In one of his articles1Mr Jochen Katz has pointed out a contradiction in two sets of verses of the Qur'an. According to Mr Katz, 2:62 and 5:69 contradict with 3:85 and 5:72.
In his article, Mr Katz has implied that according to the first two verses, Christians, besides the Jews and the Sabians and the believers in the new Prophet – Mohammad (sws) – shall be rewarded with Paradise, while the third verse2states that only the adherents of Islam shall be rewarded with the eternal bliss of Paradise and the fourth verse has condemned the Christians for their saying that Jesus (sws) is God.
In the opinion of this writer, Mr Katz's contention that according to the first two verses, all the mentioned groups are promised paradise is quite questionable. The verse does not say that all the mentioned groups shall enter Paradise; on the contrary, it says that Paradise is not the right of any group – as the adherents of the respective groups would like to believe – but is the right only of those who truly believe in God and in the Day of Judgment and do good deeds. Thus, whether a person be from amongst the believers in the new Prophet, the Jews, the Christians or the Sabians, he would only be admitted into the eternal bliss of Paradise, if he truly believes in God and the Day of Judgment and does good deeds.
Seen in the correct perspective, the verse promises eternal bliss to those who truly believe in God and the Day of Judgment and do good deeds. If a person qualifies on the stated criteria, then whether he be from among the Jews, the Christians, the Sabians or the believers in the new Prophet, he shall be inducted into the eternal bliss of paradise3.
[O my people,] you call me toward rejecting God and to ascribe to Him partners about which I do not have any knowledge, while I call you to [the path of] the Powerful, the Oft-forgiving.
The above verse is a clear evidence of the fact that according to the Qur'an, ascribing partners to God is effectively a rejection of God.
As should be clear from the given translation, the referred verses are a call to submission to the Almighty, which incidentally, is precisely the call of the Islamic religion as well. Seen in the correct perspective, these verses shall be seen to imply nothing contrary to the message found in 2:62 and 5:69.
As far as 5:72 is concerned, its alleged contradiction with 2:62 and 5:69 should stand completely resolved after the clarification of the correct implication of the first two cited verses.
No Christian would ever say that Jesus is 'another god' as this verse mistakenly says, nor that 'God is Jesus'. It is only the other way around: 'Jesus is God, but not "all of God" '.
In the referred verse, the Qur'andoes hold the Christians guilty of saying that Jesus is 'another God'. This is an incorrect translation of the referred verse. On the contrary, the particular doctrine condemned by the referred verse of the Qur'anis of believing that God is Jesus (sws). However, Mr Katz has stressed that no Christian ascribes to the belief that God is Jesus.
The Qur'anhas criticized the Jews and the Christians for their malpractices and incorrect beliefs. These criticisms of the Qur'an focus on the malpractices and incorrect beliefs of the Jews and the Christians living in the environment in which the Qur'anwas being revealed. For instance, the Qur'anhas criticized the Christians of holding Jesus (sws) and his mother – Mary (sws) – to be divine (5:116). However, this was (an incorrect) belief only of the Christians living in that region. We are well aware of the fact that the general Christian population does not ascribe to the belief of the divinity of Mary.
The Qur'anhas not criticized the Christians of holding the law to be abrogated. If the Christians of the times and region of the revelation of the Qur'anhad actually held the law to be abrogated, the Qur'anwould definitely have criticized them for it. We see that the Qur'anhas criticized the Christians on a number of issues, but these issues, generally, pertain to the divinity of Jesus (sws). Thus, it should seem safe to assume that the Christians living in the Arabian Peninsula during the times of the revelation of the Qur'anlived their lives according to the Mosaic laws. Just as it would be safe to assume that those Christians did not ascribe to the belief of 'atonement', for if they had, the Qur'an, most definitely, would have criticized them for it.
Although they [the Nazarenes] accepted the divinity of Christ and his supernatural birth, the Nazarenes also maintained strict observance of Jewish laws and customs, a practice that had been dropped by the majority of Jewish Christians. They used a version of the Gospel in Aramaic called the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of the Nazarenes.
It is extremely unfortunate that the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel of the Nazarenes is nowhere to be found anymore. Had it been available, we would have known more about the beliefs and practices of this sect.
I hope the above explanation should raise a few questions in Mr Katz's mind regarding his objection,.
2. Although Mr Katz has not included this verse in his main discussion, but has referred to it in his brief introduction to the article.
The Qur'an has very strongly negated the idea that the Jannah or the bliss in the life Hereafter – the Paradise – is the right of any particular religious group. Whether one ascribes oneself to the Muslim or to any other belief, the criteria for success in the Hereafter is going to be his true faith in the Almighty and in the Day of Reckoning.
According to the Qur'anic view about life, each individual who lives on the face of this earth is put through a test by the Almighty. Whether born to Muslim or Jewish or Christian parents, each individual is tested for his honest and unbiased search for and surrender to the truth, as he sees and understands it. To go through this test, God has bestowed upon us the sense and the intellect to judge right from wrong.
A close look at our general attitude towards religion and religious beliefs shows that we normally go through life with the beliefs that we inherit from our parents. If we are born in a Muslim family, there is a greater chance that we shall remain Muslims through out our lives. The same holds true in other cases as well. But unfortunately, this passive belief shall have absolutely no importance on the Day of Judgment. Whether we attended the Sunday Church or the Friday Congregation shall only have a secondary importance. The first thing that would be judged is whether the individual truly searched for the truth or not and then, whether he lived his life in accordance with that truth or not.
In the light of the above explanation, in my opinion, success in the Hereafter is not dependent on my ascribing to any one or the other group. It is basically dependent on my attitude towards searching for and submitting to the truth. Thus, those Christians who, without any prejudice, had searched for the truth and had submitted to it, shall be among those who are successful in the Hereafter. While those who called themselves Muslims in this world, might fail in the Hereafter on the account that they did not seriously and without any bias, seek the truth or that even after knowing the truth, did not submit to it or lived their lives in accordance with it.
This is the general principle of success and/or failure in the test of the life of this world. Thus, the criteria of success or failure is one that depends purely on the internal mechanism of the human soul and intellect. Because we cannot say that a particular person has rejected Islam (or whatever we hold to be the truth) after being thoroughly convinced that Islam is the divine truth, we therefore, cannot pass a judgment regarding his success or failure in the hereafter. It is only the Omniscient God who really knows whether a person rejected after being truly convinced of the truth or whether his rejection was because of some misunderstanding or unanswered questions, regarding that truth. On the Day of Reckoning, God shall give His decision on the basis of His absolute knowledge about the reasons of the rejection of the individuals.
According to the Qur'an, when a messenger of Allah (Rasul as distinct from Nabi) is sent towards a people, he removes all doubts that are found in people's minds regarding the truth. He answers all their questions. Truth becomes evidently distinct from falsehood. Those who accept his message, accept it with full knowledge of what is right and what is wrong; and those who reject his message, reject it after gaining full knowledge that it is the truth they are rejecting. It is because of this particular position of the messengers (Rusul) of Allah that it becomes evident that those who are rejecting his call are rejecting the truth, and those who are accepting his call are submitting to the truth. The former are, thus, bound to be thrown in the Hell fire and the latter are promised the bliss of Paradise. Therefore the Jews and Christians who lived during the life of the Prophet (sws) and who did not accept his message are doomed. We, even with our limited knowledge know about this fact, because if as the Muslims hold, Mohammad (sws) was a true messenger of God, then those Jews and Christians who lived during the life of the Prophet (sws) rejected the truth knowingly. They shall have no excuse for their rejection. It is these Jews and Christians that are sure to be doomed. As far as the Jews and Christians of other times and places are concerned, they are subjected to the same test in the life of this world. If they submit to whatever they truly believe to be the truth and live their life in accordance with that truth, they shall be successful.
The case of the Muslims is not any different.
It is both odd and unfortunate that no copies of any of the so-called 'Judeo-Christian' gospels have survived antiquity, though the texts, kept by early Christians who maintained deep-seated Jewish beliefs, were often quoted by Christian writers throughout the first five centuries. These short citations are our only windows through which we might study the traditions of the communities that used them.
The Gospel of the Hebrews is the most often quoted of the Judeo-Christian gospels, though it must be noted that at least two other texts (Ebionites and Nazoreans) were referred to by the same title, and we can only make educated guesses as to which gospel each fragment was derived from. At least eight early writers had either referenced or cited from Hebrews, each offering their own interpretations and assessment of validity. From these we know the date of composition is no later than mid-second century, possibly much earlier. It was said to have been written in Hebrew, though much of its theology parallels Egyptian tradition.
The gospel shows no direct dependence upon the canonical gospels, though it shares a verse with the Gospel of Thomas (GosThom 2). Among the most unique traditions is the depiction of Mary, like the Johannine logos, as divine—in fact, that she was the incarnation of Michael, who was the personification of the Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus first appears to his brother James following the resurrection. Since James the Just was traditionally held to have founded the church at Jerusalem, it is no surprise that the Hebrew gospel elevates his authority by making him the first to witness the risen Christ.


