Bøger udgivet af CLARITY PR INC

How do think tanks influence Western policies toward Russia? The influence of think tanks in Washington has grown immensely over the past decades in terms of producing research papers, engaging with the media, and having their staff enter government. The ideal purpose and appeal of think tanks is their ability to function as a bridge between academics, the media, the public, and decision-makers. Political decision-makers are expected to be experts across a wide area of governance which becomes increasingly difficult as the world becomes more complex. Acquiring advice and enhancing competencies through cooperation with scholars at universities can be challenging as academics tend to focus on narrow research questions that take place within a wider discussion of theory and method. Think tanks respond to this challenge as institutions that provide focused research studies and policy papers to address specific and current challenges. The negative aspect of think tanks is the power they wield, from controlling information to functioning as a waiting room for politicians out of office. Information is power, and a think tanks business model has been established that sells political influence in Washington and manufactures consent among the public. The military-industrial complex is the dominant donor to think tanks, which results in a bias toward military solutions and perpetuating conflict. Russia remains a leading adversary of the West and has sustained Washington's exorbitant military spending over many decades. Think tanks accordingly have a great incentive to push for a confrontational posture towards Russia as they operate in an industry where conflicts are profitable and peace produces losses A mutually acceptable post-Cold War settlement threatened the revenue of one of the largest and most influential industries in the US, which was reversed as a result of NATO expansion and renewed tensions with Russia. This book explores how the think tanks function, and how their growing role has influenced US policies toward Russia.

HBCUs represent the historic United States institutionalization of African American higher education. While during the Civil Rights period, the United States did remove de jure segregation and replace it with equality before the law, it nonetheless continued to recognize and fund HBCUs as an African American entitlement, in keeping with the desires of the African American people and their organizations. This is also in keeping with African Americans' international minority right to institutions. HBCUs have played a significant role in the training of African American professional sectors and in the economic viability of African American communities where they are situated. However, recent US government policies undertaken without consultation with African American / HBCU leadership have disproportionately impacted the survival of these institutions. Supreme Court decisions have also played a negative role. This book represents IHRAAM efforts from 2014-2015 to contextualize the struggle to save HBCUs within the context of the international minority right to institutions, and to stimulate debate and discussion within the HBCU and African American community as well as within government and the international community as to the value and applicability of international norms when seeking to resolve the ongoing disproportionately negative standing of African Americans in social indicators measuring well being-despite their having achieved de jure civil rights for nearly half a century. To that end, on July 14, 2014, IHRAAM sponsored (along with cosponsors 100 Black Men of Atlanta and Iota Phi Theta of Baltimore) a seminar on Empowering HBCUs and International Human Rights, again with a view to stimulating debate within the concerned communities. On September 14, 2014, IHRAAM submitted an Alternative Report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, scheduled to conduct its regularly scheduled 2015 Universal Periodic Review of the United States as it relates to human rights on May 11, 2015. On May 7, 2015, immediately preceding it, IHRAAM delegates presented a side-session at the UN Palais des Nations titled "Empowering Black Colleges: International Law, African American Development and Self-Determination." On July 20, 2015, IHRAAM representatives were invited to Washington by the U.S. State Department/Department of Education to participate in a Town Hall Session on the issues raised in the US UPR related to education. At that meeting, IHRAAM's project for the establishment of a quasi-governmental body, the Office of HBCU Development and International Cooperation (OHBCUD) was presented. This book includes the above-mentioned primary documents projected by IHRAAM, as well as capturing the thinking of persons outside of IHRAAM, all of whom seek to save and empower HBCUs, and represent their own positions.

The Trillion Dollar Silencer investigates the astounding lack of popular protest at the death and destruction that the military industrial complex is inflicting on people, nations, and the environment, and its budget-draining costs. Where is the antiwar protest by progressives, libertarians, environmentalists, civil rights advocates, academics, clergy, community volunteers, artists, et al? This book will focus on how military largesse infests such public sectors' interests. Contractors and bases serve as the economic hubs of their regions. State and local governments are intertwined with the DoD; some states have Military Departments. National Guard annual subsidies are large. Joint projects include aid to state environmental departments for restoration, and government-environmental organization teams to create buffer zones for bombing ranges. Economic development commissions aim to attract military industries and keep the existing bases and corporations. Veterans Administration hospitals are boons to their communities. Universities, colleges, and faculty get contracts and grants from the DoD and its agencies, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Minerva Initiative. Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs are subsidized by the DoD. Civilian jobs in the DoD provide opportunities for scientists, engineers, policy analysts, and others. Every kind of business and nonprofit, including environmental and charitable organizations like The Nature Conservancy and Goodwill Industries feeds at the DoD trough via contracts and grants. Individuals, arts institutions, charities, churches, and universities succumb to the profitability of military-related investments. Pension funds of public and private employees are replete with military stocks. Philanthropy is another silencer. The DoD itself donates equipment to organizations, especially those of youth, and lends equipped battalions to Hollywood. The weapons firms give generously to the arts and charities, heavily to youth and minorities. They also initiate joint programs such as providing tutors and mentors for robotics teams in public schools. Our militarized economy is destructive and wasteful. How can we replace the multitude of dependencies on military funding and restore the boundary between it and civil society? Surely a first step is to see how military spending results in the complicity of civil society in its pernicious outcomes. That is what this book tries to reveal.

