Muktar Said Ibrahim

Muktar Said Ibrahim (born 24 January 1978), also known as Muktar Mohammed Said, was found guilty of involvement in the attempted 21 July attacks on London's public transport system in 2005. He attempted to detonate a device on a London bus and was arrested sharing an apartment with Ramzi Mohammed on 29 July 2005. During the arrest, which culminated in Ramzi and Ibrahim standing near-naked on their balcony to avoid tear gas that police had used.
He was originally from Eritrea and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992. It has been reported that he applied for naturalisation as a British citizen in November 2003 and was issued with a British passport in September 2004. He had been living in Stoke Newington, London. Ibrahim was convicted of robbery and jailed for five years in 1996 for committing the crime and also carrying a knife. His family were apparently unaware of any involvement in terrorist activities and have publicly distanced themselves from him since the bombing attempts.
Early life.
Ibrahim was educated at Canons High School in Edgware.
Arrest and trial.
29 July 2005 Ibrahim was arrested and in February 2007 tried alongside five other suspects for his part in the attempted bombings.
9 July 2007 he was found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of forty years before being considered for release.
Appeal.
April 2008 the court of appeal judges dismissed a challenge by Ibrahim, Omar, Mohammed and Osman to their convictions.
In December 2014, an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights lodged in 2008 by the bombers, claiming that their rights were breached in the 'safety interviews' after their arrests, was rejected.


Convention on the Rights of Older Persons

The proposed Convention on the Rights of Older Persons is likely to be the next major human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations. The proposed treaty will seek to remedy the fragmented human rights structure for Older Persons, and will focus on reaffirming critical human rights which are of concern to the Elderly. The focus of the treaty will be persons over 60 years of age, which is a growing demographic worldwide due to increased population ageing. The treaty follows from the success of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which has seen near universal acceptance since 1989. Where the UNCRC focuses on the rights of younger persons, the UNCROP will address those who form the older portion of society, who according to United Nations reports, are becoming increasingly vulnerable as a group without applicable normative standards of human rights law. Support for a Convention is becoming increasingly popular, as human rights groups including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), HelpAge International, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the International Labour Organization, and many other NGOs and states have expressed support for a universal instrument. The need for a treaty has arisen due to issues surrounding demographic changes from population ageing. This has led to significant interest in how to best ensure the well being of older persons. Among the rights issues faced by older persons are their rights against ageist discrimination, and the rights to participation. The debate surrounding the convention focuses on the implementation and safeguarding of these rights, to set normative standards of human rights for older persons. One substantive issue is the conception of elder abuse as between individuals. Individual relationships generally fall outside of current human rights law, which seeks to present standards of relations between states and individuals. Therefore, it has been suggested that the proposed human rights convention for older persons ought to be drafted as an anti-discrimination convention. However, this would not be consistent with other multilateral human rights conventions such as the ICCPR and ICESCR which set normative standards.
Content.
Presently, no formal draft treaty has been agreed upon by the United Nations General Assembly, though "The Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing for the Purpose of Strengthening the Protection of the Human Rights of Older Persons" (OEWGA) has debated what the substantive content of a treaty may be. In its most recent session, the OEWGA noted agreed that:
"it is fundamental to consider older persons as specific right holders and agents of change, and to provide guarantees with respect to the full and effective enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, in order to allow for their participation in social, economic, cultural, civil and political life, and to seize their experience and potential for contributing to all areas of development." The fundamental rights affirmed by the proposed treaty would be extensions of those secured by other multilateral treaties, though with a focus on specific issues faced by elderly persons.
Background.
World Assembly on Ageing.
In 1982, the Report of the World Assembly on Ageing (also known as "the International Plan on Ageing") was published, which represented the first international debate on the rights of older persons and presented a plan for their implementation. The Report sets out a number of underlying principles which are applicable to older persons, importantly the participating states reaffirmed "their belief that the fundamental and inalienable rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights apply fully and undiminished to the aging." The report acknowledged several sub-topics especially applicable to the rights of elderly persons, including health and nutrition, housing and environment, the family, social welfare, income and security and employment, and education. The report therefore gave policy recommendations to address these concerns, including to avoid imbalances in age groups in the public sector, and to give effort to fill longer life spans with a sense of purpose and accomplishment. Additionally, producing proactive policies aimed at healthier older populations and financial security for retirement were promoted. The significance of this report for the proposed convention is its use in determining the United Nations approach to ageing and its members states' internal policies.
United Nations Principles for Older Persons.
The next move towards a convention for the rights of older persons was the adoption of the United Nations Principles for Older Persons, 1991. The Principles provided that older persons in society ought to have independence, the ability to participate in society, have access to care, be entitled to self-fulfilment and the full dignity of life among other rights. The Principles were adopted in October 1992 due to the adoption of the proclamation on aging in General Assembly Resolution 47/5, which contained the proclamation as an annex and giving some weight to the 1991 Principles. However, the implementation of these Principles received little oversight, as under international law United Nations General Assembly Resolutions are not automatically binding on parties. By adopting the Principles, the United Nations brought the rights of older persons to the same moral level as those of other bodies and set some targets towards their implementation, such as the 2001 deadline for meeting global targets on problems for ageing persons.
The Second World Assembly on Ageing.
The Second World Assembly saw the adoption of the 2002 Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing, which sought to outline a plan for "building a society for all ages." The Plan identified four areas in which states ought to focus to produce a healthier environment for older persons, "individual lifelong development, multigenerational relationships, the interrelationship between population ageing and development, and the situation of older persons." The Plan sought to achieve these aims by promoting the active participation of older persons in society in its member states. The contribution of the Plan towards an International Convention on the Rights of Older Persons can be seen in the placement of older people into the general context of international human rights law, establishing the groundwork for older persons to be seen as a protected group. The plan did not specifically refer to older persons as a specific protected group, implying that it was not meant as a declaration of rights, though it did acknowledge the commitment of member states to upholding the rights of all groups and older persons by extension. The plan was set for review after a 10 year period, in which states and NGOs such as the United Nations Population Fund were tasked with implementing the Plan.
The Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing for the Purpose of Strengthening the Protection of the Human Rights of Older Persons.
In October 2010, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 65/182 which established the "Open‐Ended Working group on Ageing for the purpose of strengthening the Human Rights of Older Persons" as a follow-up to the Madrid Plan. The OEWGA had a mandate to consider the existing international framework of the human rights of older persons and identify possible gaps and how best to address them. The OEWGA forms the primary forum for debate as to the adoption of a multilateral human rights treaty regarding the rights of older persons, as it focuses on the issues faced by older persons and recognizes gaps in the existing human rights framework. The OEWGA has had 8 sessions as of September 2017, and each of these sessions has aimed to clarify issues surrounding older persons rights and provide assistance to members in their obligations under the Madrid Plan. Before each session the OEWGA takes submissions from member states on their contributions towards older persons in society. In the first session select member states acknowledged the difficult position of older person's rights under the traditional international framework, due to the lack of a specific convention. Therefore, debate regarding the necessity of an international convention on the rights of older persons has been a feature of the OEWGA since its outset, which can be seen through the submissions of the member states.
Debate and criticism.
OEWGA has primarily focused on ways to improve the existing human rights framework, though NGOs and states such as Argentina have advocated for a human rights convention, stating in their first submission that:
″There is no legally binding instrument to standardize and protect the rights of older persons... The argument is that the universal nature of international instruments should include the elderly. We all know that this does not happen because we live in an imperfect world. If the world were perfect we would not need any convention, and there is no discrimination. This is why the government of Argentina... support[s] the need for a convention to promote, protect and ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, ensuring its implementation through a binding instrument″ [sic]
Argentina's submission drew attention to the legislative significance of Human Rights Conventions, and that adopting such a convention for older persons would be in the best interests of the Madrid Plan. However, multiple states, such as Australia, Denmark and China all noted that domestic policy concerns and demographic differences within their regions allowed for a human rights based approach to the issue, though they disapproved of a multilateral convention.
A significant gap in normative standards of older persons rights has been noted by the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which has stated: "the establishment of a binding international convention on the rights of older persons would create a legal framework that defined their rights." A similar position was taken by Help-age International, which submitted a substantial report on age discrimination, and concluded that a single instrument was needed to amalgamate the principles of older person's rights into one convention. As a result, the notion of a treaty has received some support as it would set normative standards of human rights for older persons, in order to supplement the Madrid Plan, though it was not universally supported. Non-Government organisations such as HelpAge International have repeatedly referenced a need for "universal prohibition of discrimination in old age in a human rights instrument [that] would provide a definitive, universal position that age discrimination is morally and legally unacceptable."
The main criticism of a new convention has come from states who have argued that drafting a new convention would be resource intensive, noting that the international human rights framework is already under-resourced. These states argued for a strengthening of existing mechanisms such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as an alternative. This view has been advocated by the United States, which has argued that a new convention would not add anything to the existing protections under international conventions already in existence.
However, in the 10 year review of the Madrid Plan on Ageing, according to the United Nations Economic and Social Council: "10 years after its adoption, the Madrid Plan of Action has made only limited headway in national and international development plans."
Future of the convention.
Following the 10 year review of the Madrid Plan, Alan Cordina, chair of the sixth session, stated that:
"I am... aware that an increasing number of delegations and a unanimous and clear voice coming from civil society are requesting us to undertake the task of elaborating a convention. Can we continue turning a deaf ear to those calls? Can we ignore that part of our mandate? My response to both questions is no. A clear no, simple and without ambiguities."
The result was a call for a draft convention, which would be presented to the UN General Assembly. This was considered necessary due to the constant breaches of older persons rights taking place worldwide in spite of the existing framework. This was followed in the seventh session with a collaboration with the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to establish some ways in which a multilateral treaty could be established.
During the eighth working session, multiple NGOs, and some states came together to discuss the possible text of a draft treaty.


