ChristiansUnite Forums

The United Nations vote on Israel's fence.

Israel's deputy permanent representative to the UN, Arye Mekel, said Israel's UN mission initiated a diplomatic campaign after the vote against further action on the ICJ opinion. On Wednesday, Gillerman and Mekel met with ambassadors from the Netherlands, Russia and Germany, and UN undersecretaries general for political affairs Kieran Prendergast and humanitarian affairs Jan Egeland to press Israel's case, and a meeting with US Ambassador John Danforth was scheduled for Thursday.

We are going to tell the Europeans that if this is their position, we dont think that they can be involved in the peace process, Mekel said. We dont think we can allow that. He said that Israel was especially disappointed with the Dutch, which it had considered to be more favorable toward Israel's position. "We will be particularly harsh with the Dutch presidency," he said.

Members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations were also holding meetings this week, with members of the UN Security Council. The organization's executive vice chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein, said that the goal of the meetings was to secure opposition to a binding resolution among a majority of council members, which would relieve the US of the need to exercise its veto.

Israeli diplomatic officials said Wednesday that Israel will continue building the security fence, despite the United Nations General Assembly resolution Tuesday night calling for Israel to dismantle it.

"After a thousand Israeli fatalities in the last four years, and 150 suicide bombing attacks, Israel has every moral right to complete the fence as planned," said former Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold.

Gold, a foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said the UN resolution is "fundamentally unbalanced and destabilizing because it calls on Israel to remove the shield protecting it without doing anything about the sword of Palestinian terrorism that remains drawn."

The Foreign Ministry issued a statement following the resolution expressing Israeli disappointment that the UN's agenda was once again "hijacked" by the Palestinians to pass yet another resolution against Israel.

"Not only does this position by the United Nations not help the peace process, it encourages Palestinian terrorism," the statement read.

The statement said that the resolution deflected the world's attention from the real hurdle to a peace process Palestinian terrorism. "Were there no terror, there would not have been a fence," the statement read. "The United Nations resolution completely ignores the circumstances surrounding the construction of the fence. Israel has the right like all other nations in the world to defend its citizens."

The statement said that Israel is especially disappointed in the position taken by the European Union, which voted as a bloc with the Palestinians. The EU's willingness to fall into line with the Palestinian position calls into question their ability to play a "constructive role" in the diplomatic process, the statement read.

UN: Israel should pay reparations to the Palestinians.

The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution Tuesday that called on Israel to comply with an advisory International Court of Justice ruling to dismantle the security fence and pay reparations to the Palestinians.

With a vote of 150 in favor, 6 against and 10 abstentions, the assembly adopted the resolution with the support of dozens of nations that had opposed sending the issue to The Hague last December. Those nations, including the 25-member European Union, endorsed Tuesday's resolution after passages condemning Israeli behavior were toned down and moderating language, including amendments calling on both sides to halt the violence, were added.

Nations that voted against the resolution included Israel, the US, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Praise God there are some countries that know of Gods chosen.
Abstentions were cast by Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay and Vanuatu. Least they were smart enough not to vote against Israel.

The assembly resolution, which is not binding, demanded that Israel abide by the ICJ's July 9 advisory opinion condemning the fence as illegal and demanding that Israel tear down sections built beyond the Green Line. The resolution also called on UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to compile a list of damages incurred by the Palestinians as a result of the fence's construction, and it called on the High Contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to convene on the issue.

While an amended draft resolution presented Tuesday afternoon called on both Israel and the Palestinians to abide by their commitments to peace as outlined in the Quartet-backed road map, European nations insisted on the inclusion of two additional paragraphs; the first called on the Palestinian Authority "to undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks," and on Israel "to take no actions undermining trust, including deportations and attacks on civilians and extra-judicial killings."

The second paragraph reaffirmed the right of all states "to take actions in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law, to counter deadly acts of violence against their civilian populations in order to protect the life of their citizens."

"Thank God that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall," Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman told the Assembly.

Gillerman called the resolution "one-sided and totally counterproductive" and said construction of the security fence will continue in compliance with the requirements of international law as decided by Israel's Supreme Court. Gillerman added that the resolution "cannot but embolden the true enemies of the Israeli and Palestinian people."

"It is simply outrageous to respond with such vigor to a measure that saves lives and responds with such casual indifference and apathy to the ongoing campaign of Palestinian terrorism that takes lives. This is not justice but a perversion of justice," he said.

"Let there be no mistake, Israel has respect for the assembly, but it is precisely because of this respect that we cannot but be dismayed by what has happened here," Gillerman added.

"The assembly has missed another opportunity to make relevant contribution to the cause of peace. Here, no pressure is ever brought to bear against the terrorism that brought about the fence," Gillerman said.

Al-Kidwa: Vote is 'magnificent'

The Palestinian observer to the UN Nasser al-Kidwa, on the other hand, praised the vote as "magnificent," calling it "perhaps the most important development in the situation since the partition plan."

"The debate is over. It is time now for implementation, compliance, and, at a later stage, additional measures," al-Kidwa told the assembly. On Friday, he pledged to press for a binding Security Council resolution, which the US has already vowed the veto.

The 191-member world body voted after lengthy negotiations between the Arab League and the European Union which resulted in a revised text that was accepted by both groups. Israel is dismayed that the Europeans voted to support the resolution, Israel Radio reported.

Looks like we are closer then I though. :(

DW,
I've been keeping up with the Israel Fence Debate.  The World "Court" and the "United" Nations certainly act threatened by a simple defensive measure.  The UN is very scary indeed.  They are outspokenly on the side of those who would wipe all Judeo-Christian people from the face of the earth.  

And now we have those “Americans” led by that silly Texas congresswoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, who are pleading with the UN to come into the United Sates and “monitor” our elections for fairness.  And who would she choose as chief monitor?  Fidel Castro?  And what if our system doesn’t meet the monitor’s opinion of “fair”?  Is Ms. EB Johnson going to plead for UN troops to move in and declare marshal law?  ::)

There are some very scary folks who are walking the earth right now - and the scariest thing is there are those who take the crazies seriously!  The end is, indeed, near. (In my opinion!)

The fence is to keep unwanted out. America we have a fence bordering Mexico. I wonder if the U.N. is going to rule that our fence, is out of order with the world. The way things are going, I look for only a few more years before the Trib starts.
I will go out on a limb and say 2 years from now. But........... Lord I am ready to go now.
Mr E.B. Johnson can kiss my rubber boots for all I care. ;D They try and move troops into Arizona. I already know of a major battle that will take place here. Remember per captial Arizona has more handguns then any other state, per person.
I have been against the U.N. since I learned about some of their missions. America doesn't need the U.N., nor does 1/3 of Americans want the U.N. here. Far as I care the "Belly of the Beast," can go and take a flying jump off, the edge of the Grand Canyon. ;D

 Is Daniel's "ten 'kings'",which form the final world government, in fact the U.N.?

Daniel's interpretation outlined the four great world empires of history in advance. Daniel identified the head of gold as Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon and the breast and arms of silver as the Medo-Persians.

History identifies the belly and thighs of brass as Alexander the Great's Greece, and the two legs of iron as the Roman Empire.

In its waning years, Rome's empire was divided in two. The Western Empire, headquartered in Rome, and the Eastern Empire, ruled from Constantinople in modern Turkey. These are the two 'legs of iron' of Daniel's vision.

Now we move to the feet, 'part of iron and part of clay'.

Dan 2:33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.  

Dan 2:42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.  

Daniel 2:43 goes on to give a eerily similar description of the fractured and fractious nature of the modern European Union.

Dan 2:43 "And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay."

 Most people believe there are more than 25 members in the E.U. In reality, there are only TEN full - permanent members in the E.U.

Have a look folks...
 
