Print Page - The United Nations

I am not sure this is where this should go.

Less than 20 years after the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) was founded, World War II had arrived and once that war was over, America was ready to join "the League of Nations."
America sat down in San Francisco with Alger Hiss and joined the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations - Alger Hiss, a charter member of the CFR; Alger Hiss, whose sympathy with communism can no longer be denied. The UN charter and constitution is a thin paraphrasing of the Soviet model which Alger Hiss borrowed from when he coauthored it. The U.N. constitution is therefore a Marxist socialist paradigm.
The United Nations' 18 acres of prime Manhattan land was donated by the Rockefeller family (the CFR's chairman is David Rockefeller).

World regionalism is spelled out clearly in the U.N. Charter, Chapters 8 through 11, using such terms as "regional arrangements, intergovernmental agreements, and metropolital areas." Advocates of one-world socialism have already divided the world into 85 regions for policing purposes. In adopting the U.N. Charter, Congress has established the Charter as the Supreme Law of the land (Fugi v. State of California, 1950-52).
By Executive Decree No. 11647 on March 27, 1969 President Nixon announced the United States was divided into 10 Federal regions, each controlled by an appointed bureaucrat for the stated purpose of improving coordination of the activities of all levels of government. The goal of regional or metropolitan government is to eventually merge the U.S. into the "New World Order" - a one world socialist state under the United Nations. The 10 federal regions will be empowered to control all forms of regionalism within the U.S.. Regional divisions supplementing the 10 federal regions include state subregions, federal reserve regions, population regions, and regions to control the land, water and natural resources of America. On February 12, 1972 President Nixon issued Executive Order 11647 which authorized the staffing of the 10 regional governments. Regional government is a plan to eventually control all facets of our lives. Executive Order 11490 assigns numerous emergency preparedness functions to federal departments.

American Philosophy vs. the New World Order Conspiracy

Financing of regional governments is acquired through Federal Revenue sharing. Revenue sharing is a mechanism whereby the state and local governments become financially dependent upon the federal government. Pressure can then be applied to any level of state government that refuses to comply with the dictates of the regional government rulers. All but 1 of the 10 federal regional capitals is either a Federal Reserve Bank or branch bank city.

The following are just some of the policies of the United Nations:
1. Control of all zoning matters in the United States and the control of our national parks, rivers and historical sites.
2. Control over whether women are allowed to have babies.
3. Control over the economic and judicial policies of all nations.
4. Programs are being processed to create a tax on citizens of the United States as a permanent method of UN funding.
5. The United Nation has its own Army and United States soldiers must swear allegiance to this foreign government. Remember Michael New.

This is the "One World Government" that Strobe Talbot and Bill Clinton has been promoting. This is a "government" that allows as members terrorist states, ethnic cleansers like China (remember Tibet) and nations that allow slavery (Sudan) as members.
The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill recently authorizing the payment of more than $800 million in back dues to the United Nations.
We are in the midst of a propaganda campaign desired to scare us and encourage us to see things the way The Order sees them. Since another great depression and financial crisis is almost certain, the nations should move now to organize themselves into a One World Economic Order to insure that even though such a calamity may occur, there will be "a reconstitution of a meaningful international monetary system.

Formation of World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders
Report of Steering Committee Meeting and Plan for Initial Meeting of Council

Objectives of Steering Committee Meeting

One of the stated goals of the Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders that took place at the United Nations in August 2000 was to set in motion the process for the formation of a World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. This Council will be a permanent body and function as a resource for the Secretary-General and the United Nations in their efforts to build a lasting peace.

The growth in interfaith activity over the last decade leading up to the Summit has already laid much of the groundwork for such a Council. The unique role of the World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders is to forge an alliance of religious and spiritual leaders with the United Nations, an ideal forum in which to address world problems. The outcome of the Summit was the signing of a Commitment to Global Peace, in which religious leaders accepted religious diversity, condemned all violence perpetrated in the name of religion, and committed themselves to fostering mutual respect among their communities. These principles will be the foundation for the Council.

During the World Peace Summit, numerous small group meetings were held to discuss the process for establishing a World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. It was agreed that a Steering Committee should be established to think through the mission, structure and activities of this Council.

On October 22-24, 2001, with the support of the Better World Fund, approximately twenty-five religious and spiritual leaders from the major faith traditions and many regions of the world came together at the Rockefeller Brothers Conference Center in Pocantico Hills, New York. Because the meeting came upon the heels of the devastating events of September 11th, tragically perpetrated by religious extremists, a number of the Steering Committee members from the Middle East and Asia could not join the meeting in person but did participate by telephone.

The objectives of the Steering Committee meeting were to:

• Assess the need for a World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders;
• Explore how a Council would be structured and funded;
• Discuss how the Council could respond to the current world crisis; and
• Determine next steps.

Need for a World Council

Currently, no organizational body exists where religious leaders from the major faith traditions can come together to provide guidance to the human community on critical issues. Today, as they have for centuries, religious voices speak out individually, each addressing their own religious community. There is no means for issuing joint statements to demonstrate the convergence of the religious traditions on key matters.

While these voices often express similar ideas and values, they tend to reach only the adherents of their respective faiths. Stronger collaboration by the religious leadership would positively impact the global community. There was consensus among the Steering Committee that world circumstances in the one year since the Summit – the increase in violence in the Middle East and the terror attacks of September 11 – have heightened the need and readiness of religious communities for a World Council, which could provide a stimulus for greater cooperation.

A main function of the Council would be to build a community of world religions to serve as a model and guide for the nations and peoples of the world.

Mission of the Council

The Steering Committee identified four major thrusts for the Council:

• Fostering the universal values intrinsic to all religions.
• Upholding and celebrating religious and ethnic diversity by cultivating an attitude of mutual respect.
• Employing the moral power of religion to address major social and environmental challenges.
• Encouraging times of world prayer and meditation to aid in the transformation in global consciousness toward greater unity

Post-September 11th, religious leaders recognize the need to move beyond what they have done in the past and to create a new entity that will serve the entire world community with a new vision that includes an acceptance of others. Isolated religious communities will no longer be able to achieve this larger human goal on their own. The mandate is to see all faiths as part of one family. The need is to transform religious points of view from an exclusive to inclusive way of thinking. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a recent conversation, “We need to redefine our theologies for the modern age.” While it may not yet be clear what this “redefining” entails, the movement emerging from the Summit, and quickened by the events of September 11, is toward a refocusing on what the religions have in common, rather that how they differ.

This refocusing will enable religious communities to engage with each other in a way that promotes harmony rather than division. An easing of religious tensions will provide the human community with a greater capacity to address the true problems of our era.

The formation of a community of world religions will be the essential mission of a newly created World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. Its activities will be geared toward building cooperation at the highest level across all faith traditions. The Council will provide opportunities for the world’s religious leaders to come together on a regular basis to address critical issues. Ultimately, it will help create a shift in the thinking and behavior of people, and aid in fostering greater acceptance of other traditions and a new sense of shared global responsibility.

Religious leaders have a unique asset – their spiritual resources. An important function of the Council will entail fostering spiritual practices on a global scale – such as world prayers in times of crisis.

Part 2 is in the next post

Part 2

The mission of the World Council is as follows:

The World Council of Religious and Spiritual Leaders aims to serve as a model and guide for the creation of a community of world religions. It seeks to inspire women and men of all faiths in the pursuit of peace and mutual understanding. It will undertake initiatives to provide the spiritual resources of the world’s religious traditions to assist the United Nations and its agencies in the prevention, resolution and healing of conflicts, and in addressing global social and environmental problems. By promoting the practice of the universal human values shared by all religious traditions, and by uniting the human community for times of world prayer and meditation, the Council seeks to aid in developing the inner qualities and external conditions needed for the creation of a more peaceful, just and sustainable world society.

Council Structure

The Steering Committee acknowledged a dual role for the Council – one focused on inner transformation for the improvement of the world, and another that addresses the external conditions leading to conflict and injustice. The Council will need to include religious leaders from the contemplative traditions with knowledge of how to bring about inner change, as well as those committed to conflict resolution and programs of social action.

It was agreed that the Summit Secretariat will select the interim co-chairs to help set up the initial meeting of the Council. As each religious tradition includes a range of denominations, the interim co-chairs should have the backing of their religious tradition. They will help nominate religious leaders for participation on the Council. At the initial meeting of the Council, co-chairs for the first two-year term will be selected.

Criteria for participation includes a commitment to the global interreligious work of the Council, the degree of authority wielded by their position within the religious world, and their ability to contribute to the contemplative or peacebuilding/social action goals of the Council. Some may not hold positions of senior authority within their religious tradition (i.e., as will be the case with most women), but their spiritual achievements may warrant a position on the Council.

The Council will initially consist of approximately 50-75 religious leaders, representing the major faith traditions as well as indigenous traditions, and all regions of the world.

A small Group of Experts will be created, which will include internationally recognized scholars of religion. This group will help draft the Charter for the Council.

An Advisory Board of 12 to 15 business, government and thought leaders will also be selected to help create the bridge between religion, government and the financial community. This board will help raise the funds to implement the programs of the Council. An operating budget would be developed once the Council gets underway.

Responding to World Situation

A key question was asked during the meeting of the Steering Committee regarding how the Council, if it were already established, could respond to the events of September 11th. A number of recommendations were made, ranging from organizing world prayers, to issuing public statements, to taking out advertisements disavowing any connection between Islam and the terrorist activities. One participant mentioned that communications would be an important function of the Council. For the Council to be effective, it will need a strong communications platform. The purpose of the Council is to raise the voices of religious leaders – in some degree of unison. This would be the function of the Secretariat of the Council, which would serve as a coordinating body among the Council members, to ensure that strong public statements are issued in response to critical events.

Another response of the Council to the current world situation could be to put together a task force to visit Afghanistan and identify a few key religious leaders from the region to work with the Council as part of the international community. Just as political leaders are reaching out to Afghanistan’s new government, religious leaders will now have a body through which to function on a global platform.

Next Steps – Meeting of Council at United Nations in Bangkok

Due to concern over growing religious tensions in Asia, it was suggested that the first meeting of the Council take place in Asia. Since the headquarters of the United Nations in Asia is in Bangkok, it was agreed that we would seek to have this first Council meeting at the United Nations ESCAP facility in Bangkok. Meetings were held with UN officials in Bangkok after the October meeting of the Steering Committee, and they welcomed the idea of holding the Council meeting there. Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University in Bangkok has agreed to serve as a co-host. The Summit Secretariat will work with the UN and the university to organize all the logistics of the 3-day meeting. The basic goal is to develop better understanding of the underlying causes for the religious tension in different parts of Asia and how the religions can address these causes.

The dates selected for the first meeting of the Council are June 12-14, 2002. The interim co-chairs are helping with the selection of religious leaders to this first meeting of the Council. Invitation letters will go out in February. The Experts Group will help prepare the Charter for the Council and aid in the development of background material for the agenda.

The Summit Secretariat will work with the co-chairs and Steering Committee members in the development of the list of invitees for the first Council meeting and in the preparation of the meeting program.

Sorry Dale I had Nelson Mandela for a different post :'(

Part 1

Revelation 13:1-3, "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power and his seat and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death: and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast." Read also Daniel 7: 7-26.

The eyes of the world today are upon the United Nations. The vast majority of civilized nations are looking to the United Nations to solve the world's problems. To many, it is the last hope for peace in a war-weary world, a world that is dominated by cosmic principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition, pleasure, and international rivalry.

The following article, datelined Washington, December 27, 1956, perfectly illustrates the attitude and opinion of great men regarding the United Nations and its predecessor, The League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson, born 100 years ago tomorrow, was eulogized tonight as a peace-maker, administrator and one of 'our five or six greatest presidents. 'Tributes came from President Eisenhower and former President Truman and Hoover as part of an international observance of the Wilson Centennial. Eisenhower's statement, prepared for a ceremony in Paris, France, tomorrow was made public by the Woodrow Wilson Centennial Celebration Commission here. 'Wilson's defense of human rights and liberties makes him a splendid symbol of the enduring friendship that has bound our countries together since the days of Lafayette,' Eisenhower said 'Wilson's concept of a great family of nations living peacefully together and ruled with justice under law is still our dedicated goal.' The Paris observance takes special note of Wilson's help in creating the League of Nations after World War I. Truman wrote the commission he thought that William Jennings Bryan 'did the country a major service in bringing about Woodrow Wilson's nomination. I am pleased indeed that your efforts are being directed toward giving Woodrow Wilson his proper place among our five or six greatest presidents,' Truman added. Former President Hoover praised Wilson as 'one of the best administrative minds we have ever had in the White House.' As a young man, Hoover served under Wilson during World War I and Paris peace conference. Hoover said the United Nations charter follows every major pattern of the covenant of the League of Nations adding: 'No greater monument, than this could be erected to the ideas and ideals of Woodrow Wilson.'

Despite what men may say or the world may think, is the UN of God or Satan? If it's of God it should have our prayers and support. If it's of Satan it should be exposed and condemned. The only way we can possibly find the answer to these questions is to examine the UN in the light of God's word, the Bible.

What is the UN? It's an attempt by man to bring peace and unity to the earth by means of a world organization, Please note we said it was an attempt by man, because God was left out to begin with. God's word plainly says, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." II Tim. 3:13. "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom," Matt. 24:7. These conditions will characterize the age at the time of the appearance of the world power known to Bible scholars as the beast of Revelation 13 and Daniel 7:7.

Please note the following remarkable similarities of the UN to this last form of Gentile world power. The beast of Rev. and Dan., that will exercise such great power over the earth at the time of the return of Christ, will be on the world scene without men being aware of it. To begin with this great power will appear as the very thing the world needs to solve its difficult problems. Instead of appearing as a monstrous power to destroy and made desolate, it will appear as the Saviour of a bewildered world that is looking for a way out. Daniel 8:25 says the beast will "by peace destroy many."

This last Gentile world power will be Satan's masterpiece for deception. Many Bible scholars have taught the people to look for a revival of the old Roman Empire. Some are looking for some power such as Russia to take over by brute military force. Russia, it's true will be a part of this power, Ezekiel 38, and will play a leading role; but so will the whole Gentile world of organized nations. There will come a showdown and we find that 10 nations who will be of one mind are going to give their strength and power to the beast. Rev. 17:12-13.

God knows that non-spiritual students of the world would try to figure these things out without revelation from the Holy Spirit. It's true, His real anointed are going to see the truth as the prophecies unfold. Jesus would never said, "When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the door," unless He intended for someone to understand. The truth is, it won't be the great theological minds that the religious world is looking to. Isaiah 29:13-14. "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid." In contrast to this God's word says, II Cor. 1:26-29, "For ye see your calling, brethren, how not many wise men after the flesh not many mighty, not many noble, are called; but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence."

Part 2

Because of these facts the world as a whole (including the religious world) will not recognize the beast or world power that brings in the great tribulation upon the world. Jesus said in Luke 21:35, "For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth." A snare is a clever trap that catches its prey when it least expects it, Paul also gives the same warning in I Thess. 5:2-3, "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." Think of it, as a thief in the night. The thief comes while you are sleeping soundly; takes your valuables and is gone. This thing is going to take place in just such a manner. In fact everyone will be saying, "Now we are going to have peace and safety. Friend, did you ever stop to realize that the whole purpose of the UN is to bring peace and safety to the world.

Remember also that Daniel 8:25 says the beast will by "peace destroy many." Under the guise of being an organization whose purpose is to bring peace to the earth, the UN now has 80 nations of the world as its members and supporters. Remember also that Rev. 13:7 says, "and power was given him over all kindreds and tongues, and nations." Isn't it a strange coincidence that the UN has under its wings practically all kindreds and tongues, and nations.

So far I have listed three remarkable similarities between the beast of Daniel and Revelation and the United Nations.
1. The beast will not be recognized as such, but will actually be looked upon as a deliverer. So is the United Nations.
2. The beast will, to begin with, use peace as its chief weapon. So does the UN.
3. The world will be under the influence of the beast. Isn't that true also of the United Nations and becoming more so each day.

Let's go on and note other remarkable similarities from the word of God. Similarity No. 4: According to Dan. 8:24, Rev. 13:7, and 17:13, the beast derives his power from other sources. Now that is exactly the case of the UN. It is entirely dependent upon its member nations to give it power. Only as they support it and stand back of its decisions can it assert itself.

Similarity No. 5: According to Dan. 2:40-43 the beast, or kingdom, as it is called by Daniel, will be clay and iron, typifying dictatorship and democracy causing division and weakness. Isn't that exactly what has taken place between the Western powers representing democracy and Russia and her followers representing dictatorship. Also notice Verse 43 of Dan. 2, which says, "they shall mingle themselves with the seed of man; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." How true this is of the UN which is made up of 80 different nations. If this isn't also characteristic of the confusion and disunity that has prevailed in the UN, then I don't know anything.

Similarity No. 6: In the beginning the beast doesn't have power to enforce its decisions. We find 10 of the nations who are of one mind getting together and giving their power and strength to the beast. Rev. 17:12-13. At this very moment while this article is being written, the leading nations of the UN are considering ways and means to give the UN power to enforce its decisions. The UN has its flag, its army, and is just waiting for the big powers to say, "I'll give you my power and strength." (Such as the Security council, which has 10 members.)

Similarity No. 7: The name Babylon is very significant. In Rev. 17:5 we have Babylon, the Great Whore, Mother of Harlots. Practically every student of the word recognizes this Babylon as apostate Christianity headed up under the Papacy. Her daughters are protestant christendom that are following in her steps in trying to build religious empires, and thus make a name for themselves. Now the second Babylon we have in view is the beast's confederated empire or the last form of Gentile world power. To begin with, we find ecclesiastical Babylon, the great whore, riding on the back of the beast, political Babylon. But we find the ten kings of Rev. 17:12-13 turn on the great whore and destroy her, Rev. 17:16-17, "And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast; these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

The word Babylon originated at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11) and means confusion. What happened at the tower of Babel was simply men getting together and saying, let's unite together, and build us a great city and tower (or civilization) lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. Now the thing that was wrong was they did not seek God's face in the matter. They were presumptuous, selfwilled, and made their own plans ignoring God and leaving Him out completely.

Friends, God already has his plans made regarding this old world and the coming kingdom, and the sooner mankind learns this the better off he will be. In the meantime, manmade plans and schemes are doomed to fail. The beast of Revelation is called Babylon along with the great whore because the presumptuous and selfwilled spirit of Satan that was in man at the tower of Babel is in them. It's simply man trying to make himself a universal kingdom without God. That is the spirit that dominates the political and religious world. The basic sin responsible for this is self-worship instead of God. It's the same spirit that was in old Lucifer that caused him to say, "I will ascend into heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the North. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." Isa. 14:13-14.

What is the United Nations, but another attempt at world unity without God. It has also turned out to be another Babel, for we have had nothing but confusion.

It seems to me if there was one iota of real faith in God and the Bible, some of our leaders could see that the United Nations is a satanic and unholy alliance that could never result in anything but confusion. How God hates such an abomination. To think that they can yoke up together atheistic, Christ- rejecting heathen nations with all kinds of religions that deny Jesus Christ along with God-hating and God-defying Russia, and still have God's blessing upon them is more that I can understand. Can you imagine Christ and the devil getting together and solving the world's problems.

Oh, if President Bush would only call congress together like the Prophets used to call the elders of the Israel together and read the Word, then seek the face of God - but that will not happen, the scriptures will be fulfilled.

Similarity No. 8: In Rev. 17:3, we find the woman, the great whore, riding upon the beast. This simply means that the woman (the apostate church) will be sustained and supported by the beast (the last Gentile world power). Strange as it may seem but yet fulfilling the scriptures, the present Pope has spoken very highly of the UN and commended it for its role in world affairs. And if the UN continues to grow in power and influence (we believe it will) the whole apostate church world including Rome and her daughters will be only too glad to ride upon the back of the UN.

Similarity No. 9: In Rev. 13:3, 17:8, we notice that the whole world wondered after the beast. Isn't that exactly what is taking place today! The eyes of the world are upon the UN. You cannot pick up a newspaper that does not carry the news regarding the development in the UN. Also if the UN gets the Power to enforce its decisions the world will be saying, "Who can make war against the UN?" Rev. 13:4.

Part 3

I am glad I have this all on word.

Similarity No. 10: From Rev. 13:3 and Rev. 17:8, we see that the beast had a deadly wound that was healed or it was and is not, and yet is. This means that this beast, or last world power, came into being, then died, and then revived again. Of all the amazing similarities between the beast and the UN this is the one that should convince the most skeptical. Did you ever stop to realize that the same spirit that conceived the League of Nations after World War I is responsible for the United Nations of today. The League of Nations died because it did not have the support of its member nations to carry out and enforce its decisions. The League of Nations was a man-made, satan-conceived, plan to bring unity and peace to the earth without following the plan of the Prince of Peace, the Lord Jesus Christ. It died, but its deadly wound has been healed and today it's called the United Nations. It has the same spirit and the same purpose. Remember former President Herbert Hoover said, "the United Nations Charter follows every major pattern of the league of Nations."

Similarity No. 11: In Revelation 13:11-12, we have another beast coming up out of the earth with two horns like a lamb and spake as a dragon. Remember, now, beast represents kingdom, world power, nation, etc. (Dan. 7). This beast, I believe, represents the good old USA, and we have 5 reasons for believing that. (I know shock and horror, but wait theres more.)
1: It had horns "like a lamb," typifying Christianity. Was not this country started because men came to these shores looking for freedom where they could worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience? But alas, it has developed into a great world power and today to a great extent it is a military nation whose mighty voice (like the dragon) can be heard in the affairs of the world. Its Presidents and diplomats are prominent figures at the various world conferences.

2: This beast, Rev. 13:12, "causeth the earth and all them that dwell therein to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed." Verse 15 of Rev. 13 says, "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast." Now let me ask you a question: what nation is most interested in and responsible for the UN? The idea, to begin with was conceived by one of our former Presidents, Woodrow Wilson. Today, where is the UN headquarters located? New York City. It's a known fact, the United States is the main power back of the UN. Remember the beast of Rev. 13:11 gives life to the image of the beast. Were it not for the life given the UN primarily by the United States it would be a lifeless image. Let's remember the UN has no life or power of its own. It's simply a lifeless image, or theory, without power and authority from other nations. President Eisenhower (in 1956) expressed this country's attitude and concern when he said, "The United Nations must not fail." Yes, this country by its active support of the UN is causing all the world to worship the UN. The word worship means to look to, trust in, co-operate with, obey. If the present trend continues to develop, power is going to be given the UN to force the nations of the earth to bow before her.

3: This beast of Rev. 13:11 "doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men." Rev. 13:13. This sounds like the atomic and hydrogen bomb. It's a known fact, such terrific heat is generated by these bombs until it... melts...disintegrates everything for miles around. The sand melted and became a solid sheet of glass from the test bombs exploded in Arizona. It is said that the steel tower from which the bomb dropped melted like wax. The eyes of the world were upon the United States after the atomic bombs were dropped upon Japan.

4: This second beast greatly impresses the rest of the world because of the great wonders and miracles. Rev. 13:13-14. Isn't it true that the United States with its knowledge and development of nuclear energy, along with its scientific know-how, is the amazement of the whole world. These facts enable the United States to cause the rest of the world to take knowledge of the UN.

5: This second beast is also the power that causes the rest of the world to receive the mark of the beast. I don't believe this mark means that men will literally be branded with irons. If it does, then God is also going to brand his people with irons. Rev. 7:3, 9:4, 14:1, 22:4. The key to understanding this mystery is found in the following scriptures. In Ezekiel 9:4 the mark or seal is put upon them that sigh and cry over the abominations of the city. In Ephesians 1:13, 4:30 and also in II Cor. 1:22, we see that God's seal is the Holy Spirit.

The reason forehead is mentioned as the place of the mark is because it means mind. People that have God's spirit in them have the mind of Christ. I Cor. 2:11-16. Romans 8:5-6 says, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Now if God's seal is the Spirit giving us the mind of Christ, then Satan's seal or mark as it is called in Rev. 13:16 is the spirit of Satan giving wicked men the mind of Anti-Christ. Forehead means mind. The mark of the beast in the forehead simply means that they will be of the same mind. Mark in the right hand means agreement or co-operation. It's the right hand that we extend when we agree with someone. Those that refuse these marks which means to cooperate or to go along with the beast, will not be allowed to buy or sell.

What country played the leading role in bringing pressure upon Israel to get out of the Gaza strip? Uncle Sam did, under a headline titled, "UN Must Use Pressure in Mideast Situation." "The United Nations has no choice but to exert pressure upon Israel." Isn't it significant to Bible scholars that Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East are so much in the news today. This is where the great buildup is going to be that brings the greatest battle, Armageddon, the world has ever seen to a climax. Before that battle takes place, the beast is going to receive power that he doesn't have in the beginning. After he receives this power the great tribulation known as the time of Jacob's trouble will begin. This will last 42 months or 3 1/2 years before the battle of Armageddon takes place. It's during this time that the beast is going to make himself known. This is when he will really take over and begin to assert himself in no uncertain terms. Matt. 24:15-22, Rev. 13:5-8.

To you that read these lines we are afraid it is later than we think. The midnight hour is fast approaching and great multitudes are not prepared. Many church members are like the five virgins of Matt. 25: they have lamps of profession, but no oil. And then, there are those that are still in and supporting Ecclesiastical Babylon, the great whore and her daughters.

Praise God, we are looking beyond the tribulation, when the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed. That stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands is going to smite the image, the beast. And then, hallelujah ; the stone is going to grow into a great mountain that shall fill the earth. Dan. 2:21-35.

By Jack Van Impe...

We are living at a time in which it is not only possible for a world dictator of unprecedented authority to emerge-the Antichrist-it is also inevitable. God's Word states that only seven empires will exist in world history before Christ returns. The verse proving this statement is Revelation 17:10, "There are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space." The five fallen empires referred to by John in this verse are Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece. The one that ruled at the time John wrote the book of Revelation was Rome. One more final empire would arise, but there would first be a long delay. That global power would be the "revived Roman Empire." From this final group of nations the figure known as the Antichrist emerges and reigns for a brief period-just eighty-four months.

So the question: Is this period way off in the distant future? No! It is around the corner. The world is on the brink of submission to this latter-day power. This revived Roman Empire is presently assembling and organizing itself under the aegis of the European Union, a federal Super-state that will form the basis for the last one-world government. This dictatorship under Antichrist rules with supernatural power, advanced twenty-first-century technological police-state know-how, and unthinkable terror. Is it in the making? Judge for yourself. The European Community created the European Monetary Institute in January 1994, and it is scheduled to become a central bank issuing a single currency no later than 2002. We are already seeing the power, threat, and influence of the euro.

In addition to its growing economic prowess, the European Union will formulate common foreign and security policies with defense issues handled by the Western European Union. Soon, all defense policies will be made jointly. The European Union is rapidly dissolving the ideas of national sovereignty in a giant step toward globalism and one-world government. The Superstate is preparing the way for a more powerful central government, one that will eventually be headed by a world dictator. In Daniel 9:27, we see this future Fuhrer making a peace contract with the nations of the earth for seven years. During the first half of this tribulational period, the Antichrist is controlled by satanic powers (Revelation 13:4). However, during the second forty-two months, Satan is cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:7-11) and incarnates the body of this world dictator (Revelation 13:3).

When Satan takes over the physical being of the Antichrist, he begins to call himself god, magnifying himself above every god (Daniel 11:36). How can we know with certainty that we are close to this historical moment? The entire prophetic scenario began in the miraculous year of 1948, when three major world events occurred simultaneously. The first was the rebirth of the land of Israel. Jesus Himself predicted this event would precede His return in Matthew 24:32-33 when He told His disciples to come to grips with the message of the parable of the fig tree, which always represents Israel in the Bible. Jesus said, "When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." Nothing of significance prophetically, therefore, could happen until Israel became a nation again. That happened in 1948. In addition, that year witnessed the first meeting that would lead to the establishment of the revived Roman Empire, the European Union.

This last-days entity would form the political and military basis for the coming one-world government-the apparatus by which the Antichrist would rule. The third important event of 1948 was the formation of the World Council of Churches, which would help lay the groundwork for the one-world religious system of the Antichrist described in Revelation 13:11 and 17:9. For more than fifty years now, the stage has been set for a world dictator to emerge, a man with power and authority far beyond the scope of Nebuchadnezzar or any of his successors. The world anxiously awaits his appearance. I have little doubt that this great imposter is alive and waiting in the wings. How close are we to the fateful day of his appearance? Here is what three citizens say:

"We are in a leaderless world," is the opinion of Walter Cronkite.

"We have a rendezvous with a world dictator and his appearance may be soon," says economist Julian Snyder.

The internationally acclaimed Dr. Paul-Henri Spaak says, "Europe is looking for a man so powerful that he will hold the allegiance of all the people. Be he man or devil we are ready to receive him."

To be continued on next post...

Bronzesnake

Continued...

However, it is not just a political leader for whom the world is looking. All the major religions discuss the emergence, in the last days, of a powerful and terrifying spiritual figure-someone who will ultimately proclaim himself to be God. Today's widespread New Age philosophy is laying the groundwork for the Antichrist's global religious system. Did you know, for instance, that John Randolph Price, one of the world's principal New Age gurus, says his spirit guide revealed to him that 2.5 billion people may need to be wiped off the face of the earth for their utopian spiritual dreams to be realized (Revelation 6:8; 9:18; 13:15; 20:4)? Could such an organization claiming a billion followers produce the Antichrist? Definitely!

The New Age movement teaches that we are all "little gods." I believe the Antichrist will ride the crest of that belief and give it the credibility it does not deserve. However, the honeymoon for the Antichrist will not last forever. He will suffer a mortal head wound and come to his end in a battle with Russia (Daniel 11:45). After being incarnated by Satan, he then rises from the dead and declares himself as the god of gods (Revelation 13:3). He demands that every human being worship him under penalty of death (Revelation 13:15). Is it not fitting that today's New Age leaders are already beginning to justify the mass slaughter that will follow?

The Antichrist will have more help, too, from someone known as "the false prophet." It is from the leadership of this false prophet, propped up by the revived European Empire, that all such latter-day prophecies emerge. Rome will again be the center of the world economically, politically, militarily, and spiritually. Those currently moving Europe in this direction seem inexplicably drawn to their fate. Perhaps you remember that in 1987, the Belgians minted the first ECU silver coins. Imprinted on them was the bust of Emperor Charles the Fifth, crowned head of the Holy Roman Empire in 1519. Why was Charles chosen to be immortalized on the first-ever European coin? Because of the striking geographical similarity between the European Community and the Holy Roman Empire. But what about the ten toes and the ten nations? Hasn't the European Union evolved past this stage? Yes it has. That is to be expected. Remember that we are speaking of an eventual world government, not a regional one. The European Union began as ten nations. In fact, Daniel 7:24 shows us that a very significant eleventh nation arises.

That was Spain. Now we have fifteen and Poland and others may come aboard by the year 2002 for the formation of the one-world government or New World Order. The European Superstate, I believe, will provide the platform and the structure for this world dictatorship (Daniel 7:23; Revelation 13:7).

When Christ returns to establish His earthly kingdom, a grouping of ten kings or ten areas remain (Daniel 2:44). Interestingly, all of the prime movers behind the globalist dream have divided the world into ten spheres. The Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, and others that promote a one-world federation eventually break up the globe into ten regions.

One way or another God's Word will come to pass. Only now, after two great European wars have been fought and reunification has occurred, could the promises of the Bible about a world government centered in Rome be possible. Likewise, only now, as we prepare to enter the twenty-first-century computer age could such a government hope to keep track of the commercial activities of every human being on the planet (Revelation 13:16-17). The University of Edinburgh once was proud to claim it had a computer that was able to perform forty billion arithmetic transactions per second. However, that is only one of the ten fastest computers in the world! We now have computers that process upwards of one trillion pieces of information per second. What an up-to-date book is the Bible!

Soon the Rapture will occur, after which a time of unmitigated terror will engulf the globe. "Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it" (Jeremiah 30:7). Daniel 12:1 describes it as a "time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation." Jesus used almost the exact words in Matthew 24:21, "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world." These things must happen. They are right around the corner. But we should have no fear about them, not as believers, anyway.

When these things come to pass, be not terrified (see Luke 21:9). Why? Because Jesus said that when these things come to pass, "Know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand" (Luke 21:31). We believers who are prepared will miss this horrendous hour. We will be gone before any part of the seven-year Tribulation period begins. We will be caught up in the air to meet Jesus in the twinkling of an eye, according to 1 Corinthians 15:51-54. Then we shall return with the King seven years later to rule and reign (Revelation 20:4). Soon we will hear the shout "Come up hither!" (Revelation 4:1). Then eighty-four months later, the Lord returns with His heavenly entourage for the millennial honeymoon (Jude 14; Revelation 19:7-8, 14; 20:4).

My friend, the Rapture is near! The "signs of the times" are everywhere:

Bronzesnake

The Baha'i Influence at the United Nations

Part 1

The Baha’i faith now numbers some five million souls and the Encyclopedia Britannica lists Baha’i as the second-most widely spread independent religion in the world, after Christianity. With Haifa, Israel as the site of its international headquarters, its strong presence in the United Nations, and within other international groups, Baha’i is in a position to play a prominent role in the fulfillment of end times prophecy. In fact they state in their literature that their goal is to do just that. They eagerly await the man who will usher in global peace (otherwise known as Anti-Christ), and hold as one of their central missions the establishment of a united global commonwealth that will control all things political, financial, and spiritual. At times, while reading from Baha’i writings, one begins to feel like you’ve picked up a Bible and began reading directly from the book of Revelation.

The ultimate deception of the end times will involve the worldwide worship of the Antichrist. But the Antichrist will not rise to power alone. His success will result from a worldwide spiritual deception perpetrated by his sidekick, the False Prophet. The Antichrist will not appear until after the falling away (2 Thess. 2:3), but the spirit of Antichrist is already at work perverting the gospel and corrupting the church. The False Prophet will look religious, sound religious and use religious terms, but his message will be straight from Satan (Rev. 13:11). The final phase of apostasy before the Antichrist arrives on the scene will introduce a religious system to be led by the False Prophet. It will be an ecumenical, interfaith religion much like the Baha’i faith.

There are nearly 130 agencies and organizations operating within the U.N. system, each overseeing programs that require vast sums of money and massive bureaucracies to operate. These U.N. programs are all strategic parts of a plan to achieve global governance and eliminate national sovereignty from the planet. Most of these programs are never covered in the world’s media and are able to operate outside of the awareness of the public they hope to govern. This giant bureaucracy is so far outside the realm of accountability that most people have no idea how it is operating or what agenda it is moving forward. Most Christians would be shocked to know how deeply involved the United Nations is in the spiritual agenda of the interfaith movement. Just as they are striving for a world government, they are also working with religious leaders and organizations to create the one world religion found in Bible prophecy - the religion that is to be an integral part of the Antichrist’s rise to power.

The Baha'i community has, as a duly accredited non-governmental organization, long worked closely with the United Nations, supporting many of its goals and programs, and taking a leadership role in several international gatherings. Its involvement in the United Nations dates back to 1945 when it was founded. In 1947, the Baha’i communities of the United States and Canada were recognized by the UN Department of Public Information (DPI), and the next year, the Baha’i International Community itself was recognized by the UN DPI as an international non-governmental organization. In May 1970, they were granted consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), allowing for a greater degree of interaction with the Council and its subsidiary bodies. Since then they have also been granted consultative status with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and relationships with the many UN bodies have deepened and expanded over the years. Today for example, the Baha’i organization has a working relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO), is associated with the United Nations Environment Programme, and is involved in joint activities with UNIFEM and UNICEF as well as many other religious, environmental and social programs within the UN, to include peace-building, human rights, women’s affairs, education, health, and sustainable development.

When you examine the beliefs and writings of the Baha’i community, it is not hard to understand the United Nations’ support and confidence in this organization. Their end goal is the same. Just as the United Nations believes that a new world order is just around the corner, the Baha’i believe the human race is nearing the next stage in their spiritual evolution - a phase that brings us one rung higher on the evolutionary ladder toward world peace and utopia. In their belief statement they write that “the current world confusion and calamitous condition in human affairs is a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order whose boundaries are those of the planet.” They use their voice at the United Nations to convince global leaders of the need for a spiritual element in the development of the new world order. In the Baha’i document “A Vision of World Peace”, written by the Universal House of Justice, they state that “no serious attempt to set human affairs aright, to achieve world peace, can ignore religion.” The Baha’i “incarnation of God”, Abdul’-Baha’i, said, “religion is the greatest of all means for the establishment of order in the world.” They refer to the organized religions of today as “stuff of history” and claim that these religions of exclusivity, intolerance, and perversions of truth are the root of all evil and the cause for all of the world’s social, political, and economic ills.

“A Vision of World Peace” goes on to say that “those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular orthodoxies, who have imposed on their votaries erroneous and conflicting interpretations of the pronouncements of the Prophets of God, bear heavy responsibility for the confusion and artificial barriers erected between faith and reason, science and religion”. They blame the resurgence of “fanatical religious fervor” occurring across the globe for what they call a “dying convulsion that is undermining the spiritual values which are conducive to the unity of mankind”.

In 2 Peter 3:3-5, the Bible warns the following: “First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.”

To be contunied

Part 2

Always eager to fulfill prophecy, a Baha’i statement reads: “The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism, whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise. Where is the “new world” promised by these ideologies? Where is the international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion?” Of course the new world of peace will come when our Lord Jesus Christ returns to establish His kingdom on earth.

I Thessalonians 1:10 “..and wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead--Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.

God warns us not to be deceived by those who will try to pave the way for the Antichrists false peace and deception.

II Thessalonians 2:3, 6-7 "Let no one in any way deceive you for it (the Day of the Lord) will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. And you know what restrains him now, so that in this time he may be revealed. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way."

The Bible teaches us that in the end times a global religion will be established. It is referred to as Mystery Babylon, the mother of all harlots, and it will ride in on the Beast that is Antichrist. We can see the beginnings of this global faith today in our increasingly ecumenical religious leaders, such organizations as the United Religions Initiative, the Parliament of World Religions, and in the United Nations.

The Baha’i faith sees the United Nations as the vessel by which the unifying of the world’s religions into one faith will come to fruition. Their plan for the future of our world and the role of the United Nations and a regionalized world, are an eerily complete and detailed picture of Bible prophesy. Baha’i writings state “the oneness of humanity implies an organic change in the structure of present-day society, a change such as the world has not yet experienced…It calls for no less than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world – a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language.” They also promote a redistribution of wealth and a communist system of government that would be able to bring about this leveling of the playing field. This brings to mind the Antichrist’s future financial system whereby no one will be able to buy or sell without the mark of the Beast.

While the Baha’i praise the United Nations as the only hope for the “world peace promised by all the major religions”, they are not satisfied with its progress and are a loud voice on the international stage for stepping up the pace of our “spiritual evolution”.

In a statement to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002, the Baha’i Community wrote, “despite significant achievements, the United Nations has yet to grasp fully both the constructive role that religion can play in creating a peaceful and prosperous global order, and the destructive impact that religious fanaticism can have on the stability and progress of the world.” They go on to say “while the United Nations’ human rights machinery has been used to condemn religious intolerance and persecution, UN development policies and programs have hardly begun to address religious bigotry as a major obstacle to peace and well-being.” The Baha’is won’t be satisfied until Bible believing Christians join them in believing that all paths lead to God, and all claims to truth are silenced. In response to what they call religious fanaticism, they suggest that religious leaders need to “work untiringly to exorcise religious bigotry and superstition from within their faith traditions and renounce claims to religious exclusivity and finality”. And who decides what is superstition and what is truth? The Baha’i and the world community of course. “Abdul’-Baha’i’, the Baha’i “incarnation of God”, in “The Promulgation of Universal Peace”, defined superstition as “beliefs and opinions that are found contrary to the standards of science; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition”.

Baha’i writings also stress that force and coercion in matters of religion and belief are violations of the Divine command. This sounds reasonable. No one should be forced to accept a religion. However, Baha’i writings also consider proselytizing to be coercion. They believe humans should be able to investigate reality for themselves, and to present your truth to another is to violate that spiritual right. Not to mention, they believe all religions are equally valid and just different expressions of the same God, so there is no reason share your faith with others.

The Baha’i make no distinction between the government and private citizens when condemning intolerant religious speech and expression. They support building on the “Convention Against Discrimination in Education” to include sanctions for those who, in the name of religion, would use education and media to oppress freedom of conscience and to promote division. Whether public or private, they say, there should be no tolerance for educational institutions and initiatives, or media policies and programs that promote intolerant attitudes and behaviors. This would apply to private religious schools and quite possibly churches. In a statement to the United Nations on the spiritual dimension of Sustainable Development, the Baha’i International Community wrote “Ultimately, the creation of a peaceful and just global civilization, in which the diverse peoples of the world live in harmony with one another and with the natural world, will require a significant reorientation of individual and collective goals and a profound transformation in attitudes and behaviors.”

So, just how do they plan to bring about this transformation? In a statement to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, the Baha’i community presented several possible next steps for transforming the United Nations. As a first priority, they proposed holding a convention on freedom of religion and belief to be drafted and ratified as expeditiously as possible by all of the governments of the world. They suggested the foundation within the United Nations system of a permanent religious forum, patterned on the UN’s recently founded Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. The creation of this body would be responsible for beginning the integration of religion into the UN’s work of establishing a peaceful world order.

Of course, to participate in this forum, religious leaders would need to meet certain criteria. Their proposal states “only those religious leaders who make it clear to their followers that prejudice, bigotry and violence have no place in the life of a religious person should be invited to participate in the work of this body.” You can be sure that any religious leader who actually believes that Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him”, would be disqualified from participation. A belief in the Bible as absolute truth puts you in the category of intolerant and would make you guilty of prejudice.

The statement closes by saying that “until the religions of the world renounce fanaticism and work wholeheartedly to eliminate it from within their own ranks, peace and prosperity will prove chimerical. It is they who must raise their voices to end the hatred, exclusivity, oppression of conscience, violations of human rights, denial of equality, opposition to science, and glorification of materialism, violence and terrorism, which are perpetrated in the name of religious truth.” How very tolerant! Oppress someone’s conscience, have the nerve to believe the Bible is the only absolute truth, or claim there is only one path to God, and you will be eliminated. Once again the Baha’i have written their script for the world’s future directly from the prophecies of the Bible, and have given us a perfect example of the Spirit of Antichrist that marks all false prophets and false religions.

KOFI THE KING
U.N. push for power is bad news for Iraq & America
by Amir Taheri
New York Post
May 16, 2004
WITH just seven weeks to the scheduled transfer of power to the Iraqis, the United States seems to be preparing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in exchange for a resolution from the U.N. Security Council.

Convinced that the Bush administration is looking for an exit strategy with the help of the United Nations, France and Russia have already started raising the stakes on the new Iraq resolution sought by the Americans. In a series of recent statements and leaks, the two veto-holding powers have made it clear that they will not settle for anything less than a humiliating abdication by the United States of its responsibilities in Iraq.

To begin with, they want Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. point-man in Baghdad, to name the new Iraqi government.

The Algerian diplomat has already made it clear that he is looking for "fresh faces," which means excluding all those who have worked with the U.S.-led Coalition since liberation.

In other words: Not only will the liberators have no say in who governs Iraq in the transition, but those Iraqis who have worked hard to make liberation a success will also be punished for their efforts.

Brahimi and his French and Russian backers also insist that the United States should have no control over the newly created Iraqi armed forces, police and civil defense corps.

This would create two military presences in Iraq: one led by the Americans, the other by Mr. Brahimi. It is not clear what each of those two would do. Would the Americans be cantoned in remote bases, spending time in a Desert of the Tatars exercise in waiting for suicide bombers to strike?

At the same time, however, the Brahimi plan envisages that all bills will continue to be sent to the Americans, who have allocated over $80 billion to the Iraqi project. In other words: The U.N. rules, the Americans pay.

Oh, to be sure, Mr. Brahimi will consult the U.S. and U.K. allies on occasion. But the two coalition partners will have no more of a say in what happens than will Russia, France and China, who opposed the liberation of Iraq in the first place.

The veto-wielding trio still refuse to acknowledge that there was liberation. Instead, the Franco-Russian "concepts" circulating for a new resolution speak of "ending the occupation." This means that Iraq was free under Saddam Hussein but became occupied territory when the Coalition forces arrived.

Paris and Moscow believe that the Bush administration is desperate enough to accept almost anything.

This is why they insist that the future U.N. interim czar should have the power to revoke any of the numerous edicts approved by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraq Governing Council - e.g., Brahimi could cancel the edict that banned the Ba'ath Party. He also intends to cancel the statement of principles that commits Iraq to building a Western-style democratic system rather than a modified version of Arab despotism.

"A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!" shouted Shakespeare's forlorn hero.

"A resolution, a resolution, the whole of Iraq for a resolution!" shouts the Bush administration now.

What on earth might justify the handover of Iraq to the United Nations? Not a single Iraqi wants this, although most Iraqis would welcome some role for the U.N. as long as it is not in the driving seat.

Stalin once asked "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

A similar question could be asked about the United Nations.

Are the French, the Russians and the Chinese prepared to commit any troops to Iraq? If so, what will their mission be? To drive out the Americans and their allies?

Those who believed that toppling Saddam was wrong from the start have no interest in investing blood and money to ensure that Bush's theory of regime change produces positive results.

The United Nations does not believe in a democratic Iraq. It has no money to bring in. Nor does it have any troops to contribute. Worse still, it thinks that only by rubbing the Americans' nose in the dirt can it restore its own shattered credibility.

Wherever the U.N. has been in the driver's seat, it has either restored the status quo ante (Sierra Leone), or frozen the status quo (Cambodia). What Iraq needs is something new - let's call it a new life in freedom.

From 1990 to 2003, the U.N. was officially at war against Saddam Hussein; it passed 18 mandatory resolutions on Iraq. But it did nothing to implement any of those resolutions, except through the Oil-for-Food scam in which $4 billion disappeared in corrupt deals that involved senior U.N. officials.

So what is the rationale for putting the U.N. in charge in Iraq, even for a single day?

The liberation of Iraq led to a contract between two sides only: the U.S.-led Coalition of the liberators on the one hand, the people of Iraq on the other. There is no reason to seek a triangle. Two is company, but three is a crowd, even in the most pleasurable instances of a ménage a trois.

The Coalition seized the power that Saddam had confiscated from the people of Iraq. That power must be returned to its rightful owners - the people of Iraq - not to the U.N. or any other outside element.

Now, here is how the U.N. can be useful, although Iraq could still do well without any U.N. presence at all.

The interim government should be chosen by the Iraqis through consultations orchestrated by the Coalition. Even now, it is not too late to organize a conference for this purpose, as the Bonn meeting did for Afghanistan before its liberation.

If such a conference proves difficult to organize in time, a reshuffled version of the Governing Council, in which all the Iraqi political parties, except the Ba'ath, are represented, could form the basis of the transitional government. America should show that it is loyal to its friends and allies, that it does not abandon them for domestic electoral calculations.

The new Iraqi interim government would immediately conclude a series of agreements with the Coalition spelling out the terms under which U.S. and allied forces remain in Iraq during the transition. That would be an arrangement between the Iraqis as hosts and the liberators as guests, with no third party intervention.

The Iraqi interim government could then invite the United Nations to help with organizing general elections next year. The Security Council could then pass a resolution to set up an Iraq election mission.

Even then, Brahimi might not be the best candidate. After all, he was a senior member of an Algerian government that specialized in electoral fraud for three decades. (A Swiss or Norwegian diplomat might be a better choice. One could also enlist Jimmy Carter who, for want of something better to do, likes to travel the world observing elections.)

Regime change in Iraq and putting it on the path of democratization represent the main planks of the Bush administration's global policy. Building a new Iraq is also of vital importance in winning the War on Terror.

It is thus a mystery why anyone should want to risk all that has been achieved so far by handing power over to Kofi Annan and his French and Russian puppet-masters. It even risks domestic disaster for the Bush administration, for it greatly increases the chances for truly broad-based Iraqi unrest before the November U.S. elections.

The people of Iraq want to rule themselves, and that requires free and fair elections. Who could best help them achieve that - the United States, Britain and their other democratic allies, or the United Nations, a majority of whose member-states do not believe in free elections and people's rule?

Front Page Story
Oil-for-Food scandal:
The French Connection

In the hidden-behind-the-Iraqi-prison-abuse-story oil-for-food scandal, the plot, as they say, thickens.

First came the shock that United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan’s son, Kojo was connected to the ill-fated program. According to the New York Post On-Line edition, family members of former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali are officers of a Panamanian-registered company in which Benon Sevan, a UN assistant Secretary General, appointed to administer the oil-for-food program, had a connection.

The Post said it got its information about the Boutros-Ghali connection from Claude Hankes-Drielsma, a British businessman and advisor to the Iraqi governing council.

The oil-for-food program could totally annihilate the credibility of the world’s largest bureaucracy, the United Nations.

Iraq sold $47 billion worth of oil in this program, giving Saddam Hussein a $4.7 billion personal profit.

Kicked off eight years ago as a UN plan to feed hungry Iraqis with Iraq’s legendary oil revenues, it ended last year in a stunning quagmire of alleged bribes, kickbacks and billions lost to "The Butcher of Baghdad".

Vouchers given to Sevan and other politicians, businessmen and political parties on the list enabled them to serve as middlemen and flip the contract to another oil company making between 10 cents and 60 cents profit on each barrel of oil.

The oil-for-food tap has never been turned off. The Post says there are "several hundred million" from the program sitting in three banks in Jordan. Someone is drawing the money from these accounts, but "no one knows whom."

Just weeks ago, Boutros-Ghali was awarded the prestigious Order of Canada. Only nine foreigners have been so honoured, and even as the former UN Secretary General was receiving the award, some Canadian officials were calling it "strange" because the Rwandan genocide happened under his watch as UN Secretary General.

It was under Boutros-Ghali’s direction that the UN 420-page Our Global Neighbourhood, which produced the blueprint for global governance, was published.

When Boutros-Ghali left the UN, he went on to head the Francophonie, the organization of French-speaking nations.

It gets worse.

Canadians are also said to have made oil deals with Saddam, and ties with the Canadian Company involved go all the way up to Prime Minister Paul Martin’s office.

A man called Benon Sevan may be the UN kingpin in the oil-for-food program.

In the Canadian connection, it’s a man called Paul Desmaris. Desmaris is the largest shareholder and director of TotalFinaElf, the largest corporation in France, which held tens of billions of dollars in contracts with the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein.

Martin replaced Prime Minister Jean Chretien last December. Chretien’s daughter, France is married to Andre Desmaris, son of Paul Desmaris.

Martin maintains powerful UN connections through Annan’s special UN advisor Maurice Strong. In fact, Strong, who also happens to be the architect of the Kyoto Protocol, hired Martin in the 1960s to work for Paul Desmaris Sr.

According to respected Financial Post columnist Diane Francis, "In 1974, Desmaris made Martin president of Canada Steamship Lines and then in 1981, he made him spectacularly rich by selling the company to him and a partner for $180 million. Martin’s shipping company is estimated to be worth about $424 million, making him the 63rd richest person in Canada."

Shortly after his arrival in the Prime Minister’s office, Martin gave the company to his three sons.

Canadian columnists have lamented that Canada Steamship Lines has been the recipient of hundreds of thousands from the Liberal government in Ottawa.

In order to escape Canadian taxes, ships operated by Canada Steamship lines fly flags of convenience rather than the Canadian flag.

At the United Nations, it’s not only a global world; it’s the proverbial small one.

Quartet Statement
23 September 2007

The Quartet Principals - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, High Representative for European Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado, and European Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner - met today in New York to discuss the situation in the Middle East. They were joined by Quartet Representative Tony Blair.

The Quartet recognized the present opportunity for progress and the robust regional and international desire for peace in the Middle East. The Quartet expressed its strong support for the ongoing bilateral talks between Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas and welcomed the formation of Israeli and Palestinian teams to discuss the core issues that are essential to progress towards their shared goal of a negotiated two-state solution and establishment of a viable Palestinian state living side-by-side with a secure Israel. The Quartet welcomed parallel steps taken by the parties to build confidence and improve conditions on the ground. The Quartet underscored the need for immediate additional steps to meet previous commitments, including those under the Roadmap and the Agreement on Movement and Access, so as to create a positive atmosphere conducive to progress towards a two-state solution.

The Quartet expressed support for the international meeting on Israeli-Palestinian peace called for by President Bush in his July 16 statement. Principals discussed the meeting and agreed that it should be substantive and serious, providing support to the parties in their bilateral discussions and negotiations in order to move forward urgently on a successful path to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza that will unite all Palestinians. The goal of this meeting is to bring together key members of the international community in support of efforts between the Israelis and Palestinians to end their conflict and help bring a final peace in the Middle East. The Quartet expects the meeting to affirm its support for the two-state solution based on a rejection of violence and its support for progress by the parties in their bilateral discussions. The meeting should also review progress that has been made toward building Palestinian institutions and discuss innovative and effective ways to support further Palestinian reform. The Quartet will work for a successful international meeting and for the implementation of its conclusions.

Quartet Representative Tony Blair briefed the Quartet on his meetings and discussions in the region, and discussed the way forward on the development of a functioning Palestinian economy, and the institutions of governance that will form the foundation of a Palestinian state. The Quartet agreed that Mr. Blair should work closely with the Palestinian Authority government in developing a multi-year agenda for institutional and economic development, and looked forward to strong technical and financial support from the international community in support of these efforts, beginning with the September 24 Ad Hoc Liaison Committee meeting. In that context, the Quartet called upon all countries that are able to contribute to urgently provide financial support to the Palestinian Authority. The Quartet endorsed an extension of the Temporary International Mechanism until December 31, 2007, and expressed its hope that during this period a mechanism would be established to facilitate the transition to direct international assistance to this Palestinian Authority government.

The Quartet expressed concern over conditions in Gaza. It agreed on the importance of continued emergency and humanitarian assistance without obstruction. The Quartet called for the continued provision of essential services. It expressed its urgent concern over the continued closure of major crossing points given the impact on the Palestinian economy and daily life. The Quartet further noted its grave concern over the continued rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, and recent efforts by Hamas to stifle freedom of speech and the press.

The Quartet discussed its forthcoming meeting with members of the Arab League follow up committee to consult on next steps on the Arab Peace Initiative and regional support for bilateral talks between the parties.

The Quartet reaffirmed its commitment to a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on UNSCRs 242 and 338.

Quartet Statement (http://www.un.org/news/dh/infocus/middle_east/quartet-23sept2007.htm)

UN established to prevent a Holocaust

No one disagrees that Iran speaks openly of its desire to wipe Israel off the map, Foreign minister tells United Nations General Assembly. 'Too many see the danger but walk idly by. It is time for the United Nations to live up to their promise of never again,' she says

Yitzhak Benhorin
10.01.07, 16:31
Israel News

WASHINGTON – Iran speaks openly of its desire to wipe Israel off the map, and the world does nothing, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the United Nations General Assembly on Monday.

"Too many see the danger but walk idly by – hoping that someone else will take care of it," she said, adding that Iran was the most prominent sponsor of terrorist in the world.

"It is a major source of instability and conflict in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and across the entire Middle East and it is the enemy of Arab-Israeli co-existence," she added.

Addressing the issue of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial, Livni said, "No one disagrees that Iran denies the Holocaust and speaks openly of its desire to wipe a member state – mine – off the map.

"And none disagrees that, in violation of Security Council resolutions, it is actively pursuing the means to achieve this end.

"But there are still those who, in the name of consensus and engagement, continue to obstruct the urgent steps which are needed to bring Iran's sinister ambitions to a halt."

The foreign minister reminded the representatives of the UN member states that the organization was established after the Shoah with the goal of preventing another Holocaust.

"What is the value, we have to ask, of an organization which is unable to take effective action in the face of a direct assault on the very principles it was founded to protect?

"It is time for the United Nations, and the States of the world, to live up to their promise of never again. To say enough is enough, to act now and to defend their basic values."

In her speech, Livni also mentioned the three kidnapped IDF soldiers, whose family members were present at the Assembly while she spoke.

'World cannot afford another terror state'

Addressing the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Livni said, "There is no substitute for the bilateral process. Failure is not an option – but it is for the parties themselves to define success."

The foreign minister said that Israel opposed the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.

"The foundation for true peace lies in the vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. The world shares this vision, but it is also important that it clearly embraces the two core principles that emerge from it.

The first – two states, two homelands - just as Israel is homeland to the Jewish people, so Palestine will be established as the homeland and the national answer for the Palestinian people, including the refugees.

"The second – living side by side in peace and security - just as a viable and prosperous Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza is an Israeli interest, so a secure Israel must be a Palestinian interest. The world cannot afford another terror state."

In a direct appeal to the Arab world, Livni stated, "As the parties take the risks for peace, we look to the international community and the Arab and Muslim world, to offer support, not to stipulate conditions.

This support comes in many forms. It comes through economic and political assistance to the new Palestinian government, committed to co-existence and seeking to build the foundations of a peaceful and prosperous state.

"It comes through clear endorsement of any political understandings reached between the parties.

"It comes through enhancing and deepening regional ties and cooperation between the Arab world and Israel, while in parallel we make advancement towards Israeli-Palestinian peace.

"And, finally, it comes by confronting those determined to prevent us from succeeding."

The foreign minister stressed that Israel had proved that it was ready for a territorial compromise that lasting peace entails, "But we also know– especially after withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza - that territorial withdrawal by itself will not bring peace unless we address the core clash of values that lies beneath the conflict.

"Israel may be on the front lines of this battle, but it is not our fight alone. This is a global battle."

