Bradley Manning Nobel Peace Prize Nomination 2012

February 1^st 2012 the entire parliamentary group of The Movement of the Icelandic Parliament nominated Private Bradley Manning for the Nobel Peace Prize. Following is the reasoning we sent to the committee explaining why we felt compelled to nominate Private Bradley Manning for this important recognition of an individual effort to have an impact for peace in our world.

Our letter to the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:

We have the great honor of nominating Private First Class Bradley Manning for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. Manning is a soldier in the United States army who stands accused of releasing hundreds of thousands of documents to the whistleblower website WikiLeaks. The leaked documents pointed to a long history of corruption, war crimes, and imperialism by the United States government in international dealings. These revelations have fueled democratic uprising around the world, including a democratic revolution in Tunisia. According to journalists, his alleged actions helped motivate the democratic Arab Spring movements, shed light on secret corporate influence on our foreign policies, and most recently contributed to the Obama Administration agreeing to withdraw all U.S.troops from the occupation in Iraq.

Bradley Manning has been incarcerated for well over a year by the U.S. government without a trial. He spent over ten months of that time period in solitary confinement, conditions which experts worldwide have criticized as torturous. Juan Mendez, the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, has repeatedly requested and been denied a private meeting with Manning to assess his conditions.

The documents made public by WikiLeaks should never have been kept from public scrutiny. The revelations – including video documentation of an incident in which American soldiers gunned down Reuters journalists in Iraq – have helped to fuel a worldwide discussion about America’s overseas engagements, civilian casualties of war, imperialistic manipulations, and rules of engagement. Citizens worldwide owe a great debt to the WikiLeaks whistleblower for shedding light on these issues, and so I urge the Committee to award this prestigious prize to accused whistleblower Bradley Manning.

Sincerely,

Birgitta Jónsdóttir

Margrét Tryggvadóttir

Þór Saari

Members of the Icelandic Parliament for The Movement

Warriors of Words

Listen; poets of the world

your words are mighty

your vision is clear

           war IS war

           not peace

The voice of the oracle speaks

           through your words

Fight with your pen

           with your vision

Open the space between space

the world between worlds

           between your words

The world is not simple

It unfolds in layers of understanding

and misunderstandings

Create that empty space

           of understanding

by being unbearably honest

Create that space for free thinking

curling through your words

To strike in the heart of hearts

like a bolt of enlightenment

You are the carrier of the flame

the favorite of the muse

the warrior of words

Truth is truth

           seek it

                      speak it

The bush is on fire

           illusions run deep

seek, speak, the truth

Hope shall flourish

peace shall flourish

in the s p a c e

This poem is dedicated to all the poets, writers, artists, thinkers & spiritual leaders that made

the Book of Hope & the World Healing Book possible.

Happy 2012

HaPpY 2012 - we are living at interesting times. May 2012 contain joy and happiness in your realities. ♥ My new years resolution this year as all the others is to do my best and to take on all experiences with a touch of serenity. Lets make 2012 a year where the tables will turn the pyramid of power upside down. 


I was made into a cartoon some years ago by the Italian cartoonist Maurizio di Bona aka theHand. This blog started out as a joint experiment between two artists, me the writer/sputnik JoyB and theHand. We went busy doing other things for some years but have decided to put JoyB back on the priority list and resurrect her in 2012. Here is the first new JoyB toon: May 2012 be the road to ...

Happy Brightmas 2011 :)

Photos & Videos from Birthday Party for Bradley Manning

Around 50 people participated in celebrations and vigil for Private Bradley Manning outside the USA Embassy in Reykjavik, Iceland on the 17th of December 2011, that date marks Brad's 2nd birthday in prison. Photos by Arni Stefan Arnason and Asgeir Asgeirsson.

Statement to USA Authorities on Bradley Manning's Birthday

Statement from the 50 people who have gathered outside the USA Embassy, Reykjavik, Iceland 17th of December 2011 to show Bradley Manning solidarity on his 24th Birthday delivered to the USA Ambassador to Iceland.

