| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| Poonte | Posted
on 04-Mar-03 07:59 AM
For those who oppose the impending war in the Persian Gulf, please take a few minutes to sign this petition. Dear MoveOn member, We've launched an emergency petition from citizens around the world to the U.N. Security Council. We'll be delivering the list of signers and your comments to the 15 member states of the Security Council on THURSDAY, MARCH 6. If hundreds of thousands of us sign, it could be an enormously important and powerful message -- people from all over the world joining in a single call for a peaceful solution. But we really need your help, and soon. Please sign and ask your friends and colleagues to sign TODAY at: http://www.moveon.org/emergency/ In the next week, the U.N. Security Council will likely meet to decide on authorizing a war against Iraq. If the Council votes to accept a second resolution, it'll be very difficult to avert a war. But if the resolution doesn't get enough votes, it'll be a major setback for the Bush Administration's plans to invade and occupy Iraq. In the United States and around the world, millions of us oppose a war against Iraq. We believe that tough inspections can disarm Saddam Hussein without the loss of a single life. This week may represent our last chance to win without war. The stakes couldn't really be much higher. A war with Iraq could kill tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and inflame the Middle East. According to current plans, it would require an American occupation of the country for years to come. And it could escalate in ways that are horrifying to imagine. We can stop this tragedy from unfolding. But we need to speak together, and we need to do so now. Let's show the Security Council what world citizens think. You can add your voice at: http://www.moveon.org/emergency/ Then please ask your friends, family, colleagues, acquaintances -- anyone you know who shares this concern -- to sign on today. As the New York Times put it, "there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." The Bush Administration's been flexing its muscles. Now let's flex ours. Sincerely, --Eli Pariser International Campaigns Director MoveOn.org March 3rd, 2003 P.S. Here's the letter we'll be delivering to the Security Council members along with the petition: Dear Member of the U.N. Security Council, We are citizens from countries all over the world. We are speaking together because we will all be affected by a decision in which your country has a major part -- the decision of how to disarm Iraq. The first reason for its existence listed in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind." If your country supports a Security Council resolution that would authorize a war on Iraq, you will directly contradict that charter. You will be supporting an unnecessary war -- a war which immediately, and in its unknown consequences, could bring "untold sorrow to mankind" once again. The U.N. was created to enable peaceful alternatives to conflict. The weapons inspections under way are a perfect example of just such an alternative, and their growing success is a testament to the potential power the U.N. holds. By supporting tough inspections instead of war, you can show the world a real way to resolve conflict without bloodshed. But if you back a war, it will undermine the very premise upon which the U.N. was built. President Bush argues that only by endorsing a war on Iraq can the United Nations prove its relevance. We argue the opposite. If the Security Council allows itself to be completely swayed by one member nation, in the face of viable alternatives, common sense and world public opinion, then it will be diminished in its role, effectiveness, and in the opinion of humankind. We do not support this war. For billions of citizens in hundreds of countries, and for the future generations whose lives will be shaped by the choice you make, we ask that you stand firm against the pressuring of the Bush Administration, and support tough inspections for Iraq. The eyes of the world are on you. Sincerely, [Number] citizens of the world. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 04-Mar-03 09:44 AM
another pro-war, pro-saddam petition B F D |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 04-Mar-03 02:12 PM
Dear Pooji. That is the most constructive suggestion, I think it will show what the world public thinks. If the UN and all the other so-called democratic global institutions are really working for the global welfare, they should listen to the common people, not to generals and corporate sleaze bags. Give peace a chance! |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 04-Mar-03 04:45 PM