Livni noted that the Middle East conflict was "not a cause of this global extremist agenda, but a consequence of it."

She called on the nations of the world "to be partners in a shared global struggle against the extremism and terror that feed conflict, for your sake not just for ours."

The foreign minister warned that "the notion that this battle was a local one - limited to isolated regions - collapsed in this city with the twin towers on a September morning six years ago.

"Today it is clear that the extremists are engaged in a bloody war against civilians and communities, against hearts and minds, in every corner of the world."

'Reject those who abuse democracy'

"This battle is global not just because it targets civilians everywhere, but also because the extremists have taken aim at the fundamental pillars of every modern society: democracy, tolerance and education.

"These are the new battlefields of the 21st century, and it is in these arenas, more than any other, that the future of our world will be decided.

"Democracy is a profound ideal, but it is also a vulnerable one," Livni said.

"Today, in different parts of the world, extremists - opposed to the very ideals of democracy - are entering the democratic process not to abandon their violent agenda but to advance it.

"As a spokesman for Al Qaeda recently declared 'We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy'. This should be a wake up-call for us all.

"It is time to reclaim democracy, and this begins by rejecting those who abuse it.

Genuine democracy is about values before it is about voting. No true democracy on earth allows armed militia, or groups with racist or violent agendas, to participate in elections."

The foreign minister made it clear that "Hamas and Hizbullah must be presented with a clear choice - between the path of violence and the path of legitimacy. They cannot have both. And it is this same stark choice that must be presented to the radical regime in Iran."

Following her speech, Livni will leave New York after eight days of meetings with world leaders ahead of the US-sponsored Mideast peace conference scheduled to take place in November in Maryland.

UN established to prevent a Holocaust (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3455378,00.html)

General Assembly Holds Dialogue on Intercultural Understanding
4 October 2007

The United Nations General Assembly today opens its first-ever formal, high-level dialogue on issues of interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation.

Freedom of religion and belief and the need for respect for a diversity of religions and cultures are on the agenda as delegates open the session, which is being convened by Assembly President Srgjan Kerim. An informal interactive hearing with civil society representatives is also being held to provide a platform for exchange of views among Member States and civil society, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector.

Among those slated to participate are leading academics, religious leaders and other civil society representatives. The High Representative of the Secretary-General for the Alliance of Civilizations, Jorge Sampaio, will address the interactive informal hearing.

At its last session, on 20 December 2006, the Assembly adopted a resolution on the promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace which encouraged Member States, the UN system and civil society to carry out a range of initiatives in an effort to promote understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity of religion, belief, culture and language.

General Assembly holds dialogue on interreligious and intercultural understanding

The United Nations General Assembly today opens its first-ever formal, high-level dialogue on issues of interreligious and intercultural understanding and cooperation.

Freedom of religion and belief and the need for respect for a diversity of religions and cultures are on the agenda as delegates open the session, which is being convened by Assembly President Srgjan Kerim. An informal interactive hearing with civil society representatives is also being held to provide a platform for exchange of views among Member States and civil society, including non-governmental
(NGOs) and the private sector.

Among those slated to participate are leading academics, religious leaders and other civil society representatives. The High Representative of the Secretary-General for the Alliance of Civilizations, Jorge Sampaio, will address the interactive informal hearing.

At its last session, on 20 December 2006, the Assembly adopted a resolution on the promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation for peace which encouraged Member States, the UN system and civil society to carry out a range of initiatives in an effort to promote understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity of religion, belief, culture and language.

General Assembly Holds Dialogue on Intercultural Understanding (http://newsblaze.com/story/20071004100859tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html)

General Assembly session on interreligious dialogue advances values – President
Srgjan Kerim

4 October 2007 – The General Assembly today convened its first-ever high-level dialogue on interreligious and intercultural understanding in a move the 192-member body’s president termed a step forward for advancing the values enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

“By convening this event, the General Assembly has taken an important stand,” Srgjan Kerim told participants. “We are reaffirming the values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But more importantly, we are taking concrete steps to advance these values around the world.”

The Assembly President, who convened the two-day session, called for a sustained international effort to address the issue through exchanges of information. “We must begin a global dialogue, using public campaigns and all forms of media, to spread greater awareness of the issues,” he declared.

“Governments can play an additional role by adopting educational curricula that instil values of peace and tolerance,” he added, pointing out that children are not born with prejudice.

In order to “eliminate all distorted notions that deepen barriers and widen divides,” he called for a “multi-faceted dialogue that promotes unity in diversity, and replaces misunderstanding with mutual understanding and acceptance.”

The active involvement of the media, private sector, civil society, faith groups and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will be crucial to this effort, he said. “Their insights and outreach will be instrumental in helping to achieve our goal.”

Toward that end, he welcomed an informal interactive hearing planned for the afternoon aimed at fostering an exchange of views among Member States and civil society and the private sector. Among those slated to participate are leading academics, religious leaders and other civil society representatives.

Also addressing the event today, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed the need to promote the idea that differences among peoples, far from being a threat, are what enrich humanity as a whole.

“It is time to explain that different religions, belief systems and cultural backgrounds are essential to the richness of the human experience,” Mr. Ban said. “And it is time to stress that our common humanity is greater – far greater – than our outward differences.”

Mr. Ban said that the different people he has met in his travels during his first nine months in office all share one common emotion – “a universal longing for peace, and an aspiration of prosperity.”

Mr. Ban noted that today’s gathering comes at a particularly auspicious time, as Jews mark the celebration of the Torah and Muslims approach the end of the holy month of Ramadan. “Such occasions remind us that men and women of faith around the world can be brought together, rather than separated, by their convictions and their belief in something greater than themselves.”

He also pointed out that in today’s era of global travel and instant satellite transmissions, people everywhere are encountering “less of the familiar, and more of ‘the other,’” leading to increased tensions among cultures and religions.

In light of that trend, Mr. Ban emphasized that “it is time – indeed, it is past time – for a constructive and committed dialogue; a dialogue amongst individuals, amongst communities, and between nations.”

General Assembly session on interreligious dialogue advances values – President (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=24188&Cr=general&Cr1=assembly)

U.N. looks other way as tsunami aid pilfered
$500 million lost being to fraud and corruption: 'The oil-for-food scandal taught them nothing'

Reconstruction funds channeled through the United Nations for the reconstruction of tsunami-devastated Indonesia are being systematically pilfered and skimmed to the tune of $500 million dollars because the world body has failed to implement its own anti-fraud measures, the U.N.'s former deputy director of investigations has charged.

Frank Montil, a former Australian Security Intelligence Organization officer, worked for a decade investigating fraud and corruption within the U.N.

Montil told the Sydney Morning Herald he had been sent to the region ravaged by the Dec. 26, 2004, tsunami as a senior U.N. investigator to identify the risk of fraud and mismanagement that could be expected when the monies, raised by appeals to the public and allocated by the U.N., would begin flowing into the area.

"When you have a disaster zone, you have all sorts of drifters and conmen walking in. It is the equivalent to the old gold rushes," Montil said.

Based on his research, Montil reported an automatic 10 percent skim on every project to pay bribes "to a variety of parties who may have an influence on whether or not a project will go ahead."

Collusion between winning contractors and government officials was identified in large infrastructure and building projects. Where public officials were out of the loop, collusion among large contractors to rig bids was documented.

According to the report Montil delivered to the U.N., colluding companies would all submit inflated bids, with the low bidder then subcontracting portions of the project to unsuccessful "competitors."

Government bodies applying for U.N. aid, Montil warned, were "duplicating, tripling and even quadrupling" their applications to various agencies for the same equipment.

"As such there is a risk for fraud, in that a government body could secure excess office space, and twice, three times or even four times its equipment requirement – including motor vehicles," he wrote.

Montil's report went unheeded, sitting on former Secretary-General Kofi Annan's desk for eight months.

"My estimations of fraud were that at the bare minimum in Banda Aceh alone there would be at least $80 or $90 million disappearing in fraud and corruption. That's only in emergency funds," he said.

"That doesn't include the half a billion that will be lost to fraud and corruption in reconstruction funds."

The U.N.'s handling of the disaster has come under attack from other quarters.

WND reported comments made by the U.N.'s "humanitarian czar," Jan Egeland, that Western nations were being "stingy" in providing relief. General Secretary Annan reportedly refused to leave his ski vacation in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for three days after the disaster struck to take hands-on leadership in the tsunami relief effort.

Additionally, the U.N. agency charged with monitoring seismic activity around the globe sent all of its 310 employees on vacation the week of the massive earthquake and tsunami in South Asia, preventing any possibility of warning to the 227,000 victims.

In response to an inquiry by the Herald about Montil's report, tabled last December, a U.N. spokesman said: "The Deputy Secretary-General indicated that a number of funds and programs had expressed the view that their tsunami activities had already been extensively audited and that a further consolidated report would be superfluous."

Montil characterized the response as "willful abdication of the U.N.'s obligations."

"The oil-for-food scandal taught them nothing," he told the Herald.

Libya wins seat on U.N. Security Council

Libya — a former pariah state condemned by the U.S. as a sponsor of terrorism — won a seat on the U.N. Security Council Tuesday without opposition from the Bush administration.
ADVERTISEMENT

The U.S. decision not to support a rival African country for the seat angered families of victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland — some of whom watched the vote in the U.N. General Assembly from the visitors gallery. They said the United States should have done more to prevent Libya from getting a seat on the U.N.'s most powerful body.

Dan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., who lost his 20-year-old daughter Theodora, said the vast majority of Lockerbie victims were Americans. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi "has more American blood on his hands than any other surviving dictator in the world," he said.

"It is a disgrace that the United States would not even put up a fight and try to defeat Libya," he said. "America just hasn't stood up on this issue at all. ... And the Libyan government is working diligently to get the one person convicted in this case out of jail in Scotland."

Just over a year ago, the U.S. removed the African nation from the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The U.S. had regarded Libya as a pariah state for decades after Gadhafi came to power in a 1969 coup and turned his country against the West. It was the target of U.S. airstrikes in 1986, and subject to sanctions.

Libya was blamed for the Lockerbie bombing as well as a West Berlin disco bombing that killed two American soldiers in 1986. The U.S. accused the country of sponsoring terrorist groups from the Irish Republican Army to Palestinian factions and of undermining pro-Western governments in Africa.

In 2003, Libya officially accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and reached a $2.7 billion settlement with families of the victims. The next year, it paid $170 million compensation to the families of the 170 victims of a 1989 bombing of a French passenger jet.

Relations between Washington and Tripoli have improved since Libya's surprise decision in the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 to dismantle its clandestine nuclear weapons program under international inspection.

The Bush administration said in May 2006 that it was resuming regular diplomatic relations with Libya for the first time in more than a quarter-century.

"The world changes," U.S. deputy ambassador to the U.N. Alejandro Wolff told reporters when asked about Libya joining the council.

He did not reveal whether the U.S. voted for or against Libya, saying the U.S. does not disclose that information.

Wolff took note of the families of Lockerbie victims who watched the vote from the visitors gallery.

"Their presence was felt here today. I felt it and I know other delegations felt it," he said.

Glenn Johnson, who lost his 21-year-old daughter Beth Ann, complained that Libya still owes the families $2 million apiece as part of a settlement it made with the U.S. The families have already received $8 million each, said Johnson, who chairs the group "Victims of Pan Am 103," representing families of about 160 of the 270 victims.

"We really felt let down when the State Department didn't make the objections it has in the past," Johnson said. "The U.S. allowed (Libya) off the hook even though for some reason Libya decided it didn't have to take the last step of the agreement. We can't understand it."

In 2000 the United States successfully blocked Sudan's bid for a council seat, and Washington's candidate, Mauritius, won. But in 2005, the U.S. backed Nicaragua and Peru won. This year, Washington did not back a candidate against Libya.

Wolff said the U.S. is pursuing the compensation issue bilaterally with the Libyan government and will continue to do so.

Libya's U.N. ambassador, Giadalla Ettalhi, said the country received 178 "yes" votes in the 192-member General Assembly.

"It means I can say we are back to the international community, that all the problems we have faced in the past are now behind us," he told reporters. "I think our relations with the U.S. nowadays are back to normal ... and I think they have not worked against our candidacy. We are sure about that.

"We have fulfilled completely our agreement with the Lockerbie people," he added.

Libya was elected to a two-year term starting Jan. 1. It will join the council along with another former U.S. enemy, Vietnam.

The U.S. restored diplomatic ties with Vietnam in 1995 — 20 years after the end of the Vietnam War — and is now the country's largest trading partner.

Burkina Faso was also elected with no opposition. Croatia and Costa Rica won seats on the third ballot after their opponents, the Czech Republic and the Dominican Republic, dropped out after two rounds of secret balloting.

Ten of the council's 15 seats are filled for two-year stretches. The other five are occupied by its veto-wielding permanent members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

Kofi Annan Joins the Board of the United Nations Foundation

WASHINGTON, D.C. (October 24, 2007) — The United Nations Foundation announced today that Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations and winner of the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize, has joined the Foundation’s Board of Directors.

“Kofi Annan is one of the world’s great moral leaders, was a great Secretary-Genera,l and is a tireless advocate for the United Nations’ life-saving work on behalf of peace and progress,” said Ted Turner, Founder and Chairman of the UN Foundation’s Board of Directors. “He was present at the creation of the United Nations Foundation, and we are honored that he has accepted the invitation to join the Board.”

“I am delighted to join Ted Turner and the remarkable members of the UN Foundation Board to help advance the UN’s work around the world. The United Nations is the world’s platform for solving the great challenges of the 21st century – from war to HIV/AIDS, human rights to global climate change,” said Kofi Annan. “The UN Foundation allows people from all sectors – from all walks of life – to get involved in helping solve these problems. I am pleased that my service on the Foundation’s Board will allow me to continue to contribute to the UN’s mission of global peace, prosperity, opportunity, and justice.”

“One of the hallmarks of his tenure as Secretary-General was opening the UN to enhanced cooperation with business and civil society. We look forward to continuing to work with him to engage governments, NGOs, corporations, and other experts in solving the great global challenges facing the world,” said Timothy E. Wirth, President of the UN Foundation.

Kofi Annan was Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1997 through 2006. He was a UN veteran who took his first job with the organization in 1962 and held a number of posts, including Deputy Director to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (1980-83) and Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping (1995-96). In 2001, Secretary-General Annan and the United Nations were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in global peace and cooperation. He was succeeded on January 1, 2007, by South Korean Ban Ki-moon.

Former Secretary-General Annan is a native of Ghana. He graduated from Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1961. He was a fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management from 1971 to 1972 and received a Master of Science degree.

Since leaving the United Nations, Kofi Annan has continued to advocate for better policies to meet the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable, particularly in Africa.

Kofi Annan Joins the Board of the United Nations Foundation (http://www.unfoundation.org/media_center/press/2007/pr_102407.asp)

UN Secretary-General’s call, examination “the crisis in international security"
(I've inbedded the link to each section and sub-section. DW.)

The initiative asked experts from a wide range of perspective to submit short policy briefs intended to inform the dialogue surrounding the UN Secretary-General’s call for an examination of “the crisis in international security.”

These short pieces, found below organized by issue areas, address three questions:

* What is the problem?
* What can be done about it?
* What contributions can be made by collective action mechanisms such as the United Nations?

Some papers (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/panel_papers.asp)have been briefed directly to the Panel. The project also accepted non-commissioned papers for publication on this site. Click here (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/comments.asp) to view these submissions or to propose one. :o

Use of Force (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/use_force.asp)

Legitimacy and the use of force (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/use_force.asp#2)
Preemptive attack (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/use_force.asp#3)
Collective security and humanitarian intervention (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/use_force.asp#4)
Juridical institutions and security (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/use_force.asp#5)

Regulation of Deadly Armaments (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/regulation_arms.asp)

Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/regulation_arms.asp#7)
Conventional weapons/small arms (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/regulation_arms.asp#8)

Terrorism /Non-state Actors (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/terrorism_non_state_actors.asp)

Non-state actors (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/terrorism_non_state_actors.asp#10)
Terrorism (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/terrorism_non_state_actors.asp#11)
Transnational crime (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/terrorism_non_state_actors.asp#12)

Strengthening International Peacebuilding Capabilities (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/strength_int_peace_cap.asp)

Peace Interventions—futile or vital (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/strength_int_peace_cap.asp#14)
Collective Response to Crisis (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/strength_int_peace_cap.asp#15)
Post Conflict Reconstruction (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/strength_int_peace_cap.asp#16)
Democratic governance and external intervention (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/strength_int_peace_cap.asp#17)

Foundations for Peace and Security (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_peace_sec.asp)

Human rights and challenges to security (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_peace_sec.asp#19)
State sovereignty and external partners (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_peace_sec.asp#20)
Eligibility standards for UN candidacies (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_peace_sec.asp#21)
Women in peace and security (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_peace_sec.asp#ws)

Foundations of a More Secure, Equitable and Sustainable World: Freedom from Want (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp)

Root causes of peace (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#23)
Trade and insecurity (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#24)
Security and development (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#25)
Linkages between environment, population and development (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#26)
Biological security (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#28)

Ingredients of Success or Failure in UN Reform Efforts (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers_cat/found_sust_world.asp#27)

UN Secretary-General’s call, examination “the crisis in international security" (http://www.un-globalsecurity.org/papers.asp)

Enjoy lots of reading brothers and sisters. :D

UN chief: Hizbullah rearming 'disconcerting'
Associated Press
THE JERUSALEM POST

Oct. 25, 2007

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday night that information he continues to receive that Hizbullah "has rebuilt and increased its military capacity" to a higher level than before the Second Lebanon War "is deeply disconcerting."

In a report to the Security Council, Ban said it was critical for the militia to complete its transformation into a solely political party.

The secretary-general repeated his "urgent call on all Lebanese parties to immediately halt all efforts to rearm and engage in weapons training, and to instead return to dialogue and conciliation as the only viable method of settling issues and resolving the ongoing political crisis."

All parties must also affirm their commitment to the disarmament of militias, including Hizbullah, he said.

Ban said he expects "unequivocal cooperation" from the region, especially from Syria and Iran which maintain close ties with Hizbullah.

He called for an end to "foreign interference" that has worsened Lebanon's political crisis and urged rival Lebanese parties to elect a new president, warning against a power vacuum that could splinter the government.

Ban made clear that he was particularly referring to Syria, adding that he had again received information from countries in the region "that appears to corroborate the allegation that Syria facilitates the flow of weapons and fighters across the Syrian-Lebanese border."

The secretary-general expressed deep concern at the continuing insecurity in Lebanon, the apparent targeting of pro-Western members of Parliament for assassination, and widespread reports that all parties are re-arming in violation of a 2004 Security Council resolution which calls for the disarming and disbanding of all militias.

The attempt to choose a successor to pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud before he steps down on Nov. 24 has become Lebanon's most serious political crisis since the end of the 1975-90 civil war. Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's pro-Western, anti-Syrian government, which holds a slim majority in parliament, and pro-Syrian opposition factions led by the Hizbullah militant group have been deadlocked for 11 months.

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Monday postponed a parliamentary session to elect a new president until Nov. 12 to give rival factions time to agree on a compromise candidate - just 12 days from Lahoud's departure. Failure to elect a president could throw the country's deep political crisis into a tailspin that could result in a power vacuum or two rival governments, a dark reminder of the last two years of the civil war when army units loyal to competing administrations battled it out.

"A return to political dialogue among the Lebanese parties is absolutely imperative under the current conditions, and the only way to resolve all relevant issues," Ban said. "There must not be a constitutional void at the level of the presidency, nor two rivaling governments. Constitutional provisions should be fully respected."

While there have been continuous attempts to resolve the political crisis, he said, "there continue to be widespread reports and allegations that parties and groups on all sides of the political spectrum are preparing for the possible failure of such negotiations, with armaments and military training reported widely."

The secretary-general said he is "acutely aware" that without political dialogue and the support and engagement "of all relevant external parties and supporters of Lebanon," the country will not be able to assert and sustain its authority throughout the country and political independence.

"But I am equally convinced that the deep foreign involvement in Lebanon has done little to decrease tension in that country," he said.

"Instead, the foreign penetration and interference in Lebanon has only worsened the crisis. It is time that foreign interference stop and that the Lebanese people and their political representatives, alone determine the fate of Lebanon," Ban stressed.

"In this context, I reiterate my expectation vis-a-vis Syria," he said.

The secretary-general urged Damascus to fully implement the 2004 resolution calling for disbanding all militias, strict respect for Lebanon's unity and political independence, and free and fair presidential elections. It was adopted in response to a decision to extend Lahoud's term for three years, which required changing the constitution and helped trigger the current crisis.

"I welcome the assertions and pledges in Syria's recent letter to me and expect to see Syria's commitment to Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence reflected in further tangible steps in the coming period," Ban said.

While the "foreign interference" reference was directed at Syria, the secretary-general also noted Iran's support for Hizbullah. The opposition also accuses the United States of heavy involvement in Lebanese affairs in support of Saniora's government.

The anti-Syrian majority has accused Syria of responsibility for a string of political assassinations - an accusation Syria vehemently denies.

Ban said in the report that the assassinations of members of Saniora's ruling coalition have reduced its majority to 68 out of 127 members, raising the specter of "further deterioration" and upsetting the political balance that has existed since elections in spring 2005.

"The pattern of political assassinations in Lebanon strongly suggests a concerted effort aimed at undermining the democratic institutions of Lebanon," he said.

UN chief: Hizbullah rearming 'disconcerting' (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380646038&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

United Nations vote ignored
Spokeswoman unaware of call for end to Cuba trade sanctions

A spokeswoman for President Bush says she was unaware of a United Nations vote calling for the United States to end its trade sanctions on the communist island of Cuba.

"The United Nations, by a vote of 184 to 4, wants the U.S. trade embargo against communist-ruled China lifted. And my question: Since the president only a week ago vowed to keep the embargo in place, does he consider the U.N. vote an attempt by the international organization to impose its will on the United States?" was the question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House.

"I have to confess I don't know about that vote," said spokeswoman Dana Perino.

The U.N. vote, according to reports, reiterated its call for "all states" to refrain from "promulgating and applying laws and measures (such as those in the U.S. embargo) in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law."

Opposing the measure were the United States, Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands. Micronesia abstained.

The endorsed plan called for "states that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps" to repeal or overturn them "as soon as possible."

Only a week earlier Bush had said, "As long as the regime maintains its monopoly over the political and economic life of the Cuba people, the United States will keep the embargo in place."

The ailing dictator, Fidel Castro, has ruled the communist island since 1959. Last year he turned over power to his brother, Raul.

In a second question, Kinsolving asked: "Newsweek reports that the William J. Clinton Presidential Library has become widely known as Little Rock's Fort Knox, because barely one-half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents in this $165 million building are available to be examined by the public. And my question: When President Bush helped to dedicate this expensive building, did he believe there would ever be as much censorship of its contents, and does he believe this is right or wrong?"

"I'm sure that that never entered the president's mind. But I'm also equally sure that journalists like you in this room will continue to hold their feet to the fire to try to get the documents you seek," Perino said.

Kosovo tells U.N.'s Ban: Get ready for independence

By Matt Robinson Fri Nov 2, 12:41 PM ET

PRISTINA, Serbia (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon should expect Kosovo to declare independence after talks with Serbia end on December 10, the prime minister of the breakaway province said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENT

Speaking ahead of a fourth round of negotiations on Monday in Vienna, Prime Minister Agim Ceku said he had asked U.N. governor Joachim Ruecker, Ban's special representative in Kosovo, to convey the message to New York.

"He (Ban) should know that the citizens of Kosovo, and Kosovo's leaders, cannot wait much longer after December 10," Ceku told a joint news conference with Ruecker. "He should expect us to declare independence after this date."

Leaders of Serbia and Kosovo's 90-percent ethnic Albanian majority will hold direct talks in the Austrian capital on Monday, with barely a month to go before international mediators report back to the United Nations.

Talks began in August, but there is no deal in sight.

Kosovo has said it will declare independence with or without a deal, and seek recognition from the West. But it has shied away from setting a date until it gets the green light from the United States and its major allies in the European Union.

A November 17 parliamentary election in Kosovo has hardened rhetoric, but Ceku is not running and could be out of office by the time a decision on independence is taken.

Ruecker said he took note "there should be no further delays."

The German diplomat is Kosovo's sixth U.N. administrator since 1999, when NATO bombs drove out Serb forces to halt the killing and ethnic cleansing of Albanians in a two-year war with separatist guerrillas.

A declaration of independence without a new U.N. resolution would leave Kosovo under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244, which affirms the sovereignty of the then Yugoslavia, to which Serbia is the successor state.

But diplomats say Western capitals are working on a way around the document, to allow the EU to deploy a 1,800-strong police mission and for individual countries -- led by the United States, Britain and France -- to recognize the new state.

The latest bid for compromise began in August under the mediation of envoys from the United States, Russia and the European Union, after Moscow blocked U.N. adoption of a plan to grant Kosovo independence under EU supervision.

NATO allies with 16,000 troops in the relatively poor province fear Albanian frustration could turn to unrest, possibly spreading to Macedonia where there are growing signs of tension between the authorities and the large Albanian minority.

Kosovo tells U.N.'s Ban: Get ready for independence (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071102/wl_nm/serbia_kosovo_dc;_ylt=AmjQjI2pmCCjOp9Tiu2PZoJm.3QA)

UN Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response Opens Office in Bonn

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, November 1, 2007
Source: United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs

VIENNA, 31 October (UN Information Service) - The newly established United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER), which is implemented by the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA), has opened its first office in Bonn, Germany, on Monday, 29 October 2007.

"UN-SPIDER will provide universal access to all countries and relevant international and regional organizations to space-based information and services relevant to disaster management to support the full disaster management cycle and will have a considerable impact on the way space-based information is used in dealing with disasters around the world," noted Deputy Director-General of the United Nations Office at Vienna, Franz Baumann, in his inauguration speech. The programme, which was established by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2006, will serve as a gateway to space information for disaster management support, a bridge to connect the disaster management and space communities. UN-Spider will also be a facilitator of capacity-building and institutional strengthening in particular for developing countries.

Besides Vienna, where UNOOSA is located, UN-SPIDER will have offices in Beijing, China and Bonn, Germany, as well as a liaison office in Geneva, Switzerland. Mr. Baumann expressed the hope that the UN-SPIDER Office in Bonn will contribute successfully to the mitigation and prevention of natural disasters, such as the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe, via satellite-based disaster information and management. He thanked the authorities of Austria, China and Germany for their contributions to making UN-SPIDER become reality.

Alongside the opening of the UN-SPIDER Bonn Office, a three-day workshop is bringing together experts from around the world to discuss and shape the future activities of UN-SPIDER. This workshop is the starting point for a series of regional workshops and expert meetings that will contribute to making space-based information an integral part of disaster management policies worldwide.

The United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) implements the decisions of the General Assembly and of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its two Subcommittees, the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee and the Legal Subcommittee. The Office is responsible for promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of outer space, and assisting developing countries in using space science and technology.

UN Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response Opens Office in Bonn (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23930)

United Nations to Expand Police Force

By SLOBODAN LEKIC – 2 days ago

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — With the world facing new security threats, the U.N. is planning for an unprecedented expansion of its police missions. U.N. officials say a shift in the nature of conflicts requires revamped peacekeeping operations.

Traditionally, the U.N. has facilitated peace between warring states by sending its blue-helmeted soldiers to man buffer zones between their armies. But today, interventions are increasingly focused on settling civil wars.

"In recent years the character of conflicts has changed dramatically from mainly state-to-state wars (to) intrastate conflicts which pit various factions within the boundaries of a single state," U.N. Police Chief Andrew Hughes said.

As a result, there is a greater need than ever for conventional police duties in post-conflict situations.

Nowhere is this highlighted more clearly than in Darfur.

The U.N. is recruiting nearly 7,000 police officers to assist some 20,000 U.N. peacekeeper-soldiers in trying to end the four-year conflict in western Sudan.

Police involvement in peacekeeping dates from the inaugural 1948 mission, when first Secretary-General Trygve Lie urgently dispatched several dozen U.N. security guards from New York to Jerusalem when Jewish extremists assassinated the U.N. peace envoy Folke Bernadotte.

In later interventions, however, the U.N. has come to rely mostly on soldiers to monitor cease-fires or interpose themselves between warring sides, as happened in the Sinai after the 1956 Egypt-Israel war, or later in disputed Kashmir, Cyprus and Lebanon.

The Balkan wars of the 1990s put renewed focus on peacekeeping by police units.

"In such conflicts, once peace is restored the U.N. then has a key role in re-establishing rule of law, which includes police, courts, prisons and the whole justice sector, and to ensure that they rebuild or build up from scratch their police services," Hughes said.

But Hughes emphasized that police and military missions have critical differences.

Soldiers have different rules of engagement that provide for the use of lethal force and are therefore not suited for such duties such as apprehending criminals, escorting children to schools or calming rioting mobs.

"For us the use of force is absolutely the last option," Hughes said. "Our police are trained much more extensively to defuse the situation, and negotiations are by far and away the biggest tool we have."

A new Police Division was set up in October 2000 as part of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations with a staff of several dozen experienced police officers from contributing countries.

Currently, there are about 70,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops deployed worldwide, with an additional 9,500 police officers, mostly in Africa — such as Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Burundi and Western Sahara — as well as in Haiti, Kosovo and East Timor.

With U.N. missions in Chad and Darfur coming on line in 2008, the ranks of U.N. police are to swell to nearly 17,000 officers from more than 100 countries.

"Our duties included everything a policeman can possibly do, from breaking up domestic disturbances to chasing and arresting armed criminals," said Irhad Campara, a Bosnian policeman who served in the U.N. mission in East Timor.

"In addition, we recruited, vetted and trained from scratch East Timor's new national police force."

Whereas military units are dispatched by governments, police officers are recruited on individual contracts from contributing nations. They continue to collect their home pay but receive an extra daily allowance of $150 and accommodation from the U.N.

Not all operations have gone smoothly, however, and the U.N. police force has suffered several high-profile reverses over the past several years.

In 2004, U.N. police officers failed to stem the violence in Kosovo when thousands of ethnic Albanians rioted in a backlash against the Serb minority, killing 19 people, displacing thousands, and destroying hundreds of Serb homes, churches and monasteries.

And in East Timor, the U.N.-trained police force collapsed last year following an army mutiny, necessitating another mission to rebuild it anew.

To hopefully prevent such calamities, the U.N. is preparing two initiatives to facilitate rapid police deployment to crisis areas and to enable them to function more effectively from the outset.

The first is the introduction of Formed Police Units — 160-strong contingents of officers from a single country — skilled in dealing with a wide spectrum of problems, from riot control to arresting armed criminals.

The initial unit, an all-female company of Indian officers, has recently arrived in Liberia to join the U.N. force there.

The second initiative is to create a standing police detachment of about two dozen officers who can be deployed together with U.N. military units to a trouble spot, thus allowing the police to be present from the start of a U.N. mission.

Previously, the slow and complicated process of recruiting volunteers from participating countries meant police recruits lagged an average of nine months behind the soldiers.

But critics say these measures are insufficient.

William Durch from the Henry L. Stimson Center, a think tank in Washington, proposed creating a ready reserve of about 11,000 police volunteers worldwide who would be paid retainer fees while on standby and who could be quickly mobilized for future U.N. missions.

"The system by which the U.N. recruits its people must be completely revamped to be able to provide security personnel in the critical initial phases of a mission," said Durch, an expert on peacekeeping operations.

United Nations to Expand Police Force (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4lvj8UTGMTm93maZxnIPwNvfXLwD8SKP9DO0)

UN envoy returns to Myanmar

Sat Nov 3, 7:20 AM ET

YANGON, Myanmar - U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari arrived in Myanmar on Saturday for his second effort to reconcile the ruling military and its pro-democracy opponents. But he will also have to deal with the junta's plan to expel the top U.N. diplomat in the country.

Gambari flew directly to the new capital, Naypyitaw, to meet with senior junta leaders, Myanmar government officials said, requesting anonymity since they were not authorized to speak to the media.

It was not known which of the junta leaders would meet with him in Naypyitaw, 250 miles north of Yangon, Myanmar's largest city, or whether he would later be allowed to visit detained democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi.

On the eve of his arrival, the junta accused Myanmar's U.N. Resident Coordinator Charles Petrie of going beyond his duties by criticizing the regime's failure to meet the economic and humanitarian needs of its people, and by saying this was the cause of September's mass pro-democracy protests, which were violently put down by the government.

Gambari was earlier dispatched to Myanmar after the government crackdown, meeting with junta leader Senior Gen. Than Shwe and twice with Suu Kyi, a Nobel peace laureate.

Eyewitnesses in Yangon said security forces had been reinforced in some parts of the city prior to the visit, while residents said access to the Internet was virtually impossible for the third-straight day.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who met Gambari on Friday morning in Istanbul, Turkey, to discuss his Myanmar trip, was "disappointed" at the government's message, and expressed "full confidence in the United Nations country team and its leadership," U.N. spokeswoman Michele Montas said at U.N. headquarters in New York.

She said Petrie was scheduled to meet Gambari in Yangon on Saturday, and that the U.N. envoy would convey to Myanmar's military rulers the secretary-general's "very strong" support for the U.N. leadership in Myanmar, also known as Burma.

On Friday, a draft resolution was circulated at the U.N. strongly condemning the Myanmar government's crackdown on peaceful protesters. It called on the junta to immediately release those arrested recently, as well as all political prisoners.

The military has said 10 people were killed in the September crackdown, but diplomats and dissidents say the death toll was much higher. Thousands of people were detained.

UN envoy returns to Myanmar (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_on_re_as/myanmar;_ylt=AgkTlBy..058EkapuVluKhL9xg8F)

UN Human Rights Council Blames Israel

MICHAL LANDO, Jerusalem Post correspondent
THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 6, 2007

Ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman slammed the UN Human Rights Council on Tuesday for failing to deal with human rights violations around the world, and for disproportionately singling out Israel.

"The new human rights council was delivered by some who thought they were giving birth to a new baby, but they have given birth to a horrendous monster," Gillerman said following a meeting of the General Assembly's Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), currently discussing the council's institution-building package.

The committee hopes to reach a consensus on the council's package on Thursday.

After Gillerman was introduced Tuesday, a fire alarm forced the committee to evacuate to a shelter, delaying his speech.

"This is another example of how Israel is singled out," Gillerman told the committee to audible chuckles.

The alarm was the "calm before the storm," he quipped, warning them of what he was about to say. "The real burning - literally burning - human rights situations in our tormented world have certainly not been reflected in the council's deliberations, and one wonders, sadly, if they ever will," Gillerman said. Instead, he said, the Human Rights Council was responsible for a "ritualistic and virulent campaign" against Israel.

The council's membership included countries whose records on human rights fell "markedly below" the standards of the international community, said Gillerman, and "who cannot genuinely serve as a beacon for human rights when their respective performances are so dismal and poor."

Aside from Israel, the only specific situations to have been addressed by the council have been Myanmar and Darfur. Resolutions on the latter "not only failed to find the Sudanese government culpable for atrocities, but even had the audacity to congratulate Sudan for its cooperation," said Gillerman.

He said special rapporteurs on human rights violations by Cuba and Belarus were eliminated from the institution-building package without serious consideration, in "blatant disregard for the constituent mandate."

The committee discussion is intended to be a mere "technicality," but on Tuesday, Gillerman said Israel could not accept the institution-building package as is, and urged countries to join in "opposing the consensus."

"The Human Rights Council is unworthy of the dreams of the founders of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, and Israel could not go along with those who feel consensus is the name of the game," Gillerman said following the meeting.

"There are hundreds of thousands abused every day and who die every day because of human rights violations. They look to this organization and wait for us to do the right thing. I appeal to colleagues on a personal note to do the right thing."

There are a host of nations that think the council is a "disgrace," Gillerman told reporters.

"I know that they know deep down, that if they could, they would lay aside political considerations and say what they think. It's time to do the right thing, not time to hide behind technicalities."

UN Human Rights Council Blames Israel (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380752523&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

UN should sack nuclear chief for failure over Iran - Israel

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz called Thursday for Mohamed ElBaradei to be removed as head of the UN nuclear watchdog, saying he had turned a blind eye to archfoe Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The call for ElBaradei's dismissal comes just days before the International Atomic Energy Agency is due to publish a new report on Iran's nuclear programme, to serve as a key part of further discussions at the United Nations on whether to impose a third set of sanctions on Tehran.

"The policies followed by ElBaradei endanger world peace. His irresponsible attitude of sticking his head in the sand over Iran's nuclear programme should lead to his impeachment," Mofaz told public radio from Washington.

Mofaz, who heads "the strategic dialogue" between Israel and its main ally the United States, held talks on Wednesday with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

ElBaradei raised the ire of many Israeli officials after telling France's Le Monde newspaper that Iran would need "between three and eight years" to develop a nuclear bomb and that there were was no immediate threat.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran represents a clear and present danger and that we're now facing the decision whether to bombard Iran or let them have the bomb. We're not in that situation at all," the Egyptian UN nuclear chief said.

Mofaz retorted that there was no excuse for such complacency in the face of intelligence estimates.

"ElBaradei says he has no proof regarding Iran's nuclear programme when he has intelligence reports gathered by several countries and he heads an organisation responsible precisely for that," he said.

Mofaz nevertheless said he believed the Jewish state's archfoe had yet to cross the point of no return in its nuclear programmme.

"The development of the necessary infrastructure for enriching uranium is slower than the Iranians say it is," the former chief of staff said, a day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again boasted that Iran had reached a key target of 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment.

Israel, which belongs to the UN nuclear watchdog but is not a signatory to its key Non-Proliferation Treaty, is widely considered to have the Middle East's sole -- if undeclared -- nuclear arsenal.

It considers Iran its chief enemy after repeated statements by Ahmadinejad that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map.

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Wednesday (eds: correct) that "all options remain on the table", including military action, to prevent Iran developing an atomic bomb.

Senior Israeli army intelligence officer Yossi Beidetz told parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee that Iran could acquire the bomb within two years.

"Assuming Iran is not faced with difficulties, the most severe scenario is that Iran could have a nuclear bomb by the end of 2009," committee members quoted Beidetz as saying.

The UN Security Council has imposed two sets of sanctions against Iran over its failure to heed ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment, the process which makes fuel for nuclear reactors but in highly extended form can also produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Israel and the West fear that Iran's nuclear programme is cover for a drive to develop the bomb but Iran insists it is aimed solely at producing electricity for a growing population once fossil fuels run out.

In 1981, Israel bombed a French-built nuclear reactor in Iraq, which under the rule of now executed dictator Saddam Hussein was then its biggest enemy. The raid was heavily criticised by the United States and UN Security Council.

UN should sack nuclear chief for failure over Iran - Israel (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071108121420.5i55kbkc&show_article=1)

UN: Israel Fuels Support for Extremists
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The head of the U.N. agency responsible for aiding Palestinian refugees said Wednesday that Israel's near economic blockade of the Gaza Strip is fueling support for extremists and shattering hopes for a peaceful future.

"They're trying to punish those who've taken control of Gaza but in fact they're punishing everybody inside Gaza, a very small percentage of whom support the people who are controlling Gaza right now," Karen Koning AbuZayd of the United Nations Works and Relief Agency said.

The violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last June by the Islamic militants of the Hamas movement, and their continual rocketing of Israel, has led to Gaza's increasing isolation. In September, Israel declared Gaza a "hostile entity," clearing the way for economic sanctions.

Also Wednesday, Israel's Supreme Court delayed for at least a week a government plan to cut back on electricity to Gaza following appeals from 10 human rights organizations.

The appeals charged that the cut would be an illegal collective punishment because Gaza remains dependent on Israel for most of its electricity and all of its fuel. Gisha, one of the rights groups, said the court gave the state one week to respond to the appeals, and the human rights organizations would have another week to answer.

Israel ordered progressive utility cuts hoping that Palestinian residents would pressure militant groups to stop the attacks. Israel explained the cutbacks as part if its disengagement from Gaza. Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005.

The human rights groups say that Israel is still responsible for Gaza because it controls its air, sea and land access, and the utility cuts would punish civilians.

At a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, AbuZayd painted a grim picture of life in the Gaza Strip, saying there has been a 71 percent decrease in goods going into Gaza since May, there is "zero stock" of 91 drugs compared to 61 last month, and farmers do not have the money to get their crops picked or send them to market so they are rotting.

That means that there are no fruits and vegetables to supplement the basic rations that 80 percent of Gaza's population receive - flour, oil, sugar, a bit of lentils and powdered milk - either from UNRWA or the U.N. World Food Program, she said.

"It's not good enough," AbuZayd said. "UNRWA's only giving 61 percent" of the daily nutritional needs.

The main commercial crossings into Gaza from Israel and Egypt have been closed since June, so "there are no imports, exports," and there isn't even enough cash being brought in which has made living very difficult, she said.

"We at least have these two military crossings we're using and getting in just enough humanitarian supplies," AbuZayd said. "Israel is very concerned that there is no humanitarian disaster there. There will always be enough food and medicine, but these are very basic rations that are coming in."

She also expressed hope that this month's U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference will lead to positive movement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and provide new hope for the Palestinian people.

UN: Israel Fuels Support for Extremists (http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2007/nov/07/110707739.html)

Former UN chief: No wonder everyone hates you
11.09.07

Boutros Boutros Ghali blames Israel for lack of peace in Middle East, paints a stark picture for future of Arab-Israeli relations; 'After 30 years, I don't even see one centimeter of progress'
Smadar Peri

From his spacious apartment overlooking the glamorous Dominique Street in Paris, Boutros Boutros Ghali launches an unprecedented offensive against Israel. It's hard to hear such severe criticism from one of the architects of Israel's first peace agreement—the 1977 Camp David Accords with Egypt—but Ghali has no intentions of hiding his anger with Israel behind diplomatic formalities.

"After 30 years, I don't see even a centimeter of progress," Ghali gloomily recounts in an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth. "It's completely possible to say that people hate you—not only in Egypt, but throughout the entire Arab world."

The former UN Secretary General says he cannot think of any reason to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic visit to Jerusalem - far from it. Ghali's blame for the failure to promote Arab-Israeli peace falls squarely on one recipient: Israel. He attacks Israel for peace negotiation failures, defends the Iranian nuclear program and protests that the whole world complains about suicide bombings but is silent on IDF targeted killings.

The former peace negotiator paints a bleak picture for the future: "The Arab world is busy in its struggle against fundamentalists and cannot allow itself to recognize Israel because it will strengthen (the fundamentalists). I reiterate: The Arab world refuses to accept Israel's existence and therefore curbs all of Israel's attempts to normalize relations."

Cold or frigid?
The former UN chief - a professor and lecturer of international law who was nominated to be an Egyptian government minister for foreign affairs and participated in the formulation of the Camp David Peace Accords - is the one who coined the term 'cold peace' to describe Israeli-Egyptian relations after the momentous peace agreement.

Who is to blame for the so-called cold peace? Ghali is quick to point out that Israel carries the bulk of the blame. "From the first day, during Sadat's speech in the Knesset, we said that there would not be a true, full peace as long as Israel did not return Sinai and leave Gaza and the West Bank. When Sadat went to Jerusalem, he went with a vision to start-up not just the Egyptian track, but also the Palestinian one - but (the Israelis) sealed (their) ears shut.

"We said: the Palestinian issue is connected to the axis of the peace agreement - it’s the first condition. We warned (them) time and time again that it would not work. And (the Israelis)? (They) insisted on signing a separate peace with Egypt, (they) day-dreamed about the blossoming of bilateral relations and increased cooperation."

Best PR man in the biz
The only compliments the aging Egyptian had for Israel came in the form of praise for Israeli President Shimon Peres: "In my eyes Shimon Peres is a man of dreams. He is an asset for (the Israelis), the number one PR man in the State of Israel. I am older than Peres by one year, and look how both of us never cease running around and working."

Ghali, who is turning 85 this year, looks great for his age and hasn't stopped working. "I have a full-time job. I work 10 hours a day, seven days a week. I travel, lecture, read, write, give interviews. I am a member of dozens of boards on international law and in Egypt, I am the head of the humans rights council."

Married to a Jewish woman
The former UN Secretary General shares his elegant Paris apartment with his Jewish spouse Leah. The two are the same age. They met in 1956 and married after a whirlwind romance. Leah is a descendant of a Romanian family that immigrated to Alexandria. She has never been interviewed and has never visited Israel. "She keeps a low profile," her husband says.

When asked if he ever ran into difficulties for being married to a Jew, Ghali's face toughens and he responds: "I never had any trouble at all, in my eyes Leah although from a Jewish background, is more Catholic since she spent more time in Catholic schools than in Jewish ones."

Former UN chief: No wonder everyone hates you (http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3469518,00.html)

UN Conference Pushes Abortion in Guise of Promoting Women's Health

by Staff
November 9, 2007

(christiansunite.com) -- The World Congress of Families criticized the actions of the latest the United Nations conference to push abortion in the guise of promoting women's health.

The Congress endorses an October 20 letter to the Organizing Committee of the U.N. Conference "Women Deliver," signed by Concerned Women for America, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, United Families International and the World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations among other groups. The first three were co- sponsors of World Congress of Families IV.

As the letter notes, the ostensible purpose of the conference was to consider ways to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity. Instead, it was hijacked by the abortion industry - including Planned Parenthood and Catholics (so-called) for Free Choice - and turned into a forum for promoting abortion in the Third World.

World Conference of Families International Secretary Allan Carlson commented: "The conference devoted little time to such crucial concerns as pre-natal care, sanitation, clean water and basic nutrition. Instead, advocates trotted out the standard dubious statistics about deaths attributed to illegal abortions. Naturally, there was no consideration of deaths due to legal abortion. The World Health Organization doesn't even keep such statistics."

"The 'Women Deliver' Conference arrived at foreordained conclusions, determined by the ideologues in charge," Carlson charged. "The United Nations has never directly endorsed abortion, in any of its treaties or conventions. Indeed, abortion goes against the spirit of the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Still, feminists have succeeded in co- opting committees whose mandate is advancing women's health to promote death for unborn children."

World Congress of Families joins the signatories of the aforementioned letter in calling on the United Nations to repudiate the pro-abortion advocacy of the "Women Deliver" Conference.

World Congress of Families supports the sanctity of human life, from conception to natural death.

World Congress of Families IV (Warsaw, Poland, May 11-13, 2007) was attended by more than 3,400 delegates from 65 countries.

The World Congress of Families (WCF) is an international network of pro-family organizations, scholars, leaders and people of goodwill from more than 60 countries that seeks to restore the natural family as the fundamental social unit and the 'seedbed' of civil society. The WCF was founded in 1997 by Allan Carlson and is a project of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois. To date, there have been four World Congresses of Families - Prague (1997), Geneva (1999), Mexico City (2004) and Warsaw, Poland (2007).

UN Conference Pushes Abortion in Guise of Promoting Women's Health (http://news.christiansunite.com/Religion_News/religion06582.shtml)

Ban opposes UN peacekeepers

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 42 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - Against a backdrop of heavy fighting and growing insecurity, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opposed the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to Somalia and suggested instead a robust multinational force or a coalition of willing nations.

In August, the U.N. Security Council called on the secretary-general to begin planning for the possible deployment of U.N. peacekeepers to replace an African Union force that has struggled to put troops in the chaotic country.

But in a new report to the council, Ban on Friday said, "under the prevailing political and security situation, I believe that the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation cannot be considered a realistic and viable option."

Ban said a that "given the complex security situation in Somalia, it may be advisable to look at additional security options, including the deployment of a robust multinational force or coalition of the willing."

Such a force could initially be small and self-sustaining, Ban said, growing over time with the achievement of specific security and political milestones. "In due time, such a force could be built to a level that would enable Ethiopian forces to commence a partial, then complete withdrawal from the country."

Somalia has not had a functioning government since clan-based warlords toppled dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991 and then turned on each other, sinking the poverty-stricken Horn of Africa nation of 7 million people into chaos.

The rout last December of the Islamic fundamentalist movement that controlled most of Somalia by Ethiopian troops and Somali government soldiers allowed the country's weak U.N.-backed transitional government to enter the capital, Mogadishu, for the first time since it was established in 2004. But heavy fighting between insurgents and Ethiopian troops has flared again, leaving hundreds dead and wounded.

The U.N. authorized the African Union to send an 8,000-strong peacekeeping force to Somalia in February to calm the country, but only 1,800 troops from Uganda are on the ground. Ban urged the international community to provide logistical help and funds to deploy the rest of the AU force as quickly as possible.

The AU has been pressing for a U.N. force to replace the AU troops when its current U.N. mandate expires in February. But some key Security Council countries insist there must be a peace to keep before U.N. troops are sent to Somalia.

Ban said the United Nations is trying to encourage a dialogue within the transitional government and with opposition groups to try to end the fighting and establish broad-based transitional institutions.

But in his report covering the period since late June, Ban painted a grim picture of a country facing increasing violence and insecurity and a growing humanitarian crisis.

The political situation, he said, was marked by the deepening of divisions within the shaky transitional government, "the hardening stance of the opposition and the intensification of the insurgency."

"The situation in Mogadishu remains volatile, with daily attacks mostly by insurgents" targeting government and Ethiopian troops, Ban said. "Elsewhere, lawlessness and inter-clan violence continued in large areas of central and southern Somalia."

Attacks by pirates on ships are on the rise, threatening the delivery of humanitarian aid which is critical because of the deteriorating humanitarian situation, he said.

"Overall, 1.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, a 50 percent increase since the beginning of the year," Ban said.

Hundreds of thousands of Somalis have fled the fighting in Mogadishu and there are now 750,000 Somalis uprooted from their homes — 400,000 long-term and 350,000 newly displaced, he said.

The secretary-general also expressed concern at the deteriorating human rights situation, the targeted assassinations of district officials in Mogadishu, human trafficking from Somalia to Yemen, and widspread reports of rape and sexual violence, including gang rapes by soldiers and other local militia and the abduction of women to be used as sex slaves.

Ban opposes UN peacekeepers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071110/ap_on_re_af/un_somalia;_ylt=AgEdW2JvyY_p4RcTicTw_k6s0NUE)

The U.N. must not be satisfied with the worldwide UNICEF carton collections, because they just keep on pushing ways to implement a global tax. The door may be starting to creep open on that front, with the Law of the Sea Treaty, which Glenn believes will lead to a U.N. global tax. Everyone Glenn has talked to, callers and politicians alike, say it's a bad idea yet Senator McCain and others on a Senate panel backed the idea 17-4. This is the same idea that had Ronald Reagan losing sleep at night. Members of Congress and the Senate, this is why more people believe the moon landing was a hoax than approve of the job you are doing. Pat Gray from KSEV in Houston joined Glenn to talk about this and more. Read the transcript.

UN to tax Americans?
NOVEMBER 01, 2007

GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

BECK: I said a year ago, Pat, and I don't know if you've noticed it in the last four weeks, I said a year ago birth pains. Condoleezza Rice said, I believe on this program, we are seeing birth pains in the Middle East and I said at that time, that word is, A, biblical in nature. It has a lot of stuff on prophecy involved with it. But beyond that. It implies we're giving birth -- there's an event at the end and it also implies that things happen and start to happen more and more rapidly and they get stronger. Have you noticed, Pat, in the last four weeks how much some of the stuff that was just theory, that you and I talked about a year ago, two years ago, three years ago is now starting to unfold and come out and it's all, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, one right after another?

GRAY: Uh-huh, yeah. I never would have believed that President Bush would get behind the Law of the Sea Treaty. I never would have believed in a million years that President Bush would circumvent U.S. sovereignty by taking Texas to court in this, you know, Jose Medellin case, this vicious brutal rapist and killer that he's fighting the State of Texas in international courts over it.

GLENN: Well, it's a lose-lose situation. If the President loses, then -- I mean, it's a lose-lose situation if you're a federalist. Then what it means is you've got a weak federal government. You've got a government probably more in line with what the founding fathers wanted that Texas and all of the states have a right to say no to the federal government. You go ahead and sign that little global warming treaty; not for us.

GRAY: Right. Well, that's the way it should be.

GLENN: Yeah, I know it should be, but that's not -- if you are somebody who believes in a strong federal government, that is -- and he does, that's why he's fighting it as well. If he loses, the federal government loses a lot of its power in an unbelievable framework. If he wins, the Constitution loses because now courts, out-of-country courts are above our Supreme Court.

But let's talk about the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is so frightening, it makes the Medellin case look like, you know, nursery school.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: This is -- and fill in any places here, Pat, where I've got it wrong. This passed yesterday in committee in the Senate and it's going to the full Senate for a vote, and Bush will sign it. Unless Americans stand up and call their senators right now, this thing is going to go -- this is going to pass.

GRAY: It will become law. It will become part of the Constitution.

GLENN: Constitution. It's not part of the law. It's Constitution.

GRAY: Yes.

GLENN: If they sign this thing and ratify it. And what it is is it gives power to the UN to control outline mineral rights, all oceans, all air above the oceans. It creates something called the Enterprise that if -- let's say Exxon says I want to go drill for -- well, what's happening now? China is going to drill in between Florida and Cuba. So let's say we said we wanted to -- I know it's crazy. We would never do this. We want to actually go look for oil under the water and we would have to go to the UN and Exxon would have to say to the Enterprise, we have two sites they want to drill; we believe there's this amount of oil and here's all of the research on it. The Enterprise says, okay, let us look into it. They come back, come back, Exxon. They come back to the Enterprise which is a UN organization and the Enterprise says, great, you know what? You can have Site A, we're going to take Site B and here's the added extra bonus for you, Exxon. "You have to drill our site for us using your money, your equipment and everything else and we get everything that you take out."

GRAY: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And any dispute involving, let's say the United States and Cuba or the United States and China go to this new court system they are setting up for the Law of the Sea Treaty and there's going to be, I think 22, 22 magistrates on it. We have no guarantee that we'll even get one of those magistrates.

Now, in a dispute between the United States and Cuba or the U.S. and China, who do you think the guys from Uganda and Yemen are going to side with?

GLENN: Yeah.

GRAY: Certainly not us.

GLENN: This is the way they take our wealth from us.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: Any ships that go across, they can levy fines, fees, taxes. If you want to go ahead and fly in the air above water, they can assign taxes, fees, and fines. This is the first ever door that opens our Constitution up for the UN to walk right in and tax the American people.

GRAY: You bet. Well, and this was written with keeping nuclear submarines out of the water in mind. This was written with the intent that the oceans would only be used for peaceful purposes.

GLENN: Yeah.

GRAY: You could never use these for war. So, you know, being a war machine, a nuclear sub can be kept out of the water and the military says, oh, they won't enforce that. Uh-huh, we're talking about the UN.

GLENN: Of course they will. Of course they will.

GRAY: Of course they will. Of course they will.

GLENN: You don't think Russia and China -- listen, I'm telling you. Teach your kids how to speak Chinese because they are going to rule the world within 50 years.

GRAY: Sooner than that.

GLENN: Well, if we don't wake up, it will be in the next five years, for the love of Pete. It is amazing to me how few people -- you know, I think one of the problems is -- and help me out on this, Pat. Maybe I'm giving them too much of a bone. I've talked to senators and they are like, yeah, well, I'm not really sure because the language has really kind of changed. This is something that a lot of senators are just kind of like going, well, I think it's okay, and I've got the word from so-and-so and I'm -- in fact, let me give you this. This came in from a listener. They sent it to me. They wrote to Bob Casey, their senator, and they said, do not sign the Law of the Sea Treaty. He said, thanks for taking the time to contact me regarding the United Nations convention on the Law of the Sea. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about matters of interest to them. He goes into how it started an everything else. Some of my constituents have reservations about the United States ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty and I take those concerns seriously. As a member of the Senate foreign relations committee, I pledge to study this issue carefully and listen to my colleagues and legal experts before voting to send the treaty to the full Senate for consideration.

Excuse me? How about listening to your constituents, Senator?

GRAY: Yeah. Yeah. Do all U.S. senators have the same person writing their responses to their constituents? Because that sounds a lot like Kay Bailey Hutchison's responses to hers. It's ridiculous! When in doubt, vote it out, especially where the UN is concerned.

GLENN: When in doubt, how can you possibly be in doubt? How can you be in doubt?

GRAY: But if you think the language has changed or if you've heard maybe it's changed, vote against it! If there's any doubt where the UN is concerned -- and there isn't, you're right. But if you think there is, you vote against it.

GLENN: Yeah. I mean --

GREY: That's just good, decent American constitutional thinking right there.

GLENN: Especially when it's a treaty.

GRAY: Yeah.

GLENN: It becomes the -- most people don't understand that. It is -- it fuses with the Constitution.

GRAY: That's right.

GLENN: I mean, you don't go backwards. You know, prohibition, it's a good idea. Oh, wow, that was a bad idea; we should get out of it. Once a treaty is ratified and signed, it fuses with the Constitution. It's really --

GRAY: People might think, we're the UN already, what's the big deal. In this Law of the Sea Treaty, we're only one of 140 countries and unlike other UN issues, there's no security council here. We don't have any permanent status, any veto power at all. It's us against 140. How many of those 140 are our friends? Maybe Britain? Maybe Israel? The rest are going to be against us?

GLENN: Let me just leave it with what Ronald Reagan believed, and he believed this is the first step into one world government. This is it. This is it. And you know what? They tried to get it through over and over and over again and they keep trying to change the language to make it good. It's not good. Get out. Do not sign the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Pat, thanks, appreciate it.

END TRANSCRIPT

UN to tax Americans? (http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11012007.shtml)

CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH

CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH
adopted at the 1977 session of the World Constituent Assembly,
and revised at the 1991 session.

