News | Ripple's Web

(CNN) — President Barack Obama followed in the footsteps of past U.S. leaders with a speech on Wednesday at Berlin’s iconic Brandenburg Gate, where he said he would ask Russia to join the United States in slashing its supply of strategic nuclear warheads.

“We may no longer live in fear of global annihilation, but so long as nuclear weapons exist, we are not truly safe,” Obama said in the city that symbolized the East-West divide in the decades after World War II.

“After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies — and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent — while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third,” he said. “And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.”

Obama’s speech made repeated references to Berlin’s post-war history and the resiliency of its people. He called on them to manifest the same spirit that helped bring down the Berlin Wall to now take on broader challenges facing the modern world.

Obama goes informal during Berlin speech

President Obama in Berlin

“Complacency is not the character of great nations,” said the president, who perspired openly despite removing his suit jacket when he started speaking to a sun-drenched crowd. “Today’s threats are not as stark as they were half-a-century ago. But the struggle for freedom and security and human dignity, that struggle goes on.”

Repeating his campaign themes of equal opportunity and freedom for all, Obama said such ideals can provide the prosperity sought by all nations — especially longtime allies such as the United States and Germany.

“We may enjoy a standard of living that is the envy of the world, but so long as hundreds of millions endure the agony of an empty stomach or the anguish of unemployment, we’re not truly prosperous,” Obama said. “We are more free when all people can pursue their own happiness.”

In the city rife with Cold War history, Obama also heralded democratic values that helped end communist control.

“Because millions across this continent now breathe the fresh air of freedom, we can say here in Berlin, here in Europe: Our values won,” he said to cheers. “Openness won. Tolerance won. And freedom won.”

Obama’s speech took place almost exactly 50 years after President John F. Kennedy delivered his “Ich bin ein Berliner” — or “I am a Berliner” — speech of solidarity with West Berlin near the dividing line with the Soviet-occupied east on the other side of the Berlin Wall.

Berlin is also where President Ronald Reagan delivered a famous line to the Soviet Union in 1987: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

When Obama referred to Kennedy’s speech and repeated the famous phrase, the crowd cheered. He also quoted from Kennedy’s speech by calling on people to look “to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.”

Taking on another major issue, Obama called for a new global effort to address climate change, citing threats such as “more severe storms, more famine and floods, new waves of refugees, coast lines that vanish, oceans that rise.”

“This is the future we must avert,” he said to cheers. “This is the global threat of our time. And for the sake of future generations, our generation must move toward a global compact to confront a changing climate before it is too late. That is our job. That is our task. We have to get to work.”

Analysts said Obama’s speech sought to entrench a presidential legacy of leadership on global issues, especially after the lofty expectations in Germany and elsewhere for the candidate who spoke in Berlin five years ago have given way to the realities of the Oval Office.

“It was a president who wanted to kind of put down a stake and say, like JFK, like Ronald Reagan, I share their values as an American president and these are the things I feel like I need to talk to you about today as an American president,” said CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

Historian Douglas Brinkley called it a “healing speech,” but said “let’s not confuse this with Kennedy’s very important Cold War talk in Berlin or Ronald Reagan’s fighting words about ‘tear down this wall.’”

“This was not a moment that’s going to be a gold star on history’s calendar,” Brinkley told CNN.

Beyond New START

Obama’s latest proposals on nuclear stockpiles come two years after New START — an agreement between the United States and Russia — went into effect. New START, which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, calls for each country to limit its nuclear warhead arsenal to 1,550 by the year 2018.

If fully implemented, his proposals on Wednesday would reduce both stockpiles by another one-third — to roughly 1,000 warheads for each country.

“At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe,” he said.

After New START was ratified, Obama ordered a detailed internal analysis of U.S. nuclear needs and what it would take to deter other countries from attacking, the White House said.

Obama has also said the United States will only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.

A White House fact sheet released after the speech called Obama’s proposals “new guidance that aligns U.S. nuclear policies to the 21st century security environment.”

Obama’s guidance directed the Pentagon to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the overall U.S. security strategy, and narrow the focus of nuclear strategy to deterrence, the White House document said.

The proposals drew immediate criticism from the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California, who said in a statement that Russia already failed to adhere to existing arms-reduction agreements.

“The president must make clear to (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin that the United States will not allow itself or its allies to be bullied by Russia or to allow that state to ignore its arms control obligations,” McKeon’s statement said.

Pressuring Iran and North Korea

The United States will continue working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, with specific pressure on Iran and North Korea, a senior administration official said.

Obama also will participate in the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, Netherlands, the official said. The president announced Wednesday in his speech that he will host a Nuclear Security Summit in 2016 to work with other countries in securing nuclear materials and preventing nuclear terrorism.

Nuclear deterrence could restrain N. Korea, Iran

Wednesday’s speech took place amid a festive atmosphere at Brandenburg Gate, where Obama faced the East in contrast to Reagan’s appearance when the Berlin Wall still divided the city.

While the crowd was much smaller than the estimated 200,000 who jammed the area in 2008 to hear then Sen. Obama speak, people waved U.S. and German flags and regularly erupted in cheers and applause.

Near the front was Gail Halvorsen, known as the Candy Bomber for being the first to drop candy to kids during the U.S. airlift of 1948-49 that supplied West Berlin following a Soviet blockade.

Obama paid tribute to that moment, noting that the 92-year-old Halvorsen, who he called “the original candy bomber,” was present.

“We could not be prouder of him,” Obama said as Halvorsen stood and waved. The president added: “I hope I look that good, by the way, when I’m 92.”

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh and Holly Yan contributed to this report.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/0XaFW5RsEMs/index.html

Editor’s note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of “Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive.”

(CNN) — Today, the United States is conducting offensive cyberwar actions around the world.

More than passively eavesdropping, we’re penetrating and damaging foreign networks for both espionage and to ready them for attack. We’re creating custom-designed Internet weapons, pre-targeted and ready to be “fired” against some piece of another country’s electronic infrastructure on a moment’s notice.

This is much worse than what we’re accusing China of doing to us. We’re pursuing policies that are both expensive and destabilizing and aren’t making the Internet any safer. We’re reacting from fear, and causing other countries to counter-react from fear. We’re ignoring resilience in favor of offense.

Welcome to the cyberwar arms race, an arms race that will define the Internet in the 21st century.

Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued last October and released by Edward Snowden, outlines U.S. cyberwar policy. Most of it isn’t very interesting, but there are two paragraphs about “Offensive Cyber Effect Operations,” or OCEO, that are intriguing:

“OECO can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance U.S. national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging. The development and sustainment of OCEO capabilities, however, may require considerable time and effort if access and tools for a specific target do not already exist.