Harvard Law Students launch coalition supporting disarmament of Iraq For Immediate Press Release (http://www.studentsprotectingamerica.com/) Cambridge, MA. February 24, 2003. Today at Harvard Law School a group of students launched Students for Protecting America, a non-partisan coalition supporting the immediate disarmament of Iraq in the face of its continued non-compliance with UN resolutions. The group’s position is that in the aftermath of September 11th, Americans can no longer remain complacent in the face of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among rogue states. Students for Protecting America supports the Bush Administration’s efforts to fight terrorism and defend America, and it believes that Iraq poses a dire threat and should be disarmed immediately. Brett Joshpe, founder of Students for Protecting America, said, “We are all frustrated by the anti-war protests of recent weeks and believe that most Americans agree with us, but have been less visible than the opposition. Our group intends to add legitimacy to the administration’s position. We firmly believe that in the absence of alternatives, this war is right for America, Iraq, and the world. America has a duty to protect its citizenry, and the opposition has failed to present viable or persuasive alternatives. We hope to spark a grassroots movement and encourage students and Americans to join us in demonstrating their support for protecting America.” Avigael Cymrot, co-founder of Students for Protecting America, said, “This is a time for moral clarity. The anti-war protesters are supporting the continuation of a regime that gasses its ethnic minorities, sanctions the use of rape as a means of political enforcement, engages in every variety of brutal torture, and has the potential to share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists. Most of us are unlikely activists, but in the face of this threat, we cannot afford to be indifferent.” Anthony Gaughan, co-founder of Students for Protecting America, said, "We believe that the effort to disarm Iraq and achieve regime change in Baghdad represents a critical moment in history. The question before us is whether the international community will live up to its cornerstone ideals of democracy and human rights, or whether its ideals are merely rhetorical flourishes. We call on our fellow Americans of all partisan affiliations to rally behind the Bush administration in its effort to preserve our freedom, protect our security, and promote our ideals by confronting and defeating international renegades such as Saddam Hussein." In order to raise awareness, Students for Protecting America is posting fliers around the Harvard campus. It plans to disseminate educational fliers supporting the cause for war and addressing counter-arguments frequently made against it. The group plans to contact other schools around the country to encourage similar forms of mobilization, and it is considering organizing a rally in the near future. Its web-site is www.StudentsProtectingAmerica.com. Students for Protecting America has issued the following Statement on Iraq: 1) Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to US and world security. In the absence of immediate and unconditional compliance with all UN resolutions, we support military action to remove this dangerous and totalitarian regime. 2) The American government and the international community have a responsibility to act swiftly and decisively to address this security threat, and the risks of delay are unacceptable. 3) The Bush administration has acted deliberately and cautiously by presenting numerous occasions for Iraq to disarm, which it has failed to do. 4) After twelve years of sanctions, Saddam Hussein still defies the international community, resulting in prolonged suffering for the Iraqi people. Sanctions no longer represent a viable option for disarming Iraq and ensuring US security. 5) France, Germany, Belgium and other members of the international community have irresponsibly obstructed our efforts to disarm Iraq. These governments have not only neglected their duties, but have seriously undermined the integrity of their alliances with the US. We should proceed to protect ourselves without their cooperation. 6) Those opposing the war have failed to present alternatives to military action that will guarantee the eradication of Iraqi ties to terrorist groups and attempts to obtain and develop weapons of mass destruction. 7) This war is moral and just and will benefit the Iraqi people and the international community. 8) We support the administration’s stance on this issue and its continued efforts to protect American security. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 01:19 PM
"Americans can no longer remain complacent in the face of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among rogue states." What is a Rogue State? According to Noam Chomski: Like many other terms of political discourse, the term "rogue state" has two uses: a propagandist use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms. Logic suggests that the most powerful states should tend to fall into the latter category unless internally constrained, an expectation that history confirms. Though international norms are not rigidly determined, there is a measure of agreement on general guidelines. In the post-World War II period, these norms are partially codified in the UN Charter, International Court of Justice decisions, and various conventions and treaties. The US regards itself as exempt from these conditions, increasingly so since the Cold War ended, leaving US dominance so overwhelming that pretense can be largely dropped. The fact that has not gone unnoticed. The newsletter of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) observed in March 1999 that "international law is today probably less highly regarded in our country than at any time" in the century; the editor of its professional journal had warned shortly before of the "alarming exacerbation" of Washington's dismissal