List of 28 Delegations
 
10 Member States
(modified Brussels Treaty – 1954)
(also members of the EU and NATO)
 
Belgium
Luxembourg
France
Netherlands
Germany
Portugal (1990)
Greece (1995)
Spain (1990)
Italy
United Kingdom

6 Associate Members
(Rome – 1992)
(also members of NATO)
Czech Republic (1999
Norway
Hungary (1999)
Poland (1999)
Iceland
Turkey

5 Observers
(Rome – 1992)
(also members of the EU)
 Austria (1995)
Ireland
Denmark·
Sweden (1995)
Finland (1995)  
 
7 Associate Partners
(Kirchberg – 1994)
(all signatories of a Europe Agreement with the EU)
 
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
Slovakia
Latvia
Slovenia (1996)
Lithuania  

Denmark is also a member of NATO

Bronzesnake.

If the E.U. wasn't predestined to have such a dramatic impact on the future of the world, I'd say it was a joke!

There is a long history of anti-semitism within the U.N. General Assembly. They obsess against Israel and ignore the far more egregious actions of the many dictatorships within their own ranks.

 The GA referred the matter of Israel's security fence to the International Court of Justice. The ICJ declared the fence illegal and ordered it demolished! What a surprise!
 They totally ignored the issue of Palestinian terrorism, which the fence was designed to prevent.

 This joke of a judgement was then bounced back to the General Assembly which voted 150-6 in favour of dismantling the fence - another great surprise!

 Canada was one of the only ten nations to abstain from voting, but I wish our country would have had the guts to vote against the UN resolution as the US did.

 The US will no doubt veto any action contemplated by the Security Council.

 The fence is not a perfect solution, but let the facts be stated - the fence has massively reduced the terrorists ability to operate inside Israel, and let's face it - if there was no terrorist bombings, the fence would not be needed. The fact that the ICJ and the General Assembly refuse to admit this tells us all we need to know about their credibility.


Bronzesnake.

I have been watching this and other very interesting developments in the mideast and Europe.  I mentioned some of it earlier this year on the board.   I'm not ready to make any bold statements about what I believe may be happening just yet, but I will say that I think we may be getting very close now if I'm seeing what I think I see.

Grace and Peace!

DW & BS BRNZS, (We need to fix your acronym, bronze)  ;D
This thread is most interesting to me and I truly enjoy reading your posts. Ever since I first actually realized what prophesy tells us, (Uh... 1972) I was taught to look toward the EU and UN for sure signs of impending "earth as we know it now doom".

Hey - and back in '72 - the EU was just a flip-dream that EVERYBODY said was "hogwash and would never happen so keep your silly prophetical nonsense to yourself!"  

He-he-he, the vindictive sin in me wants to find those scoffers and say "See!  Told you so!".  

JN...

"DW & BS BRNZS, (We need to fix your acronym, bronze"

 I know, I know! ;D

BRNZS...I like it!
 

BrnzS,
There are others with acronyms that are pushing it, brother twobombs (T.B.???) comes to mind.  :-X
 ;D
Then there are those that have no acronym - like Reba.  ::)
But, then Reba needs no acronym!  She's REBA, sekratiry of edukashun.  
 ;D

Back to the 'Israeli Fence Debate' - to me, the following report indicates the 'poor' Palestinians are, as the majority, slave to the 'all mighty dollar' rather than their 'cause'.
 ???
Palestinians 'made millions' selling cheap cement for barrier they bitterly oppose
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
(Filed: 25/07/2004)
Palestinian businessmen have made millions of pounds supplying cement for Israel's "security barrier" in the full knowledge of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader and one of the wall's most vocal critics.
A damning report by Palestinian legislators, which has been seen by the Telegraph, concludes that Mr Arafat did nothing to stop the deals although he publicly condemned the structure as a "crime against humanity".
The Israeli wall cuts through the Palestinian town of Baqa el-Gharbiya
The report claims that the cement was sold with the knowledge of senior officials at the Palestinian ministry of national economy, and close advisers to Mr Arafat. It concludes that officials were bribed to issue import licences for the cement to importers and businessmen working for Israelis.
One of the report's three authors, Hassan Khreishe - an independent legislator and long-term critic of Mr Arafat - last night called for the Palestinian cabinet to resign.
"Wealthy Palestinians with connections at the highest levels have been making millions helping Israel build this wall while Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have been urging people to fight against it," said Mr Khreishe, a council member from the West Bank city of Tulkarm.

For the full story, see:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/wmid25.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/25/wmid25.xml)

See what happens when "Greed" enters the picture.

As far as TwoBombs I call him "2B"

Are you ready to make a bold statement yet?
I believe you have, already.
http://forums.christiansunite.com/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=5909;start=new;boardseen=1

LOL...yes I suppose I am now arent I?

Rather than start a new thread, I though this might fit here.....fwiw.

Gen 11:1
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2
And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3
And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4
And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top [may reach] unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6
And the LORD said, Behold, the people [is] one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7
Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8
So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

In the picture below is a representation of a painting by Peter Brueghel, done in the 1500's, of the Tower of Babel.  Notice, from the scripture, that God, from one (people), made "many", sending them on their way.

On the right of the pic is a photo of the EU parliament building in Strausborg, France. According to the architects of the building, it was intentionallly made to resemble the artistic representations of Babel to show a "re-uniting" of mankind. Some advertising for the EU carries Brueghel's picture, along with the slogan "Many languages-One voice", which is a blatant reversal of God's decree upon the tower of Babel.

(http://www.john812.com/img/modernbabel.jpg)
Just below is the statue that greets visitors to the EU building. Compare it to this scripture:

Rev 17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven 4
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5
And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6
And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

Of further significance is the final unveiling of the URI, or United Religious Initiative, headed by bishop William Spong of the Grace Cathedral in San Francisco.  In June, 2000, the URI charter was officially signed by representatives from *most* of the world's major religions, including many Christian denominational representatives. The avowed purpose of the URI is to "bring world peace, save the environment, redistribute the world's wealth, and to foster religious diversity and plurality.

Within the past year, the EU has formed an army, and trained "rapid strike forces" that are capable of going anywhere in the world within 24 hours. Their stated purpose is to be able to "reestablish control" in the event of "uprisings" against "duly constituted government."

Within the past 6 months, several members of the EU have stated unequivocally that the EU is "in reality, the revived and re-constituted Roman Empire." The EU has also absolutely rejected the inclusion of any references to God (singular) in it's constitution or working charter. It has also threatened some nations desiring to enter the EU with rejection unless they "re-think" their "historical religious commitments and practices."

Keep your eyes on the skies, guys ('n gals).  Tim, are you sure about those flying lessons?
(http://www.john812.com/img/teachme.gif)

Tim, are you sure about those flying lessons?

Uhhh...yup!  ;D

Great post Evangelist, your reply fits right in. On a side note; Evangelist,  I believe that those flying lessons are coming soon.

Praise God for he is worthy.
Bob

Hmmmm....hope there aren't any weight limitations!

Nah! Air Jesus has more power than a saturn booster!!  ;D

Iraqis Blast U.N. Oil-for-Food Probe Funding

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

UNITED NATIONS — Iraqi officials are sending a message to the United Nations: "Don't spend our money."

The interim Iraqi government is objecting to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's decision to use money from the troubled Oil-for-Food program to pay for an investigation into the growing scandal surrounding the program.

Annan selected Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, to investigate how Saddam was able steal billions from late 1996 until being ousted last year. The budget for the investigation is $30 million, which is coming from Oil-for-Food funds — money Iraqi officials say was only supposed to go to help the Iraqi people.

In a letter dated Nov. 19 to the president of the U.N. Security Council  — who this month is U.S. Ambassador John Danforth — the permanent representative from Iraq said the United Nations' 2.2 percent cut it took from Oil-for-Food to pay for its administration, should not now fund Volcker's effort. The letter from Samir S. Sumaidaie said doing so "victimizes the people of Iraq, twice."

"First, if the allegations of abuse prove true, by depriving Iraqis of needed financial resources during a time when they were suffering under a regime of total sanctions aimed directly at the civilian sector in its effect. Second, by requiring the people of Iraq to pay for an investigation into those alleged abuses, at a time when every available dollar should be spent on re-building Iraq's shattered infrastructure and economy," the letter said.

One person who agrees with the Iraqi point is Derek Baldwin, director of the global intelligence firm IBIS. Baldwin said he was hired to help the Volcker investigation but pulled out because of what he described as bureaucratic delays.