“The United States Government shall identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power, establish and maintain OCEO capabilities integrated as appropriate with other U.S. offensive capabilities, and execute those capabilities in a manner consistent with the provisions of this directive.”

Opinion: Cyber arms control? Forget about it

Obama: NSA programs are transparent

Releasing NSA leaks: A public service?

NSA fallout could be ‘harmful’

Could the NSA leaker defect to China?

These two paragraphs, and another paragraph about OCEO, are the only parts of the document classified “top secret.” And that’s because what they’re saying is very dangerous.

Cyberattacks have the potential to be both immediate and devastating. They can disrupt communications systems, disable national infrastructure, or, as in the case of Stuxnet, destroy nuclear reactors; but only if they’ve been created and targeted beforehand. Before launching cyberattacks against another country, we have to go through several steps.

We have to study the details of the computer systems they’re running and determine the vulnerabilities of those systems. If we can’t find exploitable vulnerabilities, we need to create them: leaving “back doors” in hacker speak. Then we have to build new cyberweapons designed specifically to attack those systems.

Sometimes we have to embed the hostile code in those networks, these are called “logic bombs,” to be unleashed in the future. And we have to keep penetrating those foreign networks, because computer systems always change and we need to ensure that the cyberweapons are still effective.

Like our nuclear arsenal during the Cold War, our cyberweapons arsenal must be pretargeted and ready to launch.

That’s what Obama directed the U.S. Cyber Command to do. We can see glimpses in how effective we are in Snowden’s allegations that the NSA is currently penetrating foreign networks around the world: “We hack network backbones — like huge Internet routers, basically — that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one.”

The NSA and the U.S. Cyber Command are basically the same thing. They’re both at Fort Meade in Maryland, and they’re both led by Gen. Keith Alexander. The same people who hack network backbones are also building weapons to destroy those backbones. At a March Senate briefing, Alexander boasted of creating more than a dozen offensive cyber units.

Longtime NSA watcher James Bamford reached the same conclusion in his recent profile of Alexander and the U.S. Cyber Command (written before the Snowden revelations). He discussed some of the many cyberweapons the U.S. purchases:

“According to Defense News’ C4ISR Journal and Bloomberg Businessweek, Endgame also offers its intelligence clients — agencies like Cyber Command, the NSA, the CIA, and British intelligence — a unique map showing them exactly where their targets are located. Dubbed Bonesaw, the map displays the geolocation and digital address of basically every device connected to the Internet around the world, providing what’s called network situational awareness. The client locates a region on the password-protected web-based map, then picks a country and city — say, Beijing, China. Next the client types in the name of the target organization, such as the Ministry of Public Security’s No. 3 Research Institute, which is responsible for computer security — or simply enters its address, 6 Zhengyi Road. The map will then display what software is running on the computers inside the facility, what types of malware some may contain, and a menu of custom-designed exploits that can be used to secretly gain entry. It can also pinpoint those devices infected with malware, such as the Conficker worm, as well as networks turned into botnets and zombies — the equivalent of a back door left open…

“The buying and using of such a subscription by nation-states could be seen as an act of war. ‘If you are engaged in reconnaissance on an adversary’s systems, you are laying the electronic battlefield and preparing to use it’ wrote Mike Jacobs, a former NSA director for information assurance, in a McAfee report on cyberwarfare. ‘In my opinion, these activities constitute acts of war, or at least a prelude to future acts of war.’ The question is, who else is on the secretive company’s client list? Because there is as of yet no oversight or regulation of the cyberweapons trade, companies in the cyber-industrial complex are free to sell to whomever they wish. “It should be illegal,’ said the former senior intelligence official involved in cyberwarfare. ‘I knew about Endgame when I was in intelligence. The intelligence community didn’t like it, but they’re the largest consumer of that business.’”

That’s the key question: How much of what the United States is currently doing is an act of war by international definitions? Already we’re accusing China of penetrating our systems in order to map “military capabilities that could be exploited during a crisis.” What PPD-20 and Snowden describe is much worse, and certainly China, and other countries, are doing the same.

All of this mapping of vulnerabilities and keeping them secret for offensive use makes the Internet less secure, and these pre-targeted, ready-to-unleash cyberweapons are destabalizing forces on international relationships. Rooting around other countries’ networks, analyzing vulnerabilities, creating back doors, and leaving logic bombs could easily be construed as an act of war. And all it takes is one over-achieving national leader for this all to tumble into actual war.

It’s time to stop the madness. Yes, our military needs to invest in cyberwar capabilities, but we also need international rules of cyberwar, more transparency from our own government on what we are and are not doing, international cooperation between governments and viable cyberweapons treaties. Yes, these are difficult. Yes, it’s a long slow process. Yes, there won’t be international consensus, certainly not in the beginning. But even with all of those problems, it’s a better path to go down than the one we’re on now.

We can start by taking most of the money we’re investing in offensive cyberwar capabilities and spend them on national cyberspace resilience. MAD, mutually assured destruction, made sense because there were two superpowers opposing each other. On the Internet there are all sorts of different powers, from nation-states to much less organized groups. An arsenal of cyberweapons begs to be used, and, as we learned from Stuxnet, there’s always collateral damage to innocents when they are. We’re much safer with a strong defense than with a counterbalancing offense.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bruce Schneier.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.html?eref=edition

Editor’s note: Yury Fedotov is the executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime.

(CNN) — Thirteen-year-old Anjali didn’t just pack her bags and run away to the circus, she signed a 10-year contract with a circus master after fleeing from long hours of domestic servitude in Nepal. Taken to India, she then endured years of appalling and dangerous working conditions for no pay. A British charity helped Anjali finally say goodbye to the circus.

Anjali’s story is not the same as other victims, but there are disturbing similarities: threats, sexual and labor exploitation, often cruelty, sometimes brutality. (To read Anjali’s story, please go to UNODC’s 2013 publication, Hear Their Story. Her name was changed to protect her identity.)

Despite her terrible experiences, Anjali is one of the fortunate ones. There are millions of women, children and men across the world who face similar experiences. Human trafficking is now worth around $32 billion annually to the criminals and their networks. It is one of the world’s most profitable crimes.

I recently attended a debate on human trafficking at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Other speakers included Oscar-winner Mira Sorvino, UNODC’s good will ambassador against human trafficking. She spoke with dignity and with passion, which found echoes in the words of many of the other speakers, including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

The debate ensured that this crime remains on the radar screens of U.N. member states, one decade after the Trafficking in Persons Protocol entered into force.