text:
+351 210 464 029 | [email protected]
ChangeEU Web Course
EULECTIONS'19 has developed an online course about EU's history, its institutions and the instruments available for citizens' participation. Enroll here and explore the three modules and contents.
The 5 scenarios for the future of Europe – Presentation
EULECTIONS'19 has developed a short video to explain the 5 scenarios for the future of Europe. Watch it to learn more!
1950-2020: The History of the EU
The history of the European Union begins five years after the end of the Second World War. On the 9th of May, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman held a speech known as the Schuman declaration. In this speech, Schuman proposed Franco-German reconciliation by placing coal and steel production under a common authority. As these materials are needed to build things such as tanks, ships and guns, the communalizing of their production would make war between France and Germany "not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible".
The European Commission
The European Commission is the body that initiates policies according to the general instructions given by the European Council. The Commission has its roots in the High Authority of the European Coal and Steel Community. After working with three different commissions for about a decade after the Rome Treaty, the Merger Treaty consolidated these Commissions into the Commission of the European Communities, which later became the European Commission. Learn more here
The European Parliament
The European Parliament started as the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community, being composed of the national parliamentarians of the member states. Over the years, the body has gone through many changes to become what it is today. Starting in 1979, the members are chosen directly by the European people, and since the Treaty of Lisbon the European Parliament has the same law-making powers as the Council of the EU, elects the president of the Commission, and is the guardian of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Its headquarters are in Strasbourg, but it also meets in Brussels. Learn more here
The European Council
The European Council is where the leaders of the member states of the EU meet. Starting as informal meetings between country leaders of the European Community in 1961, the meetings have become more formal over the years, culminating in the Treaty of Lisbon in which they got the status of an official institution of the EU, being called the European Council, not to be confused with the Council of the EU in which government ministers meet. Learn more here
The Council of the European Union is the institution representing the member states' governments. Also known informally as the EU Council or the Council of Ministers, it is where national ministers from each EU country meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies. The Council of the European Union has its roots in the Special Council of the European Coal and Steel Community. While its powers were very limited during this time, they were soon expanded through the Rome Treaty of 1957. Later, it became the Council of the EEC with the Merger Treaty of 1967 and then the Council of the EU with the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. Finally, the Lisbon Treaty brings us to today's situation, in which the Council shares legislative powers with the European Parliament. Learn more here
As with some of the other institutions of the EU, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has its roots in the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). After continuing as the Court of Justice for the European Communities, it became the CJEU, a court giving rulings on EU law. Learn more here
The European Central Bank has its roots in the European Monetary Institute (EMI). This institute was established as part of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), an idea that had floated around in Europe for a long time, but was finally taken up by the European Council in 1988. They gave then-President of the European Commission Jacques Delors, together with the heads of each national central bank, the assignment to come up with a plan for economic and monetary integration. This plan was formalized in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which eventually led to the introduction of the Euro and the European Central Bank in 1998. Learn more here
The European Court of Auditors was established with the second Budgetary Treaty, signed in 1975. However, at the time it was an informal institution. It became an official EU institution with the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. The ECA audits the revenue and spending, in other words the budget, of the European Union. Learn more here
Wessel Mol is a 24-year old student currently enrolled in the MA in International Studies at Iscte – University Institute Lisbon. Originally from the Netherlands, after graduating high school he lived in Costa Rica, Switzerland and Colombia, before moving to Portugal for the master's degree. Next to studying, he has been involved in simulations of the UN and the WTO, while also having worked as a Public Affairs intern for a large pension fund in the Netherlands. Currently he is a research assistant at the Centre for International Studies at Iscte-IUL. After studying he would like to work for an international organization, the EU or the Netherlands as a civil servant
This website was created and maintained with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of its publisher and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union
Enter your email and we'll send you more information.
© Copyright Eu Lections19

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Select Italy and Select Croatia is a US tour operator and boutique agency with offices in New York that specializes in tailor-made and bespoke travel experiences since 1997. The two brands were founded by Andrea Sertoli with a vision to deliver the finest combination of guided services, food and wine activities, exceptional accommodation and cultural experiences to North American travelers and travel agents alike.
Over two decades later, Select Italy continues to design unforgettable journeys to Italy and Croatia. Although Select Italy provides the attentive and detailed service of a boutique agency, the recent acquisition by the Milan-based Uvet Group - which operates worldwide generating over $2.8b in revenue each year - has allowed for the expansion of trips for individual and group travelers to even more of Europe's amazing destinations allowing our clients to seamlessly combine multiple countries while enjoying the same great service with one point of contact. For every destination, UVET has a dedicated custom trip planning team that features bilingual travel experts, art historians, academics and seasoned professionals.
UVET American Express Global Business Travel is also part of the UVET Group. Thanks to its 70 years' of knowhow in Corporate Travel Solutions, MICE and airline travel, it allows Select Italy to offer an expanded portfolio of Corporate and Leisure travel services to its clients throughout North America spanning destinations across the globe.
Regardless of what your trip entails, we strive to deliver the highest quality and service, and we have the feedback to prove it!
Since 1997 Select Italy has designed unique trips for over 20,000 satisfied customers, and in doing so, established deep connections with suppliers and amassed a great deal of experience regarding best practices to make sure clients get the most out of their experience. Select Italy has been included on the Travel+Leisure A-list from 2002-2015 as "The best of the best" - travel specialists who always deliver.
Their recommended "Dream Trip" to Italy has been featured annually in the magazine's September issue. Select Italy is a Preferred Vendor member of MAST (Midwest Agents Selling Travel), and a Travel Supplier Allied Member of ASTA (American Society of Travel Agents). Furthermore, Select Italy is an accredited member of IATAN (International Airlines Travel Agent Network) the premier international travel agent association. In 2005, the company received the Better Business Bureau's Online Reliability Seal.
Select Italy's reputation for excellence does not stop at travel. With its comprehensive travel offerings and user-friendly format, it is no surprise that our website has been recognized with top honors as one of the industry's most innovative. In 2005, Select Italy received an Ultra Web Award, honoring websites that "stand above the crowd." And in 2005 and 2006, our site was nominated for a Webby award, one of only five nominees in the Tourism category. Additionally, SelectItaly.com received a Maestro award which applauds Webmaster excellence.


text:
No more coups in Turkey thanks to nation's 'heroic' defense: Parliament speaker
by DAILY SABAH WITH AA
ISTANBUL Politics
Sep 13, 2020 12:54 pm GMT+3
The Turkish people's resistance played the biggest role in eliminating putschists and their mindset, Turkish Parliament Speaker Mustafa Şentop said at a symposium against coups held on Democracy and Freedom Island, Sept.12, 2020. (AA)
The age of coups in Turkey has come to an end thanks to the Turkish people's heroic defense against the coup plotters on July 15, 2016, Turkish Parliament Speaker Mustafa Şentop said on Saturday.
Turkish people's resistance played the biggest role to eliminate putschists and their mindset, Şentop said at a symposium against coups held on Democracy and Freedom Island in the Marmara Sea near Istanbul.
He said the Turkish people will always protect their constitution, democracy, elections and votes at the cost of their lives.
Şentop expressed that the period of coups, which started on May 27, 1960, ended on July 15, 2016, but it was officially closed by the constitutional amendments on April 16, 2017, referring to a historical referendum that eventually paved the way for the country's transition to the presidential system. The Parliament speaker added that all military coups are essentially against the nation and the state.
On Saturday, Turkey remembered the bloody coup on Sept. 12, 1980, orchestrated by Chief of General Staff Kenan Evren, that still stands as a stain on Turkish political history.
The coup leaders' most notorious practice was the death sentence. Turkey saw its highest number of executions by hanging in a very short period of time after the overthrow. The junta also ordered the detention of 650,000 people. Some 230,000 were put on trial, and courts asked for the execution of more than 7,000, although only 517 people were sentenced to death and 50 were hanged. Another 14,000 people lost their Turkish citizenship, while 30,000 more lost their jobs due to blacklisting by the junta. Among them were teachers, academics and journalists.
Also attending the ceremony, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said the 1980 coup remains "inscribed in the minds of our people as one of the darkest days of our political history." "That coup d'etat, which brought Turkey to the verge of major economic, political, diplomatic and legal destruction, set our country back decades," he expressed. Speaking of the 2016 defeated coup in Turkey, Erdoğan said: "With the July 15 saga, we gave a lesson that the tutelage enthusiasts will never forget."
A new constitution was also introduced following the 1980 coup, which long ensured the prevalence of military tutelage and limited political representation as well as the exclusion of junta leaders from any future trials for their crimes.
It was only after a 2010 referendum that the article in question was lifted and paved the way for the trial of Evren and others. Trials began in 2012 and Evren was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment in 2014 and per military regulations, the rank he kept after retirement was demoted to the lowest-level, private. Evren died in 2015 during his appeal processes.
"The fact that years later the coup plotters have been judged in front of a court and got what they deserve – even if they were dead – shows concretely that crimes against the nation will not be left unresponded to," said the head of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Devlet Bahçeli during the event. He added that the perpetrators of the coup could only be described as "cruel." "Coups have poisoned Turkey's democratic history, disregarding the national will," he continued, underlining that coups were neither legal nor legitimate.
The first coup attempt was back in 1960, during which Turkey's first democratically elected Prime Minister Adnan Menderes was jailed and tried. The trial took place on Democracy and Freedom Island, which was formerly known as Yassıada, until it was rebranded on the 60th anniversary of the coup this year.
Four years of work on the island have changed the place into the home of a massive complex where a 125-room hotel, a 600-seat conference hall, a mosque, a museum and exhibition halls, as well as cafes and restaurants, are now located.
Menderes and his two ministers, Hasan Polatkan and Fatin Rüştü Zorlu, were three of the 15 sentenced to death at the trials on Yassıada, which was off-limits for decades. While the rest were pardoned, the death sentences of the three leading politicians were carried out on the nearby İmralı Island soon after the decisions were handed down by military tribunals.
In 1990, the Turkish government said it regretted the execution of Menderes, and his grave in Istanbul was turned into a mausoleum. As the last Turkish political leader to be executed after a military coup, Menderes' name today can be found in several public places as a mark of respect.
Last Update: Sep 13, 2020 5:24 pm
Turkish Politics
Defense minister visits Iraq to discuss cooperation against terrorism
Turkey-Iraq-relations
Syrian Turkmens in Turkey establish political, cultural organization
syrian-turkmens
50,000 displaced civilians' tents flooded by heavy rains in Syria's Idlib
Syrian-civil-war