Today marks the second birthday Private Bradley Manning spends in jail. He is accused of having leaked secret documents to WikiLeaks of unprecedented proportions exposing serious war crimes and how the general population in the USA and around the world have been lied to in relation to the war waged in their name.

It is obvious that Manning will not get a fair trial. The USA president Mr Obama has prior to Manning even being brought to court claimed he was guilty. Obama also said that Manning could not go unpunished the way Ellsberg, the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers, once did, because the two cases are too different. Ellsberg, who sees Manning as following in his footsteps, cannot accept this assessment. He only agrees with the president on one point: Manning disclosed secret information, he says, but "all of the pages that I released were top secret."

The US government celebrated the release of the 'Pentagon Papers' on the Vietnam War as a sign of its openness. The truth, however, is that President Barack Obama has taken a much tougher line on whistleblowers than his predecessors. It is though timely to remind him that blowing the whistle on war crimes is not a crime.

The USA Army has come under fire for keeping Manning under detention for 18 months without trial, as well as the conditions of his detention. Since his confinement, Manning has become a symbol of free speech. We second the demands of the Bradley Manning Support Network  whom have pushed for his release and the dropping of all charges against him.

Inter-Parliamentary Union Resolution on my Twitter case

CASE No. IS/01 - BIRGITTA JÓNSDÓTTIR - ICELAND

Resolution adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 189th session

(Bern, 19 October 2011)

The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Having before it  the case of Ms. Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a member of the Icelandic Parliament, which has been the subject of a study and report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians following the Procedure for the treatment by the Inter-Parliamentary Union of communications concerning violations of the human rights of members of parliament, 

Taking note  of the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, which contains a detailed outline of the case (CL/189/11(b)-R.1),

Considering  the following information on file:

- Birgitta Jónsdóttir has been a member of the Icelandic Parliament since July 2009. She was the co-producer of a video, released by Wikileaks, showing United States soldiers shooting civilians in Baghdad from a helicopter;

- On 7 January 2011, she was informed by Twitter that it had received an Order from the United States District Court for the Eastern Division of Virginia to turn over to the United States the records and other information concerning her account. Twitter was given until 26 January to provide the information to the United States Government;

- The information sought by the United States Government with respect to Birgitta Jónsdóttir concerned the period from 1 November 2009 to date and involves subscriber account information including names, user names, screen names or other identities, mailing and other addresses, connection records, or records of session times and duration, length and types of service, telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, means and sources of payment for such services, including any credit card or bank account number, and billing records, records of user activity for any connections made to or from the account, including the date, time, length, and method of connections, data transfer volume, user name, and source and destination Internet protocol address(es), non-content information associated with the contents of any communication or file stored by or for the account, and correspondence and notes of records related to the accounts;

- The first court order, dated 14 December 2010, was originally kept secret and was only revealed to Birgitta Jónsdóttir and two other persons concerned by the same order, after Twitter took steps to ensure that it could notify the individual concerned;

- The Order of 14 December 2010 has been challenged by the three individuals, with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation representing Ms. Jónsdóttir in the proceedings; on 26 January 2011, the defence counsel of the three individuals submitted a joint sealed motion to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, requesting it to unseal the still secret court record of the United States Government's efforts to collect private records from Twitter as well as other companies which may have received such demands; a second joint motion, filed that same day, requested the Court to reconsider and overturn the 14 October 2010 Order;

At the request of Ms. Jónsdóttir’s legal counsel in the United States, the IPU submitted on 14 February 2011 a Memorandum to the Court concerning Ms. Jónsdóttir; the Memorandum was accepted by the judge and has become part of the court records;it sets out concerns regarding the potential impact of the Twitter order on:

(a) Ms. Jónsdóttir’s freedom of expression and her ability fully to exercise her parliamentary mandate; 

(b) parliamentary immunity as the Twitter order renders the immunity guaranteed to her under Article 49 of the Constitution of Iceland null and void; 

(c) her right to privacy; and

(d) her right to defend herself insofar as the United States authorities may be seeking disclosure of information from other service providers; the Memorandum, therefore, supported the defence motion to vacate the Twitter order and to unseal all other similar disclosure orders regarding Ms. Jónsdóttir;

