to: www.rfkcenter.org/files/RTF_Briefing.pdf . Roger Annis is a coordinator of the Canada Haiti Action Network.

 

 

HAITI: One Year After Haiti Earthquake, Corporations Profit While People Suffer

One Year After Haiti Earthquake, Corporations Profit While People Suffer

by: Jordan Flaherty, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

A Haitian girl sits in a displaced persons camp in December of 2010. (Photo: Internews Network)

One year after an earthquake devastated Haiti, much of the promised relief and reconstruction aid has not reached those most in need. In fact, the nation's tragedy has served as an opportunity to further enrich corporate interests.

The details of a recent lawsuit, as reported by Business Week, highlights the ways in which contractors - including some of the same players who profited from Hurricane Katrina-related reconstruction - have continued to use their political connections to gain profits from others' suffering, receiving contacts worth tens of millions of dollars while the Haitian people receive pennies, at best. It also demonstrates ways in which charity and development efforts have mirrored and contributed to corporate abuses.

Lewis Lucke, a 27-year veteran of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was named US special coordinator for relief and reconstruction after the earthquake. He worked this job for a few months, then immediately moved to the private sector, where he could sell his contacts and connections to the highest bidder. He quickly got a $30,000-a-month (plus bonuses) contract with the Haiti Recovery Group (HRG).

HRG was founded by Ashbritt, Inc., a Florida-based contractor who had received acres of bad press for their post-Katrina contracting. Ashbritt's partner in HRG is Gilbert Bigio, a wealthy Haitian businessman with close ties to the Israeli military. Bigio made a fortune during the corrupt Duvalier regime and was a supporter of the right-wing coup against Haitian President Aristide.

Although Lucke received $60,000 for two months work, he is suing because he says he is owed an additional $500,000 for the more than 20 million dollars in contracts he helped HRG obtain during that time.

As Corpwatch has reported, Ashbritt "has enjoyed meteoric growth since it won its first big debris removal subcontract from none other than Halliburton, to help clean up after Hurricane Andrew in 1992." In 1999, the company also faced allegations of double billing for $765,000 from the Broward County, Florida, school board for cleanup done in the aftermath of Hurricane Wilma.

Ashbritt CEO Randal Perkins is a major donor to Republican causes and hired Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's firm, as well as former US Army Corp of Engineers official Mike Parker, as lobbyists. As a reward for his political connections, Ashbritt won 900 million dollars in Post-Katrina contracts, helping them to become the poster child for political corruption in the world of disaster profiteering, even triggering a Congressional investigation focusing on their buying of influence. MSNBC reported in early 2006 that criticism of Ashbritt "can be heard in virtually every coastal community between Alabama and Texas."

The contracts given to Bush cronies like Ashbritt resulted in local and minority-owned companies losing out on reconstruction work. As Multinational Monitor noted shortly after Katrina, "by turning the contracting process over to prime contractors like Ashbritt, the Corps and FEMA have effectively privatized the enforcement of Federal Acquisition Regulations and disaster relief laws such as the Stafford Act, which require contracting officials to prioritize local businesses and give 5 percent of contracts to minority-owned businesses. As a result ... early reports suggest that over 90 percent of the $2 billion in initial contracts was awarded to companies based outside of the three primary affected states and that minority businesses received just 1.5 percent of the first $1.6 billion."

Alex Dupuy, writing in The Washington Post, reported a similar pattern in Haiti, noting, "of the more than 1,500 US contracts doled out worth $267 million, only 20, worth $4.3 million, have gone to Haitian firms. The rest have gone to US firms, which almost exclusively use US suppliers. Although these foreign contractors employ Haitians, mostly on a cash-for-work basis, the bulk of the money and profits are reinvested in the United States." The same article notes, "less than 10 percent of the $9 billion pledged by foreign donors has been delivered and not all of that money has been spent. Other than rebuilding the international airport and clearing the principal urban arteries of rubble, no major infrastructure rebuilding - roads, ports, housing, communications - has begun."

The disaster profiteering exemplified by Ashbritt is not just the result of quick decision making in the midst of a crisis. These contracts are awarded as part of a corporate agenda that sees disaster as an opportunity and as a tool for furthering policies that would not be possible in other times. Naomi Klein exposed evidence that, within 24 hours of the earthquake, the influential, right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation was already laying plans to use the disaster as an attempt at further privatization of the country's economy.