The Divided Find Ranch is an exceptional West Texas big game hunting ranch for sale. With a flair for entertainment, the Divided Find Ranch will provide you and your guests with a warm and relaxing environment to enjoy the company of friends, and an exciting hunting experience within the majestic beauty of the rolling hills of San Angelo.
Located in Tom Green County, just about 10 miles west of San Angelo, Texas, the Divided Find is positioned within the Rolling Plains ecological region of Texas, characterized by juniper woodlands and prairie midgrasses. The entry is protected by an electric gated entry, and the ranch is high-fenced.
Improvements here include a beautifully appointed plus-or-minus 3,400 square foot main home consisting of three bedrooms, three baths, and a huge open living space. This home is surrounded by green fields with views across the plains toward the hills and features plenty of outdoor living space to enjoy the natural environment.
The main lodge offers recreation and relaxation space centered around a rock fireplace. This barndominium-style building also includes three bedrooms and a large kitchen, and a shop area shares the same roof.
More entertainment space is housed in the pavilion, which boasts a sports bar and dining or entertaining space in a large open floorplan. The pavilion also includes a large commercial kitchen for preparing meals for bigger groups.
Within this same compound, two cozy hunters cabins provide even more space to house guests. The outdoor living spaces in this area are numerous and include a huge liars pit and a fenced off patio offering up multiple locations for groups to gather and socialize after dinner.
Other improvements include yet another guest house and a newly constructed three-bedroom home just off the beaten path near the headquarters.
A deer breeding facility with AI, lab, and squeeze chute stands next to the set of deer pens. With several breeder bucks and does, all of which are DNA-certified and TC1-qualified, the deer management operation is in full swing. In addition to whitetail deer, other wildlife is abundant, including scimitar-horned oryx, axis deer, fallow, Dahl sheep, black Hawaiin sheep, four-horn sheep, and many more exotic species. And for even more recreational opportunities, the San Angelo Claybird Association adjoins the ranch, providing sporting opportunities on the 200-acre facility.
Five ponds and numerous water storage tanks supply drinking water to the wildlife. Four water wells service all of the improvements and the wildlife watering. Approximately 120 acres of the ranch is cultivated farmland.
And fourteen acres of Middle Concho River frontage on the northern section of the property is a mixture of pasture and riparian waterway. The Middle Concho feeds into Twin Buttes Reservoir downstream, then combines with the other branches in San Angelo to form the historic Concho River.


Project Dinnertime™ was developed by local community organisation, Nutrition Australia ACT.
Nutrition Australia ACT is a not for profit, registered health promotion charity, passionate about inspiring healthy eating in the community.
We are not chefs, we are passionate home cooks and qualified Accredited Practising Dietitians here to help you cook, eat and enjoy good food, every day.
and of course – tasty!