of treaty obligations. (Chomsky, Noam: Rogue States, p.1) "Brett Joshpe, founder of Students for Protecting America, said, “We are all frustrated by the anti-war protests of recent weeks and believe that most Americans agree with us, but have been less visible than the opposition. Our group intends to add legitimacy to the administration’s position. We firmly believe that in the absence of alternatives, this war is right for America, Iraq, and the world. America has a duty to protect its citizenry, and the opposition has failed to present viable or persuasive alternatives. We hope to spark a grassroots movement and encourage students and Americans to join us in demonstrating their support for protecting America.” " No wonder Ralph Nader thinks he made the biggest mistake of his life by attending the Harvard Law School. Now this is FUNNY: "We believe that the effort to disarm Iraq and achieve regime change in Baghdad represents a critical moment in history. The question before us is whether the international community will live up to its cornerstone ideals of democracy and human rights, or whether its ideals are merely rhetorical flourishes. We call on our fellow Americans of all partisan affiliations to rally behind the Bush administration in its effort to preserve our freedom, protect our security, and promote our ideals by confronting and defeating international renegades such as Saddam Hussein." What do they teach at Harvard Law School these days? Seems like the above student who is quoted isn't even familiar with the basics of International Law!! According to the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States: No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal or external affairs of any other state. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the state or against its POLITICAL, economic and cultural elements are condemned. Article 2 (4) of the UN charter states that: All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or POLITICAL independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations. According to the decision made by the International Court of Justice on Collective Defense on Nicaragua Case: "For one state to use force against the other, on the ground that that state has committed a wrongful act of force against a third state, is regarded as LAWFUL, by way of exception, ONLY WHEN THE WRONGFUL ACT PROVOKING THE RESPONSE WAS AN ARMED ATTACK" Also, ICJ has concluded that the mere possession of nuclear weapons did not of itself constitute a THREAT. On Intervention: The principle of non-intervention is a part of customary international law and founded upon the concept of respect for the territorial sovereignty of states. Intervention is prohibited where it bears upon matters in which each state is permitted to decide freely by virtue of the principle of state sovereignty. This includes, as the International Court of Justice noted in the Nicaragua case, the choice of Political, Economic, Social and Cultural systems and the formulation of foreign policy. (Shaw, Martin: International Law, Cambridge Uniersity Press) |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 01:30 PM
(Shaw, Martin: International Law, Cambridge Uniersity Press) read it as Shaw, Malcom: International Law, CUP. Today's Guardian has an interesting story: UN war doubters unite against resolution Sally Bolton and agencies Wednesday March 5, 2003 The foreign ministers of France, Germany and Russia today made a joint declaration that they will "not allow" passage of a UN resolution authorising war against Iraq. "We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorises resorting to force," the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said at a press conference. The conference followed a hastily-arranged mini-summit between the three nations' foreign ministers in Paris. "Russia and France, as permanent members of the security council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point," he added. When asked whether France would use its veto, as Russia has suggested it may do, Mr de Villepin said: "We will take all our responsibilities. We are in total agreement with the Russians." Yesterday, the Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, suggested that Russia could veto a new US-backed resolution seen as paving the way to war in Iraq. Mr Ivanov also said that his country was unlikely to abstain in any security council vote on Iraq. "Russia will not support any decision that would directly or indirectly open the way to war with Iraq," he said. Britain, the US and Spain have proposed a draft resolution that says the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, has missed his final opportunity to disarm. The US and Britain claim that Iraq has refused to destroy its chemical and biological weapons, as ordered by the UN, and military action will probably be necessary to disarm President Saddam Hussein. Other security council members, led by France, argue that UN weapons inspections are working, and want the inspectors to be given more time to hunt for banned chemical and biological arms, as set out in UN resolution 1441. "We see there is progress," German foreign minister Joschka Fischer said. "I do not see personally how we can stop the process of resolution 1441 and resort to war." Mr de Villepin said that he believes the results of inspections "are more