FOREST

FOREST (short for "Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco") is a United Kingdom "astroturf" group set up, controlled and primarily funded by the tobacco industry which campaigns against tobacco control activity.
Early history.
In 1978, Air Chief Marshal Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris approached the major British tobacco companies regarding a possible Tobacco Consumers' Association. Foxley-Norris, a pipe and cigar smoker, said that he was concerned about the increasing interference by 'the Government and other do-gooding bodies' in people's lives, and that he was surprised that the industry had not put up any co-ordinated response to anti-smoking measures. He added that, having retired from the RAF in 1974, he was seeking a salaried position in such an organisation to supplement his pension.
At around the same time, Lieutenant-General Sir Geoffrey Charles Evans, a cigarette smoker and formerly General Secretary of the National Union of Retail Tobacconists made similar proposals to industry figures.
The Tobacco Advisory Committee (TAC), the then British tobacco industry trade association, agreed that the time was right to launch a pro-smoking group. TAC stated that the new organisation would need to 'be closely controlled and supported by the industry, but be seen to be sufficiently independent to maintain its credibility'.
After some debate as to whether Evans or Foxley-Norris should run the group, FOREST was launched on 19 June 1979, with Foxley-Norris chairman and Evans chief executive, the men being the group's first two members.
Soon after launch, a March 1980 TAC memo showed that the tobacco industry felt that there was confusion about the organisation's purpose, doubts as to the effectiveness of FOREST's activities, and continuing uncertainty as to whether it should endeavour to recruit a mass membership or continue to serve the industry directly. Further doubts were expressed over FOREST's direction by TAC figures in 1981, with some companies questioning whether to continue funding the group, or to establish a different, more effective group.
A model for a pro-smoking pressure group was agreed by TAC members, and it was further agreed that this model would be applied to the existing FOREST organisation, rather than attempting to establish a new pro-smoking group. The restructured FOREST would require a new chief executive to replace Evans, and would not only react to news and tobacco control developments, but would seek to make its own news in the form of conducting research and lobbying. Individual members were seen as 'desirable', but not essential.
Leadership and influence.
FOREST's dependence on tobacco industry funding has ensured considerable industry influence upon its leadership and direction. The Tobacco Advisory Council selected Foxley-Norris as the first Chairman of FOREST in 1979, and when, by 1981, FOREST was felt by the TAC members to be ineffective, Stephen Eyres was selected as Director of a restructured organisation. From this point on, the leadership of FOREST has tended to be drawn from amongst elements of the libertarian movement.
The 1981 restructuring proposal stated that 'If money invested [in FOREST] is to be properly effective then control and management are essential' and that contact between the Executive Director of FOREST and the Tobacco Advisory Council should be made "on an almost daily basis." However, given that 'nobody of worth to a campaigning organisation can be run on too tight a rein', funding would be guaranteed on an annual basis.
Evans continued to be involved for some time until dying in 1987. Eyres, meanwhile, was suffering from increasing ill-health as a result of HIV, and Chris Tame was recruited to succeed both as the organisation's effective leader in 1988; a non-smoker, Tame voiced a concern about the potential wider impact of measures to reduce exposure from second-hand smoke, arguing from a libertarian perspective that individuals’ right to make their own health decisions may need defending.
Foxley-Norris remained a public figurehead until retiring in 1989, and was replaced by Lord Harris of High Cross, general director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and pipe smoker. In September 1989 Eyres, still employed by FOREST, was accused of misusing Forest funds to buy first class flights to Australia and a property in Spain. The tobacco industry was keen to avoid any publicity and Eyres' resignation, effective as of 1 October 1989, and an agreement not to discuss the circumstances of the termination of his employment, was confirmed in a High Court judgement, of November 1989. Eyres died in 1990.
Harris remained as chairman of FOREST until his death in 2006, while Tame, who took over from Eyres as Director of Forest, continued in the position until 1995, when he was removed by the tobacco industry following concerns about his approach. Eyres was replaced by Marjorie Nicholson, who had previously been the organisation's campaign manager, standing for Parliament at the 1994 Dudley West by-election under the FOREST name.
The current director, Simon Clark, took over from Nicholson in 1999. Launching a spin-off campaign entitled 'The Free Society', a more general campaign against the perceived 'nanny state', Clark stated 'If people wish to eat themselves to death by eating too much fatty food that has to be their choice'.
Media profile.
Foxley-Norris was interviewed on 25 July 1979 by BBC London, criticising measures such as smoke-free regulations which had been introduced on Glasgow public transport and asking members of the public to join FOREST at the cost of £1/year.
FOREST spokespeople continue to appear on television and radio in the United Kingdom and are quoted by British newspapers and broadcasters as representatives of a pro-tobacco viewpoint. Despite this media visibility, FOREST's internal communications to the tobacco industry have argued that its real successes "cannot be publicised":
Measuring FOREST purely in terms of media coverage denies the existence of other work in which it is engaged but which cannot be publicised. In short, if others can be persuaded to "sing the same tune" this is of more value than anything that might be said by the tobacco industry itself, or FOREST.
Less direct techniques have also been made use of to maximise media impact while promoting an appearance of independence from the tobacco industry. This is acknowledged in FOREST's 1985 Directors' report, stating that “the arms-length relationship with the industry has worked to the benefit of both parties” and noting that letter-writers were "retained" to provide an active local media presence.
Funding and membership.
Marketing itself as the "voice and friend of the smoker", FOREST has nevertheless been described as an astroturf front group created and primarily funded by the tobacco industry. Its establishment was planned by the Tobacco Advisory Committee, the British tobacco industry trade association. At a 1979 meeting, the Tobacco Advisory Committee discussed the launch of FOREST as well as ways to maintain its appearance of independence.
After its founding, membership campaigns were not successful in recruiting a broad support base which could make the organisation self-financing. In one instance, 10,000 cigarette retailers were solicited to join FOREST, but only four joined. Financial support from the tobacco industry thus remains the main source of funding for FOREST.
Notable supporters.
While opposing proposals to restrict smoking in public places, FOREST attracted the support of celebrity smokers including artist David Hockney, inventor Trevor Baylis, musician Joe Jackson, chef Antony Worrall Thompson, and social commentator Claire Fox. Its more recent campaign to reverse smoke-free workplace regulations in licensed premises lists several politicians as supporters (see below).
Developments following the smoking ban.
In February 2006, FOREST lost its fight against comprehensive smoke-free workplace regulations in England, achieved via a House of Commons free vote and subsequently implemented on 1 July 2007. Complementing smoke-free workplace regulations already introduced in Scotland (March 2006), Northern Ireland and Wales (both April 2007), these included all pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants, private members' clubs and any indoor workplace. Following this UK-wide defeat, FOREST has undertaken to continue to lobby under a 'freedom of choice' banner and in 2010 launched an Irish branch, Forest Eireann – the Republic of Ireland having instituted nationwide smoke-free workplace regulations in March 2004.
Concern about the potential impact of smoke-free regulations upon the income of publicans and licensees was a theme in FOREST's subsequent opposition to smoke-free workplace measures. FOREST launched its 'Save Our Pubs and Clubs' Campaign in 2009, with Greg Knight, Conservative MP, and Anthony Worrall-Thompson in attendance. It was backed by David Clelland, Labour MP, John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP, and Nigel Farage MEP, the leader of UKIP. The campaign called for pubs and clubs to be able to choose whether to allow smoking and listed as supporters the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, the Adam Smith Institute, thinktank Progressive Vision and the Manifesto Club.


Paolo Cotta-Ramusino

Paolo Cotta-Ramusino (born 1948) has been Secretary General of Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs since August 2002. He is also Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Milan (Italy) and Senior Researcher at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Cotta-Ramusino is an adjunct Professor, Centre of International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and an Associate with the Project on Managing the Atom, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. He is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, and the World Academy of Art and Sciences.
Scientific career.
Cotta-Ramusino received his doctorate (laurea) in physics in 1971 from the Università degli Studi di Milano. A mathematical physicist, Cotta-Ramusino researches mathematical aspects of quantum field and string theories. He is Full Professor in Mathematical Physics (Mathematical Methods of Physics), Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Milano, and Senior Researcher at the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics. Previously he was Associate Professor in Mathematical Physics at Università degli Studi di Milano (1993–2000); Associate Professor in Theoretical Physics at Università degli Studi di Trento (1988–1993); Visiting Professor in Mathematics at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill NC (1990–1991); Research Associate at CERN, Geneva (1988); and Researcher in Theoretical Physics at Università degli Studi di Milano (1981–1987). He has held postdoctoral positions and fellowships: at Harvard University, Cambridge MA, 1980 and 1981; Freie Universität Berlin, 1979; Università degli Studi di Milano, 1971–1978.
His past research activities have explored: topological Quantum Field Theories in any dimension, BF theories, Cohomology of imbedded loops, Higher dimensional knots; Links, knots and quantum groups; Differential geometrical aspects of string and field theories, Virasoro and Krichever-Novikov algebras; Anomalies in Quantum field theory and their differential geometrical interpretation; and Foundational aspects of Quantum Mechanics. His past and present teaching activities include: Mathematical Methods of Physics: complex analysis and functional analysis; Differential Geometry in Mathematical Physics: differentiable manifolds, Lie groups, principal bundles and their connections, Dirac operators; and Calculus.
Scientists and World Affairs.
Throughout the Cold War, Cotta-Ramusino has been a leading force in promoting the involvement of scientists in arms control and disarmament. In 1983, he co-founded the Italian Union of Scientists for Disarmament (USPID and served on the USPID Scientific Council. He was formerly Director of the Program on Science, Technology and International Security at the Landau Network Centro Volta (Como) where he conducted research on the conversion of Russian Nuclear Cities and the development of programs for cooperation on energy-related issues in the Korean peninsula. Cotta-Ramusino has carried out research on tactical nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, and other issues related to European nuclear disarmament.
Cotta-Ramusino first participated in the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs at a meeting in Venice in 1983. He then took part in 36 more meetings before becoming Secretary General in 2002. Pugwash has been a groundbreaking force in creating international networks that address and alleviate the root problems of arms control and disarmament. Its focus on private meetings that address the interrelated issues of nuclear disarmament, non-military resolution of conflict, and the social responsibility of scientists derives from the famous Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955—the last public statement from Albert Einstein. The organization’s name comes from Pugwash, Nova Scotia, where the landmark meeting of scientists from East and West took place in 1957 during some of the darkest days of the Cold War. Throughout its history, Pugwash has won private and public acclaim from world leaders such as Mikhail Gorbachev and Kofi Annan. The success of its approach was reinforced by the awarding of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize jointly to Pugwash and one of its leading spirits, the late Joseph Rotblat.
As Secretary General, Cotta-Ramusino has continued Pugwash’s tradition of addressing the need of eliminating nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The organization, which involves both scientists and non-scientists, prioritizes preservation of the basic principles of the NPT (disarmament, non-proliferation and access to nuclear energy for all the Member States). Cotta-Ramusino has directed Pugwash to promote several track II initiatives and meetings mixing experts with officials in critical regions where either nuclear weapons exist or a concern about nuclear proliferation has been developed in an effort to promote in whatever ways possible, conflict resolution in those critical regions.
Pugwash activities developed during Cotta-Ramusino’s tenure.
Paolo Cotta-Ramusino is an internationally recognized expert on these issues, and regularly writes and gives presentations on current topics in arms control, disarmament and conflict resolution at leading academic, research and governmental institutions, including recent talks, for example, at The World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates, The International Institute of Strategic Studies, The Italian Parliament, Rome, The Royal Society, London, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC, UK parliament, among others. He has been published in Le Monde, The Guardian, and other leading journals.
Family.
Cotta Ramusino married in 1971, and has two daughters and two grandsons.