text:
– in the House of Lords at 7:46 pm on 9th October 2007.
Alert me about debates like this
« Previous debate
All Lords debates on 9 Oct 2007
Next debate »
Lord Saatchi Conservative 7:46 pm, 9th October 2007
asked Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of anti-Americanism in the world.
My Lords, I am most grateful to the usual channels for arranging this debate, and I thank noble Lords who are here to speak today. I am looking forward to the contributions of distinguished speakers and, with great anticipation, to hearing the responses of my noble friend Lord Howell and the Minister. I also thank the House of Lords Library and the Politeia think tank for their help with preparatory research for this evening's debate.
Americans today may be perplexed and confused about the way in which America is perceived in the world. They may feel like Josef K in Kafka's The Trial. Noble Lords will recall the opening lines:
"Someone must have laid false accusations against Josef K because one morning he was arrested without having done anything wrong".
Accusations against America have spread into a global phenomenon, crossing borders, classes, religions and generations. A Pew Trusts research poll in 2005 concluded that anti-Americanism is deeper and broader than at any time in modern history.
America's critics can be heard everywhere. This is how they make their points—I have heard every one of them myself. America is too in love with money, worshipping the god of the market place, the golden calf. It has too much money: seven of the top 10 banks, eight of the top 10 companies, and so on. It is too stingy, giving away less of its wealth to poor countries than others. It is vulgar, a rich barbarian. It has a lowly culture yet practises cultural imperialism. It makes people dread "Americanization". It is arrogant and condescending to what were called the "little monkeys" from other cultures. It is too religious, saying "God Bless America" once too often. It has too much power, spending more on arms than the rest of the world put together. It is a hypocrite, disguising its wars of self-interest as humanitarian interventions and exporting democracy at the point of a bayonet. It is inconsistent, agitating for regime change in some undemocratic countries but to others giving arms, aid and trade.
So it goes on. America has an incoherent foreign policy. It abandoned the "no first strike" principle which kept the peace for decades; pre-emption replaced deterrence but has no basis in international law. It is too close to Israel. It resists multilateral solutions, preferring unilateralism, hegemony, a sheriff strategy—"In guns we trust". It has aroused the envy of Europeans, causing them to want to form a rival power bloc. It has hit an ideological brick wall: the Great Wall of China, where state capitalism works. It has not solved the mystery of Islam. And it is not even a democracy, as a 44 per cent turnout in presidential elections proves.
The accusations against America are endless. I have heard them all, all over the world. Speaking up for America has become a lonely ordeal. Perhaps the accusations are all untrue. Josef K protested his innocence on the basis that he was a victim of false perceptions; perhaps America could do the same. Unfortunately for America, all of us know the power of perception over reality, which is why David Kilcullen, seated at his desk in the counterinsurgency section on the second floor of the State Department building in Washington, was right to point out that, like the IRA before them, America's enemies today are "armed propaganda organisations".
The jury of world opinion is no different from the jury in a court of law: it seeks motive and intent. It wants to hear America's true motive, and it wants it to be something good in the moral sense. We recall Alexis de Tocqueville's conclusion at the end of his famous voyage around America:
"America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great".
That was why President Reagan, when he addressed another place, asked Americans never to allow themselves to be placed in a position of moral inferiority.
Today, whether the American motive is pure or not, the one certainty is that, in recent times, America has proved unequal to the task of expressing it. Before globalisation it was possible—at least in theory—for America to be isolationist. It was possible to say of another nation, as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said about Czechoslovakia in 1938, that it was:
"a faraway country of which we know little".
Now there are no faraway countries, and there never will be again. Each day, we have a clear, stark and often alarming view of our multi-ethnic planet. Americans once brilliantly transcended the inherent fragility and insecurity of their own multi-ethnic community. In George Washington's own words:
"The bosom of America is open ... to the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions".
Woodrow Wilson called it,
"the great melting-pot of America", and made it the prototype of a diverse society. E pluribus unum: one out of many. My main point is that it is to the new melting pot of the world that America can bring, if only it can find a way to express it, its unique message.
America, as we know, was born out of a desire for self-determination, a longing for the human dignity that only independence can bring. That is what the pilgrim fathers hoped when, inspired by the scriptures, they announced their aim to create,
"a City upon a Hill", their new Jerusalem. Americans of all national origins, religions, creeds and colours would hold in common the ideals of the essential equality of all human beings, of inalienable rights to freedom, justice and opportunity. America would embrace meritocracy before hierarchy. Its frontier spirit would mean anyone could do well if they were determined. In America, nothing would be impossible. Americans would breathe free, with freedom of speech and thought for all men and women. These were the motives that made America the inspiration for so many millions of people: not its wealth, but its intense belief in its moral purpose.
Does the Minister agree with me that to disarm its enemies and defeat its rivals, America has only to focus its intellectual energy and vast economic resources on the policies which would help the world follow its lead; to find the language to project its founding ideology beyond its own shores; and to remind the world of its ultimate belief in self-determination, individuality and independence, and in democracy only as a means to that great end? To do that will require a marching tune that people can respond to, so that Americans can once again, as the pilgrim fathers intended, show the world the American way.
The outcome of the battle of ideas between Americanism and anti-Americanism will set the tone of the 21st century. It will be the decisive ideological struggle of our times. America has a fine ideology, but it has forgotten either what it is or how to express it. America today is a sleeping beauty. It is time to wake her up.
Link to this speech In context Individually
Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 9 October 2007, c197)
Lord Anderson of Swansea Labour 7:54 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his speech and his fascinating choice of subject. I shall share three brief reflections.
First, is there a generalised anti-Americanism, or is there a core, much of which would attach to any superpower and which contracts or expands according to particular events such as the Iraq war? Indeed, one might also ask how much anti-Americanism today is generated by the Bush Administration, which one did not see, for example, in the time of President Clinton. In any event, it is probably more valuable not to examine specific examples of anti-Americanism, as the phenomenon varies so much between, for example, Latin America—from the Monroe Doctrine on—to the Middle East, where there are specific issues. But whatever the faults of the US, in my judgment they are more than counterbalanced by the vibrant democracy which certainly de Tocqueville saw, the values of which we mostly share. If there has to be a world hegemon, there are probably few better candidates than the US.
Secondly, since the noble Lord selected this subject, an issue of Newsweek has appeared, on September 10, the cover of which read:
"The end of anti-Americanism: Europe tires of bashing a lame-duck President, and rediscovers the upside of American power".
There is also some evidence of a greater recognition by the US that the reluctant sheriff cannot do it alone. He needs allies, and unilateralism does not work. There have certainly been important changes in the European Union as well, particularly with the newer countries. One thinks, for example, of the Czech Republic and Poland allowing missile bases on their own territory. Chancellor Merkel is a vast improvement in this respect, on policies such as that towards Russia, over Chancellor Schroeder. President Sarkozy and Foreign Minister Kouchner symbolically took their holidays in the US. President Sarkozy spoke warmly of the transatlantic relationship in his remarkable speech to French diplomats at the Elysée on August 27, and has given hints of movement on French policy with regard to NATO.
Thirdly, and finally, it is possible to detect a rethinking of the United Kingdom's attitude to our bilateral relations, a questioning of whether in the post-Cold War period it in our interests—or, indeed, those of the US—that we should be, to coin a phrase, joined at the hip. I cite in support David Cameron, although his speech was somewhat marred by a negative attitude to the European Union; David Miliband's speech at Chatham House on July 19; and the inaugural lecture, and the refined article which followed in International Affairs, of Dr Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House. From these speeches, I draw two conclusions: we need to maintain close and warm links with the United States, our key bilateral ally, particularly in areas such as counterterrorism; but our interests over great swathes of policy put us closer to the European Union than to the United States. I think not just of international trade issues but areas of growing importance such as climate change, weapons proliferation and Iran. And, of course, for the United States, dealing with Islamic terrorism is a threat to be countered abroad, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, but for us and our EU allies it is a sensitive domestic issue. It therefore makes sense for us and our European partners to co-ordinate our policies before agreeing on terms in the transatlantic area. Surely it benefits the United States that we and Europe increase both our hard and soft power and extend our external influence by closer co-operation, and it is not anti-American to say so.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Conservative 7:59 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Saatchi. As always, he has approached this subject with flair, originality and imagination.
A former president of Mexico once described his own country as "so far from God, so near to the United States". Anti-Americanism has always existed, a mixture of envy and other factors. I wanted to speak in this debate as someone who has been passionately pro-American all his life. As a young man at university I was obsessed by America. But I have to confess that in recent years I have become more and more disillusioned with American policy. It is absurd to talk about anti-Americanism in the sense of its people, because one cannot be against a people. One can be against a country's policy at a specific time. Although that policy will change, a lot of disillusionment with American policy is felt today.
My noble friend instanced several things that we all admire about America, including its history of religious freedom and the melting pot of cultures. I would cite as a wonderful example of American freedom the invitation to President Ahmadinejad to express his extraordinary views at Columbia University. It was remarkable.
Alexander Hamilton's idea of American exceptionalism has always been a historical myth. America, like other countries, was formed by blood, iron and conquest; its history is not untainted by colonialism. But why has anti-Americanism increased today? Why is it no longer the city on the hill to which my noble friend referred? America is increasingly perceived as just another nation state pursuing its own national interest in a rather ruthless way. It is ironic that America wanted to promote early international institutions such as the League of Nations and the UN to curb European power and that the European powers wanted to avoid them. We seem now to have moved to a world that is the other way round, where America wishes to avoid international institutions.
Henry Kissinger once observed that, given the preponderance of American power, the United States did not need allies but needed to pretend that it did. That pretence seems to have gone in recent years. Britain has been a good friend to the United States in recent years but has not received much in return. In the venture in Iraq, it has gained very little influence in return for the great investment that it has made. At times, it seems that diplomacy is relegated to a minor role. I was astonished to see the applause that greeted Barack Obama's threat to bomb Pakistan without consulting and against the wishes of the Pakistani Government. He seemed to think that it was legitimate for the United States Government to be able to do that. What was the reaction of the press? The Wall Street Journal applauded Obama because he showed that he was prepared to use force—which is not the criticism that people usually level against the United States. I fear that America has squandered the almost-universal sympathy for it that was felt after 9/11, partly because of its tactics in the war on terror and the use of overwhelming military force, sometimes deciding that it is justifiable to flatten a whole village even though there may have been just one suspected terrorist in it.
The reputation of United States has been harmed above all by the departure from its own values and standards—the episodes of rendition, the secret prisons and events in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. It is astonishing that an 80 year-old man and 15 year-old children should have been released from the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay. We have to look at how these things appear from the other side of the world. I remember visiting Tehran two years ago. In the middle of its skyscrapers were massive photographs of Abu Ghraib. Every one of those pictures was taken from western newspapers. Tremendous and unprecedented damage has been done to America's reputation by America itself. However, it is not a lasting thing, and things will change. Another Administration and another policy will arrive and America will once again be a city on the hill.
Lord Ryder of Wensum Conservative 8:04 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for gaining time for this debate. I initiated a similar debate in the other place nearly 25 years ago, since when the general arguments have changed little. Anti-Americanism in Europe has existed for a long time. It began to take shape at the moment when President Wilson invited Congress to declare war in 1917, altering the course of American foreign policy. George Orwell observed just after the last world war that,
"the orthodoxy, the parrot cry of the moment is anti-Americanism".