DIAGRAM FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/diagram.html)

WORLD PARLIAMENT, composed of three houses:

* House of Peoples, elected directly by the people equally
from 1000 World Electoral and Administrative Districts.
* House of Nations, appointed or elected by national governments.
* House of Counsellors of 200 elected by the other two houses, chosen for
global perspective; has nominative, consultative, initiative and referral functions.

WORLD EXECUTIVE, elected by and responsible to the Parliament. Presidium of a rotating president and 4 vice-presidents, all M.P.s, nominated by House of Counsellors. Executive Cabinet of 30 ministers, all M.P.s. The World Executive may not veto or suspend the Parliament or the Constitution.

WORLD ADMINISTRATION, of about 30 departments, each headed by a Cabinet Minister or Vice President; coordinated by a Secretary General chosen by the Presidium and confirmed by the Cabinet.

INTEGRATIVE COMPLEX, includes agencies for World Civil Service, Boundaries and Elections, Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems, Research and Planning, Technological and Environmental Assessment, World Financial Administration, and Legislative Review.

WORLD JUDICIARY, composed of 8 Benches having mandatory jurisdiction over different kinds of issues, with 5 continental seats. Collegium of World Judges is nominated by House of Counsellors and elected by Parliament, headed by a Presiding Council of 5 members which assigns judges to the several Benches.

THE ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM, non-military, is headed by an Office of World Attorneys General and commission of 20 Regional World Attorneys, elected by and removable by Parliament. The World Attorneys appoint the World Police (removable by the Parliament) to apprehend individual lawbreakers.

WORLD OMBUDSMUS, to protect human rights and ensure proper government functioning, is headed by a Council of 5 World Ombudsen nominated by House of Counsellors, and commission of 20 Regional World Advocates, all elected by the Parliament.

BILL OF RIGHTS, of 18 sections, effective when Constitution is ratified.

DIRECTIONAL PRINCIPLES, of 19 sections, additional rights and benefits to be implemented over a period of time for all world citizens.

JURISDICTION OF WORLD GOVERNMENT, defined in Grant of Powers of 40 sections. Nations retain jurisdiction over internal affairs.

FOR ELECTIONS AND ADMINISTRATION, Earth is divided into 1000 Districts, 20 Regions, 10 Magna-Regions, at least 5 Continental Divisions.

FIVE WORLD CAPITALS, to be established in 5 continental divisions, one is the Primary Capital, the others are Secondary Capitals.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EARTH CONSTITUTION BY STAGES:

* Provisional World Government, before 25 countries have ratified.
* First Operative Stage, when 25 countries have ratified.
* Second Operative Stage, when 50% of countries have ratified.
* Full Operative Stage, when 80% of countries, comprising 90% of Earth's population, have ratified.

DISARMAMENT, of nations accomplished when constitution is ratified. The World Government does not retain nor use weapons of mass destruction.

VIABLE AGENCIES OF THE U.N., are transferred to the World Government.

CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/how_works.html)

WORLD CONSTITUTION AND PARLIAMENT ASSOCIATION

General Perspective

The World Constitution and Parliament Association offers an organization and a course of action by which people and government leaders who want peace and human welfare can gain control over world affairs for the good of all people on Earth.

Objectives and Actions

1. World Government

The comprehensive objective, to be achieved in progressive stages, is a democratic, non-military, federal world government, which can solve world problems peacefully and administer those affairs which transcend national boundaries for the benefit of humanity everywhere.

The World Government will have a representative World Parliament to enact world legislation, with one chamber elected by the people; A World Executive responsible to the Parliament, with authority to implement world legislation directly; a World Judiciary with mandatory enforcement of decisions; and such other organs as are desirable and necessary for the adequate and effective solution of world problems and management of global affairs.

2. Earth Constitution

To achieve a democratic World Government, the WCPAGREN works for the ratification, or provisional ratification, of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Ratification is sought by national parliaments, national governments, local and state governments, universities and colleges, and by individuals and popular referendum.

The Earth Constitution was prepared at two drafting sessions of a World Constituent Assembly, held in 1968 at Interlaken, Switzerland, and Wolfach, W. Germany, and in 1977 at Innsbruck, Austria, with about 200 delegates from all continents, then reinforced at a third session at Colombo, Sri Lanka, in 1979.

3. Provisional World Parliament

Until the Earth Constitution is ratified by at least 25 countries, the W.C.P.A. helps to organize sessions of a Provisional World Parliament, which is organized under the terms of Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

The Provisional World Parliament has adopted eleven world legislative measures to deal with major world problems. Eight at its first two sessions which were held at Brighten, England, September, 1982, and at New Delhi, India, March, 1985 and three at the third session at Miami Beach, Florida, June 1987. When the Earth Constitution is ratified by 25 countries, the Provisional Parliament will be supplanted by a fully functioning world Parliament elected and composed as specified in the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

4. World Legislation

As part of the process of the emergence of World Government, the W.C.P.A. works for the ratification and step-by-step implementation of world legislation enacted by the Provisional World Parliament, including:

Bill #1: to outlaw nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction,
and to establish a World Disarmament Agency.

Bill #2: for a World Economic Development Organization, which will establish
a new global system of finance and credit, and help begin the "new
world economic order."

Bill #3: for ownership, administration and development of the oceans and
seabeds of Earth(from 20 km. offshore) as the common heritage
of the People of Earth.

Bill #4: for a Graduate School of World Problems, as part of a World
University System.

Bill #5: for Provisional District World Courts.

Bill #6: for an Emergency Earth Rescue Administration, to bring carbon
dioxide levels under control, save the environment, and prevent
universal starvation as a result of global climatic catastrophe.

Bill #7: for a World Government Funding Corporation,
to finance the entire program.

Bill #8: for a World Commission on Terrorism.

Bill #9: to protect life and nature on Planet Earth, and to create a global
Ministry of Environment.

Bill #10: for a World Hydrogen Energy System Authority.

Bill #11: for an Act for the Earth Financial Credit Corporation.

And all world Legislation to be enacted by the Provisional World Parliament at subsequent sessions.

5. Provisional World Cabinet

As a further step towards an operating World Government, the Provisional World Parliament will inaugurate a Provisional World Cabinet at next sessions of the Parliament. The Cabinet will be composed of continuing Cabinet Ministers and Commissions, and will be responsible for implementing, insofar as possible, the legislation of the Parliament.

The members of the Cabinet must be accredited delegates to the Parliament, and will in effect serve as a Provisional World Government, merging with the Cabinet of the eventual World Government under a ratified Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

6. World Constituent Assembly

Prior to the final campaign for ratification of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, another session of the World Constituent Assembly will be held, to go over the Earth Constitution, and make any amendments found necessary. It is proposed to hold the next session of the World Constituent Assembly when five countries have given provisional ratification to the Earth Constitution.

Organizational Structure

The World Constitution and Parliament Association is a worldwide organization based on individual membership, national branches, local chapters, and a section for members of national Parliaments. Currently, the W.C.P.A. has individual members in 60 countries and national branches in 15 countries.

WORLD CONSTITUTION AND PARLIAMENT ASSOCIATION (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/objectives.html)

CALL TO THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT

On the Island of Malta - November 22nd to 27th, 2000

After nearly 11,000 years of slow and hazardous development of civilization, since the emergence of Homo Sapiens from the rigors of the last ice age, with a 500-year climax of amazing scientific and cultural accomplishments, mixed together with stupendous political, technological and environmental blunders, all is about to be lost either by wars or the poisons of war, or by making the environment hostile to life and the consequent starvation of most people during the climatic upsets of possible descent into a new ice age.

Wise philosophers have for several generations proposed the necessity for a global government for Planet Earth, in order to achieve peaceful solutions to problems of inter-dependence, beneficial to all who find themselves living and struggling on this planet of such wonderful potentials.

At the end of world War II, many thinking people knew that Federal World Government was required as the political framework within which global and supra-national problems could be solved peacefully for the benefit of everybody – including continuance of life-friendly conditions of the present inter-glacial period.

Instead, the tragic mistake was made of establishing a weak association of sovereign nations, repeating the mistakes of the League of Nations, with neither a fairly representative World parliament given authority to adopt world legislation to solve world problems, nor a world executive with authority to directly administer world legislation; and each nation retains the right to equip itself with military forces.

As a result, many extreme global problems have accumulated without solutions during the past 50 years, dominated by squandering many millions of dollars on nuclear and other arms races. To cope with these problems, the United Nations has been mostly helpless. Moreover, the United nations Charter is drawn in terms of obsolete precepts of national sovereignty in every article and paragraph, with control given to the five permanent members of the Security Council, so that the Charter cannot be amended nor strengthened to serve as the constitution for a proper global government. The only practical procedure is to completely replace the U.N. Charter with a new constitution for Federal World Government.

For replacement, some people coming together from all continents, apart from the United Nations, have gone ahead to design the specific details of the kind of world constitution which is needed to establish the political framework and procedures for a representative federal world government, under which the residents of Earth can manage their common affairs peacefully to serve the welfare of all.

The work of preparing this world constitution – the CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH – has gone forward in four sessions of a World Constituent Assembly in 1968, 1977, and 1980 and 1991. Also, work has proceeded in four sessions of a Provisional World Parliament in 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1996, under Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, to prepare world legislation to solve certain urgent problems.

The Constitution for the Federation of Earth is ready now for immediate ratification by the nations and people of Earth, and for immediate practical implementation. Recognizing that World Government is already many decades overdue, and that enormous problems have grown and festered and become more complex and difficult each year in the absence of any way to work out good solutions, every effort must be made to expedite ratification.

The world problems requiring solutions have been described so often that this Call will shift attention ahead to a few of the urgently needed solutions, which can be rapidly put into effect as soon as the Constitution for the Federation of Earth is ratified, and in some important respects even as soon as the first 25 countries have ratified. Early benefits under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth may include:

All nuclear weapons are immediately defused and then dismantled, under supervision of the World Disarmament Agency, and further testing and production prohibited.

All weapons of mass destruction, both large and small, are put under the control of the World Disarmament Agency, for rapid dismantling or conversion to peaceful uses, and further production and sale prohibited.

Most dangers of war and military dictatorship are thereby eliminated.

Priority is given to a globally coordinated program of several hundred billion dollars per year to deal with the climate crises.

Comprehensive remedial action is based on an understanding of the extremes of both heat and cold and other climatic turbulences resulting from the "differential greenhouse effect," which is triggered primarily by excess carbon dioxide accumulations in the air and loss of Earth’s fertility – thus threatening agriculture and world food supplies and civilization everywhere.

All former military personnel, and others, can be employed by a civilian Earth Rescue Corps to restore and conserve a life-sustaining environment on Earth; and to maintain the global commons of the oceans, atmosphere, rivers, forests, phytoplankton, fish, the ozone layer, biodiversity and other elements.

The new global financial system, using a global currency for accounting, will provide sufficient financial credit to employ everyone at peaceful work to supply human needs. Finances will be available for both public and private projects, simply on the basis of people available to work and viable plans for production, services, etc. -- no past savings are required.

Projects to supply the needs of people living in a country may receive priority over projects for international trade. The scramble for outside investors looking for quick profits or for loans tied to repayment from export earnings are both eliminated – since past savings become irrelevant. Also ended as conditions for obtaining finances are, forced privatization or forced communalization, austerity measures, high interest, and curtailment of social welfare. Instead, standards will be defined for serving human welfare, payment of living wages, and environmental protection.

Human rights are protected everywhere, according to the guarantees and directive principles in the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Very rapid worldwide elimination of fossil fuels and of nuclear power is expedited, both technologically and financially. Rapid transition is made to solar, hydrogen, magnetic and other safe energy sources and equipment. Millions of jobs are created for the work of conversion to the new safe and environmentally friendly energy technology.

The oceans of Earth are owned and managed truly as the common heritage of humanity, and likewise the air space above the Earth.

The safe disposal of nuclear poisons and wastes, as well as other globally threatening toxic wastes, is put under strict control by the world government.

Technology transfers are assisted and expedited wherever helpful to serve peaceful human needs.

Planning guidelines are developed for the best uses of all natural resources of Earth, together with technological innovations, to serve the maximum human welfare of all inhabitants of Earth.

cont'd next post

These are a few of the benefits to be derived from early ratification and implementation of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

All of the above is made possible by the careful design in the Constitution for the Federation of Earth for the World parliament composed of a House of Peoples, a House of Nations and a House of Counsellors, the World Executive with a five-member rotating Presidium responsible to the Parliament, the World Judiciary, the non-military enforcement system, the World Ombudsmus, the Integrative Complex, the agencies of the world Administration, and many other carefully designed provisions.

THEREFORE, THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT IS HEREBY CALLED, TO BE ORGANIZED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH, TO CONVENE FOR TWO WEEKS, OCTOBER 20 – NOVEMBER 4, 2000, AT THE NEW OUAGADOUGOU CONVENTION CENTER, SYRTE, LIBYA, A COUNTRY WHICH OFFICIALLY WELCOMES THE PARLIAMENT.

THE AGENDA FOR THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL

WORLD PARLIAMENT OCTOBER 20 – NOVEMBER 4, 2000, SHALL INCLUDE:

Complete the first stage of ratification of the constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Take drastic action to rapidly inaugurate Federal World Government under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Begin implementation of World Legislative Act Number One (with amendments as needed) for the world disarmament Agency.

Begin implementation of World Legislative Act Number Three (with amendments as needed) for the ownership and management of the oceans and seabeds of Earth.

Begin or expand implementation of World Legislative Act Number Six, as amended in 1996, for the Emergency Earth Rescue Administration, to cope with the climate crisis and other related environmental problems.

Begin or expand implementation of World Legislative Act number eleven, as amended in 1996, for a new global finance system to serve both the public and the private sectors.

Begin or expand implementation of the MANIFESTO for beginning world Government with more than 70% of Earth included. As approved in 1996.

Design and begin implementation of world legislation for a comprehensive Global Energy Administration, to replace fossil fuels and nuclear power with energy technology which is environmentally safe and friendly to life.

Establish the World Ombudsmus to protect human rights, as well as establish other agencies of the Integrative Complex, as defined in the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Prepare for the next elections of delegates to the World Parliament, under a ratified Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Take any other actions which may be needed and feasible in year 2000.

TO COMPOSE THE YEAR 2000 PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT,
DELEGATES ARE INVITED AND REQUESTED FROM BOTH
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS
AND FROM THE PEOPLE OF ALL COUNTRIES, AS FOLLOWS:

DELEGATES FROM NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS:

Delegates are invited from each national government or Parliament which recognizes the necessity for Federal World Government, and which is ready to ratify the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

National governments, including national parliaments, may send from 1 to 10 delegates, on a voting basis of 1 vote for countries under 2,000,000 in population, 2 votes for countries from 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 population, 3 votes for countries from 10,000,000 to 50,000,000 population, 4 votes for countries from 50,000,000 to 100,000,000 population, and 5 votes for countries above 100,000,000 population.

Silent observers may be sent by national governments or parliaments not ready to ratify the Constitution for the Federation of Earth; but observers may become delegates upon decision to ratify made while at the Parliament.

CALL TO THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/session_fifth.html)

THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH

Contents

Article I • Broad Functions of the World Government

The broad functions of the Federation of Earth shall be:

1. To prevent war, secure disarmament, and resolve territorial and other disputes which endanger peace and human rights.

2. To protect universal human rights, including life, liberty, security, democracy, and equal opportunities in life.

3. To obtain for all people on earth the conditions required for equitable economic and social development and for diminishing social differences.

4. To regulate world trade, communications, transportation, currency, standards, use of world resources, and other global and international processes.

5. To protect the environment and the ecological fabric of life from all sources of damage, and to control technological innovations whose effects transcend national boundaries, for the purpose of keeping Earth a safe, healthy and happy home for humanity .

6. To devise and implement solutions to all problems which are beyond the capacity of national governments, or which are now or may become of global or international concern or consequence.

THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE FEDERATION OF EARTH (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article01.html)

Article II • Basic Structure of The World Federation and The World Government

1. The Federation of Earth shall be organized as a universal federation, to include all nations and all people, and to encompass all oceans, seas and lands of Earth, inclusive of non-self governing territories, together with the surrounding atmosphere.

2. The World Government for the Federation of Earth shall be non-military and shall be democratic in its own structure, with ultimate sovereignty residing in all the people who live on Earth.

3. The authority and powers granted to the World Government shall be limited to those defined in this Constitution for the Federation of Earth, applicable to problems and affairs which transcend national boundaries, leaving to national governments jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the respective nations but consistent with the authority of the World Government to protect universal human rights as defined in this World Constitution.

4. The basic direct electoral and administrative units of the World Government shall be World Electoral and Administrative Districts. A total of not more than 1000 World Electoral and Administrative Districts shall be defined, and shall be nearly equal in population, within the limits of plus or minus ten percent.

5. Contiguous World Electoral and Administrative Districts shall be combined as may be appropriate to compose a total of twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions for the following purposes, but not limited thereto: for the election or appointment of certain world government officials; for administrative purposes; for composing various organs of the world government as enumerated in Article IV; for the functioning of the Judiciary, the Enforcement System, and the Ombudsmus, as well as for the fun ctioning of any other organ or agency of the World Government.

6. The World Electoral and Administrative Regions may be composed of a variable number of World Electoral and Administrative Districts, taking into consideration geographic, cultural, ecological and other factors as well as population.

7. Contiguous World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall be grouped together in pairs to compose Magna-Regions.

8. The boundaries for World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall not cross the boundaries of the World Electoral and Administrative Districts, and shall be common insofar as feasible for the various administrative departments and for the several or gans and agencies of the World Government. Boundaries for the World Electoral and Administrative Districts as well as for the Regions need not conform to existing national boundaries, but shall conform as far as practicable.

9. The World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall be grouped to compose at least five Continental Divisions of the Earth, for the election or appointment of certain world government officials, and for certain aspects of the composition and functioning of the several organs and agencies of the World Government as specified hereinafter. The boundaries of Continental Divisions shall not cross existing national boundaries as far as practicable. Continental Divisions may be composed of a variable number of World Electoral and Administrative Regions.

Article II • Basic Structure of The World Federation and The World Government (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article02.html)

cont'd next post

Article III • Basic Structure of The World Federation and The World Government

1. The Federation of Earth shall be organized as a universal federation, to include all nations and all people, and to encompass all oceans, seas and lands of Earth, inclusive of non-self governing territories, together with the surrounding atmosphere.

2. The World Government for the Federation of Earth shall be non-military and shall be democratic in its own structure, with ultimate sovereignty residing in all the people who live on Earth.

3. The authority and powers granted to the World Government shall be limited to those defined in this Constitution for the Federation of Earth, applicable to problems and affairs which transcend national boundaries, leaving to national governments jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the respective nations but consistent with the authority of the World Government to protect universal human rights as defined in this World Constitution.

4. The basic direct electoral and administrative units of the World Government shall be World Electoral and Administrative Districts. A total of not more than 1000 World Electoral and Administrative Districts shall be defined, and shall be nearly equal in population, within the limits of plus or minus ten percent.

5. Contiguous World Electoral and Administrative Districts shall be combined as may be appropriate to compose a total of twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions for the following purposes, but not limited thereto: for the election or appointment of certain world government officials; for administrative purposes; for composing various organs of the world government as enumerated in Article IV; for the functioning of the Judiciary, the Enforcement System, and the Ombudsmus, as well as for the fun ctioning of any other organ or agency of the World Government.

6. The World Electoral and Administrative Regions may be composed of a variable number of World Electoral and Administrative Districts, taking into consideration geographic, cultural, ecological and other factors as well as population.

7. Contiguous World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall be grouped together in pairs to compose Magna-Regions.

8. The boundaries for World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall not cross the boundaries of the World Electoral and Administrative Districts, and shall be common insofar as feasible for the various administrative departments and for the several or gans and agencies of the World Government. Boundaries for the World Electoral and Administrative Districts as well as for the Regions need not conform to existing national boundaries, but shall conform as far as practicable.

9. The World Electoral and Administrative Regions shall be grouped to compose at least five Continental Divisions of the Earth, for the election or appointment of certain world government officials, and for certain aspects of the composition and functioning of the several organs and agencies of the World Government as specified hereinafter. The boundaries of Continental Divisions shall not cross existing national boundaries as far as practicable. Continental Divisions may be composed of a variable number of World Electoral and Administrative Regions.

Article III • Basic Structure of The World Federation and The World Government (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article03.html)

Article IV • Organs of the World Government

The organs of the World Government shall be:

1. The World Executive.

2. The World Administration.

3. The Integrative Complex.

4. The World Judiciary.

5. The Enforcement System.

6. The World Ombudsmus.

Article IV • Organs of the World Government (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article04.html)

Cont'd next post

Article V • The World Parliament

Sec. A. Functions and Powers of the World Parliament

The functions and powers of the World Parliament shall comprise the following:

1. To prepare and enact detailed legislation in all areas of authority and jurisdiction granted to the World Government under Article IV of this World Constitution.

2. To amend or repeal world laws as may be found necessary or desirable.

3. To approve, amend or reject the international laws developed prior to the advent of World Government, and to codify and integrate the system of world law and world legislation under the World Government.

4. To establish such regulations and directions as may be needed, consistent with this world constitution, for the proper functioning of all organs, branches, departments, bureaus, commissions, institutes, agencies or parts of the World Government.

5. To review, amend and give final approval to each budget for the World Government, as submitted by the World Executive; to devise the specific means for directly raising funds needed to fulfill the budget, including taxes, licenses, fees, globally accounted social and public costs which must be added into the prices for goods and services, loans and credit advances, and any other appropriate means; and to appropriate and allocate funds for all operations and functions of the World Government in accordance with approved budgets, but subject to the right of the Parliament to revise any appropriation not yet spent or contractually committed.

6. To create, alter, abolish or consolidate the departments, bureaus, commissions, institutes, agencies or other parts of the World Government as may be needed for the best functioning of the several organs of the World Government, subject to the specific provisions of this World Constitution.

7. To approve the appointments of the heads of all major departments, commissions, offices, agencies and other parts of the several organs of the World Government, except those chosen by electoral or civil service procedures.

8. To remove from office for cause any member of the World Executive, and any elective or appointive head of any organ, department, office, agency or other part of the World Government, subject to the specific provisions in this World Constitution concerning specific offices.

9. To define and revise the boundaries of the World Electoral and Administrative Districts, the World Electoral and Administrative Regions and Magna Regions, and the Continental Divisions.

10. To schedule the implementation of those provisions of the World Constitution which require implementation by stages during the several stages of Provisional World Government, First Operative Stage of World Government, Second Operative Stage of World Government, and Full Operative Stage of World Government, as defined in Articles XVII and XIX of this World Constitution.

11. To plan and schedule the implementation of those provisions of the World Constitution which may require a period of years to be accomplished.

Sec. B. Composition of the World Parliament

1. The World Parliament shall be composed of three houses, designated as follows: The House of Peoples, to represent the people of Earth directly and equally;

2. The House of Nations, to represent the nations which are joined together in the Federation of Earth; and a

3. House of Counsellors with particular functions to represent the highest good and best interests of humanity as a whole.

4. All members of the World Parliament, regardless of House, shall be designated as Members of the World Parliament.

Sec. C. The House of Peoples

1. The House of Peoples shall be composed of the peoples delegates directly elected in proportion to population from the World Electoral and Administrative Districts, as defined in Article 2-4.

2. Peoples delegates shall be elected by universal adult suffrage, open to all persons of age 18 and above.

3. One peoples delegate shall be elected from each World Electoral and Administrative District to serve a five year term in the House of Peoples. Peoples delegates may be elected to serve successive terms without limit. Each peoples delegate shall have one vote.

4. A candidate for election to serve as a peoples delegate must be at least 21 years of age, a resident for at least one year of the electoral district from which the candidate is seeking election, and shall take a pledge of service to humanity.

Sec. D. The House of Nations

1. The House of Nations shall be composed of national delegates elected or appointed by procedures to be determined by each national government on the following basis:

1. One national delegate from each nation of at least 100,000 population, but less than 10,000,000 population.

2. Two national delegates from each nation of at least 10,000,000 population, but less than 100,000,000 population.

3. Three national delegates from each nation of 100,000,000 population or more.

2. Nations of less than 100,000 population may join in groups with other nations for purposes of representation in the House of Nations.

3. National delegates shall be elected or appointed to serve for terms of five years, and may be elected or appointed to serve successive terms without limit. Each national delegate shall have one vote.

4. Any person to serve as a national delegate shall be a citizen for at least two years of the nation to be represented, must be at least 21 years of age, and shall take a pledge of service to humanity.

cont'd next post

Sec. E. The House of Counsellors

1. The House of Counsellors shall be composed of 200 counsellors chosen in equal numbers from nominations submitted from the twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions, as defined in Article II-5 and II-6, ten from each Region.
2. Nominations for members of the House of Counsellors shall be made by the teachers and students of universities and colleges and of scientific academies and institutes within each world electoral and administrative region. Nominees may be persons who are off campus in any walk of life as well as on campus.
3. Nominees to the House of Counsellors from each World Electoral and Administrative Region shall, by vote taken among themselves, reduce the number of nominees to no less than two times and no more than three times the number to be elected.
4. Nominees to serve as members of the House of Counsellors must be at least 25 years of age, and shall take a pledge of service to humanity. There shall be no residence requirement, and a nominee need not be a resident of the region from which nominated or elected.
5. The members of the House of Counsellors from each region shall be elected by the members of the other two houses of the World Parliament from the particular region.
6. Counsellors shall be elected to serve terms of ten years. One-half of the members of the House of Counsellors shall be elected every five years. Counsellors may serve successive terms without limit. Each Counsellor shall have one vote.

Sec. F. Procedures of the World Parliament

1. Each house of the World Parliament during its first session after general elections shall elect a panel of five chairpersons from among its own members, one from each of five Continental Divisions. The chairpersons shall rotate annually so that each will serve for one year as chief presiding officer, while the other four serve as vice-chairpersons.
2. The panels of Chairpersons from each House shall meet together, as needed, for the purpose of coordinating the work of the Houses of the World Parliament, both severally and jointly.
3. Any legislative measure or action may be initiated in either House of Peoples or House of Nations or both concurrently, and shall become effective when passed by a simple majority vote of both the House of Peoples and of the House of Nations, except on those cases where an absolute majority vote or other voting majority is specified in this World Constitution.
4. In case of deadlock on a measure initiated in either the House of Peoples or House of Nations, the measure shall then automatically go to the House of Counsellors for decision by simple majority vote of the House of Counsellors, except in the cases where other majority vote is required in this World Constitution. Any measure may be referred for decision to the House of Counsellors by a concurrent vote of the other two houses.
5. The House of Counsellors may initiate any legislative measure, which shall then be submitted to the other two houses and must be passed by simple majority vote of both the House of Peoples and House of Nations to become effective, unless other voting majority is required by some provision of this World Constitution.
6. The House of Counsellors may introduce an opinion or resolution on any measure pending before either of the other two houses; either of the other houses may request the opinion of the House of Counsellors before acting upon a measure.
7. Each house of the World Parliament shall adopt its own detailed rules of procedure, which shall by consistent with the procedures set forth in this World Constitution, and which shall be designed to facilitate coordinated functioning of the three hous es.
8. Approval of appointments by the World Parliament or any house thereof shall require simple majority votes, while removals for cause shall require absolute majority votes.
9. After the full operative stage of World Government is declared, general elections for members of the World Parliament to the House of Peoples shall be held every five years. The first general elections shall be held within the first two years followin g the declaration of the full operative stage of World Government.
10. Until the full operative stage of World Government is declared, elections for members of the World Parliament to the House of Peoples may be conducted whenever feasible in relation to the campaign for ratification of this World Constitution.
11. Regular sessions of the House of Peoples and House of Nations of the World Parliament shall convene on the second Monday of January of each and every Year.
12. Each nation, according to its own procedures, shall appoint or elect members of the World Parliament to the House of Nations at least thirty days prior to the date for convening the World Parliament in January.
13. The House of Peoples together with the House of Nations shall elect the members of the World Parliament to the House of Counsellors during the month of January after the general elections. For its first session after general elections, the House of Co unsellors shall convene on the second Monday of March, and thereafter concurrently with the other two houses.
14. Bi-elections to fill vacancies shall be held within three months from occurrence of the vacancy or vacancies.
15. The World Parliament shall remain in session for a minimum of nine months of each year. One or two breaks may be taken during each year, at times and for durations to be decided by simple majority vote of the House of Peoples and House of Nations sitting jointly.
16. Annual salaries for members of the World Parliament of all three houses shall be the same, except for those who serve also as members of the Presidium and of the Executive Cabinet.
17. Salary schedules for members of the World Parliament and for members of the Presidium and of the Executive Cabinet shall be determined by the World Parliament.

Article V • The World Parliament (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article05.html)

Article VI • The World Executive

Sec. A. Functions and Powers of the World Executive

1. To implement the basic system of world law as defined in the World Constitution and in the codified system of world law after approval by the World Parliament.

2. To implement legislation enacted by the World Parliament.

3. To propose and recommend legislation for enactment by the World Parliament.

4. To convene the World Parliament in special sessions when necessary.

5. To supervise the World Administration and the Integrative Complex and all of the departments, bureaus, offices, institutes and agencies thereof.

6. To nominate, select and remove the heads of various organs, branches, departments, bureaus, offices, commissions, institutes, agencies and other parts of the World Government, in accordance with the provisions of this World Constitution and as specifi ed in measures enacted by the World Parliament.

7. To prepare and submit annually to the World Parliament a comprehensive budget for the operations of the World Government, and to prepare and submit periodically budget projections over periods of several years.

8. To define and propose priorities for world legislation and budgetary allocations.

9. To be held accountable to the World Parliament for the expenditures of appropriations made by the World Parliament in accordance with approved and longer term budgets, subject to revisions approved by the World Parliament.

Sec. B. Composition of the World Executive

The World Executive shall consist of a Presidium of five members, and of an Executive Cabinet of from twenty to thirty members, all of whom shall be members of the World Parliament.

Sec. C. The Presidium

1. The Presidium shall be composed of five members, one to be designated as President and the other four to be designated as Vice Presidents. Each member of the Presidium shall be from a different Continental Division.

2. The Presidency of the Presidium shall rotate each year, with each member in turn to serve as President, while the other four serve as Vice Presidents. The order of rotation shall be decided by the Presidium.

3. The decisions of the Presidium shall be taken collectively, on the basis of majority decisions.

4. Each member of the Presidium shall be a member of the World Parliament, either elected to the House of Peoples or to the House of Counsellors, or appointed or elected to the House of Nations.

5. Nominations for the Presidium shall be made by the House of Counsellors. The number of nominees shall be from two to three times the number to be elected. No more than one-third of the nominees shall be from the House of Counsellors or from the House of Nations, and nominees must be included from all Continental Divisions.

6. From among the nominees submitted by the House of Counsellors, the Presidium shall be elected by vote of the combined membership of all three houses of the World Parliament in joint session. A plurality vote equal to at least 40 percent of the total m embership of the World Parliament shall be required for the election of each member to the Presidium, with successive elimination votes taken as necessary until the required plurality is achieved.

7. Members of the Presidium may be removed for cause, either individually or collectively, by an absolute majority vote of the combined membership of the three houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

8. The term of office for the Presidium shall be five years and shall run concurrently with the terms of office for the members as Members of the World Parliament, except that at the end of each five year period, the Presidium members in office shall con tinue to serve until the new Presidium for the succeeding term is elected. Membership in the Presidium shall be limited to two consecutive terms.

Sec. D. The Executive Cabinet

1. The Executive Cabinet shall be composed of from twenty to thirty members, with at least one member from each of the ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna Regions of the world.

2. All members of the Executive Cabinet shall be Members of the World Parliament.

3. There shall be no more than two members of the Executive Cabinet from any single nation of the World Federation. There may be only one member of the Executive Cabinet from a nation from which a Member of the World Parliament is serving as a member of the Presidium.

4. Each member of the Executive Cabinet shall serve as the head of a department or agency of the World Administration or Integrative Complex, and in this capacity shall be designated as Minister of the particular department or agency.

5. Nominations for members of the Executive Cabinet shall be made by the Presidium, taking into consideration the various functions which Executive Cabinets members are to perform. The Presidium shall nominate no more than two times the number to be elected.

6. The Executive Cabinet shall be elected by simple majority vote of the combined membership of all three houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

7. Members of the Executive Cabinet either individually or collectively may be removed for cause by an absolute majority vote of the combined membership of all three houses of the World Parliament sitting in joint session.

8. The term of office in the Executive Cabinet shall be five years, and shall run concurrently with the terms of office for the members as Members of the World Parliament, except that at the end of each five year period, the Cabinet members in office s hall continue to serve until the new Executive Cabinet for the succeeding term is elected. Membership in the Executive Cabinet shall be limited to three consecutive terms, regardless of change in ministerial position.

Sec. E. Procedures of the World Executive

1. The Presidium shall assign the ministerial positions among the Cabinet members to head the several administrative departments and major agencies of the Administration and of the Integrative Complex. Each Vice President may also serve as a Minister to head an administrative department, but not the President. Ministerial positions may be changed at the discretion of the Presidium. A Cabinet member or Vice President may hold more than one ministerial post, but no more than three, providing that no Cabinet member is without a Ministerial post.

2. The Presidium, in consultation with the Executive Cabinet, shall prepare and present to the World Parliament near the beginning of each year a proposed program of world legislation. The Presidium may propose other legislation during the year.

3. The Presidium, in consultation with the Executive Cabinet, and in consultation with the World Financial Administration, (see Article VIII, Sec. G-1-i) shall be responsible for preparing and submitting to the World Parliament the proposed annual budget , and budgetary projections over periods of years.

4. Each Cabinet Member and Vice President as Minister of a particular department or agency shall prepare an annual report for the particular department or agency, to be submitted both to the Presidium and to the World Parliament.

5. The members of the Presidium and of the Executive Cabinet at all times shall be responsible both individually and collectively to the World Parliament.

6. Vacancies occurring at any time in the World Executive shall be filled within sixty days by nomination and election in the same manner as specified for filling the offices originally.

Sec. F. Limitations on the World Executive

1. The World Executive shall not at any time alter, suspend, abridge, infringe or otherwise violate any provision of this World Constitution or any legislation or world law enacted or approved by the World Parliament in accordance with the provisions of this World Constitution.

2. The World Executive shall not have veto power over any legislation passed by the World Parliament.

3. The World Executive may not dissolve the World Parliament or any House of the World Parliament.

4. The World Executive may not act contrary to decisions of the World Courts.

5. The World Executive shall be bound to faithfully execute all legislation passed by the World Parliament in accordance with the provisions of this World Constitution, and may not impound or refuse to spend funds appropriated by the World Parliament, nor spend more funds than are appropriated bt the World Parliament.

6. The World Executive may not transcend or contradict the decisions or controls of the World Parliament, the World Judiciary or the Provisions of this World Constitution by any device of executive order or executive privelege or emergency declaration or decree.

Article VI • The World Executive (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article06.html)

Article VII • The World Administration

Sec. A. Functions of the World Administration

1. The World Administration shall be organized to carry out the detailed and continuous administration and implementation of world legislation and world law.

2. The World Administration shall be under the direction of the World Executive, and shall at all times be responsible to the World Executive.

3. The World Administration shall be organized so as to give professional continuity to the work of administration and implementation.

Sec. B. Structure and Procedures of the World Administration

1. The World Administration shall be composed of professionally organized departments and other agencies in all areas of activity requiring continuity of administration and implementation by the World Government.

2. Each Department or major agency of the World Administration shall be headed by a Minister who shall be either a member of the Executive Cabinet or a Vice President of the Presidium.

3. Each Department or major agency of the World Administration shall have as chief of staff a Senior Administrator, who shall assist the Minister and supervise the detailed work of the Department or agency.

4. Each Senior Administrator shall be nominated by the Minister of the particular Department or agency from among persons in the senior lists of the World Civil Service Administration, as soon as senior lists have been established by the World Civil Serv ice Administration, and shall be confirmed by the Presidium. Temporary qualified appointments shall be made by the Ministers, with confirmation by the Presidium, pending establishment of the senior lists.

5. There shall be a Secretary General of the World Administration, who shall be nominated by the Presidium and confirmed by absolute majority vote of the entire Executive Cabinet.

6. The functions and responsibilities of the Secretary General of the World Administration shall be to assist in coordinating the work of the Senior Administrators of the several Departments and agencies of the World Administration. The Secretary General shall at all times be subject to the direction of the Presidium, and shall be directly responsible to the Presidium.

7. The employment of any Senior Administrator and of the Secretary General may be terminated for cause by absolute majority vote of both the Executive Cabinet and Presidium combined, but not contrary to civil service rules which protect tenure on grounds of competence.

8. Each Minister of a Department or agency of the World Administration, being also a Member of the World Parliament, shall provide continuous liaison between the particular Department or agency and the World Parliament, shall respond at any time to any questions or requests for information from the Parliament, including committees of any House of the World Parliament.

9. The Presidium, in cooperation with the particular Ministers in each case, shall be responsible for the original organization of each of the Departments and major agencies of the World Administration.

10. The assignment of legislative measures, constitutional provisions and areas of world law to particular Departments and agencies for administration and implementation shall be done by the Presidium in consultation with the Executive Cabinet and Secretary General, unless specifically provided in legislation passed by the World Parliament.

11. The Presidium, in consultation with the Executive Cabinet, may propose the creation of other departments and agencies to have ministerial status; and may propose the alteration, combination or termination of existing Departments and agencies of ministerial status as may seem necessary or desirable. Any such creation, alteration, combination or termination shall require a simple majority vote of approval of the three houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

12. The World Parliament by absolute majority vote of the three houses in joint session may specify the creation of new departments or agencies of ministerial status in the World Administration, or may direct the World Executive to alter, combine, or terminate existing departments or agencies of ministerial status.

13. The Presidium and the World Executive may not create, establish or maintain any administrative or executive department or agency for the purpose of circumventing control by the World Parliament.

Sec. C. Departments of the World Adminstration

Among the Departments and agencies of the World Administration of ministerial status, but not limited thereto and subject to combinations and to changes in descriptive terminology, shall be those listed under this Section. Each major area of administration shall be headed by a Cabinet Minister and a Senior Administrator, or by a Vice President and a Senior Administrator.

1. Disarmament and War Prevention.

2. Population.

3. Food and Agriculture.

4. Water Supplies and Waterways.

5. Health and Nutrition.

6. Education.

7. Cultural Diversity and the Arts.

8. Habitat and Settlements.

9. Environment and Ecology.

10. World Resources.

11. Oceans and Seabeds.

12. Atmosphere and Space.

13. Energy.

14. Science and Technology.

15. Genetic Research and Engineering.

16. Labor and Income.

17. Economic and Social Development.

18. Commerce and Industry.

19. Transportation and Travel.

20. Multi-National Corporations.

21. Communications and Information.

22. Human Rights.

23. Distributive Justice.

24. World Service Corps.

25. World Territories, Capitals and Parks.

26. Exterior Relations.

27. Democratic Procedures.

28. Revenue.

Article VII • The World Administration (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article07.html)

Article VIII • The Integrative Complex

Sec. A. Definition

1. Certain administrative, research, planning and facilitative agencies of the World Government which are particularly essential for the satisfactory functioning of all or most aspects of the World Government, shall be designated as the Integrative Complex. The Integrative Complex shall include the agencies listed under this Section, with the provison that other such agencies may be added upon recommendation of the Presidium followed by decision of the World Parliament.

1. The World Civil Service Administration.

2. The World Boundaries and Elections Administration.

3. The Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems.

4. The Agency for Research and Planning.

5. The Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment.

6. The World Financial Administration.

2. Each agency of the Integrative Complex shall be headed by a Cabinet Minister and a Senior Administrator, or by a Vice President and a Senior Administrator, together with a Commission as provided hereunder. The rules of procedure for each agency shall be decided by majority decision of the Commission members together with the Administrator and the Minister or Vice President.

3. The World Parliament may at any time define further the responsibilities, functioning and organization of the several agencies of the Integrative Complex, consistent with the provisions of Article VIII and other provisions of the World Constitution.

4. Each agency of the Integrative Complex shall make an annual report to the World Parliament and to the Presidium.

Sec. B. The World Civil Service Administration

1. The functions of the World Civil Service Administration shall be the following, but not limited thereto:

1. To formulate and define standards, qualifications, tests, examinations and salary scales for the personnel of all organs, departments, bureaus, offices, commissions and agencies of the World Government, in conformity with the provisions of this World Constitution and requiring approval by the Presidium and Executive Cabinet, subject to review and approval by the World Parliament.

2. To establish rosters or lists of competent personnel for all categories of personnel to be appointed or employed in the service of the World Government.

3. To select and employ upon request by any government organ, department, bureau, office, institute, commission, agency or authorized official, such competent personnel as may be needed and authorized, except for those positions which are made elective or appointive under provisions of the World Constitution or by specific legislation of the World Parliament.

2. The World Civil Service Administration shall be headed by a ten member commission in addition to the Cabinet Minister or Vice President and Senior Administrator. The Commission shall be composed of one commissioner from each of ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions. The persons to serve as Commissioners shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors and then appointed by the Presidium for five year terms. Commissioners may serve consecutive terms.

Sec. C. The World Boundaries and Elections Administration

1. The functions of the World Boundaries and Elections Administration shall include the following, but not limited thereto:

1. To define the boundaries for the basic World Electoral and Administrative Districts, the World Electoral and Administrative Regions and Magna-Regions, and the Continental Divisions, for submission to the World Parliament for approval by legislative action.

2. To make periodic adjustments every ten or five years, as needed, of the boundaries for the World Electoral and Administrative Districts, the World Electoral and Administrative Regions and Magna-Regions, and of the Continental Divisions, subject to approval by the World Parliament.

3. To define the detailed procedures for the nomination and election of Members of the World Parliament to the House of Peoples and to the House of Counsellors, subject to approval by the World Parliament.

4. To conduct the elections for Members of the World Parliament to the House of Peoples and to the House of Counsellors.

5. Before each World Parliamentary Election, to prepare Voters' Information Booklets which shall summarize major current public issues, and shall list each candidate for elective office together with standard information about each candidate, and give space for each candidate to state his or her views on the defined major issues as well as on any other major issue of choice; to include information on any initiatives or referendums which are to be voted upon; to distribute the Voter's Information Booklets for each World Electoral District, or suitable group of Districts; and to obtain the advice of the Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems, the Agency for Research and Planning, and the Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment in preparing the booklets.

6. To define the rules for world political parties, subject to approval by the World Parliament, and subject to review and recommendations of the World Ombudsmus.

7. To define the detailed procedures for legislative initiative and referendum by the Citizens of Earth, and to conduct voting on supra-national or global initiatives and referendums in conjuction with world parliamentary elections.

8. To conduct plebiscites when requested by other Organs of the World Government, and to make recommendations for the settlement of boundary disputes.

9. To conduct a global census every five years, and to prepare and maintain complete demographic analyses for Earth.

2. The World Boundaries and Elections Administration shall be headed by a ten member commission in addition to the Senior Administrator and the Cabinet Minister or Vice President. The commission shall be composed of one commissioner each from ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions. The persons to serve as commissioners shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors and then appointed by the World Presidium for five year terms. Commissioners may serve consecutive terms.

Sec. D. Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems

1. The functions of the Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems shall be as follows, but not limited thereto:

1. To prepare and conduct courses of information, education and training for all personnel in the service of the World Government, including Members of the World Parliament and of all other elective, appointive and civil service personnel, so that every person in the service of the World Government may have a better understanding of the functions, structure, procedures and inter-relationships of the various organs, departments, bureaus, offices, institutes, commissions, agencies and other parts of the Wo rld Government.

2. To prepare and conduct courses and seminars for information, education, discussion, updating and new ideas in all areas of world problems, particularly for Members of the World Parliament and of the World Executive, and for the chief personnel of all organs, departments and agencies of the World Government, but open to all in the service of the World Government.

3. To bring in qualified persons from private and public universities, colleges and research and action organizations of many countries, as well as other qualified persons, to lecture and to be resource persons for the courses and seminars organized by the Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems.

4. To contract with private or public universities and colleges or other agencies to conduct courses and seminars for the Institute.

2. The Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems shall be supervised by a ten member commission in addition to the Senior Administrator and Cabinet Minister or Vice President. The commission shall be composed of one commissioner each to be named by the House of Peoples, the House of Nations, the House of Counsellors, the Presidium, the Collegium of World Judges, The World Ombudsmus, The World Attorneys General Office, the Agency for Research and Planning, the Agency for Technological and E nvironmental Assessment, and the World Financial Administration. Commissioners shall serve five year terms, and may serve consecutive terms.

cont'd next post

Sec. E. The Agency for Research and Planning

1. The functions of the Agency for Research and Planning shall be as follows, but not limited thereto:

1. To serve the World Parliament, the World Executive, the World Administration, and other organs, departments and agencies of the World Government in any matter requiring research and planning within the competence of the agency.

2. To prepare and maintain a comprehensive inventory of world resources.

3. To prepare comprehensive long-range plans for the development, conservation, re-cycling and equitable sharing of the resources of Earth for the benefit of all people on Earth, subject to legislative action by the World Parliament.

4. To prepare and maintain a comprehensive list and description of all world problems, including their inter-relationships, impact time projections and proposed solutions, together with bibliographies.

5. To do research and help prepare legislative measures at the request of any Member of the World Parliament or of any committee of any House of the World Parliament.

6. To do research and help prepare proposed legislation or proposed legislative programs and schedules at the request of the Presidium or Executive Cabinet or of any Cabinet Minister.

7. To do research and prepare reports at the request of any other organ, department or agency of the World Government.

8. To enlist the help of public and private universities, colleges, research agencies, and other associations and organizations for various research and planning projects.

9. To contract with public and private universities, colleges, research agencies and other organizations for the preparation of specific reports, studies and proposals.

10. To maintain a comprehensive World Library for the use of all Members of the World Parliament, and for the use of all other officials and persons in the service of the World Government, as well as for public information.

2. The Agency for Research and Planning shall be supervised by a ten member commission in addition to the Senior Administrator and Cabinet Minister or Vice President. The commission shall be composed of one commissioner each to be named by the House of P eoples, the House of Nations, the House of Counsellors, the Presidium, the Collegium of World Judges, the Office of World Attorneys General, World Ombudsmus, the Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment, the Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems, and the World Financial Administration. Commissioners shall serve five year terms, and may serve consecutive terms.

Sec. F. The Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment

1. The functions of the agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment shall include the following, but not limited thereto:

1. To establish and maintain a registration and description of all significant technological innovations, together with impact projections.

2. To examine, analyze and assess the impacts and consequences of technological innovations which may have either significant beneficial or significant harmful or dangerous consequences for human life or for the ecology of life on Earth, or which may require particular regulations or prohibitions to prevent or eliminate dangers or to assure benefits.

3. To examine, analyze and assess environmental and ecological problems, in particular the environmental and ecological problems which may result from any intrusions or changes of the environment or ecological relationships which may be caused by technol ogical innovations, processes of resource development, patterns of human settlements, the production of energy, patterns of economic and industrial development, or other man-made intrusions and changes of the environment, or which may result from natural causes.

4. To maintain a global monitoring network to measure possible harmful effects of technological innovations and environmental disturbances so that corrective measures can be designed.

5. To prepare recommendations based on technological and environmental analyses and assessments, which can serve as guides to the World Parliament, the World Executive, the World Administration, the Agency for Research and Planning, and to the other organs, departments and agencies of the World Government, as well as to individuals in the service of the World Government and to national and local governments and legislative bodies.

6. To enlist the voluntary or contractual aid and participation of private and public universities, colleges, research institutions and other associations and organizations in the work of technological and environmental assessment.

7. To enlist the voluntary or contractual aid and participation of private and public universities and colleges, research institutions and other organizations in devising and developing alternatives to harmful or dangerous technologies and environmentall y disruptive activities, and in devising controls to assure beneficial results from technological innovations or to prevent harmful results from either technological innovations or environmental changes, all subject to legislation for implementation by th e World Parliament.

2. The Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment shall be supervised by a ten member commission in addition to the Senior Administrator and Cabinet Minister or Vice President. The commission shall be composed of one commissioner from each of ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions. The persons to serve as commissioners shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors, and then appointed by the World Presidium for five year terms. Commissioners may serve consecutive terms.

cont'd next post

Sec. G. The World Financial Administration

1. The functions of the World Financial Administration shall include the following, but not limited thereto:

1. To establish and operate the procedures for the collection of revenues for the World Government, pursuant to legislation by the World Parliament, inclusive of taxes, globally accounted social and public costs, licenses, fees, revenue sharing arrangeme nts, income derived from supra-national public enterprises or projects or resource developments, and all other sources.

2. To operate a Planetary Accounting Office, and thereunder to make cost/benefit studies and reports of the functioning and activities of the World Government and of its several organs, departments, branches, bureaus, offices, commissions, institutes, ag encies and other parts or projects. In making such studies and reports, account shall be taken not only of direct financial costs and benefits, but also of human, social, environmental, indirect, long-term and other costs and benefits, and of actual or po ssible hazards and damages. Such studies and reports shall also be designed to uncover any wastes, inefficiencies, misapplications, corruptions, diversions, unnecessary costs, and other possible irregularities.

3. To make cost/benefit studies and reports at the request of any House or committee of the World Parliament, and of the Presidium, the Executive Cabinet, the World Ombudsmus, the Office of World Attorneys General, the World Supreme Court, or of any administrative department or any agency of the Integrative Complex, as well as upon its own initiative.

4. To operate a Planetary Comptrollers Office and thereunder to supervise the disbursement of the funds of the World Government for all purposes, projects and activities duly authorized by this World Constitution, the World Parliament, the World Executive, and other organs, departments and agencies of the World Government.

5. To establish and operate a Planetary Banking System, making the transition to a common global currency, under the terms of specific legislation passed by the World Parliament.

6. Pursuant to specific legislation enacted by the World Parliament, and in conjunction with the Planetary Banking System, to establish and implement the procedures of a Planetary Monetary and Credit System based upon useful productive capacity and performance, both in goods and services. Such a monetary and credit system shall be designed for use within the Planetary Banking System for the financing of the activities and projects of the World Government, and for all other financial purposes approved by the World Parliament, without requiring the payment of interest on bonds, investments or other claims of financial ownership or debt.

7. To establish criteria for the extension of financial credit based upon such considerations as people available to work, usefulness, cost/benefit accounting, human and social values, environmental health and esthetics, minimizing disparities, integrity, competent management, appropriate technology, potential production and performance.

8. To establish and operate a Planetary Insurance System in areas of world need which transcend national boundaries and in accordance with legislation passed by the World Parliament.

9. To assist the Presidium as may be requested in the technical preparation of budgets for the operation of the World Government.

2. The World Financial Administration shall be supervised by a commission of ten members, together with a Senior Administrator and a Cabinet Minister or Vice President. The commission shall be composed of one commissioner each to be named by the House of Peoples, the House of Nations, the House of Counsellors, the Presidium, the Collegium of World Judges, the Office of Attorneys General, the World Ombudsmus, the Agency for Research and Planning, the Agency for Technological and Environmental Assessment, and the Institute on Governmental Procedures and World Problems. Commissioners shall serve terms of five years, and may serve consecutive terms.

Sec. H. Commission for Legislative Review

1. The functions of the Commission for Legislative Review shall be to examine World Legislation and World Laws which the World Parliament enacts or adopts from the previous Body of International Law for the purpose of analyzing whether any particular legislation or law has become obsolete or obstructive or defective in serving the purposes intended; and to make recommendations to the World Parliament accordingly for repeal or amendment or replacement.

2. The Commission for Legislative Review shall be composed of twelve members, including two each to be elected by the House of Peoples, the House of Nations, the House of Counsellors, the Collegium of World Judges, the World Ombudsmus and the Presidium. Members of the Commission shall serve terms of ten years, and may be re-elected to serve consecutive terms. One half of the Commission members after the Commission is first formed shall be elected every five years, with the first terms for one half of the members to be only five years.

Article VIII • The Integrative Complex (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article08.html)

Article IX • The World Judiciary

Sec. A. Jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court

1. a World Supreme Court shall be established, together with such regional and district World Courts as may subsequently be found necessary. The World Supreme Court shall comprise a number of benches.

2. The World Supreme Court, together with such regional and district World Courts as may be established, shall have mandatory jurisdiction in all cases, actions, disputes, conflicts, violations of law, civil suits, guarantees of civil and human rights, constitutional interpretations, and other litigations arising under the provisions of this World Constitution, world legislation, and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.

3. Decisions of the World Supreme Court shall be binding on all parties involved in all cases, actions and litigations brought before any bench of the World Supreme Court for settlement. Each bench of the World Supreme Court shall constitute a court of highest appeal, except when matters of extra-ordinary public importance are assigned or transferred to the Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court, as provided in Section E of Article IX.

Sec. B. Benches of the World Supreme Court

1. The benches of the World Supreme Court and their respective jurisdictions shall be as follows:

2. Bench for Human Rights: To deal with issues of human rights arising under the guarantee of civil and human rights provided by Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising in pursuance of the provisions of Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising otherwise under world legislation and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.

3. Bench for Criminal Cases: To deal with issues arising from the violation of world laws and world legislation by individuals, corporations, groups and associations, but not issues primarily concerned with human rights.

4. Bench for Civil Cases: To deal with issues involving civil law suits and disputes between individuals, corporations, groups and associations arising under world legislation and world law and the administration thereof.

5. Bench for Constitutional Cases: To deal with the interpretation of the World Constitution and with issues and actions arising in connection with the interpretation of the World Constitution.

6. Bench for International Conflicts: To deal with disputes, conflicts and legal contest arising between or among the nations which have joined in the Federation of Earth.

7. Bench for Public Cases: To deal with issues not under the jurisdiction of another bench arising from conflicts, disputes, civil suits or other legal contests between the World Government and corporations, groups or individuals, or between national gov ernments and corporations, groups or individuals in cases involving world legislation and world law.

8. Appellate Bench: To deal with issues involving world legislation and world law which may be appealed from national courts; and to decide which bench to assign a case or action or litigation when a question or disagreement arises over the proper jurisdiction.

9. Advisory Bench: To give opinions upon request on any legal question arising under world law or world legislation, exclusive of contests or actions involving interpretation of the World Constitution. Advisory opinions may be requested by any House or c ommittee of the World Parliament, by the Presidium, any Administrative Department, the Office of World Attorneys General, the World Ombudsmus, or by any agency of the Integrative Complex.

10. Other benches may be established, combined or terminated upon recommendation of the Collegium of World Judges with approval by the World Parliament; but benches number one through eight may not be combined nor terminated except by amendment of this World Constitution.

Sec. C - Seats of the World Supreme Court

1. The primary seat of the World Supreme Court and all benches shall be the same as for the location of the Primary World Capital and for the location of the World Parliament and the World Executive.

2. Continental seats of the World Supreme Court shall be established in the four secondary capitals of the World Government located in four different Continental Divisions of Earth, as provided in Article XV.

3. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be established both at the primary seat and at each of the continental seats: Human Rights, Criminal Cases, Civil Cases, and Public Cases.

4. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be located only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court: Constitutional Cases, International Conflicts, Appellate Bench, and Advisory Bench.

5. Benches which are located permanently only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court may hold special sessions at the other continental seats of the World Supreme Court when necessary, or may establish continental circuits if needed.

6. Benches of the World Supreme Court which have permanent continental locations may hold special sessions at other locations when needed, or may establish regional circuits if needed.

cont'd next post

Sec. D - The Collegium of World Judges

1. A Collegium of World Judges shall be established by the World Parliament. The Collegium shall consist of a minimum of twenty member judges, and may be expanded as needed but not to exceed sixty members.

2. The World Judges to compose the Collegium of World Judges shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors and shall be elected by plurality vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session. The House of Counsellors shall nominate betwe en two and three times the number of world judges to be elected at any one time. An equal number of World Judges shall be elected from each of ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions, if not immediately then by rotation.

3. The term of office for a World Judge shall be ten years. Successive terms may be served without limit.

4. The Collegium of World Judges shall elect a Presiding Council of World Judges, consisting of a Chief Justice and four Associate Chief Justices. One member of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions of Earth. Members of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall serve five year terms on the Presiding Council, and may serve two successive terms, but not two successive terms as Chief Justice.

5. The Presiding Council of World Judges shall assign all World Judges, including themselves, to the several benches of the World Supreme Court. Each bench for a sitting at each location shall have a minimum of three World Judges, except that the number of World Judges for benches on Continental Cases and International Conflicts, and the Appellate Bench, shall be no less than five.

6. The member judges of each bench at each location shall choose annually a Presiding Judge, who may serve two successive terms.

7. The members of the several benches may be reconstituted from time to time as may seem desirable or necessary upon the decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges. Any decision to re-constitute a bench shall be referred to a vote of the entire Collegium of World Judges by request of any World Judge.

8. Any World Judge may be removed from office for cause by an absolute two- thirds majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

9. Qualifications for Judges of the World Supreme Court shall be at least ten years of legal or juristic experience, minimum age of thirty years, and evident competence in world law and the humanities.

10. The salaries, expenses, remunerations and prerogatives of the World Judges shall be determined by the World Parliament, and shall be reviewed every five years, but shall not be changed to the disadvantage of any World Judge during a term of office. All members of the Collegium of World Judges shall receive the same salaries, except that additional compensation may be given to the Presiding Council of World Judges.

11. Upon recommendation by the Collegium of World Judges, the World Parliament shall have the authority to establish regional and district world courts below the World Supreme Court, and to establish the jurisdictions thereof, and the procedures for appeal to the World Supreme Court or to the several benches thereof.