Relief and recovery efforts, led by the US military, have also brought a further militarization of relief and criminalization of survivors. Haiti and Katrina also served as staging grounds for increased involvement of mercenaries in reconstruction efforts. As one Blackwater mercenary told Scahill when he visited New Orleans in the days after Katrina, "This is a trend. You're going to see a lot more guys like us in these situations."

Click here to sign up for Truthout’s FREE daily email updates.

And it's not just corporations who have been guilty of profiting from Haitian suffering. A recent report from the Disaster Accountability Project (DAP) describes a "significant lack of transparency in the disaster-relief/aid community," and finds that many relief organizations have left donations for Haiti in their bank accounts, earning interest rather than helping the people of Haiti. DAP Director Ben Smilowitz notes, "the fact that nearly half of the donated dollars still sit in the bank accounts of relief and aid groups does not match the urgency of their own fundraising and marketing efforts and donors' intentions, nor does it covey the urgency of the situation on the ground."

Haitian poet and human rights lawyer Ezili Dantò has written, "Haiti's poverty began with a US/Euro trade embargo after its independence, continued with the Independence Debt to France and ecclesiastical and financial colonialism. Moreover, in more recent times, the uses of US foreign aid, as administered through USAID in Haiti, basically serves to fuel conflicts and covertly promote US corporate interests to the detriment of democracy and Haitian health, liberty, sovereignty, social justice and political freedoms. USAID projects have been at the frontlines of orchestrating undemocratic behavior, bringing underdevelopment, coup d'etat, impunity of the Haitian Oligarchy, indefinite incarceration of dissenters and destroying Haiti's food sovereignty essentially promoting famine."

Since before the earthquake, Haiti has been a victim of many of those who have claimed they are there to help. Until we address this fundamental issue of corporate profiteering masquerading as aid and development, the nation will remain mired in poverty. And future disasters, wherever they occur, will lead to similar injustices.

Resources Mentioned in Article:

Business Week: "Ex-US official sues contractor in Haiti for fees"

CorpWatch report on Debris Removal

MSNBC report on Ashbritt

Multinational Monitor report on Crony Contracting

The Washington Post: "One year after the earthquake, foreign help is actually hurting Haiti"

Report from Disaster Accountability Project

Other Resources:

Louisiana Justice Institute

Justice Roars

Left Turn Magazine

 

WIKILEAKS: Article: Partner at Firm Counseling Assange's Accusers Helped the CIA In Rendition for Torture

Partner at Firm Counseling Assange's Accusers Helped the CIA In Rendition for Torture

By Andrew Kreig (about the author)        

opednews.com

Spy thriller author Thomas Bodström, name partner in the law firm representing the two Swedish women making the notorious sex charges against WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange, knows better than most people that truth is stranger than fiction.  

As Sweden's Minister of Justice, Bodström helped his nation in 2001 secretly turn over to the Central Intelligence Agency two asylum-seekers suspected by the CIA of terror.

This is based on materials recently obtained by my Justice Integrity Project and by Legal Schnauzer blogger Roger Shuler, who broke a big part of the story earlier today here on OpEd News. We cooperated in the research. As an advisory, my piece below overlaps but is longer and provides more links to core documents for those who might want to become active on the threats we're facing.  

Thomas Bodström by Wikipedia

The CIA flew the terror suspects to Egypt for torture as part of rendition efforts requiring secret, high-level Swedish cooperation.

Assange is the subject of a recent global manhunt by Swedish authorities seeking him for sex questioning. The United States is investigating him intensely for spy-related suspicions but without known charges yet. But he can take only cold comfort that Sweden eventually awarded the 2001 asylum seekers damages for torture.

On Jan. 11, Assange's attorneys spoke of their fears that if Great Britain sends their client to Sweden to Sweden for an inquiry on sex charges he could end up being sent by Sweden to the United States on spy charges. There, the defense lawyers said, Assange could face death or imprisonment at Guantanamo in Cuba, where the Bush and Obama administrations hold so-called terrorists almost indefinitely with minimal due process protections.

