Taswira Kutoka IKULU:Rais Jakaya Kikwete,Rais Yoweri Kaguta Museveni wa Uganda,Rais Paul Kagame Wa Rwanda,Rais Salva Kiir wa Sudan ya Kusini Washiriki Mkutano Wa Wakuu Wa Nchi Za Maziwa Makuu

 Baadhi ya viongozi wan chi za jumuiya ya Maziwa Makuu wakiwa katika picha ya pamoja wakati wa Mkutano wa wakuu wa nchi hizo uliofanyika jijini Kampala Uganda leo.Kutoka kushoto ni Rais Salva Kiir wa Sudani ya Kusini,Rais Joseph Kabila wa DRC,Rais Dkt.Jakaya Kikwete,Rais Yoweri Museveni wa Uganda,Mwenyekiti wa kamisheni ya Umoja wa Afrika Dkt.Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma na Rais Paul Kagame wa Rwanda.

Rais Dkt.Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, akiwa katika mazungumzo na Marais Paul Kagame wa Rwanda(kushoto), Rais Salva Kiir wa Sudan ya kusini na Rais Yoweri Kaguta Museveni wa Uganda.Picha na Freddy Maro-IKULU

Press release The Labour agenda for tackling low pay Rachel Reeves MP, Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in a speech  to the Resolution Foundation, said:  - CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY- Thank you so much for having me today. The Resolution Foundation has been rightly recognised for its role in placing the pressures faced by ordinary working households at the centre of political debate. And it’s a great credit to the work of Gavin and his team that the next general election will be about living standards. Let me start by saying it’s welcome that we are now finally seeing growth again in our economy – growth that is essential to making up the ground we have lost over three wasted years during which the economy stagnated as a result of the Tory-led Government’s mistakes. David Cameron and George Osborne would like us to think that our troubles are over, good times are here again. But most families know that this complacency is misplaced. Not just a few families on the lowest incomes – but many who thought they were doing alright, yet now find themselves struggling. They know that things are getting harder, not easier. They feel the effects of real falls in wages that are down an average £1,500 since David Cameron became Prime Minister, and are taking the hit from tax rises and cuts to benefits and tax credits. They can see that prices continue to race ahead of their pay. They worry about the prospects for their children when almost one million young people are out of work. It’s an economy that no longer seems to offer the promise of a better life for the next generation. And it’s an economy that, for far too many people, seems only to offer work that is insecure, poorly paid, and in the worst cases simply exploitative. Just this week, on my first official day back from maternity leave, I visited a family in Thurrock who told me what they were up against. The father, once a partner in a thriving small business, lost his livelihood during the recession three years ago. Desperately trying to keep up their mortgage repayments, he has spent the past three years taking whatever work he could get through employment agencies, often on zero hour contracts. And only recently has he found a permanent job as a driver that, topped up with evening shifts doing deliveries, gives them a bit more security but falls far short of making full use of his talents and experience. His wife abandoned her dream of training to be a primary school teacher so she could hold onto her relatively secure, but modestly paid, job in retail. Their daughter is studying for university and should do well, but worries about the fees. All of them pointed to a gaping and growing disconnect between their rates of pay and the costs they faced – for travel, housing, and other basic necessities. They all, it was clear to me, had so much to contribute to our recovery and to our country – but weren’t being given a fair chance to play their part. This family’s experience is all too illustrative. There are now more than one in ten people who want to work more hours, but can’t get the extra shifts. At the same time there are 700,000 people working more than one job – more often out of desperation than choice. One million people are thought to be on zero hours contracts. And today we learn in this incredibly important report from the Resolution Foundation, a surge in the number of people paid less than a Living Wage – up from 3.4 million in 2009 to 4.8 million today. The report provides worrying evidence that the problem of low pay – which we know is not a new problem in the British economy – is becoming exacerbated and entrenched under this Government. Indeed, figures provided for me by the House of Commons library show that almost 60 per cent of new jobs created since the Spring of 2010 have been in low paid sectors of the economy. This contrasts with the record of the last Labour Government under which such jobs made up around 25 per cent of new jobs between 1997 and 2010. Why does this matter? First and foremost, for moral reasons. We simply can’t be satisfied with a situation where an honest day’s work does not bring a decent day’s pay. It’s about parents who want to spend more time with their family and children, but hardly see them because they have to take on a second job. It’s about a young worker who wants to go to evening classes to improve their chance of progression, but instead has to take a shift in the pub on the side to make ends meet. It’s about the women who are cleaning the offices of a building like this while most of us are just getting out of bed, and when we are on our way home are still at work, perhaps on the supermarket tills. It just isn’t right