Anti-Americanism has never been confined to the left; many leading figures on the right have nursed a social and cultural disdain for what they perceive as the excessive individualism of the American way of life, and they resented American hostility to our empire. Now some serving politicians in the United States and Britain, lacking historical knowledge or imbued perhaps with doctrine, have tried to counter anti-Americanism by subscribing to the artificiality of the special relationship, which was described by Raymond Seitz, a distinguished United States ambassador to London and known by many of your Lordships, as,
"a knee-jerk catchphrase, almost like an advertising jingle".
"The two countries have never been diplomatic doppelgangers".
Anti-Americanism should not be confused with candid friendship or opposition to a particular American policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, argued. Until recently, British Governments were clear eyed about this form of diplomacy. Winston Churchill, half-American by birth, saw red with Administrations in Washington. Harold Wilson kept Britain out of the Vietnam War, to the anger of Lyndon Johnson. At Reykjavik, our then Prime Minister challenged conventional wisdom in Washington and was respected for it. Britain's candid friendship contributed to the end of the Cold War.
However, the post-Cold War world did not lead to the emergence of a single great power, although that view was lost on the neocons in the United States as well as some politicians here. They have since learnt that America can no longer pretend to be an independent actor on the world stage. Its military limitations have been shown up in Iraq; its relative economic strength is on the wane. We reside in a multi-polar world, with a loose European federation, a reviving and distrustful Russia concerned about encirclement, radical Islamists, China and India emerging as leading contenders and Iran playing all sides against the middle. The surge of capital flows is beyond the control of any single Government, however powerful.
In this unfamiliar landscape, anti-Americanism mounts by the month. We as candid friends must strive to persuade the next American Administration that the multi-polar world requires Washington to follow more sophisticated diplomacy unilaterally, with partners, and through established international institutions, most of which were created by the United States in any event.
The new multi-polar world presents a subtle tapestry. It must seem puzzling to clusters of policy makers, because, by nature, Americans look for instant solutions, which do not exist in this case. The British Government must be a candid friend. They must perform that duty to help curb the scale of anti-Americanism after the catastrophe of the joint venture in Iraq.
Lord Giddens Labour 8:09 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, on initiating this debate. I assure him that I am a paid-up member of the AAA; that is, I am certainly anti-anti-Americanism. Anti-Americanism, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, hinted, is an incoherent phenomenon a little like anti-globalisation, if only because the United States is such a diverse and contradictory society. I become irritated by far-left critiques of America, because America is the source of some of the most important radical movements of modern times, including environmentalism, modern feminism, civil rights movements, freedom of speech movements, gay rights movements and many others.
Of course, anti-Americanism, as has been said, has a long history. It goes back to the early 19th century. In Europe, you find a strong strand of it in the relationship between the French and the Americans. Talleyrand said that he had never met an Englishman who did not feel at ease among Americans and had never met a Frenchman who did. A book called L'ennemi américain documents that long history.
As other noble Lords have said, something different is happening now; there is a tremendous surge of distaste for America around the world. It certainly involves the sorts of things to which the noble Lord referred, but it would be foolish not to recognise that what passes for anti-Americanism today is the result of recent foreign policy, specifically the foreign policy of the current Administration—not so much on Iraq but in their philosophy of international relations as announced by President Bush in his speech at West Point in 2001. He said that international relations should be defined as a system of power, that America would be the pre-eminent power and that no country would be allowed to rival America militarily. Condoleezza Rice spoke, too, of the "illusory international community". That philosophy systematically undermined the previous commitment that the United States had to a multi-polar world, which also explains a good deal about the surge in anti-Americanism. As the Pew and Marshall foundation surveys have found, that is something new, and I think that it is strongly influenced by that philosophy of foreign policy.
I am 100 per cent behind other noble Lords who have said that, although the relationship with America will be slow to repair, it can be repaired by a return to Wilsonian ideals and the framework of co-operation that America built in the post-war period. That is surely the future in a globally interdependent world. I, along with other noble Lords, hope that the President of the United States will return to a Wilsonian framework of co-operation and be prepared to help to rebuild the United Nations as a focus of world influence.
I conclude by asking a question of the Minister. It has been reported in several newspapers over the past week that the Prime Minister is prepared under certain circumstances to accept American military intervention in Iran. I would like him to reassure me that those reports are false.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Conservative 8:12 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend and congratulate him on initiating this debate. The beginnings of the tide of anti-Americanism can be found in Europe soon after the end of the war. I am not discussing the state-generated antipathy of the communist bloc, which has left its legacy for two ensuing generations. I am talking about the attitude of the French, as did the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, particularly under de Gaulle. While the rest of Europe was gratefully accepting American largesse to assist in reconstruction via the Marshall plan, de Gaulle was still smarting at the way in which those whom he called "the Anglo-Saxons" had attempted to sideline him in the battle for Europe. De Gaulle's attitude effectively kept France out of NATO for a long time.
But all of that was nothing compared to the ever-increasing swell of anti-Americanism engendered by America's support for the state of Israel. It is totally wrong to suggest that Arab anti-Americanism is caused by the recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, although they certainly have not helped. Two American embassies were blown up in Africa, one American barracks was blown up in Lebanon, an American warship was attacked and badly damaged in the Red Sea and the World Trade Centre was attacked twice—once with the devastating effect that we all know—before the Americans invaded Iraq. Of course, it was a mistake at the end of the first Gulf War not to have dealt with Saddam Hussein then and there. The Americans held their hand and contented themselves with simply booting the tyrant out of Kuwait rather than crushing him completely, in order not to offend the Arab world. Unfortunately, that was regarded as a sign of weakness.
We are dealing with regimes that regard the British and American concept of democracy as a complete anathema. The Americans made a fatal diplomatic error in backing the Shah of Persia against the no less despotic theocracy that took his place and then backing Saddam Hussein in his war again Iran. No wonder the Iranians are anti-American. The turmoil in the Middle East has given rise to a brand of Islamic fundamentalism that preaches the overthrow of everything that is not Islamic, and America is not the only victim.
Then there is the anti-Americanism to be found in South America, stirred up by the communist state of Cuba, to which the Americans behaved foolishly at its inception. Cuba had every reason geographically to want to be friendly with the United States of America, but American foreign policy drove it into the arms of Russia, and it was used as a staging post to corrupt the friendly relations that America had enjoyed with its South American neighbours because of America's benign application of the Monroe doctrine. The problem in South America was further exacerbated by America's self-defence against the drug cartels operating there.
I need not say anything about the disaster of America's intervention in Vietnam, which was the result of its fear of a so-called domino effect that might have turned parts of Asia into another communist fiefdom. The Americans have paid heavily for that—in lives, in reputation and in social unrest at home and anti-Americanism abroad. I find it paradoxical, however, that apparently 60 per cent of South Koreans consider the USA a colonial power when little over 50 years ago they were begging the Americans to rescue them from North Korea and China.
The straightforward fact is that the world is a better and safer place because America is the one superpower. The world would be a more dangerous place if what happened in the 1930s was repeated and America was driven back into isolationism and persuaded to pick up its football and go home. Cheap jibes at occasional American heavy-handedness and cheap jibes about its presidents, not just the present one, are all too easy. Western democracy needs a strong America. Indeed, the whole world needs a strong America, and we should support it.
Lord Sheikh Conservative 8:17 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Saatchi on securing this debate, which focuses on an important issue affecting all parts of our society today. The special relationship between this country and the United States has been of great importance to this country for many years.
First, we need to be clear about definitions. It must be possible to question the approach of the Bush Administration without being labelled anti-American. Similarly, it must be possible to support the policy of the Administration without being labelled America's poodle. A mature debate is essential.
We must return to the best traditions of the special relationship, which means being a critical friend and not one who occupies the role of unconditional associate in every circumstance. We need to be solid but not slavish in our approach to the United States. In regard to the real value of our special relationship, we can tell the truth candidly and boldly without damaging that relationship. Historically, we may be the junior partner in the relationship but that should not reduce our strength. I emphasise the contributions made by Winston Churchill with President Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher with Ronald Reagan and John Major with George Bush Senior. These Conservative Prime Ministers undertook this with skill and success. I agree with David Cameron that we have recently lost that art.
One of the prime reasons for any ill feelings towards America is its recent foreign policies, particularly the invasion of Iraq and subsequent lack of adequate planning. There was a detailed programme yesterday on BBC2 on the torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Some of the people who were tortured were innocent. There has also been disquiet relating to the rendition programme.
For America to gain the support of the various communities in this country and abroad, there needs to be an orderly withdrawal from Iraq and America needs to use its influence in finding a solution to the problems in Palestine. There needs to be a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue relating to Iran.
I commend and appreciate the gentle side of America. My wife and I, with other Muslims, were entertained by the American ambassador in breaking the Ramadan fast last week. Everyone at the American embassy was very polite and courteous. I chair the Conservative Muslim Forum; we have built a very healthy relationship with the cultural attaché at the embassy and we have held some fruitful meetings.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Deputy Leader, House of Lords, Spokesperson in the Lords, Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs, Spokesperson in the Lords, Home Affairs 8:20 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I did not recognise much of what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said. His statement that Americanism versus anti-Americanism is the defining theme of the 21st century seems to me simply not to be the case. We face a whole range of challenges in the 21st century: climate change, global development, population growth, terrorism and the relations between different civilisations. The idea that we can divide the world into simple dichotomies—black versus white, good versus evil—is part of what has gone wrong with Bush and the neoconservative foreign policy. President Bush has said that those who hate freedom oppose the United States. The assumption is that the United States represents good and freedom and that those who oppose the United States and oppose American policy hate those very things. I have heard neoconservatives talk about the United States as a righteous nation, assuming that everything that the United States does is righteous and that those of us who criticise US policy are therefore necessarily unrighteous.
When I first went to the United States in 1962, the same sort of tactic was being used against liberals and Democrats—they were called "un-American" if they criticised the views of the American right. I spent three very happy years working and studying in the United States, in the immensely optimistic period of President Kennedy and then of President Johnson. I went back two years later, as things began to go bad with Vietnam. I have seen a lot of the United States since then. In 2002 I was invited to introduce a session at a National Intelligence Council conference on anti-Americanism. There was a much more nuanced discussion among the American intelligence community about the differences between generic anti-Americanism—from those who naturally feel opposition to the dominant power, whichever the dominant power may be—and the specific anti-Americanism that it was recognised had grown in opposition to American policies.
We have heard in this debate what has led to this surge in opposition to American policies, although not to the United States as such: the denial of climate change, the opposition to international law and the international institutions, the in-your-face nationalism of people such as John Bolton, the Guantanamo Bay experience, the whole Middle East policy and the aggressive anti-Europeanism that many have had. I recall people from the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation saying, when I published an article in Foreign Affairs in 2001 suggesting that the United States still needed a partnership with Europe, that to make that argument was anti-American in itself. We need to move beyond that.