As a parallel development, the Obama administration has used the disclosures as rationale for a wide-ranging crackdown not simply against WikiLeaks but against others in government or the media, particularly the web-based media, who might disclose secrets that the government regards as threatening national security. Our project summarized these developments this week in a column, "Whistleblower Says: Obama's DoJ Declares War on Whistleblowers."

WikiLeaks Questions

Bodström left his parliament seat last fall to move to the United States for six months, citing a need for family time and to write another book.

Is Bodström again cooperating with U.S. authorities in their all-out effort to save the United States, Sweden -- and perhaps Bodström himself -- from further embarrassment caused by cables that WikiLeaks might release from its still-secret trove?

Or are Swedish authorities proceeding normally, as they claim, in launching a global Interpol manhunt to capture Assange to question him about precisely how and why he engaged in sex-without-a-condom last summer with two women who invited him separately to stay with them in their beds while he was on a speaking tour?  

Whatever the case, Bodström's role in being a name partner at the two-person firm initiating the sex claims -- which are not yet criminal charges -- inevitably bring scrutiny upon his motives, background and law partner Claes Borgström, a prominent feminist and, like Bodström, a former official in the Social Democratic Party. Borgström has said he initiated the complaints.

 

Update: Claes Borgström of Borgström and Bodström wrote me today that this column should reflect that he, not Bodström, represents the two women involved in the Assange matter. At least in the United States and with a small firm, a client is usually ascribed to a firm both in common parlance and for certain formal purposes, such as conflict-of-interest checks. But the original headline is being adjusted to avoid confusion. Other updates to this story are below in the comment section.

 

Lawyers for Assange made news Jan. 11 by saying their client could be "detained at Guantanamo Bay" or subject to the death penalty if he is extradited from Britain to Sweden, which could lead to extradition or "illegal rendition" to the U.S. The lawyers issued the statement, according to a Huffington Post report, as the WikiLeaks founder appeared in a U.K. court to schedule his extradition hearing for questioning in Sweden over alleged sex crimes.

It's not just Assange and his attorneys who fear trumped-up charges against Assange. Critics in Sweden are saying that their government has been jeopardizing their country's hard-won reputation for political neutrality and human rights. In November, Sweden's parliament announced that it would probe U.S. embassy surveillance of Swedish citizens revealed by WikiLeaks and its media partners.

Political Prosecutions At Home and Abroad

The legal reform project I founded last year got its start investigating the kinds of political prosecutions that became notorious in the United States during the Bush administration in 2007. The scandal arose from revelations that the Justice Department purged nine U.S. attorneys for political reasons the previous year, an unprecedented mid-term event.

The conventional wisdom is that the prosecutions were a temporary aberration, perhaps encouraged out of partisan zeal by then-White House advisor Karl Rove before he resigned in mid-2007. But our research has concluded that political interference in the justice system is a serious, longstanding problem blighting both parties and largely ignored by such watchdog institutions as the traditional news media.

The probe of Assange on both sex and spy charges shows how political prosecutions dishonor other nations as well, and carry the potential for undermining web-based news distribution systems that currently provide one of best hopes for citizen oversight of government abuse of power.

Last week, our project published a Connecticut Watchdog column headlined, "Rove Suspected of Role In Swedish WikiLeaks Probe."   Rove has long advised Sweden's governing Moderate Party and is well-positioned as a White House veteran to counsel leaders about the political and media dimensions on the capture of the nomadic Assange. 

The column attracted widespread readership and follow-ups, including internationally, because of Rove's reputation. The column also attracted several conservative critics, who said Rove's statement on his website bio that he has advised Sweden's governing Moderate Party does not prove that he has advised Prime Minister Fredric Reinfeldt or his administration about WikiLeaks and that Rove and Bush are so disliked in Sweden that no major politician would risk the association.

Failing to receive a response from Rove for reaction, I hosted Jan. 6 one of his longtime friends, Timbro Media Institute Executive Director Roland P. Martinsson, on my "Washington Update" public affairs radio show. Martinsson, who heads Scandinavia's leading conservative, free-market think tank, called for Assange's arrest and said there's no evidence Rove is involved with Reinfeldt or WikiLeaks.