that these people – real strivers, putting in the hours and doing the right thing for themselves and their families – are, in Ed Miliband’s phrase, “working for their poverty”. Too many people not making the most of their skills and talents is a missed opportunity for Britain. And as Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, this issue is of huge fiscal importance too. Research from the Resolution Foundation and IPPR shows that if everyone was paid a living wage or above, then the Treasury would gain £3.6billion a year. And all of these problems - falling or stagnating living standards for the majority; widespread insecurity, underemployment and low pay, are interrelated aspects of an economy that isn’t working for ordinary families. For three years, we have had weak demand, high unemployment and underinvestment , which is doing damage to Britain’s competitiveness and productivity. And instead of doing whatever it takes to support Britain’s families, this government has focused on the fortunes of those at the top, hoping prosperity trickles down. Average wages have been falling behind prices for 37 out of 38 months of David Cameron’s Premiership. Which month is the odd one out? April of this year – when the bankers reaped the rewards of deferring their bonus until George Osborne’s decision to cut the top rate of tax was implemented. Meanwhile not one firm has successfully been prosecuted for non-payment of the National Minimum Wage over the past two years This government are on the side of the wrong people. The difference with Labour is clear. Ed Miliband has argued that we need to rebuild Britain as a One Nation economy where everyone plays their part, and everyone has a stake. Ed Balls and I have continued to press the case for action to secure the recovery and create the sustainable growth that will be essential to raising living standards at the same time as getting the deficit down. We have urged the government to boost capital investment now in areas such as housebuilding, as the IMF has recommended, and a compulsory jobs guarantee for young people and the long-term unemployed. We have also been clear that, while the next government will face tough choices on public spending and taxation, Labour would find a fairer way to get the deficit down. We wouldn’t be cutting income tax or increasing pension tax relief for the very wealthiest while cutting tax credits for hard pressed families, and we will seek to reintroduce a 10p starting rate of tax funded by a mansion tax on properties worth more than £2 million. A Labour government would also tackle vested interests to ensure that every part of the private sector plays its part in easing the squeeze on ordinary families. That includes proposals already set out for ending rip-off rail fares, getting the energy market working properly, standing up for tenants in the private rented sector, curbing pay day lenders, and reforming the pensions industry so it works for ordinary savers. And we have made clear that tackling insecurity and exploitation in the labour market is central to this agenda. Ed Miliband has set out how a Labour government would prevent exploitation of agency workers through loopholes in the rules, and prevent the use of migrant workers to undermine pay and conditions. But my main topic for today is Labour’s agenda for tackling low pay. Confronting low pay is part of the very DNA of the Labour movement. Our party was born of the self-organisation of workers in the nineteenth century who fought for a share of the fruits of the industrial revolution. It was Sidney and Beatrice Webb who made the argument that the livelihood of ordinary people could not be left to market forces alone, but that a “doctrine of the living wage” must be applied. But it was not until 1998 that we finally implemented a policy that we know would have featured on Keir Hardie’s own preferred pledge card, a National Minimum Wage - a legacy that sits alongside the creation of the NHS as one of Labour’s greatest achievements. It raised the pay of millions, reduced income inequality and helped to narrow the gender pay gap – all the while flouting the predictions of doomsayers – not least in the Conservative Party – that it would stifle business investment and create unemployment. So I am pleased that Sir George Bain, the founding chair of the Low Pay Commission and someone who says his back still bears the scars of its original introduction, is leading the Resolution Foundation’s work on how best to build on this achievement. The success of the National Minimum Wage depends critically on government coming together with representatives of both employers and employees to find consensus and work jointly towards a shared goal. In that sense, its success and durability provides evidence of the effectiveness of the One Nation approach that Ed Miliband has espoused. But a One Nation economy also has to be built from the bottom up. The living wage movement exemplifies this spirit. The work of community organisers like London Citizens and Citizens UK has been central to this – building relationships through dialogue, and involving and empowering ordinary workers. The success of their campaign has demonstrated that there are people on all sides willing to play their part in tackling low pay. First and foremost we can be proud that the best of British business has always sought to do the best it can by even its lowest paid workers. In 1851 Titus Salt, the highly successful textiles manufacturer in Bradford, was so appalled by the pollution in his home town that he built Salt’s