"The money to fund the Oil-for-Food investigation, the $30 million, is Iraqi money. It came out of the Iraqi account as I understand it. If that's true and I were Iraqi I'd ask for my money back," Baldwin told FOX News in an interview Monday.

Baldwin said that terrorists killing U.S. troops and murdering innocent Iraqis were being funded by the stash of money Saddam is accused of stealing through the Oil-for-Food program.

"Of course Oil-for-Food is funding the insurgents," Baldwin said. "The country is awash in arms. Those arms were paid for with Oil-for-Food profits. Vast amounts of money have gone into the insurgency from money that was defrauded out of Oil-for-Food."

United Nations officials won't comment on Baldwin's allegations but said his company was a subcontractor that was ultimately not picked to help investigate the program.

As for the Iraqi demand for the money being spent on the probe, a U.N. spokesman said Annan has said he believes the U.N. investigation is an appropriate use of Oil-for-Food funds.

http://www.worthynews.com/zone.cgi?http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,139434,00.html

In order not to start another thread in prophecy. I am posting this artical here.

Russian President Putin planning to glue together the most powerful superpower coalition in the world - Inida, China, Russia and Brazil
Sudhir Chadda, Special Correspondent
November 10, 2004

(http://www.indiadaily.com/images/editorial/11-10-04.gif)
Russian President Putin is taking a lead role in putting together the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world. The coalition consists of India, China, Russia and Brazil. This will challenge the superpower supremacy of America as well as the European Union. The Chinese are concerned about American and European influence over the world. So is India, Brazil and Russia. Russians need Brazil badly. Brazil is in South America in the American corridor. According to Startfor, a strategic think tank, when Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Brazil Nov. 21-23, he likely will talk economic issues with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva. However, Putin has bigger ambitions: He wants to establish a long-term Russian footprint in Latin America in order to expand Moscow's geopolitical influence in the region. Brazil is very open to the coalition concept where these large countries support each other in term of trade, economics, international politics and defense.

According other think tanks, this coalition will have an overwhelming influence over the United Nations. Russia and China are permanent members of the security council. India and Brazil are in the process of becoming the same. In terms of population, the coalition will have three quarters of the world population, largest amount of natural resources and largest pool of technical and scientific talent.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp

Hmmm...this is interesting!


Certainly doesn't seem likely they will succeed in their aim.  At least not if the EU is to be the world dominating force spoken of in Daniel and Revelation.   No question Russia is suffering economically and would desire this.   I have always thought the Gog invasion would likely be due to Russia's economic suffering, but I have some questions about that as well.

Will be very interesting watching how this develops.  Also should be interesting to see how Mr Solana addresses it.

Grace and Peace!

Brazil finalizing nuclear deal with U.N.

By CARMEN GENTILE, UPI Latin America Correspondent

RIO DE JANEIRO, Nov. 26 (UPI) -- Brazilian energy officials are confident they can soon begin enriching uranium with the full consent of the United Nations after months of controversy and setbacks.

Science and Technology Minister Eduardo Campos said Brazil would begin enriching uranium in the next few months.

Campos told reporters that United Nations officials with the International Atomic Energy Agency visited an enrichment plant in Rio de Janeiro from Nov. 16 to 18 and were pleased with their findings. Under international law, Brazil could not begin refinement until its facilities passed inspection.

"The visit was considered completely successful by both sides," he said. "It means that from the point of view of international safeguards, the plant can start working."

A final round of inspections that would formally green light production are expected to take place next month, according to Mohamed El Baradei, head of the IAEA.

For months Brazil had been wrangling with the IAEA over inspection criteria. The agency wants full access to the plant -- which under international law cannot begin refining material until it passes inspection -- while Brazil insists on protecting some parts of the plant from prying eyes.

Nuclear officials here assert Brazil has developed a refinement process at least 25 percent more efficient than others and wishes to protect its homegrown technology.

The IAEA reportedly will not insist on seeing every part of the refinement facility, as requested by Brazil.

El Baradei said the agreed upon criteria for inspections allows the IAEA to do credible inspections but at the same time take care of Brazil's need to protect certain commercial sensitivity inside the facility."

Some international observers speculated that Brazil would not allow inspectors to see its centrifuges because it was hiding its capability to refine uranium for nuclear weapons, an allegation Brazil has vehemently denied.

Others voiced concerns that nations like North Korea and Iran will see Brazil's reluctance to meet all requests as a means of concealing clandestine weapons programs.

The IAEA however seems secure in the knowledge that Brazil's nuclear ambitions are peaceful ones.

In October, IAEA officials came to the plant to discuss an agenda for future inspections. Brazil then agreed to show more of the Resende facility during inspections, while the IAEA reportedly gave up on its quest for "unrestricted access" to the entire facility, according to Odair Goncalves, president of Brazil's National Commission of Nuclear Energy.

"We have lots of uranium. Nothing can impede that in the future. ... We get to expand this activity and turn it really into a great commercial advantage," said Goncalves last month. His comments at the time referred to Brazil's expressed desire to expand its enrichment capabilities to sell the material for energy use to other countries worldwide.

While IAEA officials said they believed Brazil's program conformed to international standards, U.N. and Brazilian officials have been at odds over the inspections for some time.

In April Brazil was accused of refusing to allow inspectors to examine the Rio facility in February and March of this year, raising suspicions that Brazil may have had something to hide.

Brazilian officials countered by saying the inspections were unnecessary and intrusive since Brazil formally abstained from nuclear weapon development in the 1990s during the administration of then-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Earlier this year, Brazilian Defense Minister Jose Viegas -- who resigned earlier this month on an unrelated issue -- defended the nation's right to secrecy, saying "at no time did this attitude signify an impediment to the inspections."

In September the controversy was refueled when a former U.S. Defense Department official told a leading Brazilian newspaper that the reason the United Nations was interested in inspecting a new nuclear facility in Resende was speculation that the technology at the plant was supplied by former Pakistani nuclear program head Abdul Qadeer Khan, who provided nuclear technology to several rogue nations over the years.

Henry Sokolski, head of the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that IAEA officials harbor concerns that "the source of the (Brazilian) centrifuge technology" was Kahn.

Brazilian nuclear scientists were outraged by the allegations that Brazil obtained the technology for its Resende plant from Pakistan.

The concerns over Brazil's nuclear intentions were first sparked in 2002, when then presidential hopeful, now Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, said the 1970 nuclear non-proliferation treaty was unfair. "If someone asks me to disarm and keep a slingshot while he comes at me with a cannon, what good does that do?" he asked in a campaign speech.

These remarks quickly became infamous among diplomatic circles in Washington, though Lula later clarified his position, emphasizing that he had no intention of restarting Brazil's weapons program.
http://www.interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/1126000aaaa0494a.upi&Sys=icounsel&Type=News&Filter=United%20Nations&Fid=UNITEDNA

Talk about quite, I haven't heard nothing on this.
Bob

DW and 2T,

I want to say thank you for all the hard work and research you two are doing. You have definitely got my full attention.

Something you said though in another thread, DW:


Personally I am not worried. I am excited that the time is close at hand as it means it is close to His return and time to go to Him.

Without question the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and he aint going back in any time soon.   :-X     Without MAD (mutually assured distruction) to equal things out between the good guys and the bad guys...(terrorist don't mind dying for their cause) kinda makes the Cold War era seem like the good ole days.   :-\

Rev 6:14  And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Lord help us to reach the lost.  

Grace and Peace!

 THE MYTH OF THE 'MISSING EXPLOSIVES': A SHAMELESS LIE

BY RALPH PETERS
   
October 28, 2004 -- SHOULD the United Na tions decide who be comes our president? Sen. John Kerry wouldn't mind. He's shamelessly promoting the lies that the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency is telling about Iraq.

A devious IAEA report suggests that 400 tons of explosives were spirited away by our enemies under the noses of our Keystone-Cops troops after the fall of Baghdad. The document just happened to be released in the closing days of our presidential election. Purely a coincidence, of course. Brought to you by those selfless U.N. bureaucrats who failed in Iraq and are now failing in Iran.