and more encouraging," citing the destruction of Iraqi missiles, information about biological and chemical agents and interviews with scientists. But he also said Iraq needs to cooperate "more actively" with inspectors. "The inspections cannot go on forever," he said. Mr de Villepin set out a framework for giving inspectors more power, including detailed measures to determine whether or not the inspection process is making progress. He added that he believes a war in Iraq would increase tensions in the Middle East, create instability and increase the risk of terrorist attacks. Mr Ivanov said that China, which also possesses a UN security council veto, was in agreement with France, Russia and Germany. Blair: we will press on with new resolution The prime minister, Tony Blair, today warned Saddam that he was facing a final chance to disarm or to leave his country if he wanted to avoid war. Mr Blair confirmed that Britain and the US intend to press their draft resolution, giving the green light to military action, to a vote in the security council next week. "To people who say we are hellbent on conflict, we still say today it can be avoided if he does what the United Nations and the international community demands he do," he told MPs at prime minister's questions. He confirmed that Britain and the US would press the resolution to a vote if the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, reported on Friday that Saddam was still failing to comply fully with resolution 1441. "If he fails fully to comply, there should be a vote in the United Nations, and I very much hope the UN supports the position it set out in resolution which called upon him for full, unconditional and immediate compliance," he said. "It is plain, at the present time, he is not in such compliance." Mr Blair had held Downing Street talks with Mr Ivanov before the Russian foreign minister left for the meeting with his French and German counterparts. The prime minister's official spokesman acknowledged differences with the Russians, but said there was still a dialogue on how to proceed. Mr Blair again insisted that he remained confident of getting the nine votes needed from the 15-member council. The foreign minister, Jack Straw, warned yesterday that the international community should be wary of placing the US in a position where it felt isolated and obliged to act alone. Mr Straw spoke out as the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, and defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, used television interviews last night to confirm that Washington did not regard a second resolution as necessary for military action. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 01:31 PM
CONTD: Powell: war will happen with or without UN Mr Powell will attend the security council session on Friday to hear UN weapons inspectors give their latest reports on Iraqi compliance with UN disarmament requirements, a state department official said today. In an interview on Russian national television late last night, Mr Powell said that the US was prepared to lead a war against Iraq, with or without the consent of the UN. With more than 230,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf and ideal fighting weather conditions disappearing day by day, he told Russia's state-controlled ORT television that Saddam Hussein "must be disarmed". "He will be disarmed: peacefully, hopefully, but if necessary, the United States is prepared to lead a coalition of the willing, a coalition of willing nations, either under UN authority or without UN authority, if that turns out to be the case, in order to disarm this man". Turkish army chief backs US troops plan In a boost for the US's increasingly pressured war timetable, Turkey's chief of staff, Hilmi Ozkok, today said that the military fully backed government plans to allow US troops into the country. A government motion to allow in 62,000 US troops to form a "northern front" for war against Iraq, crucial to US war plans, was controversially rejected by the Turkish parliament this weekend. The defeat followed signs of weak support from the military, which wields considerable influence over MPs, for the deployment. "The Turkish armed forces' view is the same as the government's and is reflected in the motion our government sent to parliament," Mr Ozkok said. "The war will be short if a second front is opened from the north." The government is considering putting a second motion on the troops plan to parliament. Annan urges UN council to unify The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has urged the bitterly divided security council to find a compromise on its efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. Mr Annan, who insists that war must be a last resort, said yesterday that he is "optimistic" they can find common ground. Several council members expressed strong doubts, however, partly because the US will not negotiate the substance of its resolution calling for UN backing for military action against Saddam. Blix to report to UN on Friday Many council members are viewing Friday's reports by the chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, and Mohamed El Baradei, as crucial in their decisions over Iraq. The inspectors are to report on Iraq's compliance with the UN's November resolution giving it a "final chance" to disarm or face "consequences". They