What worries me are the cheap jibes that we see in the British press against France and Germany. It is easy in Britain to be acceptable when you make anti-European jibes. We should be much more critical and careful about how we approach both our American partner and our European partners. I regret that the Murdoch press has managed to distort the foreign policy debate in this country to suggest that we should always follow the United States and should always be opposed to what our French and German partners appeal for, with the Conservative Party on occasions vowing its loyalty to follow American policy wherever it may lead. I recall the Financial Times saying of William Hague that he appeared to be dedicated to pursuing the national interests of another country. The United Kingdom should be a critical friend of the United States, not a loyal follower.
Lord Howell of Guildford Shadow Minister, Foreign Affairs, Deputy Shadow Leader, Parliament, Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords 8:25 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Saatchi has promoted a really worthwhile debate on an important issue, although of course it is absurdly short. We need much more time to do the subject justice. It is worth while because our attitudes to America are central to our own United Kingdom concerns. Our transatlantic relations define our own stance in the world, our role, our purposes and our identity in this nation. We are reaching—maybe this debate is a signal of it—a moment of sea change in these matters.
As we have been reminded, for 50 years after World War 2 the USA, which had saved us from fascism and secured our liberties, was the dominant world nation, by far the biggest economy and the central pillar of an empire of freedom. We hardly needed to argue that; it was assumed. What is more, America and its leaders used this dominant position, most of the time, with grace, wisdom, generosity and respect for many friends and allies and for its former foes as well. Of course, there was anti-Americanism, there has been all along, at present especially in France, as my noble friend Lady Miller reminded us. But it was patchy and spasmodic, and it was not the dominant culture of the time. On the whole, America stood for freedom, for a better life against the dark and shoddy values of communism and Soviet oppression.
We have to concede that today that is no longer the apparent position. America's reputation is at rock bottom, its influence has been weakened, and at home it is a divided and doubting nation, unsure which way to turn, as any recent visitor to any part of America would confirm. Indeed, it would not be inaccurate to say, borrowing Dean Acheson's phrase, that today America has lost an empire and not found a role. There are many reasons for that sad development, many of which have been outlined in this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made the valid point that we must distinguish between the US Government and the US people; between the Administration of George Bush who, frankly, have at times, however well they mean, struck a simplistic note in their assessment and their policies and uttered harsh rhetoric on the one hand, and the American nation and the economy, which is still the world's finest, still the world's most powerful, imbued with immense generosity and kindness and a wish to do well in the world and imbued with America's true values, which are our values as well.
Why has all this happened? It has been suggested that it is because of the recent foreign policy difficulties and the Iraq failure, but at root we must look deeper and see that it is about the march of technology and the microchip and the colossal dispersal of power today, both to the rising nations of Asia and through the world wide web to a billion desktop and laptop computers, to new groupings, good and bad, and to state interests alike that has weakened the concept of the mighty hegemon. Power has shifted from the USA, the West and the Atlantic community. Small weapons can now match big weapons through technology, and e-enabled terrorism can now outwit armies and rockets; and has done so. It is no good thinking only in terms of rebuilding America's military might or, indeed, our European military might, to re-establish influence and reputation in these new conditions. For us, the Atlantic bond remains vital and we should fully support America in its difficulties—but we should support it as a friend and an equal, not as a compliant satrapy or lap dog. True friends, as the noble Lord, Lord Ryder, said, should be ready to speak with candour, rather than with dutiful and automaton assent.
In today's world there are no top dogs. Some of my noble friends may disagree, but there are no hegemonies left and no hyper-powers, whatever some French leaders may have said in the past—although those leaders are changing. There is no new role. There is only one intricate global network in which we are all equal, large and small; we all need each other and we must all work together. I hope that this very short debate has helped to remind us that, while there is no call for prejudiced anti-Americanism—and we should dismiss it where we see it—there is a need for candour and realism in our changing relations with the USA. These factors should be reflected at the heart of our foreign policy in a way that I fear they are not at present.
Lord Malloch-Brown Minister of State (Africa, Asia and the UN), Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Minister of State (Africa, Asia and the UN) 8:31 pm, 9th October 2007
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for giving the House the opportunity to explore this Question, and I thank noble Lords present for the wisdom of the debate this evening. We have all agreed that this is an important subject—its implications are far-reaching and it is right that we should debate it to the full. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that perhaps this debate is a little brief to consider such a large subject. Although critical things have been said tonight, one thing unites every speaker—all of us are America's friends and we speak with a candour that comes from friendship and respect for that great country.
In a sense, the central contention behind the debate is one of pessimism derived from opinion polls. Perhaps, like others this week in another House, rather than being driven to decisions by opinion polls, I will try to focus on the principles of our relationship with the US. America matters, whatever the polls currently say. Many noble Lords have pointed out the ways in which the United States remains a force for good in the world. There are so many practical examples of that support that one is reluctant to make sweeping assertions.
One of America's greatest qualities is the vibrancy of political debate at home. Many opinions that are quickly branded by some as being anti-American would brand many Americans as anti-American. Across all Administrations, I cannot recall a debate more robust and critical of American policies than those occurring in America itself.
Before we assess the views of others, let me make clear the view of Her Majesty's Government. It was set out by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in his speech at Chatham House on 19 July. He said America is,
"our single most important bilateral partnership".
At its core, the relationship has always been built on shared values, a commitment to freedom, equality, liberty and the rights of man. The Prime Minister said in July this year that it is because ours is a "partnership of purpose" founded on values that it has lasted.
Perhaps to stray too far into the roots of current anti-Americanism, as some of the other speakers have been able to, is not a luxury that a Minister can afford, particularly one with well known views on this subject. Nevertheless, our policy evidently cannot be formed in isolation from global or British public opinion. That is why we need to articulate the benefits of US engagement to the British people and beyond.
Others have touched on that history of engagement, which perhaps starts with Europe. A vital lifeline was provided to a besieged Europe during and after the Second World War, and US military, economic and political leadership continued throughout the Cold War, bringing it to a successful conclusion and allowing a Europe to exist today that could not have existed without American leadership.
That US involvement has continued well beyond 1989 with support for the enlargement of NATO and support to help the former communist countries to rebuild their economies and reform their Governments and security structures. The enlargement of the EU and NATO has been an example of transformational diplomacy at its best.
It was President Clinton's leadership within NATO—in partnership with the United Kingdom—that helped us to put a stop to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and led eventually to the downfall of Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia. That US commitment to Kosovo remains to this day, although it seldom gets the attention that is paid to other American overseas commitments. It is there still in terms of troops deployed and of an extraordinary diplomatic capital invested in the final status process.
Much closer to home, I think that we are all aware of the role that the US played in securing a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. The momentous progress that the people of Northern Ireland have achieved could not have been made without the unerring support of successive US Administrations and of Congress.
But this debate is not just about what the United States does around the world; it must also be about how the US acts as a model for others and how it impacts on the lives of so many in the world. Having just returned from living for 21 years in the US and having entered a British Cabinet, if America were a company and not a country, I should probably have to confess to a conflict of interest. My wife and children are American, I built a successful business there and the American dream is unashamedly real to me. I have benefited from and watched up close America's dynamic economic model; I have watched it being emulated around the world. Its research, innovation and creativity spread far beyond US borders. The interlocking levels of government provide a fertile testing ground for new ideas of public policy. A high level of migration to the United States—itself a compelling example of pro-Americanism—has led to the development of a vast multicultural society which encompasses citizens of all backgrounds and faiths, and which, as has been said, should serve as the example of a melting pot for us all.
Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said, we should not overlook the appeal and influence of US culture, be it music, literature or film. We cross several generations in this House but if I point to a country that has produced Elvis Presley and John Ford, I think we can all agree that its cultural richness is beyond compare. Yet, as the noble Lord said, how come a country which is so good at telling the story of other people is not able to tell its own and communicate it persuasively to the world?
Perhaps I may pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said—a point that was echoed by several other speakers. We must never confuse anti-Americanism with anti-administrationism. I do not draw attention to any particular Administration but, again, insist that this has been a phenomenon of American political debate at home and abroad throughout many different UN General Assemblies. Long before John Bolton, I watched American delegates criticised by countries for American over-reach and over-assertion of its powers. Through the thick and thin of that, we in the United Kingdom have stuck true to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has described as the partnership of purpose. We see it today in Afghanistan—a country that symbolises our common goal of protecting our national security and promoting human rights. We see it in the common challenges that we seek to meet together in Africa. US leadership has been critical in keeping the world's focus on Darfur. Its leadership on HIV/AIDS and malaria has been justly applauded—an issue on which President Bush has taken a direct and personal role. We are delighted that he has joined this Government in the Prime Minister's call for action on the millennium development goals.
The list continues. In the six-party talks on North Korea and on Iran, I hasten to tell my noble friend Lord Giddens that in another place today the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed that we are committed, as are our partners, including the United States, to a diplomatic solution to the crisis on Iran's nuclear programme. We share a commitment to a new trade round, to the reform and reinvigoration of the UN, and to the continued transformation of NATO. None of these challenges could possibly be solved without the involvement of the United States. US leadership, even if sometimes we feel it is not there for us as forcefully as we would wish, is vital and indispensable, and will continue to be so. That is why the US remains our most important bilateral relationship in the world today.
References to the city upon the hill in a sense sums up the dilemma and sometimes contradiction in our relationship with the United States, just as the United States and the politicians who are often collectively referred to as representing the Wilsonian tendency in American policy look to the world and expect an ideal world that will act according to American values and hopes for democracy and the rule of law. Sometimes we look to America in a similar idealised way and are disappointed if America shows the same commitment to interests and politics in its international relations that other countries demonstrate. Friendship also requires realism; this is a marriage not a romance, one might say.
In conclusion, the challenges that we face at the beginning of this century are, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, different from our immediate past. The challenges are issues such as climate change, poverty, crime and migration—and, of course terrorism. They are not just different in terms of issues. In the age of globalisation they require global responses. They are not ones that any nation, even the United States, can solve alone. Rather, in an era of the rising powers of Asia, which has been referred to, they require us all collectively to adopt new approaches as we strive for global security. Even with power dispersed to a billion laptops—a magnificent phrase—and to the emerging powers of Asia, the United States remains indispensable to solving these new problems as it was to solving the older ones. Indeed, multilateralism without the US is a chair without a leg. It is important for all of us to make the case for American engagement in the world as a force for good and to rebut the promoters of anti-Americanism. Nevertheless we need to be a candid friend as we seek to encourage the US, this Administration and the one to come, to engage in the world around the values that we share. We need to work with the US because there can be no more powerful exponent of our values and no more powerful partner in making a new global, multilateral world work more effectively.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Government Whip
My Lords, before moving the Motion, I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who informed me that he would not be speaking in the gap. I informed the Table but I forgot to inform the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn at pleasure until 8.46 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.44 to 8.46 pm.]
Link to this item In context Individually