Since Kerry's willing to blame our troops for a scandal invented by America-haters, let's look at the story the military way, by the numbers.

One: The IAEA claims its inspectors visited the ammo dump at Al-Qaqaa on March 9, 2003, and found the agency's seals intact on bunkers containing sensitive munitions. Unverifiable, but let's assume that much is true.

Two: Faced with an impending invasion, Saddam's forces did what any military would do. They began dispersing ammunition stocks from every storage site that might be a Coalition bombing target. If the Iraqis valued it, they tried to move it. Before the war.

Three: Members of our 3rd Infantry Division — the heroes who led the march to Baghdad — reached the site in question in early April. Despite the pressures of combat, they combed the dump. Nothing was found. Al-Qaqaa was a vast junkyard.

Four: Our 101st Airborne Division assumed responsibility for the sector as the 3ID closed on Baghdad. None of the Screaming Eagles found any IAEA markers — even one would have been a red flag to be reported immediately.

Five: At the end of May, military teams searching for key Iraqi weapons scoured Al-Qaqaa. They found plenty of odds and ends — the detritus of war — but no IAEA seals. And no major stockpiles.

Six: Now, just before Election Day, the IAEA, a discredited organization embarrassed by the Bush administration's decision to call it on the carpet, suddenly realizes that 400 tons of phantom explosives went missing from the dump.

Seven: Even if repeated inspections by U.S. troops had somehow missed this deadly elephant on the front porch, and even if the otherwise-incompetent Iraqis had been so skilled and organized they were able to sneak into Al-Qaqaa and load up 400 tons of Saddam's love-powder, it would have taken a Teamsters' convention to get the job done.

Eight: If the Iraqis had used military transport vehicles of five-ton capacity, it would have required 80 trucks for one big lift, or, say, 20 trucks each making four trips. They would have needed special trolleys, forklifts, handling experts and skilled drivers (explosives aren't groceries). This operation could not have happened either during or after the war, while the Al-Qaqaa area was flooded with U.S. troops.

Nine: We owned the skies. And when you own the skies, you own the roads. We were watching for any sign of organized movement. A gaggle of non-Coalition vehicles driving in and out of an ammo dump would have attracted the attention of our surveillance systems immediately.

Ten: And you don't just drive high explosives cross-country, unless you want to hear a very loud bang. Besides, the Iraqis would have needed to hide those 400 tons of explosives somewhere else. Unless the uploaded trucks are still driving around Iraq.

Eleven: Even if the IAEA told the truth and the Iraqis were stealth-logistics geniuses who emptied the site's ammo bunkers under our noses, the entire issue misses a greater point: 400 tons of explosives amounted to a miniscule fraction of the stocks Saddam had built up. Coalition demolition experts spent months destroying more than 400,000 tons of Iraqi war-making materiel.

Our soldiers eliminated more than a thousand tons of packaged death for every ton the United Nations claims they missed. Does that sound like incompetence? Why hasn't our success been mentioned? Can't our troops get credit for anything?

Twelve: The bottom line is that, if the explosives were ever there, the Iraqis moved them before our troops arrived. There is no other plausible scenario.

Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before.

http://www.worthyopinions.com/zone.cgi?http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/32832.htm
Oops, I forgot the link.

In regards to reply # 21 and 22 on this thread. (Putin's Russian superpower)

I was curious to know what Solana's reaction to this would be.  

As I suspected, Solana is indeed exerting his political prowess on Russian government and power with threats of non EU support unless he is allowed to get his hands dirty in their business of government.

A few short clips...

BRUSSELS Javier Solana, effectively the foreign minister of the European Union, was a busy man Wednesday. Demonstrators were on the streets in Ukraine and, clearly, a portent-laden crisis loomed on the EU's eastern border. And so, Solana was on the phone - to Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow and Washington. By the time he left for the Hague that evening, for an EU meeting Thursday with President Vladimir Putin of Russia, he had obtained a formal request for the EU to conduct a political mediation in Ukraine, and he was warning both Moscow and Kiev that if the mission were not accepted, the 25 members of the EU would refuse to recognize the Ukrainian election results.

entire article here (http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/25/news/europa.html)


Solana mediates elections in Ukraine (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/26/content_2265301.htm)

KIEV, Nov. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- The European Union's foreign policy chief Javier Solana arrived in Kiev on Friday in a bid to mediate a crisis triggered by last weekend's disputed presidential poll, the Interfax news agency reported.

    Solana's plane landed at Kiev's Borispol international airport shortly after 11:00 a.m. (0900 GMT), the Interfax reported.

    Solana is expected to hold talks with outgoing Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and the two rivals for the presidential runoff, Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich and opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.

SNIP


Also interesting is what Solana was about to drop from his busy schedule in order to go work on these...

On 25 November, the EU will host the 14th EU-Russia Summit in The Hague. This is the first meeting of the new Commission with Russian leaders. The Summit will welcome the extension of the EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) to the ten new EU Member States, as well as Russia’s recent decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.


 ;)

You beat me to the punch 2T, I was getting ready to post, when I saw you had posted what I was going to post. Good Job.  :)


It sure looks as if Mr. Solana's fingers, are everywhere.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Solana Considers One EU Seat in UN Solution to Divisions
By Honor Mahony
EUObserver.com
March 24, 2003

In an interview with Die Welt, the EU's high representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, offers some suggestions for how the current crisis in Europe could be avoided in the future. One of the main ideas would be for the EU to be represented by one set in the UN.

In an interview with Die Welt, the EU's high representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, offers some suggestions for how the current crisis in the European Union could be avoided in the future. A "possible cause" for the rift between the EU fifteen is the fact that the EU is not represented by one seat in the United Nations Security Council. "The EU is not represented by one seat in the United Nations. But the problems were created in the United Nations."

He noted the differences of opinion ran exactly between the four members of the Security Council - the UK and France (as permanent members) and Spain and Germany (as non-permanent members). "Imagine what influence Europe could have had if it had spoken with one voice?" asked Mr Solana. Speaking with one voice is not just something for the Union in the UN but for "the EU as a whole."

According to the Treaty of European Union, all EU member states have an obligation to refrain from doing anything that goes against a common position in foreign policy. "It is regrettable that precisely this was not followed by some member states," said the EU's foreign policy chief.

Weak Europe not in America's interest

Mr Solana believes that a weak Europe is not in America's interest. The big challenges in world politics are usually for both the USA and the EU, he says.

"Of course, Europe should invest more in its military capabilities, I have said that for years. But the USA is the number one and we do not have these strengths." Europe's strengths lie with international investment, development aid and trade.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/cluster1/2003/0324eu.htm

The Law of the Sea Treaty: Inconsistent With American Interests

April 8, 2004

More than two decades of negotiation culminated in 1982 when the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) approved the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.S. was not among the 117 nations (and two other delegations) that penned their approval of the treaty. American opposition was not without effect, however: the LOST failed to gain the 60 ratifications necessary to take effect. Even the Soviet Union, which had proudly proclaimed its solidarity with the developing nation lobby pushing the treaty, did not formally bind itself.

What is the LOST?

The genesis of the treaty was President Truman's 1945 proclamation asserting U.S. jurisdiction over America's continental shelf, and similar extensions of national control by other states. The First UNCLOS was opened in 1958; it drafted conventions dealing with resource jurisdiction and fishing. UNCLOS II convened in 1960 to take up unresolved fishing and navigation issues. Soon thereafter the possibility of seabed mining led the United Nations to declare the seabed to be the "common heritage of mankind." A Seabed Committee was established, eventually leading to UNCLOS III, which first met in 1973. Nine years and eleven sessions later a treaty was born.

The LOST, which runs 175 pages and contains 439 articles, covers seabed mining, navigation, fishing, ocean pollution, marine research, and economic zones. Much of the treaty is unobjectionable, or at least unimportant when in error; the navigation sections are a modest plus. But not so Part 11, as the Orwellian provisions governing seabed mining are called. So flawed was this section that it could be fixed only by tearing it up.