are expected to report Iraqi progress in destroying its illegal Samoud 2 missiles. Mr Powell said yesterday that the US would make a decision early next week "depending on what we heard, on when we want to bring the resolution to a vote". He predicted "a difficult vote". Meanwhile, UN weapons inspectors today returned to sites around Baghdad where they have been destroying the banned Samoud 2 missiles and casting chambers. Faced with the massive US military buildup in the region, Iraq met the March 1 deadline to start scrapping the Samoud 2 missiles after Mr Blix said that they exceeded the 150km range allowed under UN resolutions adopted after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf war. The US has dismissed the missile destruction as an Iraqi deception, and continued to increase its military force in the region. US man arrested after wearing peace T-shirt A man was charged with trespassing in a mall in Albany, USA, after he refused to take off a T-shirt saying "Peace on Earth" and "Give peace a chance". Mall security staff approached Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger, on Monday night after they were spotted wearing the T-shirts at Crossgates Mall. The two said they refused a request to remove the shirts or leave the mall. The guards returned with a police officer, who repeated the ultimatum and arrested Stephen Downs when he refused. Stephen Downs has pleaded innocent to the charges. The New York Civil Liberties Union said it would help with his case if asked. Police said they were responding to a complaint by mall security. Pope leads prayers for peace Pope John Paul II today urged the world's 1 billion Catholics to join him in Ash Wednesday fasting and prayers for peace. The pontiff, a staunch opponent of war in Iraq, said that everyone must "assume their responsibilities and make common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict". |
| suva chintak | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 01:36 PM
IFji, Timely and crucial intervention as always. I think your posting once and for all shatters the ignorant, arrogant, untenable logic and arguments of the warmongers. There is not one valid argument these guys can put forward to justify attacking Iraq...let alone the capture of Iraqi oilfields. I know know why Marx said, 'history repeats itself, first time as farce, second time as tragedy.' It was similar arguments of civilization and human progress that British, French and Spanish empires used to justify the capture of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the destruction of indifenous tribes. The Bush regime seems to be bent on following the same imperial trajectory by using the rhetorical justification of democracy, human rights and such other blah blah. By the way, Powell is reported to be looking for another Karzai candidate to be installed in Baghdad after Saddam is gotton rid of. Any takes for this cushy job? Six figure salary and state subsidized housing provided for in a posh Baghdad neighborhood. |
| isolated freak | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 01:57 PM
"I know know why Marx said, 'history repeats itself, first time as farce, second time as tragedy.' It was similar arguments of civilization and human progress that British, French and Spanish empires used to justify the capture of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the destruction of indifenous tribes. The Bush regime seems to be bent on following the same imperial trajectory by using the rhetorical justification of democracy, human rights and such other blah blah. " I wholeheartedly agree with you. If I remember correctly, Osmullah Occullan (sp??), the rebel Kurd leader who was seeking asylum in Kenya was forcibely returned to Turkey, with the help of the CIA, sometimes in Feb/March 1998. Now, the US talks about democracy and is concerned about attacks on Kurds!!!! Also, I don't seem to buy the US argument that multi-party democracy is the only system that works everywhere. The US exported ideals of Democracy and Freedom of speech didn't work in some of the African countries (for more on this see, The Coming Anarchy, Kaplan, 2000) Another interesting aspect re: American Foreign Policy: Demonization of regimes that it doesn't like. |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 02:43 PM
Maoists should not prevail :U.S. In a frank and strong statement this month in Washington, a senior official responsible for South Asia in the George W. Bush administration said the United States will not let the Maoists prevail in Nepal even while welcoming last month's cease-fire to end a communist insurgency politically. "Last month's cease-fire is a big step in the right direction....From a humanitarian standpoint alone, the U.S. does not wish to see these insurgents prevail," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Donald Camp told a meeting of the Heritage Foundation. The latest U.S. policy pronouncement comes immediately after the recent cease-fire between the government and rebels to broker a peace and end a seven-year communist insurgency that has claimed more than 7,000 lives; the insurgents are pressing for an interim government with their representation. Camp said the Maoists are targeting U.S. interests in Nepal, seek to replace constitutional monarchy with an absolute communist regime hostile to Washington, defend Khmer Rouge and express common cause with other South Asian extremist groups " sharing similarly violent agendas." 