Mill – purposefully built to minimise noise pollution with houses for his employees, schools, hospitals, libraries and a bath house. Joseph Rowntree appointed a welfare worker in 1891, introduced sick funds in 1902, and a pension scheme in 1906. He also built four hundred homes for his employees with educational facilities attached. These and so many other pioneering industrialists were philanthropic characters but wily businessmen too. They understood the importance of fairness in the workplace, to encourage workers, build morale and team work. And the same insights are well appreciated by the best employers today – including those in sectors such as care, cleaning and retail where rates of pay have traditionally been the lowest. For example, the British Retail Consortium has highlighted the efforts that many of its members put into improving job quality and providing good opportunities for training and progression. And the British Cleaning Council, which brings together employers and expert bodies from across the contract cleaning industry, has been vocal in its support for a living wage. Now we all know that paying the living wage is a big ask for many businesses, especially in sectors such as these. Many employers say they would love to do it if they could but face formidable challenges. And yet progress is being made. Not only have we seen the commitment by the large financial services companies who were the early targets of living wage campaigns. Intercontinental has now become the first hotel group to pay the London living wage, with Whitbread, the UK’s largest hotel and restaurant group, have said they want to move towards it. And the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has been taking forward the traditions of their founder by paying the living wage in the four care homes it runs in the north of England. This progress should encourage us to think that, whatever the challenges, there need be no “no go” areas for the living wage. In many cases employers have found ways of improving wage rates for lower paid staff by working with trade unions. Of course a significant feature of low paid segments of the British labour market is often low levels of union membership. But again there are areas where we can point to progress. The innovative methods of recruitment and organisation developed by unions - like Unite in the hospitality sector, USDAW in retail, or UNISON and GMB in the care sector, are helping build momentum and commitment to modernise business models and invest in lower paid staff. And at the heart of this, of course, are the workers themselves, who gain so much more than a boost to their pay – valuable though that is – when they take part in, or lead, campaigns to win a hearing, and discussions with employers to secure the living wage for themselves and their colleagues. As well as employers and employees, and their representatives, we are seeing an increasingly pivotal part played in this movement by shareholders. ShareAction have been mobilising UK and international investors and pension funds to encourage the adoption of living wage standards by FTSE 100 companies since 2011. In the future one of the most critical roles will be played by consumers, who thanks to these campaigns are becoming increasingly aware of the issues affecting workers who provide the goods or services they enjoy. The brilliant work of the Living Wage Foundation in encouraging and helping employers to win formal accreditation is already moving us towards a time when the Living Wage kitemark could function in a way similar to the Fair Trade badge – encouraging and enabling ethical choices. But I haven’t provided this overview so that we can sit back and wish them all well, satisfied that government need do no more. On the contrary – for me, the progress and the potential we can already see is an invitation and an imperative for government to get involved, play its part, do whatever it can. That’s why it’s such a point of pride that, even while in opposition at Westminster, the Labour Party is playing its part. Across the country, Labour councils have been leading the way in signing up to the living wage – even amid unprecedented cuts to their budgets. 15 Labour Local authorities, from Lewisham to Preston; Norwich to Cardiff; Oxford to Selby; have now been accredited by the Living Wage Foundation, and dozens more have made commitment to pay the living wage. And many councils have used their procurement powers to extend the living wage into the private sector. Islington Council, for example, has now built a living wage requirement into 97% of its contracts. And Labour councils have acted as champions and leaders for the living wage across their local economies – promoting its benefits to local businesses and encouraging collective commitments to make progress as Birmingham City Council is creating with its Birmingham Business Charter for Social Responsibility. Ed Miliband wants Labour to learn from this experience so we can build on this work in government. It means learning from what Labour councils have done in the area of procurement to see how central government could further extend the requirement to pay the living wage through public sector supply chains, as well as requiring greater transparency from employers on the numbers of their staff paid less than a living wage. And one of the most exciting ideas is that of “living wage zones”. Local employers coming together to pay the Living Wage, in exchange for government sharing some of the tax credit and other savings that it makes from the higher wage