On 11 March 2011, the Court denied the motion to vacate, granted the motion to unseal only in part and took the request for public docketing of certain material under consideration; the defence counsel has filed objections against the ruling, which are still pending before the District Court Judge,

Considering  moreover that:

- Members of parliament enjoy fundamental freedoms, including the right to privacy as well as specific measures of protection to allow them to carry out their work unimpeded;

- Parliamentary immunity ensures that members of parliament cannot be held to account for the opinions they express and the votes they cast, and countries have generally put special mechanisms in place to ensure that they can carry out their mandate without undue restrictions and with full respect for their freedom of expression; as regards Iceland, members of the Althingi are protected under Article 49 of the Icelandic Constitution, which states that: “No member of Althingi may be subjected to custody on remand during a session of Althingi without the consent of Althingi, nor may a criminal action be brought against him unless he is caught in the act of committing a crime. No member of Althingi may be held accountable outside Althingi for statements made by him in Althingi, except with the consent of Althingi”;

- In all countries, freedom of expression is essential to democracy; citizens cannot exercise their right to vote or take part in public decision-making if they lack free access to information and ideas and are unable to express their views freely;

- Freedom of expression is even more essential to members of parliament and is recognized as such by courts the world over; without the ability to express their opinions freely, members of parliament cannot represent the people who have elected them;

- Members of parliament are elected by people to represent them in parliament. In their daily work they legislate and they hold the governments to account. They are unable to perform these duties if they cannot receive and exchange information freely without fear of intimidation;

- Citizens will not communicate sometimes sensitive information to their representative without the assurance that their identity will be protected. Members of parliament therefore find themselves in the same situation as journalists, with an absolute need to be able to protect their sources,

Also considering  the following:

- Twitter is a website owned and operated by Twitter Inc. It offers a social networking and microblogging service that enables its users to send and read messages called Tweets, which are text-based posts of up 140 characters displayed on the user's profile page. Tweets are publicly visible by default; however, senders can restrict message delivery to followers;

- Members of parliament are increasingly availing themselves of modern means of communication with citizens. A vast majority of parliamentarians today communicate by email. Social media - Facebook, Twitter, etc. - are on the rise, particularly among young members of parliament and when MPs communicate with youth. These forms of communication are rapidly complementing and replacing yesterday's telex, telephone calls and faxes;

- The new social media offer vast opportunities for members of parliament to communicate with the public and to exchange information that is essential to them in their daily work. The use of these media, however, also presents significant risks to parliamentarians that their privacy will be invaded and their parliamentary work impaired;

- For members of parliament, it is essential that any private communication they receive is accorded the same level of protection regardless of the technology, platform and business model used to create, communicate and store it. This does not appear to be the case today,

Considering finally, that Ms. Jónsdóttir is concerned that the United States authorities are seeking disclosure of information from other US-based service providers without her knowledge;

there are fears that those providers may meanwhile already have turned over to the Court information on her accounts; moreover, according to information provided in October 2011, Ms. Jónsdóttir may have become the subject in the United States of America of a preliminary criminal investigation before a grand jury in relation to three files which seem to concern information retrieved from her accounts with other social media and Internet search engines,

1. Affirms  that freedom of expression goes to the heart of democracy and is essential to members of parliament; without the ability to express their opinions freely, members of parliament cannot represent the people who have elected them; if they cannot receive and exchange information freely without fear of interference they cannot legislate and hold the government to account;

2. Recalls  that Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the right of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression; it stipulates that this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers;

3. Notes  that, under standard human rights conventions and their jurisprudence, restrictions on the freedom of expression are subject to a threefold test: they should be prescribed by law, they must be necessary in a democratic society, and they must be proportionate to these necessary purposes;

4. Fails to see  how the restrictions on freedom of expression that would result from compliance with the Twitter court order can be justified on such grounds, and holds that, on the contrary, such compliance would jeopardize a member of parliament's right to freedom of expression and hence his/her ability to seek, receive and impart information freely, which is absolutely necessary in a democratic society;