Amber Wutich is a professor of Anthropology and director of the Center for Global Health in ASUs School of Human Evolution and Social Change. Wutich received her PhD from the University of Florida in Cultural Anthropology with a specialization in Tropical Conservation and Development.
Her research examines inequitable environmental institutions and global health disparities, with an emphasis on water insecurity. She directs the Global Ethnohydrology Study, a multi-year cultural-cultural study of water knowledge and institutions conducted in 10 countries.
As a methodologist, she co-edits the journal Field Methods and co-authored the book Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches (2016, SAGE).
Wutich teaches ethnographic field methods and text analysis as part of the National Science Foundations programs in research methods in cultural anthropology. She teaches in ASUs degree programs in Global Health, Environmental Social Sciences, and Cultural Anthropology.
Wutich's teaching has been recognized with awards such as the Carnegie CASE Arizona Professor of the Year Award and ASU's Faculty Achievement Award for Excellence in Classroom Performance.
Sullivan, A., D. D. White, K. L. Larson and A. Y. Wutich. 2017. Towards water sensitive cities in the Colorado River Basin: A comparative historical analysis to inform future urban water sustainability transitions. Sustainability 9(5):761. DOI: 10.3390/su9050761.
Rice, J., A. Y. Wutich, D. D. White and P. K. Westerhoff. 2016. Comparing actual de facto wastewater reuse and its public acceptability: A three city case study. Sustainable Cities and Society 27:467-474. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.007.
Wutich, A. Y., M. Beresford and C. Carvajal. 2016. Can Informal Water Vendors Deliver on the Promise of A Human Right to Water? Results From Cochabamba, Bolivia. World Development 79:14-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.043.
Wutich, A. Y. 2012. Water insecurity, emotional distress, and mental illness: Implications for human development & capabilities. Maitreyee: Bulletin of the Human Development and Capability Association 23:14-16.
Jewell, B. and A. Y. Wutich. 2011. Charitable Christians, punitive neighbors: Religiosity and economic norms in a water scarce environment. Research in Economic Anthropology 31(October):.
Wutich, A. Y. and C. Gravlee. 2010. Water decision-makers in a desert city: Text analysis and environmental social science. Pp. 188-211 In: Vaccaro, I., J. A. Smith and S. Aswani eds., Environmental Social Sciences: Methods and Research Design. Cambridge University Press.
DeMyers, C., A. Y. Wutich and D. D. White. 2017. Bringing Stakeholder Analysis into Research on Sustainability Transitions: Stakeholder Dynamics and Transformational Water Solutions in the Colorado River Basin. Poster presented at the 2017 DCDC Poster Symposium, April 24, 2017, Tempe, AZ.
Palta, M. M., M. du Bray, R. Stotts, A. Y. Wutich and A. Wolf. 2016. Urban "accidental" wetlands mediate water quality and heat exposure for homeless populations in a desert city. Poster presented at the 18th Annual CAP LTER All Scientists Meeting and Poster Symposium, January 15, 2016, Scottsdale, AZ.
Palta, M. M., M. du Bray, R. Stotts, A. Y. Wutich and A. Wolf. 2016. Urban "accidental" wetlands mediate water quality and heat exposure for homeless populations in a desert city. Poster presented at the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research Eighteenth Annual All Scientists Meeting and Poster Symposium, 15 January 2016, Skysong, Scottsdale, AZ.
Palta, M. M., M. du Bray, R. Stotts, A. Y. Wutich and A. Wolf. 2015. Urban "accidental" wetlands mediate water quality and heat exposure for homeless populations in a desert city. Poster presented at the American Geophysical Union, December 14-18, 2015, San Francisco, CA.
Rice, J., A. Wutich and P. Westerhoff. 2014. GIS-based models and perceptions of de facto wastewater reuse. Poster presented at the Decision Center for a Desert City Annual Poster Symposium, April 28, 2014 , Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Rice, J., A. Wutich and P. Westerhoff. 2014. GIS-based models and perceptions of de facto wastewater reuse. Poster presented at the AAAS 2014 Annual Meeting, Meeting Global Challenges: Discovery and Innovation, February 13-17, 2014, Chicago, IL.
White, D. D., A. Y. Wutich, K. L. Larson, P. Gober, T. Lant and C. M. Senneville. 2010. How do we better link knowledge and action for environmental decision making?. Poster presented February 21, 2010 at the 2010 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Meeting, San Diego, CA.
Cutts, B. B., T. A. Munoz-Erickson, K. J. Darby, M. W. Neff, E. K. Larson, B. Bolin and A. Y. Wutich. 2009. Ego network properties as a way to reveal conflict in collaboration's clothing. Poster presented at the August 17, 2009 Applications of Social Network Analysis, Zurich, Switzerland.
Wutich, A. Y., B. Crona, M. Seetharam, P. Gober, P. K. Westerhoff, Z. Hasan and S. Avent. 2009. Ethnohydrology: A mixed method study of local water knowledge. Tempe, AZ. Poster presented at 11th Annual Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (CAP LTER) Poster Symposium, Tempe, AZ. January 15, 2009.
Bishop, A., M. M. Palta and A. Y. Wutich. 2013. Water insecurity and health in desert homeless populations. Presented March 22 at The Society for Applied Anthropology 73rd Annual Meeting, Natural Resource Distribution and Development in the 21st Century, March 19-23, 2013, Denver, CO.
Sivapalan, M., A. Y. Wutich and M. Konar. 2013. Socio-hydrology: Co-evolution and future of human-water resource systems. Co-discussants at the AAAS Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2013, Boston, MA.
Wutich, A. Y. 2013. Troubled Waters: 21st Century Challenges in the American West, Part I. Discussant on March 22 at The Society for Applied Anthropology 73rd Annual Meeting, Natural Resource Distribution and Development in the 21st Century, March 19-23, 2013, Denver, CO.
Aktipis, A., L. Cronk, D. D. White and A. Y. Wutich. 2011. Resource management and risk pooling: Exploring the viability of indigenous solutions for modern resource management problems. Presented March 13, 2011 at Resilience 2011–Resilience, Innovation, and Sustainability: Navigating the Complexities of Global Change, Second International Science and Policy Conference, Tempe, AZ.
Wutich, A. Y. 2011. Ethnographic approaches to understanding social sustainability in small-scale water systems. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, December 5-9, 2011, San Francisco, CA.
Cronk, L., A. Y. Wutich, A. Aktipis and H. Wasielewski. 2010. The circulation of cultural variants: Exploring the relationship between culture and behavior. Presented November 20, 2010 at the American Anthropological Association 109th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
White, D. D., K. L. Larson, P. Gober, S. L. Harlan and A. Y. Wutich. 2010. Divergent perspectives on water resource sustainability in a public–policy–science context: A tripartite conceptual model of human-ecological judgments. Presented June 7, 2010 at ISSRM 2010, the 16th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Corpus Christi, Texas.
Cutts, B. B., K. Darby, E. K. Larson, T. A. Munoz-Erickson, M. W. Neff, B. Bolin and A. Y. Wutich. 2008. Social networks, environmental governance and science in the Big Chino Water Project: An interdisciplinary research project of the IGERT in Urban Ecology Program. Presentation April 30 at the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Larson, E. K., B. Bolin, B. B. Cutts, K. Darby, T. A. Munoz-Erickson, M. W. Neff and A. Y. Wutich. 2008. The challenging task of water resources partnership building: Insights on network properties and outcomes from both whole and egocentric analyses. Presentation April 15-19 at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers Conference, Boston, MA.
Neff, M. W., B. Bolin, B. B. Cutts, K. Darby, E. K. Larson, T. A. Munoz-Erickson and A. Y. Wutich. 2008. Does truth flow like water? The role of social networks in the flow of scientific understandings in a water management controversy. Presentation April 15, 2008 at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Boston, MA.
Neff, M. W., B. B. Cutts, K. Darby, E. K. Larson, T. A. Munoz-Erickson, A. Y. Wutich and B. Bolin. 2008. Does truth flow like water? The role of social networks in the flow of scientific knowledge in an environmental governance dispute. Presentation August 23, 2008 at the Society for the Social Studies of Science / European Association for the Study of Science and Technology joint meeting, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wutich, A. Y. 2008. Anthropological approaches to studying climate science, policy, and perceptions in a desert city. Presented at the November 2008 American Anthropological Association 107th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Gartin, M. and A. Y. Wutich. 2007. The social dynamics of policymaker collaboration. Paper presented March 28, 2007 at the 67th Annual Meeting for The Society for Applied Anthropology, Tampa, FL.
White, D. D., A. Y. Wutich, S. E. Ledlow and P. Gober. 2007. Credibility, saliency, and legitimacy of boundary objects for water resource decision making: Assessing stakeholder response to DCDC WaterSim. Paper presented at the June 17-21, 2007, 13th International Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Park City, UT.
Wutich, A. Y., T. Lant, M. Gartin, D. D. White and K. L. Larson. 2007. Getting hard-to-get data: Are group interviews really better?. Paper presented at the November 29 - December 2, 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC.