There is also some good news. Today, 83% of countries have proper legislation to combat human trafficking. In 2009, this figure was only 60%. So far, 175 states are parties to the Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and 154 are party to the Trafficking in Persons Protocol that is the foundation for our work against this heinous crime. Fifteen countries have also ratified the protocol since 2010.

This, however, leaves 39 member states who still have to ratify the protocol and unite the entire world against human trafficking. Impunity is another festering issue. Sixteen percent of countries have never recorded a single conviction for human trafficking. Conviction rates remain low.

CNN Freedom Project: Rescued Nepalese find new life in circus

Based on UNODC’s Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2012, between 2006 and 2009, the number of detectable cases of human trafficking for forced labor doubled from 18% to 36%. It shows that more action against this crime is being undertaken by law enforcement bodies, but there is room for improvement.

There are also problems with data collection and analysis. Our human trafficking report contained information from 132 Member States. Almost a third of countries failed to provide information to the report.

Fortunately, there is an international road map: the 3-year-old Global Plan of Action. The plan created the Victims Trust Fund managed by UNODC. So far, the fund has enabled 11 grass-roots organizations to aid victims in situations similar to that of Anjali.

But the improvements, while encouraging, are coming too slowly to help the millions of victims. What is needed is a catalyst. My suggestion is an inspirational, but realistic goal: a decade of concrete action to end human trafficking. Action founded on international cooperation and coordination.

Arrests made in modern slavery case

If we are truly serious about confronting this issue, I would suggest four steps to immediately improve the situation:

First, increased victim protection and support, second, universal ratification and full implementation of the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, as well as its protocol; third, fresh contributions to the Trust Fund from governments, the private sector and the public to assist field organizations; and fourth, the provision of comprehensive data to understand the nature of this global crime.

Legislation, however, is only the springboard for action. Every country needs a national action plan closely linked to regional and international efforts to counter human trafficking. We also need to hunt down the proceeds flowing from this ugly crime.

Preventing money laundering means working closely with banks and the financial sector to report suspicious financial movements and creating a virtuous circle among financial intelligence units, law enforcement bodies and prosecution authorities. But, it is not good enough to simply imprison the guilty traffickers, we must take their money and close down the networks and trafficking routes for good.

I am aware of the dangers of making unrealistic promises, but I believe we can achieve this goal. After all, our reach should always exceed our grasp. Let’s turn the hourglass over and begin a decade of action to try to rid the world of the misery and suffering caused by human trafficking.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Yury Fedotov

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/opinion/fedotov-human-trafficking/index.html?eref=edition

Editor’s note: Mark Bowman is managing director of brewing company SABMiller Africa.

(CNN) — Nothing better sums up Africa’s extraordinary mixture of challenges and opportunities than agriculture. On the one hand, Africa is home to one in four of the world’s hungry and is the only continent which fails to grow enough food to meet its own needs.

Yet it has also half of the world’s unused land suitable for farming. Better still, increasing yields on existing farmland by 50% — still far below the global average — would not only meet Africa’s own food requirements but provide a sizable surplus for export. With global food supply needing to increase by an estimated 70% by 2050, the continent is at the heart of the challenge of food security.

All this explains why agriculture in Africa is finally getting the attention it deserves from both the continent’s governments and donors.

The recent Nutrition for Growth summit generated pledges of $4.1 billion to fight malnutrition and hunger. This builds on the commitments made at Camp David 12 months ago when we, along with other local and multinational companies, committed to collectively invest over $3 billion across the agricultural value chain in Grow Africa countries.

There is now increased pressure on G8 leaders, meeting this week in the UK, to tackle the issues at the heart of food insecurity, including “land grabs.”

Read this: African land grabs, mirage in the desert

In the worst cases, local communities and farmers have been evicted from land they long regarded as their own. Farmland which was once productive can be left idle. Plans to grow crops for export in the future can also be difficult to stomach when local people don’t have food to eat today.

Land purchases which ignore the interests of local communities and the local landscapes are both morally wrong and commercially short-sighted. We need action both nationally and globally to stop them.

But there is a danger that these clear-cut cases fuel opposition to all outside investment or create a false choice between large-scale commercial farming and smallholders. The truth is Africa desperately needs to maximize the potential of both to meet the needs of its citizens.

With smallholder farmers still producing 80% of the food and supporting 65% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, they are central to any successful sustainable solution. We need to lift the barriers which have seen them locked out of the developments in agriculture from which farmers around the world have long benefited. Where this has happened, the results can be remarkable.

Read this: Africa can feed itself in a generation

As a company, we have been working with African farmers for many years. We buy our raw materials from all sorts of farming systems, from large-scale commercial barley farmers right through to near-subsistence cassava farmers who we are keen to help become viable commercial operators — and at least half of the grains we use come from local farmers.

African farmers key to growing economies

Farm Radio Malawi boosts agriculture

A green revolution for Africa?

The challenge for all who want to see African agriculture drive prosperity for its people is to maximize the benefits which both smallholder and large-scale commercial farming can bring. There is no single answer to preventing land grabs but at the heart of any solution is the need to improve land rights. It is no coincidence that many of the most questionable acquisitions have taken place in countries with the weakest system of land rights in place.

As much as 90% of the land in sub-Sahara Africa is untitled. The result is that communities which may have lived and farmed the land for many generations have no enforceable legal claim to it. In the worst cases, this can allow land to be sold off by governments from under their feet without any hope of compensation.

Read this: Land grabs really water grabs?

Improved land rights which go at least some way to recognize history and usage would help prevent this from happening. Nor is it impossible to put in place. Countries such as Botswana and Ghana have already improved their laws so customarily held lands have the force of private property.

Giving people the protection of legally enforceable land rights does not only give them security. It also gives them greater incentive to invest in their farms and an easier route to get this investment. The lack of legal paperwork to their land remains a major reason for the refusal of banks to lend to farmers.

Improving land rights would also help commercial organizations who want to invest and farm in a responsible way. The present position gives us the worst of all worlds. While bad investors can get away with riding roughshod over the rights of smallholders and communities, the present free-for-all makes it difficult for good investors who want to farm in a way which is beneficial to local people and the environment from accessing land.

It is not just weak land rights which are holding back African agriculture, and the solutions are complex and multi-faceted. But work to put in place a fair and enforceable system would be a major step to helping the continent fulfill its rich potential.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of Mark Bowman.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/_jhi9KBwqEM/index.html

(Financial Times) — The British government will implement the recommendations of a review into the failings of the British banking system speedily, including considering whether bankers should be threatened with prison, a minister said on Wednesday.