5. Is concerned  that the national and international legal framework concerning the use of electronic media, including social media, does not appear to provide sufficient guarantees to ensure respect for freedom of expression, access to information and the right to privacy; the guarantees protecting freedom of expression and privacy in the “offline world” seem not to operate in the “online world”;

6. Notes also with concern  that the parliamentary immunity Ms. Jónsdóttir would hav enjoyed under Icelandic law in exercising the political activity which is apparently at stake, is not operational in this case; given that the use of social networks by parliamentarians with their constituents and others is today commonplace in many countries, disclosure orders such as the one in question would undermine and even render void the ability of States to protect their members of parliament from unwarranted interference with their mandates;

7. Expresses deep concern, therefore, at the efforts made by a State to obtain information about the communications of a member of parliament of another State and the likely consequences of this for members of parliament the world over on their ability to discharge their popular mandate freely;

8. Is further concerned  that Ms. Jónsdóttir may not only be subject to profiling but be subjected to a criminal investigation on the basis of information retrieved from social media and Internet search engines obtained without her having had the possibility of challenging its disclosure; notes  in this regard that, unlike Twitter, other companies do not necessarily inform their users of judicial requests for information concerning them directly; considers  that such a situation would be a grave breach of Ms. Jónsdóttir’s fundamental right to defend herself;

9. Requests  the Secretary General to communicate its concerns in this case to the parliamentary authorities in Iceland and in the United States of America, and to seek their views along with official information regarding a criminal investigation possibly under way against Ms. Jónsdóttir;

10. Also requests  the Secretary General to conduct a study on the impact of the use of social networks on the exercise of the parliamentary mandate;

11. Requests  the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 126th  IPU Assembly (March/April 2012).

Report on the economic situation in Iceland three years after the collapse of the financial sector

by

Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Margrét Tryggvadóttir and Thor Saari

Members of Parliament for The Movement.

A letter to the panel guests to the conference called Iceland’s Recovery – Lessons and Challenges to be held in Reykjavik on October 27th. as it is our wish to convey information and facts about the economic situation in Iceland that we are not sure you will be provided with prior to, or at the conference.

Introduction

To begin with the conference itself is at the core of a massive public relations effort by the government of Iceland and is part of a setup in order to convey to the world the achievements of the Icelandic government. As such the conference is unique in Iceland’s history, though the goal is not. Be reminded that in early 2008 the Icelandic government through a cooperative effort that included government ministers, the Confederation of Icelandic Employers, the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Supervisory Authority, the Central Bank and the Icelandic Financial Services Association (representing the financial sector), embarked on what can only be called a vast program of misleading information, half-truths and deception about the health of Iceland’s financial sector.

This program was presented both domestically and to the international community, including high ranking government officials of neighbouring countries. This was done in 2008 even though as early as in February of that year it was revealed to the Cabinet and the political parties behind the government that the finances of the banking sector were not sustainable and that it would crash sometime soon and not later than in the second half of 2008. Some of the these same people, from these same organizations and political parties will sit beside you at this conference and provide you with their side of the story.

The Crash

The collapse of the banking sector dragged large parts of the economy down with it leading to a complete collapse in the construction industry, finance and investment. The currency depreciated by over 50% during 2008 leading to a surge in inflation as imports are a major part of the economy. An example is the Japanese Yen going from less than 0.5Yen/ISK to more than 1.3 Yen/ISK in a few months. The currency collapse and the following surge in inflation led to a mutation upwards in household mortgages as virtually all of them were either FX-linked or index-linked (to CPI) and most borrowers went from being in good financial health to being technically insolvent at the least. While some of this is surely to blame on the households themselves as overleveraging was common, these lending practices were encouraged by the banks and the government all the way through to October 2008, even though they knew this was unsustainable. The government knew exactly what would happen but continued to praise the banking system and the banks were taking large positions against the ISK via an array of derivative contracts while at the same time encouraging FX-loans to Icelandic homeowners.

The banks collapsed in October, the government took over the banking sector and established new banks on the remnants of the older ones. In the restructuring process it was decided to transfer assets (loan portfolios) from the now defunct banks to the new banks as part of the equity side of their balance sheet, while at the same time leaving most of the debt behind in the old banks.