MEDays

The annual international forum MEDays, which takes place every year in Tangier under the high patronage of the King Mohammed VI, is the main event organized by the Amadeus Institute. During several days, it confronts and brings together different readings, opinions and recommendations from high level international policymakers on essential topics and issues concerning the South. The Amadeus Institute will organize the ninth edition of the international MEDays Forum from 7 to 10 December 2016.
Today the MEDays Forum is considered a strategic meeting for global players involved in the geostrategic, political, economic and social spheres of southern countries and more specifically the Mediterranean, African and Arab regions - but also with an opening on the Latin American regions and Asia. The South has now its own forum. According to the president of the Amadeus Institute, 'The MEDays has fulfilled a gap in this geographic zone and is a catalyst for world economy.'
A community of more than 200 speakers of high standards is present each year at the MEDays forum and participates in more than twenty panels to open up practical propositions and concrete sectoral solutions. Among them are heads of states and ministers, government officials, entrepreneurs, representatives from intergovernmental organizations, experts and civil society representatives.
More than 2500 participants attend the Forum include governmental representatives, public administrators, business leaders, researchers and graduate students, civil society and international governmental experts.
Format.
Far from being a traditional conference, the MEDays format is closer to a TV broadcast debate: speakers do not make presentations, instead they respond to solicitations and enquiries from the moderator. In parallel panels, the format is slightly different as the audience can interact directly with experts on the panel.
The MED ays offers a parallel business forum "Business MED ays" composed of plenary sessions, workshops and informal meetings, dedicated to business participants. Business MED aysis unique single space to
create practical and concrete business opportunities in the various geographical areas with close interest to the Forum.
MEDays 2008 : the launching.
The 2008 MEDays edition, 'The Southern Forum for a New Mediterranean’ took place in Tangiers on 26, 27 and 28 November. This was marked by a regional context coinciding with the launching of the Union for the Mediterranean in Paris on 13 July 2008.
This first edition had as its principal theme The Union for the Mediterranean, which aimed to firstly stimulate a better understanding of questions relevant to political, economic and social trials regarding the region, in order to implement this new concept of the Mediterranean.
More than 500 participants took part in this first edition. A community of high level speakers coming from all around the Mediterranean and from Africa and North America animated panels with strong debates and innovative propositions. Among them, one could find government representatives, policymakers, public administrators, and CEOs, university graduates, researchers, civil servants and experts from intergovernmental organisations.
The first MEDays forum kept its promise. Discussions from panels and remarks made by high-level personalities resulted in a series of propositions addressed to southern Mediterranean countries.
Reflections carried out by the 2008 MEDays led to a common engagement via the declaration of Tangiers, which was communicated to all the main political and economic decision makers from the region. The declaration insisted on the specific character of the Mediterranean identity as an important component of in shaping the citizen coming from the Mediterranean region.
Participants from the forum have also called on Algeria to go back to a return of reason and to spirit of responsibility with regards to the normalization of its relations with Morocco. As an pressing measure, they recommended the urgent reopening of the border frontiers between the two countries. The Amadeus Institute was equally engaged in encouraging actions intended to harmonize legislation between the two shores of the Mediterranean.
MEDays 2009 : the consolidation.
The main theme of the 2009 MEDays Forum was "responsible co-development". For its second edition, MEDays gathered 174 speakers and 1300 participants. Ministers, high executives and civil society representatives from more than 70 different counties animated the discussions during those three days. Similarly to 2008, the forum architecture was composed of 6 plenary sessions and 20 simultaneous panels.
Participation and media coverage improved dramatically from one year to another, which confirmed MEDays as a valuable event especially considering the quality of speakers, the great freedom of speech and an outstanding logistic organization.
Success was proved by great interest in the chosen themes, the high standard of speakers and the innovative propositions put forward by speakers, an essential factor to affect policy making in the region.
The Forum offered an honest discussion on the roots of global economic crisis and its effect on the region. The gathering of so many officials currently involved in framing their countries’ policy proved relevant and necessary to the organization of this event which seeks to foster an exchange of views as well as a direct and personal contact between participants.
Given all these developments, this explains why the MEDays Forum has become a valuable place to tackle issues pertaining to the South.
Debates that are breaking taboos.
Restarting an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in total crisis.
Many observers were surprised by the achievement of the MEDays Forum which managed to bring together on the same panel the former Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Rafic Husseini who at the time was the director of the PA cabinet of the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas. This is the first time that an Arab country gathers in an informal setting and in a visible manner official representatives from both parties.
Dealing with drug traffickers’ danger in Africa's Sahel-Saharan zone.
Cocaine from South America, bound for Europe, transits through the African continent where local conflicts, the absence of strong states, corruption and poverty facilitates this process. Heroin from Asia is traded for cocaine in a very porous Sahel-Saharan area based on « one for one », creating de facto a kind of new currency in the region. Drug trafficking evolving from caravan transport to super jumbo, is becoming stronger not just as a result of international organized crime but due to terrorists’ activities in the Sahel-Saharian region.
Innovative proposals.
An observatory monitoring conflicts’ breakout in Africa.
The MEDays Forum proposes an original architecture in terms of conflict prevention: the creation of an observatory monitoring conflicts breakout in Africa with regional antennas. The purpose of this observatory would be to launch alert messages on harmful political developments in any African country. Managed by African contingents under UN supervision, the observatory could take action by addressing a direct diplomatic message to authorities or different political parties from countries where the political situation is worsening.
A contribution on shipped merchandise in the Mediterranean.
70% of boats crossing through the Mediterranean do not stop at harbors along the coast. They use the maritime space without contributing economically in the countries of the periphery and mobilize resources since they benefit from maritime security and other services, generating more costs for collectivities and greater risks of pollution. A contribution of €0.5 per ton of shipped merchandise withdrawn at the Suez and Gibraltar Detroit would generate €500 million in its first year.
Mediterranean Investment Bank.
The creation of a Mediterranean Investment Bank that could finance investments and cooperation projects in the Mediterranean region was at the heart of proposals presented at the MEDays 2008 and 2009.
An agreement was reached between large financial institutions from Member countries of The Union for the Mediterranean and a schedule and deadline were introduced for the creation of such a bank.
Charles Milhaud, present at the MEDays in 2009, was asked by Nicolas Sarkozy to work on the potential financing of Co-development within the UfM framework in order to define the possibility of creating the Mediterranean Investment Bank.
MEDays 2010 : the durability.
The third edition of MEDays had as an objective to render this forum durable as a major event on the international agenda and more importantly to make of it the reference reunion of the South region. New horizons of interregional cooperation were at the heart of the debates, especially the tricontinental, also called the "3A": Africa, South America and Asia. In 2010, almost 200 speakers coming from more than 80 countries as well as 1500 participants (around 40 ministers and 100 journalists) gathered in Tangier. The third edition of MEDays allowed the Forum to be listed for good in the agenda of important international conferences.
The outcome of this third forum confirms its place among the most prestigious annual international conferences: over 175 high level personalities took part in this third MEDays Forum including Edmund Phelps, 2006 Economy Nobel Prize winner, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was jointly awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, Cheick Sidi Diarra, UN Deputy Secretary General and Special adviser for Africa, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Vice President of the European Parliament, Angelino Garzón, Vice President of Colombia, Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator of the Palestinian Authority, Philippe de Fontaine-Vive, Vice President of the European Investment Bank, over forty ministers and many other prestigious guests coming from over 80 countries.
Many national and international media have covered the Forum, including among others BBC, Euronews, France 24, RFI, "Al Hayat", "El Pais", "Jeune Afrique", "Les Afriques", "New African", "New York Times", "The Daily China" and "The Times".
MEDays 2010 outcomes.
The closing of these four days of work offered the opportunity to communicate its first conclusions, synthesized by the Chairman of the Amadeus Institute in six key recommendations from the 2010 Tangier Declaration:
The day before, Miguel Ángel Moratinos former Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, publicly called heads of states throughout the world to recognize the Palestinian State as a solution to resolve the conflict, the peace process being frozen as a result of the Israeli decision to suspend the moratorium on settlements.
MEDays 2010 Awards.
Four awards presented at the MEDays 2010 were attributed to:
MEDays 2011 : the confirmation.
The 4th edition of MEDays took place in a historically exceptional context at the national, regional and international levels. 2011 has been a year of unprecedented upheavals, both fortunate and unfortunate. From January onward, the Arab world has been changing rapidly, starting with the fall of Ben Ali. The following month, time ran out for Mubarak, leading to the uprisings in Libya, Yemen and Syria.
For the first time, the MEDays Forum brought together the main actors of change in the region with key international decision makers as part of an informal international conference.
Among the key speakers, one will find Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs; Saeb Erekat, Chief Negotiator of the Palestinian Authority; Alejandro Toledo a former President of Peru; Abdel Rahman Shalgham, the Libyan Permanent Representative to the United Nations; Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe; Andrés Pastrana Arango, a former President of Colombia; Sven Alkalaj, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia; Bernardino Leon, the Special Representative of the European Union for the Mediterranean; and Cheick Sidi Diarra, the Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, etc.
In addition to these figures, many ministers from nearly 80 countries also participated in MEDays, including representatives from Mali, Hungary, Liberia, Togo, Benin, Comoros, Senegal, Brazil, Tunisia, Pakistan, China, Dominica, and Grenada.
Conclusions.
The first one is the need for an overhaul reform in governance of the international institutions to better represent emerging countries in the decision-making structures. The second is that the developments and transformations in the Arab world in 2011 clearly showed that there can be no development without economic and social democratic opening. The new transitional governments in the region are facing serious challenges within a global fragile context—building skills, employment, economic growth and equal distribution of wealth.
More than ever, it is necessary for the G20 to accompany the processes of democratic transitions underway in the region. The Union for the Mediterranean, which was definitely burned down on Tahrir Square, must be rethought not only to support the process of democratization but to promote co-development as well. It is therefore imperative to create a new "Pact for Democracy and Development" based on a foundation of shared values and a common economic space. In practical terms, this process must go beyond the hindrances identified in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership since 1995. Because democracy goes hand in hand with development, we do hope that the "Deauville Partnership" will accompany political transitions under way in our countries.