Prof. Brian Palmer of Uppsala University, a Reinfeldt biographer and a source for Reinfeldt's links to Rove, is the scheduled guest Jan. 13 on the show, which can be heard live at noon (ET) worldwide or by archive later on the My Technology Lawyer radio network. Listener and dial-in question information is available on the show's www.MyTechnologyLawyer.com/update" target="_hplink">website.

What follow are other reports drawn from the public record about irregularities in the Assange prosecutions. The paint a picture suspiciously like the leaks and strange charges arising in some of the more infamous political prosecutions in the United States of recent years. But, as ever, this is only a step along the way in investigating what really happened.

The Accusers' Lawyer

Let's start with Bodström's bio from Wikipedia, which also provides the photo at top:

Thomas Lennart Bodström is a Swedish politician and member of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. He was the Swedish Minister for Justice in the two last succeeding governments of the Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson, from 2000 to 2006. Since October 2006 until October 2010 he was the chairman of the Riksdags committee for juridical issues....Bodström is the son of Lennart Bodström, Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs 1982-1985 in the Olof Palme government. In his youth, however, Thomas Bodström was not involved in party politics. Instead, his first brush with media attention came as a football player... He took interest in international affairs and in 1999 he joined the board of the Swedish branch of the international organisation Lawyers Without Borders.

His role in the CIA rendition of two terror subjects in 2001 has become controversial in Sweden after United Nations and Swedish officials began issuing reports. For example, an English-language Swedish news organization called The Local reported in 2006, "Sweden broke torture ban during CIA deportation."

"Swedish officials just looked on while US agents mistreated Mohammad Alzery, along with fellow Eyptian Ahmed Agiza, at Stockholm's Bromma Airport," according to the news report. "This very serious indeed for Sweden," said Anna Wigenmark, a lawyer at human rights group the Swedish Helsinki Committee, who represented Alzery at the UN."

Who's To Blame?

Bodström has long minimized this role authorizing the 2001 rendition. He and former Prime Minister Göran Persson have said that decision-making was a group-effort, with the key choices made by then-Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, who was assassinated in 2003. Bodström said that he only became aware of CIA involvement Jan. 7, 2002 at a meeting with the then head of the security police, Säpo.

But Lindh's friend and former communications director Eva Franchell wrote "The Friend," a 2009 book that implicated Bodström and Persson. According to press reports in 2009, Franchell wrote that Bodström learned about the rendition at the same time as her late boss, Dec. 17, the day before they occurred.  Franchell's book also said the United States was threatening Sweden with heavy trade sanctions unless her nation complied with the rendition.

Even accepting Bodström's defense, his government's overall cooperation with renditions undercuts claims by Sweden's establishment that its justice system is immune from political pressure, including from the United States.

Instead, those who delve into those matters can see a pattern of human rights and neutrality rhetoric that coexists with behind-the-scenes battles over whether the nation would live up to such aspirations.

For example, a start-up group Stop NATO Sweden last year published a white paper, "From Neutrality to NATO." It documented how leaders of major parties in Sweden have been supporting the U.S.-dominated North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in ways incompatible with Sweden's neutrality traditions.

In December, a Swedish medical school professor and noted human rights advocate wrote a hard-hitting column, "Assange Buried the Swedish Neutrality Myth." Dr. Marcello Vittorio Ferrada-Noli wrote that Sweden can no longer enjoy the image "of a modern, independent, democratic and non-aligned country" because of WikiLeaks, and therefore is embarked on what he called "revenge."

His next column Jan. 11 was headlined, "The Swedish political crusade against Assange and WikiLeaks." It argued that Bodström's law firm initiated the questionable sex charges that obscured Bodstrom's dealings with U.S. authorities, as well as scandalous sellouts by officials since then of Swedish business interests.

The debate over the validity of Sweden's sex crime investigation has been debated in many quarters, but is most conveniently framed by an exchange of open letters last month between filmmaker Michael Moore and a Swedish defender of his country's sex crime investigative procedures.

Next Steps

The ending of this thriller is not yet in sight. Without the power of subpoena, we can only advance the plot incrementally by bringing forward new material about the saga. Our project has attempted to contact the lawyers without success for comment. We shall continue such efforts and will provide updates here.

In the meantime, one has to wonder why the lawyers' backgrounds in such a world-famous case aren't more widely known, at least in the United States. The background is all public.