being paid. This could be through time-limited cash rebates, or funding for the costs of training or new equipment that would mean firms can move to the higher wage business models that mean a living wage makes business sense. Or it could be through support provided locally – involving for example councils, LEPS, education and training providers, and local chambers of commerce – for businesses looking to develop their staff or invest in training to enable productivity-enhancing work reorganisation. This is an idea that perfectly exemplifies a One Nation Labour approach to tackling low pay. It means employers, employees, communities, local authorities and others working together to improve pay and strengthen businesses. But it is also based on government recognising the fiscal, economic and social benefits of higher quality, better paid jobs and higher productivity businesses too. There remain questions and challenges over how this could be put into practice. So I am delighted to be able to announce that Alan Buckle, Deputy Chairman of KPMG international, has agreed to lead a consultation with employers to better understand the barriers that they face in improving pay and prospects for their staff, and the way in which government can best encourage and enable them to do so. KPMG was one of the first major UK employers to commit to paying all staff a living wage in 2006 and has since been a key advocate of the idea in alliance with the Living Wage Foundation. So I am really pleased that Alan is leading this work for us. This is just one example and illustration of Labour’s approach to tackling low pay, and getting this economy working for everyone: – from Ed Balls’ work with Sir George Cox on overcoming short-termism and raising levels of business investment, - or Larry Summers on the economic reforms needed to more fairly share prosperity; - through Stephen Twigg’s work with Chris Husbands on revolutionising our skills system; - to Chuka Umunna and Andrew Adonis’s work with small enterprises and key growth sectors; – working together with stakeholders and social partners to build a One Nation economy that brings benefit to all. Underpinning and driving all of this work is a determination to reverse the squeeze on living standards we have seen and build a fairer and more inclusive economy. This is the goal upon which government’s sights should be focused - and it should be reflected in the measures by which we judge our success. Every quarter we pore over the GDP data – rightly so, because growth is the precondition for raising living standards for the majority. But as Gavin and his team have argued, while growth may be a necessary condition, it is not sufficient for raising living standards for all. And an exclusive focus on GDP can blind us to what is happening to ordinary families, and the divisions and inequalities in our economy. Unlike GDP, data on median household income and on how the bottom quarter and decile is faring, is published only annually, and with a lag of more than a year. This was a point raised by the LSE Growth Commission earlier this year, which argued that: “Prosperity is strengthened when everyone has the capacity to participate effectively in the economy and the benefits of growth are widely shared” and recommended: “reforming the way we measure and monitor changes in material wellbeing and its distribution, including regularly publishing median household income alongside the latest data on GDP.” And I know the Resolution Foundation are planning to carry out some preparatory work on this, looking at whether this can be done from the existing data. This simple change could have a powerful and profound effect, informing public debate and focusing policymaking – putting pressure on government to find ways of ensuring that we are growing in a way that benefits ordinary households and leaves no one behind. So I will be writing to Andrew Dilnot, the Head of the Statistics Authority, to ask if he will look at the feasibility of preparing statistics on real household incomes – the median and wider distribution – more frequently and promptly so that we can better monitor them alongside the GDP numbers. In conclusion, let me return to my starting point. The cost of living is a real problem for too many families and the economy is not working for the majority of working people. Deep problems in the way our economy has been developing – or, more accurately, not developing – over the past few years are resulting in stagnant real wages and increasing insecurity for the majority, and persistent low pay and outright exploitation for far too many. Fixing these problems is in everyone’s interest – essential both to relieving immediate financial pressures, and securing a better future for our country. None of this is on the current Government’s agenda. It is central to Labour’s. We have begun to set out policies to tackle the squeeze on living standards, the spread of insecurity, and, my particular focus today, low pay. It’s an approach based upon bottom up solutions – but where government does not shy from playing its part. It’s an approach in which the mutual benefits of solving these problems are recognised and shared – but where we are ready to challenge those who are not upholding their own responsibilities. It’s an approach where we join together and work together to build an economy that allows us to grow and prosper together, as One Nation. We have already begun the journey – and I am very excited about where it could take us. The next election will be a living standards election. Thank you. Ends