Household debt

As the asset transfer took place the assets were re-valued and written down to something estimated to resemble a „fair value“ of about 40% of the book value, on average. Household mortgages were written down by approximately 40%, ending with a fair value of about 60% of the previous book value. However, following the transfer these write-downs were not passed on to households (as recommended by the IMF) but instead the new banks got a free hand in trying to collect the previous full book value of the loans.

Facing massive public protests and a large scale bankruptcy by the household sector the government has since tried to establish policies to resolve this household debt problem. The solutions have not worked. One of them (most common) is a write-down of mortgages to 110% of the estimated value of the home. Because of underlying inflation and the CPI-indexing of mortgages, these mortgages very quickly increased again to 120% and then to 130% of the estimated home value, requiring repeated attempts to reach the 110% level. The results are that some 26.000 individuals are registered in serious default. If each of these individuals represents a household, this means that approximately 35% of all households in Iceland are still in a serious default position with their debts, even after being able to tap in to their pension funds in order to stay solvent.

The solution to the FX-indexed loan problem has also been a disaster as via government legislation the FX-linked loans were converted to ISK loans starting at the initial borrowing date and then re-valued using the Central Bank policy rate for the period of the loan. However, the CB policy rate was at times over a three year period was close to 20% reaching 21% at the most. Needless to say people would never have borrowed money at these rates in the first place, but they are now forced to pay up and shut up.

This has lead to stagnation in private consumption, possibly the only area where economic growth can occur considering the current situation of no investment and decreasing global prices for Iceland’s exports. A “Japanese” decade (or more) is perhaps what lies ahead, at the best.

Monetary policy, the financial sector and the currency

It is also interesting to observe the dynamics around the making of this facade of economic recovery as the economy is basically being re-built on the same hollow ground and with the same rotten wood that led to the crash. The architect of the previous monetary policy that worked so disastrously is now the Governor of the Central Bank and is advocating a return to the old policy with a slight twist of some bells and whistles that look dubious at the best. His assistant, the Deputy Governor was the Central Bank’s chief economist in the years prior to and during the Crash, never uttering a word publicly about the disastrous policy or upcoming problems. Most of the same staff as before is still at the CB, which by the way became insolvent during the crash.

The financial sector is being reconstructed with more or less the same bank-secrecy laws in place, unknown ownership of two of the banks and without splitting up the banks in to separate commercial and investment banks. Most of the same staff as before the crash is still employed in the banks, including managers, division chiefs, regulatory supervisors, accountants and analysts.

The Icelandic currency is not freely tradable any more as strict currency controls are in place. While the plan is to lift the controls as soon as possible, the problem is that the plan includes lifting the controls while floating the currency in to the same environment that led to it’s collapse in the first place. While there has been some talk about the necessity of either abandoning the ISK altogether and adopting another monetary unit (Euro, US Dollar, Canada Dollar, Norwegian Krona) or a New Icelandic Krona based on a new footing (NIK), no proper research in that area has taken place.

The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this is that the economy will likely face another crash in the near future.

The General Government Debt Issue

As is fairly common the Icelandic government has an inclination to shroud it’s debt statistics in a veil that is not easily lifted all at once (see table on page 6). While the official numbers look perhaps not too bad by some international standards, with central government debt amounting to 1.345 billion ISK at year-end 2010 or approximately 87% of GDP, one must bear in mind that this debt bears high interest and is in part (at least 25%) indexed to the CPI. Currently the interest payments only on this debt are estimated to be about 17%-20% of government income in the 2012 budget. Central government debt continues to increase with new borrowing exceeding repayments by 11 billion ISK in 2012. Municipal debt amounts to 215 billion ISK, bringing the general government debt level up to 101% of GDP. Currently one municipality is insolvent and 10 to 15 other municipalities are in serious debt trouble, some technically insolvent already.

The state has however gone to great lengths to finance it’s activities by means that do not account directly as central government debt, that is by the use of state guarantees (contingent liabilities). These guarantees while differing somewhat in their nature (direct vs. indirect guarantees) have for example been used to finance all the loans provided by the Housing Financing Fund (all CPI indexed), by far the largest lender of mortgages in Iceland and to finance large hydro-electric power plants by the National Power Company. All together these guarantees amount to 1.508 billion ISK or approximately 98% of GDP.