12. The detailed rules of procedure for the functioning of the World Supreme Court, the Collegium of World Judges, and for each bench of the World Supreme Court, shall be decided and amended by absolute majority vote of the Collegium of World Judges.

Sec. E - The Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court

1. A Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court shall be established to take cases which are considered to be of extra-ordinary public importance. The Superior Tribunal for any calendar year shall consist of the Presiding Council of World Judges together with one World Judge named by the Presiding Judge of each bench of the World Court sitting at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court. The composition of the Superior Tribunal may be continued unchanged for a second year by decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges.

2. Any party to any dispute, issue, case or litigation coming under the jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court, may apply to any particular bench of the World Supreme Court or to the Presiding Council of World Judges for the assignment or transfer of the case to the Superior Tribunal on the grounds of extra-ordinary public importance. If the application is granted, the case shall be heard and disposed of by the Superior Tribunal. Also, any bench taking any particular case, if satisfied that the case is of extra-ordinary public importance, may of its own discretion transfer the case to the Superior Tribunal.

Article IX • The World Judiciary (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article09.html)

Article X • The Enforcement System

Sec. A. Basic Principles

1. The enforcement of world law and world legislation shall apply directly to individual, and individuals shall be held responsible for compliance with world law and world legislation regardless of whether the individuals are acting in their own capacity or as agents or officials of governments at any level or of the institutions of governments, or as agents or officials of corporations, organizations, associations or groups of any kind.

2. When world law or world legislation or decisions of the world courts are violated, the Enforcement System shall operate to identify and apprehend the individuals responsible for violations.

3. Any enforcement action shall not violate the civil and human rights guaranteed under this World Constitution.

4. The enforcement of world law and world legislation shall be carried out in the context of a non-military world federation wherein all member nations shall disarm as a condition for joining and benefiting from the world federation, subject to Article X VII, Sec. C-8 and D-6. The Federation of Earth and World Government under this World Constitution shall neither keep nor use weapons of mass destruction.

5. Those agents of the enforcement system whose function shall be to apprehend and bring to court violators of world law and world legislation shall be equipped only with such weapons as are appropriate for the apprehension of the individuals responsible for violations.

6. The enforcement of world law and world legislation under this World Constitution shall be conceived and developed primarily as the processes of effective design and administration of world law and world legislation to serve the welfare of all people on Earth, with equity and justice for all, in which the resources of Earth and the funds and the credits of the World Government are used only to serve peaceful human needs, and none used for weapons of mass destruction or for war making capabilities.

Sec. B. The Structure for Enforcement: World Attorneys General

1. The Enforcement System shall be headed by an Office of World Attorneys General and a Commission of Regional World Attorneys.

2. The Office of World Attorneys General shall be comprised of five members, one of whom shall be designated as the World Attorney General and the other four shall each be designated an Associate World Attorney General.

3. The Commission of Regional World Attorneys shall consist of twenty Regional World Attorneys.

4. The members to compse the Office of World Attorneys General shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors, with three nominees from each Continental Division of Earth. One member of the Office shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions by plurality vote of the three houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

5. The term of office for a member of the Office of World Attorneys General shall be ten years. A member may serve two consecutive terms. The position of World Attorney General shall rotate every two years among the five members of the Office. The order of rotation shall be decided among the five members of the Office.

6. The Office of World Attorneys General shall nominate members for the Commission of twenty Regional World Attorneys from the twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions, with between two and three nominees submitted for each Region. From these nominations, the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session shall elect one Regional World Attorney from each of the twenty Regions. Regional World Attorneys shall serve terms of five years, and may serve three consecutive terms.

7. Each Regional World Attorney shall organize and be in charge of an Office of Regional World Attorney. Each Associate World Attorney General shall supervise five Offices of Regional World Attorneys.

8. The staff to carry out the work of enforcement, in addition to the five members of the Office of World Attorneys General and the twenty Regional World Attorneys, shall be selected from civil service lists, and shall be organized for the following func tions: Investigation.

9. Apprehension and arrest.

10. Prosecution.

11. Remedies and correction.

12. Conflict resolution.

13. Qualifications for a member of the Office of World Attorneys General and for the Regional World Attorneys shall be at least thirty years of age, at least seven years legal experience, and education in law and the humanities.

14. The World Attorney General, the Associate World Attorneys General, and the Regional World Attorneys shall at all times be responsible to the World Parliament. Any member of the Office of World Attorneys General and any Regional World Attorney can be removed from office for cause by a simple majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

Sec. C. The World Police

1. That section of the staff of the Office of World Attorneys General and of the Offices of Regional World Attorneys responsible for the apprehension and arrest of violators of world law and world legislation, shall be designated as World Police.

2. Each regional staff of the World Police shall be headed by a Regional World Police Captain, who shall be appointed by the Regional World Attorney.

3. The Office of World Attorneys General shall appoint a World Police Supervisor, to be in charge of those activities which transcend regional boundaries. The World Police Supervisor shall direct the Regional World Police Captains in any actions which require coordinated or joint action transcending regional boundaries, and shall direct any action which requires initiation or direction from the Office of World Attorneys General.

4. Searches and arrests to be made by World Police shall be made only upon warrants issued by the Office of World Attorneys General or by a Regional World Attorney.

5. World Police shall be armed only with weapons appropriate for the apprehension of the individuals responsible for violation of world law.

6. Employment in the capacity of World Police Captain and World Police Supervisor shall be limited to ten years.

7. The World Police Supervisor and any Regional World Police Captain may be removed from office for cause by decision of the Office of World Attorneys General or by absolute majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

Sec. D. The Means of Enforcement

1. Non-military means of enforcement of world law and world legislation shall be developed by the World Parliament and by the Office of World Attorneys General in consultation with the Commission of Regional World Attorneys, the Collegium of World Judges, the World Presidium, and the World Ombudsmus. The actual means of enforcement shall require legislation by the World Parliament.

2. Non-military means of enforcement which can be developed may include: Denial of financial credit; denial of material resources and personnel; revocation of licenses, charters, or corporate rights; impounding of equipment; fines and damage payments; performance of work to rectify damages; imprisonment or isolation; and other means appropriate to the specific situations.

3. To cope with situations of potential or actual riots, insurrection and resort to armed violence, particular strategies and methods shall be developed by the World Parliament and by the Office of World Attorneys General in consultation with the Commission of Regional World Attorneys, the collegium of World Judges, the Presidium and the World Ombudsmus. Such strategies and methods shall require enabling legislation by the World Parliament where required in addition to the specific provisions of this World Constitution.

4. A basic condition for preventing outbreaks of violence which the Enforcement System shall facilitate in every way possible, shall be to assure a fair hearing under non-violent circumstances for any person or group having a grievance, and likewise to a ssure a fair opportunity for a just settlement of any grievance with due regard for the rights and welfare of all concerned.

Article X • The Enforcement System (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article10.html)

Article XI • The World Ombudsmus

Sec. A. Funcions and Powers of the World Ombudsmus

The functions and powers of the World Ombudsmus, as public defender, shall include the following:

1. To protect the People of Earth and all individuals against violations or neglect of universal human and civil rights which are stipulated in Article 12 and other sections of this World Constitution.

2. To protect the People of Earth against violations of this World Constitution by any official or agency of the World Government, including both elected and appointed officials or public employees regardless of organ, department, office, agency or rank.

3. To press for the implementation of the Directive Principles for the World Government as defined in Article 13 of this World Constitution.

4. To promote the welfare of the people of Earth by seeking to assure that conditions of social justice and of minimizing disparities are achieved in the implementation and administration of world legislation and world law.

5. To keep on the alert for perils to humanity arising from technological innovations, environmental disruptions and other diverse sources, and to launch initiatives for correction or prevention of such perils.

6. To ascertain that the administration of otherwise proper laws, ordinances and procedures of the World Government do not result in unforseen injustices or inequities, or become stultified in bureaucracy or the details of administration.

7. To receive and hear complaints, grievances or requests for aid from any person, group, organization, association, body politic or agency concerning any matter which comes within the purview of the World Ombudsmus.

8. To request the Office of World Attorneys General or any Regional World Attorney to initiate legal actions or court proceedings whenever and wherever considered necessary or desirable in the view of the World Ombudsmus.

9. To directly initiate legal actions and court proceedings whenever the World Ombudsmus deems necessary.

10. To review the functioning of the departments, bureaus, offices, commissions, institutes, organs and agencies of the World Government to ascertain whether the procedures of the World government are adequately fulfilling their purposes and serving the w elfare of humanity in optimum fashion, and to make recommendations for improvements.

11. To present an annual report to the World Parliament and to the Presidium on the activities of the World Ombudsmus, together with any recommendations for legislative measures to improve the functioning of the World Government for the purpose of better serving the welfare of the People of Earth.

Sec. B - Composition of the World Ombudsmus

1. The World Ombudsmus shall be headed by a Council of World Ombudsen of five members, one of whom shall be designated as Principal World Ombudsan, while the other four shall each be designated as an Associate World Ombudsan.

2. Members to compose the Council of World Ombudsen shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors, with three nominees from each Continental Division of Earth. One member of the Council shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions by plural ity vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

3. The term of office for a World Ombudsan shall be ten years. A World Ombudsan may serve two successive terms. The position of Principal World Ombudsan shall be rotated every two years. The order of rotation shall be determined by the Council of World Ombudsen.

4. The Council of World Ombudsen shall be assisted by a Commission of World Advocates of twenty members. Members for the Commission of World Advocates shall be nominated by the Council of World Ombudsen from twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions, with between two and three nominees submitted for each Region. One World Advocate shall be elected from each of the twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions by the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session. World Advocates shall serve terms of five years, and may serve a maximum of four successive terms.

5. The Council of World Ombudsen shall establish twenty regional offices, in addition to the principal world office at the primary seat of the World Government. The twenty regional offices of the World Ombudsmus shall parallel the organization of the twenty Offices of Regional World Attorney.

6. Each regional office of the World Ombudsmus shall be headed by a World Advocate. Each five regional offices of the World Ombudmus shall be supervised by an Associate World Ombudsan.

7. Any World Ombudsan and any World Advocatet may be removed from office for cause by an absolute majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

8. Staff members for the World Ombudsmus and for each regional office of the World Ombudsmus shall be selected and employed from civil service lists.

9. Qualifications for World Ombudsan and for World Advocate shall be at least thirty years of age, at least five years legal experience, and education in law and other relevant education.

Article XI • The World Ombudsmus (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article11.html)

Article XII • Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Earth

The inhabitants and citizens of Earth who are within the Federation of Earth shall have certain inalienable rights defined hereunder. It shall be mandatory for the World Parliament, the World Executive, and all organs and agencies of the World Government to honor, implement and enforce these rights, as well as for the national governments of all member nations in the Federation of Earth to do likewise. Individuals or groups suffering violation or neglect of such rightst shall have full recourse through the World Ombudsmus, the Enforcement System and the World Courts for redress of grievances. The inalienable rights shall include the following:

1. Equal rights for all citizens of the Federation of Earth, with no discrimination on grounds of race, color, caste, nationality, sex, religion, political affiliation, property, or social status.

2. Equal protection and application of world legislation and world laws for all citizens of the Federation of Earth.

3. Freedom of thought and conscience, speech, press, writing, communication, expression, publication, broadcasting, telecasting, and cinema, except as an overt part of or incitement to violence, armed riot or insurrection.

4. Freedom of assembly, association, organization, petition and peaceful demonstration.

5. Freedom to vote without duress, and freedom for political organization and campaigning without censorship or recrimination.

6. Freedom to profess, practice and promote religious or religious beliefs or no religion or religious belief.

7. Freedom to profess and promote political beliefs or no political beliefs.

8. Freedom for investigation, research and reporting.

9. Freedom to travel without passport or visas or other forms of registration used to limit travel between, among or within nations.

10. Prohibition against slavery, peonage, involuntary servitude, and conscription of labor.

11. Prohibition against military conscription.

12. Safety of person from arbitrary or unreasonable arrest, detention, exile, search or seizure; requirement of warrants for searches and arrests.

13. Prohibition against physical or psychological duress or torture during any period of investigation, arrest, detention or imprisonment, and against cruel or unusual punishment.

14. Right of habeous corpus; no ex-post-facto laws; no double jeopardy; right to refuse self-incrimination or the incrimination of another.

15. Prohibition against private armies and paramilitary organizations as being threats to the common peace and safety.

16. Safety of property from arbitrary seizure; protection against exercise of the power of eminent domain without reasonable compensation.

17. Right to family planning and free public assistance to achieve family planning objectives.

18. Right of privacy of person, family and association; prohibition against surveillance as a means of political control.

Article XII • Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Earth (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article12.html)

Article XIII • Directive Principles for the World Government

It shall be the aim of the World Government to secure certain other rights for all inhabitants within the Federation of Earth, but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rightst are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the World Government to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation, and shall include the following:

1. Equal opportunity for useful employment for everyone, with wages or remuneration sufficient to assure human dignity.

2. Freedom of choice in work, occupation, employment or profession.

3. Full access to information and to the accumulated knowledge of the human race.

4. Free and adequate public education available to everyone, extending to the pre-university level; Equal opportunities for elementary and higher education for all persons; equal opportunity for continued education for all persons throughout life; the right of any person or parent to choose a private educational institution at any time.

5. Free and adequate public health services and medical care available to everyone throughout life under conditions of free choice.

6. Equal opportunity for leisure time for everyone; better distribution of the work load of society so that every person may have equitable leisure time opportunities.

7. Equal opportunity for everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological discoveries and developments.

8. Protection for everyone against the hazards and perils of technological innovations and developments.

9. Protection of the natural environment which is the common heritage of humanity against pollution, ecological disruption or damage which could imperil life or lower the quality of life.

10. Conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet Earth.

11. Assurance for everyone of adequate housing, of adequate and nutritious food supplies, of safe and adequate water supplies, of pure air with protection of oxygen supplies and the ozone layer, and in general for the continuance of an environment which can sustain healthy living for all.

12. Assure to each child the right to the full realization of his or her potential.

13. Social Security for everyone to relieve the hazards of unemployment, sickness, old age, family circumstances, disability, catastrophies of nature, and technological change, and to allow retirement with sufficient lifetime income for living under condi tions of human dignity during older age.

14. Rapid elimination of and prohibitions against technological hazards and man-made environmental disturbances which are found to create dangers to life on Earth.

15. Implementation of intensive programs to discover, develop and institute safe alternatives and practical substitutions for technologies which must be eliminated and prohibited because of hazards and dangers to life.

16. Encouragement for cultural diversity; encouragement for decentralized administration.

17. Freedom for peaceful self-determination for minorities, refugees and dissenters.

18. Freedom for change of residence to anywhere on Earth conditioned by provisions for temporary sanctuaries in events of large numbers of refugees, stateless persons, or mass migrations.

19. Prohibition against the death penalty.

Article XIII • Directive Principles for the World Government (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article13.html)

Article XIV • Safeguards and Reservations

Sec. A. Certain Safeguards

The World Government shall operate to secure for all nations and peoples within the Federation of Earth the safeguards which are defined hereunder:

1. Guarantee that full faith and credit shall be given to the public acts, records, legislation and judicial proceedings of the member nations within the Federation of Earth, consistent with the several provisions of this World Constitution.

2. Assure freedom of choice within the member nations and countries of the Federation of Earth to determine their internal political, economic and social systems, consistent with the guarantees and protections given under this World Constitution to assure civil liberties and human rights and a safe environment for life, and otherwise consistent with the several provisions of this World Constitution.

3. Grant the right of asylum within the Federation of Earth for persons who may seek refuge from countries or nations which are not yet included within the Federation of Earth.

4. Grant the right of individuals and groups, after the Federation of Earth includes 90 percent of the territory of Earth, to peacefully leave the hegemony of the Federation of Earth and to live in suitable territory set aside by the Federation neither restricted nor protected by the World Government, provided that such territory does not extend beyond five percent of Earth's habitable territory, is kept completely disarmed and not used as a base for inciting violence or insurrection within or against the Federation of Earth or any member nation, and is kept free of acts of environmental or technological damage which seriously affect Earth outside such territory.

Sec. B. Reservation of Powers

The powers not delegated to the World Government by this World Constitution shall be reserved to the nations of the Federation of Earth and to the people of Earth.

Article XIV • Safeguards and Reservations (http://www.worldparliamentgov.net/constitution_article14.html)

PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT

11 to 15 August, 2004 at Lucknow, India
in the great hall of the CMS Montessori Schools, Gomptinagar

Since the Seventh Session of the Provisional World Parliament held in Chennai, India, 26-30 December, 2003, a new and more dangerous spectre has come to haunt the world. The United Nations Organization, which had remained dormant and impotent in the face of ever-increasing world crises - not least the fatal consequences of the martyrdom of Iraq, - is entering into an Unholy Alliance with the single Super Power and its allies. Thirsting for a reason to exist, the U.N. is poised to do the scavenging work for the Super Power in Iraq.

Desperate to get into action, the United Nations, with its bureaucracy is succumbing to the Super Power's blandishments. Despite their failure to do what they should have done, stopping the invasion of Iraq, the U.N. is agreeing to take up the role of brokering between contending factions in Iraq. This is what the U.N. thinks is required now and what the Super Power is powerless to accomplish without a new exercise in carnage and horror. The U.N. is therefore cajoled to undertake the scavenging job.

The Charter wanted the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; not to foist unwanted regimes on a defenseless people. The need of the hour is to eradicate all attempts at despotic world dictatorship overt or covert by the Super Power or by its unholy alliance with the bureaucracy within the United Nations.

This marriage of convenience between the U.N. and the Super Power portends universal disaster. Yesterday we had the picture of a powerful Super Power and the United Nations, with its "banner torn but flying," in near total opposition - two large bureaucracies in confrontation. Today the picture changes. We have an unholy alliance between a docile U.N. ready to accept any role to justify its existence and a blustering Super Power offering the dirtiest role in human history to convince its 191 membership that with the Super Power's assistance it will play the role the Charter promised, and that a new and more potent U.N. will arise, phoenix-like, from the ashes in which it is now. U.N. members now face a calculated deception to help the U.N. and the Super Power to get out of the mire in which they are both in. The Super Power in the imbroglio that is Iraq today and the U.N. with its record of impotency.

There are encouraging cries throughout the world that the people must rise as one to stop the present drive to make Planet Earth a Totalitarian State. A frustrated humanity is turning increasingly to acts of terrorism, mob violence, suicide bombings, protest marches, burning effigies, and destruction of property. These, however, are not the answer. They only add up to human misery. They play into the hands of the Super Power to a further release of state violence and terror. Neither is the answer mere strong denunciation by leaders of the developing world, mere increasing criticisms in the media, and mere voices of protest in democratic primaries by would-be United States Presidents. They are but welcoming signs that the majority of the world's people would not tolerate World totalitarianism.

For the Eighth Session of the Provisional World Parliament in Lucknow, India, we renew our Call, at a time of great urgency, and reveal our plan to canalize the favourable forces now ranging against the Super Power into a strong movement to establish the Rule of just World Law as against the Rule of Military Force.

The failure of the U.N. is due to the weakness of the Charter. For 58 years, "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS" has built our vain hopes on a caricature of a Constitution. However, the citizens of this Earth are demanding an effective and just world constitution, which the United Nations Charter cannot provide.

This Call, therefore, goes out to the Governments and Peoples of the World that the Rule of Law can be made to prevail only by the establishment of a democratic federal world government and a world parliament under a Constitution For The Federation Of Earth. A world parliament cannot emerge without a World Constitution.

Respecting the decision of venue by the Seventh Session of the Provisional World Parliament, its Standing Executive Cabinet convokes this Call to the Eighth Session of the Provisional World Parliament. This is a call to National Governments and Legislatures, Universities, Colleges, and Churches, Scientific Academies and Institutions, Peace Organizations, and men and women of goodwill to send delegates and participate in its deliberations.

PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT (http://wcpagotcha100/english/pwp8/call_to_pwp8.htm)

24 October 2007

"Global Action to Prevent War" joins Campaign for UN Parliamentary Assembly

In October 2007 the International Steering Committee of “Global Action to Prevent War” (GAPW) has voted to endorse the proposal for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and to join the international Campaign. GAPW is a global coalition of more than 20 non-governmental organizations and research institutes which have united their efforts to develop a program for the sustained, integrated, worldwide application of government resources and knowledge to stop war, genocide and internal armed conflict. “As the UN is playing an important role in war prevention, it will be essential to take steps to assure the impartiality of decision-making in this organization on matters of war and peace. One important step to make the UN more democratic and responsive is the creation of a Parliamentary Assembly. This is why we support the Campaign for a UNPA”, says GAPW Coordinator Waverly de Bruijn.

