Fire Hydrant of Freedom
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities => Politics & Religion => Topic started by: G M on January 13, 2009, 06:27:43 AM
-
Imagine a global entity that facilitates terrorism and gives aid and comfort to tyrants while attempting to undercut human freedom, all while engaging in graft and corruption. Sound like a Bond villain's group, hidden in an underground bunker? No, it's the "United Nations".
-
The UN Bailout of Hamas
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The United Nations has been working especially hard in recent days to bail out the Hamas terrorists from the prospect of a devastating defeat at the hands of Israel.
Hamas caused the present conflict by its unprovoked firing of hundreds of rockets deeper into Israel, targeting Israeli civilians for death and terrorizing its women and children. Hamas, not Israel, unilaterally decided against extending the six month ceasefire that had expired in mid-December 2008, which Hamas had been violating anyway. After clear warnings to stop the rocket fire which went unheeded by Hamas, Israel responded with military force in self-defense pursuant to Section 51 of the UN Charter.
Nevertheless, under pressure from the Arab bloc, the UN Security Council adopted a contemptible resolution on January 8, 2009, which calls for an “immediate” ceasefire, “leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”. Hamas’s provocation for the Israeli military action is not mentioned even once. There is not a word stating that the rocket attacks on the Israeli civilian population must stop completely as a condition for such withdrawal of Israeli forces. Indeed, the resolution places no onus on Hamas at all for the present situation, much less imposing any obligations on the mini-terrorist state it is running in Gaza. Although Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and would never have tolerated a Hamas-led government if it had stayed instead, the UN resolution is based on the premise that Israel still effectively controls Gaza and thus is fully responsible for the welfare of the Palestinian civilian population living under Hamas rule. This is truly a heads-Hamas-wins, tails-Israel-loses setup.
Shamefully, the United States decided to abstain, rather than use its veto power to block this one-sided, anti-Israel Security Council resolution.
The resolution emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings.” While calling on member states to “intensify efforts” to prevent “illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition”, nothing is said about destroying the remaining tunnels built by Hamas or removing the rocket parts and other arms from the terrorists’ hands that have already been smuggled into Gaza. There is no provision for an effective international monitoring force to stop any further smuggling.
The resolution “condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”. Since Israel is singled out elsewhere in the resolution for its military presence in Gaza and the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are not mentioned at all, the spin artists accusing Israel of ‘crimes against humanity’ will have a field day. They will interpret the resolution as condemning only Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians and equating Israel’s acts of self-defense with ‘state terrorism’. No accountability for using Palestinian women and children as human shields – a deliberate tactic of Islamic terrorists – is laid at Hamas’s doorstep. Since Hamas is not mentioned even once in the resolution, the Islamic propagandists will surely argue that neither Hamas’s assaults on Israeli civilians, or Hamas’s deliberate use of civilians as human shields, were intended to be included within the definition of acts of terrorism. This fits into the Islamic fictional narrative that Hamas militants and other Islamic terrorists are not really terrorists at all – they are legitimate resistance fighters.
The resolution recognizes “the vital role played by UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza.” It actually asks for additional contributions to UNRWA.
UNRWA runs the Palestinian refugee camps and UN schools in Gaza. Two schools reportedly came under fire during the present conflict by Israeli forces in response to mortar shells being fired from the schools’ vicinity by Hamas militants whom Palestinian residents were said to have observed in the area. Nevertheless, Israel has received all of the blame for the ensuing civilian casualties caused by Hamas’s deliberate use of Palestinian women and children as human shields.
UNRWA itself is not an innocent bystander. In the past UNRWA has allowed the Palestinian refugee camps that it was administering to be used as bases for small-arms factories, explosives laboratories, and arms caches. It has also allowed UN vehicles to be used to transport arms, explosives, and terrorists to their target locations. Terrorist organizations have been found to actively use UNRWA offices and schools to conduct their terrorist activities.
Indeed, in November 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon spoke out against a rocket attack aimed at Israel that was launched from a school in the Gaza Strip run by the United Nations agency tasked with assisting Palestinian refugees. According to a UN News Centre report at the time, “Palestinian militants entered the school while it was empty and then fired rockets from the compound.”
History is repeating itself. Hamas has followed its customary modus operandi during this conflict, using UN schools as safe houses from which to launch some of its attacks, while UNRWA officials tacitly approved or looked the other way. The UN has responded in a Pavlovian fashion to Israel’s military retaliation, ignoring its own findings from a little over a year ago concerning the militants’ use of a UN school as a place from which to fire rockets. Instead, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navanethem Pillay and other UN officials have rushed in to blame Israel for the civilian casualties at the UN schools and everywhere else in Gaza, allowing Hamas to reap a propaganda windfall from the images of dead and wounded Palestinian civilians whom it had put in harm’s way in the first place.