MEDays 2011 Award.
The MEDays Forum is also an opportunity for the Amadeus Institute to reward outstanding initiatives with the MEDays prizes.
Fours prizes have been awarded this year: the MEDays Grand prize, the MEDays prize for the Environment and Sustainable Development, the MEDays prize for Education, Culture and Research, as well as the Business MEDays prize. Through these four prizes, the Amadeus Institute ambitions to single out and promote individuals or people that have made a unique contribution to the South’s development.
The Grand prize has this year been awarded to the Libyan people and their revolution. The Amadeus Institute felt compelled to acknowledge their sacrifices to win freedom and bring down four decades of dictatorship.
The prize has symbolically been accepted by Abdel Rahman Shalgham, the representative of the Free Libya at the United Nations. The prize was handed out by Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the 2008 laureate of the MEDays Grand prize who had pulled out of a contested run off in the 2008 presidential elections in Zimbabwe.
The MEDays prize for Education was awarded this year to the Malian born Cheick Modibo Diarra for his extraordinary achievements in favour of education in Africa. After his career with NASA as an astro-scientist, Dr. Diarra was relentless in promoting free and accessible education for all African youngsters and has been behind the creation of several foundations working on this very issue.
South Korea has been rewarded with the MEDays Prize for the Environment and Sustainable Development. The Institute felt compelled to single out the tremendous efforts undertaken by the South Korean authorities to foster policy initiatives in favour of alternatives energies. Boo Nam Sin, the South Korean Ambassador for Green Growth, accepted the prize at the MEDays forum on behalf of his country.
The Business MEDays prize was handed out to the Attijari Wafabank banking group. As one of Morocco’s leading export companies, thriving toward Africa, it represents for our continent a new generation of homegrown businesses with a pan-African ambition. In a few years, Attijari Wafabank has become the first bank in both the Maghreb area and Senegal, the second in Mali and Benin, the third in Cameroun and Gabon and ranks among the five largest banking groups in Tunisia.
MEDays 2012 : the maturity.
In the wake of the 2011 edition, MEDays 2012 highlighted major economic and geopolitical issues that raise questions about the advent of new order across the planet. In accordance with its role as the voice for the developing countries, the forum shed light on the reality that the power of emerging countries continues to constitute a key parameter of the new world order.
Two moments strongly marked the 5th edition of the MEDays Forum: the session about Syria and that of Sahel. Syria is at an impasse: the challenge is at national and regional levels. It is even more exacerbated by the sharp fight within the United Nations Security Council where no agreement could be found between, on the one side the United States and Europe –backed up by the majority of Arab countries – and China and Russia on the other side.
Representatives from more than 85 countries attended the 2012 edition. About 30 ministers from Africa (in particular from English speaking Africa), socio-economic and political leaders from Europe, the United States, Latin America, small islands in the Caribbean and the Pacific, as well as significant official delegations from China, Pakistan, the Philippines and Malaysia joined the forum. The MEDays Forum is committed to highlight the active role of emerging markets as the North’s key partners in fostering economic growth and to focus on the need for dialogue and North-South cooperation.
Among the key speakers, one will find Lech Wałęsa, Nobel Peace Prize and former President of Poland; José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Former President and the Spanish Government; Ernesto Samper a former President of Colombia; Amr Moussa, former Secretary General of the Arab League; Cheick Modibo Diarra, the Prime Minister of Mali at this time; Bernardino Leon, the Special Representative of the European Union for the Mediterranean, etc.
Conclusions.
The uprising of the Syrian population has occurred in the aftermath of the revolutions of the Arab Spring. The Syrian conflict is today dragging on mainly because of the uncertain effects of a change of regime on the regional chessboard but also a balance of power blocked on the ground/field. It is extremely difficult to predict the outcome of the conflict. However, what is certain is that the major challenge for Arab regimes, the Golf petro monarchies and Israel is to break the highly threatening alliance between the Shias in Iran, Damascus and the Hezbollah.
Only a few days after the Doha conference, members of the Syrian opposition came to Tangier in order to take stock of their new strategy for the first time as a single entity.
In the Sahel, the military intervention under the aegis of ECOWAS is inexorable. Not only the preservation of the unity of Mali should be ensured but the whole Sahel-Saharian region should be pacified. Raging terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime coupled with the emergence of AQIM have made the region a powder keg. Experts and officials in Tangier have all called the
international community to support ECOWAS in its efforts to guarantee the territorial integrity of Mali.
The MEDays forum also aims to be operational and for that purpose, it launched the Initiative of Tangier. This year, the Initiative addressed the perilous issue of falsified medicines in Africa. One of its objectives is to sensitize both the populations and the decision makers to the human damages of this deadly traffic and encourage authorities to improve health supervision. In partnership with the main stakeholders, the Amadeus Institute is firmly committed to keep discussing and working on that issue throughout the year.
MEDays 2012 Award.
Every year, the MEDays Prizes are given out to reward individuals, institutions, organizations or companies that have substantially contributed to the development of Southern countries or enhanced North-South cooperation.
In 2012, the MEDays Grand Prize was awarded to Senegal as an acknowledgment of the significant progress made towards democracy and for achieving political stability in an unstable region. The prize has been
accepted by the spokesperson of the Senegalese government and President Macky Sall’s special envoy to MEDays, Mr. Abdulatif Coulibaly. The 2012 presidential elections in Senegal were a
tribute to the vitality of the Senegalese democracy and can serve as a model to both Africa and the international community.
Mr. Karim Helal, the chairman of the Egyptian-ASEAN Business Association, was awarded the 2012 Business MEDays prize for his contribution to the enhancement of economic ties between South Asian emerging countries and Egypt. Fostering exchanges between Asia and Africa could be a crucial value added to the continent’s development dynamic. The potential for that is quite substantial: out of the 25% of South-
South trade in global exchanges, 85% are made among Asian countries.
The first of its kind, the MEDays Prize for Political Initiative was granted to Mrs. Fawzia Koofi, the Deputy President of the Afghani National Assembly for her strong and continued commitment
to the promotion of gender equality in a troubled country, Afghanistan.
The MEDays Prize for Environment was awarded to Turkey for both its efforts to diversify its energy mix through a series of public investments and for its extensive efforts to ensure energy security in an unstable area. Mr. Murat Mercan, Turkey’s Vice-Minister for Energy and Natural Resources, accepted the award on behalf of Turkey.
MEDays 2013: The Globalization.
The sixth edition of the MEDays Forum had the aim to emphasize the role of emerging countries as key partners of the North to boost economic growth, and the necessity of strengthening North-South dialogue
and cooperation. 120 speakers from 50 countries met in Tangier around the theme "What emergences in an unstable world?"
MEDays 2013 was a space for dialogue, exchange, consultation, proposition between international decision-makers and major political and economic actors. As a platform for reflection and debate around different priority problematic and themes, the MEDays Forum was put in place in order to contribute to the international debate in the light of Southern countrie's ambitions (developing and emerging countries). It is, indeed, a committed and forward-looking representative.
Beyond this positioning, MEDays Forum aims to strengthen the brand image of Morocco at the international level, while putting forward the strategic orientations defined by His Majesty the King Mohammed VI. The forum is also taking an important educational role with Moroccan citizens since the forum is open to the public and welcomes each year around 2500 participants, among them 1000 students in 2013.
Among the key speakers, one will find Dioncounda Traoré, Stjepan Mesić, Yves Leterme, Bertie Ahern, Mahmoud Jibril, Riyad al-Maliki, and Yvo De Boer.
MEDays 2014: The Consecration.
In a difficult regional and international context, MEDays Forum appeared as a necessary platform in the Arab world. The multipolarity of political and security crisis in the South of the Mediterranean, in Iraq, in Ukraine, and in the African continent, have allowed MEDays to be at the heart of international headlines, while enhancing the relevance of the positions taken by Morocco, on the themes addressed. In 2014, around 120 speakers from 72 countries have accepted our invitation to debate around the theme "What order in the chaos?"
MEDays forum in its 7th edition was the occasion; after 4 days of fruitful and sometimes laborious debate, which were often contradictory but always rewarding, to draw up a striking and unanimous finding: the South is at a
turning point.
This part of the world enters in a new era, far from the fixed and stereotyped imaged of the last century. Strengthened by incredible records in terms of governance, economic results of geostrategic affirmation, nobody can deny the growing place it occupies in the political and economic international chessboard.
The growth witnessed in Africa and Asia is not always inclusive, and nothing indicates that reforms are going to be sustained, and that they are going to be able to introduce a sustainable socio economic development.
The Middle East is more than ever a powder keg. The recent events in Ukraine bear the scent of the cold war. China is progressing slowly but surely in the international scene. The United Nations are paralyzed and the United States are looking west when Europe, slowed by a socio-economic crisis that strengthens nationalism and populism, has visibly given up to be (trade off) an inevitable actor of the international scene. Facing this disorientation, what legibility in chaos?
Like the three preceding editions, MEDays 2014 was bound to a double context, still very complicated in the global and regional scale. The multiplication (and very often the superposition) of hotbeds, whether they be economic, politic, security, identity, are overturning all frames of reference and evaluation.
Among the top speakers, one will find Mehdi Jomaa, José Luis Zapatero, Yves Leterme, Enrico Letta, Mahmoud Jibril, Saeb Erakat, Jean-Louis Borloo and Bernard Kouchner.
MEDays 2015: The Reference.
Despite an international diplomatic agenda particularly busy (La Valette Summit, Riyadh Summit, G20 Summit, Bani Yas Conference, Dakar Conference on Security were taking place the same week), the 2015 edition of the MEDays forum gathered a community of high level international decision makers. In an effort of diversification, the Amadeus Institute ensured to renew 60% of its speakers in comparison with previous editions.
In some figures, the 2015 edition gathered up to 125 high level speakers, high government representatives (about 30 ministers and foreign officials) and economic decision-makers from 80 countries, 3500 participants among which 1500 Moroccan students and 120 national and foreign journalists. The pertinence of the issues raised as well as the quality of the discussions, perceived as of high quality by observers, the media and the participants have enabled a broad dissemination of the outcomes of the debates both nationally and internationally.
The last edition of the MEDays Forum has been directly impacted by the Paris attacks that took place on 13 November. Originally dedicated to geopolitical questions, the last day of the Forum has finally been dedicated to the tragic events happened in the French capital. On this occasion, both national and international media took advantage of the presence of experts and leaders in Tangier to cover and comment the events and discuss in-depth the global fight against the so-called "Islamic State".
Finally, this 2015 edition of the MEDays Forum put a strong focus on Africa by dedicating 10 sessions to discuss different issues pertaining to the continent and address its development and investment opportunities.
Among the key speakers, one will find Moussa Mara, Mohamed Bazoum, Raila Odinga, Richard Sezibera, Mubarak Muyika, Jean-David Levitte and Cyril Svoboda.