"Global Action to Prevent War" joins Campaign for UN Parliamentary Assembly (http://en.unpacampaign.org/news/233.php)
~~~~~~~
GLOBAL ACTION TO PREVENT WAR

Dr. Randall Caroline Forsberg was Director of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, newly designated Ann and Bernard Spitzer Professor of Political Science at the City College of New York, and Co-Founder of Global Action to Prevent War. From the outset of her productive career, she was an astonishingly effective, inspiring leader in the struggle to end war and armed violence – charismatic and empathetic in her wide appeal yet highly self-disciplined, analytical and dispassionate, searching with surprising success for the key to mobilizing action in the American political system.

From its beginning in 1968 with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Randy's remarkable career was imbued with SIPRI's principled approach of opposing war but analyzing it pragmatically. Randy was born July 23, 1945. She married while in Stockholm and had a daughter Katarina, with whom she had remained very close throughout her life.

Randy returned to the United States during the turmoil of the Vietnam War and the Cold War with the Soviet Union . Her knowledge of nuclear weapons, her empathy with the fears and pain of those touched by war, and her intellectual creativity rapidly made her a respected leader in the anti-nuclear movement. In 1979, she led the team that drafted the “Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race” which became the manifesto of the nationwide Nuclear Freeze Campaign, advocating a mutual freeze with the Soviet Union of the level of nuclear weapons and delivery systems; she spoke with passion at hundreds of meetings throughout the country, directly influencing the lives of thousands of people to work for peace, and she came to personify the freeze movement with its message of “Go No Further.” These meetings culminated in the giant June 12, 1982 rally in Central Park, New York City, still the largest political demonstration in American history and in a successful freeze resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives, the high-water mark of peace protests in the United States.

Realizing that the struggle for peace was an ongoing one, Randy founded the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies in 1980. Her first project was the Arms Control Reporter, a monthly journal that was the country's most lucid, informative guide to current arms control negotiations. Randy and a single devoted colleague kept it going for nearly 30 years, and the project now lives on in her spirit. At the Institute, Randy issued a series of professional manuals on the world's armed forces, including the annually updated IDDS Database of World Arms Holdings, Production and Trade. That publication was bought and closely studied by defense establishments throughout the world.

This exacting work was performed on a shoestring. Books like these are not moneymakers. Randy was a gifted fundraiser, but too engrossed in substance to be an energetic one. With her mother's full support, Randy mortgaged the family home to raise money for the Institute's daily operations and cut off her own salary and income. Katarina and friends pitched in to keep things moving in crisis after crisis. Randy applied her charisma and superlative teaching ability to recruit and to train college student interns with the knowledge and analytical skills to research the Institute's professional publications and to set the interns themselves on the path to a new career in arms control and defense analysis.

Randy at times had a legendary temper, which occasionally escaped control and revealed the intensity of the forces that impelled her to work for peace. Paradoxically, this quality only enhanced her authority and the respect paid her leadership.

Randy's other great talent was her ability to talk with government leaders, including President Clinton, as equals in terms they understood. Perhaps the high point of these activities was her discussions with Soviet President Gorbachev in 1988. Randy advanced ideas on conventional disarmament which Gorbachev later promoted in talks which led to the 1971 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), the largest disarmament agreement in history.

Randy was the founder of Global Action to Prevent War, calling on Saul Mendlovitz and Jonathan Dean to assist, but supplying the concept and the drive. Beginning in 1997, she gave the organization its name and pressed for establishment of a lasting structure. Randy worked day after day, word for word, sentence on sentence in hammering out the text of the Global Action Program Statement, the credo of Global Action, straining in each proposed measure to get the precise balance between aspiration and realism. Like us, Randy believed that, if the measures described in the Global Action Program Statement are carried out, this will fulfill the cautious, but triumphant culminating sentence of the statement, “At this point, we could reasonably say that war has been abolished.”

Randy passed away on the evening of October 19, 2007. We in Global Action believe that Randy Forsberg has, in her full life of leadership for peace, shown us a practical route to reach that goal. With many, many others, we are deeply grateful to her.

GLOBAL ACTION TO PREVENT WAR (http://www.globalactionpw.org/)

The First Committee Monitor
First Edition: 8-12 October 2007

Introduction

Over the last few years, the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security has taken place after disappointing outcomes at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the World Summit, the Disarmament Commission, and the Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference. This year, the situation is not quite so bleak. While the CD closed its 2007 session without agreement on a programme of work, it inched closer than ever to a compromise, with nearly universal agreement on the package deal proposed by the Conference Presidents. In September, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Entry Into Force Conference reaffirmed the commitment of the States Parties to upholding and promoting the Treaty through eleven practical measures outlined in the Final Declaration. The first Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT review cycle, after days of procedural wrangling, allowed for interactive exchange between delegations—as the Cuban delegation pointed out this week, “amidst the current impasse and backward steps in the area of disarmament, many believe that having had the opportunity to talk is, per se, a success.”

After the first week of General Debate, most delegations appear optimistic about the possibilities before them. While buzz around the foremost issue in the CD, the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, is largely quiet and cautious, there are some other interesting developments on the horizon. The delegations from Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland intend to table a draft resolution calling on the nuclear weapon states to remove their nuclear weapons from “launch on warning” status (de-alerting). This initiative can be seen as a step towards building a positive outcome to the 2010 NPT review cycle. Cuba, meanwhile, is working to garner support for a draft resolution on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium (DU), which has been another issue of great concern to civil society for years. (See RCW's DU resources, including a report on the recent Fourth International Conference on DU Weapons.)

Outside of the First Committee, other initiatives such as the Oslo Process on cluster munitions, continuing work on the Arms Trade Treaty, and the ongoing campaign to establish a fourth special session on disarmament at the UN, have been receiving strong support from governments, diplomats, and civil society.

However, these initiatives are taking place against a rather stormy backdrop. Military spending has reached astronomical heights, with global expenditures over US$1 trillion per year and the military-industrial complex profiting from mass destruction more than ever before. Meanwhile, Millennium Development Goals are far from being met, and most donor countries (high income states) have not met their 0.7% development assistance pledge. Violent armed conflicts continue to be waged throughout the world, nuclear weapon modernization programmes proceed despite disarmament obligations, aggressive military posturing has increased geopolitical tensions, and insecurity, for the entire international community, is arguably at an all-time high.

In particular, the US-India deal, which Pakistan suggested was the basis for its opposition to the proposed programme of work in the CD, represents a step backwards for non-proliferation and disarmament. It allows for India to increase its nuclear weapons, fissile materials, and delivery systems, and does not restrict India from resuming nuclear testing. By giving India access to the benefits of the NPT membership without making it sign the Treaty or adhere to its tenets, the deal undermines the NPT at a time when the regime is facing other crises and needs support to retain its credibility and functionality. (See RCW's fact sheet on the US-India deal.) Meanwhile, tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme continue to grow: despite the work plan finalized between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran in August to resolve all outstanding issues related to Iran's past nuclear activities, the United States and France have been pushing for a third Security Council sanctions resolution in response to Iran's continued uranium enrichment programme. (See the Nuclear Proliferation report.)

However, one year after the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) conducted its first nuclear weapon test, the government has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and has shut down and sealed its sole plutonium-producing reactor in Yongbyon under IAEA supervision. The success to date of the six-party talks demonstrates the potential and importance of multilateral diplomacy as the only legitimate, credible, and fair way to engage with contentious issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. It also exemplifies the effect that international diplomacy can have in overcoming the problems created by conflicting national security priorities, priorities which often undermine the collective human security that multilateral fora such as the First Committee strive to protect.

First Committee is often met by delegates and civil society alike with weariness or even apathy, as time-hardened positions have given rise to a number of static annual resolutions that are tabled and voted on year after year. However, the First Committee is the best place for states to build consensus on the issues, to reach common understandings, and to agree on norms of behaviour and principles of cooperation—respect for which we could all benefit from.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will

Cont'd next post

Nuclear Disarmament

While bemoaning the lack of progress in multilateral disarmament—nuclear and otherwise—many delegates in the General Debate of the First Committee nonetheless found reasons to be more optimistic about the future of nuclear disarmament. South Korean Ambassador Kim Hyun Chong told the Committee, “For too long, the multilateral disarmament agenda has been in disarray, with no substantive progress in the major non-proliferation and disarmament negotiations… This must be changed. The international community has an urgent responsibility to reverse the failures and shortcomings of the multilateral disarmament community.”

In a reference to the decisions by some nuclear weapon states to go forward with new generations of weapons, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali of South Africa said she was “disappointed that nuclear weapon states have not used the opportunity presented by the renewal of weapons systems to give effect to their disarmament obligations.” Indonesia's delegation complained about “the lack of leadership on the part of the nuclear weapon states” in eliminating nuclear weapons.

Speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), Ambassador Luis De Alba of Mexico said that despite continuing reliance on nuclear weapons in military doctrines, the NAC “nevertheless sees some modest signs that might positively evolve to create the conditions for the adoption of specific measures leading to the elimination of the threat of nuclear weapons and to strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.” Those measures included the improved climate at the first session of the NPT preparatory committee this spring. He added that success in 2010 had to be built on “full respect for and implementation of” all of the commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences, including the “unequivocal undertaking” by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals and the resolution on the Middle East.

De Alba said the NAC would submit a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament issues this year. Japan's delegation said it would submit its annual draft resolution “that maps out concrete measures towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” No specifics were offered on either draft.

Other non-nuclear weapon states presented their priorities that they wanted to see the nuclear weapon states pursue, from items as immediate as a follow-on treaty between the United States and Russia on strategic arms to the more ambitious call for negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. The African Group said the international community “should agree on the commencement without further delay of multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of [a nuclear weapons convention]. In order to realize the objective, the Group calls on nuclear weapon states to commit themselves to stopping the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.”

Norway's Ambassador Aas said, “We must not abandon a comprehensive nuclear disarmament agenda. My government welcomes ongoing reductions in nuclear arsenals. We hope and expect that the START treaty will be strengthened following its expiration in 2009, and the same should be said for the SORT treaty due to expire in 2012.”

For their part, the United States and the Russian Federation argued they were making significant strides in fulfilling their disarmament obligations, including a replacement for START. Ambassador Antonov of Russia said the two counties were “maintaining a dialogue … on a new arrangement to replace this treaty. US Ambassador Christina Rocca said Washington “has been fully engaged with our Russian partners in devising a post-START framework for over a year.” Rocca added, “We are hopeful that we will be able to carry forward those concepts from the treaty that may still be useful, while developing new concepts more in tune with our new strategic relationship.” They also agreed that they had made deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War. There were few other issues on which the two delegations agreed.

“Today we acknowledge that disarmament is at crisis,” Antonov said, “The stability of its international legal basis is threatened. We have to state that some treaties are not functioning properly, others are eroding and decaying – treaty vacuum is about to come to the area of strategic arms.” He also spoke of the “inherent interconnection between strategic offensive and defensive missile arrangement” and said the “unilateral plans” for missile defenses and space weaponization by the US “would adversely affect the disarmament process.”

Rocca touted the reductions the US is making in nuclear forces, saying that by 2012 the US stockpile will be “nearly one quarter of what it was at the end of the Cold War.” She dismissed as untrue charges leveled at the United States that Washington had abandoned the START process, has nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, had not fulfilled its commitments under the 1990-91 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives and was increasing the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines.

- Jim Wurst, Middle Powers Initiative

cont'd next post

Nuclear Proliferation

The nuclear programmes in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran once again dominated discussion on nuclear proliferation in the General Debate of the UN General Assembly First Committee (see separate report on the DPRK’s nuclear programme). Contrary to exhortations of unity of the international community on the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, the discussion in the General Debate revealed a high degree of divergence. On the broader issue of proliferation, most delegations reaffirmed their support for existing non-proliferation initiatives and repeated well-worn concerns and disagreements regarding a balanced implementation of priorities. Overall, delegations presented no new ideas, likely foreshadowing a continuation of the haphazard and selective approach to these issues, as warned of by such individuals as former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Hans Blix, and the pursuit of solutions based solely on national objectives.

Iran
Divergences were readily apparent in the approach of the P5 on the issue of Iran, despite the 28 September P5+2 statement in which the major powers agreed to seek a third sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council unless reports from the IAEA and the EU High Representative show progress in November. The United States again adopted the hardest line against Iran and called outright for the UN Security Council to “move forward as soon as possible to adopt a third resolution under Chapter VII imposing additional sanctions measures.”

Although the EU's delegation called upon Iran to “respond positively and swiftly to the demands of the international community … in particular by suspending its enrichment related and reprocessing activities,” and endorsed the 28 September P5+2 statement, it more positively expressed hope “that the discussions between the IAEA and Iran on outstanding issues will, at least by November, meet the targets laid down by the 'work plan'.” The EU made no reference to an additional sanctions resolution, however, it expressed “resolve not to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capabilities and to see to all consequences of its nuclear programme, in terms of proliferation, resolved,” without further specification as to what such “resolution” might entail.

The Russian Federation and China's delegations both placed emphasis on diplomatic and political solutions to addressing the Iran nuclear situation, without reference to the imposition of additional sanctions or the 28 September P5+2 statement, perhaps an indication of lukewarm support for continued escalation of the situation. Russia's Ambassador Antonov called for a “comprehensive approach … to the situation around the Iranian nuclear program.” He further called for a “comprehensive political and diplomatic solution” and “for intensifying contacts between the Six Parties and Iran in order to elaborate the models that would allow to launch such purpose-oriented full-scale negotiations process.” China's Ambassador Cheng Jingye implored all parties to “show flexibility, exercise patience and stick to the course of peaceful resolution in seeking a comprehensive, long-term and appropriate solution” to the Iran situation.

Other Western delegations that spoke out on Iran tended to take an approach closer to that of the EU. Canada and New Zealand emphasized a need for Iran to comply fully with UN Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007), a reference to Iran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Delegations affiliated with the Non-Aligned Movement, of which Iran is a member, universally adopted a softer tone, welcoming the agreement between Iran and the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues. Additionally, without direct reference to Iran, Non-Aligned delegates generally called for balanced and comprehensive pursuit of non-proliferation objectives and reaffirmed the right expressed in Article IV of the NPT to peaceful development and use of nuclear energy. Ambassador Aziz of Egypt observed the international community was witnessing “efforts aimed at preventing the non-nuclear-weapon-States from their inalienable right in the peaceful applications of nuclear technology.” Indonesia’s Ambassador Asmady stated, “We believe that the international community should not be skeptical of the activities of certain states—which are parties—in building peaceful nuclear programs as long as they will not be diverted into military purposes.”

Other non-proliferation initiatives
Various delegations reaffirmed their support for a variety of other non-proliferation initiatives, particularly those aimed at preventing non-state acquisition of WMD or related materials, including Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) and 1673 (2006), the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The latter met in Kazakhstan in June and has expanded its membership to 60 states. The delegation of South Africa expressed skepticism about these approaches, describing non-inclusive, non-UN based initiatives as “coalitions of the willing,” referring to the ill-fated alliance of states that continues to be bogged down combating an extended insurgency in Iraq. Related to proliferation by state actors, the EU called for a strengthened role of the UN Security Council so that “it can take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance, inter alia, with NPT obligations,” an expansion of the Council’s historical mandate, which is limited to matters that affect international peace and security.

The efficacy of selective approaches to proliferation continued to be questioned amid calls for comprehensive approaches that are inclusive and address root causes of insecurity. Arab states in particular emphasized the growing imbalance in the pursuit of non-proliferation objectives. Ambassador Aziz charged some states with “attaching the priority for non-proliferation while ignoring nuclear disarmament.” Ambassador Al-Nasser of Qatar cautioned, “The selective use of rules of non-proliferation constitutes a driving force towards proliferation and the race to achieve a deterrence capability.”

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

cont'd next post

Nuclear Energy and the Fuel Cycle

Amid the ongoing dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme and anticipation of a global renaissance in nuclear energy, the issue of the nuclear fuel cycle featured prominently in the General Debate of the First Committee. Discussion regarding attempts to rein in the spread of the nuclear fuel cycle due to proliferation concerns was met with equal concern over the uneven implementation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the erosion of rights of member states, pitting the concerns of the industrialized North against the “needs” of the developing South.

The range of disagreement on the issue underscores its complexity and the difficulty states will face in managing the risks inherent in the global spread of nuclear power and proliferation-sensitive nuclear technologies. As a new complication in the already troubled waters of the debate over the future of the nuclear fuel cycle, the US-India deal was cited by several key delegations as a negative development. In attempts to deal with these issues, the First Committee heard both familiar calls for strengthening existing non-proliferation initiatives and announcement of a new one, namely a joint Russian/Kazakh facility to enrich uranium to fuel nuclear reactors.

Worry over the implications for proliferation and international security came primarily from developed states with advanced nuclear programmes and infrastructures. Responding to concerns stemming from additional states acquiring nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, and with it the capability to produce fissile materials usable in nuclear weapons, Ambassador Aas of Norway cautioned, “We must ensure that an expansion of nuclear energy is not at the expense of the non-proliferation regime and international peace and security.” US Ambassador Rocca quoted Mohammed ElBaradei as saying the spread of sensitive nuclear technology is the “Achilles Heel” of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Reaction from the delegations of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and developing states revealed tension over approaches taken by developed states on the nuclear fuel cycle, amplified by negative implications for the NPT inherent in the US-India deal. Ambassador Aziz of Egypt obliquely criticized some states for their “efforts aimed at preventing the non-nuclear-weapon-States from their inalienable right in the peaceful applications of nuclear technology.” In addition to affirming the right of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, Indonesian Ambassador Natalegawa, on behalf of NAM, emphasized “the responsibility of developed countries [is] to support the legitimate requirement of developing countries for nuclear energy.”

Referring to the US-India deal and its conflict with the core bargain of the NPT, Ambassador Aziz asked rhetorically, “How can that be given that such inalienable right represents the return for which non-nuclear-weapon-States have accepted to permanently give-up the military nuclear option?” Also in reference to the deal and worries that the rights of NPT member states are being steadily eroded in the name of non-proliferation, Ambassador Asmady of Indonesia pointed out:

"It would be more logical if nuclear cooperation could be rewarded exclusively to parties to the treaty. Any cooperation with non-state parties does not only undermine the NPT regime but also provides less incentive for those state parties willing to comply fully with the provisions of the treaty, particularly where those faithful parties are faced with incremental obstacles to pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear energy by the unilateral imposition of strict restriction on export of nuclear materials."

Avoiding the debate over the future of the nuclear fuel cycle, Ambassador Mtshali of South Africa called for strengthening regulatory approaches and safety regulations on the spread of nuclear energy. Although Ambassador Mtshali declined to state her country’s position on the matter, South Africa occupies a important position as a country that has expressed interest in enriching uranium domestically, and has rejected participation in the US Global Nuclear Energy Partnership programme.

Despite lack of agreement among key states, several initiatives focused on the nuclear fuel cycle continue to move forward. The delegations of Russia and Kazakhstan announced their countries had established the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment in Angarsk, Russia. According to Russia's Ambassador Antonov, the centre is intended to “provide states with the opportunity to have guaranteed access to the capacities for uranium enrichment to satisfy their needs in nuclear fuel without the need to have their own nuclear fuel cycle,” open to all states “without any political preconditions.” Ambassador Antonov also announced Russia and the United States had recently proposed merging existing initiatives, all toward the purpose of providing “reliable supply of nuclear fuel on the basis of international cooperation as an alternative to proliferation of sensitive technologies.” Rather than calling for new measures, Ambassador Mackay of New Zealand reiterated a standard call to strengthen existing measures by calling for implementation of safeguards and the Additional Protocol to be a condition of nuclear supply.

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

cont'd next post

International Court of Justice

In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes referred to as the World Court, rendered an advisory opinion in which it affirmed the general illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and the universal obligation to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. Every year since then, the Malaysian delegation has introduced a draft resolution in the First Committee on follow-up to the ICJ advisory opinion calling for the implementation of the disarmament obligation through the commencement of multilateral negotiations that would culminate in a Nuclear Weapons Convention–an international treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons and providing for their verified elimination. On 8 October, Malaysia announced that it would again be introducing such a resolution to this UN General Assembly.

Despite strong support for the resolution, including from several states possessing nuclear weapons, there appears to have been minimal efforts by the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to take steps on its implementation. Multilateral negotiations on steps towards nuclear abolition have been blocked in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) – as has the proposal to merely commence deliberations on nuclear disarmament as part of the CD draft program for work (the A5 proposal). In addition, the NWS maintain robust policies for the threat or use of nuclear weapons, as well as programs for the upkeep, replacement, and even modernization of weapons into the indefinite future.

On the other hand, the NWS—particularly the United States, United Kingdom, and France—have claimed at nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Conferences and Preparatory Committee meetings that they have been implementing their disarmament obligations through such actions as halting nuclear testing and reducing stockpiles.

In order to place additional attention on the legal obligation to pursue and achieve complete nuclear disarmament, Indonesia told the First Committee on 10 October: “[W]e will not relent in urging [the nuclear weapons states] to continue to take the necessary steps to achieve further progress on nuclear disarmament in a verifiable and irreversible manner, including perhaps by requesting the ICJ to render its advisory opinion on the nuclear disarmament obligation of all states.”

This idea of returning to the ICJ was floated by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) in 2005 and was the subject of informal consultations and workshops during the 2006 UN General Assembly and the 2007 NPT Prep Com. In Return to the International Court of Justice: A Strategy to Break the Stalemate, Dr. John Burroughs explains that a follow-up case in the ICJ would allow the Court to clarify what good faith negotiation of nuclear disarmament requires of governments. Dr. Burroughs also notes that the ICJ would most likely a) indicate that states possessing nuclear weapons have not been adequately fulfilling the obligation; b) assess whether specific policies and practices, for example modernization of arsenals and expansion of options for use of nuclear weapons, are consistent with the 2000 NPT commitments to a diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security policies and the disarmament obligation, against the background of the Court’s 1996 finding of general illegality of threat or use; and c) confirm that the disarmament obligation applies to all states, including those outside the NPT - Israel, India, and Pakistan. In addition, returning to the ICJ would demonstrate that “the 1996 opinion is not an anomaly, to be discarded in the dustbin of history, but rather a living reality.” It would also provide a possibility to highlight, in the press and public conscience, the issue of nuclear weapons and the legal responsibilities of the NWS, and thus help revitalize the global nuclear abolition movement.

An indication of the significance of such a return case was given on 2 October when Christopher Weeramantry, President of IALANA and former Vice-President of the ICJ, was awarded the 2007 Right Livelihood Award, with specific mention being made by the Right Livelihood Award Foundation to Judge Weeramantry’s leadership in this initiative to take a follow-up case in the ICJ.

There are some concerns in the proposal to return to the ICJ. One is that a new opinion could undermine the strong statement of the disarmament obligation in the 1996 opinion. However, there is every indication that the ICJ would build on the 1996 opinion rather than revisit it. Since 1996, the States Parties of the NPT have agreed on a set of disarmament steps (the 13 practical steps agreed to in 2000) that give substance to the disarmament obligation. The Court would likely reinforce these and provide legal impetus for their implementation.

Another concern is that is that the Court may have difficulty dealing with the complexities of implementation of disarmament, and may therefore refuse to do so or do so inadequately. However, IALANA believes that there are clear legal principles involving general implementation of obligations that the ICJ would apply to the nuclear disarmament obligation, and that in doing so would strengthen the legal pressure for such implementation.

Finally, there is concern that an opinion from the ICJ would be ignored by the NWS and thus diminish the status of the Court, or at the very least be a waste of time. Regarding the standing of courts, it is generally accepted that their role is to establish what the law is regardless of whether such an opinion is accepted by key actors. Dr. Burroughs notes, “in the words of U.S. Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark 1803 opinion, Marbury v. Madison, words which have shaped the evolution of constitutional law in the United States: 'It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'” Indeed, once the law has been established, implementation depends on a range of factors and actors. The 1996 ICJ opinion may have had only minimal impact to date on the policies of the NWS (possibly more impact on the UK than the other states), but has been very significant in strengthening the hand of the non-nuclear weapon States including the New Agenda Coalition, and in energizing and motivating civil society–including through citizens weapons inspections of ‘illegal’ nuclear facilities, in a number of domestic anti-nuclear court cases, and in promoting a nuclear weapons convention.

Thus, IALANA has been joined by a number of other international NGOs in supporting diplomatic efforts to achieve a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 2008 requesting the ICJ for an advisory opinion on compliance issues related to the nuclear disarmament obligation.

- Alyn Ware, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

cont'd next post

Disarmament Machinery

The rusty machinery of disarmament is long overdue for some maintenance—and in some instances, to simply be put to use. With a generally redundant First Committee, stale UN Disarmament Commission, deadlocked Conference on Disarmament, and slow start to the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review cycle, the situation looks a little grim.

Several delegations pointed to the politicization of technical and legal issues and double-standards that are undermining the disarmament and non-proliferation regime's legitimacy and capacity. Concern for the international community's adherence to and respect for what Egypt's Ambassador Aziz called “traditional reference marks represented by international instruments, United Nations resolutions and decisions of relevant international fora” was frequently voiced by delegations. Ambassador Mtshali of South Africa referenced the “emergence of a multitude of unilateral and plurilateral initiatives . . . [that] not only reflect the lack of agreement and divergent views on the challenges that we face, but are also indicative of a disregard for the value of the multilateral system.” Widespread agreement was expressed in opening statements that multilateralism is the only sustainable method of addressing disarmament and international security issues.

Most delegates welcomed the restructuring of the Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA) into the Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA). After a successful civil society campaign opposing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's attempt subsume the DDA into the Department of Political Affairs, he revised his proposal to the General Assembly in March. The General Assembly subsequently passed Resolution 61/257 supporting the establishment of the ODA, which maintained the budgetary autonomy and existing structures and functions of the DDA. Many delegations also expressed support for the Secretary-General's pledge to make disarmament a priority during his term, and hope that the restructuring of the ODA will, as Turkey's Ambassador Ilkin said, help support the “revitalization of [the] international disarmament agenda through coordinated efforts in which the United Nations should play a more effective role.”

Under-Secretary-General Sergio Duarte, who was appointed High Representative for Disarmament Affairs for the new ODA, was also welcomed by all delegations. In his opening remarks, Duarte emphasized, “We must ensure that our architecture rests on a solid foundation of multilateral cooperation and respect for treaty commitments.” He reminded the Committee that since the first General Assembly in 1946, the goal of multilateralism has been advancing common interests to achieve the common good.

Many delegates reaffirmed the importance of the First Committee, though Colombia's Ambassador de Barberi expressed the need to “look for more effective results by rationalising time and resources available in the framework of new methodological approaches.” Others emphasized the importance and relevance of the UN Disarmament Commission as the sole specialized deliberative body, which in 2007 focused discussions on recommendations for achieving the objectives of nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, and practical confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons—but concluded without substantive recommendations. The speaker for the Rio Group nevertheless highlighted the importance of keeping the “channels of dialogue” open.

Delegates also expressed optimism about the modest success experienced during the first nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, at which frustration from days of deadlock over the adoption of the agenda gave way to interactive dialogue during the second week, and at which a final report, including the Chairman's Factual Summary, was adopted. In addition, Ambassador Diaz of Cuba commended the “active and positive role played by the non-governmental organizations” at the PrepCom. As New Zealand's Ambassador Mackay stated, however, the NPT “requires a sense of renewed ownership and energy from all of its States Parties in support of its full implementation” in order for the international community to see true success during the NPT review cycle.

Most speakers also called on the member states of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to agree on a balanced and comprehensive programme of work, emphasizing their optimism that the progress made during the 2007 session should lead to agreement on the CD package deal L.1 at the start of the 2008 session. Unfortunately, progress in the CD depends on more than just time for governments to ponder their options—it depends on the satisfactory treatment of a number of “national security concerns”. Currently, the most crucial of these is the US-India deal, the implications of which are great for South Asian relations in particular and questions of nuclear proliferation in general. Other security concerns, such as military tensions between the United States and China, the nuclear weapon states' continued inclusion of nuclear weapons in their security doctrines, and the US' imperious ballistic missile “defense” system and domination of outer space, also need to be addressed before the CD can move forward on its agenda in a balanced, comprehensive, and non-discriminatory way.

During last year's thematic debate on disarmament machinery, Dr. Patricia Lewis of UNIDIR argued, “It is not political will that is lacking—it is agreement on direction that does not exist right now. In my view, the political will that does exist is pulling with equal force in opposite directions—a sure recipe for staying stuck in one place.” All delegations, except for the US, have agreed that one way to work towards agreement would be convening a fourth special session on disarmament (SSOD IV). Ambassador Aziz of Egypt indicated that SSOD IV could help with “restoring the lost confidence in the credibility of the nuclear disarmament regime,” as the first special session in 1978 did. The establishment of SSOD IV could offer the opportunity for decision makers and civil society to comprehensively address disarmament issues in contemporary contexts, and elevate public awareness of the challenges and relevance of disarmament and non-proliferation in all their cross-cutting, interlinking facets. Whether or not it would help motivate governments to action remains to be seen.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will

cont'd next post

Fissile Materials

This year, the long-awaited start of negotiations on a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for use in nuclear explosives (FMCT) never seemed closer. Yet, what is still commonly referred to as the next logical step in nuclear disarmament remains just out of reach. Although the efficacy of the FMCT as a true disarmament measure, much less an instrument that makes any impact at all on the behaviour of states it will purportedly “affect”, has yet to be established due to lack of consensus over its scope, the first step of states simply sitting down to negotiate has so far proven the hardest—and there have been no shortages of developments and issues that have either blocked progress or served as justifications for blocking progress.

At the end of its 2007 session, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) was near agreement on a package deal, L.1, which would have enabled it to begin negotiations on an FMCT in 2008 (see Disarmament Machinery). Although the United States “prefers a clear path to negotiation of an FMCT without reference to any other issue”, US Ambassador to the CD Christina Rocca explained her country had “made the conscious decision this year that it would not stand in the way of consensus on a P-6 proposal for a Programme of Work.”

Despite finally coming to grips with old linkages, such as those of prevention of an arms race in outer space, new ones have emerged. The effect of a ban on fissile material production on the delicate strategic situation in South Asia has proven to be incompatible with the US-India deal for nuclear cooperation, which has become the latest stumbling block used to justify the continued use of procedural tactics to block consensus.

Canadian Ambassador Marius Grinius stated his delegation “will work for a decision at the First Committee related to a Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty,” although it appears as if the Canadians are still engaged in consultations in order to determine if they can find consensus for such a step. Although any decision would have no direct bearing on the struggle to adopt a programme of work in the CD, such a step would signal an end to the impasse and could invigorate efforts to hit the ground running with negotiations if they are able to commence once the CD convenes again in January 2008.

Even once negotiations begin, the process toward achieving an effective FMCT may still be difficult to attain without political shifts in key capitals, as no consensus exists on a number of issues pertaining to the scope, definition, and verification of the treaty. It will be the answers to these questions, rather than whether or not the treaty should be negotiated in tandem with other matters, that will determine if the treaty “fulfills both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives” and possesses “a true nuclear disarmament character,” in the words of South Africa’s Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali.

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

Outer Space

Each year, the First Committee of the General Assembly adopts, by an overwhelming majority, the Sri Lanka-sponsored resolution on “Preventing an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS). Despite this, as well as near consensus in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) to begin discussions on space security, the international community has yet to negotiate a legally-binding treaty.

Progress, however, is being made. In addition to this year’s adoption of debris mitigating guidelines by the Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, several states have put forward proposals in various fora, a welcome step forward reflected in this week’s General Debate.

In the view of Venezuela’s delegation, states with superior technological capacity have a special responsibility to renounce the placement of weapons in outer space.1 Towards this end, some delegations strongly support, as Mongolia does, the adoption of “a relevant legally-binding instrument,” one that would prevent the “threat or use of force against space objects.”

Delegations such as Canada, Switzerland, and Bangladesh expressed mild support for PAROS discussions in the CD, the forum that most states regard as the appropriate venue for any future negotiations. Turkey's Ambassador Ilkin noted his general support for “views and proposals on strengthening the existing international legal framework directed at preventing an arms race in outer space”. China's delegation, which had always been a leading voice for PAROS in the CD, was equally vague, plainly asserting that they are “firmly opposed to weaponization of outer space” and that they have “appeal[ed] to the international community to negotiate and conclude a new international legal instrument in this regard.” Such voices of general support could be interpreted as a positive sign, an openness to progress, and a hesitancy on the part of supportive states to rule out any specific, forward-looking proposal.

Kazakhstan voiced particular support for the Russian-sponsored “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities” (UNGA 61/75), and optimistically noted, “the increased number of co-sponsors and unanimous support of this resolution could be the first step towards drafting a universal agreement on preventing the militarization of space and the ensuring security of space objects.”2

The European Union's statement recognized that preventing an arms race in outer space “is an essential condition for the strengthening of strategic stability,” and noted that they had offered “concrete proposals” in response to resolution 61/75. The EU alone mentioned China’s anti-satellite weapon test earlier this year, about which it remains “very concerned,” though it refrained from calling China by name.

The Russian Federation remains the clear leader on this crucial issue of international peace and security. In addition to sponsoring once again the relatively new resolution on “Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities,” and reiterating its pledge not to be the first to place weapons in space, the Russian delegation this week also noted its “draft Treaty on the Prevention of Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, Use or Threat of Use of Force Against Space Objects (PPWT)”, which it first broached in the CD this year. It has yet to release the draft text to civil society, though it has circulated it informally among several governments, the comments from which Russia promises they will “take into account”. This week, at a panel event sponsored by Russia, China, UNIDIR, the Secure World Foundation, and the Global Security Institute, Counselor Valery Semin will further elaborate on this highly anticipated proposal.

To hear more of the Russian proposal, as well as the laudable Space Security Index and other initiatives to strengthen our common security in outer space, be sure to attend the 15 October event, conveniently scheduled for 1:15 in Conference Room 4, and the Space Security Index event on 22 October at 1:15 in Conference Room 9.

- Rhianna Tyson, Global Security Institute and Secure World Foundation

cont'd next post

Verification and Transparency

The issues of verification and transparency are vitally important for international security: transparency allows states to monitor implementation of agreements, while verification provides technical assurances, and both help the international community build confidence in each other's respect for international law and compliance with treaty obligations. In previous years, delegations to the First Committee have agreed on the need for effective verification and compliance mechanisms, but there has been a lack of consensus on what constitutes compliance and verification, which treaties are effectively verifiable, or what are the most appropriate measures for confidence-building.

Last week, there was general agreement with the Portuguese Ambassador's statement on behalf of the European Union, which argued, “Verification mechanisms should be reinforced and new effective verification mechanisms should be created when and/or where necessary to ensure full compliance with the obligations contained in multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation treaties and agreements.”

Many delegations called for an increase in transparency on specific issues. For example, delegations from the European Union, Canada, Kazakhstan, and the Russian Federation called for transparency in outer space. Kazakhstan's Ambassador Aitimova argued, “Cooperation in ensuring transparency and building confidence in space activities is the major condition to prevent the real threat of an arms race in space. Kazakhstan supports the resolution entitled Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities.”

Meanwhile, the Chinese delegation emphasized the importance of transparency of armaments, and of actively promoting mutual trust in the field of security among countries. China's Ambassador Cheng Jingye asserted, “the Chinese Government has decided to report annually, starting from this year, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations its military expenditures for the latest fiscal year, and resume providing the Secretary-General annually with the requested data for the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.”

Delegations also expressed continued support for the importance of organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is responsible for verifying the non-military nature of non-nuclear weapon states’ nuclear energy programmes. Many delegations emphasized that the IAEA Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and the Additional Protocols constitute the current verification standard. Norway's Ambassador Aas pointed out, “non-nuclear weapon states cannot and must not be mere observers or demandeurs ... [but] can make other important contributions, such as ratifying the IAEA Additional Protocol, in addressing regional security concern and in working with nuclear-weapon states to promote transparency, non-nuclear member states can facilitate progress toward nuclear disarmament.”

Iraq's Ambassador also made reference to UNMOVIC, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission, which verified destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. In June 2007, the Security Council adopted resolution 1762 (2007) which, inter-alia, decided to terminate immediately the mandate of UNMOVIC under the relevant resolutions. Many non-governmental experts think the international verification system would have been better served if UNMOVIC had been re-mandated after its withdrawal from Iraq to continue acting as an official UN verification system, rather than allowing the expertise to disperse after its closure.

Statements about a verification mechanism for a Fissile Materials Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) were few, but when mentioned, delegations were firm about its importance. For example, the Rio Group reiterated its support, “for the start of negotiations without preconditions on an International Treaty that prohibits the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, to include an international verification regime.” In the Conference on Disarmament, one of the main impediments to starting negotiations on an FMCT is the United States' insistence that the treaty would not be verifiable.

Many delegations also called for greater confidence-building measures, as they establish mutual trust and cooperation among member states. The speaker for the Rio Group stated, “Confidence-building measures, which are adopted voluntarily by States, play an important role in the preservation of international peace and security, as they can enhance understanding. Confidence-building measures can contribute in the prevention of conflicts and the promotion of relations and cooperation among States.”

The Reaching Critical Will project of WILPF maintains that accountability is democracy and transparency is security. It offers a Model Nuclear Inventory as a tool for confidence-building and accountability. An extreme lack of trust pervades the disarmament arena, and transparent information exchange on nuclear programs can increase confidence among states honouring their obligations. It can also act as an objective tool to hold those in non-compliance to account.

- Sarmadi Almecci and Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will

cont'd next post

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The vast majority of governmental statements last week mentioned the need for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In his opening address as High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte emphasized the importance of the CTBT to the international disarmament regime, and the urgent necessity of its entry into force.

Under-Secretary-General Duarte’s words echoed those of H.E. Bruno Stagno Ugarte, Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, at the Fifth Article XIV Conference on Facilitating Entry into Force of the CTBT in September, where he identified arguments for the universalization of the CTBT, including that the CTBT, “constrains the development and qualitative improvement of new and more advanced nuclear weapons; it severely constrains the capacity of non-nuclear weapon states to develop new nuclear weapons and it prevents the proliferation of materials, technologies and knowledge that can be used for nuclear weapons.” At this same conference, the NGO community voiced its support for this critical tool for multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation , stating, “The CTBT is important to all states—North and South, East and West, large and small, with nuclear weapons and without. The CTBT is essential to the prevention of nuclear arms races, the development of increasingly more destructive weapons, the prevention of more states acquiring nuclear arsenals, and the protection of human health and the global environment from the devastating effects of nuclear weapons production and testing.”

In the First Committee, the European Union (EU) delegation explained that the EU “places the utmost importance on the earliest possible entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to prohibit all nuclear weapon test explosions and other nuclear explosions.”

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) expressed “serious concern that the development of nuclear weapons is in contravention with the assurances provided by nuclear-weapon-States at the conclusion of the CTBT,” referring to efforts by nuclear weapon states (NWS) to modernize their arsenals with new types of nuclear weapons without explosive testing, a position that might contravene their disarmament commitments. The NAM also recognized the significantly vital role of the NWS to contribute to the functioning of the disarmament and non-proliferation machinery and instruments in the construction and reinforcement of a global norm against nuclear testing. If “the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all State signatories, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential.” Each member of the NAM voiced their support for the NAM statement and many also made mention of the importance of the CTBT’s entry into force at the earliest possible date.

The New Agenda Coalition, while calling for the speedy entry into force of the CTBT, also called “upon all States to uphold and maintain a moratorium on nuclear-weapon test explosions and any other nuclear explosions.” China, though it has not yet ratified the treaty, “honors its commitment on nuclear test moratorium, and has been promoting careful review by the National People’s Congress of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, with the view to ratifying the Treaty an early date.”

At a panel discussion sponsored by the Middle Powers Initiative entitled Towards 2010: Priorities for NPT Consensus, Ambassador Johannes Landman of the Netherlands spoke on the importance of the CTBT as a complement to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a vital link in the network of treaties designed to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. He cited its entry into force as both necessary and urgent in order to reinforce global norms of non-proliferation and disarmament. Several states called upon Israel to join the NPT and the CTBT in order to contribute to stability in the Middle East, and the possible creation of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone there. (See NWFZ report.)

Listening to the governmental statements to the First Committee, it became abundantly clear that the entry into force of the CTBT is both a high priority and urgent issue facing the international community. Nearly every regional group, including the EU, the Caribbean Community, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and the Rio Group mentioned this issue and its urgency.

The CTBT’s entry into force, though overwhelmingly endorsed by states and civil society, is being waylaid by a small handful of states who either refuse to sign or, having signed, have not yet taken the necessary steps to secure its ratification in their various legal systems. It is imperative that these states, in line with the Article XIV provisions of the treaty, ratify at the earliest possible date in order to uphold the global norms of disarmament and non-proliferation, and to ensure the effective monitoring of nuclear testing activities.

- Anna Walther, Reaching Critical Will

cont'd next post

North Korea's Nuclear Programme

Last year’s nuclear weapon test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) highlighted the urgency and importance of the First Committee as forum for international cooperation and consensus. The test was widely condemned by member states. Since that time, the DPRK has continued to be engaged in Six-Party talks, the goal of which is the peaceful de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Japan, China, Russia, the US, and South Korea are all party to the talks, and have in recent months made significant progress.

In late July, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that the DPRK shut down and sealed its Yongbyon plutonium-producing reactor. The IAEA is now working to verify the status of two unfinished reactors, a spent fuel reprocessing facility, and a fuel fabrication plant. Last week, the DPRK government agreed to disclose all of its nuclear programs and materials and disable the Yongbyon facilities by the end of this year. The International Herald Tribune reported that technical experts from the US will draw up a specific plan for the Yongbyon disablement process, and that subsequent teams of experts will assist in carrying out the technical aspects. The DPRK is suspected to have produced enough plutonium at Yongbyon for a dozen nuclear bombs, including the detonation last October, the paper stated.

Throughout the first week of the First Committee, mention of the DPRK’s nuclear test was a common element in many of the governmental and regional statements. The European Union, New Agenda Coalition, and Rio Group all cited the DPRK’s nuclear test as a major concern of the non-proliferation regime, but lauded the current developments in negotiations with the DPRK and the progress towards the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Several Asian states made mention of the situation, including China, Japan, Kazakhstan, Philippines, and Indonesia, who expressed concern about the DPRK test, but urged the continuation of negotiations towards the peaceful de-nuclearization of the peninsula. Japan’s statement called upon the DPRK “to comply promptly with the provisions of UNSCR 1718, and appeal to all UN Member States to fully implement its provisions….We urge the DPRK to take concrete actions according to the recently adopted ‘Second-Phase Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement’.”

In a right of reply statement, the DPRK characterized the EU and Japanese statements as not constructively contributing to the goal of de-nuclearization, but rather undermining the current cooperation and progress in the Six-Party talks. Japan was also cited as having been unduly harsh in not recognizing the threatening behaviour of certain states towards the DPRK, and the DPRK’s right of self-defense through deterrence if necessary. Japan also gave a right of reply statement, in which it clarified its general statement as not having been a condemnation of the DPRK, but rather, a recognition of both concerns over nuclear proliferation and a call to continue progressing towards full de-nuclearization in the spirit of the agreements reached in the Six-Party talks.

- Anna Walther, Reaching Critical Will

Nuclear Weapon Free Zones

Amidst the daunting challenges, setbacks, and paralyses confronting the disarmament and international security community, nuclear weapon free zones (NWFZs) continue to inspire hope for a nuclear-free world. Forty years ago, the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean created the world’s first NWFZ through the Treaty of Tlatleloco. Today, NWFZs encompass the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, and most recently, Central Asia. In addition, Austria and Mongolia are each single state NWFZs, and Antarctica and Outer Space are both de facto NWFZs. All NWFZs prohibit the stationing, testing, use, and development of nuclear weapons on their territory. Each succeeding zone adds and builds on the strengths of the earlier ones.

During the General Debate, many countries lauded the significant contributions of NWFZs in promoting nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear restraint, as well as advancing complete nuclear disarmament. NWFZs further enhance and strengthen regional and international security by serving as effective confidence-building measures, increasing transparency, and encouraging dialogue among nation states.

While welcoming all existing NWFZs, many delegations expressed their interest and commitment in supporting the establishment of new NWFZs in other parts of the world. The Non-Aligned Movement, along with Syria, Egypt, Malaysia, Turkey, Viet Nam, Bangladesh, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates, reiterated their call for the establishment of a zone free of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. In this regard, Egypt will present its annual resolution on “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East” and, along with the League of Arab States, a resolution on “The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East”. The delegations from Ukraine and Bangladesh called for South Asia to become a NWFZ. Apart from the proposals in this General Debate, the creation of NWFZs in Northeast Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, the Arctic/Nordic region, and the Mediterranean is currently under discussion in respective regions and at the UN.

The Rio Group and ASEAN, along with the delegations of Malaysia, Viet Nam, Ghana, and Qatar, recognized the challenges facing current NWFZs in making their treaties fully operational and effective. Although NWFZs do not require the immediate support of nuclear weapon states (NWS) to enter into force, each NWFZ treaty includes protocols for accession by NWS, which provide security assurances for the NWFZ. In some instances, NWS have failed to endorse the protocols, or attached interpretive statements at the time of their accession to protect their nuclear deployment options. The Rio Group, referring to the Treaty of Tlatelolco, urged NWS “to withdraw the interpretive statements made at the time of their accession to the Protocols of this treaty.” States Parties to the Southeast Asian NWFZ welcomed China’s readiness to sign the Protocol to the Bangkok Treaty, and called on the remaining NWS to sign on as soon as possible. Mongolia reaffirmed its intent “to institutionalize its nuclear-weapon-free status, with a view to achieving not only an internationally recognized but also a legally-binding NWFS.”

Efforts to strengthen existing NWFZs discussed during the General Debate include a resolution on achieving the objectives of the Southeast Asian NWFZ, entitled “Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Bangkok Treaty),” the proposal by Brazil and New Zealand for the creation of a Southern Hemisphere (and Adjacent Areas) NWFZ, as well as the recent measures to enhance cooperation and communication among NWFZs. In this regard, the successful international Conference of the Parties to NWFZs treaties, hosted by Mexico in April 2005, was a vital step forward. Follow-up meetings are planned to take place in the Pacific in 2010, Southeast Asia in 2015, and Africa in 2020.

- Monika Szymurska, Atomic Mirror

cont'd next post

Missiles

As a topic that generally slips by under the radar, little attention is paid to the complicated issue of missiles. The sparse and pro-forma statements made by governments thus far in the General Debate of the UN General Assembly First Committee demonstrated minimal cognizance of the current status of the issue, thus indicating little enthusiasm for moving the agenda forward.

As noted by the Republic of Korea, the Third Panel of Governmental Experts on Missiles, established by UNGA resolution 59/67 (2004), met for its first session in June. Whereas the first panel, established by UNGA resolution 55/33 A (2000), was able to adopt a comprehensive factual report—though falling well short of drawing any actionable conclusions, much less recommendations—this third attempt follows the failure of the second panel to even adopt a final report, intended at the outset merely “to explore further the issue of missiles in all its aspects.” The mandate of the present Panel of Experts is “to explore further ways and means to address within the United Nations the issue of missiles in all its aspects, including identifying areas where consensus can be reached,” and to submit a report, expected to be completed by June 2008, to the sixty-third session of the General Assembly.

The report prepared in 2006 by the Secretary-General, with the assistance of UNIDIR, pursuant to UNGA resolution 59/67 (2004) and welcomed last year by resolution 61/59 (2006), provided a useful overview in understanding the lack of consensus on the issue of missiles. It explored three axes of divergence on dealing with the matter: Priority—Addressing missiles “as a distinct priority” (a more recent development) or in the context of nuclear weapon delivery systems and as part of broader nuclear disarmament mandates; Scope—Which type of missiles are to be covered, whether it be ballistic missiles, in its various classifications by range and payload, cruise missiles, man-portable air defense systems, or anti-ballistic missile systems; Method—Dealing with missiles in universal and inclusive forums, with legal or voluntary regimes, and on a case by case basis or in a comprehensive manner.

Statements made last week in the General Debate reflect continuing divergence on priority and method, with little interest or will in bridging the gap. Nor are there any signs of a multilateral missile treaty emerging anytime soon, as was pointed out by High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Sergio Duarte. The European Union approached missiles only as “WMD delivery systems”, and continued “to promote the universal ratification of, and adherence to … the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.” Again repeating its contrary view, the Association of South East Asian Nations, in a statement delivered by Myanmar, cited “an urgent need for a comprehensive approach towards missiles proliferation,” and called for “multilaterally negotiated, universal, comprehensive and non-discriminatory” agreements. This view is similar to the approach taken in the preamble of resolution 61/59, from which most European and NATO states abstained, in part due to the resolution's lack of reference to the Hague Code of Conduct.

Ambassador Aitimova of Kazakhstan reiterated his country’s intention to become a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and deplored that this request had not yet been granted. The MTCR has 34 members and, according to the October 2007 edition of Arms Control Today (ACT), is credited with constraining or ending missile programmes in many countries, including Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Iraq, South Africa, South Korea, Syria, and Taiwan. Despite this nominal success, ACT questioned the effectiveness of the MTCR, as notable MTCR non-members include key missile producing and exporting states India, Iran, the DPRK, and Pakistan. The non-universal and discriminatory approach of the MTCR is reminiscent of a prevailing theme in the post-Cold War pursuit of arms control, treating missiles as legitimate in the hands of some while rejecting their possession by others.

After signally the possibility of abandoning the INF Treaty earlier this year in response to an ongoing dispute, reminiscent of the Cold War, between the United States and Russia over US deployment of anti-ballistic missile radars and interceptors in Eastern Europe, Russia reaffirmed that it believes the treaty “remains important for maintaining strategic security and stability,” and that it is “crucial for ensuring effective world nuclear disarmament.” Russia’s Ambassador Antanov called upon “all countries, primarily those with missile capabilities, to jointly consider strengthening of the Treaty’s regime.”

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

Conventional Weapons

As Malaysia so aptly reminded its fellow delegates, “the destructive power from the blast of an anti-personnel mine or a shotgun may pale in comparison to the destructive power unleashed by the splitting of the atom or the fallout from chemical agents, however the suffering and pain brought to bear on victims from landmines or small arms attacks are real enough. They can also cause grave damage to the economic development of poor communities and countries.” A number of issues, including the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), the negotiation of an instrument on cluster munitions, man-portable air defense systems, and the UN Register of Conventional Arms were raised during this week’s General Debate.

The delegations from the Rio Group, the European Union, Switzerland, the United States, Ukraine, and New Zealand stated their support for the CCW. In particular, New Zealand acknowledged that it deposited its instrument of acceptance of the CCW’s Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War last week. This illustrates New Zealand’s “commitment to ending the post-conflict death, injury and suffering that result from the wide range of unexploded and abandoned ordinance that remain after hostilities have ended.”

Negotiations of a legally-binding international instrument for the regulation of cluster munitions were promoted. The South African, Australian, and New Zealand delegates noted the importance of such an instrument, which could be established either within the CCW or in a separate process that began in Oslo earlier this year. The European Union believes that cluster munitions should remain within the purview of the CCW, and has submitted a proposal for a negotiating mandate on cluster munitions (CCW/GGE/2007/WP.3) to the CCW’s Group of Governmental Experts. Addressing cluster munitions would enable “the CCW to clearly show its relevance to matters of International Humanitarian Law.” The US also announced its readiness to work within the CCW framework to deal with cluster munitions, hoping that others will join them in this endeavor.

The importance of establishing transparency and confidence-building measures in the field of conventional weapons was also raised. The Rio Group, the European Union, China, and Turkey spoke positively about the UN Register of Conventional Arms, with China noting that it has decided to “resume providing the Secretary-General annually with the requested data” for the register. However, Libya's Ambassador Elgannas urged against a “selective approach” in the field of disarmament, and believes that “the approach characterized by transparency and the register of the United Nations of conventional weapons lacks balance in that it does not comprise other forms of weapons such as weapons of mass destruction and likewise, other aspects related to national capacities to produce, acquire and stockpile weapons.

The delegations from the Russian Federation and the Ukraine each discussed the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. The Russian Federation reiterated its intention to suspend its participation in the CFE, effective 12 December 2007, though it is still open to “continuation of a dialogue on restoring the viability of the Treaty’s regime.” Ukraine's Ambassador Pokotylo stated his country's concerns with the intention of “one state” to suspend implementation of the treaty, and also recognized that while the CFE is still “one of the most important multilateral documents on arms control … the CFE Treaty of 1990 does not correspond to the current security circumstances in Europe.” He welcomed the efforts undertaken by the United States to begin parallel NATO and Russian courses of action.

The Australian delegation announced its intention to reintroduce its resolution on preventing the illicit transfer and unauthorized access to and use of man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS), which was last introduced in the 60th session of the General Assembly. “The consensus support given to this resolution in previous years reflects the depth of international concern about the threat from terrorists using such weapons.” The ASEAN group and Kazakhstan also spoke on MANPADS, and Turkey announced its intention to co-sponsor Australia’s resolution.

- Waverly de Bruijn, Global Action to Prevent War

cont'd next post

Arms Trade Treaty

Interest in an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) continued to be expressed during the General Debate in this year's UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security. Resolution 61/89, “Towards an Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms” was adopted during the 61st session of the General Assembly with 153 votes in favor, 24 abstentions, and one “no” vote. This resolution asked the UN Secretary-General to take into account the views of member states on the creation of an ATT, and called for the establishment of a Group of Governmental Experts to examine the scope, feasibility, and draft parameters of such a treaty. Sergio Duarte, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, noted that the Office for Disarmament Affairs has received an unprecedented 97 submissions from member states, leading to the split distribution of the Secretary-General's report. While the first installment has already been published, the second and final installment of the report will be released on 17 October.

During this week's general statements, the European Union (EU), the Rio Group and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) spoke in favor of progress made towards an ATT. CARICOM will explore the aspects of an ATT to ensure that weapons purchasers comply with international humanitarian and human rights law, thereby “contributing to political stability and to peace and security in countries throughout the world.”

Furthermore, Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Ukraine, Ghana, Japan, Norway, Canada, Togo, Iceland, Switzerland, the Republic of Korea, Colombia, Senegal, South Africa, Australia, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Turkey, Argentina, Tanzania, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates comprised the 23 delegations who mentioned the ATT in their statements. The Republic of Korea hailed the ATT as a “landmark initiative,” and Canada is “convinced that an Arms Trade Treaty … would lead to fewer conflicts around the world.” The delegates from Brazil and the Ukraine urged that an ATT be concluded in such a way so as to not interfere with the right of states to meet their legitimate defense needs.

Control Arms, a project of Oxfam, Amnesty International, and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) held an event this week featuring military generals and war correspondents who spoke of the need for an ATT from their perspectives. Retired Major-General Cammaert from the Netherlands expressed the frustration of “mopping the floor while the tap is still on,” describing the constant battle to protect civilians and disarm rebel factions when, due to unregulated and illicit trade, they constantly acquire new weapons. Retired Brigadier-General Robin Gagnon stated that an ATT is something he has stood for all his life: “As long as weapons proliferation [to non-state actors] increases or remains the same, peace support operations will be very costly—in loss of human life, and in the economic and social sphere.”

- Waverly de Bruijn, Global Action to Prevent War

Small Arms and Light Weapons

The General Debate offered an opportunity for many delegations to reiterate their commitment to fighting the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW), and their commitment to work within UN multilateral structures to do so. Almost all states who spoke about the issue affirmed that the 2001 Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Transfer of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects offers an effective and relevant basis for work on the issue.

The July 2006 Review Conference on that Programme of Action (PoA) did not conclude with any substantive outcomes, and the Republic of Korea, Qatar, and others took the opportunity to reiterate their disappointment. However, many states also said they were hopeful of continuing with substantive work, looking towards the 2008 Biennial Meeting of States (BMS) for further discussion on PoA implementation.

Several delegations referenced this year’s draft omnibus resolution on small arms, which will be co-sponsored by Colombia, Japan, and South Africa, and will form the basis of preparation for work at the 2008 BMS. New Zealand, the African Group, and others are looking forward to this meeting, which will consider the national, regional, and global implications of the PoA. At this meeting, states will have an opportunity to report on implementation measures they have taken on the International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons (often referred to as the “marking and tracing mechanism”).

The Non-Aligned Movement, Republic of Korea, and Kenya highlighted the work of the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Illicit Brokering, which released a report in June 2007. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte said he hoped the GGE recommendations would be heeded.

Some delegations raised other SALW-related issues. The representatives from El Salvador and Venezuela called for munitions to also be part of work on SALW.

Argentina, New Zealand, Cambodia, Angola, Philippines, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and others framed the importance of combating the illicit trade in SALW in humanitarian terms. Ambassador Viotti of Brazil said, “Easy access to small arms and light weapons exacerbates conflicts, facilitates violent crime and terrorism, impedes post-conflict reconstruction and undermines long-term sustainable development.”

Some statements emphasized work done on an informal basis, and outside the UN structures as well. The European Union and New Zealand delegations praised an informal meeting in Geneva convened by Canada and Switzerland on transfer control principles, and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte praised the work of the Geneva Process, which is an informal process that brings together civil society and governments to sustain the work on the PoA. The Philippines' Ambassador recognized “the role of civil society in addressing the issue of trafficking of these types of weapons through various mechanisms designed to establish and promote a culture of peace.”

- Gabriel Morden-Snipper, Quaker United Nations Office

cont'd next post

Disarmament and Development

Several states emphasized the relationship between disarmament and development in their general states during the first week of the First Committee. The most concerned states were, predominantly though not exclusively, developing countries, whom this issue affects directly.

Several states and groups of states including the Rio Group, the European Union (EU), the African Group, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Kenya, Cuba, and others mentioned the enormous quantities of resources allocated to military expenditures—currently more than 1.2 trillion USD—while funds for development assistance remain far below such levels. Cuba's comments were some of the most striking: “While resources are so squandered, some say, hypocritically, that there are no funds to tackle the very serious problems stemming from poverty and marginalization… With just 10% of the current military expenditure, the Millennium Development Goals could be achieved.” Cuba also referred to the annual draft resolution to be submitted by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on the relationship between disarmament and development, calling on the “only country that voted against this resolution” last year to “reconsider its position.”

The EU, in its statement delivered by Portugal's Ambassador Gomes, recognized that development, peace, security, and human rights are interrelated, and called for “efforts in the fields, of development assistance, poverty reduction, and the promotion of human rights and the rule of law” as means to promote peace and security. The delegation from Colombia mentioned the issue of small arms and light weapons disarmament and its relation to development, citing decrease in small arms-related crime in Cali and Bogotá as a result of disarmament campaigns.

Referring to the work of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the Kenyan representative stated, “there could be no development without security and no security without development. The ultimate guarantee of human rights presupposes development and security.” Thus, the issue of disarmament and development is not only an issue of the allocation of finite resources among contending national interests, but also involves a dynamic interdependence between security and development. As Jayantha Dhanapala, former Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament, argues, “in many cases, savings on defense could make a big difference to human development, while an environment of security would facilitate a lowering of military expenditure.”

A dilemma that can only be solved multilaterally, the disarmament and development relationship remains a delicate issue, with balance to be sought in the implementation of proposals ultimately seeking to ensure human rights for people across the globe currently suffering from a lack of resources that, when redirected from arms expenditures to development, can bring both security and development.

- Anna Walter, Reaching Critical Will

Terrorism

During the General Debate, many delegations identified the potential threat of international terrorism as a key issue, particularly the possible acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and small arms by non-state actors. The link between disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons to terrorists was firmly made by High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Sergio Duarte, who said disarmament and non-proliferation “are mutually reinforcing and even help to reduce risks of nuclear terrorism—for example, by strengthening controls over weapon-usable fissile materials.”

The speakers for ASEAN, the Republic of Korea, Cambodia, and Viet Nam seconded his argument, stating that proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their delivery systems pose a threat which must be given the utmost priority. US Ambassador Rocca agreed, saying, “Such a security situation includes clear and full compliance on the part of all states with their international obligations, particularly those under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” However, according to the US delegation, “A world in which the community of nations works together to ensure that their territories do not provide safe haven for terrorists or the trafficking of WMD and the materials to produce them” is the prerequisite for ending “reliance upon nuclear weapons,” again arguing for non-proliferation before disarmament.

Several delegations suggested practical measures to prevent terrorist acquisition of WMD. Norway demanded stronger international cooperation to prevent nuclear terrorism and presented its activities in minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium in the civilian sector. Kazakhstan mentioned the joint undertaking with the Russian Federation in creating an uranium-enrichment centre.

Suriname's delegation, on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), expressed concern over the transnational shipment of nuclear waste, because of “the risk of an accident or worse yet a terrorist attack on one of these shipments,” and called for the total cessation of these shipments.

UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (UNSCR 1540), on the proliferation of WMD, and the 1540 Committee received support from the majority of delegations who mentioned terrorism for its activities against the proliferation of WMD and their means of delivery. The US emphasized, “not only is international security enhanced, but capacities applicable to other national priorities are built.”

Canada's Ambassador Grinius welcomed the results of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, and called upon all participants to fulfil the goals established during the G8 Kananaskis Summit in 2002. Togo's Ambassador Kpotsra stressed that the fight against terrorism exceeds capabilities of small states and called upon the international community to tackle these challenges collectively. The Portuguese delegation, on behalf of the EU, called for the full implementation of UNSCR 1540 and UNSCR 1673, and offered its assistance to States Parties.

Speakers from the EU and Turkey mentioned the adoption of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy by the UN General Assembly Resolution 60/288. The EU stressed the pursuit of the implementation of this strategy, as well as the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, and demanded that all state measures must comply with “international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.” It named the principles adopted by the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which were also mentioned by the delegations of Australia, Turkey, the Russian Federation, the US, and Kazakhstan as complementary to the UNSCR 1540 and the Proliferation Security Initiative. The Russian Federation's Ambassador Antonov was pleased to discern that subscribing states to the Global Initiative had reaffirmed their obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of Act of Nuclear Terrorism and under the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. While most of the attention of the First Committee and other international fora is devoted to preventing terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons, acts of terrorism conducted throughout the world rely on the readily available supply of conventional weapons and small arms. Brazil's Ambassador Viotti stated, “easy access to small arms and light weapons (SALW) exacerbates conflicts, facilitates violent crime and terrorism, impedes post-conflict reconstruction and undermines long-term sustainable development.” Likewise, the Cambodian delegation argued, “We cannot undermine the illegal use and circulation of small and light weapons as they can be equally dangerous source of terrorism, violence and regional conflicts.”

As Under-Secretary-General Duarte and several other delegations noted, the existence of nuclear materials sustains the possibility of terrorists acquiring and using those materials. Dr. Graham Allison of Harvard University wrote, “Physics is on our side: no fissile material, no nuclear explosion, no nuclear terrorism.”

- Philip Urech, NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security

cont'd next post

Biological and Chemical Weapons

During the General Debate, many delegations mentioned biological and chemical weapons as belonging to the category of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) alongside nuclear weapons. There was broad approval for the universalization of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and support for Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004).

Overall, delegates welcomed the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the entry into force of the CWC, which was held on 27 September 2007. Participants at this high-level commemorative meeting stressed the need for complete destruction of chemical weapons by the deadline of 2012 established by the Convention. Switzerland's Ambassador Streuli congratulated Albania for being the first State Party to have completely eliminated its chemical weapons stockpile, which was confirmed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in July 2007.
With the current membership of 182 States Parties, the CWC is close to achieving universality, thereby giving the OPCW the title of the fastest growing disarmament organization in the world. In expressing its “regret that [the CWC] has not yet acquired universal status,” Ukraine's Ambassador Pokotylo stated his country's readiness to “host, together with other interested parties to the Convention and under the support of the OPCW, an International Conference dedicated to the issues of joining the Convention by the [13] states remaining outside the CWC.”

According to the OPCW, over one-third of the world’s chemical weapon stockpiles have already been destroyed. However, much work remains to be done. In particular, the United States and the Russian Federation, who were granted a five year extension in 2006 to destroy their stockpiles, did not explicitly commit to meeting the new deadline of 29 April 2012 in their tenth anniversary messages.

The European Union's General Debate statement mentioned the OPCW as “an inspiring example for effective multilateralism in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament.” While Tunisia's Ambassador Mansour stressed the importance of advancing international cooperation concerning chemical industries for peaceful purposes, South Africa and New Zealand's delegations stated their anticipations of the Second Review Conference of the CWC, which is due to take place in April 2008.

Meanwhile, the Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in December 2006 resulted in the unanimous adoption of measures to strengthen the implementation of the BTWC, such as the Implementation Support Unit (ISU) operating out of the Geneva Branch of the Office of Disarmament Affairs. The ISU was established in August 2007 with the main objective of assisting States Parties.

The BTWC Conference furthermore agreed on an intersessional programme, to be held prior to the Seventh Conference of States Parties in 2011, action plans, and an update on the confidence-building measures that call for information exchange between Member States. Several delegations suggested the implementation of an effective verification mechanism to strengthen the BTWC. While Malaysia's delegation proposed similar measures to the ones in place in the CWC, Ukraine's Ambassador Pokotylo based his remarks on a comparison to the International Atomic Energy Agency machinery.

Sergio Duarte, the High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, mentioned the Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters report on “emerging weapons technologies, including outer space aspects,” which drew attention to dangers originating from the rapid advancement in the field of bio-technology.

Furthermore, the delegation from the Republic of Korea emphasized the importance of enhancing the effectiveness of controls on materials and technology related to WMD, citing the Australia Group as an example.

- Edgar Socarras and Philip Urech, NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security

Landmines

2007 marks the tenth anniversary of the Ottawa Convention on the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (also known as the Mine Ban Treaty). During the General Debate many delegations praised and supported the Convention, with South Africa's Ambassador Mtshali stating, “the fact that the Treaty has tarnished as morally reprehensible the transfer or use of APMs [anti-personnel mines] in modern warfare across the globe speaks of its success as a highly effective instrument of international humanitarian law.”

Participants called for further progress towards a “mine free world” through full implementation and universalization of the Mine Ban Treaty. In a statement delivered by Ambassador Gomes of Portugal, the European Union (EU) called on countries that had not ratified the Convention to provide their support to maintain the momentum of the Treaty. The delegations from Turkey, South Africa, Honduras, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Dominican Republic (on behalf of Rio Group), and Cambodia also expressed similar views.

Delegations from Latin America and South East Asia also called on states to become party to the Convention, and provided regional commitment to the destruction of stockpiles. Malaysia and Bangladesh reported they have destroyed all landmine stockpiles, with Malaysia being the first country to do so in Asia. Honduras stated that it was undertaking pioneering work in demining, while the Rio Group, through the Organisation of American States demining program and assistance from UN Mine Action Service, was “committed to making the hemisphere a zone free of anti-personal mines.”

Cambodia’s Ambassador Kosal outlined the devastating humanitarian and economic impact of landmines, speaking as a citizen of one of the most heavily mined countries in the world. He called landmines “silent killers that have destroyed the lives of many innocent people and maimed countless others,” and reported that mine clearance was a priority in Cambodia's national agenda, with the removal of 1.5 million mines as of July 2007. Meanwhile, delegates from Bangladesh, South Africa, the EU and New Zealand called on member states to assist highly affected states with necessary funding and assistance for mine clearance and victim rehabilitation.

Australia, as President of the Meeting of State Parties, voiced its support for the Convention that has “stemmed the tide of suffering caused by landmines, by banning a heinous weapon class.” Australia, along with President Designate Jordon and preceding President Croatia, has committed to reintroducing a draft resolution on the Convention in the First Committee. Further, to mark the tenth anniversary of the Treaty, Australia will chair a panel on the Convention’s impact on 23 October.

Mongolia, a non-signatory to the Convention, stated that while it had not acceded to the Mine Ban Treaty, it does support its principles. This was one of the strongest statements from a non-signatory state. To support this principal, Mongolia has submitted its first report under Article VII of the Convention. Other non-signatory nations provided minimal statements on the Treaty.

The Mine Ban Treaty is one of the most comprehensive international instruments for eliminating an entire class of weapon. It deals with everything from mine use, production and trade, to victim assistance, mine clearance, and stockpile destruction. Those working towards new initiatives on cluster munitions and depleted uranium would do well to take note of the progress and challenges the Mine Ban Treaty has faced in its ten years, and aim for nothing short of the total eradication being achieved by this landmark Convention.

- Kavitha Suthanthiraraj, Global Action to Prevent War

cont'd next post

Negative Security Assurances

Negative Security Assurances—promises from nuclear weapon states not to attack non-nuclear weapon states with nuclear weapons—have been discussed by the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security for several years. Many nuclear weapon states have made verbal commitments not to use nuclear weapons in an attack on a non-nuclear weapon state, but have been reluctant to sign any legally-binding commitments to that effect, including some Nuclear Weapons Free Zone treaties.

Developing nations focused heavily on negative security assurances during the General Debate this week. Ambassador del Rosario (Dominican Republic), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, stressed the need for the “conclusion of a universal, unconditional, legally-binding agreement on negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon states at the earliest date.” This sentiment was echoed throughout the debate; the Non-Aligned Movement, spoken for by Indonesia, the New Agenda Coalition, represented by Mexico, and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, all emphasized the need for such an instrument, as did the delegations of Malaysia, Switzerland, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Ghana, Mongolia, Suriname (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Libya, and the United Arab Emirates.

The nuclear weapon states had a more mixed view of the concept of negative security assurances. China has in previous years supported an international, legally-binding commitment to negative security assurances. This year, the Chinese delegation emphasized its policy of no-first-use and reiterated its commitment to a policy of negative security assurances. However, it did not call for a legally-binding instrument, nor did it call on other nuclear weapon states to adopt policies of negative security assurances, both of which it has done in previous years. The Russian Federation's Ambassador Antonov, by contrast, did come out in favor of at least a limited version of legally-binding negative security assurances. He suggested the Russian Federation would not be opposed to “the elaboration of a global arrangement on providing such assurances to non-nuclear states, which would prohibit the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, taking into account the exceptional cases stipulated for in the nuclear powers’ military doctrines determining when such weapons could be used.”

Viet Nam's delegation said, “[w]e are also convinced that pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, effort to conclude a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument on security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon-states should be pursued as a matter of high priority.” This seemed to be the sentiment of the majority of the First Committee delegates. Granting legally-binding negative security assurances would afford an opportunity for the nuclear weapon states to demonstrate their commitment to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which included a goal to negotiated negative security assurances as part of the 1995 Package of Decisions adopted by the NPT Review and Extension Conference. It would also be a significant incentive for non-nuclear weapon states to remain a member of the NPT in good standing, and would bolster confidence in the disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

- Nathan Band, Global Security Institute

The First Committee Monitor (http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM07/week1.html)

Hello Dreamweaver,

Brother, thanks for the information. To say this is wild is an understatement. I can't imagine the U.N. being in charge of anything - much less the world. This isn't even funny, even though cartoon characters would probably be running it. It's really a sick and twisted thing that is likely the one-world order that will be attempted. It will represent the ultimate vanity of man, but it won't last long. Mankind will get to experience the unbridled results of organized evil. It will come, and this may be one of the vehicles it arrives in. The one-world religion might arrive at about the same time. Many people would look at things like this, laugh, and say that it will never happen. They might even think we're crazy for discussing something like this. However, Bible Prophecy will start unfolding at GOD'S Appointed Time, and we can see that many things are already in place. It isn't any joke, and there won't be anything funny about it at all.

After the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST, the government will truly be on HIS Shoulders. JESUS CHRIST will rule and reign over the earth from the Throne of David in Jerusalem for 1,000 years.

Isaiah 9:2-7 NASB
The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Isaiah 13:9-13 NASB
Behold, the day of the LORD is coming, Cruel, with fury and burning anger, To make the land a desolation; And He will exterminate its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light. Thus I will punish the world for its evil And the wicked for their iniquity; I will also put an end to the arrogance of the proud And abase the haughtiness of the ruthless. I will make mortal man scarcer than pure gold And mankind than the gold of Ophir. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.

Renovation Plan Proposed for UN Building

By EDITH M. LEDERER

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Friday proposed an accelerated plan to renovate the U.N.'s headquarters overlooking New York's East River that would complete the overhaul by 2013.

The proposal, in a report to the U.N. General Assembly, calls for the 39-story glass-and-steel Secretariat building to be completely emptied. The current plan calls for the renovations to be carried out several floors at a time, from top to bottom, and for the overhaul to be completed by mid-2016.

In December, the General Assembly finally gave a green light to start renovating the U.N. headquarters complex, which has not had a major overhaul in its 55-year existence and now violates safety and fire codes.

A report in July from the U.N. Board of Auditors said the $1.9 billion renovation project is at least $148 million over budget — before any work on the landmark building has begun.

In Friday's report, Ban endorsed the accelerated strategy and said he will ensure that the overall project stricks to the $1.9 billion budget. He asked the General Assembly to appropriate $652 million for 2008 and $341 million for 2009 for the project.

Under the accelerated plan, the Secretariat building would be renovated in 3 years instead of 6 years starting in early 2009 and the General Assembly building in 2 years instead of 2 1/2 years starting in mid-2011. The plan still calls for the construction of a temporary conference building on the U.N.'s north lawn in early 2008.

Ban said emptying the Secretariat building would mean almost 2,600 staff members would have to be moved elsewhere, instead of only 1,100. The U.N. has already leased some office space, but will need to find space for 1,500 additional staffers and is already looking in midtown and lower Manhattan, he said.

Renovation Plan Proposed for UN Building (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h2YWkztyrsditiUsGbY-ts0bRArQD8SCMB800)

UN may Enlarge Security Council

United Nations, Nov 12 (Prensa Latina) The United Nations will start its work in the plenary of the General Assembly this week by discussing a report on enlargement of the Security Council.

For years, the issue has sparked heated debate, as opinions differ on how to democratize the high UN body and achieve equitable representation.

The right to veto, enjoyed by five countries in their capacity as permanent members (the US, China, France, Britain and Russia) has also been a cause of friction.

The complex scene around the future of the Security Council has led diplomats here to think there is still a long way before it is solved.

A discussion of funds for gender equality has also been scheduled for Monday within the Second Commission of the General Assembly as a follow up of the Monterrey Consensus.

Also this week, the Security Council is expected to hold consultations on the Great Lakes region and on the tense situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea, following reports about a military buildup in their common border.

Other activities include a symposium on the food system in Africa and its interaction with health and nutrition, as well as a panel on climatic change as part of strategies for sustainable development.

On Wednesday, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is expected to travel to Tunisia and Spain, after visiting Argentina, Chile and Brazil.

The South Korean diplomat is scheduled to inaugurate an international conference against terrorism in Tunisia on Thursday.

World Food Program's Executive Director Josette Sheeran is expected to visit Mali and Senegal this week to attract world attention on emergencies in this area.

Also on Thursday, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is expected to present in Rome its report on the state of food and agriculture in 2007.

UN may Enlarge Security Council (http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B22C38F29-C964-4AB1-B148-25DC51B1C600%7D)&language=EN)

UN panel gives dire warming forecast

By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer Sat Nov 17, 11:11 PM ET

VALENCIA, Spain - Global warming is "unequivocal" and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.

"Only urgent, global action will do," said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, calling on the United States and China — the world's two biggest polluters — to do more to slow global climate change.

"I look forward to seeing the U.S. and China playing a more constructive role," Ban told reporters. "Both countries can lead in their own way."

Ban, however, advised against assigning blame.

Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," he said, and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together. We must work together."

According to the U.N. panel of scientists, whose latest report is a synthesis of three previous ones, enough carbon dioxide already has built up that it imperils islands, coastlines and a fifth to two-thirds of the world's species.

As early as 2020, 75 million to 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages, residents of Asia's large cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding, according to the report.

Europeans can expect extensive species loss, and North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water, says the report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the Nobel Prize with Al Gore this year.

The panel portrays the Earth hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace and warns of inevitable human suffering. It says emissions of carbon, mainly from fossil fuels, must stabilize by 2015 and go down after that.

In the best-case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Even if factories were shut down today and cars taken off the roads, the average sea level will gradually rise over the next 1,000 years to reach as high as 4.6 feet above that in the preindustrial period, or about 1850.

"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities.

Climate change is here, they said, as witnessed by melting snow and glaciers, higher average temperatures and rising sea levels. If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause fiercer storms and more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 percent of plant and animal species to extinction, according to the panel's report.

The report was adopted after five days of sometimes tense negotiations among 140 national delegations. It lays out blueprints for avoiding the worst catastrophes — and various possible outcomes, depending on how quickly and decisively action is taken.

"The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," Ban said, looking ahead to an important climate conference in Bali, Indonesia, next month. "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."

The report is intended to both set the stage and serve as a guide for the conference, at which world leaders will begin discussing a global climate change treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

That treaty, which expires in 2012, required industrial nations to reduce greenhouse gases and a smooth transition to a new treaty is needed to avoid upsetting the fledgling carbon markets.

"This report will have an incredible political impact," Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change official, told The Associated Press. "It's a signal that politicians cannot afford to ignore."

The United States opted out of Kyoto in 2001, arguing that the science was unproven and that the burden of mandatory emission cuts was unfair since it excluded fast-growing China and India.

Chief U.S. delegate Sharon Hays said doubts have been dispelled. "What's changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening," she said in a conference call late Friday. She did not indicate that Washington would abandon its policy of voluntary emission cuts.

China and India have said any measures impinging on their development and efforts to lift their people from poverty were unacceptable — a point likely to be heeded at the Bali talks.

The report offered dozens of measures for avoiding the worst catastrophes if taken together — at a cost of less than 0.12 percent of the global economy annually until 2050. They ranged from switching to nuclear and gas-fired power stations, developing hybrid cars, using more efficient electrical appliances and managing cropland to store more carbon.

Ban said a new agreement should provide funding to help poor countries develop clean energy resources, adapt to climate conditions and give them the technology to help themselves.

He said he witnessed the devastation of climate change in disappearing glaciers of Antarctica, the deforested Amazon and under the ozone hole in Chile.

"These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," said Ban. "But they are even more terrifying because they are real."

UN panel gives dire warming forecast (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_sc/climate_change_conference)

Quote from: DreamWeaver on October 24, 2007, 05:52:06 PM

THANKS BROTHER!

I know how much work this was to provide individual links, and I appreciate it. I do plan to use these to educate myself on some more issues.

AMERICANS PAY FOR EMERGING WORLD GOVERNMENT

By Cliff Kincaid

November 29, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

In its new Human Development Report calling for another $86 billion in aid to the rest of the world, supposedly to fight the effects of climate change, the United Nations acts distressed that people in “rich” countries like the U.S. don’t take the theory of man-made global warming more seriously. Its answer?and this is actually spelled out in the report?is that too much “editorial balance” in the media has prevented “informed debate” about the need for “urgent action” in the form of higher taxes on energy.

The U.N. report complains that, according to one poll, roughly four in ten Americans believe that human activity is responsible for global warming, but just as many believe it is a natural phenomenon. This is not acceptable to the global elite.

The U.N. is calling for more propaganda from the media, in order to push the American people toward acceptance of the alarmist view and higher energy taxes and the increased foreign aid that would result. It just so happens this would also result in more money flowing into the coffers of the U.N. at a time when the world body has already been found guilty of exaggerating the AIDS problem to generate more funds for itself.

In order to provide the “new and additional” foreign aid, the report calls for exploring a range of “innovative financing options.” This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. Indeed, the report openly calls for carbon taxes and aviation taxes. It proposes a “Climate Change Mitigation Facility” to mobilize the $25 - $50 billion “needed annually” for developing countries.

Not surprisingly, the report hails Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” film but says nothing about the numerous errors in it. Yet, “For all the progress that has been achieved,” the report declares, “the battle for public hearts and minds is not yet won.” Put another way, it says that “…the current state of public opinion does not provide a secure foundation for urgent action.”

In other words, you are not yet worked up into enough of a panic.

You, Mr. and Mrs. America, helped pay for this. The Human Development Report is a product of the U.N. Development Program. The U.S. is the largest contributor to this U.N. agency, providing more than $100 million annually.

This U.N. report has one of the most devious rationales for censorship that you will ever see. In a section of the report (page 67) about “The Role of the Media,” the U.N. informs us that “The media have a critical role to play in informing and changing public opinion.” It goes on to lament that “one study” in the U.S. on coverage of climate change “found that the balance norm resulted in over half of articles in the country’s most prestigious newspapers between 1990 and 2002 giving equal weight to the findings of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and of the climate science community, and the views of the climate skeptics?many of them funded by vested interest groups. Continued confusion in public opinion is one consequence.”

The U.N. is saying, in effect, that the American people haven’t been indoctrinated enough, and that the media have to provide even more one-sided coverage.

“Editorial balance is a laudable and essential objective in any free press,” the report goes on to say. “But balance between what? If there is a strong and overwhelming ‘majority’ view among the world’s top scientists dealing with climate change, citizens have a right to expect to be informed about that view. Of course, they also have a right to be informed about minority views that do not reflect a scientific consensus. However, informed judgment is not helped when editorial selection treats the two views as equivalent.”

Notice how the contrary view is being marginalized as unscientific, uninformed and the product of the special interest groups. But nobody is supposed to question the wisdom of those on the U.N. side of the issue.

This reminded me of when Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech at the leftist National Conference on Media Reform and faulted the media for covering two sides of the global warming debate “when there is no debate in the scientific community.” Ironically, in the same speech, Sanders claimed conservatives were 99 percent in control of talk radio and that it was time “to open the question of the fairness doctrine again” to restrict what they say and how they say it. Clearly, the purpose in a “Fairness Doctrine” is not to offer different points of view but to silence viewpoints liberals regard as unsound or unpopular.

The U.N.’s Human Development Report is an example of this mindset at the international level. It’s a scandal that we are being forced to pay for it.

In various tables in the report, countries are judged on how many of the “major international environmental treaties” and “major international human rights instruments” they have signed and ratified. Here, again, the U.S. comes up short. The U.S. has failed to ratify the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, as well as treaties on women’s rights, children’s rights, and others. The Sea Treaty could come up for a Senate vote at any time.

The goal was spelled out in the 1994 edition of the Human Development Report, which included an essay by Jan Tinbergen calling for a strengthening of the United Nations system. Ultimately, he said, “What is needed is a World Government.”

Our major media can be expected to follow the advice of the Human Development Report and further propagandize the American people on global warming and other issues. That effort will complement the campaign to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine” and silence conservative and dissenting voices in the media.

It is time to recognize that our freedom and sovereignty are under all-out attack. The least we can and should do is to stop subsidizing our enemies. That means defunding the United Nations and defeating the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Jet-setters diverge on ways to offset carbon emissions
December 3, 2007

London Daily Telegraph - LONDON — Delegates to a U.N. conference on climate change that opens today in Bali, Indonesia, are divided on seeing how their travel to the conference might make the problem worse.

About 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green and industry lobbyists and journalists are flying to the island for the summit, emitting the estimated equivalent of more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide — on par with the annual emissions of the African state of Chad.

Among the Americans expected to arrive, some by private jet, are California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Vice President Al Gore and actor Leonardo DiCaprio.