Please remember to LIKE our Facebook Page - Trumpet Media Group and FOLLOW us on Twitter - @trumpetmedia

---

Issues Of The Heart (IOTH) - an organisation that seeks to empower women to appreciate themselves through training, development, counselling and mentoring; holds an event on Saturday 12 October 2013 in Orpington, Kent in England.

IOTH's vision is to help build a thriving local community, bring women from different backgrounds together and empower them to achieve positive and sustainable change in their own lives, families and communities. 

The birth of IOTH was inspired by the experiences and hopes of women who have shared issues of their hearts to encourage, advice and offer support to liberate their disadvantaged women folk.  

Mhe. Membe akutana kwa mazungumzo na Naibu Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa China

picha ya juu:
Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje na Ushirikiano wa Kimataifa, Mhe. Bernard K. Membe (Mb.) (kushoto) alipokutana kwa mazungumzo na ujumbe kutoka Jamhuri ya Watu wa China ukiongozwa na Naibu Waziri wa Mambo ya Nje wa nchi hiyo Mhe. Zhai Jun. Nyuma ni Naibu Mhe. Mahadhi Juma Maalim (Mb.) 

picha ya pili:
Wajumbe wa China na Tanzania kwa pamoja wakimsikiliza Mhe. Membe wakati wa mazungumzo hayo.

Tazama Taswira na Video Za Jinsi Vurugu Kubwa iliyotokea Bungeni Mjini Dodoma ambapo askari wa Bunge walikuwa wakivutana na Wabunge wa kambi ya upinzani waliokuwa wakipinga amri ya Naibu Spika ya kumtoa nje kiongozi wa kambi ya upinzania Bungeni na mbunge wa Hai-Chadema, Mhe. Freeman Mbowe.

 Naibu Spika wa Bunge Job Ndugai akimwamuru Kiongozi wa Upinzani Bungeni, Freeman Mbowe kukaa chini, Bungeni Mjini Dodoma Septemba 5, 2013.

 Wabunge wa Chadema wakiwa wamesimama kukaidi amri ya Naibu spika, Job Ndugai ya kuwataka wakae chini , Bungeni Septemba 5, 2013.

Wabunge wa CHADEMA wakipambana na Polisi, Bungeni Mjini Dodoma Septemba 5,2013.

Kiongozi wa Upinzani Bungeni, Freeman Mbowe akiongoza wabunge wa CHADEMA kutoka Bungeni mjini Dododma baada ya kuamriwa kufanya  hivyo na Naibu Spika wa  Bunge, Job Ndugai Septemba 5, 2013. Picha na Ofisi ya waziri Mkuu

AUC CHAIRPERSON APPROVES THE DEPLOYMENT OF AFRICAN UNION ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION TO THE 16 SEPTEMBER 2013 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF RWANDA

Addis Ababa, 3 September 2013: The Chairperson of the African Union Commission, H.E. Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma has approved the deployment of an African Union Short Term Observation (STO) Mission to the Republic of Rwanda’s Parliamentary Elections scheduled for 16 September 2013. 

The AU STO Mission will be deployed on 9 September until 21 September 2013 and will comprise of thirty (30) observers drawn from members of African Electoral Commissions, Civil Society Organizations, the Pan-African Parliament (PAP), the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and the Permanent Representatives’ Committee (PRC) of the African Union.

The Mission is in line with key AU democracy and elections instruments, such as:

• The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance;
• The AU/OAU Declaration on Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa; and
• The AU Guidelines for Elections Observation and Monitoring Missions.

The Mission will remain in constant interaction with the AU Commission and submit its reports on the elections to the Chairperson of the Commission through the Democracy and Electoral Assistance Unit (DEAU) of the Department of Political Affairs of the African Union Commission. The DEAU has in effect concluded plans as mandated by the Commission for the deployment of the African Union Observers to Rwanda.

Angalia VIDEO ya Wabunge wa CHADEMA wakipambana na Polisi, Bungeni Mjini Dodoma

Mbunge wa Mbeya Mjini Joseph Mbilinyi aakiwa ameng'ang'aniwa kwa kutolewa njee na Polisi wa Bungini Mjini Dodoma Siku ya Alhamis September 5, 2013

Angalia Video - http://swahilivilla.blogspot.com/2013/09/wabunge-wa-chadema-wakipambana-na.html