In addition there are so-called extraordinary state guarantees on all domestic bank deposits and on assets taken over by two of the newly established private banks. These guarantees are granted by the Minister of Finance according to provisions in the Emergency Laws passed in 2008 and amount to 1.542 billion ISK or approximately 92% of GDP. Guarantees to municipality-owned companies by municipalities amount to 324 billion ISK and un-funded pension obligations by the state and by local governments to state and municipal employees pension funds amount to 383 billion ISK. Add to this the Central Bank debt of 280 billion ISK and the debt overhang of Iceland’s general government and its institutions is obviously enormous.

While of course it is not appropriate to add up all these different obligations one must keep in mind the risk involved as the Housing Finance Fund needed a large infusion of cash from the government last year, the Central Bank became insolvent in 2008 and other state guaranteed entities have also gone under.

Conclusion

Though we have perhaps presented you with a rather bleak picture of the current economic situation in Iceland please bear in mind that very little of the necessary restructuring has taken place and that neither political nor personal responsibility for the crash has been accepted by anyone. So far after almost three years of investigation, only three people have been charged by the Special Prosecutor, two of them found not guilty and one found guilty. It is our worry that Iceland is heading straight on into another economic crash and political turmoil that will be far worse than the last one. Raising a critical voice might make a difference and is the purpose of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Birgitta Jónsdóttir,

Margrét Tryggvadóttir,

Þór Saari

Members of Parliament for

The Movement.

The island Iceland in Brave New World

"The words galvanized Bernard into violent and unseemly activity. "Send me to an island?" He jumped up, ran across the room, and stood gesticulating in front of the Controller. "You can't send me. I haven't done anything. lt was the others. I swear it was the others." He pointed accusingly to Helmholtz and the Savage. "Oh, please don't send me to Iceland. I promise I'll do what I ought to do. Give me another chance. Please give me another chance." The tears began to flow. "I tell you, it's their fault," he sobbed. "And not to Iceland. Oh please, your fordship, please …" And in a paroxysm of abjection he threw himself on his knees before the Controller. Mustapha Mond tried to make him get up; but Bernard persisted in his groveling; the stream of words poured out inexhaustibly.

In the end the Controller had to ring for his fourth secretary."Bring three men," he ordered, "and take Mr. Marx into a bedroom. Give him a good soma vaporization and then put him to bed and leave him."The fourth secretary went out and returned with three green-uniformed twin footmen. Still shouting and sobbing. Bernard was carried out.

"One would think he was going to have his throat cut," said the Controller, as the door closed. "Whereas, if he had the smallest sense, he'd understand that his punishment is really a reward. He's being sent to an island. That's to say, he's being sent to a place where he'll meet the most interesting set of men and women to be found anywhere in the world. All the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own. Every one, in a word, who's any one. I almost envy you, Mr. Watson."Helmholtz laughed."

Aldous Huxley - Brave New World - chapter xvi page 224 

Worlds are magic, writers are shamans - it is interesting how our world is becoming Brave New World. Time for a gathering soon in Iceland of  all the people who, for one reason or another, have got too self-consciously individual to fit into community-life. All the people who aren't satisfied with orthodoxy, who've got independent ideas of their own.

Nato Parliamentary Assembly in Romania

I am currently in the Romanian Parliament in Bucharest participating in the NATO parliamentary assembly. I am in the Civic Dimension of Security Committee. A few months ago Lord JOPLING presented a report on Cyber Security. His report dealt with a wide range of topics: WikiLeaks and Anonymous were of great concern in his report, where he wove together real and serious attacks on nations such as Estonia with the threat of leaks: a very dangerous trend. Leaking information to the public domain is not an act of war, I would rather classify it a civic duty to expose war crimes.