Is there something boring about a handsome, best-selling author, former football star like Bodström, who served as one of Europe's top legal officials and is now embroiled in major international sex scandal and political intrigue? What if the scandal ultimately threatens to restrict the world's whistleblowers, reporters and their readers from learning what's in government documents? 

 

Andrew Kreig is executive director of the Justice Integrity Project, a Washington, DC-based non-profit organization focused on reforming abusive federal investigative procedures. He is an attorney, non-profit executive and investigative (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

 

TUNISIA: What if Tunisia had a revolution, but nobody watched? > …My heart’s in Accra

What if Tunisia had a revolution,

but nobody watched?

On December 17, a 26 year old Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi reached the end of his rope. An unemployed university graduate, Bouazizi had become a seller of fruits and vegetables in the southern Tunisian town of Sidi Bouzid. When authorities confiscated his wares to punish him for selling without a license, Bouazizi set himself on fire. He died in hospital on January 4, 2011.


Video of protests in Sidi Bouzid on YouTube

Bouazizi’s suicide struck a chord with other frustrated Tunisians. Thousands took to the streets in Sidi Bouzid to protest widespread unemployment, government corruption and lack of opportunity. Another frustrated youth in Sidi Bouzid, Lahseen Naji, killed himself by climbing an electricity pylon while crying out “No for misery, no for unemployment!” before grasping the high voltage line. The Tunisian government responded by sending baton and teargas-wielding reinforcements to the city and by promising future economic development projects. But riots have spread from Sidi Bouzid across the country, and the government has responded by closing the high schools and universities, arresting those they perceive to be ringleaders and imposing a curfew. Global Voices contributor Slim Amamou was one of those arrested on January 6th – we’ve not heard from him or been informed of the charges.

Despite the crackdown, it seems increasingly possible that the Ben Ali government might fall. The New York Times reported that members of Ben Ali’s family have been leaving the country. And it looked like a coup might take place last night, as the army took to the streets of Tunis. Rob Prince of the University of Denver, who is following the situation closely, speculates that the army deployed itself to protect citizens from the security police (who’ve been violently suppressing dissent) not in an attempt to seize power. There’s good reason to believe the Ben Ali government could fall – trade unions and lawyers have both gone on strike in support of the protests, and the situation appears to be rapidly spiraling out of the government’s control.

If you’re in the US, there’s a good chance you haven’t heard what’s going on in Tunisia unless you follow news from North Africa and the Middle East closely. The story of the ongoing protests has received very little media attention. Google Trends (below) shows a spike of attention that’s lower than the attention Tunisia received for losing to Ukraine in the first round of the 2006 World Cup.

One explanation is that the tragic shooting in Tucson has (understandably) captured the US’s attention at present and that the Christmas and New Years’ holidays prevented the early chapters of the story from gaining attention. (Below, a comparison of news and search volumes for “Tunisia” and “Tucson”.)

I think there’s more to the disparity than that. Tunisia is a deeply authoritarian state, but it’s one that’s masterful at public relations. Despite being an aggressive censor of the internet, Tunisia was chosen to host the World Summit on the Information Society in 2005, apparently convincing the rest of the world that they’d use the opportunity to loosen the restrictions on online and offline speech that keep Tunisian opposition groups in check.

Global Voices attended the summit with the support of Dutch foundation Hivos, and we ran a workshop titled “Expression Under Repression” – the Tunisian government removed our workshop from the program, chained the doors of the room where we were to meet and relented only when the Dutch government threatened a diplomatic incident if we weren’t allowed to speak. When we convened, Tunisian security police flooded into the room and began photographing and videotaping the attendees, a technique designed to intimidate anyone brave enough to attend our session. (They also ate all our cookies.) When I led a workshop on internet security, a senior member of the intelligence services introduced himself to me and sat in the front row, taking copious notes, while his associates confiscated the open source software we were attempting to distribute to attendees. Some of the people who met with our team were later detained by authorities. It was a memorable introduction to a country that maintains a network of secret prisons, controls the press and the NGO community and systematically suppresses dissent, all while managing to maintain an image as a comfortable tourist destination and a (sometimes) cooperative partner in US anti-terror efforts. (Some notes from my Tunisian trip in 2005 here and here.)