Dear ayoub, Today the House of Commons is debating the controversial "Transparency" Bill. Almost universally derided by charities, trade unions and campaigning organisations, together we have been lining up to attack the bill. The government's bill will do nothing to ensure lobbying transparency and would have a disastrous impact on civic society organisation's right to campaign. It's crucial that it does not become law in its current form. But we cannot let the government use this to get out of their overdue commitment to clean up lobbying. We urgently need your help to make sure the government comes out with a bill that does not stifle civic society. Please write to your MP today and demand the bill is put out to public consultation: Click here to write to your MP. The government rushed out this bill before the summer recess following a string of lobbying scandals and growing demands to deliver a statutory register of lobbyists. The result is a "dog's breakfast" [1]. It excludes the vast majority of lobbying activity from having to appear on the register. It effectively encourages companies to use think tanks, law firms and PR agencies to do their lobbying rather than organisations who are more upfront, transparent and sign up to an ethical code of conduct. At the same time it's a 'gagging' bill with a huge list of draconian laws which would severely restrict the activities of charities, trade unions and campaign organisations in the year running up to a general election. All organisations, large and small, would be potentially affected - whether they intend to influence the election or not. It's crazy: the government are arguing that corporate lobbyists should not be burdened by lobbying legislation while imposing far stricter legislation on charities and community groups. So much for the "big society"!  Click here to write to your MP.  There has been no consultation on the non-party campaigning section of this bill and government ministers seem to be genuinely unaware of the full implications of this bill[2]. It is crucial that the bill is subjected to wider scrutiny than the government's rushed timetable currently allows. We want the government to reverse their priorities: stricter rules for corporate lobbyists and sensible regulation of non-party campaigning at election time. At this stage, the only way to do that is to take the bill off the table and to open it up to a public consultation. Please write to your MP today and demand they ensure the bill gets the scrutiny it deserves: Click here to write to your MP. Many thanks, Alexandra Runswick Director, Unlock Democracy PS. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has published legal opinion suggesting that the law would breach the right to freedom of speech[3], while the Electoral Commission has published grave concerns about its lack of clarity and potential impact [4]. Notes: [1] http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/a-dogs-breakfast-limiting-lobbying-trade-unions-and-freedom-of-speech [2] http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/blog/entry/lobbying-transparency-and-non-party-campaigning [3] PDF: http://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Opinion-for-NCVO-on-Part-2-of-the-Transparency-Bill.pdf [4] PDF: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/156580/Transparency-of-Lobbying-Non-Party-Campaigning-and-Trade-Union-Administration-Bill-Second-Reading-Briefing.pdf

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Office of the Spokesperson

For Immediate Release                                                                                     September 3, 2013

2013/2068

Remarks

Opening Remarks by Secretary of State John Kerry

Before the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

September 3, 2013

Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY KERRY:  Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Ranking Member Corker, thank you very, very much for having us here today.  We look forward to this opportunity to be able to share with you President Obama’s vision with respect to not just this action, but as Senator Corker has inquired appropriately, about Syria itself and the course of action in the Middle East.  Mr. Chairman, thank you for welcoming Teresa.  This is her first public event since early July, so we’re all happy she’s here.

As we convene for this debate, it’s not an exaggeration to say to you, all of you, my former colleagues, that the world is watching not just to see what we decide.  But it is watching to see how we make this decision – whether in a dangerous world we can still make our government speak with one voice.  They want to know if America will rise to this moment and make a difference. 

And the question of whether to authorize our nation to take military action is, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, and you’ve echoed, Mr. Ranking Member, this is obviously one of the most important decisions, one of the most important responsibilities of this committee or of any senator in the course of a career.  The President and the Administration appreciate that you have returned quickly to the nation’s capital to address it and that you are appropriately beginning a process of focusing with great care and great precision, which is the only way to approach the potential use of military power.

Ranking Member Corker, I know that you want to discuss, as you said, why Syria matters to our national security and our strategic interests, beyond the compelling humanitarian reasons.  And I look forward with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey to laying that out here this afternoon. 

But first, it is important to explain to the American people why we’re here.  It’s important for people who may not have caught every component of the news over the course of the Labor Day Weekend to join us, all of us, in focusing in on what is at stake here.  That’s why the President of the United States made the decision, as he did, contrary to what many people thought he would do, of asking the Congress to join in this decision.  We are stronger as a nation when we do that.

So we’re here because against multiple warnings from the President of the United States, from the Congress, from our friends and allies around the world, and even from Russia and Iran, the Assad regime – and only, undeniably, the Assad regime – unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens.  We’re here because a dictator and his family’s personal enterprise, in their lust to hold onto power, were willing to infect the air of Damascus with a poison that killed innocent mothers and fathers and hundreds of their children, their lives all snuffed out by gas in the early morning August 21.

Now, some people here and there, amazingly, have questioned the evidence of this assault on conscience.  I repeat here again today that only the most willful desire to avoid reality can assert that this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it.  It did happen – and the Assad regime did it. 

Now, I remember Iraq.  Secretary Hagel remembers Iraq.  General Dempsey especially remembers Iraq.  But Secretary Hagel and I and many of you sitting on the dais remember Iraq in a special way because we were here for that vote.  We voted.  And so we are especially sensitive,  Chuck and I, to never again asking any Member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence.   And that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and re-scrubbed the evidence.  We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information.  And we ask the American people and the rest of the world to judge that information.

We can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the Assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks.  We have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.  Not one rocket landed in regime-controlled territory.  Not one.  All of them landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory.  We have a map, physical evidence, showing every geographical point of impact – and that is concrete.