The Indonesian government, which is hosting the talks, has suggested planting thousands of trees to offset the carbon emissions caused by the travel.

But climate scientists from Britain and the United Nations rejected the idea, saying it's difficult to calculate how much carbon trees absorb, verify how many are cut down and calculate how many release carbon into the atmosphere through decay in subsequent years.

"We at the U.N. climate secretariat are offsetting by buying emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism," said U.N. spokesman John Hay. The mechanism, a part of the Kyoto Protocol, allows rich countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries rather than take more expensive measures at home.

A surge of political interest in climate change is expected to boost the number of delegates traveling to the resort of Nusa Dua, a palm-lined promontory on Bali's south coast, from the 10,000 who had registered by yesterday to 15,000 at least.

Hotels, some of the most luxurious in the world, are taking the opportunity to charge accordingly. Many say accommodation is available only at about $800 to $1,000 a night for a small single room.

Britain's ministers will stay at the Westin Resort Nusa Dua, which describes the experience of staying there as "sheer indulgence." Government spokesmen say the expense is justified because ministers will need to hold private meetings at all hours.

The European Union will send 90 officials with the environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas. Twenty members of the European Parliament and 18 assistants will be attending, even though the power to address climate change lies with individual governments, not the European Union.

They will be staying at the Conrad Bali Resort and Spa, one of the Hilton Hotel chain's luxury hotels. Their itinerary includes a day trip to the fishing village of Serangan with time for surfing.

Jet-setters diverge on ways to offset carbon emissions (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071203/FOREIGN/112030037/1003&template=printart)

U.S. slams 'massive' U.N. budget rise
With largest increase in history, global body's 'credibility at stake'

The United States urged the United Nations on Tuesday to cut spending and make tough decisions on its priorities to offset a "massive increase" in its proposed budget for the next two years.

The U.N. budget is typically settled through negotiations with major contributors like the United States and the European Union. Two years ago, Washington demanded U.N. reforms before the final figure was agreed.

U.S. ambassador Mark Wallace urged member states at a budget committee on Tuesday to delay approval of a proposed $4.2 billion initial budget until next year when full details are provided of additional items.

Such items already identified would take spending to $4.8 billion, Wallace said, and the final figure including other proposals and foreseeable costs could rise to $5.2 billion. That compares to $4.17 billion in 2006/2007.

The budget does not include peacekeeping costs which are forecast to rise from $5 billion to around $7 billion, fueled by the cost of a planned force for Darfur.

Wallace criticized what he called the "piecemeal" approach to budgeting and said U.N. budget hikes of recent years outstripped increases in the budgets of donor countries and of other international organizations.

"With the largest budget increase in history ... the credibility of the U.N. is at stake," Wallace said.

U.N. payments are assessed according to a nation's wealth. Washington has withheld contributions in the past and has been leading a drive for more transparency and efficiency.

One diplomat said the United States had not threatened to withhold funds or make payment of its contributions conditional on reforms, as it has in the past.

Wallace proposed voting to allow the United Nations to continue its activities but postponing the final vote until early next year.

In the last two-year budget, the United States contributed around 22 percent, Japan nearly 20 percent and the nations of the European Union a combined 38 percent.

"The great challenge before us is for member states to find the political will to truly prioritize and to identify meaningful offsets or to ask the SYG (Secretary General) to make such recommendations," Wallace said.

The 27-nation European Union said earlier this year the likely total of $4.8 billion after additional items already identified was a "very substantial increase."

One EU diplomat said the bloc was concerned about the budget but did not see a need to delay the vote.

UN resolution on death penalty remains non-binding

CNN-IBN
Wed, Dec 19, 2007

New Delhi: The United Nations, General Assembly has passed a resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty. Eighty-seven countries jointly introduced the resolution.

The resolution passed with a vote of 104 in favour versus 54 against with 29 abstentions. The resolution calls for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty". However, the resolution remains non-binding and stops short of an outright demand for the abolition of the death penalty.

Several countries opposed the resolution, protesting that it undermined their sovereignty. Aqeelah Akbar, the UN representative from Antigua and Barbuda said, "We respect the right of other states to abolish the death penalty, but in turn, they should respect our sovereign right to choose the judicial, political, economic and social systems which pertain in our societies."

The UN representative from Barbados said, "Capital punishment remains legal under international law, and Barbados wishes to exercise its sovereign right to use it as a deterrent to the most serious crimes."

Claude Heller, the Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations voiced his support for the measure. Heller said, "The purpose of this resolution is not to interfere in or impose our views on others. Our intention is to promote and to strengthen the growing trend towards the elimination of the death penalty."

Eighty-seven countries, including the 27 European Union states, more than a dozen Latin American countries and eight African states jointly introduced the resolution, though opponents singled out the EU as the driving force. (You notice there are no mid-eastern countries?? DW)

Prior to vote, an emotional debate reverberated the chamber with the opponents arguing that the death penalty is illegal under the international human rights law and that it is the sovereign right of every country to determine its judicial structure and methods.

UN resolution on death penalty remains non-binding (http://www.ibnlive.com/news/un-resolution-on-death-penalty-remains-nonbinding/54499-2.html)

U.S. rejects U.N. budget over anti-Israel measure

UNITED NATIONS - A key U.N. committee approved a two-year budget of $4.17 billion Friday night, with the United States casting the only "no" vote because it included $6.7 million for a follow-up to a conference the U.S. considered anti-Israel.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the insistence of some members of the Group of 77, which represents 132 mainly developing countries and China, to fund a follow-up conference from the U.N.'s regular budget made it impossible for the U.S. to support the overall proposal.

The United States and Israel walked out of the September 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, because of attacks on the Jewish state. The European Union nearly walked out but stayed until the end.

Several months later, Israel's then-deputy foreign minister, Michael Melchior, said the Durban conference "hosted the most racist speeches and proposals to be heard in an international forum since World War II." He added that "the conference became the mouthpiece for a new and venal form of anti-Semitism."

Khalilzad said the United States "could not and would not support a conference" that was regarded by some to be anti-Semitic, "and therefore, for matters of our values, for matters of principle, we stood firm on this."

The budget is traditionally approved by consensus, but the U.S. demanded a vote in the General Assembly's budget committee. In the balloting, the budget was approved 141-1, with only the United States opposing the financial blueprint.

The 192-nation General Assembly was expected to put the budget to a final vote, probably sometime Saturday.

Khalilzad said the U.S. would wait to see whether there was a possibility to change the funding for a follow-up Durban conference, "but I'm not optimistic."

In late November, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon proposed a two-year budget of $4.2 billion, saying the small increase was not much in light of the growing demands on the United Nations to address a range of new and existing diplomatic and security challenges. It represented a 5 percent increase over the $3.8 billion budget for the years 2006 and 2007.

Later, U.N. management chief Alicia Barcena said that because of inflation and exchange rates, by the time the money is actually used the budget is expected to rise to $4.4 billion. Khalilzad said that by U.S. calculations, Ban's proposal was actually over $4.5 billion.

The United States, which pays 22 percent of the U.N.'s regular budget, made "a lot of progress" in bringing it down to $4,171,359,700, Khalilzad said. The U.S. also succeeded in getting the committee to extend the Procurement Task Force, which has been pursuing fraud and corruption in U.N. purchasing, for a year rather than six months, he said.

"If we had achieved our goal with Durban, then the prospect of our joining the consensus would have been excellent," Khalilzad said.

The secretary-general didn't get approval for two key requests - a new building in Baghdad for U.N. staff and offices, and funds to beef up the U.N. Department of Political Affairs and broaden its activities.

Khalilzad said these and other issues will be taken up in March, and could add additional costs to the budget.

U.N. joining forces
with Marvel Comics
Book to be sent to 1 million U.S. school kids
to show superheroes working with 'blue hats'

He has fought against foes ranging from the Green Goblin to Doctor Octopus, but Spider-Man now faces an even more formidable challenge: improving the battered image of the United Nations.

In a move reminiscent of storylines developed during the World War II, the U.N. is joining forces with Marvel Comics, creators of Spider-Man and the Incredible Hulk, to create a comic book showing the international body working with superheroes to solve bloody conflicts and rid the world of disease.

The comic, initially to be distributed free to 1 million U.S. schoolchildren, will be set in a war-torn fictional country and feature superheroes such as Spider-Man working with U.N. agencies such as Unicef and the “blue hats,” the U.N. peacekeepers.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Camilla Schippa, chief of office at the U.N. Office for Partnerships, told the Financial Times the script was being written now and the final storyline was due to be approved in February. The cartoonists are working for free.

After publication in the U.S., the U.N. hopes to translate the comics into French and other languages and distribute them elsewhere, Schippa said.

The idea originally came from French film-maker, Romuald Sciora, who had been working on other U.N. projects and is making a DVD about the international organization that will be distributed to schoolchildren along with the comic books.

Although the U.N. did not come up with the initiative, the measure could help revive the body’s troubled image in the U.S., where relations have been strained, in particular during president Bush’s administration.

John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., once said that “if the U.N. building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

The latest U.N. initiative is not the first time U.S. comics have been used for political purposes. During World War II, superheroes were shown taking on Germany’s Nazi regime. Marvel’s Captain America, together with other characters such as Superman, were shown beating up Adolf Hitler.

UN Agency Criticized for Placing Abortion Before Development
By
Lawrence Jones
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Jan. 12 2008 12:32 PM ET

An international network of pro-family groups is calling on the UN Population Fund to place development before its promotion of abortion and contraception under the agency's "reproductive health services."

The criticism from the World Congress of Families International (WCF) comes in response to the UNFPA's recently released annual report which stated that "reproductive rights" and contraception are the primary focus of the organization's work.

The report warns that "every minute, 190 women are forced to confront the possibility of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy – one that could have been easily prevented if only they had access to contraceptives."

"UNFPA acts as if this was one of the great tragedies to befall humanity – that a woman is expecting a child whose conception wasn't planned," commented Allan Carlson, secretary of the pro-family network.

UNFPA spends $148 million annually on reproductive health programs, compared to only $51 million on development programs.

The World Congress of Families, founded by Carlson in 1997, is calling on the UNFPA "to re-think its dogmatic support for so-called family planning and focus instead of helping nations plan for the needs of their people – born and unborn," according to a new release Friday.

While expressing concern that the agency treats a people as a "plague – a hindrance to economic development and social stability," Carlson pointed out that the most densely populated nations – including some in Southeast Asia – are among the most prosperous.

"UNFPA's agenda is the same as that of Planned Parenthood. If it could, it would locate a condom dispensary in every school and neighborhood in the Third World," added Carlson.

In recent years, the UN agency has come under scrutiny from the U.S. government and Britain for working with countries like China which reportedly forces abortions on women as part of the nation's family planning.

For that reason, the Bush Administration has withheld funds – a total of $195 million to date – from the UNFPA since 2002, citing the 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which states no federal funds may go to any organization that "supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization."

The UNFPA has also been charged with promoting forced sterilization in Peru, where indigenous women were sterilized without their consent or were bribed into undergoing the procedure for bags of groceries, according to The New York Times.

UNFPA denies that it supports coercive programs in China and claims to be "abortion neutral." In the annual report, the agency stated it promotes "family planning as a means to reduce unsafe abortions."

Pro-family and anti-abortion advocates, however, say that the term "unsafe abortions" is used by the agency to described "illegal abortions," indicating that legal abortions would be considered valid means of reproductive health services supported by the agency.

The WCF is an international network of pro-family organizations, scholars, leaders and people of goodwill from more than 60 countries that seeks to restore the natural family as the fundamental social unit and the "seedbed" of civil society. The network is a project of the Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society, which is based in Rockford, Ill.

At WCF's fourth meeting last May, pro-family advocates adopted the Warsaw Declaration, which stated that "the future of humanity passes by way of the family" and that such families accept "joyful responsibility for every child-to-be, versus the fear of the child expressed in the contraceptive mentality."

UN Agency Criticized for Placing Abortion Before Development (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080112/30830_UN_Agency_Criticized_for_Placing_Abortion_Before_Development.htm)

UNIFIL leaks to Hizbullah worry IDF

Yaakov Katz
THE JERUSALEM POST
Jan. 10, 2008

A day after two Katyusha rockets struck Shlomi in the Galilee, defense officials raised concerns Wednesday that information they were regularly passing on to UNIFIL and the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) was also making its way to Hizbullah.

According to the officials, the IDF regularly updates UNIFIL and the LAF on its assessments concerning Hizbullah's military buildup in southern Lebanon.

Unconnected to those concerns, on Tuesday two 107-mm. Katyusha rockets struck Shlomi. Defense officials said that an al-Qaida-inspired Palestinian group was the prime suspect in the attack.

"This is a difficult scenario," one official in Jerusalem said. "On the one hand, we count on UNIFIL and the LAF and therefore need to update them. On the other hand, there is always a concern that the information we supply them with will fall into the wrong hands."

As a result, the IDF is constantly debating the "depth" of the information it is willing to share with UNIFIL and the LAF, out of fear that due to the Lebanese Armed Forces connection, it will find its way to Hizbullah.

Overall, the officials stressed, the IDF had a very good working relationship with UNIFIL, and OC Northern Command Maj.-Gen. Gadi Eizenkot spoke regularly with his UN counterpart, Italian Maj.-Gen. Claudio Graziano.

Last month diplomatic officials in Jerusalem reported major improvements in UNIFIL's performance, saying the force had recently taken up positions on bridges along the Litani River - the northern limit of its mandate - and was successfully curbing the flow of weapons from northern Lebanon to the South.

Meanwhile Wednesday, the IDF raised its level of alert along the northern border for several hours after several loud explosions were heard coming from Lebanon. After contacting UNIFIL, the IDF was informed that the peacekeeping force had decided to destroy several weapon caches it had discovered. UNIFIL had forgotten to update the IDF.

UNIFIL leaks to Hizbullah worry IDF (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517338538&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

U.N. Collective punishment for Gaza is wrong

By Louis Charbonneau Fri Jan 18, 6:36 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Israel has a right to respond to security threats but should not collectively punish the Gaza population for rocket attacks from the Palestinian territory, the U.N. humanitarian affairs chief said on Friday.

The United Nations also criticized Israel's decision to close all border crossings with Gaza, preventing delivery of a U.N. aid shipment to the territory's 1.5 million people, most of whom depend on foreign aid.

"We all understand the security problems and the need to respond to that but collective punishment of the people of Gaza is not, we believe, the appropriate way to do that," said John Holmes, undersecretary-general for Humanitarian Affairs.

The deputy head of Israel's mission to the United Nations, Daniel Carmon, told Reuters Israel's actions were "what any responsible government would do when it is confronted as we are with this surge of violence and terrorism."

He gave no indication of when the closure would end.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called "for an immediate cessation of Palestinian sniper and rocket attacks into Israel, and for maximum restraint on the part of the Israel Defence Forces," spokeswoman Michel Montas said in a statement.

Israel has killed at least 33 Palestinians in Gaza this week as part of what it describes as a stepped-up campaign to force Hamas to rein in militants who have fired more than 110 rockets into the Jewish state in the last three days alone.

It bombed the Hamas-run Interior Ministry in Gaza on Friday, killing one woman and injuring at least 30 others who were nearby, medical officials said.

Holmes said he was worried about the sealing of the border crossings because "they are the lifeline for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and other goods to Gaza."

U.N. PRESSURE ON ISRAEL AND HAMAS

Ban joined Holmes in urging Israel to end the closure, saying it cut off the population from fuel supplies needed to pump water and generate electricity for homes and hospitals.

"The closure will also cause further shortages of food, medical and relief items in the Gaza Strip," he said.

Holmes said the Israeli response was unwarranted.

"This kind of action against the people in Gaza cannot be justified, even by those rocket attacks," he said.

Carmon said Israel was "very much aware of the humanitarian situation in Gaza." The Israeli government has said that humanitarian goods would be allowed into the territory.

Holmes also urged the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which seized control of Gaza last June, to use its authority to put an end to the attacks against Israel.

"I'm calling on the Hamas leaders ... to do whatever they can to stop these attacks because they claim to be in control of Gaza there," Holmes said. "Therefore they have a responsibility to stop the attacks."

Israel has imposed strict curbs on non-humanitarian supplies to Gaza since Hamas's takeover.

But many essentials have been getting in, either with Israeli approval or through smuggling, though supplies are limited and prices have risen steeply.

Holmes said he worried the violence in Gaza could spin out of control, making a dire humanitarian situation even worse.

"I believe it is a (humanitarian) crisis already," he said.

U.N. Collective punishment for Gaza is wrong (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080118/wl_nm/palestinians_israel_un_dc)

The UNHRC has endorsed the Arab charter that calls for the state of Israel to be eliminated

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbor, has endorsed the Arab Charter of Human Rights which contains several provisions that promote classically anti-Semitic themes according to UN Watch who said that the charter classifies Zionism as 'racist' and calls for the elimination of Zionism, which is the basis for the state of Israel.

The Arab Charter on Human Rights is intended to serve as a basis for the principles of freedom by which Arab nations must abide.

Zionism is the movement for Jewish self-determination and asserts the inerrant and internationally acknowledged right for Israel to exist according to UN Watch and a call for the elimination of Zionism and the state of Israel is blatantly anti-Semitic.

Calls for the elimination of Zionism and the state of Israel by the UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Commission) is a step closer to the fulfillment of Bible prophecy for the End Times.

The Arab charter, which equates Zionism with racism and calls for the state of Israel to be eliminated, is on the agenda in the UN and has been endorsed by the High Commissioner on Human Rights. This Arab charter is blatantly anti-Semitic according to UN Watch and the Jewish people as well who are concerned. They want to see this charter changed to deal with this type of language.

The Arab charter, if ratified, will set the stage for Bible prophecy to be fulfilled. Zechariah wrote that during a period of judgment yet to come on this Earth, two out of every three Jews will be killed, Zechariah 13:8. Revelation 12:13-17 reveals a time when there will be an effort to wipe out all Jews. Daniel wrote that the Lord Himself will dispatch the Archangel Michael to protect the Jews from total elimination in the Last Days, Daniel 12:1.

The UN endorsed Arab charter that calls for the elimination of Israel is evidence that Bible prophecy is about to be fulfilled.

Quote from: Pastor Roger on January 30, 2008, 11:38:51 AM

The U.N. never ceases to amaze me. What amazes me more is why we continue to support such an overall evil organization. The increasingly insane anti-Semitic rhetoric around the world is also amazing. Israel has a tiny country and they simply want to be left alone to live in peace. However, Bible Prophecy tells us this isn't going to happen until after the SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.

If you think about Israel from a purely logical and common sense manner, minus the Bible, what has Israel done to make the world angry? They have defended themselves and decided to survive, and that's about it. Further, I would add that their self-defense has been TOO infrequent and INADEQUATE. No other country in the world would put up with the thousands of attacks Israel has without doing a single thing to stop it. They simply defend themselves every now and then, and the world condemns them every time they do. YET, not one of the countries condemning Israel would put up with a single attack without some sort of immediate and dramatic response. So, the world is insane when the subject is Israel, and HUGE HOSTS want to eliminate this TINY COUNTRY! By this, it's apparent that they want to exterminate Israel from the face of the earth, and THIS is EXACTLY what BIBLE PROPHECY states most of the world will attempt to do! If you want to read the entire story and find out how it ends, read the Holy Bible!

Love In Christ,
Tom

See the next post.

Matthew 24:23-31 NASB
"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. "Behold, I have told you in advance. "So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them. "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. "Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Matthew 24:32-44 NASB
"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. "For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. "For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. "Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. "Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left. "Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.

Revelation 11:1-13 NASB
Then there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, "Get up and measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it. "Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months. "And I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire. When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which mystically is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. Those from the peoples and tribes and tongues and nations will look at their dead bodies for three and a half days, and will not permit their dead bodies to be laid in a tomb. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth. But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them. And they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here." Then they went up into heaven in the cloud, and their enemies watched them. And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

Ezekiel 7:1-9 NASB
Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me saying, "And you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD to the land of Israel, 'An end! The end is coming on the four corners of the land. 'Now the end is upon you, and I will send My anger against you; I will judge you according to your ways and bring all your abominations upon you. 'For My eye will have no pity on you, nor will I spare you, but I will bring your ways upon you, and your abominations will be among you; then you will know that I am the LORD!' "Thus says the Lord GOD, 'A disaster, unique disaster, behold it is coming! 'An end is coming; the end has come! It has awakened against you; behold, it has come! 'Your doom has come to you, O inhabitant of the land. The time has come, the day is near--tumult rather than joyful shouting on the mountains. 'Now I will shortly pour out My wrath on you and spend My anger against you; judge you according to your ways and bring on you all your abominations. 'My eye will show no pity nor will I spare. I will repay you according to your ways, while your abominations are in your midst; then you will know that I, the LORD, do the smiting.

Ezekiel 7:14-20 NASB
'They have blown the trumpet and made everything ready, but no one is going to the battle, for My wrath is against all their multitude. 'The sword is outside and the plague and the famine are within. He who is in the field will die by the sword; famine and the plague will also consume those in the city. 'Even when their survivors escape, they will be on the mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, each over his own iniquity. 'All hands will hang limp and all knees will become like water. 'They will gird themselves with sackcloth and shuddering will overwhelm them; and shame will be on all faces and baldness on all their heads. 'They will fling their silver into the streets and their gold will become an abhorrent thing; their silver and their gold will not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the LORD. They cannot satisfy their appetite nor can they fill their stomachs, for their iniquity has become an occasion of stumbling. 'They transformed the beauty of His ornaments into pride, and they made the images of their abominations and their detestable things with it; therefore I will make it an abhorrent thing to them.

Ezekiel 7:25-27 NASB
'When anguish comes, they will seek peace, but there will be none. 'Disaster will come upon disaster and rumor will be added to rumor; then they will seek a vision from a prophet, but the law will be lost from the priest and counsel from the elders. 'The king will mourn, the prince will be clothed with horror, and the hands of the people of the land will tremble. According to their conduct I will deal with them, and by their judgments I will judge them. And they will know that I am the LORD.'"

Ezekiel 38:14-23 NASB
"Therefore prophesy, son of man, and say to Gog, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "On that day when My people Israel are living securely, will you not know it? "You will come from your place out of the remote parts of the north, you and many peoples with you, all of them riding on horses, a great assembly and a mighty army; and you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog." 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Are you the one of whom I spoke in former days through My servants the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years that I would bring you against them? "It will come about on that day, when Gog comes against the land of Israel," declares the Lord GOD, "that My fury will mount up in My anger. "In My zeal and in My blazing wrath I declare that on that day there will surely be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. "The fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the beasts of the field, all the creeping things that creep on the earth, and all the men who are on the face of the earth will shake at My presence; the mountains also will be thrown down, the steep pathways will collapse and every wall will fall to the ground. "I will call for a sword against him on all My mountains," declares the Lord GOD. "Every man's sword will be against his brother. "With pestilence and with blood I will enter into judgment with him; and I will rain on him and on his troops, and on the many peoples who are with him, a torrential rain, with hailstones, fire and brimstone. "I will magnify Myself, sanctify Myself, and make Myself known in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the LORD."'

Ezekiel 39:1-7 NASB
"And you, son of man, prophesy against Gog and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal; and I will turn you around, drive you on, take you up from the remotest parts of the north and bring you against the mountains of Israel. "I will strike your bow from your left hand and dash down your arrows from your right hand. "You will fall on the mountains of Israel, you and all your troops and the peoples who are with you; I will give you as food to every kind of predatory bird and beast of the field. "You will fall on the open field; for it is I who have spoken," declares the Lord GOD. "And I will send fire upon Magog and those who inhabit the coastlands in safety; and they will know that I am the LORD. "My holy name I will make known in the midst of My people Israel; and I will not let My holy name be profaned anymore. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

Ezekiel 39:17-22 NASB
"As for you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, 'Speak to every kind of bird and to every beast of the field, "Assemble and come, gather from every side to My sacrifice which I am going to sacrifice for you, as a great sacrifice on the mountains of Israel, that you may eat flesh and drink blood. "You will eat the flesh of mighty men and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, as though they were rams, lambs, goats and bulls, all of them fatlings of Bashan. "So you will eat fat until you are glutted, and drink blood until you are drunk, from My sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. "You will be glutted at My table with horses and charioteers, with mighty men and all the men of war," declares the Lord GOD. "And I will set My glory among the nations; and all the nations will see My judgment which I have executed and My hand which I have laid on them. "And the house of Israel will know that I am the LORD their God from that day onward.

Ezekiel 39:25-29 NASB
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel; and I will be jealous for My holy name. "They will forget their disgrace and all their treachery which they perpetrated against Me, when they live securely on their own land with no one to make them afraid. "When I bring them back from the peoples and gather them from the lands of their enemies, then I shall be sanctified through them in the sight of the many nations. "Then they will know that I am the LORD their God because I made them go into exile among the nations, and then gathered them again to their own land; and I will leave none of them there any longer. "I will not hide My face from them any longer, for I will have poured out My Spirit on the house of Israel," declares the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 2:1-5 NASB
The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Now it will come about that In the last days The mountain of the house of the LORD Will be established as the chief of the mountains, And will be raised above the hills; And all the nations will stream to it. And many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; That He may teach us concerning His ways And that we may walk in His paths." For the law will go forth from Zion And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And He will judge between the nations, And will render decisions for many peoples; And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they learn war. Come, house of Jacob, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

Isaiah 9:2-7 NASB
The people who walk in darkness Will see a great light; Those who live in a dark land, The light will shine on them. You shall multiply the nation, You shall increase their gladness; They will be glad in Your presence As with the gladness of harvest, As men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For You shall break the yoke of their burden and the staff on their shoulders, The rod of their oppressor, as at the battle of Midian. For every boot of the booted warrior in the battle tumult, And cloak rolled in blood, will be for burning, fuel for the fire. For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

Isaiah 65:17-25 NASB
"For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. "But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness. "I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people; And there will no longer be heard in her The voice of weeping and the sound of crying. "No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred Will be thought accursed. "They will build houses and inhabit them; They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit. "They will not build and another inhabit, They will not plant and another eat; For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people, And My chosen ones will wear out the work of their hands. "They will not labor in vain, Or bear children for calamity; For they are the offspring of those blessed by the LORD, And their descendants with them. "It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; and while they are still speaking, I will hear. "The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent's food. They will do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain," says the LORD.

Quote from: blackeyedpeas on January 30, 2008, 02:17:10 PM

Bravo brother Tom
Come Lord Jesus come "convert those Jews so we can all be lifted up and see the new Jerusalem.

The New World Order by the U.N. If you do not believe this I encourage you to study the United Nations documents, and also the treaties which, once ratified by individual nations, become INTERNATIONAL LAW. The United Nations created the Commission for Global Governance, if you don't believe this, visit the United Nations website and look it up. If you need the links post here, and I'll post the links. You can find the links using dogplie, or google.

The coming one world government is being set up in the political arena under the flag of the United Nations, through organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, Council of Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Bilderbergers, and the Club of Rome whose members include many world leaders, media personalities and other influential people. The published goal of the Council of Foreign Relations for example is a one world government. And although most have never heard of many of these groups, they do exist, and they are very influential. The core of these groups hold to "illuminist" philosophy.

A second focus is economics with free trade agreements, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. The coming global monetary crisis is intended to institute a universal debt-based currency controlled by the International Financiers and issued to individuals against biometric identification cards. This is all about control!

The third area of focus is religion. Organizations like the World Council of Churches and the Parliament of World Religions were established to introduce a new world religion. It is based on a pantheistic/humanist philosophy. Pay careful attention when you study the documents and reports published by the United Nations and related organizations. This philosophy is now being taught in the education system and has been implemented under programs such as Goals 2000.

The New World Order will be SOCIALISM. Read the United Nations declarations and treaties for proof of this fact. The individual will be subservient to the state. Rights and power reside in and derive from the state, not the individual.

United Nations documents all speak of collectivism. They claim that private ownership and management of property is not to the benefit of the human race. These things are cloaked in a pleasant language, and most people are taken in and deceived. Yet few bother to study these documents.

Transformed UN proposed to create 'new world order'

Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a "new world order" and "global society".

The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world's new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. Last night, British sources revealed "intense discussions" on UN reform were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.

UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus for change first.

His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: "I support India's bid for a permanent place – with others – on an expanded UN Security Council." However, he is not backing Pakistan's demand for a seat if India wins one.

Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100m a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. "There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow," he will say. "So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over – and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development."

He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.

Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a "partnership of equals" between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation against terrorism. He announced £825m of aid over the next three years – £500m of which will be spent on health and education.

Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers from Commonwealth countries. He said: "Cricket is one of the great things that bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some of the great players in the modern era honoured."

Read Andrew Grice at independent.co.uk/todayinpolitics

Security Council membership

The UN Security Council's membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the UN's most powerful body.

Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council – in 1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

Decisions made by the council require nine "yes" votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the assembly.

UN report calls Palestinian terrorism result of occupation
Israel dismisses analysis, details misfire in Gaza
By Bradley S. Klapper
Associated Press / February 27, 2008

GENEVA - A report commissioned by the United Nations says Palestinian terrorism is the inevitable result of Israeli occupation, an assertion that Israel rejected yesterday as inflammatory.

The report, posted on the UN Human Rights Council's website, says that while Palestinian terrorist acts are deplorable, "they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid, or occupation."

The report accuses the Jewish state of acts and policies consistent with all three.

As long as there is occupation, there will be terrorism, says the author, John Dugard, an independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a South African lawyer who campaigned against apartheid in the 1980s.

Dugard says in the report that "common sense . . . dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid, or military occupation."

The report calls for Israeli occupation to end, citing the country's checkpoints and roadblocks restricting Palestinian movement, house demolitions, and the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.

Until the occupation is ended, "peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue," the report says.

Israel's UN ambassador in Geneva rejected Dugard's analysis and questioned his objectivity.

"Dugard will better serve the cause of peace by ceasing to inflame the hatred between Israelis and Palestinians, who have embarked on serious talks to solve this contentious situation," Itzhak Levanon said.

The 25-page report will be presented next month to the 47-nation rights council, which has been criticized - even by its founder, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan - for spending most of its time reproaching Israel over alleged abuses.

Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid analyst to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the United States to dismiss his reports as one-sided.

Also yesterday, the Israeli military said no one is to blame for the Israeli military shelling of two houses in November 2006 in which 21 sleeping Palestinian civilians were killed.

The shelling in Gaza was "not intentional and was directly due to a rare and severe failure in the artillery fire control system," the military said in releasing the findings of an internal inquiry. There will be no military police inquiry, the statement said.

The shelling, which occurred during a large-scale Israeli ground operation in northern Gaza against Palestinian rocket squads, provoked the wrath of international groups and human rights organizations. Since then, Israel has rarely used artillery against Gaza.

The shells crashed into houses in the town of Beit Hanoun, about four miles from Israel, after midnight on Nov. 8, 2006, killing mostly women and children.

The explosions left holes in the buildings and sent panicked residents scurrying outside.

The military said it was aiming at rocket squads firing from northern Gaza.

UN report calls Palestinian terrorism result of occupation (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/02/27/un_report_calls_palestinian_terrorism_result_of_occupation/)

US: Muslim states, UN fuel anti-Semitism

There has been an upsurge in anti-Semitism over the past decade, much of it a new form whose "distinguishing feature" is criticism of Israel, according to a State Department report released over the weekend.

The 94-page report on 2007 criticizes many Muslim and Arab countries for encouraging anti-Semitism, and an entire chapter is devoted to anti-Semitism at the United Nations.

"Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate prejudices," the report reads. "However, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and corresponding discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling anti-Semitism."

The report lists forms of anti-Semitic crimes including terrorist attacks against Jews, desecration of synagogues and destruction of cemeteries. In addition, it cites anti-Semitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and other propaganda.

While the report notes that traditional forms of anti-Semitism continue to be found across the globe, "anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon."

The new forms often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism, but "the distinguishing feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that - whether intentionally or unintentionally - has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel's perceived faults to its Jewish character."

While this new anti-Semitism is "common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in Europe," it is not confined to these populations, the report finds.

The document's introduction singles out Iran and Syria for their demonization of Jews, and adds, "Venezuela's government-sponsored mass media have become vehicles for anti-Semitic discourse, as have government news media in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

It names Britain, France and Germany as European countries where "anti-Semitic violence remains a significant concern," but also lists other Western nations as experiencing recent increases, including Argentina, Australia and Canada.

The report, a follow-up on one issued in 2005, compiled data from government and NGO sources around the world.

This year's report was dedicated to the late Rep. Tom Lantos of California, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman who passed away last month. A Holocaust survivor, he co-sponsored the legislation creating the Office of the Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism, which issued the report.

"Today's report provides evidence of a disturbing resurgence in anti-Semitism around the globe," the new House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, Rep. Howard Berman, also of California, said in a statement issued Thursday.

"All too often, legitimate criticism of the State of Israel can veer into naked anti-Semitism characterized by vile hate speech," Berman said. "And all too often, it goes unchallenged. When hate speech arises, we should call it what it is - and do what can be done to stop it."

The report was welcomed by the Anti-Defamation League, whose national director, Abraham Foxman, said, "The report not only focuses attention on the problem, but sets important benchmarks and criteria for foreign governments as well as for US monitoring and diplomacy."

"We hope that this call to action by the United States government will encourage countries to do more to monitor and combat anti-Semitism," he said.

The US State Department is reporting worldwide Antisemitism is on the rise

In a report prepared by the US State Department and recently released, it states that today, more than 60 years after the Holocaust, Antisemitism is very much an existing phenomenon rather than merely being a historical occurrence.

Without detailing exact statistics, the study concludes that US embassies around the world in the last ten years recorded a rise in attacks against Jews and their religious institutions along with new types of Antisemitism in addition to the traditional Antisemitic acts. The study singles out several world leaders and regimes who fan the flames of hatred against the Jews including Iranian President Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan President Chavez, the Syrian government and the Egyptian and Saudi Arabian state media.

With the rise of Antisemitism around the world, according to a recently released US State Department report, the End Times scenario from Bible prophecy is coming better into focus.

There are a number of Jewish organizations that report of the occurrences of Antisemitism in our world today. Now, there is a report recently released by the US State Department which says over the last decade, there is a rise in Antisemitic acts against the Jews worldwide. This report indicates that Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez are leading the way for this increase in hatred for the Jews.

Ahmadinejad has called for the Jews to be wiped off the Earth and their name to be forgotten forever. The ancient Jewish prophets wrote years ago that Antisemitism would indeed increase to dramatic proportions in the Last Days. The Psalmist wrote that their would be a call to cut off the Jews from being a nation so that the name of Israel would be remembered no more, Psalm 83:4. Jeremiah wrote of a time referred to as the time of Jacob's Trouble, Jeremiah 30:7. Zechariah reveals that during that time of Jacob's Trouble, two out of every three Jews will be killed, Zechariah 13:8.

This reported rise in Antisemitism released by the US State Department is indeed evidence that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled.

U.S. queries value of U.N. council's Mideast meetings

By Patrick Worsnip Tue Mar 25, 5:16 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States on Tuesday questioned the value of monthly public meetings of the U.N. Security Council on the Middle East, saying the angry speeches delivered often made the problem worse.

"The polarization and divisions of the United Nations membership over the conflict all too often manifest themselves as heated political statements," U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told this month's meeting of the 15-nation council.

These "do little to help advance the cause of peace or help the Palestinian people in any tangible way," he said.

The meetings have been held for the past six years and focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanon. They typically consist of a briefing from a senior U.N. official followed by speeches from council members and other parties with a direct interest in the situation.

Khalilzad said the United States wanted to see a "difference on the ground" in the Middle East and an effort to negotiate creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

"If these types of meetings do not contribute to that effort, or worse, if they fuel the tensions that impede constructive engagement, then we need to ask ourselves whether the public format of debates in New York truly helps create the environment necessary" for a solution, he said.

Khalilzad told reporters later that some countries used the meetings "for posturing, for finger-pointing, for further polarizing, for scoring points."

The United States is a strong supporter of Israel and Khalilzad's comments appeared mainly aimed at Arab speakers. He stopped short of calling for the meetings to be stopped, urging countries to use them instead to promote peace.

CRITICAL SITUATION

The U.S. envoy's remarks appeared to have little effect, as the meeting ended like many previous ones, with an exchange of accusations pitting Israel against Syria, Sudan, representing Arab countries, and Cuba, representing non-aligned states.

Earlier, Palestinian representative Riyad Mansour lashed out at the "illegal and destructive policies of Israel" in the Palestinian territories.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman accused the Palestinian militant group Hamas of wreaking "havoc and daily terror" by firing rockets at Israel from Gaza, where it seized control last year. But he paid tribute to "the moderate, legitimate Palestinian Authority" based in the West Bank.

Both speakers called on the international community to do more to support peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, which have shown little progress since they were relaunched at a conference in the United States last November.

Mansour told journalists the peace process was in a "very critical situation."

Opening the meeting, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he hoped the talks could achieve their goal of an agreement by the end of this year.

"This process is too important to be allowed to lose momentum through inaction or indifference, or to be overwhelmed by violence. It is essential that it receives the support of the international community, including this council," he said.

The council has been paralyzed this year in trying to make formal statements about violence between Israelis and Palestinians by disagreements between the United States and new member Libya. Such statements have to be unanimous.

Mansour expressed support for recent efforts by Russia to convene a new Middle East conference in Moscow and said he had heard it could take place in June.

U.S. queries value of U.N. council's Mideast meetings (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080325/pl_nm/mideast_un_dc)

McCain Proposes League of Democracies

MONTEREY, Calif. -- In McCain’s first major policy address since locking up the GOP nomination this morning, his campaign did its best to make its candidate look presidential. Using two teleprompters on the wings of the podium, McCain delivered a 30-minute speech that showed how a potential McCain presidency would try to change the shape of U.S. foreign policy.

Two new ideas came out of McCain’s speech, both focusing on shoring up relations with the country’s democratic allies.

“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,” McCain said, reading from prepared texts.

But during the question-and-answer portion of the event following his speech, McCain expanded on his “League of Democracies” proposal.

VIDEO: John McCain calls for the United States to work more respectfully with democratic allies and live up to its duties as a world leader. (http://http//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23812361#23812361)

“It’s not just [a commitment of] mine. President Sarkozy of France is talking about the same thing; Prime Minister Brown of England, Chancellor Merkel is another talking about the same thing,” McCain said in response to a question about containing an Iranian nuclear program, arguing that a coalition of democratic countries could be more effective in pressuring the Iranians to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

McCain also floated the idea of a free trade agreement with the European Union, saying in response to an audience member’s question that such a proposal would be “very interesting.”

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane following the event, McCain admitted that negotiations for such a proposal might be difficult.

“You notice that some of their environmental standards and labor standards are higher than ours, not lower,” McCain said. “So it would be very interesting to see how those negotiations went and how the opponents of free trade agreements in general react to that.”

McCain Proposes League of Democracies (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/26/819810.aspx)

Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

A Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations (UNPA) would serve to bring the voice of the citizens into the United Nations and international politics. Since the establishment of the Pan-African Parliament which is attached to the African Union, the United Nations by now is one of the last government organizations above the national level which does not have some sort of parliamentary representation.

Elected parliamentarians could act as direct representatives of civil society in global decision-making. The UNPA would be the body where these representatives gather and debate global issues. Initially the UNPA could consist of delegates of national and regional parliaments, reflecting their political composition. A UNPA therefore would include members of minority parties not included in government. At a later stage the UNPA could be directly elected. Thus, a UNPA would be a unique and legitimate body to represent the voice of citizens in international matters. The Campaign participants envisage that a UNPA, once established, would develop from a mere consultative body to a world parliament with genuine rights of information, participation and control.

As an institutional hinge between parliaments, civil society, the U.N. and governments, the UNPA could also become an important political catalyst for the further development of the international system and of international law. As such a UNPA could be critical for an in-depth reform of the U.N. system.

A UNPA would not touch upon, let alone replace, existing procedures of the U.N. and other international organizations to involve NGOs. It would be an additional means to integrate civil society at large more effectively into the shaping of globalization.

The "Appeal for the Establishment for a Parliamentary Assembly at the United Nations" promoted by the UNPA-Campaign reflects the consenus among like-minded parliamentarians, civil society representatives, activists and scholars regarding the proposal.

Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (http://en.unpacampaign.org/about/unpa/index.php?PHPSESSID=43cf9f9058dd459b13965b3621103c25)

UN rejects water as basic human right
Mike De Souza , Canwest News Service
Published: Tuesday, March 25, 2008

OTTAWA - The Harper government can declare victory after a United Nations meeting rejected calls for water to be recognized as a basic human right.

Instead, a special resolution proposed by Germany and Spain at the UN human rights council was stripped of references that recognized access to water as a human right. The countries also chose to scrap the idea of creating an international watchdog to investigate the issue, choosing instead to appoint a new consultant that would make recommendations over the next three years.

Federal officials in Canada said last week that the government wanted to ensure the meeting's outcome reflected the fact that access to water is not formally recognized as a human right in international law. But a social advocacy group said that the position was designed to protect the right to sell water under the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Clearly (the Harper government is) happy with the status quo: They're not going to be an agent for change, and they're not going to support the right to water," said Maude Barlow, chair of the Council of Canadians. "About every eight seconds, a child somewhere in the world is dying from dirty water, and it's just shocking that our government has taken this position."

The opposition Liberals supported the government's position last week, arguing that the original UN resolution could open the door to bulk water exports to the U.S. because of NAFTA. Liberal water critic Francis Scarpaleggia said he planned to introduce a private member's bill to restrict large transfers of water within Canada to ensure that bulk exports abroad would also be forbidden.

The UN's high commissioner for human rights, Louise Arbour, said last week that the position doesn't reflect Canada's traditional role on the international stage.

"Canada is taking a position that is not the more classic perceived, Canada as the kind of the bridge builder, peacemaker, consensus maker," Arbour told the CBC.

Meantime, Barlow denied that the resolution would require Canada to make bulk water exports to the U.S.

"The requirement in the United States would be for them to conserve first," said Barlow. "There's no requirement as a human right for us to provide water for swimming pools and golf courses and fountains in Las Vegas."

A spokesperson for the Foreign Affairs Department said in an e-mail that there was "no consensus among states regarding the existence, scope or content of such a right."

UN rejects water as basic human right (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b65b35fd-477f-4956-98f4-c17a46fe3e26&k=40211)

INVESTING IN THE UNITED NATIONS
For a Stronger Organization Worldwide
Three landmark reviews propose fundamental changes

United Nations Headquarters BuildingWorld Leaders at the 2005 World Summit requested a number of landmark reports. The first of these was delivered in March of 2006: “Investing in the UN: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide”. It put forward a bold vision of Secretariat management reform for the next three to five years. In the second half of 2006, three further reports elaborate on this vision – namely: the “Comprehensive Review of Governance and Oversight”, the report of the “UN Redesign Panel on the UN Internal Justice System”, and the review by the “High-Level Panel on System Wide Coherence”. All three contain far-reaching recommendations on key management processes and structures which, if approved by Member States, could redefine the way the Organization works.

The Comprehensive Review of Governance and Oversight was delivered to the Secretary-General in July by the members of a Steering Committee of eminent experts in public administration. They had conducted an independent evaluation of governance and oversight within the United Nations, Funds, Programmes and Specialized Agencies. Their report recommends a series of improvements that affect both management and the governing structures in place for a number of years. Many of the recommendations – including the creation of a robust Independent Audit Advisory Committee and greater operational independence for the OIOS - are far-reaching and will need close consideration of the General Assembly in the 61st session.

Also in July 2006, a “Redesign Panel” of external judicial experts submitted its review of the UN Internal Justice System [PDF, 181KB]. It found that the current system was "outmoded, dysfunctional, ineffective and lacks independence", and in light of these findings, recommended "a completely new system of administration of justice" designed to be "professional, independent and decentralized". The Secretary-General welcomed the report, and will be submitting his response to the report to the General Assembly in the first resumed session of the GA in 2007, following close consultation with staff members and a full costing of the proposed new system.

Finally, the recommendations of the Panel on System-Wide Coherence, a panel co-chaired by the prime ministers of Mozambique, Norway and Pakistan, were presented to the Secretary-General in early November 2006. The report aims to help the UN fulfill its potential in supporting countries reach the Millennium Development Goals, by streamlining the currently large and diverse UN family. It says that the UN must be radically revamped to “deliver as one”, in particular at the country level, where the UN could have a much greater impact if it were less fragmented. The President of the General Assembly is expected to initiate a process of consultation and dialogue on the Panel's recommendations. It will be for the incoming Secretary-General and his team to follow-through on this vision.

All three reports, if they result in concrete, meaningful reform, have the potential to improve the effectiveness and responsiveness of the Organization. However, given the far-reaching organizational (and financial) implications, it is likely that the recommendations will take several years to implement.

In the meantime, the General Assembly in its 61st session is tackling the detailed human resources reform proposals that are outlined in “Investing in People [PDF, 429KB]” (addendum 1 [PDF, 71KB], and corrigendum to the addendum [PDF, 25KB]) – the detailed follow-up report on personnel reforms that was issued in August 2006. This integrated package proposes fundamental changes that will bring United Nations human resources management system into line best practices. This includes a more proactive, targeted and speedy recruitment system, an approach to mobility that integrates Headquarters with field staff, greater career development opportunities, simplifying and streamlining contractual arrangements and harmonizing conditions of service – particularly for our staff serving in hardship duty stations.

Secetary-General Ban Ki-Moon is committed to the continued modernization and reform of the organisation. As the reform initiatives proposed by his predecessor reach the General Assembly for decsion in the resumed 61st sessions of 2007, he will define his own reform priorities, in consultation and collaboration with the Member States.

INVESTING IN THE UNITED NATIONS (http://www.un.org/reform/)

About UN Reform

The pace of today's globalized world means that change is a constant. This is no different for the United Nations. Member States' demands of the UN and its Secretariat, agencies, funds and programmes have grown enormously. The UN is expected to deliver more services to more people in more places than ever before.

In the past nine years alone, the number of civilian and soldiers deployed on peacekeeping missions has increased from 20,000 to 80,000. Over the same period, the overall financial resources managed by the Secretariat have doubled to $18 billion. The number of humanitarian and human rights operations have also dramatically increased.

Such a volume of highly operational activity places a greater premium on the ability of the organization to discharge the increased and more complex mandates it is given, and to manage the funds entrusted to it, in an accountable and ethical manner. In the meantime, these demands and expectations have strained the Organization's existing structures and systems.

The principles of the Charter of the United Nations are today as relevant they were in 1946. But the way we deliver on these aims and objectives has to move with the times. Since the Secretary-General took office, reform has been a priority -- from more effective peace operations to closer partnerships with civil society and the private sector, from improved management structures and systems to security for staff in the field.

Last year, the Secretary-General set out his vision in his report In Larger Freedom which mapped out organizational priorities including poverty alleviation, development, the prevention of conflict and human rights.

The 2006 report, Investing in the UN: For A Stronger Organization Worldwide, deals with the management of the Secretariat and confirms that the UN needs a significant investment in how it recruits, develops and retains its people, how it procures goods and sources services, and how it manages and accounts for the taxpayer funds of all Member States in its overall pursuit of efficiency and results.

About UN Reform (http://www.un.org/reform/about-unreform.shtml)

Condemning ‘offensively anti-Islamic’ video, Ban Ki-moon appeals for calm

28 March 2008 – Secretary-General today led a chorus of United Nations condemnation of the Internet broadcast of a video made by the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, describing it as “offensively anti-Islamic,” while he also called on those upset by the film to remain calm.

In a statement issued by his spokesperson after last night’s airing of the film, entitled Fitna, Mr. Ban said “there is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.

“I acknowledge the efforts of the Dutch Government to stop the broadcast of this film and appeal for calm to those understandably offended by it. Freedom must always be accompanied by social responsibility.”

The Secretary-General stressed that the UN stands at the centre of global efforts to advance mutual respect, understanding and dialogue between different cultures, religions and groups.

“We must also recognize that the real fault line is not between Muslim and Western societies, as some would have us believe, but between small minorities of extremists, on different sides, with a vested interest in stirring hostility and conflict.”

In 2005 Spain and Turkey established the Alliance of Civilizations under the auspices of the UN to promote better cross-cultural relations around the world, and last year Mr. Ban appointed the former Portuguese president Jorge Sampaio as the High Representative for the Alliance.

In addition, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour said she joined in the condemnation of the tone and content of the video and urged all those who feel offended by its message “to restrict themselves to denouncing its hateful content by peaceful means.

“There is a protective legal framework, and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it,” she said.

Three UN Special Rapporteurs also issued a joint statement condemning what they said was the film’s distorted vision and irresponsibility and calling for dialogue and vigilance in response.

Doudou Diène, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression said the video “illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims exclusively with violence and terrorism.”

The three Special Rapporteurs, who serve in an independent, unpaid capacity and report to the UN Human Rights Council, said it was crucial that governments step up efforts to stop this pattern and to prevent wider incitement to racial and religious hatred.

“While on the one hand, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that must be respected, it does not extend to include incitement to racial or religious hatred, which is itself clearly a violation of human rights. Public expressions that paint adherents of a particular religion as a threat to peace or global stability are irresponsible,” the trio said in the statement.

They also stressed the need for vigilance and tolerance in the wake of the video’s broadcast on the Internet, calling on all parties to refrain from any form of violence.

Condemning ‘offensively anti-Islamic’ video, Ban Ki-moon appeals for calm (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26128&Cr=islam&Cr1=alliance)

UN, Islamic group must work together on terrorism, tolerance – Ban Ki-moon

The United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) “stand side by side” in forcefully rejecting any linkages between terrorism and Islam and in confronting a raft of other issues, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today.

“You have spoken up against those who seek to justify violence in the name of religion,” Mr. Ban told the Conference’s summit in Dakar, Senegal.

“Your efforts reinforce the UN's own steps to promote tolerance and understanding through the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, and I look forward to increasing UN-OIC collaboration in this area,” he added.

Calling the UN and the OIC, which represents one-fifth of the worlds population, natural allies, the Secretary-General also called for sustained cooperation on Middle East conflicts, Darfur, Somalia, extreme poverty and other pressing issues.

He warned them that the situation in the Middle East remains precarious, nowhere more so than in the Gaza Strip, and urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to take urgent measures to ease the suffering in Gaza and give hope to its people.

He also expressed his regret that regional interests and domestic Lebanese dynamics have forestalled any breakthrough in the selection of a President there, and discussed the situations in Iraq and Iran.

Speaking on Darfur, Mr. Ban emphasized that the deployment of the UN/AU Mission there, known as UNAMID, is no substitute for a political process, adding: “That remains the key to lasting peace in the region.”

He noted that the OIC was particularly well-placed to promote peace within and between Chad and Sudan in combination with UN efforts to end suffering in the region.

A mini-summit on that topic to be hosted by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade had been planned for yesterday evening in Dakar, to bring together President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan and President Idriss Deby of Chad.

However, that event did not occur as scheduled and the Secretary-General is consulting on the matter with the Senegalese, Sudanese and Chadian Presidents.

Mr. Ban spent most of his day today in meetings with heads of state and government on a range of issues, from the Middle East to Iraq, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Sudan and Chad.

He met this morning with Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, among others, and is later expected to meet with more national leaders, including the presidents of Afghanistan and Indonesia

UN, Islamic group must work together on terrorism, tolerance – Ban Ki-moon (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=25967&Cr=oic&Cr1=)

UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation

By ELIANE ENGELER
The Associated Press
Thursday, March 27, 2008; 11:40 PM

GENEVA -- The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.

The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims.

UN OKs Islamic Text Against Defamation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032704100.html?hpid=sec-world)

U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet
Wednesday March 26, 6:48 pm ET
Ibd

United Nations: The U.N.'s new Human Rights Council has condemned Israel for defending itself no fewer than a dozen times in two years. Yet it has nothing to say about Chinese-sponsored genocide in Darfur and Tibet.

ADVERTISEMENT
The HRC was created in 2006 to replace the 60-year-old U.N. Commission on Human Rights, an Orwellian-named organization infamous for including among its members and leadership some of the worst human rights violators -- countries such as Sudan and Cuba. Judging by its short existence, it's not much of an improvement.

The 47-member HRC has been in session in Geneva since March3, and its current four-week meeting ends Friday. Its latest condemnation of Israel came in the early days of this session. It has also held six special sessions to investigate allegations of abuses -- four involving Israel.

China is a member of the HRC, which may help explain the silence on that country's actions in systematically eliminating the Tibetan culture, its religion and its people. More than a million Tibetans have paid the ultimate price since China conquered the 1,400-year-old nation of Tibet in 1950 -- two years after the founding of Israel.

Six thousand of Tibet's 6,200 monasteries have been destroyed, its monks tortured, murdered or forced into exile. Beijing's ethnic cleansing of Tibet mirrors its support of the Islamofascist government of Sudan and its genocidal acts in Darfur against its non-Arab black population. China has a veto on the U.N. Security Council.

The current brutal suppression of Tibetan protestors began March 10, the anniversary of a 1959 uprising against Chinese rule. Speaking Tuesday in Dharamsala, India, Prime Minister Samdhong Rinpoche of Tibet's government in exile told Agence France-Presse that the deaths of at least 130 Tibetans in the current crackdown have been confirmed.

In 1989 the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The press release announcing the prize said: "The (Nobel) Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence."

The Dalai Lama, who recently visited the U.S. to receive a medal from Congress, called for an international investigation into China's crackdown in Tibet, which he said is facing "cultural genocide." That call has been echoed by the Asian Forum for Human Rights & Development, an umbrella group of 40 nongovernmental organizations across Asia.

"It is imperative that the Human Rights Council as the principal human rights organ of the United Nations take urgent measures by convening a special session to address the current situation in China," the Asian Forum said in a statement.

Don't hold your breath. On Monday, China showed how impressed it was with such demands. It vowed to run the Olympic torch through the heart of Tibet en route to the Summer Games in Beijing. The run-through is scheduled June 19-21.

"The more the Dalai (Lama) clique is determined to ruin the torch relay and the Olympic Games, the more hard and good work we need to do on the preparation and the implementation of all aspects," said Chinese Communist Party official Vin Xumping.

"I believe the Games have advanced the agenda of human rights," International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge told the Associated Press prior to the lighting of the torch in Greece.

Somehow we expect Beijing 2008 will no more advance peace and human rights than the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. On the issue of Tibet, the Games have already begun.

U.N. Fiddles As China Torches Tibet (http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/080326/issues01.html?.v=1)

AIM Says Media Cover-Up Obama’s Socialist-Oriented Global Tax Bill

Press Release | February 13, 2008

WASHINGTON, February 13, 2008 -- Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid disclosed today that a hugely expensive bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic Senator Barack Obama, was quickly passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. Kincaid said that the major media's cover-up of the bill, which makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations, demonstrates the media's desire to see Senator Obama elected to the presidency.

In a column posted on the AIM web site, Kincaid noted that Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was trying to rush Obama's "Global Poverty Act" (S. 2433) through his committee without hearings. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends. It was scheduled for a Thursday vote but was moved up a day, to Wednesday, and rushed through by voice vote. Kincaid learned, however, that conservative Senators have now put a "hold" on the legislation, in order to prevent it from being rushed to the floor for a full Senate vote.

The House version (H.R. 1302) was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars. Kincaid's column notes that the official in charge of making nations comply with the U.N. Millennium Goals, which are prominently highlighted in the Obama bill, says a global tax will be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

UN Global Poverty Act (http://www.aim.org/press-release/aim-says-media-cover-up-obamas-socialist-oriented-global-tax-bill/)

UN sets up food crisis task force

The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is setting up a task force to tackle the global food crisis.

Mr Ban said the world faced "widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale" because of soaring food prices.

He said the priority was to feed the hungry by closing a $755m (£380m) funding gap for the UN's World Food Programme (WFP) this year.

He urged donor countries to make more money available now.

The WFP believes 100 million people are currently going short of food.

It says only 62% of the $755m it needs to feed them has been pledged so far, and, of that, only $18m has actually been received.

Supporting farmers

The task force, to be chaired by Mr Ban, will be made up of the heads of UN agencies and the World Bank.

"The first and immediate priority issue that we all agreed was that we must feed the hungry," Mr Ban said after a meeting of agency heads in the Swiss capital, Bern.

"Without full funding of these emergency requirements, we risk again the spectre of widespread hunger, malnutrition and social unrest on an unprecedented scale."

Mr Ban said it was essential to support farmers in poor countries who were producing less because of the high cost of fertilizer and energy, and to this end he said the task force hoped to:

* offer $200m financial support to farmers in the worst affected countries to boost food production

* set up a $1.7bn programme to help countries with a food deficit to buy seeds

For its part the World Bank said that it would:

* double its lending for agriculture in Africa over the next year

* consider providing quicker and more flexible financing for poor countries

Mr Ban said Africa could double its production of food in a few years with an annual investment of $8-10bn.

He also called on the international community to "urgently address trade-distorting subsidies in developed countries, and the ongoing Doha trade round.

"But also in the long term we need to address the challenges caused by climate change," Mr Ban added.

The head of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, who also attended the meeting in Bern, urged countries not to use export bans to protect food stocks.

"These controls encourage hoarding, drive up prices and hurt the poorest people around the world who are struggling to feed themselves," he said.

His comments came as India decided to tax exports of basmati rice as it tries to control domestic inflation, Reuters news agency said.

India banned exports of non-basmati rice in March.

Renting fields

The prices of staple foods including rice, grain, oil and sugar are all at least 50% higher than they were this time last year.

On Tuesday the Beijing Morning newspaper reported that China might lease fields in Latin America, Australia and the former Soviet Union to replace farmland lost to urban and industrial development.

Meanwhile in Washington, US President George W Bush said he was "deeply concerned" by high food prices at home and abroad.

He said that diverting corn for the production of biofuels had only accounted for 15% of the rise in prices, which had otherwise been caused by weather, energy prices and increased demand.

"It's in our national interest that we - our farmers - grow energy, as opposed to us purchasing energy from parts of the world that are unstable or may not like us," he added.

Mr Bush said the long-term solution would be to switch to cellulosic ethanol, which uses grasses or other non-food sources to produce fuels.

He also said he had made a proposal to Congress on buying food from local farmers so that countries could become "self-sustaining".

The U.S. already donates over 2 Billion dollars a year to the WFP supplying wheat and rice to mant countries.

U.N. fiddles again as Lebanon burns
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Saturday, May 10, 2008 - Added 18h ago

Beirut, the city once known as the Paris of the East, has once again been plunged into chaos as an all-out civil war looms.

For three days and nights Shiite Hezbollah gunmen have waged war on Sunni militia, on the government and on anyone who dared stand in their way. It was no accident that they choose to march down Hamra Street - one of the city’s smartest shopping areas - in a show of force. This war is about more than territory; it’s about a way of life. Not surprisingly a Sunni-backed newspaper was also among Hezbollah’s targets.

Hezbollah, of course, does not operate in isolation, especially when it comes to wreaking havoc on Lebanon. It does so with the full backing of Syria and Iran - a fact that elicited this stunning statement from our own State Department yesterday.

“It is becoming more apparent now that the linkages that we know exist and are ongoing between Hezbollah and Syria and Iran are starting to manifest themselves in the current crisis,” said spokesman Sean McCormack. “At the beginning we didn’t see it, but we are now.”

Well, that’s reassuring!

At last count 14 people are dead and 20 wounded. But beyond the casualties, daily life has been disrupted, streets are empty and people are living in fear.

Meanwhile U.N. Resolution 1701, which ended the Israeli invasion of August 2006 brought on by Hezbollah’s shelling of northern Israel, has proven not worth the paper it’s printed on.

In return for Israel’s withdrawl it required “the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon” and provided “no sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its government.”

Hezbollah is not using pea-shooters and slingshots. The international community has failed miserably to enforce its own agreement. Now Lebanon is paying the price.

U.N. fiddles again as Lebanon burns (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1092960&srvc=home&position=rated)

U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals

Sharia-following Islamic nations demanding anti-'defamation' law

Posted: July 10, 2008

12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

The discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called 'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that attempts to criminalize Christianity."

The "anti-defamation" plan has been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to "religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source of reference for human rights."

The ACLJ petition, which is to be delivered to the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, already had collected more than 23,000 names in just a brief online existence.

The ACLJ's European division, the European Center for Law & Justice, also has launched its work on the issue. It submitted arguments last month to the U.N. in opposition to the proposal to institute sharia-based standards around the globe.

"The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of 'defamation of religion' resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression," the organization's brief said.

"The 'defamation of religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief purpose of international religious freedom law."

"Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued.

Interestingly, in nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the brief noted.

"What should be most disconcerting to the international community is that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion' actually help to create a climate of violence," the argument explained.

For example, just two months ago an Afghanistan court following Islam sentenced to death a 23-year-old apprentice journalist who had downloaded an article from an Iranian website and brought it to his class, the ECLJ said. Other instances include:

* Award-winning author Mark Steyn has been summoned to appear before two Canadian Human Rights Commissions of vague allegations of "subject[ing] Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" for comments in his book, "America Alone," the group said.

* In Pakistan, 15 people were accused of blasphemy against Islam during the first four months of 2008, the organization said.

* Another Pakistani man sentenced to life in prison for desecrating the Quran was jailed for six years before being acquitted of the charge.

* In Saudi Arabia a teacher was sentenced to three years in prison plus 300 lashes "for expressing his views in a classroom."

* In the United Kingdom, police announced plans to arrest a blogger for "anti-Muslim" statements.

* In the United States, a plaintiff sued his Internet service provider for refusing "to prevent participants in an online chat room from posting or submitting harassing comments that blasphemed and defamed plaintiff's Islamic religion."

The ECLJ said, "The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty."

The newest "anti-defamation" plan was submitted in March. It specifically cites a declaration "adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers" at a meeting in Islamabad "which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia and systematic discrimination against adherents of Islam."

It also cites the dictates from the OIC meeting in Dakar, "in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions."

It goes on to cite a wide range of other practices that "target" Islam, but does not mention any other religions, and urges all nations to provide "adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion."

According to published reports, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights' 53 members voted to adopt the resolution earlier this year, with opposition from the United States and the European Union.

At the time, Cuba's delegate, Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, said: "Islam has been the subject of very deep campaign of defamation."

"They're attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry," the ACLJ said in its promotion of its petition. "This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime."

"In his recent dissent on the Supreme Court's ruling on Guantanamo Bay, Justice Scalia said, 'America is at war with radical Islamists.' Never has this rung more true than today. Never have Christians been more targeted for their religious beliefs. And never have we faced a more dangerous threat than the one posed by the OIC," the ACLJ said.

On the Grizzly Groundswell blog, the author described the situation as, "The United Nations: 160 cannibals and 17 civilized people taking a majority vote on what to have for dinner."

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said the statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

Quote

Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make Christians criminals under international law, according to a United States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide.

That is the goal of islam, dominate the world, which will never happen.

Quote

"Around the world, Christians are being increasingly targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law & Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive.

No matter how bad it get we need to remember..........

John 15:18-19 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Quote

"Furthermore, 'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the speech," the group continued.

Interestingly, in nations following Islam, the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the brief noted.

That is no surprise, islam is a religion of hate.

Quote

The U.S. State Department also has found the proposal unpalatable.

"This resolution is incomplete inasmuch as it fails to address the situation of all religions," said the statement from Leonard Leo. "We believe that such inclusive language would have furthered the objective of promoting religious freedom. We also believe that any resolution on this topic must include mention of the need to change educational systems that promote hatred of other religions, as well as the problem of state-sponsored media that negatively targets any one religion."

Least the United States can still stand up to bullies of the islamic world.

Brothers and Sisters,

These last few articles and hard facts from around the world indicate this world is becoming more evil and intolerant of ALMIGHTY GOD by the minute. The number of Christian martyrs is escalating rapidly, and the world stage appears to be just about ready for the Tribulation Period.

Evil is getting RIPE to the bursting point in many parts of the world. "RIPE" is a poor choice of words. "Rotting Stench" would be a more appropriate description of EVIL, and it does get worse by the day. INCREASINGLY, Christians will be hated, persecuted, beaten, imprisoned, and killed. As these times grow worse, the time for CHRIST to RAPTURE us HOME is growing nearer.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 NASB
But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Corinthians 15:50-58 NASB
Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

South African reported to be new UN rights chief

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jul 18, 6:23 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations chief told rights advocates Friday that his choice to be the next U.N. human rights commissioner is a South African judge who was the first black woman to serve on her country's High Court, the director of Human Rights Watch said.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he had selected Navanethem Pillay for the job, but he had not yet taken official action, said Kenneth Roth, who was among a dozen representatives from human rights groups who met with Ban.

"Ban described her as the presumptive nominee," Roth said.

Ban's office is expected to announce her appointment early next week, said U.N. and diplomatic officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the appointment had not yet been announced.

Pillay, who is now an appeals chamber judge with the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands, must be approved by U.N. General Assembly.

Some nations, such as the U.S., have expressed reservations about Pillay, including how she might handle next year's follow-up to the 2001 U.N. racism conference in South Africa, which drew controversy due to anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli stands.

Some rights groups have questioned whether Pillay could be an effective, outspoken champion of human rights, officials said.

One diplomat expressed skepticism that Pillay would be confirmed, but others said her nomination was not expected to meet any significant opposition in the General Assembly.

Pillay would succeed Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court judge in Canada, as human rights commissioner, one of the most high-profile positions at the United Nations.

Arbour, who was chief prosecutor for the U.N. tribunals for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, helped raise the rights job's profile through her outspokenness and by nearly doubling her office's budget to almost $100 million. Her office and the 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council, which addresses human rights violations, are based in Geneva, Switzerland.

Roth said Pillay's challenge "will be to speak out publicly in the face of severe abuse, and to ensure that her office addresses even powerful governments, whether the United States on its abusive counterterrorism policies or her own South Africa for its callous defense of (President Robert) Mugabe's repression in Zimbabwe."

The General Assembly has not been officially notified of her selection, officials said. Ban was expected to consult with all the groups representing various regions of the world in the 192-nation General Assembly.

The assembly previously elected Pillay as a judge to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where she served for eight years, including four years as president.

Pillay, who holds a degree from Harvard Law School, was the first woman to start a law practice in the South African province of Natal, opening an office in 1967, according to the International Criminal Court, which provided background information.

The two other top contenders for the job were Hina Jilani of Pakistan, a special U.N. envoy on human rights, and Juan Mendez of Argentina, a special U.N. envoy on genocide.

South African reported to be new UN rights chief (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080718/ap_on_re_ca/un_human_rights_chief;_ylt=AlNALTTfKgjuuWDOjBQm_dP9xg8F)

U.N. didn't notice $10 million disappearing
Official confesses world body 'arguably a bit slow to recognize' relief scam

As much as $10 million of United Nations relief funds designated for Burma in the wake of Cyclone Nargis have been siphoned off by "private money exchangers" and the military government, according to a U.N. official.

The U.N. called for an initial $200 million in emergency aid in response to the storm, which killed more than 140,000 people, but not all the promised funds are reaching the intended destination, admitted John Holmes, under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs and the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, at a news conference at the agency's New York headquarters.

The funds are being siphoned through an exchange-rate scam that forces the U.N. to buy the Burmese currency, the kyat, at above the market rate.

Holmes confessed, "We were arguably a bit slow to recognize ... how serious a problem this has become for us."

The U.S. government has made a $39 million contribution to the relief effort and is expected to give more.

Much of the initial aid consisted of goods supplied directly to the victims of the cyclone, but Holmes estimated as much as $10 million dollars has been lost.

The Burma government requires the purchase of a "foreign exchange certificate" effectively taking between 15 percent to 25 percent of every dollar spent on aid to the cyclone victims.

"It's a very complicated system," said the U.N. coordinator, who recently toured Burma, where he cited "significant progress" in the relief effort.

The official rate for the kyat is 1,100 per dollar, but the U.N. rate is about 880, according to the Inner City Press, a newssite that broke the exchange scandal.

Holmes said the U.N. was initially, "not aware of the extent of the loss," but insisted to WND that access to the people of Burma was worth the cover charge the Burma government required for entry into the country.

"Our priority is to get aid to the people," Holmes said. "This has to be a needs-based operation and not based on politics."

Although many governments have responded to the worldwide appeal for international aid to the cyclone victims, private individuals and organizations have been the biggest contributors and may be the biggest losers.

The Bill and Melinda Gates charity donated an estimated $3 million for relief in Burma "so they can go in there and help as quickly as possible," Gates told the Associated Press in an interview in May.

After the initial appeal for aid in May raised most of the $200 million requested, another appeal for an additional $280 million was made. The "extraordinary exchange losses" were not mentioned in the appeal.

Holmes said the U.N. did not bring up the issue of the exchange rate losses in the appeal, because officials "were not aware of the extent of the loss."

"No reason not to be transparent about this, we haven't tried to conceal it," Holmes said.

The Burma government was initially reluctant to accept international aid and workers from the U.N. and non-governmental organizations, but conceded due to the enormity of the disaster. An estimated 2.4 million people are affected.

There are approximately 100 foreign relief workers in Burma, Holmes said.

"Unfortunately, members of the international press are not allowed to enter Burma," he added.

The Burma government has not responded to calls to exclude foreign relief aid from the foreign exchange certificate requirement. But Holmes rejected setting currency exchange conditions to the flow of international aid in Burma or in future relief aid efforts.

Yesterday, President Bush signed the Tom Lantos Block Burmese Jade Act of 2008, a sanction against the import of Burmese precious gems.

Bush has aggressively criticized Burma on human rights, but Russia and China have expressly blocked efforts to approve resolutions through the U.N. Security Council.

First Lady Laura Bush has publicly called for the unconditional release of Nobel laureate and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for 12 years.

Bush said in a ceremony at the Oval Office in the presence of Tom Lantos' widow, "I'm going to sign a piece of legislation and a joint resolution that will continue some sanctions, propose new sanctions, and extend the import restrictions. On the Burmese regime, our message is: The United States believes in democracy and freedom."

Quote from: DreamWeaver on March 29, 2008, 01:10:01 PM

Personally, I don't understand why the UN is still in New York?? Why doesn't someone build a little hut for them on some volcanic island somewhere, where they can't do anyone else in the world any harm. They sure as heck aren't doing anyone any good!!

Think of all the money that America would save by dismantling the U.N. ;D They should move on and set up shop in Babylon:'(

Found this interesting from Chuck Missler, he's discussing Babylon and the UN:

"We have corroborated from more than one of our research associates, a project tht's highly classified. This project is taking all the fibre optic cables of Europe, and the intention is to connect it to all the fibre optics that are coming out from Asia into a master communication hub - this is sensitive information, that's why I have to tip-toe here a little bit.

We, the US, are building right now in Baghdad, Iran, the largest embassy on the planet earth - 21 buildings on 104 acres. It will be on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam hussein. The size of the project will approximate the size of Vatican City. There's presently a staff of 5,500 in this embassy. It will be totally self-contained: water, power, etc. It can be totally isolated for a substantial period of time. Obviously and embassy has very, very advanced communications facilities required to service it.

So you would think, that if you have a major project to connect all the communications of Europe with all the communications of Asia, being paid for by the US, you'd think it would go through Baghdad right? Wrong. It's going to converge in Babylon, it will be the communication hub, so it's following some other master plan I presume. You dont' invest that kind of money on something casual. This is part of somebody's plan.

I had heard a rumor that the UN was going to move to Babylon. And one of the things we try to do is to steer clear of what's called an 'urban legend' because there are many weird stories that go around. So I thought that this move was just one of these 'strange echoes'. Until I started to encounter some Think Tank study papers which said NY is anxious to get the UN out, for lots of reasons - it's an administrative nightmare with all the immunities and all that stuff; from the UN's point of veiw they have no way to expand, they feel it's essential to have more room so there's an agitation, apparently, to find another sight.

For people who are anti-UN (don't all put your hands up), getting them out of our country would be cheered by the people because of the continuing malfeasance of the leadership. There's no organization I know of that is more rife with scandels and embezzelment and fraud, etc., etc. Not only that - they have an unblemished record of failure in everything they touch!

Well, suppose you say, 'OK, we've gotta move it somewhere. Where are ya gonna move it?' If you understand the dynamics here you know that they cant' move into the EU because in a very real sense, the UN and the EU are rivals for world influence. So where would you move it? Well you stand back and you say, '...what is the biggest crisis facing the secular planet earth over the next 30-40 years? Oil. So why not plant the UN right in the middle of the oil patch? It would make all the sense in the world. By doing so you could establish a permanent peace keeping force that will stablize that region after the withdrawal of American troops - that would be acceptable even to our detractors.

Now, I don't have any evidence of a serious plan to do this yet. But I find it provocative, at least, that people in the Think Tank world are discussing the pros and cons of this very issue - taking for granted that they're going to have to move sooner or later...

U.N. grants status to homosexual-rights groups
Opponents fear loss of sovereignty, ties to pedophilia advocates

The U.N. recently accorded two homosexual-rights groups "consultative status," raising opposition from pro-family advocates who see the move as a weakening of national sovereignty that could result in lowering the age of consent for homosexual sex.

U.N. watchdogs also cite homosexual-rights groups' historical alignment with organizations advocating pedophilia.

The U.N.'s Economic and Social Council, the organ facilitating international cooperation on standards-making and problem-solving in economic and social issues, has accepted COC Netherlands and the State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transexuals and Bisexuals of Spain.

This "means we can join the efforts at the U.N. to address human rights violations against people with an alternative sexual orientation or gender identity," said Björn van Roozendaal, COC Netherlands international advocacy officer.

But members of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute accuse homosexual groups of attempting to weaken sovereignty and impose "gay rights" through a "well-coordinated" international stealth campaign tainted by associations with pro-pedophilia groups.

The pro-homosexual lobby consistently has attempted to advance through the U.N. since 1993, when an umbrella homosexual advocacy group, the International Lesbian Gay Association, or ILGA, achieved U.N. consultative status.

But after revelations that several ILGA members were pedophile organizations, the late Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina led a campaign to suspend ILGA's U.N. status.

Four pro-pedophile groups were associated with ILGA.

* The American NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, advocates for intergenerational "consensual sexual relations."
* The Dutch-based MARTINJN works "for acceptance of pedophilia and adult-child love relationships."
* U.S.-based Project TRUTH
* The German Verein für Sexuelle Gleichberechtigung, or Association for Sexual Equality.

In 1994, the U.N. took the unusual step of suspending ILGA membership. ILGA then, by a vote of 214-30, voted out all of its pro-pedophile groups, except for VSG. The German group, however, later was suspended for its vocal support of NAMBLA.

Following the revelations and suspension of ILGA's NGO consultative status, NAMBLA issued statements detailing its working relationship with ILGA and claimed to have helped draft ILGA's constitution.

In 2003, IGLA petitioned to have its consultative status reinstated but was denied by a vote of 29 to 17.

Cameroon, China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sudan, the U.S. and Zimbabwe cast votes against ILGA, while France, Germany and Romania voted for the organization.

Following the vote, a U.N. communiqué stated, "The vote in favor of not granting status to that NGO would reaffirm the will and commitment of the international community to protect children."

In 2006, however, the U.N. granted consultative status to a gay-rights Danish group associated with ILGA-Europe.

Well-coordinated campaign

Responding to the newly granted status given the Spanish and Dutch group, Boris Dittrich, advocacy director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Program at Human Rights Watch, said "This vote ensures that two more voices will be raised to defend basic human rights at the U.N."

But critics see a reason for concern in what has been called "well-coordinated international campaign."

As director of government relation for Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute – which advocates for "the preservation of international law by discrediting socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international institutions" – Samantha Singson has worked on pro-life, pro-family international policy for over eight years.

Singson told WND there is a great concern for screening LGBT, or "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual," groups for any ties to pedophilia.

"These nominations are getting a lot more scrutiny, because of the past affiliations," she said.

Responding to the concern, Scott Long, director of the LGBT rights program for Human Rights Watch, wrote in a statement to WND, "ILGA has made clear that it supports the right of all children to be free of abuse, including sexual abuse."

But it's clear that none of the pedophile groups consider sex with a minor "abuse." On the NAMBLA website, the association calls itself a "voice testifying to the benevolent aspects of man/boy love."

Brend Varma, the human rights spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, told WND that Ban Ki-Moon will always advocate that "we believe in human rights for all people; specific policies towards sexual orientation throughout the world is a matter for the member states."

Yet it's not clear that "all people" includes all ages. In Canada, Israel, the UK and Australia, homosexual activists consistently have pushed for lowering age of consent laws, to align the homosexual age for consensual sex with that of heterosexuals.

International advocacy coupled with local activism could pressure governments to lower the age.

Piero Tozzi observed that the UK is particularly active in pushing for the inclusion of LGBT non-governmental organizations into the U.N. system.

In an interview with WND, Tozzi said the representatives from Egypt, Poland and Malta have been "very prepared" in defending their opposition to LGBT activism under the guise of "non-discrimination."

Human Rights Watch's Long criticized the Egyptian delegation for asking, "Is your organization forcing people to adopt a particular lifestyle that will lead to the eventual extinction of the human race?"

Long called the question "ridiculous."

Singson said "non-discrimination" and "in the spirit of inclusion" have become "code terms for sneaking in pro-LGBT language into important international human rights documents."

"There is a tendency for LGBT advocates to change terms like 'husband' and 'wife' to the ambiguous 'partner,'" she said.

"We've even had lively debates about the term 'family' vs. 'families,' a term that could include same-sex arrangements, she added.

"There's a crisis in human rights," said Singson. "Countries agree to universal rights, but they get something entirely different when they agree to recognize these groups."

Quote from: Barbara on July 30, 2008, 03:36:51 PM

Wow. I totally missed this. Very interesting and it will be interesting to see what develops.

Thanks for that input Pastor Roger. Interesting info about the WHO, very interesting.

Missler was discussing this possibility, knowing that they UN wasn't moving just yet, but was fascinated because of the destiny of the total destruction of Babylon writtenabout in Isaiah 13 & 14; Jeremiah 50 & 51; and Revelation 17 & 18. I suppose he was wondering what would be in that area in 'the end of days' that would precipitate this destruction. Could it be the UN will relocate there? It's a good question, but only time will tell. But it is interesting.

Isaiah and Jeremiah talk about a time when many nations are attacking Babylon. Israel at that time is in the land, according to Isaiah and Jeremiah. Both Isaiah and Jeremiah say Babylon will be destroyed, 'like Sodom and Gomorrah', which was sudden and catastrophic. And once it's destroyed, according to scripture, it will never be inhabited, (right now it is inhabited), in fact the bricks will never be reused (Saddam reused bricks found by archeologists to rebuild a number of buildings before the war). So we know this will be in a time to come.

Missler says Babylon fell in 539 B.C., but it took 3 days for the people to know they had been taken over by a foreign entity because it happened without a battle. But it was not destroyed physically like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Zecharia 5 talks about the 'woman' who is 'wickedness' that will be transported to her base in Shinar (the plain that Babylon sits on).

Missler thinks that 'a system' is destined to go back to where it all started in order to receive the judgement that has been declared by God for it. Babylon was originally the seat of a "Godless Cofederacy run by the first world dictator, Nimrod (who's name means 'we will rebel), and how interesting it is that it might be associated then with the final world dictator."

"In order to fulfill a literal view of the numerouse passages (of Scripture), Babylon would have to re-emerge as a major centroid of power to receive the judgment described."

Could it be the headquarters for the UN and a world dictator? Not sure but interesting to ponder.

Queer issues take a global stage at the United Nations

By Emily Geminder

29 July 2008

Of the more than 3,000 non-governmental organizations holding consultative status to the United Nations, only a handful address gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersex issues. This week saw an incremental but significant step towards change: two groups, COC Netherlands and the State Federation of Lesbians, Gays, Transsexuals and Bisexuals of Spain (FELGTB), gained admittance to the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The Council brings together civil society groups to advise the General Assembly on promoting economic and social development and essentially grants groups access to the floor of international decision making.

The victory, said Boris Dittrich, Advocacy Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch, did not come easily. “In January, the status of the two
organizations came up for review at the NGO committee at the United Nations headquarters,” he told MediaGlobal. “Two of the board members of COC Netherlands were called onstage, and they had to answer questions from member states about the activities of their NGO. Some of the questions were very impertinent,” The questions, Dittrich noted, were largely coming from the delegates of Egypt, Pakistan, and Qatar. “They were asking questions like, ‘Do you denounce pedophilia?’ and ‘What do you think about sex with minors?’ Those kinds of questions are obviously not asked of other organizations. It was quite embarrassing to witness.”

The two organizations, along with one other, were blocked from entrance in February by votes from Burundi, China, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, and Sudan. Delegations from supportive governments and civil society groups called the ruling blatantly discriminatory. Following an exhaustive campaign, the votes were overturned for the Dutch and Spanish groups this week.

Paula Ettelbrick, Executive Director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission called the decision a substantial step towards achieving international representation. “For many years, LGBTI NGOs have been struggling to obtain consultative status at the United Nations so that the voice of LGBTI people around the world can be more visible, and so that our efforts to advance human rights are enhanced by involvement throughout the united Nations,” she told MediaGlobal.

The impact of United Nations policy bears far-reaching implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex individuals everywhere, and the community’s marginalization within the international framework has come under increasing scrutiny. According to South Africa based Gender Dynamix, Africa’s first transgender rights organization, discrimination against individuals who do not conform to conventional gender expression places them at high risk for HIV infection, compounding the impotence of national and global policies that fail to take sexual and gender minorities into account. Caroline Joan Bowley of Gender Dynamix told MediaGlobal, “Due to the fact that transgender people do not have access to formal state medical services in South Africa they are often forced to seek other means to raise the finances required for their transition and surgery. This sometimes results in transwomen becoming sex workers. They are therefore at high risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases.”

Discrimination in all sectors of life, from limited employment opportunities to lack of access to housing and education, forces a disproportionate percentage of the male-to-female transgender community becoming involved in sex work. Biological females who do not conform to conventional modes of femininity find themselves at particular risk of sexual violence at the hands of men who justify their actions as providing corrective “cures” for non-conforming behavior. In many cases, violence also comes from the police, who take advantage of laws that may criminalize sex work, non-heterosexual sex, or both, to harass and intimidate the transgender population.

Meanwhile, the silence shrouding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community in many countries has directly translated into a silence regarding HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. A recent study by the United Nations foundation for AIDS relief found that men who have sex with men have been particularly failed by government policies, with only one in 20 men who have sex with men having access to prevention, treatment, and care services. The lack of access is compounded by the criminalization of homosexual sex in many countries, which forces sex underground and keeps many from seeking treatment. The blatantly homophobic stance of some governments translates into imprisonment, marginalization, violence, and even death for those who do not conform to conventional modes of gender expression or sexual orientation.

In Uganda, a recent protest of the government’s HIV/AIDS policy, which effectively excludes sexual and gender minorities, led to the arrest of three activists. On Thursday, protesters staged a demonstration outside the Ugandan mission to the United Nations, calling on the Ugandan government to reform its HIV/AIDS policy and release those imprisoned. On the issue of the government’s policy, Kihumuro Apuuli, Director General of the Uganda AIDS Commission, stated that, “gays are one of the drivers of HIV in Uganda, but because of meager resources we cannot direct our programs at them at this time.”

In response to his statement, Kaytee Riek of Health GAP (Global Access Project), one of the organizers of the demonstration, told MediaGlobal, “The gay community is not driving the AIDS epidemic. Stigma is driving the epidemic. And those sort of remarks only add to the stigma.”

While the protest hoped to give voice to those who have been marginalized, it could not be ignored that the voice was coming from outside the halls of power rather than from within. The recent gain of consultative status in the United Nations may be a step towards a more formal solidification of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex rights in the international community, but Dittrich says it is far from adequate. He advocates the creation of a United Nations Special Rapporteur to investigate discrimination against the community and monitor progress worldwide. “This person would then report directly to the Human Rights Council,” he said. “Many countries in the human rights council don’t see LGBTI issues as human rights, so that could be a beginning.”

Queer issues take a global stage at the United Nations (http://mediaglobal.org/article/2008-07-29/queer-issues-take-a-global-stage-at-the-united-nations)
~~~~~~~