Browse the internet and share files across devices the safe way, by protecting them with this McAfee total protection CD.
Avoiding the download of risky files, preventing your device from spreading malware and SPAM, protecting your iOS tablets and smartphones, parental locks that allow you to control what your kids browse, backing up data, and protecting your privacy, these are all possible with this protection CD. It also comes with Folder Encryption that secure your identity and data by locking your private and confidential files.
This powerful engine finds and destroys elusive spyware, malware, Trojans, and other threats so your device's battery consumption and speed aren't interrupted. The CDs color code function lets you identify the safety of each web page.


Administrative Assistant working experience minimum of 3 years. Ordering office supplies, Scheduling Meetings, Travel Arrangement, Knowledge of Microsoft Office including Outlook.
Some Accounting Experience as Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable and SAP.


text:
El Serrat del Tossal Negre és una serra situada al municipi de Coll de Nargó a la comarca de l'Alt Urgell, amb una elevació màxima de 1.305 metres.

Referències

Serres de Coll de Nargó

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
'The Walking Dead" No Man's Land' Video Game (Yes, it's REAL)
Next Games, the Finnish mobile games studio, and AMC today revealed the first gameplay trailer and key details of the official mobile game based on AMC's record-breaking hit TV show "The Walking Dead."The Walking Dead: No Man's Land, an action-packed strategy game, will allow players to experience the world of the iconic TV series with its spine-chilling moments through gameplay tailored for touch screen devices.
The Walking Dead: No Man's Land is centered around surviving in a hostile, post-apocalyptic world, fighting the walker menace and making tough choices about the fate of the player's survivor group. During the course of the game, players will need to choose the right people with the right skills and weapons to take down walkers, survive missions and save other survivors. A recurring theme of choosing the best survival strategy and making the right tactical choices is at the heart of the game.
Daryl Dixon, the crossbow-toting, fan-favorite character, portrayed by actor Norman Reedus in the TV series, helps the player get established in the game and guides players in the final points of survival and combat with the undead. Danger is everywhere, as fans face hordes of walkers in locations familiar from the TV show. The new trailer gives fans a taste of the action.
"The Walking Dead: No Man's Land is devotedly crafted for 'The Walking Dead' fans. We are very excited about the momentous opportunity to bring one of the most adored TV shows into the mobile realm in collaboration with our partner AMC, the creators of the TV series," said Teemu Huuhtanen, CEO at Next Games. "We combine IP, TV show talent and join forces with AMC in a never-seen-before way. This game is a big first step in Next Games' strategy to become the premier partner for TV networks, movie studios and beyond who aspire to work with a veteran game studio in extending their IP into mobile games."
"The Walking Dead: No Man's Land has the thrill of hand-to-hand walker combat, but players also get the opportunity to solve strategic puzzles, build their own survival refuge and develop their group," said Mac McKean, senior vice president of digital media for AMC and SundanceTV. "It's a beautifully rendered, thoughtful and engaging mobile game, and we're so pleased with what our partners at Next Games have created. We're looking forward to giving fans an exciting new way to engage with the world of 'The Walking Dead.'"
The Walking Dead: No Man's Land game is slated for launch on iPhone, iPad and iPod touch in conjunction with season 6 of "The Walking Dead" this October.
Posted by Monique at 4:37 PM
Labels: Game, Games, Mobile, No Man's Land, The Walking Dead, video, Video Game
ABC Family's 'Pretty Little Liars' 'Stitchers' 'Sh...
"The Blacklist" Season 3 Premiere Photo Preview
American Horror Story:Hotel Fright Idea (Video)
Comic Book Series "Preacher" Coming To Starz
Jane The Virgin Complete First Season DVD (Contest...
"Ash vs Evil Dead" Event At NYCC 2015
ABC Family's "Guilt" Casting Revealed
Syfy's Thriller "Hunters" Adds Julian McMahon
'Bones' and 'Sleepy Hollow' Crossover Event
Banshee & Outcast NYCC 2015
CW's(Updated) Fall 2015-16 Schedule
CW's iZombie The Complete First Season DVD
"The Mindy Project" Photo Preview
"Legends" And TBS/TNT Series NYCC 2015
Showtime's Sports and Documentary Fall Films
"Homeland" Season 5 Trailer
Starz Gives 'Survivor's Remorse' A Third Season
"Dark Matter" and "KillJoys" Renewed On Syfy
"Incorporated" Coming To Syfy
Difficult People Renewed on Hulu
Syfy New Series 'Blood Drive'
TBS' Renews "American Dad" For 2 Years
"American Horror Story:Hotel" Cast Trailer Has Arr...
"Better Call Saul" Season Two Sneak Peek
"South Park" Premiere and Others Fall Permeires an...
'Black Sails' Season 4, 'Havana Quartet and Da Vin...
Satire "Another Period" Picked Up For Second Seaso...
"The Expanse" and "Childhood's End" Premiere Date ...
'The Walking Dead" No Man's Land' Video Game (Yes,...
Lee Daniels Pilot "Star" Lands on FOX
Pitbull To Guest Star on FOX's "Empire"
AMC's "Into The Badlands" Premiere Date Set
'The Last Man On Earth' Lands SNL Alum For Season ...
'Prophet's Prey' Documentary Film Premiere Date
'South Park' Adding 3 More Seasons!
Jim Henson's 'Turkey Hollow' On Lifetime
Lifetime Casts '90210', 'Melrose Place' Unauthoriz...


text:
Q: Ajax call to jsp and jsp redirecting to further jsp I am having an ajax call to a jsp page which in turn is redirecting depending on the value of a flag variable being calculated in that jsp file.
ajax call is something like this :
$.ajax({
            url: 'uploadwebcamimage.jsp',
            type: "POST",

            data: {
                encodeimg: dataUrl,
                OwnerId: document.Clickpictures.OwnerId.value,
                OwnerPhone: document.Clickpictures.OwnerPhone.value,
                mobilepass: document.Clickpictures.mobilepass.value,
                emailpass: document.Clickpictures.emailpass.value,
                mypassword: document.Clickpictures.mypassword.value,
                mygroupuserid: document.Clickpictures.mygroupuserid.value

            },
            error : function(){
                alert('Error');
            },
            success: function(msg){
                //alert((msg));
                    if(msg.indexOf("true")>=0)
                    {
                        //how to get grouplist
                        location.href="site_index_groupadmin.jsp?res1="+grouplist;
                    }
                    else{
                        alert("UNSUCCESSFUL");
                    }
            }
        });

And in jsp i did something like this :
<%
    ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();

     String query="Select GNAME from tbGroup";
     ps1 = con.prepareStatement(query);
     rs1=ps1.executeQuery();
     while(rs1.next()){
         list.add(rs1.getString("GNAME"));
      }
    //How can i send this list also to my ajax call.Please help

    if(flag==true){

    out.println(flag);

    }

    else if(flag==false){

    out.println(flag);

    }%>

But its not redirecting to other page.Please help

A: When you call a jsp via AJAX, you stay on the same page by definition, regardless of the headers sent by the server.
If you want to change the page, you must do it with javascript, in the success handler function for the $.ajax(..) call.
You can read the Location response header and set the window.location.href to that value. See here for other options.
Get PrintWriter object by calling HttpServletResponse#getWriter and write your String.
response.getWriter().write("{isSuccess: true}");

now in jsp check isSuccess is true or false and use window.location.href

A:
How can i send this list also to my ajax call.

use Gson or any other json library to write json response do like:
<%@ page language="java" contentType="application/json; charset=UTF-8"
    pageEncoding="UTF-8"%>
<%
  //after generating your list

  Gson gson = new Gson();
  JsonObject root = new JsonObject();
  root.addProperty("flag", flag); //add flag
  root.addProperty("list", gson.toJson(list)); //add list

  out.println(gson.toJson(root));
  out.flush();
%>

and render list in ajax like:
$.ajax({
        url: 'uploadwebcamimage.jsp',
        type: "POST",
        dataType: 'json', //set dataType as json i.e. response data format
        data: {
            encodeimg: dataUrl,
            OwnerId: document.Clickpictures.OwnerId.value,
            OwnerPhone: document.Clickpictures.OwnerPhone.value,
            mobilepass: document.Clickpictures.mobilepass.value,
            emailpass: document.Clickpictures.emailpass.value,
            mypassword: document.Clickpictures.mypassword.value,
            mygroupuserid: document.Clickpictures.mygroupuserid.value

        },
        error : function(jqXHR, textStatus, errorThrown){
            alert(textStatus+' : '+ errorThrown);
        },
        success: function(response){
           alert(response.flag);
           $.each(response.list, function(key,value){
               alert(value);
           });
        }
    });

Edit:
As per your comment:
create a servlet instead of writing java code in jsp, and move java codes to servlets like:
protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException {

    ArrayList<String> list = new ArrayList<String>();

    String query="Select GNAME from tbGroup";
    ps1 = con.prepareStatement(query);
    rs1=ps1.executeQuery();

    while(rs1.next()){
         list.add(rs1.getString("GNAME"));
    }

    //set flag
    boolean flag = true;

    Gson gson = new Gson();

   response.setContentType("application/json");
   response.setCharacterEncoding("UTF-8");
   PrintWriter out = response.getWriter();

   out.write(gson.toJson(new ResponseResult(flag, list)));
   out.flush();
}

and ResponseResult class looks like:
public class ResponseResult {

    private boolean flag;
    private List<String> list;

    public ResponseResult(){}

    public ResponseResult(boolean flag, List<String> list) {
        super();
        this.flag = flag;
        this.list = list;
    }

       //getters and setters
}

if you want to send list to any other jsp, then in servlet do like:
using request if you do forward:
   request.setAttribute("list", list);
   RequestDispatcher dispatcher = request.getRequestDispatcher("pagename.jsp");
   dispatcher.forward(request, response);

or alternate is using session if you do redirect then like:
//add list to session
request.getSession().setAttribute("list",list);
//get it back in another page like
List<String>myListObject=(List<String>) request.getSession().getAttribute("list");

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Buzz is out newest member. He is totally fab and such a boy in blue…! He has spent his WHOLE life hanging around Leighton BUZZard..! We are getting to know buzz as quickly as possible but needless to say he comes with sink, cooker, zigg control unit, a super strong diesel engine and is super cosy inside.
Designed by Marmalade & Jam Ltd.