Within minutes of the attack – 90, I think, to be precise, maybe slightly shorter – the social media exploded with horrific images of the damage that had been caused – men and women, the elderly and children, sprawled on a hospital floor with no wounds, no blood – but all dead.  Those scenes of human chaos and desperation were not contrived.  They were real.  No one could contrive such a scene.

We are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the heart of regime territory.  Just think about it in logical terms, common sense.  With high confidence, our intelligence community tells us that after the strike, the regime issued orders to stop, and then fretted openly, we know, about the possibility of UN inspectors discovering evidence.  So then they began to systematically try to destroy it.  Contrary to my discussion with their Foreign Minister, who said we have nothing to hide, I said if you have nothing to hide, then let the inspectors in today and let it be unrestricted.  It wasn’t.  They didn’t.  It took four days of shelling before they finally allowed them in under a constrained, prearranged structure.  And we now have learned that the hair and blood samples from first responders in East Damascus has tested positive for signatures of sarin. 

So my colleagues, we know what happened.  For all the lawyers, for all the former prosecutors, for all those who have sat on a jury – I can tell you that we know these things beyond the reasonable doubt that is the standard by which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives. 

So we’re here because of what happened two weeks ago.  But we’re also here because of what happened nearly a century ago, in the darkest moments of World War I and after the horror of gas warfare, when the vast majority of the world came together to declare, in no uncertain terms, that chemical weapons crossed a line of conscience and they must be banned from use forever.   Over the years that followed, over 180 countries – including Iran, Iraq, and Russia – agreed and they joined the Chemical Weapons Convention.  Even countries with whom we agree on little agreed on that conviction.  

Now, some have tried to suggest that the debate we’re having today is about President Obama’s redline.  I could not more forcefully state that is just plain and simply wrong.  This debate is about the world’s redline, it’s about humanity’s redline, and it’s a redline that anyone with a conscience ought to draw.

This debate is also about Congress’s own redline.  You – the United States Congress – agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention.  You – the United States Congress – passed the Syria Accountability Act, which says Syria’s chemical weapons are, quote, “threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States.”  You – the Congress – have spoken out about grave consequences if Assad in particular used chemical weapons.  So I say to you, Senator Corker, that is one of the reasons why Syria is important.

And as we debate and the world watches, as you decide and the world wonders – not whether Assad’s regime executed the worst chemical-weapons attack of the 21st century; that fact I think is now beyond question – the world wonders whether the United States of America will consent, through silence, to standing aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence.

In the nearly 100 years since the first global commitment against chemical weapons, only two tyrants dared to cross the world’s brightest line.  Now Bashar al-Assad has become the third.  And I think all of you know that history holds nothing but infamy for those criminals and history reserves also very little sympathy for their enablers. 

So the reality is the gravity of this moment.  That is the importance of the decision that this Congress faces and that the world is waiting to learn about in these next days.

Now, Ranking Member Corker asked a central question:  Why should Americans care, beyond what I’ve just said, which ought to be enough, in the judgment of the President and this Administration? 

Well, it is clear that, in addition to what I’ve just mentioned about the Syria Accountability Act and the threat to the Middle East, we cannot overlook the impact of chemical weapons and the danger that they pose to a particularly volatile area of the world in which we’ve been deeply invested for years, because we have great friends there, we have allies there, we have deep interests there. 

Since President Obama’s policy is that Assad must go, it is not insignificant that to deprive him of the capacity to use chemical weapons or to degrade the capacity to use those chemical weapons actually deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war, and that has an impact.  That can help to stabilize the region, ultimately. 

In addition, we have other important strategic national security interests, not just in the prevention of the proliferation of chemical weapons, but to avoid the creation of a safe haven in Syria or a base of operations for extremists to use these weapons against our friends.  All of us know that the extremes of both sides are there waiting in the wings, working and pushing and fighting.  They’d be desperate to get their hands on these materials. 

And the fact is that if nothing happens to begin to change the equation or the current calculation, that area can become even more so an area of ungoverned space, where those extremists threaten even the United States and more immediately, if they get their hands on those weapons, allies and friends of ours like Jordan or Israel or Lebanon or others.

Forcing Assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament.  And as I think you know, it has been the President’s primary goal to achieve a negotiated resolution, but you got to have parties prepared to negotiate to achieve that.