Talk about non-accountability and non-responsibility for ones own actions!!

Religious ‘Defamation’ on Agenda at UN Rights Session
Monday, September 08, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

The United Nations’ Human Rights Council kicks off a new session in Geneva on Monday, and a controversial push by Islamic states to outlaw religious “defamation” is high on the agenda.

In recent months, debate has swirled over efforts to limit freedom of expression in the context of religious discussion. That debate is now moving beyond a small group of concerned non-governmental and legal organizations to a wider audience.

The drive is spearheaded by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has already succeeded in getting several resolutions on the issue passed, both at the U.N.’s human rights watchdog and at the General Assembly. Now it is pressing for more resolutions, including one at the General Assembly’s annual session in New York, which begins next Tuesday.

More than 84,000 signatories have endorsed a petition opposing the new resolution organized by the Washington-based American Center for Law and Justice.

During the Geneva Human Rights Council session, which runs from Sept. 8-26, the 47-member HRC will hear a report on the subject, compiled by a special investigator mandated to probe “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Critics of the OIC campaign say existing human rights instruments adequately protect individuals from incitement to violence based on religion, and they argue that a religion cannot be defamed.

They say the Islamic states promote the idea of religious defamation because international law recognizes that freedom of expression may be limited to protect reputations.

What the OIC actually is opposing is a range of social phenomena to which its objects.

According to a study drawn up by the U.N.’s new high commissioner for human rights ahead of the HRC session, these include “stereotyping and negative portrayal of religions, in particular Islam, [and] the association of Islam with violence and terrorism” after 9/11, as well as “ridicule,” “insults” and “Islamophobia.”

(Examples cited in OIC documents include newspaper cartoons caricaturing Mohammed, and a Dutch lawmaker’s documentary released earlier this year, linking the Koran to terrorism.)

The new commissioner – South African jurist Navanethem Pillay, who began her four-year term on Sept. 1 – was asked in an earlier resolution to compile a study on existing relevant legislation and submit it to this month’s council session.

Pillay concluded the document by saying clarity was needed over where the line should be drawn between freedom of expression and incitement to religious hatred.

She therefore is convening a two-day consultation by legal experts next month looking at links between articles in international human rights treaties that deal with freedom of expression and those that prohibits incitement to violence based on religion.

Some NGOs also have submitted papers ahead of the HRC session, spelling out opposition to the Islamic bloc’s drive to outlaw religious “defamation.”

In one joint submission, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, an Arab organization, and Article 19, a free speech advocacy group, argued that religions cannot be said to have a reputation of their own, and thus cannot be “defamed.”

Noting that OIC resolution texts claim that respect for religions is essential for the exercise of religious freedom, they disputed this.

“It is perfectly possible to disagree, even vehemently, with a particular religious tenet, while respecting the right of others to believe it,” they said. “Indeed, such disagreement is inherent in the conflicting beliefs of different religions.”

A key criticism of the defamation of religion push is that Islamic governments are trying to enshrine in international law elements of controversial blasphemy legislation in place in their own countries, which most often target non-Muslim minorities or apostates from Islam.

“Blasphemy laws in many countries are used to prevent any criticism of religions, religious leaders and religious institutions, in clear breach of international guarantees of freedom of expression,” said the Cairo Institute and Article 19.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society in Britain, warned that if the OIC proposals gain legal credence, they will lead to prosecutions for blasphemy around the world and “the Islamist desire to stop all open discussion of Islam will have been achieved.”

‘Contemporary challenges’

This year the U.N. marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted on Dec. 10, 1948.

In another submission to the HRC, three NGOs – the International Humanist and Ethical Union, the Association for World Education and the Association of World Citizens – said it was now critical to stress the need for, and discuss threats to, the agreed universal standards contained in the landmark declaration.

They reiterated long-held concerns about a document adopted by OIC member states in 1990, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-Rights-in-Islam/1.html), which says all human rights and freedoms must be subject to Islamic law (shari’a).

On the 59th anniversary of the UDHR, last December, Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.N. said in a statement on behalf of the OIC that the bloc was busy drawing up a new Islamic Charter on Human Rights, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration.

The envoy, Masood Khan, claimed the Cairo Declaration was “not an alternative, competing worldview on human rights” but “complements” the UDHR “as it addresses religious and cultural specificity of the Muslim countries.”

Khan also said the UDHR was a “living” document that should take into account “contemporary challenges.” He listed among these “the rising tide of defamation of religions and Islamophobia,” “attempts to equate Islam with terrorism” and “stereotyping and demonization of Muslims.”

A major OIC report released at a summit in Senegal last March called for “a binding legal instrument to fight the menace of Islamophobia in the context of freedom of religion and elimination of religious intolerance.”

“The Islamophobes remain free to carry on their assaults due to absence of legal measures necessary for misusing or abusing the right to freedom of expression,” the report said, urging Islamic states to keep “the pressure on the international community at the multilateral forums and bilateral agendas.”

Founded in 1969, the OIC is made up of 56 predominantly Islamic countries mostly in North Africa and Asia, but also with one each from Latin America (Guyana) and Europe (Albania). The Bush administration early this year for the first time appointed a U.S. envoy to the bloc, which has its headquarters in Saudi Arabia.

Religious ‘Defamation’ on Agenda at UN Rights Session (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35296)

Top UN Human Rights Official Pledges to Tackle Discrimination
By Lisa Schlein
Geneva
08 September 2008

In her first speech since assuming the post of U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, has urged nations to do more to tackle discrimination and inequality, which she said are the root causes of some of the worst forms of human-rights violations. Pillay spoke at the opening of the ninth regular session of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA from the conference site in Geneva.

In her statement, Navi Pillay drew upon her personal experience as a member of a non-white minority in apartheid South Africa to highlight the pain and abuse that can result from discrimination. She told delegates attending the U.N. Human Rights Council of the human-rights abuses she confronted because of racial and gender discrimination.

"I grew up as a second-class citizen with no legal recourse. In my lifetime, however, I had the privilege to witness a complete transformation. Today, south Africa has one of the strongest constitutions in the world," said Pillay. "While the country struggles, as many countries do to turn legal rights into reality, watching the course of change over the span of a single decade and through a relatively peaceful evolution leads me to believe that solutions are possible."

The new High Commissioner is 67-years old. She is of Tamil descent and the daughter of a bus driver from a poor Indian section of Durban.

Drawing again upon her own experience, she recalled how she suffered as a girl of color growing up in Durban. She told the Council that gender discrimination was a root cause of violence against women and must be eliminated. She added that gender equality will contribute to development and security, as well as human rights.

"Genocide is the ultimate form of discrimination. We must all do everything in our power to prevent it," she said. "What I learned as a judge on the Rwanda Tribunal about the way in which a society can be shattered, and the way in which one human being can abuse another, will haunt me forever."

Pillay will preside over the work of the U.N. Council over the next three weeks. During this conference, the Council will follow up on previous special sessions that dealt with the situations in Darfur, Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza and on the global food crisis.

It also will discuss the human-rights situations in Burundi, Liberia and Somalia, and explore the issue of children and armed conflict.

Top UN Human Rights Official Pledges to Tackle Discrimination (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-08-voa25.cfm)

U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity
Posted by Declan McCullagh
September 12, 2008

A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous.

The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the "IP Traceback" drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public.

The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network.

"What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C. "That's really a human rights concern."

Nearly everyone agrees that there are, at least in some circumstances, legitimate security reasons to uncover the source of Internet communications. The most common justification for tracebacks is to counter distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks.

But implementation details are important, and governments participating in the process -- organized by the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency -- may have their own agendas. A document submitted by China this spring and obtained by CNET News said the "IP traceback mechanism is required to be adapted to various network environments, such as different addressing (IPv4 and IPv6), different access methods (wire and wireless) and different access technologies (ADSL, cable, Ethernet) and etc." It adds: "To ensure traceability, essential information of the originator should be logged."

The Chinese author of the document, Huirong Tian, did not respond to repeated interview requests. Neither did Jiayong Chen of China's state-owned ZTE Corporation, the vice chairman of the Q6/17's parent group who suggested in an April 2007 meeting that it address IP traceback.

A second, apparently leaked ITU document offers surveillance and monitoring justifications that seem well-suited to repressive regimes:

Quote

A political opponent to a government publishes articles putting the government in an unfavorable light. The government, having a law against any opposition, tries to identify the source of the negative articles but the articles having been published via a proxy server, is unable to do so protecting the anonymity of the author.

That document was provided to Steve Bellovin, a well-known Columbia University computer scientist, Internet Engineering Steering Group member, and Internet Engineering Task Force participant who wrote a traceback proposal eight years ago. Bellovin says he received the ITU document as part of a ZIP file from someone he knows and trusts, and subsequently confirmed its authenticity through a second source. (An ITU representative disputed its authenticity but refused to make public the Q6/17 documents, including a ZIP file describing traceback requirements posted on the agency's password-protected Web site.)

Bellovin said in a blog post this week that "institutionalizing a means for governments to quash their opposition is in direct contravention" of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said that traceback is no longer that useful a concept, on the grounds that few attacks use spoofed addresses, there are too many sources in a DDoS attack to be useful, and the source computer inevitably would prove to be hacked into anyway.

Another technologist, Jacob Appelbaum, one of the developers of the Tor anonymity system, also was alarmed. "The technical nature of this 'feature' is such a beast that it cannot and will not see the light of day on the Internet," Appelbaum said. "If such a system was deployed, it would be heavily abused by precisely those people that it would supposedly trace. No blackhat would ever be caught by this."

Adding to speculation about where the U.N. agency is heading are indications that some members would like to curb Internet anonymity more broadly:

• An ITU network security meeting a few years ago concluded that anonymity should not be permitted. The summary said: "Anonymity was considered as an important problem on the Internet (may lead to criminality). Privacy is required but we should make sure that it is provided by pseudonymity rather than anonymity."

• A presentation in July from Korea's Heung-youl Youm said that groups such as the IETF should be "required to develop standards or guidelines" that could "facilitate tracing the source of an attacker including IP-level traceback, application-level traceback, user-level traceback." Another Korean proposal -- which has not been made public -- says all Internet providers "should have procedures to assist in the lawful traceback of security incidents."

• An early ITU proposal from RAD Data Communications in Israel said: "Traceability means that all future networks should enable source trace-back, while accountability signifies the responsibility of account providers to demand some reasonable form of identification before granting access to network resources (similar to what banks do before opening a bank accounts)."

cont'd next post

Multinational push to curb anonymous speech
By itself, of course, the U.N. has no power to impose Internet standards on anyone. But U.N. and ITU officials have been lobbying for more influence over the way the Internet is managed, most prominently through the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia and a followup series of meetings.

The official charter of the ITU's Q6/17 group says that it will work "in collaboration" with the IETF and the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Center, which could provide a path toward widespread adoption -- especially if national governments end up embracing the idea.

Patrick Bomgardner, the NSA's chief of public and media affairs, told CNET News on Thursday that "we have no information to provide on this issue." He would not say why the NSA was participating in the process (and whether it was trying to fulfill its intelligence-gathering mission or its other role of advancing information security).

Toby Johnson, a communications officer with the ITU's Telecommunication Standardization Bureau in Geneva, also refused to discuss Q6/17. "It may be difficult for experts to comment on what state deliberations are in for fear of prejudicing the outcome," he said in an e-mail message on Thursday.

When asked about the impact on Internet anonymity, Johnson replied: "I am not fully acquainted with this topic and therefore not qualified to provide an answer." He said that he expects that any final ITU standard would comport with the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's unclear what happens next. For one thing, the traceback proposal isn't scheduled to be finished until 2009, and one industry source stressed that not all members of Q6/17 are in favor of it. The five "editors" are: NSA's Richard Brackney; Tian Huirong from China's telecommunications ministry; Korea's Youm Heung-Youl; Cisco's Gregg Schudel; and Craig Schultz, who works for a Japan-based network security provider. (In keeping with the NSA's penchant for secrecy, Brackney was the lone ITU participant in a 2006 working group who failed to provide biographical information.)

In response to a question about the eventual result, Schultz, one of the editors, replied: "The long answer is, as you can probably imagine, this subject can get a little 'tense.' The main issue is the protection of privacy as well as not having to rely on 'policy' as part of a process. A secondary issue is feasibility and cost versus benefit." He said a final recommendation is at least a year off.

Another participant is Tony Rutkowski, Verisign's vice president for regulatory affairs and longtime ITU attendee, who wrote a three-page summary for IP traceback and a related concept called "International Caller-ID Capability."

In a series of e-mail messages, Rutkowski defended the creation of the IP traceback "work item" at a meeting in April, and disputed the legitimacy of the document posted by Bellovin. "The political motivation text was not part of any known ITU-T proposal and certainly not the one which I helped facilitate," he wrote.

Rutkowski added in a separate message: "In public networks, the capability of knowing the source of traffic has been built into protocols and administration since 1850! It's widely viewed as essential for settlements, network management, and infrastructure protection purposes. The motivations are the same here. The OSI Internet protocols (IPv5) had the capabilities built-in. The ARPA Internet left them out because the infrastructure was a private DOD infrastructure."

Because the Internet Protocol was not designed to be traceable, it's possible to spoof addresses -- both for legitimate reasons, such as sharing a single address on a home network, and for malicious ones as well. In the early part of the decade, a flurry of academic research focused on ways to perform IP tracebacks, perhaps by embedding origin information in Internet communications, or Bellovin's suggestion of occasionally automatically forwarding those data in a separate message.

If network providers and the IETF adopted IP traceback on their own, perhaps on the grounds that security justifications outweighed the harm to privacy and anonymity, that would be one thing.

But in the United States, a formal legal requirement to adopt IP traceback would run up against the First Amendment. A series of court cases, including the 1995 decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, provides a powerful shield protecting the right to remain anonymous. In that case, the majority ruled: "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

More broadly, the ITU's own constitution talks about "ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence." And the Council of Europe's Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet adopted in 2003 says nations "should respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity," while acknowledging law enforcement-related tracing is sometimes necessary.

"When NSA takes the lead on standard-setting, you have to ask yourself how much is about security and how much is about surveillance," said the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Rotenberg. "You would think (the ITU) would be a little more sensitive to spying on Internet users with the cooperation of the NSA and the Chinese government."

U.N. agency eyes curbs on Internet anonymity (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10040152-38.html)

Quote from: DreamWeaver on September 14, 2008, 07:28:14 PM

This might partially explain why nearly all of the Top 100 Internet Attackers in the world are consistently from China. An Internet organization called DShield maintains a current list of top attackers every month. By the way, you don't have to visit a Chinese site or have any connection to a Chinese site to be attacked by them. They evidently scan Internet Service Providers who don't already have them blocked out. DShield lists are commonly used by Internet Service Providers to improve the quality of the services they provide by blocking out the Chinese attackers. I must add that they represent much more than just irritation and tying up resources. They are actually trying to disable computers with just about every trick in the book.

http://www.dshield.org/indexd.html

The list of top attackers can be obtained at the address above. It's continually updated and FREE. "Who Is" checks on the IP's indicate they are nearly always Chinese.

U.N. chief calls for 'global leadership'
Presses world leaders not to pursue narrow national interests

UN chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday stressed the need for "global leadership" as he pressed world leaders not to pursue narrow national interests in the face of hard economic times.

"I see a danger of nations looking more inward, rather than toward a shared future," he said at the opening of the UN General Assembly's annual debate.

He spoke of a "challenge of global leadership" to tackle the world's worsening financial, energy and food crises.

"We see new centers of power and leadership -- in Asia, Latin America and across the newly developed world," Ban told more than 120 heads of state or government, including Presidents George W. Bush of the United States and Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

"In this new world, our challenges are increasingly those of collaboration rather than confrontation," he added.

"Nations can no longer protect their interests, or advance the well-being of their people, without the partnership of the rest."

On the world's current financial crisis, the UN secretary general stressed the need to "restore order to the international financial markets".

"We need a new understanding on business ethics and governance, with more compassion and less uncritical faith in the 'magic' of markets," the UN boss said.

Ban, who has chosen implementation of key poverty reduction goals as a major theme of this year's debate, said he saw "a danger of retreating from the progress we have made, particularly in the realm of development and more equitably sharing the fruits of global growth."

"Global growth has raised billions of people out of poverty. However, if you are among the world's poor, you have never felt poverty so sharply."

On Thursday, he will host a summit meeting on implementation of the poverty reduction Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on the margins of the General Assembly session.

Ban said he would use Thursday's summit to press world leaders, the private sector, foundations, and civil society to make "ambitious and concrete" proposals to ensure that these goals are implemented by a 2015 deadline.

Monday, a summit meeting on Africa's development needs adopted a political declaration urging rich countries to honor their pledge to double their annual aid to the continent, which is struggling to meet the MDGs.

And returning to the theme of global leadership, Ban told the assembly: "It takes leadership to honor our pledges and our promises in the face of fiscal constraints and political opposition.

"It takes leadership to commit our soldiers to a cause of peace in faraway places. It takes leadership to speak out for justice. To act on climate change despite wonderful voices against you."

The New Deceptive Spin at the U.N.: Re-tooling Racism

The United Nations has re-tooled the word “racism” and replaced it with the epigrammatical: “contemporary racism”.

Under the guise of “contemporary racism,” the U.N.’s Human Rights Council is taking care of its darling, Islam, and why not, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) runs things there in The Council.

Resolution 2002/9 mentions “fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion…,” but it does not mention any religion by name except Islam.

Within Islam, there is always distinction as to sex and other religions. Nowhere in this Resolution does it mention the rapes in Darfur, the beheadings in Iraq, Iran’s chant to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, or honor killings here in the U.S. within Muslim families.

Here are quotes from the Resolution:

Quote

Alarmed at the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam, Muslim values and traditions by the media, as well as at the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims,

Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism;

Notes with concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means are used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

The Washington Times quotes U.S. officials, “under the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic:”

Quote

…they hope to persuade moderate Muslim nations - among them Senegal, Mali, Nigeria and Indonesia - to reject the measure, which lacks the force of law but has provided diplomatic cover for regimes that repress critical speech.

Sources referred to as “religious rights groups” say that much of the language within other U.N. “measures, including statements…replicate the language of the resolution:”

Quote

Now we are seeing a clear attempt by OIC countries to mainstream the concept and insert it into just about every other topic they can,” Miss Gaer said. “They are turning freedom of expression into restriction of expression.

This Resolution is renewed each year. Each year the West votes against it. Each year, the West loses.

U.N. Human Rights Council Considers Religious Defamation Ban

So, what in the world does a United Nations Human Rights Council’s ” religious defamation resolution” mean, exactly? Let’s look at how it is described here at One News Now:

Quote

The United Nations’ Human Rights Council has launched a new session and will consider a controversial resolution to declare religious defamation illegal.

The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). “So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it’s considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes — because that is inconsistent with what Islam teaches,” Saunders explains. “Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that’s considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death.”

Got that? What this means is that if the U.N. resolution passes and then is passed by the U.N. General Assembly, it will be ILLEGAL to practice any other religion in an islamic country other than Islam. So, if you are a Christian in Saudi Arabia, you would not be able to legally practice your religion, speak about your religion, or gather to hold worship - even in a room in your house.

This isn’t just a matter of freedom of religion…it is that of free speech. As far as I know, this resolution is unprecedented in the arena of international government. More from the article:

Quote

The Human rights Council is dominated by Muslim countries. The resolution is also expected to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly. “The idea that free speech should be so restricted is a very dangerous one,” Saunders adds.

I have spoken here at Holger Awakens for a very long time how world domination is the goal of Islam and that in fact, Islam is simply NOT a religion. It is a violent political ideology and if you read the Qur’an, it is plain to see that world domination is as important in this ideology as is any entrance to a spiritual afterlife.

The vast majority of those representatives on this farce of an international body, called the U.N. Human Rights Council, are from islamic countries. They have pushed the envelope before and this will be just another example of that. All this does is seek to legitimize, in the eyes of the world, the punishments the islamists can dole out for those who don’t kneel and submit to allah. Bottom line is this…if you live in a islam-dominated country, you had better decide to worship the likes of the pedophile prophet Mohammed or you will end up in prison or hanging from the end of a rope dangling from a crane.

Now, I’m sure the Human Rights Council will make some sort of exception to this resolution so a Christian-dominated America could not make the worship of islam in America illegal. It will be interesting to see how they work around that possible angle.

But as is always the case, the United Nations has put up another example of how literally corrupt that organization is - with hundreds of countries in this world still violating the human rights of individuals, this Council has nothing else to do but make sure all of their islamic terrorist friends have a further weapon to persecute religious freedom in their homelands. This is the year 2008 folks, and we are seeing the highest international governing body in the entire world considering a resolution that would reflect the conditions in the Middle Ages. Unbelievable.

Quote

Islam still seeking religious domination

The United Nations’ Human Rights Council has launched a new session and will consider a controversial resolution to declare religious defamation illegal.

The resolution is really designed to permit countries with a dominant religion, such as Islam, to squelch any free-speech rights of religious minorities, according to Bill Saunders of the Family Research Council (FRC). “So for instance, in some Muslim countries, it’s considered blasphemy to just say what a Christian believes — because that is inconsistent with what Islam teaches,” Saunders explains. “Or, to try to switch from Islam to Christianity, that’s considered apostasy, and in those situations you can be punished by death.” It is debatable whether a voice for religious freedom will be heard. “Rightly so, the world objects to that kind of thing and says to these countries [that] we need to have religious freedom,” Saunders contends. “And religious freedom includes the right to have any religion that you choose and to follow it.” The Human rights Council is dominated by Muslim countries. The resolution is also expected to be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly. “The idea that free speech should be so restricted is a very dangerous one,” Saunders adds.

U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Curtails Free Speech, Critics Say

Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.

The non-binding resolution on “Combating the Defamation of Religion” is intended to curtail speech that offends religion -- particularly Islam.

Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since.

In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. Now the 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.

The non-binding Resolution 62/145, which was adopted in 2007, says it “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.”

It “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

But some critics believe the resolution is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech everywhere.

The U.S. government mission in Geneva, in a statement, told the U.N. Human Rights Council in July that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights” around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.

Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. "blasphemy resolution" has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:

-- On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel "The Jewel of Medina," which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segment.”

-- An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam, FOXNews.com also reported.

-- In December 2007 “a court reportedly sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad's wives,” the U.S. government said.

-- A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.

-- In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

-- In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary highlighting the abuse of Muslim women.

“It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

Passing the resolution year after year gives it clout, Bolton said. “In places where U.N. decisions are viewed as more consequential than they are in the U.S., they’re trying to build up brick-by-brick that disagreement with this resolution is unacceptable.”

Kevin “Shamus” Hasson, founder and president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm in Washington that opposes the resolution, said it is a slap in the face of human rights law.

“The whole idea of the defamation of religion is a Trojan horse for something else," Hasson said. "When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.”

He said the resolution is a shield for Islamic fundamentalists who retaliate against perceived offenses and want to make Islamic Sharia law the law of the land. He said the resolution passes under the guise of protecting religion, but it actually endangers religious minorities in Islamic countries.

“Who could possibly be in favor of defamation?” Hasson said. “God may well punish blasphemy in the hereafter, but it’s not the government’s job to police in the here and now.”

Paula Schriefer, advocacy director for Freedom House, a member of the Coalition to Defend Free Speech, agrees.

“You have to remember that many of the governments that are pushing forward this idea are not democratic governments,” she said. “Citizens of Pakistan or Egypt, who have been two of the ringleaders of this movement, are frequently put in prison or arrested. Even if they’re not arrested, the fear of being arrested creates an environment of self-censorship.”

Floyd Abrams, Visiting Professor of First Amendment Law at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, said that while Americans are protected by the Constitution at home, the U.N. resolution could affect those who travel to countries with anti-free-speech laws and isolate Westerners who oppose restricting religious dialogue.

Neither the Pakistani, the Indonesian nor the Egyptian missions to the U.N. responded to requests for comment. All three are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

UN Assembly to discuss Abdullah’s interfaith initiative
Arab News
Friday 10 October 2008

JEDDAH: The United Nations General Assembly will hold a session in the middle of next month to discuss Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah’s initiative to promote interfaith dialogue. This was announced by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon while attending a ceremony marking Saudi Arabia’s National Day at the UN headquarters in New York.

“I have tremendous respect for King Abdullah and appreciate his leadership role in many initiatives,” the UN chief said, referring to the International Interfaith Conference organized by the Saudi leader in Madrid last July.

“I have been working with King Abdullah and Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal on the interfaith dialogue,” Al-Riyadh Arabic daily quoted Ban as saying. “I personally believe that the dialogue between followers of various faiths would contribute to solving many international conflicts,” he added.

Ban had described the Madrid conference as a symbol of unity among different faiths, adding that he hoped it would contribute to healing divisions and building a more secure and stable world. “This event is itself a potent symbol of unity among different traditions. Our challenge is to see this expression of solidarity turned into a genuine force for good,” Ban said in a message to the conference.

He added that the origin of many conflicts lies beyond the confines of faith. “This unique gathering of religious leaders can help debunk the dangerous myth that religion, even when properly understood, inspires violence,” he said, adding that political rivalries, territorial ambitions or competition for natural resources play a major role in triggering violence.

King Abdullah, who opened the three-day conference in the Spanish capital, exhorted followers of the world’s leading faiths to embrace a spirit of reconciliation, saying that history’s great conflicts were not caused by religion but by their misinterpretation.

More than 300 delegates attended the global gathering.

UN Assembly to discuss Abdullah’s interfaith initiative (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=115292&d=10&m=10&y=2008&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom)

Bush to attend UN dialogue on religions
November 1, 2008

UNITED NATIONS: U.S. President George W. Bush will join the leaders of more than half a dozen countries at an upcoming General Assembly meeting to promote a global dialogue about religions, cultures and common values, a U.N. official said Friday.

General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann has sent invitations to all 192 U.N. member states to the high-level meeting on Nov. 12-13 and expects at least 20 or 30 world leaders to attend, his spokesman Enrique Yeves said.

The meeting is a follow-up to a three-day interfaith conference in Madrid organized by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Juan Carlos of Spain in July which brought together Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and representatives of other religions and sparked hopes of a new relationship among religions.

In a final declaration, participants urged the United Nations to play a role, saying they hope to follow up "recommendations in enhancing dialogue among the followers of religions, civilizations and cultures through conducting a special U.N. session on dialogue."

The Saudi monarch, who announced earlier this week that he will attend the New York meeting, sent a letter to d'Escoto requesting a high-level meeting in mid-November to inform the General Assembly of the process initiated in Madrid and provide international support for it.

Yeves said that in addition to Abdullah and Bush, the heads of state of Bahrain, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait, Philippines and Finland have said they will attend.

D'Escoto "believes this is an excellent initiative and that it should be broadened to talking not only about religions but about cultures, about all the common values we have in our very rich philosophical and ethical traditions in the different parts of the world," Yeves said.

"He would like that we talk not only about dialogue, but about joining forces in order to work together with all these common values to address the major issues that we are facing right now in the world," Yeves said.

In an Oct. 9 letter inviting U.N. member states to participate, d'Escoto said the November meeting should serve as "a useful preparatory step" for a high-level interfaith and intercultural dialogue with members of civil society in 2010.

King Abdullah, whose country bans non-Muslims from openly practicing their religion, has called for religious tolerance and said such dialogue is the duty of every human being. The king also urged fellow Muslims to reach out to non-Muslims as a way to show that Islam is not a violent religion. (Lots of luck there King Abdullah, islam has a track record of being a violent religion. DW)

Bush to attend UN dialogue on religions (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/31/news/UN-UN-Interfaith-Dialogue.php)

UN Time for 'Testing'
Posted GMT 11-10-2008 22:12:56

After eight years of the Bush administration, which stubbornly subordinated the interests of the United Nations to its own, UN officials are overjoyed to see its departure and the arrival of someone -- anyone -- else. Bureaucrats in Turtle Bay are hopeful about last week's election results, believing they signal the arrival of a far more UN-friendly administration. That new administration will soon face a "testing" of sorts from their quarter.

"It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the UN who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative," said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association.

Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who took pains publicly to remain neutral during the presidential campaign, was reported to have told a small group of journalists at an off-the-record briefing that an Obama victory would be "good for us." And in commenting after Obama's victory, the Secretary General remarked that "With a glad heart, I welcome this new era of partnership for change."

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton had a simple explanation for the Obama boom at the United Nations: "What they want is the bending of the knee, and they'll get it from an Obama administration."

President-elect Obama has the chance to prove Bolton wrong -- and it is to be hoped that he will -- but the next president will need to adopt a nuanced view of multilateralism in which the United Nations is not the main player. While it is true that the most intractable problems in the world today are global in scale -- the terrorist threat and the interconnected global economic crisis, for example -- the choice is not between the imposition of U.S. unilateral hegemony and accession to UN multilateral authority. Rather, the choice is between different modes of effective global cooperation.

Beneficial multilateralism is really about cooperation among sovereign nations toward a common end that produces net positive results for the cooperating countries against a stated goal. Intelligent cooperation and multilateral diplomacy do not have to mean acquiescence in whatever other countries think, no matter what the cost. Nor do they require us to ignore our own democratic values when a majority of autocratic countries push through a General Assembly resolution that contradicts those values.

The United Nations today cannot be relied upon by the United States as its chief instrument for the exercise of multilateral diplomacy. With few exceptions, such as disaster relief and dealing with critical health issues, there is little interest at the UN in true cooperation toward solving common problems. That is because the agendas of UN bodies like the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly itself have been hijacked by Islamic fanatics and their anti-Western allies, who nevertheless want more U.S. dollars to fund their vision.

Today, we are by far the largest contributor to the UN's budget, paying 22 percent of the UN's regular operating budget and 25 percent of its peacekeeping budget. Yet we have only one vote out of 190 in the General Assembly and share the veto power in the Security Council with four other permanent members (including two authoritarian regimes), who pay a fraction of what we contribute.

As a senator, Barack Obama pushed for even more funding in support of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals. He co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act (S.2433). It was explicitly directed to "the achievement of the UN's Millennium Development Goal" that would cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015.

This first UN Millennium Development Goal of poverty reduction would be coordinated under the legislation with "the other internationally recognized Millennium Development Goals, including eradicating extreme hunger and reducing hunger and malnutrition, achieving universal education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, ensuring environmental sustainability, and achieving significant improvement in the lives of at least 100,000,000 slum dwellers."

All of this costs lots of money. Barack Obama's legislation called for "making available additional overall United States assistance levels." The UN has already declared what the financial commitment for each developed member state should be: 0.7 percent of its gross national product. This would mean a UN-administered assessment on America's total national wealth that could end up taking nearly $140 billion a year more of American taxpayers' money to finance a global redistributionist development aid program.

"America needs to do more," Obama said when his legislation was introduced. "As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy has to extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere."

The Bush administration has already provided billions of dollars to help fund the fight against AIDS and malaria in Africa. However, it has not been willing to hand over many hundreds of billions of dollars more of our money to unaccountable aid programs that may end up lining the pockets of corrupt government leaders and UN officials in the mold of the oil-for-food scandal. Note that corruption alone has cost Africa nearly $150 billion dollars a year, according to the African Union.

Particularly at this time of job losses, house foreclosures, exploding national debt, and other economic distress affecting many millions of Americans, a massive increase in development aid funneled through the United Nations is not the kind of change that we can afford.

Will President-elect Obama reverse his past support for expensive UN programs and keep the hands of the UN bureaucrats as far away from our pockets as possible? Will his fellow Democrats, who will be in firm control of both houses of Congress, let him reverse course even if he chooses to, since they have long been unconditional supporters of the UN?

We should know the answer quite soon.

UN Time for 'Testing' (http://www.aina.org/news/20081110161256.htm)

"Sistine Chapel" at United Nations sparks controversy

By Sinikka Tarvainen
Nov 13, 2008, 11:39 GMT

Madrid - As Spanish artist Miquel Barcelo prepares for the unveiling of his most gigantic work so far at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva, he is at the height of his artistic glory.

Only a political squabble over the cost of the art work is casting a shadow over the ceremony, which will be attended by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Spain's King Juan Carlos and Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero on Tuesday, November 18.

Barcelo, who is being compared with Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) and Joan Miro (1893-1983), worked for 13 months on redecorating a negotiating room which will now be known as the Chamber for Human Rights and the Alliance of Civilizations.

The Alliance of Civilizations project was launched by Zapatero and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to improve dialogue between the West and the Muslim world in 2006.

The ceiling created by Barcelo, which has been compared with Michelangelo's work at the Sistine Chapel, turns the room into a cave dripping with thousands of multicoloured stalactites and swept over by a stormy sea.

'The cave is a metaphor for the agora, the first meeting place of humans, the big African tree under which to sit to talk, and the only possible future: dialogue, human rights,' Barcelo explains.

'The sea is the past, the origin of the species, and the promise of a new future: emigration, travel,' he adds.

The 51-year-old artist describes his new work as 'reaching towards the infinite, bringing a multiplicity of points of view,' like El Libro de Arena (The Book of Sand, 1975) by the late Argentine writer Jorge Luis Borges, whose grave Barcelo kept visiting during his stay in Geneva.

Few question the artistic value of the ceiling created by Barcelo, but its cost has sparked controversy.

The budget to renovate the room amounted to nearly 20 million euros (25 million dollars), 60 per cent of which was covered by Spanish sponsors.

The rest was given by the government, including 500,000 euros that were lifted from a development aid fund.

'Art has no price,' Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said, eliciting criticism from the conservative opposition which said the same money could have been used for vaccinating children or opening water holes in developing countries.

The money did not come from funds which would have been used for such projects, the government explained.

Talk about the money having been 'stolen from the poor' did not correspond to reality, said Barcelo, whose used 35 tons of paint on the work measuring 1,400 square metres.

His team included 20 specialists ranging from a speleologist and a cook to architects and engineers. Special machinery was designed to create the artificial stalactites some of which weigh more than 50 kilogrammes.

Barcelo, who masters nearly all artistic techniques ranging from painting and sculpture to performance art, soared to fame early on, and is now regarded as one of the world's top contemporary artists.

Dividing his time between his native Majorca, Paris and Mali in West Africa, Barcelo has absorbed a wide range of influences ranging from European Baroque to African materials and themes.

'To think that art has made a lot of progress between (the cave paintings of) Altamira and (Paul) Cezanne is a vain and Western attempt,' says the artist, who has described painting as 'mud that I stir with a stick.'

Fascinated by processes of transformation on land and in the sea, Barcelo sees his art as an 'organized chaos' and as an 'act of resistance.'

Barcelo's biggest projects include modern terracotta murals for a Gothic chapel in the cathedral of Palma de Majorca, which were finished in 2007, but the award-winning artist has vowed not to become an 'official dinosaur.'

'I don't want to spend my life doing mega-projects or big pharaonic works,' he says.

"Sistine Chapel" at United Nations sparks controversy (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1442798.php/&quotSistine_Chapel%22_at_United_Nations_sparks_controversy__News_Feature__)

Bush promotes religious freedom at UN gathering
Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:30pm EST

By Patrick Worsnip

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Thursday called religious freedom the foundation of a healthy society and defended the U.S. record in protecting Muslims caught up in foreign conflicts.

Addressing a United Nations "interfaith" meeting in almost certainly his last appearance at the world body, Bush, a devout Christian, said religious liberty was a central element of U.S. foreign policy that could best be promoted through democracy.

The meeting, attended by leaders and diplomats from some 70 countries, was initiated by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, who in an opening speech on Wednesday denounced terrorism as the enemy of all religions.

Bush implicitly criticized countries that restrict religious practice. Saudi Arabia forbids public non-Muslim worship.

"Freedom is God's gift to every man, woman, and child -- and that freedom includes the right of all people to worship as they see fit," Bush said, noting that the United States had been founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Bush was speaking a short distance from the site of New York's former World Trade Center, destroyed in 2001 by planes piloted by Islamist al Qaeda militants. His subsequent "war on terror" has been branded by some Muslim critics as a crusade against Islam.

Bush said God had called men "to oppose all those who use His name to justify violence and murder."

"Our nation has helped defend the religious liberty of others, from liberating the (World War Two) concentration camps of Europe to protecting Muslims in places like Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq,' said Bush, a Methodist who said faith had sustained him through his presidency, which ends in January.

"We're not afraid to stand with religious dissidents and believers who practice their faith even where it is unwelcome."

German minister of state Hermann Groehe defended the right to convert to another faith -- a right not recognized in some Muslim countries.

"It is unacceptable that up until now laws in some countries threaten those who want to convert with the death penalty," said Groehe, without naming any countries.

President Asif Ali Zardari of Muslim Pakistan said there was "nothing more un-Islamic" than discrimination, violence against women and terrorism, but also denounced hate speech against Islam in countries he did not identify.

"The imaginary fear of Islam has been rising," Zardari said. "This is exactly what the terrorists had hoped to provoke. Those in the West who accept this are falling into the trap of the terrorists."

Zardari, whose wife, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated by a suicide bomber last year, proposed an international agenda to combat hate speech, religious discrimination and bigotry and promote religious dialogue.

Bush promotes religious freedom at UN gathering (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4AC75Y20081113)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Muslims want any negative speech about islam combated. Everyone else is pushing freedom to worship however one chooses.

Saudi king to U.N. assembly: Time for peace-loving religious dialog
11-13-2008

Yesterday, a two-day conference sponsored by Saudi Arabia opened at the United Nations in New York. Its aim: to promote dialog between the religions of the world and, in the process, to help "improve the image of Islam as a religion that favors dialog over violence." Addressing heads of state and other international delegates at the U.N. yesterday, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud delivered the keynote speech of the so-called Culture of Peace Conference to the U.N. General Assembly. The gathering is being "seen as part of the Saudi monarch's efforts to promote a more moderate brand of Islam in a kingdom that has been accused of breeding extremism" ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the U.S. "By sponsoring interfaith events, King Abdullah may also be hoping to advance the debate over radicalism within the kingdom." (Financial Times)

In his address, King Abdullah said the kind of dialog between religions he is advocating "comes at a time when the world is criticizing Islam....It is regrettable that some of our sons have been tempted by Satan or the brothers of Satan." The Financial Times notes that, last year, the Saudi king "met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican; earlier this year, he arranged a conference of Muslim sects at the holy city of Mecca and, in July, he presided over a gathering of Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists hosted by Spain. The Vatican, however, is skeptical about the merit of the New York summit and concerned that the issue of religious freedom for Christians in Muslim countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, which permits no [Christian] churches, will be pushed aside."

In his speech yesterday, King Abdullah also stated: "We say today with a single voice that religions through which Almighty God sought to bring happiness to mankind should not be turned into instruments to cause misery....Human beings are created equals and partners on this planet. Either they can live together in peace and harmony or they will inevitably be consumed by the flames of misunderstanding, malice and hatred." Noting that, in the past, religious differences have led to fanaticism and wars, he said: "There was no need for such wars....The time has come for us to learn lessons from the ruthless past and unite together on moral values and lofty examples that we all believe in....All the tragedies the world witnesses today [are] the result of its abandoning of a major principle, the principle of justice, promulgated by all religions and cultures...." Attributing the spread of drug abuse and crime to the detrioration of so-called family values, the king also went after terrorists, noting that those who engage in "terrorism and [other] crimes are enemies of God and enemies of every religion and culture....They would not have appeared in the presence of tolerance." In making his speech, King Abdullah became the first monarch from Saudi Arabia to address the United Nations in 51 years.

Similarly, in an opening speech at the conference, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, a Nicaraguan diplomat and Roman Catholic priest who serves as the president of the General Assembly, "warned that the world desperately needs to learn the positive lessons of religion." D'Escoto "said all religions included 'social responsibility,' but that the world has 'become contaminated by the spirit of selfishness and individualism.'" "D'Escoto said...the world must choose between the values of consumerism and greed, or social responsibility and ethical behavior...." That goes for the realms of economics and politics, too, he noted. During his own turn at the podium after King Abdullah spoke, Israeli President Shimon Peres addressed the visiting monarch and said: "Your Majesty,...I was listening to your message....I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people....It's right, it's needed, it's promising."

Some critics questioned whether or not King Abdullah, as the "leader of a country [that is] steeped in the rigid Wahabi sect of Islam, was the right person to promote interfaith relations." Speaking before the U.N. conference began, the Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, the international, human-rights advocacy organization, remarked: "There is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, yet the kingdom asks the world to listen to its message of religious tolerance...."

Saudi king to U.N. assembly: Time for peace-loving religious dialog (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=32609)

United Nations in Geneva Presents Miquel Barcelo's Dome at the Palace of Nations
By MICHAEL DAMIANO

GENEVA.- Tuesday morning (Nov. 18) the Spanish government officially presented to the UN the dome Miquel Barceló (Felanitx, Majorca, 1957) painted in the organization’s Palace of Nations. A multinational group of over 600 diplomats, politicians, members of the art world and journalists filled the Human Rights and Alliance of Civilizations Chamber for the event. Guests of honor included King Juan Carlos, Queen Sofía, President José Luís Rodriguez Zapatero, and Foreign Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos, representing Spain; as well as Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon; President of the Swiss Confederation, Micheline Calmy-Rey; and Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In the minutes leading up to the ceremony, the distinguished crowd milled about the circular conference room craning their necks toward the multi-colored stalactites perilously clinging to the dome overhead. Some—aware that the dome’s appearance changes depending on one’s perspective—walked around the hall observing this effect. Another group, in the central part of the chamber, inundated the amiable Barceló with handshakes and congratulations.

Once the crowd was seated, the guests of honor, accompanied by their entourage of bodyguards, filed through the chamber to take their places at a long table flanked by two huge monitors at the front of the room. President Calmy-Rey delivered the first and most eloquent of the six speeches, demonstrating his grasp of European history and a capacity for interpretation of art.

Barceló delivered his characteristically concise speech in French, Catalan and Castilian. More poetic than discursive, his address made reference to the two primary sources of inspiration for the appearance of the dome: a cave and the sea. Representing both at once, the monumental work is an “absolute union of opposites.”

None of the speakers made reference to the controversy that has erupted in Spain over the financing of the dome—a welcome respite. The publication of the nearly €20 million (US$25.4 million) price tag of the Human Rights Chamber renovation (which included the cost of Barceló’s dome) enraged the Spanish right. In the past weeks, Spain’s right-leaning newspapers, El Mundo and ABC, have been ablaze with accusations of extravagancy directed at the socialist PSOE government. Unfortunately, the ordeal dominated the press leading up to the inauguration of the Majorcan artist’s project.

Nevertheless, on Tuesday, all attention was focused on Barceló’s work. The 4,600 square-foot dome, too big to be grasped in its entirety by the human eye, serves as a metaphor for the world. The spectator can only appreciate the work as a whole by focusing on one section at a time and synthesizing the resulting impressions.

Furthermore, Barceló and his team applied gray paint from one side and multi-colored paints from the other to the three dimensional forms of the dome. This unique treatment—which Barceló has employed in paintings for nearly twenty years—causes the dome to change colors as one moves, reinforcing the metaphor of a complex world. The work cannot be properly understood from any one perspective.

