More of the UN and EU, are they joining forces?

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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.

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

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."

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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

[Shammu]

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.