Robber baron (feudalism)

A robber baron or robber knight () was an unscrupulous feudal landowner who, protected by his fief's legal status, imposed high taxes and tolls out of keeping with the norm without authorization by some higher authority. Some resorted to actual banditry. The German term for robber barons, "Raubritter" (robber knights) was coined by Friedrich Bottschalk in 1810.
Some robber barons violated the custom under which tolls were collected on the Rhine either by charging higher tolls than the standard or by operating without authority from the Holy Roman Emperor altogether. During the period in the history of the Holy Roman Empire known as the Great Interregnum (1250–1273), the number of such tolling stations exploded in the absence of Imperial authority.
Medieval robber barons most often imposed high or unauthorized tolls on rivers or roads passing through their territory. Some robbed merchants, land travelers, and river traffic—seizing money, cargoes, entire ships, or engaged in kidnapping for ransom.
Germany.
Early development.
Tolls were collected from ships sailing on the River Rhine in Europe for one thousand years from around 800 AD to 1800 AD. During this time, various feudal lords (among them archbishops who held fiefs from the Holy Roman Emperor) collected tolls from passing cargo ships to bolster their finances. Only the Holy Roman Emperor could authorise the collection of such tolls. Allowing the nobility and Church to collect tolls from the busy traffic on the Rhine seems to have been an attractive alternative to other means of taxation and funding of government functions.
Iron chains were often stretched across the river to prevent passage without paying the toll, and strategic towers were built to facilitate this.
The Holy Roman Emperor and the various noblemen and archbishops who were authorised to levy tolls seem to have worked out an informal way of regulating this process. Among the decisions involved in managing the collection of tolls on the Rhine were how many toll stations to have, where they should be built, how high the tolls should be, and the advantages/disadvantages. While this decision process was made no less complex by being informal, common factors included the local power structure (archbishops and nobles being the most likely recipients of a charter to collect tolls), space between toll stations (authorized toll stations seem to have been at least five kilometres apart), and ability to be defended from attack (some castles through which tolls were collected were tactically useful until the French invaded in 1689 and levelled them). Tolls were standardized either in terms of an amount of silver coin allowed to be charged or an "in-kind" toll of cargo from the ship.
The men who came to be known as robber barons or robber knights () violated the structure under which tolls were collected on the Rhine either by charging higher tolls than the standard or by operating without authority from the Holy Roman Emperor altogether.
Writers of the period referred to these practices as "unjust tolls," and not only did the robber barons thereby violate the prerogatives of the Holy Roman Emperor, they also went outside of the society's behavioural norms, since merchants were bound both by law and religious custom to charge a "just price" for their wares.
Great Interregnum.
During the period in the history of the Holy Roman Empire known as the Great Interregnum (1250–1273), when there was no Emperor, the number of tolling stations exploded in the absence of imperial authority. In addition, robber barons began to earn their "opprobrium" by robbing ships of their cargoes, stealing entire ships, and even kidnapping.
In response to this organized, military lawlessness, the "Rheinischer Bund," or Rhine League was formed by 100 Cities, and from several princes and prince-prelates (lords of the Church), all of whom held large stakes in the restoration of law and order to the Rhine.
Officially launched in 1254, the Rhine League wasted no time putting robber barons out of business by the simple expedient of taking and destroying their castles. In the next three years, four robber barons were targeted and between ten and twelve robber castles destroyed or inactivated.
The Rhine League was not only successful in suppressing illicit collection of tolls and river robbery, they also took action against other state aggression. For example, they are documented as having intervened to rescue a victim of abduction by the Baron of Rietberg.
The procedure pioneered by the Rhine League for dealing with robber barons – to besiege, capture and destroy their castles – survived long after the League self-destructed from political strife over the election of a new Emperor and military reversals against unusually strong robber barons.
When the Interregnum ended, the new king Rudolf of Habsburg applied the lessons learned by the Rhine League to the destruction of the highway robbers at Sooneck, torching their castles and hanging them. While robber barony never entirely ceased, especially during the Hundred Years' War, the excesses of their heyday during the Interregnum never recurred.
England.
The reign of King Stephen of England (1096–1154) was a long period of civil unrest commonly known as "The Anarchy". In the absence of strong central kingship, the nobility of England were a law unto themselves, as characterised in this excerpt from the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle":
Literature references.
Michael Heller refers to the original robber barons to illustrate his tragedy of the anticommons in his 2008 book. The tragedy of the anticommons is a type of coordination breakdown, in which a single resource has numerous rightsholders who prevent others from using it, frustrating what would be a socially desirable outcome.
In Ken Follet's historical novel "The Pillars of the Earth", taking place in England during The Anarchy, the main villain is a vicious and ruthless Earl who behaves as described in the quote above.


Socialist Party of Northern Ireland

The Socialist Party of Northern Ireland, sometimes known as the Northern Ireland Socialist Party, was a small socialist group based in Northern Ireland in the 1930s.
Early years.
The group originated in Belfast in 1892 as a group founded by activists including William Walker and John Murphy. It became a branch of the British-based Independent Labour Party (ILP) when that organisation was founded in 1893. Later in the year, the British Trades Union Congress held its annual conference in Belfast, and an ILP fringe meeting was addressed by speakers including Keir Hardie, greatly increasing local party membership. The local group opposed Irish Home Rule, but were widely attacked by hardline unionists, and as a result largely ceased activities in 1896. However, Walker and Murphy continued to work together and hold membership of the ILP.
The ILP in Belfast was revived in 1906, when new branches were formed in North and Central Belfast, and it quickly grew to have five branches. Walker remained its leading figure, while William McMullen also became a prominent activist. James Connolly aimed to win these branches to his own Socialist Party of Ireland (SPI), and he called a unity conference in Dublin in 1912, attended by four of the Belfast ILP groups (the exception being Walker's North Belfast branch). The branches united with the SPI and the Belfast branch of the British Socialist Party to form the "Independent Labour Party of Ireland", although this collapsed soon after the outbreak of World War I, after Connolly was banned from giving speeches alleged to be pro-German in Belfast by the local leadership of the group. However, the Belfast groups were split in their attitudes to Home Rule, the North Belfast branch being the largest and most strongly loyalist, the Central branch being close to the British Labour Party, and the East Belfast branch remaining supportive of Connolly's republican nationalism.
Northern Ireland Labour Party.
The Belfast Labour Party (BLP) was founded in 1917, and the ILP worked closely with it. When the BLP became the Northern Ireland Labour Party (NILP), most ILP members in the city joined, while retaining their ILP membership. This continued until 1932, when the British ILP disaffiliated from the British Labour Party. The national leadership wished the Belfast branches to similarly disaffiliate from the NILP, but members rejected the idea, and instead split from the ILP to form the Socialist Party of Northern Ireland. This new body then affiliated to the NILP. The Socialist Party had around 150 members, and was chaired by Fred McMahon, and later by Sam Haslett. Other notable members included Jack Macgougan, secretary from 1935 onwards, and Victor Halley.
The ILP was based on the Crumlin Road, until its building was burnt down in the 1920s in a presumed sectarian attack. It received a large sum in compensation, and used part of this to open a new Labour Hall at 48 York Street, which also housed a social club for members.
The party was very active in supporting the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War, and McMahon went over to join a medical unit there, alongside Joe Boyd, another Socialist Party member. In 1937, the party backed the short-lived "Irish Democrat" newspaper, co-published with the Communist Party of Ireland and the Republican Congress. The party disappeared soon afterwards; many members, including Macgougan, devoted their time to the NILP, but Halley instead joined the Socialist Republican Party.