'Such a development could destabilize the wider region, and Nepal could quite easily turn into a failed state, a potential haven for terrorists like that which we have transformed in Afghanistan," he added. Washington is coordinating development and military aid with Great Britain, India, China and other countries to defeat the Maoists. "This combined assistance strategy, along with our political and diplomatic efforts, is designed to help create a secure environment in which Nepal can continue its badly-needed socio-economic development, as well as to stave off a Maoist victory, convince the insurgents that they cannot win militarily, and pave the way for a political settlement," Camp said. Washington called for a " united front" between sides that support multiparty democracy and constitutional monarchy " to work together" to defeat the radical communists. 'The dangerous situation facing Nepal is no time to let such differences prevent a united front," Camp added. "Unfortunately, differences between the Palace, the interim government and the political parties threaten to undermine chances for a dialogue (Government/Maoist) that the ceasefire provides," the diplomat said. Camp claimed the Maoist decision to negotiate an end to hostilities for the second time is" a tangible success of our (U.S.) policy success" saying that international support, including military assistance, to the government played a key role in bringing the rebels to the negotiating table. "Whether or not the ceasefire holds, we will support the Government in its effort to retain control and protect the Nepalese people," Camp said. "It has been said that Nepal is one part of the world in which Indian, Chinese and American interests are in almost perfect consonance. Our complementary policies will encourage a political settlement, assist in alleviating the root causes of the insurgency, and help bring peace to Nepal," he said. Washington, he said " reserves the right" to declare Maoists terrorists-- a political instrument it has not used so far. An unconfirmed report said Washington was about to declare rebels terrorists after the murder of Inspector General Krishna Mohan Shrestha, his wife and security guard before the ceasefire announcement. nepalnews.com br March 4 |
| whine and chij | Posted
on 05-Mar-03 02:47 PM
from tkp: We may backtrack from peace talks, warn Maoists Post Report KATHMANDU, March 4 : The CPN-Maoist leadership has cautioned the government negotiator in peace talks that the rebel outfit could drop the idea of attending the peace talks before they could get underway if the government refused to call off the army from current locations. According to a source close to Maoists, Krishna Bahadur Mahara, member of Maoist talk team today complained the government negotiator Narayan Singh Pun that the ‘baseless’ speculations made by Pun about the date of the talks might derail the peace process. Mahara is reported to have said Pun that the chief Maoist negotiator Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and other members would sit on the table for talks within an hour of the agreement on the code of conduct. Mahara and his colleague Dinanath Sharma, during their meeting with the leader of United Left Front (ULF) at the Communist Party of Nepal (Marxist-Leninist) party office today, hinted that talks with the government was not possible until the government’s consent on the code of conduct would come. The Maoists are reported to be stuck to their stance for demobilisation of armed forces and release of Maoists in jail. The refusal of the government to these three points of the code of conduct was sent to Maoists’ high command but decision of the party high command is yet to come. Pun had informed the Maoists on Thursday that the king was positive towards army demobilisation and freeing jailed Maoists, two major concerns raised by the Maoists in the proposed code of conduct. "However, the government side added one additional point of disagreement in the existing two," said the source. Pun had on Saturday informed Maoists about the government’s disagreement to invite international humanitarian agencies for monitoring of the peace talks and truce. According to the sources, the Maoists have linked arrival of Dr. Bhattarai to the issue of demobilisation of armed forces. "The peace process has hit a snag. It is a deadlock sort of scenario." Maoist leaders - Mahara and Sharma - today held meeting with a group of five fringe leftist parties, the ULF. During the meeting the ULF leaders suggested the Maoists to be confined on bringing the army under the purview of the popularly elected government and the need to have a provision for referendum in the new constitution. They suggested restructuring of administrative divisions of the country and ensuring equality among languages, religious and gender as the main agendas for future dialogue. Additional conditions include declaring education and health as the fundamental rights of the people. A press release issued by the UPF said here today that Maoists and the ULF have agreed to stop all sorts of regression and join hands for progressive reforms. The ULF supported the Maoist demand for a constituent assembly but urged the Maoists not to legitimise Chand government. |