The LOST's fundamental premise is that all unowned resources on the ocean's floor belong to the people of the world, meaning the United Nations. The U.N. would assert its control through an International Seabed Authority, ruled by an Assembly, dominated by poorer nations, and a Council (originally on which the then-U.S.S.R. was granted three seats), which would regulate deep seabed mining and redistribute income from the industrialized West to developing countries. The Authority's chief subsidiary would be the Enterprise, to mine the seabed, with the coerced assistance of Western mining concerns, on behalf of the Authority.

Any extensive international regulatory system would likely inhibit development, depress productivity, increase costs, and discourage innovation, thereby wasting much of the benefit to be gained from mining the oceans. But the byzantine regime created by the LOST is almost unique in its perversity. Unfortunately, the amendments made in 1994, which I discuss below, do not change the essential character of the treaty.

For instance, as originally written, the treaty was explicitly intended to restrict, not promote, mineral development. Among the treaty's objectives were "rational management," "just and stable prices," "orderly and safe development," and "the protection of developing countries from the adverse effects" of minerals production. The LOST explicitly limited mineral production, authorizing commodity agreements (rather like OPEC). Further, the treaty placed a moratorium on the mining of other resources, such as sulphides, until the Authority adopted rules and regulations -- which could be never.

The process governing mining reflected this anti-production bias. A firm had to survey two sites and turn one over gratis to the Enterprise even before applying for a permit, in competition with the favored Enterprise and developing states. The Authority could deny an application if the firm would violate the treaty's antidensity and antimonopoly provisions, aimed at U.S. operators. And the Authority's decisions in this area were to be set by the Legal and Technical Commission, the membership of which could be stacked, and the 36-member Council, which would be dominated by developing states, making access for American firms dependent upon the whims of countries that might oppose seabed mining for economic or political reasons.

Who Would Want to Bid?

Indeed, it is not clear that a firm would have wanted to bid even if it thought it could win approval. The convention required that private entrepreneurs transfer their mining technology to the Authority, for use by the Enterprise and developing states. The term technology was so ill-defined that the Authority might be able to claim engineering and technical skills as well as equipment, yet the treaty imposes no effective penalties for improper disclosure or misuse of transferred technology. Miners would also have to pay their overseer, the Authority, and competitor, the Enterprise: $500,000 to apply, $1 million annually, plus a royalty fee. The sponsoring country would be responsible if a firm failed to pay; moreover, the industrialized West would have to provide interest-free loans and loan guarantees, for which Western taxpayers would be liable in the event of a default, to the U.N.'s mining operation.

All told, the Enterprise would enjoy free mine site surveys, transferred technology, and Western subsidies. The Enterprise also, naturally, would be exempt from Authority taxes and royalty payments. Also favored are developing states and 105 "land-locked and geographically disadvantaged" countries.

Even this attenuated right to mine the seabed could have been dropped at the Review Conference to be held to assess the LOST 15 years after the commencement of commercial operations if three-fourths of the member states so decided. The mere possibility of Third World states effectively confiscating potentially enormous investments made over more than a decade would have discouraged potential private entrepreneurs. That, in turn, would have given the well-pampered Enterprise and likely state-subsidized firms of developing states a further advantage.

Admittedly, such practical objections might seem of little import since the promise of seabed mining is far less bright today than it was when UNCLOS convened, but operations might still become economically feasible later this century, especially as technological innovation makes the mining process less expensive. But even if no manganese nodules are ever likely to be lifted commercially from the ocean's floor, the LOST remains unacceptable because of its coercive, collectivist underpinnings.

The New International Economic Order

UNCLOS III was held in a different era, a time when communism reigned throughout much of the world, Third World states were proclaiming socialism to offer the true path to progress and prosperity, and international organizations were promoting the "New International Economic Order," or NIEO, to engineer massive wealth redistribution from the industrialized to the underdeveloped states. Indeed, much of the LOST, particularly regarding seabed mining, was dictated by the so-called Group of 77, the developing states' lobby.

These nations saw the LOST as the leading edge of a campaign that included treaties covering Antarctica and outer space, expanded bilateral and multilateral aid programs, and a veritable gallery of UN alphabet-soup agencies -- CTC, ILO, UNCTAD, WHO, and WIPO. Commented former Maltan U.N. Ambassador Arvid Pardo, who coined the phrase, "common heritage of mankind," American acceptance of the sea treaty "however qualified, reluctant, or defective, would validate the global democratic approach to decision making."

Economic reality eventually hit many poorer states. Developing states began to adopt market reforms and the NIEO disappeared from international discourse, along with any mention of the LOST.

Although American ratification of the LOST would not be enough to resurrect the NIEO, it would nevertheless enshrine into international law some very ugly precedents. One is that the nation states (not peoples) of the world collectively own "all the unclaimed wealth of this earth," in the words of former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Min Mohamad. Granting ownership and control to petty autocracies with no relationship to the resource and nor any ability to contribute to their development makes neither moral nor practical sense. The LOST raises to the status of international law self-indulgent claims of ownership to be secured through an oligarchy of international bureaucrats, diplomats, and lawyers. And the treaty's specific provisions, mandating global redistribution of resources, creating a monopolistic public mining entity, restricting competition, and requiring the transfer of technology, reflect the sort of statist panaceas that were discredited by the historical wave that swept away Soviet-style communism and lesser socialist variants around the globe.
<snip>
To read the full report.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-db040408.html

Any day now this nation, (the US.) could find itself part of an international treaty that abolishes freedom on seven-tenths of the world’s surface. President Bush has signed, L.O.S.T., Law of the Sea Treaty.

The treaty gives the United Nations control of the sea. This treaty represents the "largest transfer of sovereignty to a U.N. body ever," Brandon Wales "This is unprecedented."

Ratified, the United States will no longer hold the right to board and search all suspect vessels, a prohibition that will greatly endanger the security and impede our progress with the war against terrorism. The United States, explores over 60% of the seas. The United States will no longer hold jurisdiction to freely explore the ocean’s beds and waters for oil and precious magnesium without first obtaining permission and receiving quota limitations from the International Sea Bed Authority, a U.N. body. The United States will be required to pay a tax on all ocean discoveries to this same U.N. body. Hereby raising taxes on oil and minerals deposits, for those living in the United States. The United States will also have to share its mining and exploration technology with the likes of China and North Korea, nations that in turn can use this technology against our own military defenses!

This treaty, the United Nations is allowed to stretch its powers over 70% of the Earth’s surface and control of the seas!!

To read the text of the LOST, page 25 starts the preamble. You will need to use pdf. This report is very lenghty, so it will take time to read.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

Nov 28 2004
Turkey in the EU would be 'bridge to Islamic world': Schroeder
AFP: 11/28/2004

BERLIN, Nov 26 (AFP) - Integrating Turkey into the European Union would be "a historic opportunity to build a bridge to the Islamic world", German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said on Friday.

European Union leaders will decide at a summit on December 16-17 whether to allow Turkey to begin membership talks to join the pact and Schroeder reiterated Germany's strong support for the predominantly Muslim nation of 72 million people.

"A democratic Turkey which makes a commitment to respect European values would be clear proof that there is no contradiction between the Muslim faith and a modern and enlightened society," Schroeder told a conference on European culture that was also attended by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.

Turkey could become "a model for other Muslim countries which border Europe", Schroeder added.

"This is why the membership of Turkey is rightly linked to a hope for peace and security, with implications way beyond Europe.

"You cannot refuse EU membership to any country that conforms to the values of democracy, to the rule of law and to the protection of human rights and the rights of minorities," Schroeder said.

11/26/2004 16:28 GMT - AFP
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=34490

Sorry I forgot the link. :(

Panel Releases Report on Global Threats

28 minutes ago
Middle East - AP
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - In a highly awaited report prompted by the deep divide over the war in Iraq, an international panel made 101 recommendations Tuesday on how to deal with global threats in the 21st century including the use of pre-emptive and preventive military strikes with approval from the U.N. Security Council.

The report by the 16-member panel offered two proposals on expanding the Security Council to reflect modern realities. Both would increase the United Nations' most powerful body from 15 to 24 countries and give much broader global representation.