Syria is also important because, quite simply – I can’t put this to you more plainly than to just ask each of you to ask yourselves if you’re Assad or if you’re any one of the other despots in that region, and the United States steps back from this moment, together with our other allies and friends, what is the message?  The message is that he has been granted impunity, the freedom to choose to use the weapons again or force us to go through this cycle again, with who knows what outcome after once refusing it.  We would have granted him the capacity to use these weapons against more people with greater levels of damage because we would have stood and stepped away.

As confidently as we know what happened in Damascus, my friends, on August 21^st, we know that Assad would read our stepping away or our silence as an invitation to use those weapons with impunity.  And in creating impunity, we will be creating opportunity – the opportunity for other dictators and/or terrorists to pursue their own weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.  

I will tell you, there are some people hoping that the United States Congress doesn’t vote for this very limited request the President has put before you.  Iran is hoping you look the other way.  Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test.  Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail.  North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day.  They are all listening for our silence.  And if we don’t answer Assad today, we will erode a standard that has existed for those hundred years.  In fact, we will erode a standard that has protected our own troops in war.  And we will invite even more dangerous tests down the road.

Our allies and our partners are also counting on us in this situation.  The people of Israel, of Jordan, of Turkey each look next door and they see that they’re one stiff breeze away from the potential of being hurt, their civilians being killed as a consequence of choices Assad might take in the absence of action.  They anxiously await our assurance that our word means something.  They await the assurance that if the children lined up in unbloodied burial shrouds were their own children, that we would keep the world’s promise.  That’s what they’re hoping.

So the authorization that President Obama seeks is definitively in our national security interest.  We need to send to Syria and to the world, to dictators and to terrorists, to allies, and to civilians alike the unmistakable message that when the United States of America and the world say “Never again,” we don’t mean sometimes, we don’t mean somewhere.  Never means never. 

So this is a vote for accountability.  Norms and laws that keep the civilized world civil mean nothing if they’re not enforced.  As Justice Jackson said in his opening argument at the Nuremberg trials, “The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to the law.”  If the world’s worst despots see that they can flout with impunity prohibitions against the world’s worst weapons, then those prohibitions are just pieces of paper.  That is what we mean by accountability, and that is what we mean by we cannot be silent.

So let me be clear:  President Obama is not asking America to go to war, and I say that sitting next to two men, Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey, who know what war is.  Senator McCain knows what war is.  They know the difference between going to war and what President Obama is requesting now.  We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground.  The President has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war.  He is asking only for the power to make clear, to make certain that the United States means what we say, that the world, when we join together in a multilateral statement, mean what we say.  He’s asking for authorization to degrade and deter Bashar al-Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons.  

Now, some will undoubtedly ask, and I think appropriately, what about the unintended consequences of action?  Some fear a retaliation that leads to a larger conflict.  Well, let me put it bluntly:  If Assad is arrogant enough, and I would say foolish enough, to retaliate to the consequences of his own criminal activity, the United States and our allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war.  Even Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.  Now, some will also question the extent of our responsibility.  To them, I say when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible.  That is true because of treaties like the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention, and for us, the Syria Accountability Act.  But it’s also true because we share a common humanity and a common decency.

This is not the time for armchair isolationism.   This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter.  Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence.  We have spoken up against unspeakable horror many times in the past.  Now, we must stand up and act, and we must protect our security, protect our values, and lead the world with conviction that is clear about our responsibility.  Thank you.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Secretary Kerry, the American people say no war.

CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ:  The committee will be in order.  The committee will be in order.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  The people have said no war.  (Inaudible) another war.  We don’t want another (inaudible). 

CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ:  I’d ask the – please to restore order. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible) nobody wants this war.  Cruise missiles – launching cruise missiles means another war.  The American people do not want this.  Secretary Kerry (inaudible).

CHAIRMAN MENENDEZ:  Secretary Hagel.

SECRETARY KERRY:  Can I just say before you – the first time I testified before this committee, when I was 27 years old, I had feelings very similar to that protester.  And I would just say that is exactly why it is so important that we are all here having this debate, talking about these things before the country, and that the Congress itself will act representing the American people.  And I think we all can respect those who have a different point of view, and we do.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin E. Dempsey, Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel look on during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing at the Hart Senate Office building in Washington D.C., Sept. 3, 2013. President Barack H. Obama is seeking congressional approval for a limited military strike in Syria in response to their government's alleged use of chemical weapons. (Department of Defense Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Daniel Hinton)

Read more: http://www.dvidshub.net/image/1009322/government-leaders-make-case-limited-military-action#.UiZ9mDamivg#ixzz2dsYgORad