Greg Clark, financial secretary to the Treasury, promised to implement the report’s proposals “at a pace” and to respond in full within a month.

Read more: British banks need $38 billion to fill cash gap

He said it seemed a “perfectly reasonable observation” that very senior people at the top of banks should be held to account for the risks they take but stopped short of committing to a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in charge of a bank.

Banking boss: Pay cap ‘will hurt banks’

Banking boss: Pay cap ‘will hurt banks’

Official: Tough road for EU bank union

“We think it’s a good report, it makes all the right recommendations in terms of the changes to the culture of banking,” he told BBC news.

He added that the government had introduced a new criminal offence for benchmark manipulation which was punishable by imprisonment.

Read more: U.K. banks’ next $1 billion payout

“They’ve asked us to consider whether it’s possible to implement this further offence for very senior people. We’ll do that, we’ll respond to parliament and then if necessary we’ll legislate,” he said.

But Lord Myners, former Labour city minister, warned that “very little” would change for “several years” after the report. He said George Osborne, chancellor, would respond with “fine words” in his Mansion House speech on Wednesday night but there would be many further reviews, for example, on competition, pricing, and account portability.

The review — which also rebuked the government for interfering in state-backed banks — was cautiously welcomed by the City of London.

Boris Johnson, mayor of London, welcomed the report’s focus on good governance and said wrongdoing should be “rooted out and punished”. But he also said the City needed to remain competitive and that the UK should help bring other global financial centres towards better, but not heavy-handed, regulation.

Mark Boleat, policy chairman at the City of London Corporation, the Square Mile’s local authority, said the report contained some “sensible suggestions” on incentives, accountability and increased competition that would foster long-term thinking and improve risk management.

Read more: Europe financial sector is fragile, says IMF

He added: “It is important, however, to note that much work has already been done in this area and the impact of past reforms should be properly assessed before more changes are introduced. What the banking sector needs is clarity and certainty from policy makers over the future shape it will be required to take in coming years.”

Anthony Browne, chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, called it the “most significant report into banking for a generation”. He said banks looked forward to working with the government to reform the sector.

Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the parliamentary committee that wrote Wednesday’s report, defended the decision to include the threat of prison for bankers in cases of “very serious misconduct”.

He insisted it would only be used if the government was forced to bail out a bank.

Mr Tyrie said a new criminal offence of reckless misconduct in charge of a bank was needed because bankers could harm the whole economy.

“Bankers are different. Bankers and banks are in a position where they cannot just do harm to their shareholders but do harm to the whole economy and end up putting taxpayers on the hook,” Mr Tyrie told the BBC’s Today programme.

“Remember this can only be triggered — the reckless misconduct investigation — when there has been taxpayer support for a bank.”

He said the financial crisis was like Murder on the Orient Express where “everyone had some small contribution on the deaths and nobody was responsible”.

Mr Tyrie said it was “absolute nonsense” that bankers could be driven out of the UK by the report’s suggestions. He added he was not criticising paying the successful well but was proposing measures such as long deferral of bonuses to ensure the money was truly deserved.

Additional reporting by James Pickford.

© The Financial Times Limited 2013

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_business/~3/8Wim4-xRGds/index.html

.cnn_html_media_utility::before{color:red;content:’>>’;font-size:9px;line-height:12px;padding-right:1px}
.cnnstrylccimg640{margin:0 27px 14px 0}
.captionText{filter:alpha(opacity=100);opacity:1}
.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:visited,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:link,.captionText a,.captionText a:visited,.captiontext a:link{color:outline:medium none}
.cnnVerticalGalleryPhoto{margin:0 auto;padding-right:68px;width:270px}
]]>

Brazilians took to the streets across the country to protest a 9 cent rise in bus fares. Brazil is building massive stadiums and revamping infrastructure ahead of the soccer World Cup, which it hosts next year. Students took to streets on June 18, 2013 in Brazil.

Protestors block the Antonio Carlos Avenue in the surroundings of the university on June 18, 2013 in Belo Horizonte, state of Minas Gerais.

People walk in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Tuesday, June 18.

Riot police form a line outside the Government Palace in Sao Paulo, on Monday, June 17.

Students take part in a demonstration at Praca da Se, in Sao Paulo, Brazil on June 18, 2013.

A masked protester is seen during clashes in downtown Rio de Janeiro, Brazil on June 17, 2013.

A student holds a sign reading ‘Don’t shoot, listen!!!’ during a protest in the gardens of the National Congress, on June 17, 2013 in Brasilia.

Protestors dance around a fire during clashes at the legislative parliament (ALERJ) in Rio de Janeiro’s downtown on june 17, 2013.

Protesters set a fire outside the Tiradentes Palace in Rio de Janeiro during a protest on June 17.

A riot officer holds a position in downtown Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Thousands participate in the protest in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Piles of trash burn in the streets of Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Protesters clash with riot police in front of Rio de Janeiro’s Legislative Assembly building on June 17.

Protesters clash with riot police on June 17.

A riot police officer receives help after clashing with protesters on June 17.

A protester receives assistance after being shot in the leg in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Two men look at smashed ATMs in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

People stand atop the National Congress building in Brasilia, Brazil, on June 17.

Thousands stand in the gardens of the National Congress in Brasilia during a protest on June 17.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Editor’s note: James Montague is the author of When Friday Comes: Football, War and Revolution in the Middle East (deCoubertin Books). He is in Brazil for the Confederations Cup. Follow him @JamesPiotr

Belo Horizonte, Brazil (CNN) — At 11 pm, the tired and the injured gathered in Belo Horizonte for one last expression of discontent.

More than a thousand sat in Praca Sete de Setembro, a square in the center of the city, chanting against the government and the police. But they weren’t the crowd’s only enemy. A sign hung from a nearby balcony. It read: “Anti Copa.” On the pavement the words “A FIFA é Foda” had been painted: “F*** You, FIFA,” in Portuguese. The roads had been blocked off by the military police, who watched the protesters from afar. A bank of police horses chewed on piles of hay left for them on the road.

Daniel Sanabria, a technician in his 20s, stood nearby cradling his arm, an ice pack on top of a bloody bandage. He peeled it off to reveal an ugly red welt on his left hand. “A bullet,” he explained.

Brazilian protester: Where do taxes go?

Protests remain mostly festive in Brazil

Tiny price hike triggers huge protests

Brazilian protester: Where do taxes go?