The 95-page report identified the modern threats facing the world — including internal and external wars, poverty and social upheavals, failed states, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and organized crime — and proposed ways to deal with them.

It also defined terrorism, something the 191-member U.N. General Assembly has tried unsuccessfully to do for years and rejected the argument of those who say people under foreign occupation have a right to resist. "There is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians," the report said.

Terrorism was described as "any action ... that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed the panel a year ago in response to the bitter divisions over the U.S.-led war in Iraq, which the Security Council refused to authorize.

In a letter to Annan, former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun who chaired the panel said "the report puts forward a new vision of collective security" to deal with the major threats to global peace and security.

"Our research and consultations revealed that ours is an age of unparalleled interconnection among threats to international peace and security, and mutual vulnerability between weak and strong," he said.

Whether the panel's wide-ranging recommendations attract substantial support remains to be seen. Its members included former prime ministers of Norway and Russia, former foreign ministers of Australia and China, and former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

Annan said he plans to spend his remaining two years as secretary-general focusing on reform of the United Nations and pushing the goals adopted by world leaders at the Millennium Summit in September 2000, including cutting in half the number of people living in dire poverty and ensuring that every child has an education, both by 2015.

Panyarachun said the panel was divided over U.N. reform — an issue that has challenged the world body's 191 member states for more than a decade — and therefore presented two options.

One would add six new permanent members — two from Asia, two from Africa, one from the Americas and one from Europe — as well as three nonpermanent members elected for two-year terms.

Seeking more influence over global decisions, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan joined forces in September to lobby for permanent seats. South Africa and Nigeria are the top candidates for one African seat and Egypt is pushing for the other, insisting that Arab nations must be permanently represented on the council, diplomats said.

But there is plenty of opposition already as nations jockey to gain a seat or to block rivals from getting one.

The other proposal would create a new tier of eight semi-permanent members chosen for four-year terms and open to re-election — two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. It also would add one non-permanent seat.

The issue of veto power — currently limited to permanent Security Council members the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — was not addressed.

The report also set out new benchmarks that should be addressed in considering whether to authorize or use military force, including a determination that the threat is serious, whether force is a last resort and whether the specific military action is proportional.

"What will get headlines is the recommendation on Security Council reform, but the most important thing about this report ought to be what it says about the use of force, intervention and sovereignty, because governments themselves won't tackle these issues," Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_global_threats

Nov. 30, 2004 10:15
UN agrees on how to police Iran; US concerned
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria

The UN nuclear agency agreed on ways to police Iran's suspension of some nuclear programs, but a US official said Washington might still try to take the case to the Security Council.

The International Atomic Energy Agency board passed a resolution authorizing its head, Mohamed ElBaradei, to monitor Iran's commitment to freeze uranium enrichment activities that can produce either low grade nuclear fuel or the raw material for atomic weapons.

But US chief delegate Jackie Sanders listed more than a dozen open questions about Iran's nuclear intentions still before the agency despite a nearly two-year investigation of almost two decades of covert activities.

"This makes it clear that the IAEA cannot ... offer the necessary assurances that Iran is not attempting to produce nuclear material for weapons," she told the board.

France, Germany and Britain, who negotiated a Nov. 7 agreement with Iran on suspension, came to the meeting saying the deal meant that all equipment used for enrichment must come to a standstill. Iran had demanded that it be allowed to run 20 centrifuges for research purposes.

Seeking to avoid tough measures by the board that could have led to referral to the Security Council and possible sanctions, Iran appeared to give up its demands Sunday, delivering a letter to the agency pledging "not to conduct any testing with these sets of components."

But a pledge by Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian delegate to the meeting, that "we are not going to introduce material or any gas" into the centrifuges" appeared to fall short of the European demands.

Later, Iranian delegate Cyrus Nasseri appeared to move closer to the European interpretation, telling reporters that Iran "will not" run even empty centrifuges.

The enrichment process involves introducing uranium hexafluoride gas into centrifuges that then spin them to low-level nuclear fuel or highly enriched uranium used in the core of nuclear warheads.

The lack of a "trigger mechanism" beginning the referral process in case of violations disappointed the United States, which insists Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons.

Sanders, the chief US delegate, told the meeting Tehran could not be trusted.

"We believe Iran's nuclear weapons program poses a growing threat to international peace and security," she said.

"Any member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council any situation that might endanger the maintenance of international peace and security," she said, alluding to the possibility of a unilateral US push.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan urged vigilance, telling reporters in Washington that "the implementation and verification of the agreement is critical."

Set to start in mid-December, the deal with the Europeans commits the Iranians to the freeze only during negotiations with France, Germany and Britain on EU economic, political and technological aid.

And even that was cast into doubt, with Iran appearing to reserve the right to renegotiate the suspension, its letter to the IAEA, as quoted by an official from a board member country, said Tehran would "discuss further" the freeze once those talks begin.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101788151249&p=1078397702269

UN unveils sweeping blueprint for reform

Tue Nov 30, 2:37 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The United Nations unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul the organisation, including the Security Council, in what would be the biggest UN reform since its founding in 1945.

After bitter divisions over the war in Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan ordered a high-level panel last year to come up with the blueprint and help the United Nations adapt to the 21st century.

The panel's report released Tuesday proposed more than 100 recommendations, including some -- an expansion of the Security Council and a definition of terrorism -- that have eluded UN diplomats for years.

"What is needed is a comprehensive system of collective security, one that tackles both old and new threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said in an introduction to the report.

He said the proposals, which must be approved by member nations, set out "a broad framework for collective security and indeed gives a broader meaning to that concept appropriate for the new millennium."

In setting out a blueprint for collective security decisions, the report also takes implicit aim at the United States over the Iraqi war, which was strongly opposed by Annan and many Security Council member states.

"There is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower," the panel said.

"The yearning for an international system governed by the rule of law has grown," it said. "No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today's threats."

Annan has repeatedly maintained that many people around the globe are concerned about disease and poverty rather than terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and much of the report underlines his core argument.

The report identifies a wide variety of threats to international security today, citing organised crime, poverty and failed states along with war, terrorism and WMD.

It outlines three principles for collective security -- that current threats go beyond national boundaries, that no nation is strong enough to defend itself alone, and that not every nation will be willing or able to protect its own people or refrain from harming its neighbours.

Annan, whose term ends in 2006, has indicated that he will devote much of his remaining time in office to pushing for the reforms, which would have to be approved by member states.

Revamping the Security Council, the top UN decision-making body, is likely to be the most contentious issue, and the panel itself came up with two competing proposals for expanding the council's membership to 24 seats.

One method would add six new permanent members to the council, which has had the same five permanent states -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- since the United Nations was founded in the wake of World War II.

That proposal would also add three new non-permanent members to the 10 current non-permanent members, who hold rotating two-year seats.

The six new permanent seats, without the veto power that the current five have, would be allotted to two nations from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe and one from the Americas.

The other proposal would create a third tier of council member nations, which would be given four-year, non-permanent seats, which could be renewed.

Two-thirds of the 191 UN member nations would have to approve any change to the council membership, which would then take effect if none of the permanent members uses its veto power to block the move.

The UN reform panel was headed by former Thai prime minister Anand Panyarachun. Among the other members are Brent Scowcroft, a former US national security advisor, and former Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&u=/afp/20041130/wl_afp/un_reform_041130193733&printer=1

Russia Reassures India on UN Security Council Bid

Sat Dec 4, 1:57 PM ET
World - Reuters
By Douglas Busvine

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Russia said Saturday India should become a veto-wielding permanent member of the United Nations Security Council if the U.N.'s top decision-making body is enlarged to reflect post-Cold War realities.

Photo
Reuters Photo

President Vladimir Putin gave the assurance after Indian newspapers interpreted comments he made Friday as saying India should not be given veto powers.

Putin said permanent members of the U.N.'s top body should either all have a veto, or none of them should have it.

"I am convinced that permanent seats on the Security Council should have veto power, otherwise it would be a one-sided reform of the U.N.," Putin told reporters on a visit to India.