Battle of Khresili

The Battle of Khresili (Georgian: ხრესილის ბრძოლა) was fought in 1757, between the armies of the Kingdom of Imereti and the Ottoman Empire. The king of Imereti Solomon I defeated the Turkish army. The battle took place on December 14, 1757. Solomon I established a strong monarchy and unified western Georgia. His actions stained the relations between the Georgian King and Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans, in particular, wanted to stop Solomon's struggle against slavery. The Ottomans were in an alliance with rebellious Georgian nobles, one such example was Levan Abashidze, who was fighting against the King of Imereti. Abashidze arrived in Akhaltsikhe and led an Ottoman army to the Kingdom of Imereti. Solomon enticed them into a strategically adroit place near Khresili and decisively defeated them.
Background.
In the 17th century, western Georgia was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman garrisons were dispatched to Tsutskvati, Poti and Shorapani fortresses. 12,000 slaves were sold in the Ottoman Empire every year from Mengrelia alone. Realizing that Georgia was facing the threat of heavy depopulation, the King of Imereti, Solomon I prohibited slavery, opposing turncoat Lords and wanted independence from the Ottoman Empire. Sultan sent Gola Pasha with a large army to punish Solomon I and re-establish Ottoman rule over the Kingdom of Imereti.
Strategic Ramifications.
The importance of battle of Khresili is often misunderstood and greatly underestimated. The decisive Georgian victory ended Turkish influence in Western Georgia in mid 1700s, which started with battle of Sokhoista in mid 1500s at zenith of Ottoman power. While West Georgian (Imereti) kingdom still remained under Bagrationi dynasty even during following two centuries of Turkish influence in Western Georgia since mid 1500s, it was the Ottoman vassal during these two centuries, similar to Walachia or Hungary at the time.
Battle of Khresili was a Georgian reconquista, which ended Turkish presence in Imereti. Imereti kingdom regained its full independence from Ottoman Empire after several subsequent repeat Turkish invasions, following battle of Khresili, were defeated as well. Ottomans were eventually forced to sign a treaty with kingdom of Imereti, which stated that Imereti was no longer Ottoman vassal, and the only remnant of past Ottoman glory in this treaty was an annual tribute of 60 women (of any ethnic origin, not necessarily Georgians), which king Solomon failed to honor anyway.
The Ottomans wanted to destroy Solomon I and his supporters, and to finally conquer western Georgia The aim of the Georgians was to clear Imereti of Turks, which was successfully achieved.
Battle.
Early in the morning, the Georgians started the attack. Ottoman army was cornered exactly where king Solomon I wanted them. Georgian attack was well prepared, numerically smaller Georgian army compensated its small size by high morale and determination to wipe out invading Turks from their land. King Solomon personally led his small army's charge, reached the commander of Turkish army and cut his head off. Turks panicked and tried to escape. Georgians decisively defeated the Ottoman army, and slaughtered most of 45,000 Turkish invasion force.
Ottomans never recovered from such a massive loss of manpower. Two further attempts to invade Imereti after this battle were with smaller Ottoman armies of 20,000 and 13,000 people strong, and while they were still numerically superior to Solomon I's small army, they were defeated just as well. This marked the end of two centuries of Turkish influence in Western Georgia, during which kingdom of Imereti was a vassal of Ottoman Empire.
Solomon I the Great and his small kingdom achieved in mid 1700s a full independence from Ottomans, without support from other great powers or external alliances, which was unprecedented for other Eastern European nations who were either conquered or became vassals of Ottoman Empire earlier than Imereti kingdom and gained independence from Ottomans much later than Imereti kingdom.


Lock-on (protest tactic)

A lock-on is a technique used by protesters to make it difficult to remove them from their place of protest resulting loss of income for those affected. It often involves improvised or specially designed and constructed hardware, although a basic lock-on is the human chain which relies simply on hand grip.
Objective.
In American protest movements dating from the 1960s and 1970s, the term lockdown applies to a person's attaching themself to a building, object, fence or other immobile object.
The safe removal of the protesters necessitates the involvement of skilled technicians, and is often time-consuming.
The lock-on chosen by the protester may be the difference between being arrested or not, or may vary the kind or number of charges brought against them by the police. If a protester can remove themselves when asked to by the police, they may stand a better chance of not being arrested. However, if they can remove themselves and they choose not to, they may receive a charge for refusing to remove themselves from the lock-on. If the protester cannot remove themselves, it is likely that potential charges are not as important to them as what they are protesting about.
"Locking on" is a very successful means of slowing down operations which are perceived by the protesters to be illegal or immoral; it is also often used to allow time for journalists to arrive and record the scene and take statements from the group spokespeople.
Devices.
Lock-ons were originally performed with chains and handcuffs, but other devices have been introduced, including tripods and tubes or pipes with handholds built in to link a person to an object or to create chains of people. Other common hardware includes padlocks, U-locks and other bicycle locks, lockboxes and tripods and platforms and other rigging in tree sitting.
A more complicated lock-on is the sleeping dragon, which involves protesters putting their limbs through pipes containing concrete, or a mixture of steel and concrete, and is only limited by the imagination and ingenuity of those making the lock-on. The protester can choose between a type that will allow them to willingly remove themselves or a type that requires machinery to remove them. Devices can be buried as an additional barrier to removal. A "car dragon" is a car concreted into place after removing the wheels, where protestors can then lock-on to a further device fixed to the car.


Eastern Liao

Eastern Liao () was a 13th century kingdom in what is now Northeast China, established by the Khitan Yelü clan in an attempt to resurrect the Liao dynasty. Its capital was situated in modern-day Kaiyuan, Liaoning.
Establishment.
Yelü Liuge, a descendant of the Liao dynasty imperial clan, rebelled against the rule of the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty in 1212. Within several months, Yelü Liuge was able to build up a sizeable following. The Jin emperor Xuanzong appointed Wanyan Husha and Puxian Wannu to crush the rebellion, but Yelü Liuge subsequently defeated the Jin forces in modern Changtu, Liaoning with Mongol support.
In 1213, Yelü Liuge proclaimed himself king, adopted the dynastic name of "Liao" () and era name of "Yuantong" (). To distinguish this regime from other similarly named realms in Chinese history, historians refer to this kingdom in retrospect as "Eastern Liao" ().
In 1214, the Jin dynasty once again attacked Eastern Liao under the command of Puxian Wannu. After defeating the Jin forces the second time, Yelü Liuge established his capital at modern-day Kaiyuan, Liaoning and renamed it to "Zhongjing" (lit. "Middle Capital"; ). Puxian Wannu himself rebelled against Jin and founded the Eastern Xia kingdom in Dongjing (Liaoyang) in 1215.
Relations with Later Liao.
In 1215, Yelü Liuge occupied the eastern capital of the Jin dynasty (modern Liaoyang, Liaoning). Soon after, Eastern Liao officials began to urge Yelü Liuge to assume the title of "emperor". Yelü Liuge declined and subsequently allied himself with Genghis Khan who had by this time united the Mongol tribes.
In 1216, Yelü Sibu (the younger brother of Yelü Liuge) rebelled against the pro-Mongol faction led by Yelü Liuge. Yelü Sibu proclaimed himself the emperor of a new regime, Later Liao (), in modern Haicheng, Liaoning.
In 1218, Yelü Liuge attacked Later Liao with the support of the Mongol Empire and Goryeo. In the spring of 1219, the Later Liao ruler Yelü Hanshe committed suicide after suffering military defeat by Eastern Liao, marking the collapse of the Later Liao regime.
Later history.
The kingdom then became a vassalage of the Mongol Empire. Yelü Liuge died in 1220. His son, Yelü Xuedu lived at the Mongol court and served in Genghis Khan's army. In 1269, the Yuan dynasty abolished the title, ending the Eastern Liao kingdom.


Gaius Claudius Centho

Gaius Claudius Centho or Cento was a 3rd-century BC member of a prominent and wealthy patrician Roman Republican family. He was the third son of Appius Claudius Caecus, and a member of the Claudii. He was consul in the year 240 BC. He was Roman censor in 225, interrex in 217 and Roman dictator in 213.
Though little is known about his life, Cicero mentions his consulship in his "Tusculanae Disputationes", and Livy mentions his service as interrex, after which Publius Cornelius Scipio Asina oversaw the election of Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro as consuls for 216 BC. He was appointed dictator by the consul Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus in order to oversee the election of new consuls in 213 BC.