Read: 9 cent hike leads to clashes on Brazil’s streets

The day was supposed to have been something of a coronation for Belo Horizonte, a relatively quiet and small city — if a population of 2.5 million people could ever be called small — surrounded by mountains, an hour’s flight north of Rio de Janeiro.

Its famous Mineirao football stadium had just hosted its first match of the 2013 Confederations Cup, a 6-1 victory for African champions Nigeria against the tiny Pacific islanders of Tahiti. It was a dry run for next year’s World Cup finals which return to Brazil for the first time since 1950, a chance to prove that the country was ready to host the most world’s most popular sports tournament.

Instead, military and civilian helicopters flew overhead, roads were blocked and military police stationed throughout the city as a series of protests sparked by anger about the cost of living, poor quality education and high transport costs took place at the same time as the match.

The initial spark for the protests was a rise in bus fares in Sao Paulo. The anger was such that, even in a country often caricatured for its deification of soccer, the World Cup, its surrogate cousin the Confederations Cup and the game’s global governing body FIFA, have all become symbolic of corruption and waste.

Protesters believe the tournament has seen the rich line their pockets, while the poor make do with crumbling public services. The World Cup, it seems, has sparked something that has lain dormant for a long time.

“Tonight this is about all of Brazil, we are moving against corruption. We have been suffering for too many years,” said Tainara Freitas, a teacher who had remained with the protest until the end.

“And this year we rise. We have woken up. We are on the streets like in Turkey and Greece. They have made us wake up about this. The World Cup in Brazil is about too much money. There are too many poor people suffering. The World Cup isn’t good for Brazil. It will bring tourists and money but this is not good for poor people.”

Earlier in the day 15,000 protesters had marched towards the Mineirao as hundreds of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets across the country in the first coordinated mass protests of this size since the end of Brazil’s military dictatorship in the mid 1980s.

Police responded with tear gas, firing rubber bullets into the crowd, and beat protesters who burned barricades in return. I watched Tahiti’s brave performance on the pitch as the protesters gathered outside, speaking to Brazilian sports writer Igor Resende at half time about the match and the reasons for the anger. A few hours later he was in hospital after apparently being shot in the back with a rubber bullet.

“The police came with a brutal force,” recalled Resende. “I didn’t see the protesters do anything. The police threw a bomb and it exploded in the middle of the protest. Then police began to shoot.”

Resende said he was hit in the back by a rubber bullet as he ran away.

“In that moment I just ran. I thought that if I looked back the police would probably shoot me again. I don’t think the police are well prepared. They are badly paid. They have a bad life. They act like this because they are scared.”

But Resende said he has doubt that the police response was related to the Confederations Cup.

“I spoke to one of the highest ranked police guys in state yesterday. He told me 3,500 policeman were on the streets because of the game. They are acting to avoid conflict near the stadiums. The police and FIFA don’t want the protesters near the stadiums.”

For FIFA, who have been critical of Brazil’s preparations for the World Cup, the protests are an unwelcome complication for a tournament already long behind schedule. “People are using the platform of football and the international media presence to make certain demonstrations,” said FIFA president Sepp Blatter who, alongside the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, was booed by the crowd at the opening ceremony on Saturday.

Speaking in an interview in Rio on Monday, he said: “You will see today is the third day of the competition this will calm down. It will be a wonderful competition.”

But the protests have not calmed down. The day after Blatter’s interview, the biggest demonstrations yet took place. Sanabria and Freitas agreed that the Confederations Cup, which continues for another 12 days, is an opportunity to make their voices heard.

I asked them both what messaged they wanted to send FIFA and the football world.

“Please, please, make more pressure on our government, on the Brazilian government to look out for us,” said Freitas before she made her way back into the protest, Sanabria still clutching his injured hand.

“They are looking out for people outside the country, they aren’t looking for us, for the poor people.”

The protestors now have the world’s attention.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/liMupS264fY/index.html

Beirut, Lebanon (CNN) — The opening theme’s the same and the concept’s no different, but “Arab Idol” is much more than just a popular singing competition.

Now in its second season, the Middle Eastern version of “American Idol” is the feel-good story of the year. At a time when the Arab world is so concerned about conflicts growing and sectarianism increasing, the show has done the near impossible: It’s given the troubled region something to smile about.

“You should vote for, only for music,” a grinning and relaxed Ahmad Jamal says during rehearsal.

“Not for nationality, not for religion, not for political issues,” adds the 25-year-old Egyptian contestant. “You just vote for music and the one you love, the one you want to be a star.”

Palestinian ‘Arab Idol’ finalist sings

It’s a sentiment echoed by other contestants when explaining the popularity of the show and how lucky they feel to be a part of it.

Take Farah Youssef, for example. The 25-year-old almost didn’t make it out of Syria. Her car was caught in the middle of a shootout as she left Damascus to audition in Beirut.

Watching her practice before the show, you’d never guess the amount of stress she’s under. Frankly, she seems quite happy while hitting the high notes.

As it turns out, the pressure of performing is nothing compared with how overcome she becomes when she thinks and talks about the civil war back home.

“I see all that stuff happening in my country,” she says. “It’s kind of devastating.”

Her words trail off as she is overcome with emotion.

“I’m sorry,” she says as she starts to cry. “The people, they have no future. I thank my God that I’m here, I’m building myself up, I’m trying to be good. I’m trying to make people love one another again.”

Suddenly, as if remembering the healing power of music, she declares, “And actually I feel like I’m doing a good job.”

Clearly the show’s millions of loyal viewers believe so too, as Youssef has advanced to “Arab Idol’s” finale, which airs this weekend.

But she has stiff competition from fan favorite Mohamad Assaf, also a finalist — one who’s become a heartthrob and a hero. Making the difficult journey out of Gaza, the 23-year-old Palestinian barely made it to the tryouts in Cairo.

READ: ‘Arab Idol’s’ first contestant from Gaza grabs spotlight

When he arrived at a hotel for the tryouts, he was late and had to jump over a wall and evade security to enter the venue.

“There was a man who gave me his number — who sacrificed his place for my sake when he heard my voice,” Assaf recalls.

“I still ask myself how all this happened.”

Nicknamed “The Rocket,” Assaf’s on a fast track to stardom, but the patriotic Palestinian also wants to inspire his people.

“Anybody who has hope for a better future, and who has dreams and ambitions to make his dreams a reality, will make it,” he says confidently.

“Arab Idol” Executive Producer Alex Meouchy couldn’t be happier about the effect the show’s having.

“I’m very proud of the success of the show,” he says. “I’m very proud that we were able to achieve something that all of the Arab world was able to unite around.”