I have not been able to find a legal way to provide changes in this biased report. I did criticize it harshly yesterday and basically said i could not support it with all its factual errors and biased perspective and attempts to make cyber attacks into something that would justify the usage of article 5. Apparently such criticism is not common here at the assembly on reports. The Lord thus offered me to send in info on factual errors. I did. I have with some great help from activists from all over the world gone through this report step by step and provided both amendments and deeper perspectives. You can download it HERE as pdf.

In the draft resolution on cyber security is no mention of the factual errors in Lord Jopling report and no proper way for me to amend those. Looking through the draft resolution on Cyber Security the following struck me with discomfort:

“9. URGES member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance:

1. to ensure swift implementation of the revised NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and the related cyber defence Action Plan, adopted in June 2011, introducing the cyber dimension in all three of NATO’s core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and co operative security;
   
   

We are URGED to ensure swift implementation of: revised NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and the related cyber defence Action Plan, adopted in June 2011

As this is a secret document and we will not be given access to review the policy. It is not wise for us the parliamentarians present here to ensure swift implementation of something we have not seen and will not be granted access to. It makes a mockery of the Nato parliamentary assembly to request its members to accept this process. If this is a common practice I urge all parliamentarians to abstain from participating in such an act because we cant possibly ask for legalizing something we have not been able to scrutinize and this process of accepting policies blindly is not very democratic and it does not provide the needed core information for us to have debate and offer political guidance and authority.

Thus I have requested that we will delete sub-paragraph 9.a in the draft resolution on Cyber Security unless we be given prior access to NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and the related cyber defence Action Plan, adopted in June 2011.

No one has chosen to do a report on the findings in the Afghan War logs. I will ask if my committee would be willing to do that at this assembly, there are not many like minded parliamentarians at the assembly and thus harder to get a Rapporteur status. I will keep on trying.

Here is the entire draft resolution:

Civil dimension of security

209 CDS 11 E

Original: English

NATO Parliamentary Assembly

DRAFT RESOLUTION

on

CYBER SECURITY

presented by

Lord JOPLING (United Kingdom)

General Rapporteur

The Assembly,

1. Recognizing the benefits offered by the cyber domain to our societies as well as to the defence and security sector, including opportunities for greater situational awareness and co ordination among the armed forces of the Allies as well as for the Alliance‘s public diplomacy;

2. But also concerned with the emergence of a new category of threats that target national information infrastructures, and that could seriously undermine the security interests of the Alliance and its member states;

3. Anxious that cyber defence capabilities and awareness of cyber threats vary significantly across NATO member states thereby weakening the Alliance’s overall cyber security;

4. Welcoming the decisions made by the leaders of the Alliance at the NATO Lisbon Summit and the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in June 2011, identifying cyber security as one of the key priorities of the Alliance;

5. Saluting NATO’s approach aimed at expanding its cyber defence policy to include centralized cyber protection of all NATO bodies and the use of NATO’s defence planning processes in the development of the Allies’ cyber defence capabilities. ;

6. Believing that, in view of the growing scope and severity of cyber attacks, in addition to exploiting fully the opportunities offered by Article 4, the potential application of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty in case of a serious cyber attack against the Alliance or its individual members, should not be ruled out;

7. Noting that legislative “black holes” still exist both at a national level and in terms of international law when it comes to setting security standards for the cyber domain;

8. Emphasizing that stricter security regulations for the cyber domain should not come at the cost of reduced civil liberties and rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to communicate over the Internet, and noting the key role of the Internet in mobilizing democratic movements in authoritarian countries;

9. URGES member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance:

a. to ensure swift implementation of the revised NATO Policy on Cyber Defence and the related cyber defence Action Plan, adopted in June 2011, introducing the cyber dimension in all three of NATO’s core tasks: collective defence, crisis management and co operative security;

2. to promote domestic awareness of cyber threats, taking into account lessons learned from milestone events including the cyber attacks against Estonia in 2007 and against Georgia in 2008 as well as the emergence of Stuxnet malicious software;

3. to scrutinize domestic legal frameworks, ensuring that coherent and effective laws are in place to address the evolving cyber threats;

4. to provide necessary support for the efficient functioning of national Computer Incident Response Teams, and to invest sufficiently in the training of national cyber security experts;