Electoral history of Barry Goldwater

Electoral history of Barry Goldwater, United States Senator from Arizona (1953–1965, 1969–1987) and Republican Party nominee for President of the United States during 1964 election
Phoenix City Council, At-large district, 1949:
Elected:
Defeated:
Phoenix City Council, At-large district, 1951:
Elected:
Defeated:
Republican primary for the United States Senator (class 1) from Arizona, 1952:
United States Senate election in Arizona, 1952:
United States Senate election in Arizona, 1958:
1960 Republican presidential primaries:
1960 Republican National Convention (presidential tally):
1960 United States presidential election:
1964 Republican presidential primaries:
1964 Republican National Convention (presidential tally):
1964 United States presidential election:
United States Senate election in Arizona, 1968:
United States Senate election in Arizona, 1974:
United States Senate election in Arizona, 1980:


Liu Heita

Liu Heita () (died 623) was an agrarian rebel leader during China's transition period from Sui Dynasty to Tang Dynasty, who initially successively served under Hao Xiaode (), Li Mi, and Wang Shichong. He eventually followed Dou Jiande the Prince of Xia. After Dou was killed by Emperor Gaozu of Tang in 621 and his territory was taken by Tang, Liu rose to avenge Dou, and briefly recaptured Dou's territory, north of the Yellow River. He was then defeated, first by the Tang general Li Shimin (the eventual Emperor Taizong) and then Li Shimin's brother Li Jiancheng the Crown Prince, and in 623, he was captured by his one-time subordinate Zhuge Dewei () and executed.
Service under Hao Xiaode, Li Mi, Wang Shichong, and Dou Jiande.
Little is known about Liu Heita's background, and it is not known when he was born. He was from Zhangnan (漳南, in modern Handan, Hebei)—the same county as Dou Jiande—and was said to be brave and quick in reaction from his youth. He was also said to favor drinking and gambling, much to his father's and brothers' dismay. He became friendly with Dou, and whenever he lacked money, Dou would support him. He eventually joined agrarian rebels rising against Sui Dynasty rule, and he initially followed Hao Xiaode (), and then after Hao joined Li Mi's forces, served under Li. After Li was defeated by Wang Shichong, then a Sui general, in 618, as Wang knew of Liu's ferocity, he made Liu a cavalry officer, but he thought little of Wang's actions, and often secretly laughed at Wang.
In 619, Liu was serving in the army of Wang's newly established state of Zheng (as Wang had the final Sui emperor, Yang Tong, yield the throne to him earlier that year), defending Xinxiang (新鄉, in modern Xinxiang, Henan), when he was captured by Li Shiji, a Tang Dynasty general who had been forced to submit to and serve Dou's state of Xia. Dou made Liu a general and created him the Duke of Handong. He often had Liu command guerilla forces to make surprise attacks, and sometimes covertly entering enemy territory for intelligence purposes. It was said that Liu won many victories under Dou.
Uprising against Tang.
In 621, with Wang Shichong's state of Zheng under attack by the Tang general Li Shimin the Prince of Qin (the eventual Emperor Taizong) and in desperate straits, Dou Jiande believed that if Zheng were destroyed by Tang, his own Xia state would be cornered. He therefore launched his army, seeking to save Zheng's capital Luoyang. Li Shimin engaged him at the Battle of Hulao, and Dou was captured. Wang then surrendered. The Xia forces considered continuing to resist, but under the leadership of the official Qi Shanxing (), they surrendered Xia territory to Tang.
However, subsequently, Dou was executed by Emperor Gaozu of Tang (Li Shimin's father). The former Xia generals and officials, who had returned to civilian life but who had been often harassed by Tang officials and worried that they would also be executed, gathered secretly and considered rising against Tang rule. After they, led by Gao Yaxian (), were informed by fortunetellers that their leader should be someone named Liu, they first offered their leadership to the general Liu Ya (), who refused (and was then killed by them). They instead offered the leadership to Liu Heita, who was then retired and tending to his garden, and he accepted. In fall 621, they officially rose and captured Zhangnan. The former Xia soldiers gradually came out of retirement and joined him, and Liu offered sacrifices to Dou's spirit, declaring that the Xia forces had risen to avenge him. His uprising was echoed by another agrarian leader, Xu Yuanlang, who had submitted to Tang but by now was nominally submitting to him.
Tang's emperor Gaozu initially sent his cousin Li Shentong () the Prince of Huai'an against Liu, in conjunction with the Tang official Li Yi the Prince of Yan. Liu defeated Li Shentong, however, at Raoyang (饒陽, in modern Hengshui, Hebei). Liu then defeated Li Yi as well, and Liu's fame spread through the region. He also entered into an alliance with another agrarian leader, Gao Kaidao the Prince of Yan, as well as the Eastern Turks ("Dongtujue"). Around the new year 622, Liu defeated Li Xiaochang (李孝常, the son of a cousin of Emperor Gaozu) and Li Shiji as well, and recovered all of former Xia territory—the region north of the Yellow River. Emperor Gaozu, now realizing that Liu was a major threat, decided to send Li Shimin and another son, Li Yuanji the Prince of Qi, to attack Liu. Meanwhile, in spring 622, Liu claimed the title of Prince of Handong. He organized his government in the same manner Dou did, retaining most of former Xia officials and generals. Historians commented that he was even more fierce and resolute in military actions than Dou. He set his capital at Mingzhou (now Guangfu), the same location as Dou's capital.
Defeat and death.
Li Shimin arrived from the south as Liu was besieging Quzhou. Li Yi was coming from the north and the two Tang generals planned to capture the northern road from the Yellow River through Mingzhou to Yuzhou (Beijing), combining their forces and isolating the rebels from their Turkish allies. Liu split his forces. He was able to capture Luo Shixin () and, when Luo refused to join the rebels, had him executed. The other wing of his forces were defeated by Li Yi.
Eventually, the Tang and Handong forces stalemated across the Ming River for more than 60 days. Both sides tried to attack each other, without success. Meanwhile, Li Shimin set up a dam upstream on the Ming River. When Liu attacked, Li Shimin had the dam destroyed, and much of the Handong army was drowned. Liu was able to flee with his general Wang Xiaohu (), but Handong defenses otherwise collapsed. Liu fled to the Eastern Turks ("Dongtujue"), and Handong territory fell into Tang hands.
In summer 622, Liu, with Turkish reinforcements, tried to return to the region. Li Yi was unable to stop him. With Li Shimin having already returned to Chang'an at that point, Emperor Gaozu sent another son of a cousin, Li Daoxuan () the Prince of Huaiyang, to attack Liu, along with Li Yuanji. However, Liu's army won battle after battle, and in winter 622, Liu engaged Li Daoxuan at Xiabo (下博, in modern Hengshui), defeating and killing Li Daoxuan. Within half a month, Liu again recovered all of former Xia territory. Li Yuanji feared his power and hesitated at engaging him.
Meanwhile, Emperor Gaozu's oldest son, Li Jiancheng the Crown Prince, was by now in an intense rivalry with Li Shimin, as he feared that Li Shimin had the intent to seize the throne for himself rather than yielding to Li Jiancheng as the older brother. When Emperor Gaozu considered sending Li Shimin again, Li Jiancheng, at the suggestion of his staff members Wang Gui and Wei Zheng, volunteered. Emperor Gaozu therefore sent him. Meanwhile, Liu's forces became bogged down while sieging Tang's Wei Prefecture (魏州, in modern Handan as well), and when Li Jiancheng and Li Yuanji arrived, Liu's forces ran out of food supplies and collapsed. Liu was able to flee, but in spring 623, as his flight, with only about 100 guards, took him to Rao Prefecture (饒州, in modern Hengshui), his prefect of Rao Prefecture, Zhuge Dewei, welcomed him into the city and held a feast for him. In the middle of the feast, however, Zhuge ambushed him and his guards, capturing them and delivering them to Li Jiancheng. Li Jiancheng had Liu Heita and his brother Liu Shishan () executed in the marketplace of his former capital Mingzhou. Before his death, Liu Heita lamented:


Manius Valerius Maximus

Manius Valerius Maximus was Roman dictator in 494 BC during the first secession of the plebs. His brothers were Publius Valerius Publicola and Marcus Valerius Volusus. They were said to be the sons of Volesus Valerius.
Appointment as dictator.
During the period of popular discontent in Rome which led to the First secessio plebis, the Volsci, Sabines and the Aequi took up arms against Rome at the same time. To meet the threat and because of the popular political concerns at the time, in 494 BC Valerius was appointed dictator by the Roman senate. He was said to have been chosen because of his moderate temper. His appointment was accepted by the people because of the popularity of his late brother Publius.
Resolution of military affairs.
Valerius called for conscripts and the people responded positively. Ten legions (about 45,000 men) were raised, a greater number than had been raised previously at any one time. Four of these legions were assigned to the dictator to deal with the Sabines who were regarded as the most serious of the three military threats, and three to each of the consuls to meet the Aequi and the Volsci.
Valerius marched with his army to meet the Sabines and won a victory, for which he was awarded a triumph. Additionally the honour of a curule chair in the circus maximus was given to him and his descendants.
Secession of the plebs.
After the armies' return to Rome, Valerius requested the senate to deal with the ongoing debt issues which were afflicting the people. The senate declined to act, and the dictator was outraged. He said before the senate:
He resigned his commission, and went to his house, greeted by the applause of the people. In some traditions, following his dictatorship, he was first elected augur in 494 BC and then princeps senatus during the census of 493 BC. He would remain an augur until his death in a pestilence in 463 BC.
Legacy.
In AD 2, a statue of Manius Valerius Maximus was erected in the Forum of Augustus alongside other "great men of Rome", under which was an elogia.
Conflicting identification and death.
Festus identifies Manius Valerius Maximus as a son of Marcus Valerius Volusus and puts him as Romes first dictator in 501 BC. Similarly there some confusion in regards to the Valerius who is chosen as Augur in 494 BC, which can be either identified as the former consul Marcus Valerius Volusus, his son, the previously mentioned Manius Valerius Maximus, or this Manius Valerius Maximus, the dictator of 494 BC. If it was either of the brothers to Poplicola (both described as elderly) they would have been extremely old by 463 BC when this Augur is said to have succumbed during a large pestilence in Rome.