The promotion and protection of human rights is a pillar of the United Nations, enshrined in the Charter, the international bill of rights, elaborated in General Assembly resolutions and declarations, and buttressed by monitoring mechanisms and regional human rights courts. After WWII the world demanded respect for collective and individual rights and freedoms, including the right to live in peace, i.e.freedom from fear and want, the right to food, water, health, shelter, belief and expression. Human dignity was understood as an inalienable entitlement of every member of the human family, rights that were juridical. justiciable and enforceable. It did not take long for these noble goals to be politicized. Many States systematically weaponize human rights for geopolitics. A "human rights industry" operates at all levels and instrumentalizes values with the complicity of diplomats, politicians, non-governmental organizations, academics, journalists, -independent experts-, rapporteurs, secretariat members and media conglomerates. This book addresses the decisive role played by major governmental and private agencies such as the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, elite think tanks, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum and others in shaping a "perception" of human rights that primarily serves geopolitical interests. Major non-governmental organizations that once were truly independent, including Amnesty and HRW, today belong to the leading narrative managers. The voting record in the General Assembly and Human Rights Council by China, Russia, the United States, Canada, UK, EU, OIC, Group of 77, Non-aligned movement, etc. documents who supports and who subverts human rights. Why do the Council and NGOs practice double-standards and allow States to brazenly lie, blackmail and bully weaker States? Under the pretext of providing humanitarian assistance, lethal military interventions are conducted, e.g. in Libya, emblematic example of how the noble idea of the "responsibility to protect" was corrupted. Propagandistic use of the words "human rights", "democracy", "rule of law", "freedom" - demean them and subvert rational discourse. Drawing on more than four decades of working in the field of human rights as UN staff member, rapporteur, consultant, professor and NGO president, Alfred de Zayas examines how the tools of implementation of human rights serve to entrench political narratives promoted by the "industry".

This study exposes the support that administrations in Washington have given right-wing dictatorships that committed terrorism especially during the cold war and war on terrorism. It offers a critique of this latter war, and the study's portrayal of the earlier war serves as necessary background for understanding and evaluating the latter war. It rejects the narrow definition of terrorism insisted on by Washington that exempts terrorism committed by governments (state terrorism) from the definition, and for political reasons restricts the term solely to the private terrorism committed by private individuals or non-governmental organizations. Every one of the six truth commission reports used in the study-one each for El Salvador, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa and two with remarkably similar conclusions for Guatemala-- found that the governments were responsible for the great preponderance of terrorism and other acts of repression that occurred in their respective countries, much more so than the guerrillas. In El Salvador, Guatemala, and Chile the governments were found to be guilty of over 90 percent of the acts of terrorism and other acts of repression. Sponsored by the United Nations, successor governments to those that committed state terrorism, or the Catholic Archdiocese of Guatemala City, each of these reports is based on thousands of interviews mostly with surviving victims or their families and friends. All of the truth commission reports charged that the state terrorists committed unimaginable, unspeakable acts of cruelty and terrorism, what the truth commission for Argentina characterized as an "encyclopedia of horror." Advertised as a defense against communism and sometimes swayed by other motives-- racism in South Africa and Guatemala and anti-Semitism in Argentina-- the basic motive for the state terrorists was discovered to be the preservation of the status quo and the prevention of social change. They hunted down, tortured, terrorized, and murdered peasants, workers, students, teachers, priests, and nuns. The truth commission for Guatemala sponsored by the United Nations found the government of that country guilty of genocide. With some exceptions, a compliant national media engaged in self-censorship, even passing on the government inspired lies that held the guerrillas, not the government, responsible for the bulk of the atrocities. This and other evidence suggest that the so-called war on terrorism is a partial war that fails to target the main perpetrators, the state terrorists. The incomplete definition insisted on by Washington shields it from being accused of being a supporter of terrorism. Washington's support for state terrorist regimes typically has taken the form of training their troops in "counterinsurgency," now "counter-terrorism," and by providing funds and loans, military equipment, and diplomatic backing. The study indicates that Washington helped the Saddam Hussein regime and the apartheid regimes in South Africa successfully develop weapons of mass destruction. Saddam used poison against the Kurds and the Iranians. The racists in Pretoria produced six nuclear weapons, which they destroyed, following a request from Washington, before handing over the government to Nelson Mandela. In order to assure the continuing Kuwaiti financing of Saddam's war of aggression against Iran (1980-1988), the Reagan administration put the American flag on the ships of the sheikdom to protect them from Iran. This administration also became a co-belligerent in Saddam's "oil war," sinking half of the Iranian navy. It is arguable that without this aid Saddam would have been defeated and deposed by Iran in 1988. The support for Saddam by the Reagan administration and by that of the elder Bush in its early years puts in perspective Washington's later moral claims for initiating wars against the dictator. Support for Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war also serves the reader as an introduction to what is to com