"If we agree that future permanent members of the Security Council should have no veto, the next step would not be giving these countries veto power but rather abolishing the veto."

But the Kremlin chief warned that scrapping the veto -- often used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War -- risked weakening the Council's effectiveness.

"The loss of this instrument for the United Nations would mean a loss of credibility of this organization in the world," he said on a visit to a joint Indian-Russian missile project.

Putin later flew into Bangalore, where he sought to woo the country's rapidly growing booming IT companies.

Russia would set up an international institute for information technology in Moscow and proposed to develop jointly computer software with India and market it in developing countries, Putin said.

He also suggested that Russia wanted to invest Indian debt in joint ventures in both countries. India's debt to Russia dates back to its defense deals during the Soviet era and it is still repaying the debt in installments.

Putin said Russia had also reached an agreement with India to remove some visa requirements in order to improve the business climate.

ERODING EFFECTIVENESS

Local newspapers led their Saturday editions with Putin's Friday comments on India's Security Council bid.

India has joined Germany, Japan and Brazil lobbying for seats at the U.N. top table. Russia is one of the five permanent Council members.

A decision on the shape of the reform is scheduled for the U.N.'s 60th anniversary meeting next September. To take effect, the reforms would require a two-thirds majority of the U.N.'s 191 members and no veto from existing permanent members.

Putin backed India as Russia's "No.1" candidate to become a permanent member after talks Friday with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, but was unclear on India's call for veto power.

"We believe it would be absolutely unacceptable to erode the tools of the U.N. Security Council," he said Friday. "Otherwise the U.N. would lose its weight and become some kind of discussion club like the League of Nations."

The Times of India's reaction was typical: "Putin vetoes India entry into UN Tier-1" read its front page headline.

The Indian Foreign Ministry said it had all been a misunderstanding, issuing a statement saying Putin had categorically rejected the newspapers' version of his remarks.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20041204/wl_nm/india_russia_dc

Things are starting to run faster, as we watch.

Resting in the Lords arms.
Bob

China backs Egypt's efforts to get UN Security Council seat
Egypt-China, Politics, 12/3/2004

Chinese Ambassador to Egypt Wu Sike yesterday stressed his country's appreciation for the strenuous efforts exerted by President Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian government to settle the Palestinian issue and positive role in solving the Darfur problem.

The ambassador said that his country supported the Egyptian efforts to get a permanent membership at the Security Council, adding that contacts were underway in this respect.

In statements on the occasion of the Chinese embassy's annual celebration of Egyptian Mediamen Day, the Chinese diplomat said a delegation of 100 businessmen led by the Chinese trade minister are due in Cairo on Saturday to probe the possibility of carrying out ventures in the free zone north of Gulf of Suez to increase economic cooperation between the two countries.

A symposium on Egyptian-Chinese investment will be held on Sunday attended by many ministers, businessmen and investors from both nations, he added.

The size of trade exchange between Egypt and China reached $ 1.170 billion during the period from January till September 2004 with an increase by 51.1 percent compared to the same period last year, he said.

He pointed out to an increase in Egypt's exports to China by 49.9 percent reaching $ 151 million and China's investments reached 104 ventures till June worth $ 150 million.

He noted the Egyptian-Chinese cooperation in the fields of electronics, information, environment protection, medicine and pharmaceuticals in addition to development of northwest of Suez economic areas.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/041203/2004120322.html

Relaxing in the Lors arms.
Bob

America, Israel Should Take UN Seriously, Expert Says
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
December 03, 2004

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - The United States, which funds nearly a quarter of the United Nations' annual budget, should rethink its relations with the world body, much of which stands opposed to President Bush's view on the global war against terrorism, an expert said here this week.

For many years, Israel has downplayed the importance of U.N. resolutions, which are usually against it, but neither Israel nor the U.S. can afford to take that stand any longer, said Professor Anne Bayefsky of the Hudson Institute.

"An American taxpayer who foots 22 percent of the regular budget of the United Nations, which has an annual budget of approximately $1.5 billion, has to begin asking some very difficult questions," Bayefsky told CNSNews.com.

"The United Nations still does not have a definition of terrorism, essentially because the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) ... dominates much of what goes on in the General Assembly," Bayefsky said.

"Even in the context of the Security Council, [the OIC] prevents the passage of various positive resolutions, which might make a difference," she said.

The OIC, most of whose 56 members are also part of the 115-member Non-Aligned Movement, constitute an automatic majority in the U.N., which has 191 member states.

Last week, the U.N.'s third committee refused to adopt any resolution condemning human rights violations in the Sudan.

According to a report issued on Thursday by the human rights monitoring group Amnesty International, "More than a million people have been displaced in Darfur [Sudan]; they have been attacked, women raped, people abducted, their relatives killed, villages burnt and looted...

"The security forces detain and torture with impunity and are protected by the law. ... The Sudanese government, instead of admitting that it has violated human rights by supporting the nomad militias responsible for much of the devastation of Darfur and instead of listening to the plight of its citizens, continues to oppress the victims of gross human rights abuses," the report said.

At the same time that the General Assembly defeated the resolution on Sudan, it adopted nine resolutions condemning Israel, Bayefsky said.

"Whose interest is it benefiting when it can't condemn human rights violations around the globe while demonizing literally the democratic beachhead in the Middle East?" she asked.

Israel demonized

Speaking in Jerusalem this week at the second annual Jerusalem Summit -- a gathering of conservative thinkers and diplomats from around the world -- Bayefsky said that right or wrong, the influence the U.N. has in shaping public opinion around the world must be taken seriously.

"However unjustifiable, many believe that the United Nations is the moral conscience of the majority of nations in the inhabitants of the global village, and according to the U.N., Israel is the archetypical violator in the world today," Bayefsky said. "The combination is literally lethal."

Israel is demonized in a number of U.N. organs, committees and conferences, all of which produce volumes of documents, reports and resolutions, Bayefsky said.

Thirty percent of the resolutions passed by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemning human rights violations have criticized Israel, while not a single resolution condemning human rights violations has ever been passed against 75 percent of U.N. members, including states like Syria, Saudi Arabia, China and Zimbabwe, she said.

Each Nov. 29, the U.N. marks the day that it partitioned British Mandatory Palestine into two areas -- a Jewish state and an Arab state -- as an international day of solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Israel accepted that resolution, while the Arab states rejected it. When the British left the area six months later, Israel declared its statehood, and the armies of the surrounding Arab nations launched a full-scale war against the fledgling state to destroy it.

Standing with the representatives of more than 100 member states marking the day last year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it "a day of mourning and a day of grief," Bayefsky said.

At the front of the room hung U.N. and Palestinian flags, with a map pre-dating the state of Israel in between, she said.

"Every one of those U.N. officials and government representatives rose in the opening ceremony for a moment of silence 'for all those who had given their lives for the Palestinian people,' which would of course include the suicide bombers," she said.

"In other words, the demonization of Israel through the human rights medium has real consequences. What begins as U.N. talk ends up as U.N.-driven support for boycotts and, in its worst, the legitimate struggle by all available means against Israeli occupation," she added.

According to Bayefsky, across the spectrum of U.N. bodies, there is an interconnected campaign to deny Israel the right to self-defense by condemning every action it takes to combat terrorism, from targeted killings to building a security fence; refusing to condemn terrorism against Israelis; refusing to identify the perpetrators of terror attacks against Israeli victims; and actually promoting terrorism against Israelis by adopting a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Commission for the past three years that "affirms the legitimacy of the struggle against foreign occupation and for self-determination by all available means."

Opposite worldviews

Politically, this translates into a situation where the U.N. and the European Union stand opposite the U.S. in its war against terrorism.

Israel is one of very few nations that have backed Bush's war against terrorism without reservation.

The U.N. and the European Union maintain that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the greatest challenge to international order and not Iran or North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons, nor violent Islamic fundamentalism, Bayefsky said.

According to their worldview, "Israeli occupation is the root cause of Arab and militant Islamic terrorism everywhere," she said, and the way to solve that is by pressuring Israel into negotiations with the Palestinians and making concessions in the name of confidence-building measures before there is any end to terrorism.