5. to promote closer partnerships between governments and the private sector in order to ensure the security of government networks and improve the exchange of expertise in case of a breach of security;

6. to ensure that the introduction of additional security measures in the cyber domain are accompanied by adequate mechanisms of parliamentary and public oversight over their respective government institutions;

7. to support international efforts to develop universal norms of acceptable behaviour in the cyber domain that would ban the use of cyber attacks against civilian targets, promote exchange of best practices and establish mechanisms of international assistance to stricken nations, while ensuring full universal access to the Internet as a venue for the exchange of ideas and information;

8. to ensure that adequate attention is paid to the physical protection of networks, including undersea fiber-optic infrastructures;

10. URGES relevant NATO bodies:

1. to ensure that NATO Computer Incident Response Capability is fully operational by the end of 2012, and that NATO’s cyber defence services are centralized;

2. to facilitate, if requested, national efforts of NATO member states to acquire adequate cyber defence expertise and state-of-the-art technologies;

3. to test the efficacy of NATO and member states’ cyber defence efforts through NATO’s periodic international exercises, and to ensure that these exercises are fully funded, staffed and well-attended;

4. to use capabilities such as NATO Cyber Defence Management Board and NATO Co operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, to analyze rapid developments further in the cyber domain and to develop strategies for strengthening cyber defences across the Alliance, while exploiting the advantages of the information age through initiatives such as NATO Network Enabled Capability;
5. to develop efficient co-operation mechanisms with the relevant EU institutions, with the particular aim of supporting the EU’s legislative efforts to establish robust cyber security standards across the private sector;

6. to increase assistance, if requested, to NATO partner countries in the field of cyber security, particularly by sharing best practices and raising awareness of cyber threats.

_______________

Five young Tibetans have lit themselves on fire in the last ten days

Letter from Tendor, Executive Director for Students for Tibet: please share it...

"This morning, I opened my laptop to the devastating news that two more Tibetans -- aged 18 and 19 -- self-immolated today.

In the last 10 days, five young Tibetans have lit themselves on fire in Ngaba in eastern Tibet. Since March, seven Tibetans have committed acts of self-immolation. We believe at least two have died but cannot confirm this as Chinese authorities refuse to disclose any information on their conditions. 

While these young men have decided to sacrifice their lives, it's not an escape from life's suffering they are seeking. It's freedom. Not only for themselves, but for their nation.

China's tyranny is driving Tibetans to take extreme actions previously unheard of in our culture. In their desperation, Tibetans are crying out to the world for help.

China's systematic repression and tyrannical rule in Tibet -- stationing officials in the monasteries, disappearing monks by the hundreds, shutting down phone lines, cutting off the internet, installing surveillance cameras and military checkpoints everywhere -- have created a spiraling nation-wide crisis.

Enough is enough. The world must intervene now to save Tibetan lives.

In the coming days, as part of a broad coalition of Tibetan NGOs and Tibet Support Groups, Students for a Free Tibet will launch a new campaign that says ENOUGH! and calls for global diplomatic intervention to save Tibetan lives.

We need your help. We are calling for world leaders to issue a coordinated international response to condemn China's repressive measures in Ngaba and across Tibet and to institute multi-lateral mechanisms to advocate for the Tibetan people.

Most immediately, we must pressure China to withdraw its security forces from Ngaba and stop the ongoing harassment and torture of Tibetan monks at Kirti monastery.

On November 3-4, Chinese President Hu Jintao will sit with world leaders in Cannes, France at the G20 summit. We're encouraging as many Tibetans and supporters as possible to be there to protest the Chinese government. 

On Wednesday, November 2nd, we're also calling for a mass mobilization in Cannes, France and cities around the world to intensify the pressure on China.

Tibetans have endured unimaginable suffering under Chinese occupation for the last 50 years. But until now there has not been a single known case of self-immolation. Today conditions in Ngaba and at Kirti Monastery have driven Tibetans to a breaking point.

Please, help us show Tibetans in Ngaba and across Tibet that their deep pain and suffering has not gone unnoticed by the world. Together, we can build a global force that Chinese leaders cannot ignore.

With urgency,

Tendor
Executive Director"