Broadcast on the MBC1 network, the show’s stellar ratings have increased all season long. “Arab Idol” is now considered a sensation.

On the show, contestants, regardless of their religious or cultural background, sing songs from all over the region. Meouchy explains how the diversity on display has made the show even more popular:

“An Egyptian (contestant) would come and say I want to sing in Lebanese (dialect),” he says, “and I want to sing in Gulf dialect and it’s really quite beautiful how … the unity of the Arab world was shown in the show through the power of songs and entertainment.”

This season even featured the show’s first Kurdish contestant, Parwas Hussein.

Even the show’s panel of judges, made up of music superstars of the Arab world, prefers to be positive.

“We are the real leader now,” explains head judge Ragheb Alama, known as the “Elvis of Lebanon.” “People are talking to us and watching us. You know, today, two (regional) presidents called me and talked to me about this program, about the contestants.”

“You cannot imagine how this makes me feel that we are the real medicine,” says Alama, “the real smile between the sad environments.”

Perhaps it’s all summed up best by former Lebanese contestant Ziad Khoury.

“We’re sending a message and unifying the Arab people,” the beaming 25-year-old says. “A message of happiness and peace.”

Here, they’ve decided to focus on excellence rather than extremism, to highlight music instead of misery.

Article source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/edition_world/~3/x1RiXcWbfgs/index.html

Washington (CNN) — Bomb plots targeting the New York Stock Exchange and the city’s subway were among more than 50 terrorist acts worldwide thwarted by top-secret surveillance programs since the 2001 al Qaeda attacks on the United States, security officials said Tuesday.

The startling details disclosed at a House intelligence committee hearing reflected a unified effort by the Obama administration and legislators to defend the telephone and e-mail surveillance made public this month by classified leaks to newspapers.

Testimony by Gen. Keith Alexander, the National Security Agency director, as well as officials from the FBI, Department of Justice and the Director of National Intelligence office called the programs created under the Patriot Act in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks a vital tool against terrorist plots.

NSA: 50 plots prevented since 9/11

Thwarted terror plot details revealed

Analysis of Obama on NSA policies

Joined by panel Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers and other legislators, they condemned the document leaks by former government contractor Edward Snowden as harmful to the United States and its allies.

The leaks also led to what officials called widespread public misinformation about the surveillance programs that necessitated the relatively rare open hearing by the intelligence panel, where they detailed previously classified information in order to set the record straight.

It was the most comprehensive and specific defense of the surveillance methods that have come under ferocious criticism from civil liberties groups, some members of Congress and others concerned about the reach of government into the private lives of citizens.

National security and law enforcement officials repeated that the programs are tightly run with significant regulation and oversight by federal judges and Congress.

Addressing the most basic questions that have emerged, Rogers asked Alexander if intelligence workers have the ability to simply “flip a switch” in order to listen to phone calls or read the emails of Americans.

When Alexander replied “no,” Rogers asked again to reinforce the message for anyone listening.

“So the technology does not exist for any individual or group of individuals at the NSA to flip a switch to listen to Americans’ phone calls or read their e-mails?” he repeated.

“That is correct,” Alexander answered.

He and others also asserted that the leaks were egregious and carry huge consequences for national security.

“I think it was irreversible and significant damage to this nation,” Alexander said when questioned by Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“Has this helped America’s enemies?” the conservative Minnesota Republican asked.

“I believe it has and I believe it will hurt us and our allies,” Alexander said.

President Barack Obama has defended the programs as necessary in an era of terror.

In an interview with PBS’ Charlie Rose broadcast on Monday night, Obama said the situation requires a national debate on the balance between security and privacy.

Obama bristles at suggestion he’s shifted on snooping

Alexander told a Senate committee last week that the surveillance programs helped stop dozens of terror plots, but he was unable then to provide classified details.

Under pressure from Rogers and other legislators, Alexander joined law enforcement officials Tuesday in making public some declassified details of the Patriot Act provisions.

In recent years, Alexander said, information “gathered from these programs provided government with critical leads to prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world.”

Details of most of the thwarted terrorism acts remain secret, but national security officials said they were working on declassifying more information and could have a report to Congress as early as this week.

Sean Joyce, the deputy FBI director, detailed how email surveillance of foreigners under one program helped authorities discover the two New York City plots.

In the fall of 2009, Joyce said, the NSA intercepted an e-mail from a suspected terrorist in Pakistan. That person was talking with someone in the United States “about perfecting a recipe for explosives,” he said.

Authorities identified Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi of Denver. The FBI followed him to New York and eventually broke up planning to attack the city’s subway system. Zazi pleaded guilty and is currently in prison.

Snowden claims online Obama expanded ‘abusive’ security

In the other New York case, the NSA was monitoring a “known extremist” in Yemen who was in contact with a person in the United States, Joyce said. The FBI detected “nascent plotting” to bomb the stock exchange, long considered a target of terrorists, and the plotters were later convicted, according to Joyce.

He also said e-mail surveillance disrupted an effort to attack the office of a Danish newspaper that was threatened for publishing a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in 2006.

The plot involved David Headley, a U.S citizen living in Chicago. The FBI received intelligence at the time regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 Mumbai terror attack that killed 164 people, Joyce said.

The NSA, through surveillance of an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist, found that Headley was working on a plot to bomb the newspaper.

Headley later confessed to conducting surveillance and was convicted. He also pleaded guilty to conducting surveillance in the Mumbai case.

In a fourth case, secret surveillance “tipped us off” to a person who had indirect contacts with a known terrorist group overseas, Joyce said.

“We were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity,” Joyce said.

In an exchange with Joyce, Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas said the case involved someone financing a designated terrorist group in Somalia.

Rogers, who scheduled the hearing in recent days after Alexander pledged to declassify information on terror plots thwarted by the secret programs, said it was necessary to clear up public confusion caused by misinformation.

“If half the things I read in blog and other places were true, I wouldn’t support it,” the Michigan Republican said, later adding that skeptics “have no understanding” of what is going on.

In particular, he said Snowden disclosed only a sliver of information about the programs without knowing the full extent of what they did and the strict regulation and oversight of them.

“None of the things he talked about were accurate,” Rogers said of Snowden.

The hearing came one day after Snowden defended his actions in leaking classified documents to Britain’s Guardian newpaper and the Washington Post.

In a series of blog posts on the Guardian website, the 29-year-old Snowden said he disclosed the information because Obama worsened “abusive” surveillance practices instead of curtailing them as he promised as a presidential candidate.