On the other hand, President Bush sees "terrorists and their sponsors seeking the destruction of the state of Israel" as the "root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict," she said. "Progress requires fighting back, prevailing against the terrorists and isolating their state sponsors."

Bush believes Israeli-Palestinian peace can only be achieved by negotiations between the two parties, when a Palestinian peace partner emerges, and not as a result of international pressures, she said.

Recently, following the death of PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, the international community has looked toward the resumption of an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue with a soon-to-be-elected new Palestinian leadership.

Some European nations called for a return to the road map peace process by skipping the first phase -- an end to Palestinian terrorism and the dismantling of its infrastructure -- and jumping on to create a Palestinian state.

Backed by Washington, Israel has made it clear that there can be no return to the diplomatic process without an end to terrorism and incitement first.

"Such a worldview should suggest to President Bush and his new secretary of state that it is time to rethink American relations with the U.N. and to demand an in-depth accounting of the 22 percent of the $1.5 billion annual budget that comes from Americans' blood, sweat and tears," she said.

"Winning the war against terrorism has multiple fronts, and midtown Manhattan [where the U.N. headquarters is located] is one of them," she added.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=162cca8d0df5d596&cat=48fcf33f9aeb6130

Since I could find the thread I wanted, I will post this here.

Italy proposes new U.N. Council reform by regions

By Evelyn Leopold Mon May 2, 9:38 PM ET

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Italy came up with two proposals on Monday for expanding the U.N. Security Council that would give regional groups more power to choose candidates and dictate the length of their term.
ADVERTISEMENT

Called the "green" and the "blue" models, the plans are aimed at countering the quest by Germany, Japan, Brazil and India for new permanent seats in the 15-member body, which decides war and peace.

U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan wants the General Assembly to take a decision by the time a U.N. summit takes place in September, arguing that the make-up of the council reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II.

"We do not have, and will never have, an entrenched position," Italy's U.N. ambassador Marcello Spatafora, told U.N. General Assembly members discussing council enlargement. "We do not want a reform imposed on us, pressured on us, whose timing is dictated to us."

The Security Council now has five permanent members with veto power -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France and 10 members elected by the assembly from regions for two-year terms.

Italy's proposals would give the regional groups more power in selecting and rotating candidates. One of Italy's proposals would add 20 non-permanent seats in addition to the five permanent members.

The seats would be allotted to five regional groups who would evolve their own criteria for choosing candidates for a period of two or three years, subject to re-election. Italy's second proposal would give larger countries a longer term.

Spatafora said his proposals were meant to provide alternatives to the current models, which he said followed "an old pattern and a traditional approach."

Two rival plans are now on the table for expanding the council. One would add six new permanent seats from five regions. Japan, Germany, Brazil and India prefer this model, which also allocates two seats for African nations.

The other plan, favored by Italy, Mexico, Canada and others, would create a tier of semi-permanent seats. But so far this proposal has limited support, diplomats said.

Should Germany get a permanent council seat, Italy would be the only major western European nation without one.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said an equitable system needed new permanent members. Without mentioning Italy by name, he told reporters, "I understand the proposal from those who think they themselves shouldn't stand (for office) but don't want others to do it."

But Fischer, who was at the United Nations for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, acknowledged he was not certain if the plan preferred by Germany would get the required two-thirds vote of the 191 General Assembly members.
UN Council (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050503/india_nm/india_201182/nc:731;_ylt=AuIIw5Z558LR5XH9jhDinnEBxg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

If you read this, please read it carefully.
Bob

Matthew 3:3 For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make His paths straight."

RUSSIA COULD HELP EU BECOME WORLD LEADER
   
13:05


MOSCOW, May 11 (RIA Novosti) - [u]Brussels is setting ambitious goals to push the European Union into a leading position in the global economy[/u], according to Chairman of the State Duma Committee for Foreign Affairs Konstantin Kosachev. He says the EU should be more interested in strengthening ties with Russia, which could ensure European economic growth, Izvestia, a daily, reported.

However, Kosachev said, Europe has not abandoned its competitive mentality, meaning it is still not ready for mutually beneficial cooperation, even though the EU is a global example of symbiosis.

This is not, he argues, because Russia could be a potential rival, but because of Russia's weakness, which the EU could use to its advantage without worrying about reciprocity.

In general, there is no "conflict of values" between Russia and the EU. The fact that Russia is not emulating the historical experience of other nations does not mean it is refusing to follow a similar path. However, the EU's recognition of Russia as a democratic state should not be for sale. Political tradeoffs, for example, Russia raising domestic prices on fuel-carriers if the EU ignores human rights violations and the lack of freedom of the press, are unacceptable, Kosachev said.

Moscow does not want the EU to ignore problems with democracy in the country because it doesn't want to hide those problems, it wants to solve them, meaning any constructive criticism is welcome, he said.

But, if criticism is used only as leverage in a deal, what Kosachev termed "moral and political concessions in exchange for material gains," then Russia is more likely to ignore external advice when solving internal problems, he said.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050511/39964312.html

EU ‘significant step closer’ to constitution

Europe has edged closer to the EU constitution – now ratified in eight European member states.

National capital number nine, Berlin, takes the next step with an expected ratification in Germany’s Bundestag on Thursday.

Germany’s upper house of parliament is expected to confirm the ‘ja’ to the EU constitution on May 27 – just two days before a more uncertain French vote.

European Commission Vice-President Margot Wallström gave a warm welcome to Wednesday’s ratification of the EU constitution in Austria and Slovakia.

“I welcome the successful ratification of the constitution in Austria and the Slovak Republic today,” she said.

“The two approvals today, which are the first of a series of parliamentary ratifications in May, and the fact that almost one-third of member states have concluded the ratification, take the EU a significant step closer to the entry into force of the constitution.”

Seven EU countries have now formally confirmed the constitution - Austria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Spain has backed the new EU treaty in a referendum with ratification, a formality, expected in the country’s Senate by the end of May.

All the EU’s 25 countries must ratify the constitution by October 2006 and a looming French referendum in less than three weeks could be the first upset.
http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200505/ec5c565b-2a2d-45f0-9b8f-e7e71317b456.htm

Solana Issues Warning Over French EU Vote
Saturday 21.05.2005, CET 19:54

May 21, 2005 12:35 PM

Solana issues warning over French EU vote

BERLIN (Reuters) - French rejection of the EU constitution would leave the expanded EU bloc incapable of action, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana was quoted on Saturday as saying.

"The French will vote on the European constitution next Sunday -- a date that is decisive for the future of the European Union," Solana said in a commentary in Bild am Sonntag newspaper released on Saturday. "Whether the expanded community of 25 states remains capable of operating depends on this treaty."

"I hope that the French citizens understand how important this constitution is for Europe and for France," Solana said in the article for Sunday's newspaper.

The constitution, intended to streamline decision-making in the expanded EU, faces a major hurdle with the referendum on May 29 in France, where opinion polls show the "No" camp has extended its lead.

Left-wing opponents of the constitution there say they want a Europe more focused on social concerns, arguing the EU has a bias toward liberal market economics and has failed to prevent a loss of jobs to low-wage nations.

The Netherlands also holds a public vote on June 1. Polls show a majority of Dutch want to reject the charter amid a row over the terms under which the euro was introduced and discontent over Turkey's EU entry bid.

Solana recognised that many in Europe were having doubts about European integration, although stressed people outside the bloc viewed it as an admirable model.

"The exact reasons for the unease with the European Union are hard to pin down. It is a barely comprehensible feeling of uncertainty. Our world has become more complex and this demands a lot from politicians and citizens in equal measure," he said.

Solana said national solutions were not the answer to current challenges and that the eastward expansion of the European Union was a logical step.

"Hungary and Poland belong to Europe as much as Germany and France. Bulgaria and Romania have made great strides with reforms and will be accepted in 2007. Only the constitution can put this expansion on a sure footing," he said.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissi...y=1116671714000

Okay, I don't know how I missed this story.
Bob

1 Samuel 20:6
If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family.