Tunisia was widely praised for its successful hosting of the summit and the ITU’s organizers deflected questions about whether the event would have any lasting change on the restrictive media environment in the country. And the country often gets a free pass on human rights issues from business leaders and governments who praise the social stability of the Ali government and the concomitant business opportunities.

What’s fascinating to me is that the events of the past three weeks in Tunisia might actually represent a “Twitter revolution”, as has been previously promised in Moldova and in Iran. There’s been virtually no coverage of the riots and protests in the thoroughly compromised local media – to understand what’s going on in their country, many Tunisians are turning to YouTube and DailyMotion videos, to blogs, Twitter and especially Facebook. The government hasn’t made it easy to access these sites – not only are several social media platforms blocked, they appear to be conducting phishing attacks on users of Gmail, Facebook and other online services. (Slim Amamou reported on this issue for Global Voices Advocacy in July of 2010 – others have picked up the story more recently, as it developed a Wikileaks/Anonymous connection…)

So why isn’t the global twittersphere flooding the internet with cries of “Yezzi Fock!” (the rallying cry of the movement, which translates as “We’ve had enough!” in local slang)? Perhaps we’re less interested because the government in danger of falling isn’t communist, as in Moldova, or a nuclear arm seeking (perhaps) member of the “Axis of Evil”, Iran? Perhaps everyone’s read Evgeny Morozov’s new book and followed his path from celebrating the Moldova twitter revolution to concluding the internet is most useful for dictators, not for revolutionaries? (I recommend Zeynep Tufekci’s thoughtful review of the book.)

My hope is that we’re getting collectively smarter about concluding that social media will or won’t act as a catalyst for social change. There are complex economic forces at work in Tunisia – a demographic bulge, increasing economic inequality, a reduction in government subsidies, shrinkage in the tourism and textile sectors. Was social media the catalyst that helped frustration turn into protest, or helped protest spread from one corner of the country to another? It’s the kind of question that keeps scholars busy for years, as my colleague Henry Farrell wisely noted in a reaction to Malcolm Gladwell’s dismissal of the power of social media for protest. In the case of Tunisia, we need to understand whether information about the protests in Sidi Bouzid helped convince other Tunisians to take to the streets, and to understand how that information reached them – I’m far from ready to declare this a victory for social media, but I’m looking forward to studying it and understanding it better.

What’s frustrating is that there are ways we know social media could be helpful to those people in Tunisia who are trying to overthrow 23 years of dictatorial rule. Tunisia relies on relationships with Europe and the US to maintain its economy, which is one of the reasons Ben Ali has so carefully build an internal and externally-focused propaganda machine. If more people in the US were paying attention to the protests, perhaps Secretary Clinton wouldn’t get away with declaring – absurdly – that Washington won’t take sides in the conflict, but hopes for “a peaceful solution”.

Not everyone is ignoring the events in Tunisia. My friend and colleague Sami ben Gharbia has been exiled from his homeland for years, but is covering the protests with great intensity on his personal blog and on groupblog Nawaat.org, where content is in a mix of Arabic, French and English. Global Voices has a special coverage section with links to all the stories we’ve run on the events. Andy Carvin, social media strategist for NPR, has been aggregating a great deal of news and asking for help in translating from Arabic via Twitter – his Twitter feed is extremely useful. Jillian York – who’s written movingly about her frustration that Tunisia isn’t getting more coverage, recommends Brian Whitaker’s blog, which is tracking events closely. Tom Trewinnard is trying to translate #SidiBouzid tweets from Arabic to English using curated.by, and the folks at Meedan are translating as well, using a mix of machine translation and human correction. Al Jazeera English is covering the story in great detail and mapping where protests are taking place. PRI’s The World has an interview with Slim Amamou and several Tunisia focused stories. Foreign Policy’s Mideast Channel has in depth coverage as well. I hope people will keep pointing me to great online and offline coverage, but I think these laudable examples don’t change my core argument that Tunisia is getting far less attention than other “revolutions” like Iran.