The former NSA contractor insisted that U.S. authorities have access to phone calls, e-mails and other communications far beyond constitutional bounds. While he said legal restrictions can be easily skirted by analysts at the NSA, FBI and CIA, Snowden stopped short of accusing authorities of violating specific laws.

Instead, he said toothless regulations and policies were to blame for what he called “suspicionless surveillance,” and he warned that policies can be changed to allow further abuses.

At Tuesday’s hearing, officials detailed how the programs operate and the judicial and legislative oversight involved, repeating several times how access to the content of e-mails or telephone calls — or even the names of people involved — required authorization.

Deputy Attorney General James Cole noted that basic phone records collected under Section 215 of the Patriot Act were not protected by Fourth Amendment rights to privacy, citing a 1979 Supreme Court ruling.

In the case, Smith v. Maryland, the justices ruled that information about telephone calls — such as their time and duration — was different from the content of the calls and therefore not protected under the Fourth Amendment.

Cole also provided a detailed description of the legal framework of the programs, noting that the anti-terrorism surveillance effort is not “off the books” or “hidden away.”

“This is part of what government puts together and discusses,” he said. “Statutes are passed. It is overseen by three branches of our government — the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch.”

He described the U.S. phone records collected under Section 215 as basic information “just like what you would get in your own phone bill.”

“It is the number that was dialed from, the number that was dialed to, the date and the length of time. That’s all we get,” he said. “We do not get the identity of any of the parties to this phone call. We don’t get any cell site or location information as to where any of these phones were located. And, most importantly, and you’re probably going to hear this about 100 times today, we don’t get any content under this. We don’t listen in on anybody’s calls under this program at all.”

Tech companies jockey to seem the most transparent

Instead, it takes permission from a special court to get access to further information, based on a verifiable link to a terrorism investigation, Cole explained. Such links have mostly come from another surveillance program that collects communications information of foreign terrorism suspects living overseas.

Critics question the need to store the vast amount of U.S. phone records, saying it creates a database prone to abuses and provides little return for the risk and privacy concerns.

Alexander said Tuesday the phone database played a role in stopping 10 terrorist acts since the 9/11 attacks. At the same time, he and other officials said there were no cases they knew of in which anyone willfully misused the system to access information.

“If you’re looking for the needle in a haystack,” Cole said, “you have to have the haystack.”

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/politics/nsa-leaks/index.html?eref=edition

.cnn_html_media_utility::before{color:red;content:’>>’;font-size:9px;line-height:12px;padding-right:1px}
.cnnstrylccimg640{margin:0 27px 14px 0}
.captionText{filter:alpha(opacity=100);opacity:1}
.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:visited,.cnn_html_slideshow_media_caption a:link,.captionText a,.captionText a:visited,.captiontext a:link{color:outline:medium none}
.cnnVerticalGalleryPhoto{margin:0 auto;padding-right:68px;width:270px}
]]>

People walk in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on Tuesday, June 18. Brazilians took to the streets across the country to protest a 9 cent rise in bus fares. Brazil is building massive stadiums and revamping infrastructure ahead of the soccer World Cup, which it hosts next year.

Riot police form a line outside the Government Palace in Sao Paulo, on Monday, June 17.

Protesters set a fire outside the Tiradentes Palace in Rio de Janeiro during a protest on June 17.

A riot officer holds a position in downtown Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Thousands participate in the protest in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Piles of trash burn in the streets of Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Protesters clash with riot police in front of Rio de Janeiro’s Legislative Assembly building on June 17.

Protesters clash with riot police on June 17.

A riot police officer receives help after clashing with protesters on June 17.

A protester receives assistance after being shot in the leg in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

Two men look at smashed ATMs in Rio de Janeiro on June 17.

People stand atop the National Congress building in Brasilia, Brazil, on June 17.

Thousands stand in the gardens of the National Congress in Brasilia during a protest on June 17.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Editor’s note: James Montague is the author of When Friday Comes: Football, War and Revolution in the Middle East (deCoubertin Books). He is in Brazil for the Confederations Cup. Follow him @JamesPiotr

Belo Horizonte, Brazil (CNN) — At 11 pm, the tired and the injured gathered in Belo Horizonte for one last expression of discontent.

More than a thousand sat in Praca Sete de Setembro, a square in the center of the city, chanting against the government and the police. But they weren’t the crowd’s only enemy. A sign hung from a nearby balcony. It read: “Anti Copa.” On the pavement the words “A FIFA é Foda” had been painted: “F*** You, FIFA,” in Portuguese. The roads had been blocked off by the military police, who watched the protesters from afar. A bank of police horses chewed on piles of hay left for them on the road.

Daniel Sanabria, a technician in his 20s, stood nearby cradling his arm, an ice pack on top of a bloody bandage. He peeled it off to reveal an ugly red welt on his left hand. “A bullet,” he explained.

Brazilian protester: Where do taxes go?

Protests remain mostly festive in Brazil

Tiny price hike triggers huge protests

Read: 9 cent hike leads to clashes on Brazil’s streets

The day was supposed to have been something of a coronation for Belo Horizonte, a relatively quiet and small city — if a population of 2.5 million people could ever be called small — surrounded by mountains, an hour’s flight north of Rio de Janeiro.

Its famous Mineirao football stadium had just hosted its first match of the 2013 Confederations Cup, a 6-1 victory for African champions Nigeria against the tiny Pacific islanders of Tahiti. It was a dry run for next year’s World Cup finals which return to Brazil for the first time since 1950, a chance to prove that the country was ready to host the most world’s most popular sports tournament.

Instead, military and civilian helicopters flew overhead, roads were blocked and military police stationed throughout the city as a series of protests sparked by anger about the cost of living, poor quality education and high transport costs took place at the same time as the match.

The initial spark for the protests was a rise in bus fares in Sao Paulo. The anger was such that, even in a country often caricatured for its deification of soccer, the World Cup, its surrogate cousin the Confederations Cup and the game’s global governing body FIFA, have all become symbolic of corruption and waste.

Protesters believe the tournament has seen the rich line their pockets, while the poor make do with crumbling public services. The World Cup, it seems, has sparked something that has lain dormant for a long time.

“Tonight this is about all of Brazil, we are moving against corruption. We have been suffering for too many years,” said Tainara Freitas, a teacher who had remained with the protest until the end.

“And this year we rise. We have woken up. We are on the streets like in Turkey and Greece. They have made us wake up about this. The World Cup in Brazil is about too much money. There are too many poor people suffering. The World Cup isn’t good for Brazil. It will bring tourists and money but this is not good for poor people.”