Electoral history of Dick Gephardt

Electoral history of Dick Gephardt, United States Representative from Missouri (1977-2005), Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives (1989-1995), Minority Leader (1995-2003) and a candidate for 1988 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominations
U.S. House of Representatives.
Congressional elections.
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1976 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt – 48,874 (55.98%)

 Donald J. Gralike – 32,791 (37.56%)

 Victoria Schmidt – 2,960 (3.39%)

 Marie S. Nowak – 2,680 (3.07%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1976:

 Dick Gephardt (D) – 115,109 (63.69%)

 Joseph L. Badaracco (R) – 65,623 (36.31%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1978:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 121,565 (81.89%)

 Lee Buchschacher (R) – 26,881 (18.11%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1980:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 143,132 (77.62%)

 Robert A. Cedarburg (R) – 41,277 (22.38%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1982:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 131,566 (77.87%)

 Richard Foristel (R) – 37,388 (22.13%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district. 1984:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 193,537 (100.00%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1986:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 116,403 (68.97%)

 Roy Amelung (R) – 52,382 (31.04%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1988:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 150,205 (62.82%)

 Mark Hearne (R) – 86,763 (36.29%)

 Lloyd Sloan (L) – 2,128 (0.89%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1990:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 88,950 (56.80%)

 Mack Holekamp (R) – 67,659 (43.20%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1992:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 174,000 (64.01%)

 Mack Holekamp (R) – 90,006 (33.11%)

 Robert Stockhausen (L) – 7,828 (2.88%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1994 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt * – 54,582 (76.96%)

 Leif O. Johnson – 11,619 (16.38%)

 Lee Lehmuth – 4,718 (6.65%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1994:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 117,601 (57.67%)

 Gary Gill (R) – 80,977 (39.71%)

 Bradley Ems (L) – 5,362 (2.63%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1996 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt * – 45,619 (75.16%)

 Joseph C. Keller – 12,390 (20.41%)

 Leif O. Johnson – 2,690 (4.43%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1996:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 137,300 (58.99%)

 Debbie Wheelehan (R) – 90,202 (38.75%)

 Michael H. Crist (L) – 3,966 (1.70%)

 James E. Keersemaker (NL) – 1,287 (0.55%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1998 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt * – 28,440 (73.85%)

 Steven G. Bailey – 10,070 (26.15%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 1998:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 98,287 (55.81%)

 Bill Federer (R) – 74,005 (42.03%)

 Michael H. Crist (L) – 2,275 (1.29%)

 Joseph C. Keller (TP) – 1,532 (0.87%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 2000 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt * – 40,111 (100.00%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 2000:

 Dick Gephardt * (D) – 147,222 (57.84%)

 Bill Federer (R) - 100,967 (39.67%)

 Mary Maroney (GP) – 3,266 (1.28%)

 Michael H. Crist (L) – 2,245 (0.88%)

 Anthony J. Windisch (RP) – 839 (0.33%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 2002 (Democratic primary):

 Dick Gephardt * – 44,535 (73.55%)

 Michael Bram – 16,014 (26.45%)
Missouri's 3rd congressional district, 2002:

 Dick Gephardt (D) (inc.) – 122,181 (59.06%)

 Cathy S. Enz (R) – 80,551 (38.94%)

 Daniel Byington (L) – 4,146 (2.00%)
Party leadership elections.
Majority leader, 1989:

 Dick Gephardt – 181 (70.16%)

 Edgar Jenkins – 76 (29.46%)

 Lee H. Hamilton – 1 (0.39%)
Majority leader, 1990:

 Dick Gephardt * - Unanimous consent
Majority leader, 1992:

 Dick Gephardt * – Unanimous consent
Minority leader, 1994:

 Dick Gephardt – 150 (75.00%)

 Charlie Rose – 50 (25.00%)
Minority leader, 1996:

 Dick Gephardt * – Unanimous consent
Minority leader, 2000:

 Dick Gephardt * – Unanimous consent
Speaker of the House elections.
Election for Speaker, 1995:

 Newt Gingrich (R) – 228 (52.54%)

 Dick Gephardt (D) – 202 (46.54%)

 "present" – 4 (0.92%)
Election for Speaker, 1997:

 Newt Gingrich * (R) – 216 (50.83%)

 Dick Gephardt (D) – 205 (48.24%)

 Jim Leach (R) – 2 (0.47%)

 Robert Michel (R) – 1 (0.23%)

 Robert S. Walker (R) – 1 (0.23%)
Election for Speaker, 1999:

 Dennis Hastert (R) – 220 (52.00%)

 Dick Gephardt (D) – 205 (48.00%)
Election for Speaker, 2001:

 Dennis Hastert * (R) – 222 (51.50%)

 Dick Gephardt (D) – 206 (47.80%)

 John Murtha (D) – 1 (0.23%)

 "present" – 2 (0.47%)
Presidential elections.
1988.
1988 Democratic presidential primaries:

 Michael Dukakis – 9,898,750 (42.46%)

 Jesse Jackson – 6,788,991 (29.12%)

 Al Gore – 3,185,806 (13.67%)

 Dick Gephardt – 1,399,041 (6.00%)

 Paul M. Simon – 1,082,960 (4.65%)

 Gary Hart – 415,716 (1.78%)

 "Unpledged" – 250,307 (1.07%)

 Bruce Babbitt – 77,780 (0.33%)

 Lyndon LaRouche – 70,938 (0.30%)

 David Duke – 45,289 (0.19%)

 Jim Traficant – 30,879 (0.13%)

 Douglas Applegate – 25,068 (0.11%)
1988 Democratic National Convention presidential nomination vote tally:

 Michael Dukakis – 2,877 (70.09%)

 Jesse Jackson – 1,219 (29.70%)

 Richard H. Stallings – 3 (0.07%)

 Joe Biden – (0.05%)

 Dick Gephardt – 2 (0.05%)

 Lloyd Bentsen – 1 (0.02%)

 Gary Hart – 1 (0.02%)
2004.
2004 Democratic presidential primaries:

 John Kerry – 9,930,497 (60.98%)

 John Edwards – 3,162,337 (19.42%)

 Howard Dean – 903,460 (5.55%)

 Dennis Kucinich – 620,242 (3.81%)

 Wesley Clark – 547,369 (3.36%)

 Al Sharpton – 380,865 (2.34%)

 Joe Lieberman – 280,940 (1.73%)

 "Uncommitted" – 157,953 (0.97%)

 Lyndon LaRouche – 103,731 (0.64%)

 Carol Moseley Braun – 98,469 (0.61%)

 Dick Gephardt – 63,902 (0.39%)

 "Scattering" – 63,902 (0.39%)


King Galbatorix


Barbuda Independence Movement

The Barbuda Independence Movement was a political party in Antigua and Barbuda. The party was formed in 1988 by Arthur Nibbs. It participated in the 1989 general elections, but received only 71 votes (0.3% of the total) and failed to win a seat. It did not contest another election.


Electoral history of Paul Ryan

Electoral history of Paul Ryan, United States Representative from Wisconsin (1999-2019), 2012 Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States, and Speaker of the House of Representatives (2015-2019). Throughout his career, Paul Ryan had never lost an election other than his defeat in the 2012 United States presidential election; of all the times he has won, he has never received less than 54% of the vote.
Vice presidential nominee.
At the 2012 Republican National Convention, Paul Ryan was nominated for vice president by voice vote.
The Republican Presidential ticket which included Paul Ryan as Vice Presidential candidate won 195,835 votes (51.65% of the vote) in Wisconsin's 1st congressional district. This was almost 5000 votes fewer than his simultaneous congressional run, and a lower percentage of the vote than he won in any of his congressional races for that district.


Electoral history of Jason Kander

This is the electoral history of Jason Kander, the former Secretary of State of Missouri. He previously served as a member of the Missouri House of Representatives, and was a candidate for the United States Senate.


Cleruchy

A cleruchy (, "klēroukhia") in Classical Greece, was a specialized type of colony established by Athens. The term comes from the Greek word , "klērouchos", literally "lot-holder".
History.
Normally, Greek colonies were politically independent; they would have a special relationship with the mother city (the "metropolis"), but would otherwise be independent entities. Cleruchies were significantly different. The settlers or cleruchs would retain their Athenian citizenship, and the community remained a political dependency of Athens – a position reinforced by installing institutions of local government based on Athenian models, such as the council on Samos.
According to Plutarch, cleruchies were assigned to poor Athenian citizens, who would then live overseas while retaining their Athenian citizenship. However, epigraphical evidence suggests that Athenian cleruchs were more commonly wealthy, and continued to live in Athens while slaves worked on their overseas estates. Cleruchies thereby became a significant source of private wealth in Athens – the 3,000 "kleroi" on Lesbos provided 100 talents a year, according to Thucydides.
The first cleruchy is thought to have been Salamis, captured by Athens from Megara in the 6th century BC. Other cleruchies were established on the Thracian Chersonese following its recapture from the Persian Empire after the Greco-Persian Wars of the 5th century BC, and at Chalcis following that city's defeat in a war with Athens. During the period of the Delian League and the Second Athenian League (5th–4th century BC), many more cleruchies were created by Athens such as on Samos. Athens' system of cleruchies reached its height in the late fifth century, at which point it stretched as far east as Amisos on the Black Sea. This network of cleruchies was lost at the end of the Peloponnesian war, and never reached this extent again, although some cleruchies were re-established in the fourth century, for example at Lemnos and Samos.