I don’t know whether most people are missing the events in Tunisia because they don’t speak French or Arabic, because they don’t see the Mahgreb as significant as Iran, because they’re tired of social media revolution stories or because they’re mourning the tragedy in Tucson. I’m disappointed and frustrated, not just because I care deeply for Tunisian friends who have been working for justice in their country for years, but because real change in the world is a rare thing, and it’s a shame that people would miss the chance to watch it unfold.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]
-->

19 Responses to “What if Tunisia had a revolution, but nobody watched?”

  1. Jillian C. York » Letters from Tunisia Says:

    [...] I was writing this, Ethan Zuckerman posted a timely piece analyzing the media coverage of Tunisia thus far and expressing his own disappointment: I don’t know whether most people are missing the [...]

  2. Jillian C. York Says:

    Ethan, I think this is spot on.

    Problematically, the situation is inextricably tangled: State–and some of the projects it funds–aren’t doing much to help Tunisians get around the censorship and phishing attempts, thus many are restricted from sharing their thoughts, videos, and photos with the world. As a result, the output from Tunisia is sparse at best, and as you note, that affects the level of attention paid to Tunisia by the media (and perhaps the people).

    Hopefully, you blogging this made a few more people aware of what’s happening.

  3. mehdi Says:

    Nice analysis, but the author is probably more interested in the effect social media has on people than anything else.
    Otherwise MR. Zuckerman and to bring you more information about the same social media sphere, there is a facebook page that is getting a very high following these days and that was opened recently after Clinton’s comment about not taking sides, the translated title from Arabic says: ” France and USA, mind your own business this is OUR fight, why do you have to mingle yet again! ” ( a rough translation that is).

  4. Tunesisches Regime schwer unter Druck « Mein Parteibuch Zweitblog Says:

    [...] Analyse der Menschenrechtsaktivistin Sihem Bensedrine (deutsch) Ethan Zuckerman Telepolis: Tunesien im Aufruhr (deutsch) Cablegate: [...]

  5. Song for Bradley Manning – David Rovics « KADAITCHA Says:

    [...] What if Tunisia had a revolution, but nobody watched? Police Stopped Loughner’s Car on Day of Shooting The social significance of the Arizona massacre Mayhem Spreads in Tunisia; Curfew Decreed Soldiers on the streets as Tunisian violence reaches capital Tomgram: William Hartung, Lockheed Martin’s Shadow Government Steve Bell on Sarah Palin’s ‘blood libel’ Tunisia in turmoil Letters from Tunisia Corporations, Human Rights, Imperialism, Internet, Politics, US   Human Rights, international law, justice, US, war, war crimes, wikileaks      Flooded in, with an Eye on Israel’s Persecution of the People of Gaza » [...]

  6. anon Says:

    Ethan,

    Thank you for your nuanced analysis of an issue that’s caused a lot of grief for me and my fellow countrymen. As a Tunisian expat whose wrestled with this issue, the only solace I’ve found is that the lack of foreign coverage – and related lack of condemnation from Tunisia’s strategic partners such as France and the US – help to undermine Ben Ali’s claim that this revolution is financed and fueled by foreign elements.

    In a way, the more Tunisians make progress in bringing change to our country without the support of foreigners, the more we can take ownership in the progress we’ve achieved, and hopefully the more we will hold accountable whoever steps into power next.

    That said, I have the luxury experiencing the revolution many miles away from the comfort of my home, so my views may not be at all representative of those actually fighting the good fight. Either way, thanks again for your analysis, and godspeed to our brothers and sisters who are fighting for their freedom.

  7. Zvi Says:

    Heres the reason no one cares…. in a joke:

    Bin Ladin was recorded lately calling the Hamas leader Mashal in Syria:

    “Brother – I have risked my life to call you. I have a burning question that keeps me from my sleep”

    “Go ahead Osama – I will try to answer!”

    “Well, you guys kill civilians, and I kill civilians… so why is it you guys get great press
    and demonstrations from silly westerners, while I am hunted down and move from hole to retched hole?”

    “Oh – that… this is simple to answer: I only kill Jews!”

  8. Mike Wolfson Says:

    Check out “The World” which is a radio program (and website, podcast, etc) which has had very extensive coverage of Tunisia. It can be found on the PRI website: http://www.pri.org/theworld. In particular, the “Tech” section has exhaustive coverage (and Clark Boyd has been following this for a long time).

    This is not being ignored by the world, and is getting attention from people worldwide who value the free exchange of information (and appreciate the openness of the WWW).