Earlier in the day 15,000 protesters had marched towards the Mineirao as hundreds of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets across the country in the first coordinated mass protests of this size since the end of Brazil’s military dictatorship in the mid 1980s.

Police responded with tear gas, firing rubber bullets into the crowd, and beat protesters who burned barricades in return. I watched Tahiti’s brave performance on the pitch as the protesters gathered outside, speaking to Brazilian sports writer Igor Resende at half time about the match and the reasons for the anger. A few hours later he was in hospital after apparently being shot in the back with a rubber bullet.

“The police came with a brutal force,” recalled Resende. “I didn’t see the protesters do anything. The police threw a bomb and it exploded in the middle of the protest. Then police began to shoot.”

Resende said he was hit in the back by a rubber bullet as he ran away.

“In that moment I just ran. I thought that if I looked back the police would probably shoot me again. I don’t think the police are well prepared. They are badly paid. They have a bad life. They act like this because they are scared.”

But Resende said he has doubt that the police response was related to the Confederations Cup.

“I spoke to one of the highest ranked police guys in state yesterday. He told me 3,500 policeman were on the streets because of the game. They are acting to avoid conflict near the stadiums. The police and FIFA don’t want the protesters near the stadiums.”

For FIFA, who have been critical of Brazil’s preparations for the World Cup, the protests are an unwelcome complication for a tournament already long behind schedule. “People are using the platform of football and the international media presence to make certain demonstrations,” said FIFA president Sepp Blatter who, alongside the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, was booed by the crowd at the opening ceremony on Saturday.

Speaking in an interview in Rio on Monday, he said: “You will see today is the third day of the competition this will calm down. It will be a wonderful competition.”

But the protests have not calmed down. The day after Blatter’s interview, the biggest demonstrations yet took place. Sanabria and Freitas agreed that the Confederations Cup, which continues for another 12 days, is an opportunity to make their voices heard.

I asked them both what messaged they wanted to send FIFA and the football world.

“Please, please, make more pressure on our government, on the Brazilian government to look out for us,” said Freitas before she made her way back into the protest, Sanabria still clutching his injured hand.

“They are looking out for people outside the country, they aren’t looking for us, for the poor people.”

The protestors now have the world’s attention.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/world/americas/brazil-protests-montague/index.html?eref=edition

Editor’s note: Nicolaus Mills is professor of American studies at Sarah Lawrence College and author of “Winning the Peace: The Marshall Plan and America’s Coming of Age as a Superpower.”

(CNN) — The White House has announced that on Wednesday, at the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Obama will speak in Berlin at the city’s landmark Brandenburg Gate. The president’s subject will be the transatlantic alliance and the enduring bonds between the United States and Germany.

Berlin comes as a welcome relief for Obama. It gives him a chance to put aside for the moment the difficulties he is having in the Middle East and with the National Security Agency spying scandal. The president’s Berlin appearance also reminds us that he is following in historic footsteps.

June 26 marks the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s famous “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech, praising the citizens of West Berlin for their refusal to be intimidated by the massive East German-built wall that since 1961 had divided their city.

The reaction of the crowd listening to Kennedy address them in front of West Berlin’s City Hall was so overwhelming that, on the plane leaving Germany, he remarked to his aide, Ted Sorensen, who had written most of his speech, “We’ll never have another day like this one as long as we live.”

Kennedy is always given style points for his Berlin speech because of its easy-to-remember rhetoric. But the speech is worth recalling today because it amounted to such a profound pivot away from the prevailing nuclear logic of the Cold War. In Berlin, Kennedy recast how he believed the Cold War should be waged in the future in a way that made his thinking clear to the European and American public.

For Kennedy, the chance to speak near the Berlin Wall two years after it was built was a major opportunity to redefine his foreign policy leadership.

In his 1961 Vienna summit meeting with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy had gotten off to a rocky start. In 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, he had regained his footing. He had resisted calls by some of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a massive airstrike against Cuba and made sure he and the Soviets avoided backing each other into a nuclear exchange.

In Berlin, Kennedy showed that he had learned from both confrontations. Instead of treating the Cold War as simply a battle over which side had the most military power and the will to use it, he framed it as a battle that also included the fate of captive peoples and their right to self-determination.

It was an emphasis that would bear fruit in the Prague spring of 1968, in Poland’s Solidarity movement and finally in Ronald Reagan’s 1987 Brandenburg Gate speech with its memorable line, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Kennedy’s rhetoric in Berlin was equal to his good intentions. “Two thousand years ago, the proudest boast was ‘civis Romanus sum’ (“I am a Roman citizen”). Today, in the world of freedom the proudest boast is ‘Ich bin ein Berliner,’ ” Kennedy declared. His words paid tribute to those Germans trapped in a divided Berlin, but his overriding point was, “Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.”

Kennedy was doing the opposite of saber-rattling. He was updating the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence so they spoke directly to contemporary Europe. When his audience heard Kennedy’s words, they were reminded of the Berlin Airlift of 1948, in which America responded to the Soviet ground blockade of West Berlin with an airlift that brought West Berliners the food and supplies they needed without U.S. troops firing a shot.

Earlier in June 1963, Kennedy had established the groundwork for his Berlin speech with an address he gave at American University in Washington. There, he spoke about establishing the conditions for an “attainable peace” that was neither a Pax Americana nor a peace of the grave.

The Soviet Union, Kennedy cautioned, needed to abandon its distorted view of an America ready to unleash a preventative nuclear war, but at the same time America needed to make sure that it did not fall into the same trap as the Soviets by seeing Russia through a distorted ideological lens.

Ever the practical politician, Kennedy conceded that he had no “magic formula” for bringing about such a change in the world’s two superpowers, but it was possible, he concluded, to debate the Cold War without each side making new threats. “We can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard,” he insisted.

Today, the American University speech is widely praised, but at the time, the speech was seen primarily as a policy statement. The public reaction to the speech was minimal. One day later, the American University proposals were replaced as a front-page story by the highly charged racial confrontation between the Kennedy administration and Alabama Gov. George Wallace over the admission of two African-American students to the formerly all-white University of Alabama.

Berlin was a different story in terms of its popular impact and a sign that Kennedy was becoming increasingly sophisticated in using his personal popularity to promote policy change.

In Berlin, the still-young president took advantage of being on the global stage to make it easier for friend and foe alike to see him as a leader eager to steer America and the world away from nuclear confrontation.

His efforts were not wasted. Two months after his Berlin speech, the United States, Great Britain and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the first such agreement since atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Nicolaus Mills.

Article source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/mills-jfk-berlin-speech/index.html?eref=edition