However, as President Calmy-Rey fittingly pointed out in his speech: despite its diversity of appearances, the dome presents many pictorial similarities from any angle. Similarly, although the people of the world differ in color and perspective, we share some universal values.

The symbolism fits the function of the Chamber. The Alliance of Civilizations—the brainchild of President Zapatero and Prime Minister Erdogan—seeks to solve human rights issues, among others, with an open-minded, multilateral approach.

United Nations in Geneva Presents Miquel Barcelo's Dome at the Palace of Nations (http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp?int_sec=2&int_new=27362)

UN Bans "Defamation of Religion"
Tuesday, 25 November 2008, 11:03 am
Press Release: UN Watch

UN Bans "Defamation of Religion" in Islamic Bid to Curb Free Speech

But advocacy campaign reduces support from 108 to 85 votes

Geneva, November 24, 2008 - By a vote of 85 to 50, with 42 abstaining, the UN General Assembly today adopted a draft resolution calling on all countries to alter their legal and constitutional systems to prevent "defamation of religions," asserting that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

The decision, sponsored by Islamic states with the support of Venezuela and Belarus, drew immediate protests from human rights activists and legal experts.

"This is just the latest shot in an intensifying campaign of UN resolutions that dangerously seek to import Islamic anti-blasphemy prohibitions into the discourse of international human rights law," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an indpendent human rights monitoring group in Geneva.

"Human rights were designed to protect individuals -- to guarantee every person free speech and free exercise of religion -- but most certainly not to shield any set of beliefs, religion included."

"These resolutions legitimize the criminalization of free speech in countries like Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia," said Neuer. "Muslim moderates, bloggers, women seeking basic freedoms -- all of these will be the first to suffer from the worsening climate of state repression in the name of state-supported Islamic orthodoxy."

"No less is today's enactment aimed at the Western world, to intimidate anyone from criticizing radical Islam and those who commit violence in its name," said Neuer.

Proponents of free speech celebrated one small victory, however.

Successful campaigning by an international human rights coalition, including the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and UN Watch, led to a decline in support for the resolution compared to last year's vote, which had garnered 108 in support, 51 against, and 25 abstentions.

The proposed draft declaration for the UN's April 2009 "Durban II" conference on racism includes numerous provisions on the "defamation" of Islam. Denmark has threatened to walk out if they are included.

UN Bans "Defamation of Religion" (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0811/S00421.htm)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On this page is also the GA draft resolution, link, which seems to be a dead link now.

Rebuilding U.N.'s Palace? A Billion Dollars

Monday , November 24, 2008
By Joseph Abrams

The U.N.'s Palace of Nations is falling apart.

The Palais des Nations is the U.N.'s European headquarters, flanked by the Swiss Alps to the west and Lake Geneva to the east. Peacocks roam freely on the grounds of the pristine, 111-acre Ariana Park that surrounds it.

But on the inside, the onetime home to the League of Nations is plagued by 70-year-old wiring, fire hazards and miles of rusty pipes that have flooded the archives repeatedly. Asbestos lines some of the walls, and the roof is in danger of caving in. The palace is in need of a major facelift.

The tab: one billion dollars, says Director General Sergei Ordzhonikidze, who heads the U.N. Office at Geneva.

But critics say it's not worth a cool billion to preserve a diplomatic palace. They say new offices could be built for less, and the money could be spent to heal the sick and feed the hungry.

For $1 billion, a firm could build 407,244 square meters of office space in Geneva. That's one and a half times the size of the Empire State Building, and five times the size of the main building at the Palais des Nations.

Based on 3,000 Swiss francs per square meter, a figure provided by Mario Botta Architetto, an architecture firm based in Switzerland, 407,244 square meters is two-and-a-half times the size of the entire Palais complex, which includes new wings and an underground garage.

A comparable building in the U.S. would cost about $228 per square foot, according to Kermit Baker, chief economist for the American Institute of Architects. That translates into almost precisely the same amount of brand new office space — 407,469 square meters.

Baker said those costs would cover construction only, and wouldn't pay for any expenses for design, buying land, brokering the deal or any changes in plans along the way, which are significant.

But the difference is massive; keeping the Palais des Nations could cost more than double what it would take to build a new home from scratch.

"We are extremely conscious that our mandate is not to do renovations for the pleasure of renovations. This is not our purpose," said Marie Heuze, chief spokeswoman for the U.N. Office at Geneva.

Heuze said the buildings are a storehouse of history and stand as a symbol of international cooperation. Every year about 100,000 visitors come to the palace, where tours are led in 15 languages.

Heuze told FOXNews.com that the director general's figure isn't on the U.N. budget yet and is an estimate that would have to be evaluated by a team of architects. Any major work on the Palais would likely come after the $1.9 billion renovation of the U.N.'s New York headquarters is complete.

Yet relief groups expressed bewilderment at the scope of the suggested renovations. Non-governmental organizations said $1 billion represents more than twice the amount the U.S. government spends worldwide on child survival and maternal health aid.

That $1 billion, relief groups said, is also larger than the entire humanitarian action appeal for all countries served by UNICEF, the United Nations Children's Fund, which requested $850 million to address 39 humanitarian emergencies around the world in 2008.

$1 billion could also go a long way to feed the hungry. Oxfam America reports on its Web site that "$1,000 brings potable water to 22 families in the Rift Valley of Ethiopia," and that "$20 buys enough maize to feed a family of four" there for six months — enough food and water to feed millions and flood the valley.

Critics are up in arms about the U.N.'s possible billion-dollar plan.

"This is entirely consistent with their spending habits worldwide for years," said Claudia Rosett, a U.N. watcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. "For them to spend this kind of money, especially at a time when so many people are in economic distress, is outrageous."

The U.N. said its plans may slow as a result of the world's economic downturn. "With the financial crisis, of course, it seems very frivolous to talk about the renovation of a building which is old and dates from before the Second World War," said Heuze.

Renovations of massive scale may not be considered until 2009-2010, and they would have to be approved by a vote in the General Assembly — meaning all member nations would have a say in the expenditures.

But changes have already started in Geneva. A massive meeting hall was unveiled last week by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, adorned with a $23 million art ceiling by the Spanish artist Miquel Barcelo. A number of other meeting rooms have been redone in recent years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally donated by foreign governments.

"There is constantly some renovation work done in the Palais des Nations, but much more needs to be done," Heuze said.

Director General Ordzhonikidze renovated his office this year, though the U.N. would not say how much the changes cost and did not specify whether a member state paid for the work. A spokeswoman said that his office was often overheated by the sun, and he had an air conditioner installed to cool it.

Sitting behind his desk in the Palais in June, Ordzhonikidze addressed the level of decay at the palace in an interview with Reuters.

"This door leads to a balcony. If you go out on the balcony, you see that everything is rusted. It's not nice," he said.

Rebuilding U.N.'s Palace? A Billion Dollars (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,456824,00.html)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I still think the Useless Nations would be better off building new in Babylon, or a deserted island. :D

More concern about the choke-collar of anti-hate speech legislation
23 September, 2008

Australia (MNN) ― The World Evangelical Alliance is concerned about growing evidence of a fundamentalist religious lobby in Australia supporting same-sex relationships, stem-cell research, and abortion. Anti-hate speech legislation in Australia would put a choke collar on anyone who spoke against these practices, including Christians. The Human Rights Commission is launching a national review of what Australians believe freedom of religion means.

Commissioner of race discrimination Tom Calama says that a balance needs to be struck between the freedom to practice a religion and not pushing those beliefs on the rest of society. He says that people in Australia need to understand what religious freedom means in the 21st century.

"Does religious belief influence policies being determined in any country, particularly in our country?" he said.

Law in Australia provides for freedom of religion, but in October 2003 hate speech legislation affected two pastors giving a seminar on Islam. A civil suit was filed with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, alleging defamation of Muslims during a seminar the pastors had given on Islam. The Islamic Council sought an apology, retraction of the comments in question, and compensation.

"These seminars largely consisted of opening the Koran and reading from [it]," said Jeff King, president of the International Christian Concern. "There was Saudi money that went into Australia; they hired the best lawyers in the country and sued these guys for defamation."

The pastors' lawyers argued that the complaint was outside the tribunal's jurisdiction and that it infringed on the Constitutional right of freedom of expression. Although the pastors were convicted, the case was appealed and later settled after mediation.

Calama says that in a secular, multi-faith society, people sometimes have different expectations of what freedom of religion means and how the law should reflect those beliefs. People are invited to make submissions concerning their views of freedom of religion until the end of January.

More concern about the choke-collar of anti-hate speech legislation (http://www.mnnonline.org/article/11692)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The court should be fining these Muslims and any other groups, who seek to muzzle free speech. They are stupid judges who fall for this garbage!!

Brothers and Sisters,

A country either has Freedom of Religion or NOT, and there really isn't any in between. Either all have it or none have it. Islam seeks Freedom of Religion for themselves and denial of that freedom for everyone else, AND THE ANSWER IS NO! The answer must be "NO!" here and in every country. I can BLUNTLY state that my FREEDOM OF RELIGION will NOT be removed. Those who practice Islam are welcome to do so as long as my FREEDOM is respected. In return, I will respect their FREEDOM. It is a two-way street, and that's the way that it will stay. We will both have FREEDOM, and that should be a common sense matter in any FREE country. It isn't a FREE country without FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

BLUNTLY, those who wish to DEMAND ISLAM ONLY need to stay in their own country THAT IS NOT FREE! If they leave their NON-FREE COUNTRY, they will discover other people with RIGHTS TO OTHER RELIGIONS THAT WILL NOT BE INFRINGED - PERIOD - END OF STORY! If they don't like FREE COUNTRIES with FREEDOM OF RELIGION for everyone, THEIR ONLY CHOICE IS TO GO HOME TO THEIR NON-FREE COUNTRY! It really is just this simple. Islam or any other religion IS NOT DEMANDED in a FREE COUNTRY! - and WILL NEVER BE DEMANDED IN A FREE COUNTRY! If an immigrant can't stand the thought of EVERYONE having FREEDOM OF RELIGION - they need to either stay home or go back home. Bluntly, they will not be allowed to remove or restrict the FREEDOM of others because that isn't done in a FREE COUNTRY! Maybe the first step would be to find out what a FREE COUNTRY is and what that means. If someone doesn't like it - stay away and don't go there.

This really isn't a difficult topic at all - just the opposite. It's the easiest topic in the world to understand. The same is TRUE for FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, and others FREEDOMS that people in FREE COUNTRIES enjoy. Those FREEDOMS either exist or they don't. They do exist in a FREE COUNTRY AND THEY WON'T BE TAKEN AWAY - PERIOD - END OF STORY! Those who wish to remove or restrict the FREEDOMS of others WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO SO! I would hope that the people of Australia are smart enough to JUST SAY NO! LIKE IT OR LEAVE IT - SIMPLE AS THAT! Those who are unable to adapt to the ways of a FREE COUNTRY need to be DEPORTED AND SENT HOME TO THEIR NON-FREE COUNTRY! The numbers make no difference at all - SEND THEM HOME!

World Jewish Congress Dismayed by One-Sided Statements of UN General Assembly President
Wed Nov 26, 11:36 am ET

NEW YORK and BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov. 26 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The president of the World Jewish Congress (WJC), Ronald S. Lauder, has criticized recent anti-Israel statements by Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, the current president of the United Nations General Assembly (GA). D'Escoto had likened Israel's actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians to "the apartheid of an earlier era" and called on the international community to consider stricter measures against Israel including "boycott, divestment and sanctions" similar to those enacted against South Africa in the 1980s. The GA president had also added that the failure to establish a Palestinian state made "a mockery of the United Nations and greatly hurts its image and prestige." The Holocaust and other historical crimes against the Jews would not give Israel "the right to abuse others, especially those who historically have such deep and exemplary relations with the Jewish people," according to Miguel d'Escoto.

WJC President Ronald S. Lauder called the accusations against Israel "false and without basis." He added: "Israel has served as an ingathering of many people of all colors and races whose citizens are granted equal rights. Not for the first time, the United Nations is applying different standards for Israel and the Jewish people than it does for other countries. When will we hear the UN unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israeli towns from Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip? When will the United Nations speak out against the mockery that the Iranian regime makes of the international community by threatening to wipe another UN member state off the map?" The creation of a Palestinian state, the WJC president pointed out, favored by a majority of Israeli citizens, could only become a reality once the threats to Israel's security cease.

Ronald S. Lauder emphasized that recent developments in the international organization, such as the one-sided obsession with Israel on the part of the UN Human Rights Council or the looming repeat of Israel bashing and anti-Semitism at the upcoming UN Durban Review Conference in Geneva next year continue to give rise to great concern. The WJC would continue to work towards equitable and fair treatment of Israel in all the UN venues, he said.

The World Jewish Congress is the international organization representing Jewish communities in over 80 countries around the world. The WJC serves as the diplomatic arm of the Jewish people to governments and international organizations.

World Jewish Congress Dismayed by One-Sided Statements of UN General Assembly President (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20081126/pl_usnw/world_jewish_congress_dismayed_by_one_sided_statements_of_un_general_assembly_president/print;_ylt=AuCYTP_dSwBCbBfztfrvgHMJKekE)
~~~~~~~~~~~

Soon as I can find these six resolutions against Israel, I will post it. :'( My opinion of the UN is going from Useless Nations to Anti-Semitism Nations

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS ON MIDDLE EAST, PALESTINIAN RIGHTS,

FOLLOWING TWO-DAY DEBATE ON ISSUES
Also Adopts Texts Addressing ‘Protection of Global Climate’;

Global Health; Cooperation with Caribbean, South-East Asian States

Following two days of sometimes contentious debate on the conflict in the Middle East and the plight of the Palestinian people, the General Assembly today adopted by recorded vote six resolutions meant to promote the Palestinian people’s rights and limit Israel’s actions in Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan. The votes came on a day that saw action on a total of 10 texts, with the other consensus texts addressing climate change, global health, and global and regional cooperation.

The first three Assembly resolutions zeroed in directly on the Palestinian people’s needs, by backing the work of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and supporting the Secretariat’s efforts to raise awareness of their difficulties through conferences, training programmes, links with civil society and other activities. A fourth affirmed the illegality of Israeli actions to change the status of Jerusalem.

Two additional resolutions on the Middle East region expressed the Assembly’s unhappiness with Israeli moves to control Jerusalem, as well as Israel’s activities in the Syrian Golan, including what it views as Israel’s illegal occupation of the Syrian Golan since 1967.

Turning to other issues, the Assembly adopted resolutions that pushed for immediate action on climate change, and urged Member States to consider health issues when shaping foreign policy and stressed the importance of achieving the health-related Millennium Development Goals. Two other texts aimed to reinforce cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean, and the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). A fifth resolution, meant to strengthen ties between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization, was introduced and postponed for consideration at a later date.

Regarding the question of Palestine, the Assembly adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 57 in abstentions, its draft resolution on the “Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” (for voting details see Annex I). With that text, the Assembly requested the Committee to keep promoting the Palestinians’ realization of their inalienable rights, including their right to self-determination, as it mobilized assistance for them.

By a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 8 against ( Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 57 abstentions (Annex II), the Assembly adopted the resolution on the “Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat”. By this draft, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to continue providing the Division with the resources needed to carry out its work, which included monitoring developments, organizing international meetings and working with civil society.

By a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III), the Assembly next adopted the resolution on the “Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat”, by which it requested the Department to continue its programme for the 2009-2010 biennium.

This request included the dissemination of information on all United Nations activities relating to the question and the peace process; putting out publications on the various aspects of the question; and organizing fact-finding missions for journalists to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel.

The Assembly also adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against ( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 3 abstentions ( Cameroon, Canada, Tonga) (Annex IV), the resolution on the “Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine”.

By that text, the Assembly reaffirmed the illegality of Israeli actions meant to change the status of Jerusalem, including the so-called E-1 plan, which aimed to connect Jerusalem to the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim. It also reaffirmed the illegality of other unilateral measures that tried to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the city and the Territory as a whole. This included Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.

Speaking before the votes, the representative of the United States said her country could not support the four resolutions since the texts, in combination with 15 other resolutions that came before the Assembly this year, created a clear pattern of institutional bias. The United States had clearly stated its policy that there should be two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, and backed that policy with support for both sides.

She was distressed that each year the Assembly devoted a disproportionate number of resolutions to the Middle East, with disproportionate criticism of Israel. Those resolutions, along with others on the Middle East, were repetitive and unbalanced, and at odds with the Assembly’s action on any other State. They placed demands on the Israeli side, while failing to see that both sides must take steps towards peace.

Turning next to the situation in the Middle East, the Assembly adopted two resolutions.

By a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 6 against ( Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions ( Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Haiti, Tonga) (Annex V), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on Jerusalem. In that text, it stressed that a comprehensive and just solution to the question of the city should incorporate Palestinian and Israeli concerns.

By a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against ( Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 52 abstentions (Annex VI), the Assembly adopted the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan. In this text, it expressed concern at the illegal occupation, settlement, construction, and other activities of Israel in the Syrian Golan since 1967. It also requested that all parties concerned, the co-sponsors of the peace process and the entire international community work to resume the peace process by implementing Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

Speaking after the vote, the observer for Palestine said he looked forward to not having to bother with discussions or resolutions, on what was balanced or not balanced. He wanted to relieve the United Nations of all those resolutions. He hoped that next year, if all the parties moved towards peace, the Palestinian flag would join the other 192 flags at the United Nations. The Palestinian people wanted to live with all their neighbours, including Israel, in peace and security.

In other action, the Assembly adopted by consensus a draft resolution entitled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind”, contained in a report by the Second Committee (Economic and Financial). With that text, the Assembly stressed the seriousness of climate change and called on States to implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It also strongly urged those States that had not yet done so to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention in a timely way.

As part of an agenda item that focused on integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, the Assembly adopted by consensus a draft resolution on “Global health and foreign policy”. This stressed the importance of achieving the health-related Millennium Development Goals.

In final action, the Assembly adopted by consensus two draft resolutions under its agenda item on cooperation between the United Nations and other organizations.

Introducing the draft resolution on “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community”, the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said the most important elements of the text involved sensitive issues in which the need for cooperation was greatest. This included illicit narcotic drugs and weapons and the region’s vulnerability to natural disasters.

With its resolution on “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations”, introduced by the representative of Thailand, the Assembly encouraged the United Nations and the Association to regularly convene summits and cooperate in the delivery of operational development activities.

Also speaking after the vote on the resolutions related to Palestine were the representatives of Iran, France (on behalf of the European Union), and Belize.

Speaking before adoption of the resolutions on the situation in the Middle East was the representative of Iran.

Speaking after adoption of the resolution on the Middle East were the representatives of Brazil (also on behalf of Argentina), Iran and Syria.

Speaking before adoption of the resolution on “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community” was the representative of Venezuela.

The representative of Afghanistan introduced a resolution on “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization”. The resolution will be considered at a later date.

Speaking after the adoption of the resolution on “Cooperation between the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations” was the representative of the United States.

The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 December, to take up the reports of the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

Background

The General Assembly met today to take action on draft resolutions relating to the question of Palestine and the situation in the Middle East (Please see Press Releases GA/10789 and GA/10790). It is also expected to take action on several draft texts under agenda items 44 and 114.

Under its agenda item 44 on the “integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields”, the Assembly is to take action on a draft resolution entitled Global health and foreign policy (document A/63/L.28).

By that text, the Assembly would urge Member States to consider health issues in the formulation of foreign policy and stress the importance of achieving the health-related Millennium Development Goals. It would request the Secretary-General, in close collaboration with the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), to submit to the Assembly, at its sixty-fourth session, a report on the challenges and activities related to foreign policy and global health. Further by the text, the Assembly would decide to include in its provisional agenda of that session an item entitled “Global health and foreign policy”.

For its consideration of “cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations” (agenda item 114), the Assembly had before it a draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (document A/63/L.40), by which it would continue to encourage the United Nations and the Association to convene summits regularly, and recognize the value of partnership in providing timely responses to global issues of mutual concern.

Further by the text, the Assembly would encourage cooperation between Association member countries and United Nations organizations in the delivery of operational development activities, and request the Secretary-General to submit to the Assembly, at its sixty-fifth session, a report on the implementation of the present resolution. It would also decide to include, in the provisional agenda of that session, a sub-item on cooperation between the two entities.

A draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) (document A/63/L.38) would note the Assembly’s grave concern at the current international environment, characterized, in part, by crises in food and energy security, and call on the Secretary-General, in association with the Secretary-General of CARICOM, to assist in furthering the maintenance of peace and security in the region. The Assembly would call for vastly increased efforts by developed countries to strengthen the multilateral development framework to respond more effectively to programme country needs.

Also by the text, the Assembly would urge specialized agencies, among others, to step up cooperation with the Secretaries-General, invite United Nations organizations to increase financial assistance to Caribbean countries for implementing the Caribbean Regional Strategic Framework for HIV/AIDS, and stress the urgent need for reopening the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the region.

Further, the Assembly would reaffirm the goal of strengthening the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, including through mobilizing financial and technological resources, and request the Secretary-General to submit a report, at the sixty-fifth session, on the implementation of the present resolution.

By a draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization (document A/63/L.39), the Assembly would call for increasing the technical assistance of the World Trade Organization, among others, to Economic Cooperation Organization States that are at various levels of development, with some pursuing accession to the world trade body. Welcoming the trilateral agreement among the Economic Cooperation Organization, the Islamic Development Bank, and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) for projects under the Asian Highway and Trans-Asian Railway network, the Assembly would also appreciate Economic Cooperation Organization efforts to develop energy trade in the region.

Further by the text, the Assembly would call for strengthening technical assistance provided by United Nations bodies, especially the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and call for increased cooperation between the Economic Cooperation Organization and United Nations bodies to combat the production and trafficking of narcotic drugs. Finally, the Assembly would request the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution at the sixty-fifth session.

The Assembly also had before it the report of the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind (document A/63/414/Add.4), which contained a draft resolution on that topic, by which the General Assembly would stress the seriousness of climate change and call on States to work towards achieving the ultimate goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It would also invite parties to the Kyoto Protocol to continue to make use of the information contained in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Further by the text, the Assembly would recognize the need to provide financial, technical and capacity-building resources to developing countries adversely affected by climate change, and call on the international community to fulfil commitments made during the fourth replenishment of the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund. Finally, it would invite the Secretariat of the Framework Convention to report, through the Secretary-General, at its sixty-fourth session on the work of the Conference of Parties, and include on the provisional agenda of that session a sub-item on the “protection of global climate change for present and future generations”.

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 16 on Question of Palestine

Speaking before the vote, the representative of the United States said that the four resolutions, in combination with 15 other resolutions to come before the Assembly this year, form a clear pattern of institutional bias. The United States had clearly stated its policy that there should be two States, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. The United States backed that policy with support for both sides, consistent with agreements made at the Annapolis, Maryland conference, and contributed financial support to both the Palestinian Authority and refugees. There was no contradiction between support for Palestinians and that for Israel, as both sides needed support to achieve a just and lasting peace.

She was distressed that, each year, the General Assembly devoted a disproportionate number of resolutions on the Middle East, with disproportionate criticism of Israel. These resolutions, along with others on the Middle East, were repetitive and unbalanced, at odds with the General Assembly’s action regarding any other State, and placed demands on the Israeli side, failing to see that both sides must take steps towards peace. The United States accepted that the General Assembly may look into practices of States but, last year, adopted 14 resolutions criticising Israel. In that same year, it adopted only six critical of other States. She supported some and opposed others. The 21 resolutions on alleged Israeli violations stretched to 61 pages. The Assembly was on course to repeat that pattern, which represented an unjustified focus on one Member State. The situation in the Middle East did not merit three quarters of all the time the Assembly devoted to review of its 192 Member States.

Of notable concern were drafts on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, as well as the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices. They perpetuated the perception of an inherent United Nations bias and failed to properly demand action from both sides. The millions of dollars spent could be better utilized towards direct aid, including that to needy Palestinians.

The international Quartet must be seen as an honest broker, she continued, and she expressed concern that those resolutions could not only have a corrosive effect on negotiations, but also added nothing to the Security Council’s monthly discussions. They presupposed the outcome of permanent status issues that belonged to bilateral negotiations. In the 9 November briefings to the Quartet, both sides attested that the negotiating structure was effective, and noted that third parties should not intervene in the joint negotiations [absent their request].

The United States would continue to be at the forefront of addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. For such reasons, the United States could not support the resolutions.

The General Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 57 abstentions, its draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/63/L.32). (For details on voting, see Annex I.)

The Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 57 abstentions (Annex II), the resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/63/L.33).

The resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (document A/63/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against (Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 4 abstentions (Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga) (Annex III).

The Assembly then adopted by a vote of 164 in favour to 7 against ( Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 3 abstentions ( Cameroon, Canada, Tonga) (Annex IV), the resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35).

Speaking after the vote was the representative of Iran, who stated its votes in favour of the resolutions were in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

The representative of France, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said he had voted in favour of A/63/L.34. The European Union welcomed the new elements introduced in the resolution, in the spirit of cooperation on the Palestinian mission. These improvements would encourage the parties involved to improve the programme between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The European Union was prepared to work with the Department of Public Information and all parties involved to meet the objectives of the resolution.

The representative of Belize requested that their vote in favour of those resolutions be on record.

Action on Draft Resolutions under Agenda Item 15 on Situation in Middle East

Speaking before the vote, the representative of Iran referred to the unfounded allegations by Australia against Iran and rejected the distortions that were made under agenda item 15. Iran had condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Iran was a victim of terrorism. With its history and unqualified support of Israel, Australia should be the last judge of others in that area. Iran had fully cooperated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and its nuclear programme was absolutely peaceful. If Australia was concerned about the Middle East, it should cease its complicity with the Israeli regime in war crimes and join with the international community in stability on the question of Palestine.

The General Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 6 against (Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, United States), with 6 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Haiti, Tonga) (Annex V), the draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/63/L.36).

The General Assembly then adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against (Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, United States), with 52 abstentions, the draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/63/L.37).

Speaking after the vote, on behalf of Brazil and Argentina, the representative of Brazil said he had voted in favour of the draft resolution on Jerusalem, and the two countries had understood that the central aspect of the resolution was linked to the illegal acquisition of land by force. That use of force violated international law. He urged Israel and Syria to renew negotiations and find a definite solution under the principal of land for peace.

The representative of Iran said he voted in favour of all the resolutions just adopted in a spirit of solidarity with the Palestinian people and Arab people under occupation.

The representative of Syria thanked the Assembly for its adoption, once again, with no interruption since 1981, of the resolution contained in document A/63/L.37 and other resolutions related to Palestine and the Middle East. He supported the international community’s continued positive response to upholding those objectives of the United Nations Charter and the backing of its right to restore its land, occupied by Israel and supported by a superpower for more than 40 years. There was no doubt that voting for those resolutions sent an international message to Israel and those who supported it. The policies of aggression and annexation of land were practices that were rejected and repudiated by the entire international community.

He thanked all States that sponsored and voted for the resolution, and urged those whom abstained to lend their ears to the voice of international law that should govern their actions. Syria wanted to achieve comprehensive and durable peace, and to liberate the Syrian Golan from Israeli occupation. He urged the international community to help prevent the eruption of war by pressuring the party that impeded peace, Israel, and those who protected it.

The observer for Palestine expressed gratitude and appreciation to all the countries that played a very important role in introducing the draft resolutions and to all the countries who voted in favour. He also thanked all the political blocs, specifically the Arab Group, the League of Arab States, the African Union, the Non-Aligned Movement and the European Union, that collaborated to ensure the resolutions were drafted in responsible and balanced language that reflected the sentiment of the international community.

Bringing Israel into compliance with international law, and to uphold international law so that peace and justice could be achieved was a challenge to the international community. It was essential to end the occupation that started in 1967, and giving Israel preferential treatment was not in service of the United Nations or the international community, as it did not move the process forward to a peaceful solution. Those resolutions were balanced, and the majority votes in favour reflected their just and balanced approach, he stated.

“It has been too long… and it’s been too long because Israel has not been compliant,” he said. He recalled the 50 countries and organizations that convened in Annapolis to help the parties towards a solution. He had hoped that there would be a peace treaty by now that would allow for the birth of the Palestinian State. But, until that peace treaty was accomplished, it was “the duty of the international community to remain engaged in this issue until it was resolved in all its aspects,” and to that end, he pledged that he would continue to work until it was resolved.

He then offered hope that next year, if all parties involved moved towards peace, the Palestinian flag would join the other 192 flags at the United Nations, and he pledged that the Palestinian people would “reflect the essence of that peace treaty that will be the birth of our state.” He concluded by saying that he looked forward to not having to bother in discussion or resolutions of what was balanced or not balanced. He wanted to relieve the United Nations of all these resolutions. What the Palestinian people wanted was to live with all their neighbours in peace and security, including Israel.

The Assembly then took up the report of the Second Committee on the protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, issued as document A/63/414/Add.4. There was no discussion of the report.

The Assembly adopted by consensus a draft resolution, entitled protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, recommended by the Second Committee in paragraph 8 of the report.

Turning to agenda item 44, Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields, the Committee then adopted by consensus draft resolution Global health and foreign policy (document A/63/L.28).

In other business, the Assembly then resumed its consideration of sub-items (c), (e) and (i) of agenda item 114, Cooperation between the United Nations and other organizations.

Speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), George Talbot (Guyana) introduced the draft resolution, entitled cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community, (document A/63/L.38). He said the preambular section of the draft would have the Assembly recall previous United Nations commitments to cooperate with CARICOM. After that, the draft would have the Assembly give due recognition to what the Community considered particular landmarks in the development of that cooperation.

The most important items related to very sensitive areas or issues in which the need for cooperation was greatest, he said. That included illicit narcotic drugs and weapons; the challenges of sustainable development for small island developing States, as highlighted in the World Summit on Sustainable Development; the region’s vulnerability to natural disasters; and the ravaging effects of HIV/AIDS on their societies.

Threats to the region’s security led the group to stress the urgent need to reopen the office of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in the region, in order to reinforce its efforts to combat drugs, violent crimes and the illicit trade in small arms and weapons.

Speaking before the vote, on the draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community, the representative of Venezuela said he supported CARICOM in its efforts to lift the region out of poverty and its social difficulties. He reiterated its position for sustainable development and support for the small island developing States.

MOHAMMAD ERFANI AYOOB ( Afghanistan), introducing the resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization (document A/63/L.39), pointed out that, despite its young age and the lack of appropriate infrastructure and institutions in its region, the Economic Cooperation Organization had developed into a successful regional organization. Today, it sought to develop its infrastructure and institutions, on a prioritized basis, that made full use of the available resources in the region.

Specifically, the Economic Cooperation Organization had embarked on several projects in priority sectors, including energy, trade, transportation, agriculture and drug control, he said. Additionally, the Economic Cooperation Organization had established relations, and signed a memoranda of understanding, with regional and international organizations, including the United Nations specialized agencies and international financial institutions. Consequently, the Economic Cooperation Organization’s international stature had continued to grow.

He said the draft resolution he was introducing stressed the importance of continuation and the expansion of the areas of cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization; expressed appreciation for the technical and financial assistance the United Nations and its specialized agencies had extended; and called for a further increase of that assistance to the Member States of the Economic Cooperation Organization.

DON PRAMUDWINAI (Thailand), introducing the resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (document A/63/L.40), said it was the aim of ASEAN leaders that the regional grouping’s Charter provided a legal and institutional framework to make it more rules-based, people-centred, effective and efficient.

He said all ASEAN members aspired to move ahead towards closer integration, with a goal of transforming South-East Asia into a single market and production base, with free movement of goods, services, skilled labour and freer movement of capital. Through that process of community-building and integration, ASEAN would emerge as a stronger partner for the United Nations in the pursuit of the shared purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. At the same time, partnership between ASEAN and the United Nations had also been undergoing what he said was an exciting period during the past two years. ASEAN had also worked closely with the Organization in responding to humanitarian needs in the wake of the devastating Cyclone Nargis in May this year.

Continuing, he noted that, next month, the third ASEAN-United Nations Summit is slated for Thailand. That Summit was expected to provide ASEAN leaders and the United Nations Secretary-General an opportunity to exchange views about issues of common interest and to develop effective partnership in response to those critical issues.

The Assembly postponed a vote on its draft resolution on cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Cooperation Organization (document A/63/L.39).

The Assembly then adopted by consensus its draft resolution on Cooperation between the United Nations and the Caribbean Community (document A/63/L.38).

The Assembly also adopted by consensus its draft resolution on Cooperation between the United Nations and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (document A/63/L.40).

Speaking in explanation after the vote, the representative of the United States said he was pleased to join in favour of the adoption, and welcomed cooperation between the United States and CARICOM. The need of Member States in the region to fight illicit trafficking of drugs was very important, and to that end, he recognized the work of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. He said, however, that, in light of budgetary concerns, any field office should be sustainable, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime should consider those concerns in decisions to reopen any offices in the field.

ANNEX I

Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee

The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/63/L.32) was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 8 against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay.

Absent: Belize, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX II

Vote on Palestinian Rights Division

The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (document A/63/L.33) was adopted by a recorded vote of 106 in favour to 8 against, with 57 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent: Belize, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX III

Vote on Special Information Programme

The draft resolution on the Special Information Programme on the Question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information (document A/63/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 162 in favour to 8 against, with 4 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Cameroon, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Tonga.

Absent: Belize, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX IV

Vote on Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question

The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/63/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 164 in favour to 7 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Cameroon, Canada, Tonga.

Absent: Belize, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX V

Vote on Jerusalem

The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/63/L.36) was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favour to 6 against, with 6 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.

Abstain: Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Haiti, Tonga.

Absent: Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

ANNEX VI

Vote on Syrian Golan

The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/63/L.37) was adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 6 against, with 52 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom.

Absent: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burundi, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ADOPTS SIX RESOLUTIONS ON MIDDLE EAST, PALESTINIAN RIGHTS, (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/ga10791.doc.htm)

U.N.’s Palestinian Solidarity Day is Really 365 Days a Year

If you had not marked today’s date on your calendars, folks, you may have missed the Big News. Today, November 24th, has been designated by that august body, the United Nations as its annual “International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People”.

Of course, no expression of “solidarity” with the Palestinians could go by without bashing the state of Israel.

Sure enough, that temple of world understanding in New York will feature a film that compares Israelis as Nazis (”La Terre Parle Arabe” or “The Land Speaks Arabic.”), a film that compares the “Zionist plan for Palestinians” with the Final Solution, as well as an exhibit that paints Israel’s 60 years of existence in a terrible light. Never mind the fact that 60 years ago-November 29, 1947, the same UN proclaimed two states, Israel and an Arab state side-by-side. The Jews accepted the idea. The Arab world rejected it and prepared for war. The UN lobby will be festooned with a display entitled; The Palestinians- 60 years of struggle and enduring hope.

In addition, there will be resolutions. There will be exhibits. There will be speeches-all condemning Israel for violations of human rights. The UN’s former Secretary General, the corrupt Kofi Annan has referred to November 29 as a “day of mourning-a day of grief.”

What you won’t see-what you won’t hear is this:

Nothing will be said about acts of Palestinian terrorism. There will be no mention of the airplane hijackings. There will be no mention of the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre of Israeli athletes. There will be no mention of the Achille Lauro takeover in the 1980s, when Palestinian terrorists took over a cruise ship. Nothing will be said about Leon Klinghofer, an elderly American Jewish passenger, who was murdered and tossed overboard-in his wheelchair. There will be no mention of the airport massacres carried out by Arab terrorists in Rome and Vienna in the 1980s. There will be no mention of the suicide bombings carried out by Palestinians in crowded buses, cafes and pizza parlors.

There will be no photos of Palestinians dancing in the streets and passing out candy on 9-11.

There will be no discussion of the corruption of Yassir Arafat.

There will be no discussion of the hanging or stoning of women in Iran for the “crime” of adultery. Similarly, there will be no discussion of the execution of homosexuals in Iran. There will be no discussion of rape victims being punished for the “crime” of having illicit sex in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There will be no discussion of forced female circumcision in parts of Africa.

This “commemoration” is just another sad example of why the UN has no further justification for its existence. This body is just a collection of nations, the majority of which are corrupt, third world countries which don’t practice democracy, and have no respect for democracy. Human rights? How many of these countries know the first thing about human rights? How many of these countries can match Israel (the only democracy in the entire Middle East) when it comes to human rights?

So why does this useless body exist? Probably to transfer wealth from the developed world to their own sorry countries-where government leaders can siphon it off to Swiss bank accounts while their people live in extreme poverty. They certainly don’t exist to stop genocide (witness Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and others). They certainly don’t exist to save people from natural disasters. When the tsunami struck Indonesia and Thailand a couple of years back, the US military was on the ground delivering food, equipment and medical supplies while the UN bureaucrats were scheduling meetings in Tokyo to decide what they should do first. Then, as American citizens were donating millions of dollars to relief agencies, the UN had the cojones to criticize the US and other developed countries for not doing enough! They seem to forget that, courtesy of the US taxpayer, our country pays almost 25% of their total budget.

It is high time for the US to form a coalition of democratic states and leave this thing called the United Nations in the dustbin of history where it belongs.

Plan targets Shariah ban on leaving Islam
Christian ministry calls for recognition people can choose religion

With Shariah law cited as the source of justice in most of the Islamic world, and new encroachments by the drastic religious rules into the West, a Christian ministry has launched a campaign to do away with punishment for apostasy, the act of leaving Islam for another religious faith.

The effort launched by the Barnabas Fund said in addition to those in other religions, there are brave Muslim voices already calling for the apostasy law to be abolished

"Although only Muslim leaders can make this happen, we as Christians can help the process, by speaking up for freedom of religion and belief and by encouraging others to do the same," said Patrick Sookhdeo, the international director of the fund.

"We ask you to join us in our efforts and prayers to bring about change for those who choose to leave their Islamic faith, so that they are no longer subject to any penalty but are free to follow their new convictions without fear," he said.

The organization said there are Islamic arguments against the apostasy law as presently interpreted, which is, in fact, a death sentence for leaving Islam.

"Some scholars point out that the Quran has no clear statement about the need to punish apostasy in this life. Others doubt that the traditions about Muhammad's response to apostates are genuine," the organization said.

Read first-hand accounts from those who did leave Islam!

"Still others say that apostates who were killed in the early days of Islam were condemned not for changing their faith, but for rebelling against the Islamic state," the organization said.

The death penalty for apostasy, although not frequently publicized, is in fact imposed in some Islamic states.

"Islam is a one-way street. You can convert to Islam but you are not allowed to convert from Islam. All schools of Islamic law, Shariah, agree on this rule and specify the death sentence for an adult male Muslim who chooses to leave his Islamic faith," the Barnabas Fund said.

"Most also impose the death penalty on women apostates. The rule was established many centuries ago by Islamic scholars, but even today most Islamic religious leaders and many ordinary Muslim people agree with it."

Another significant impact of the law is its generation of "hostility" towards apostates.

"It is normal for converts from Islam to face persecution and violence. They may be arrested, either for apostasy or on a pretext. They may be attacked, beaten or even murdered by their own relatives. And those who commit the violence will probably not be punished for it," the organization said.

The full range of penalties for apostasy under Shariah includes losing a spouse and children and forfeiting property and inheritance.

WND reported recently when several U.S. lawmakers scolded the insurance giant AIG over its division that provides Shariah-compliant products in the United States, especially after the company benefited from billions of taxpayer dollars under the Wall Street bailout.

WND also reported this week when support for an Islam-sponsored plan in the United Nations to create an international precedent to protect Islam that also could be used to outlaw Christianity was losing support quickly.

The Barnabas Fund said the Islamic apostasy law also stands in stark contrast to Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was published 60 years ago.

It states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief..."

The organization has set up an online petition to collect support for its effort.

The Barnabas Fund is set up to support Christians where they suffer discrimination, oppression and persecution because of their faith.

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School
February 3, '09
by Maayana Miskin

(IsraelNN.com) During the Cast Lead operation in Gaza, IDF tank fire near a United Nations school in Gaza was blamed for the deaths of dozens of civilians who had taken refuge in the building. The incident became one of the most highly publicized attacks in the war, and led to heavy international criticism.

Recent reports suggest that the incident was not accurately portrayed by senior U.N. officials. John Ging, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, spoke to the Toronto Globe and Mail last week and agreed that no shell had actually struck the school building. Ging said he had never claimed that the school itself was hit, and he blamed Israel for confusion over where the strike took place.

Shortly after the alleged attack, Ging harshly criticized Israel for firing near the school, saying he had given the exact coordinates of the compound to the IDF. He charged that the IDF had failed to avoid hitting the building.

While admitting that Israeli fire had not hit the school compound, Ging insisted it made little difference. “Forty-one innocent people were killed in the street... The State of Israel still has to answer for that,” he said.

While many Israel news outlets reported that the strike had taken place near the school, several international media networks reported that the UN school building itself was hit. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs may have added to the confusion by releasing a report stating that Israeli fire “directly hit two UNRWA schools.”

Almost all reports said that the victims were primarily civilians who had fled to the school for shelter – a version of events cast into suspicion by the Globe and Mail report.

A teacher who was in the school at the time of the shelling reported that several people within the compound were injured, but that none were killed. Those killed were all outside in the street as the shells were fired, he said. Only three of those killed were students at the school, he added.

The teacher did not give his name, explaining that U.N .officials had told staff not to talk to the media.

The IDF responded to criticism over the attack by explaining that soldiers were simply responding to terrorist fire and did not mean to hit a civilian area.

UN Admits: IDF Didn't Hit School (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129696)

Flying Pig Alert.........

UN Notices Hamas Child Abuse

Feb. 6, 2009
Ruth Eglash , THE JERUSALEM POST

The United Nations is ready to address Hamas's use of children as human shields during last month's IDF offensive in Gaza, the UN special representative for children and armed conflict told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

"We have not yet dealt directly with the human shield issue, but we will now mention it in our reports," Radhika Coomaraswamy said in an exclusive interview following a four-day visit to the region.

"It is still very difficult for us to say that it was actually happening and we still need to conduct a full investigation into what exactly took place... but we are not denying that it happened; it is absolutely possible that Hamas was using its civilians as human shields," she said.

However, Coomaraswamy said that the UN's policy not to meet with leading members of the Hamas government - because it was officially considered a terrorist organization - seriously hampered all types of humanitarian relief work in the Gaza Strip.

"It makes all our humanitarian jobs very difficult, because we cannot meet with Hamas at a political level," said Coomaraswamy, who this week met with high-level Israeli and Palestinian Authority officials, including PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, as well as with many children in both Gaza and Ashkelon to hear about the conflict from a more personal angle.

Coomaraswamy, who was appointed to her position three years ago and reports directly to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said the work of UN aid agencies and other relief efforts over the past two and a half weeks since the fighting stopped meant that "basic humanitarian needs are being met" in Gaza.

However, "the children are still in urgent need of assistance, including the restoration of basic services and the immediate reconstruction of schools and hospitals," she said in a press statement later on Thursday.

"UNRWA says that in order to avoid a crisis it needs roughly 400 aid trucks a day, but at the moment only about 130-140 trucks are allowed in to meet with humanitarian needs," she told the Post.

In her press release, the UN representative also reiterated calls by the international community for Israel to open all its Gaza crossings "for regular, sufficient and facilitated humanitarian access."

"The amount and kinds of supplies allowed into Gaza must be significantly expanded for any real improvement to occur," Coomaraswamy wrote, emphasizing that "humanitarian agencies must not be hampered in assisting the population and their workers authorized easy access into Gaza."

She also stated that "Hamas must respect that humanitarian aid cannot be diverted."

Speaking to the Post, Coomaraswamy said that "some parts of Gaza have been completely destroyed."

"Many of the children I met there vividly described very troubling experiences. Besides their material needs, I think there is a much traumatized population that needs help," she said.

The situation in Gaza is still "very raw because it's only been two weeks," she said, adding that many of the children she met there on Tuesday were "obviously very angry at Israel, but they have been guided that way by their parents and others."

"My sense in Gaza is that after this conflict there seems to be greater identification with Hamas," she said.

However, she stressed, "my observations are based on only a one-day trip
to the area, and many times children surprise us."

The most surprising reaction from a child was during her visit to Ashkelon on Wednesday, Coomaraswamy said.

"The scale [of trauma and destruction] is nothing like in Gaza, but that does not take away from the fact that a lot of the children we met there expressed to me a great deal of fear," she said. "We met a lot of children who were so traumatized that they did not even want to go to school."

However, "While their speeches were quite tough at first, when I asked them if they were interested in meeting Palestinian children, the response was unbelievable. They said, 'Yes, of course we want to meet with them and play with them or hear their stories.' It was a response from the heart," Coomaraswamy said.

"I believe that if we can reconstruct Gaza as quickly as possible then there will be able to be some hope for the future," she said. "Even though they bear the brunt of the conflict, children remain strong advocates for peace."

"Every child has the right to live in safety and security. Children from the region have suffered enough. They deserve a better future," she said.

UN Notices Hamas Child Abuse (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304702123&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter)

Japanese: U.N. Man-Made Global Warming Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology'

Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:04 PM

By: Jim Hirsen Article Font Size

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the United Nations’ view on man-made global warming with a report asserting that “this hypothesis has been substituted for truth.”

Three of the five researchers involved in the report disagree with the view of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that recent warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, and say it is instead driven by natural cycles.

The report was issued by the Japan Society of Energy and Resources, an academic group representing scientists from the energy and resource fields that acts as a government advisory panel. The report has been translated from the Japanese by The Register in Britain.

Kanya Kusano, Program Director for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, compares computer climate modeling used to support the man-made global warming theory to “ancient astrology.”

He states that the IPCC’s “conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis.”

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, agrees: “IPCC’s theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with [carbon dioxide increases] is nothing but a hypothesis.”

Among the points made in the report:

# CO2 emissions began to increase significantly after 1946 and are still rising. Therefore, according to the IPCC, global atmospheric temperatures should continue to increase. However, temperatures stopped increasing in 2001.

# The global temperature increase up to today is primarily a recovery from the “Little Ice Age” that earth experienced from 1400 to 1800. This rise peaked in 2000.

# Global warming and the “halting of the temperature rise are related to solar activity.”

Despite the continuing controversy and uncertainty surrounding the claims of man-made global warming, efforts to influence major climate change legislation in Washington are heating up.

An analysis by the Center for Public Integrity found that more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists in the past year to influence federal policy.

Politico.com notes that since 2003, the number of global warming lobbyists has risen by more than 300 percent, and “Washington can now boast more than four climate lobbyists for every member of Congress.”

Japanese: U.N. Man-Made Global Warming Theory Like 'Ancient Astrology' (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/japan_warming_UN/2009/02/25/185606.html)

Cuba, Arab Bloc to UN: Israel Violates PA Children's Rights

by Hana Levi Julian

(IsraelNN.com) Cuba teamed up with a consortium of Arab countries at a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Wednesday to vent their anger against Israel.

The nations accused the Jewish State of grossly violating the rights of Palestinian Authority children during Israel’s counterterrorism Operation 'Cast Lead' in Gaza, reported the Reuters news agency. The charges were leveled during a debate marking the 20th anniversary of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document signed by most, but not all of the U.N.’s 192 member nations.

Operation 'Cast Lead', which was aimed at stopping the constant missile and mortar attacks by Gaza terrorists on Israel's civilians in the south, ran from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009.

Figures from an IDF investigation revealed that of the 1,100 – 1,200 reported casualties, 250 were civilians. “To Israel’s great sorrow, innocent civilians in Gaza have been harmed,” read a statement from Israel’s Foreign Affairs Ministry following the operation. “However, the figures of civilian casualties have been greatly exaggerated. Most of these figures come from Hamas sources, amplifying the number of civilians killed by including as “children” teenage Hamas fighters and as “women,” female terrorists.

A Yemeni member of the Arab consortium claimed the military operation, which specifically targeted Hamas and allied terrorists, “left children as the main victims, with many severely wounded, and even many cases of a serious pathological nature.” The Yemeni delegate, who spoke for all of the Arab states on the 47-member Council, called the 'Cast Lead' operation “a violation of every humanitarian law.”

A coalition of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) countered the Islamic bloc’s accusations with pointed reminders of the atrocities committed in Muslim nations. The Islamic bloc, bolstered by African states, China, Cuba and Russia, holds a majority on the Council.

The NGOs charged that in Iran, as well as in Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the governments actually execute children, and referred to the practice as “the ultimate barbarity: states killing their own children.”

An Italian delegate said pointedly that the Council should uphold and enforce the U.N. Convention’s ban on executing offenders who commit crimes while under the age of 18.

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) representative Roy Brown said that 32 children had been executed by the five Islamic nations since 2005; of those, 26 had been put to death by Iran alone. He added that another 133 people who had committed crimes while under the age of 18 still remain jailed in Iran, awaiting execution.

Cuba, Arab Bloc to UN: Israel Violates PA Children's Rights (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130394)

World "sleepwalking" into disasters: U.N. aid chief
Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:06am EDT

By Jonathan Lynn

GENEVA (Reuters) - The world is 'sleepwalking' toward preventable natural disasters whose effects could be cut significantly with a modest increase in spending on risk reduction, the United Nations aid chief said on Tuesday.

"The trends in disasters, particularly from climate change, are of enormous concern," said John Holmes, U.N. undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs.

"We can only expect that this kind of trend is going to continue," he told a news conference.

Holmes was speaking at the start of a four-day Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction which gathers over 1,800 participants from 169 governments and around 140 international and non-governmental organizations.

Risk reduction efforts had improved since the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which killed more than 250,000 people, but much more was needed, Holmes said.

"We're still to some extent sleepwalking our way into disasters for the future which we know are going to happen, and not enough is being done to mitigate the damage," he said.

Holmes hoped the Global Platform would agree to spend around $3 billion a year on disaster risk reduction, representing about 10 percent of the $8 billion spent each year on disaster relief, plus 1 percent of the $239 billion development aid budget.

By comparison, disasters in 2008 caused approximately $200 billion in damage, Holmes said. While the cost two years earlier was a quarter of that, the trend was clearly rising.

"The most damaging disasters in developing countries can seem to cause the least damage because the property being damaged is less expensive ... but the real damage done to lives and livelihoods is much greater," Holmes said.

It was important global efforts to deal with climate change include disaster risk reduction and look at adapting behavior as well as mitigating the effects of disasters, he said.

About 90 percent of disasters are climate-related, said Holmes, who noted cyclones in Brazil in 2004 and Oman in 2007 had been of an intensity never before seen in those regions.

The massive earthquake in Sichuan, China, last year, and another earthquake in Italy this year had shown both the need for tough building codes and the importance of enforcing them.

PREVENTATIVE MEASURES

Priorities for the Global Platform meeting include plans to disaster-proof schools and hospitals, build up early-warning systems, reduce human settlement in disaster-prone areas and restore and safeguard ecosystems.

Bangladesh, where many people live in a coastal area prone to flooding and cyclone-driven sea swells, has cut the death toll from disasters dramatically through early-warning systems.

But the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization estimates 60 of its members do not have adequate systems, Holmes said.

Most of the 10 biggest "megacities" of 25-35 million people are in dangerous coastal areas or earthquake zones. Nearly one billion people live in "informal settlements" or city slums, with the number growing by 25 million a year, as urbanization exposes more people to the risk of disaster, he said.

World "sleepwalking" into disasters: U.N. aid chief (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE55F3Z320090616)

U.N. protocol used to regulate homeschoolers
New Brit report: Authorities have 'right to access of the home'
Posted: June 16, 2009
9:53 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A British plan to allow local authorities "the right of access to the home" and "the right to speak with each child alone" in order to evaluate homeschooling families and make certain they do what the government wants is a warning about what could happen in the United States, according to the world's largest homeschool advocacy organization.

"On June 11, 2009, a report on home education in England by Graham Badman, a former Managing Director of Children, Families and Education in the County of Kent, was accepted in full by the British Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families," according to today's report from the Home School Legal Defense Association.

"The report makes the case that homeschooling should be extensively regulated in England," the HSLDA continued. "Aside from registering with the state and mandating reports by homeschoolers, the Badman report makes references to balancing the rights of parents with the rights of children. This idea is expressed in the UNCRC."

That is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a document that the HSLDA has been warning about for a number of years already.

It has been adopted in the United Kingdom, and it is on its way toward approval in the United States, lacking mainly the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.

The document, however, grants dozens of "rights" to children, sometimes running roughshod over conflicting parental rights, the organization said.

For example, under the international document parents no longer would be allowed to administer reasonable spankings to their children, children would be granted the authority by the state to choose their own religion, the "best interest of the child" would govern all decisions and give the government the authority to override any parental decision, children would have a legally enforceable "right to leisure" and parents would be required to have their children attend state-sponsored sex education courts.

There is a ParentalRights.org website that notes if approved, the treaty would supersede "the laws of all 50 states on children and parents."

The HSLDA now is sending a very gentle "I told you so" message.

"Ever since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and opened to nations across the world for ratification in 1989, HSLDA has been deeply concerned about the implications of this treaty for U.S. homeschoolers, if the U.S. were to ratify the treaty," the organization said today. "We have consistently warned that this treaty could be the vehicle opponents of home education could use to effectively ban or severely regulate homeschooling."

If the U.S. Senate ever approves it, "the UNCRC will automatically supersede all state laws and U.S. judges will be obligated to follow the provisions of the treaty. Currently, family and education laws are state-based; however, ratification of the UNCRC would transfer the jurisdiction for making family and education law to the U.S. Congress. Congress would, in turn, be obligated to follow the U.N. mandates contained in the CRC," the HSLDA said.

UNCRC supporters have scoffed at such concerns, saying, "There is no language in the CRC that dictates the manner in which parents are to raise and instruct their children," the HSLDA said.

But now, with the adoption of the Badman report in Britain, "Sadly, HSLDA's position has been proven to be correct. Contrary to what proponents like the Children's Rights Campaign claim, UNCRC will be used to significantly restrict the freedom to homeschool in England."

According to the report now awaiting legislative action in Britain, Badman concludes, "I am not persuaded that under the current regulatory regime that there is a correct balance between the rights of parents and the rights of the child either to an appropriate education or to be safe from harm. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) gives children and young people over 40 substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Article 12 makes clear the responsibility of signatories to give children a voice:

"'Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.'

"Yet under the current legislation and guidance, local authorities have no right of access to the child to determine or ascertain such views," the report finds.

Therefore, authorities not only must have access to homes and private interviews with children, they should, "secure the monitoring of the effectiveness of elective home education," Badman wrote.

"In short, the Badman report recommends that the state should have the authority to choose the curriculum for homeschoolers and he used Britain's treaty obligations under the UNCRC to justify this intrusion," the HSLDA report said.

"Remember, the Badman report has already been accepted by the British government. It is now only a question of time before the legislation is introduced and a vote occurs in the British Parliament. Not surprisingly, the estimated 80,000 British homeschooling families are outraged at the Badman report. The Badman report is a stark reminder of how government officials in an English-speaking democracy have interpreted the UNCRC. It's clear that the right to homeschool in America will be negatively impacted if the U.S. Senate ever ratifies the UNCRC," the HSLDA said.

Among Badman's recommendations:

* At the time of registration parents/carers/guardians must provide a clear statement of their educational approach, intent and desired/planned outcomes for the child over the following 12 months.

* That the government review the current statutory definition of what constitutes a "suitable" and "efficient" education.

* That all local authorities analyze the reasons why parents or carers chose elective home education and report those findings to the Children's Trust Board.

* Authorities should regard the move to home education as a trigger to conduct a review and satisfy themselves that the potentially changed complexity of education provided at home, still constitutes a suitable education.

Michael Farris, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, a college and a church and now a dedicated leader in the effort to change the U.S. Constitution through the amendment process to restore and protect parental rights, has told WND even U.S. courts in recent years have refused to acknowledge parental rights in many case.

UN rights body suggests Israel pay for Gaza damage
Thu Mar 25, 8:16 AM EDT

GENEVA — Israel should pay Palestinians reparations for loss and damages suffered during last year's war in the Gaza Strip, the U.N. Human Rights Council suggested Thursday.

The 47-nation body didn't call for similar payments by Palestinians to Israelis. The resolution was opposed by the United States and five European countries.

Israeli Ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar said the resolution was biased and defamatory, and would do nothing to bring Palestinians and Israelis closer together.

The proposal by Pakistan passed by a majority of 29 to 6, with 11 abstentions. One country, Gabon, didn't vote.

The resolution also suggested that the International Committee of the Red Cross should investigate Israel's alleged use of white phosphorus, an incendiary munition, during the conflict that ended January 2009.

The council, which has been criticized for excessively focusing on Israel in the past, approved four other resolutions condemning the Jewish state Wednesday.

"The council is too often exploited as a platform from which to single out Israel, which undermines its credibility," said U.S. envoy Eileen Chamberlain Donahoe.

EU countries were split, with Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and Slovakia opposing the resolution and Belgium, France and Britain abstaining.

The resolution, backed by African and Asian states who hold a majority in the Geneva-based council, called on Israel and the Palestinians to comply with the recommendations of a U.N.-appointed expert panel to conduct independent investigations into the three-week war.

The U.N. General Assembly last month voted to give both sides five more months to complete the probes after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reported that he could not determine whether the parties had conducted credible investigations.

UN rights body suggests Israel pay for Gaza damage (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-world-europe/20100325/UN.UN.Gaza.War.Reparations/)

Let me see if I got this right. Palestine bombs Israel and Israel should pay. That makes about as much sense that Israel shouldn't build on their own land.

ChristiansUnite Forums

Theology => Prophecy - Current Events => Topic started by: Shammu on March 30, 2004, 03:28:23 AM