  9. Yezzi Fock « zunguzungu Says:

    [...] was in July of 2009, when things were still at a low simmer. Since then, they’ve boiled over. Ethan Zuckerman: On December 17, a 26 year old Tunisian man named Mohamed Bouazizi reached the end of his rope. An [...]

  10. Ethan Says:

    Thanks, Mike – I added a link to The World’s coverage – as well as to Foreign Policy’s coverage – earlier today.

  11. Rich Says:

    Rise up, people. Rise up and take back what’s yours; they aren’t going to give it to you. Take it back.

  12. Tunisia’s Cyberwar: Under The Radar — Securing Our eCity - Blog Says:

    [...] Zuckerman, Harvard University Researcher and co-founder of Global Voices, writes extensively on Tunisia’s lack of media coverage in the West: There’s been virtually no coverage of the [...]

  13. jon Says:

    Well said. Enduring America is another site that’s had some excellent coverage of Tunisia, including videos and reprinting Brian Whitaker’s critique of Western media coverage.

    In terms of the social media aspects, as you say it’s still an open question about the role Facebook, blogs, Twitter, and YouTube have had within Tunisia, but once again — as with Moldova and Iran — they’re crucial channels for getting word out of the country and connecting people who are following it internationally. Rather than the blanket utopianism vs. futility arguments, I hope discussions start to focus on ways in which social media can be a force for freedom.

  14. Welcome | Project on Middle East Democracy Says:

    [...] Writing at his blog, Ethan Zuckerman points to the lack of media coverage of the events, “Google Trends shows a spike of attention [...]

  15. Ian Says:

    One small but important factual correction: Iran is not a “nuclear-armed member of the Axis of Evil”. Sources differ on the extent and purpose of the Iranian nuclear program and whether or not they are even pursuing nuclear weapons (Iran maintains they are not, others are justifiably skeptical). To date, all public sources agree that Iran is years away at least from producing a nuclear device, much less anything that could be used as a weapon.

    I realize this one item does not detract from your argument, but I think it’s worth baing accurate in describing nuclear proliferation issues.

  16. Ethan Says:

    Fair point, Ian – I’ll amend. Was trying to be pithy, and you’re right – that’s an error there.

  17. Popular on Twitter: Wikipedia’s usage is on the rise, the NYT still gets half its traffic from its homepage, a Silicon slapfight » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism Says:

    [...] Where’s the Tunisia revolution coverage in the U.S. media? [...]

  18. Chris O'Brien Says:

    Outstanding post…No easy answers here, I think, but great analysis.

    One thing I’d like to see you address: Why does it matter to me (or someone in the U.S.) if I hear about events like those in Tunisia? I think it does matter, by the way.

    But that’s not self evident to everyone…Is it that without strong grassroots pressure, our government is unlikely to take appropriate action? Or something else in your view?

    I do think it’s clear to most folks why this would matter to folks on the ground in Tunisia, btw.

  19. Ethan Says:

    Chris, that’s exactly the right challenge – it’s a good pushback on virtually all the work I do. Some quick responses regarding this specific situation:

    - For US citizens… our government, for better or worse, is committed to a policy of exporting democratic change. That policy has had very mixed results in Iraq, tragic results in Afghanistan, and is inconsistently applied on a global scale, particularly in the Middle East. Tunisia is a very useful counterweight to some of these arguments about change – this change appears to be coming with no change in US pressure, but a set of circumstances on the ground leading to a major citizen movement, and, as such, is an instructive counterexample.

    - For anyone who thinks the internet and social networks can be used for productive societal change, this is an interesting case study. Because media inside Tunisia is weak and state controlled, social media’s been a major vector for protest info. It’s possible, though not guaranteed, that this is one of the better examples of how social media helps mobilize inside and outside a country. It’s worth study to see what’s replicable.

    - There are a whole lot of countries like Tunisia – poor, growing, on the periphery of global markets, seeking progress through a combination of authoritarianism and economic growth. When the economic growth part of the equation slowed, Tunisians got angry. This could be a useful precursor for similar uprisings in other nations, and is worth understanding for anyone who cares about understanding foreign policy as a whole.

    For those who don’t care about foreign policy, social media, activism… this probably isn’t a hugely important story to you. But then again, if those aren’t issues you care about, you’re hardly likely to be reading my blog, are you?