To be fair, Pillay did say in her statement to the ninth special session of the Human Rights Council (another in a string of Human Rights Council sessions devoted exclusively to condemning Israel) that harm to civilians caused by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel is “unacceptable”. She also said that “action on the part of Israel’s opponents that may deliberately put civilians at risk in the Gaza Strip is prohibited under international law” (emphasis added).
Although her use of the term “opponents” rather than something like “mortal enemies sworn to Israel’s destruction” sounds more like she is refereeing at a tennis match, Pillay is at least showing some signs of recognizing the reality that Israel has been facing. She is in a distinct minority at the UN in even being willing to go that far. Other UN officials, such as Richard Falk, UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied Since 1967, are so blinded by their hatred of Israel that they have used the blood libel of comparing the Jewish state to the Nazis and to apartheid South Africa.
However, Pillay is wrong in claiming that “while indiscriminate rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful, Israel’s responsibility to fulfill its international obligations is completely independent from the compliance of Hamas with its own obligations under international law”.
To the contrary, they are causally linked. Israel is acting in self-defense against Hamas’s relentless attacks on defenseless Israeli civilians. Moreover, Hamas – not Israel – has violated the Geneva Convention and the basic laws of war by deliberately targeting innocent civilians, impersonating civilians or police, hiding among the civilian population, and using mosques and schools as terrorist sanctuaries.
In short, Hamas alone bears responsibility for its civilian population as the governing authority in Gaza. Hamas is the aggressor against Israeli civilians and is using its rule of Gaza to treat its own civilians as human shields. Israel, on the other hand, has bent over backwards to minimize civilian casualties.
Israel has repeatedly sought genuine peace, but not at the expense of the safety of its own citizens. To Hamas, truces are just stalling tactics to use as lulls during which the terrorists build up their military capability. When asked if he could envision a 50-year hudna (cease-fire) with Israel, Hamas leader Nizar Rayyan (who was finally killed in a recent Israeli bombing attack) responded, "The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God."
Sadly, but not surprisingly, the United Nations has become an enabler of Hamas’s campaign of deceit and of its crimes against humanity. The UN has turned into an instrument for legitimizing the enemies of peace and freedom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.
-
UN forces – just a bunch of thugs?
By Mark Steyn
Last Updated: 11:48PM GMT 14 Feb 2005
It's a good basic axiom that if you take a quart of ice-cream and a quart of dog faeces and mix 'em together the result will taste more like the latter than the former. That's the problem with the UN. If you make the free nations and the thug states members of the same club, the danger isn't that they'll meet each other half-way but that the free world winds up going three-quarters, seven-eighths of the way. Thus the Oil-for-Fraud scandal: in the end, Saddam Hussein had a much shrewder understanding of the way the UN works than Bush and Blair did.
And, of course, corrupt organisations rarely stop at just one kind. If you don't want to bulk up your pension by skimming the Oil-for-Food programme, don't worry, whatever your bag, the UN can find somewhere that suits - in West Africa, it's Sex-for-Food, with aid workers demanding sexual services from locals as young as four; in Cambodia, it's drug dealing; in Kenya, it's the refugee extortion racket; in the Balkans, sex slaves.
But you get the general picture: on a UN peace mission, everyone gets his piece. Didier Bourguet, a UN staffer in Congo and the Central African Republic, enjoyed the pleasures of 12-year-old girls, and as a result is now on trial in France. His lawyer has said he was part of a UN paedophile network that transcends national boundaries.
Now how about this? The Third Infantry Division are raping nine-year olds in Ramadi. Ready, set, go! That thundering sound outside your window isn't the new IKEA sale, but the great herd of BBC/CNN/Independent/Guardian/New York Times/Le Monde/Sydney Morning Herald/Irish Times/Cork Examiner reporters stampeding to the Sunni Triangle. Whoa, hold up, lads, it's only hypothetical.
But think about it: the merest glimpse of a freaky West Virginia tramp leading an Abu Ghraib inmate around with girlie knickers on his head was enough to prompt calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, and for Ted Kennedy to charge that Saddam's torture chambers were now open "under new management", and for Robert Fisk to be driven into the kind of orgasmic frenzy unseen since his column on how much he enjoyed being beaten up by an Afghan mob: "Just look at the way US army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi," wrote Fisk. "No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image. In September 2001, the planes smashed into the buildings; today, Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash."
Who's straining at the leash here? Down, boy. But, if Lynndie's smashed to pieces our entire morality with just one tug, Bush's Zionist neocons getting it on with Congolese kindergarteners would have the Independent calling for US expulsion from the UN - no, wait, from Planet Earth: slice it off from Maine to Hawaii and use one of those new Euro-Airbuses to drag it out round the back of Uranus.
But systemic UN child sex in at least 50 per cent of their missions? The transnational morality set can barely stifle their yawns. If you're going to rape prepubescent girls, make sure you're wearing a blue helmet.
And at least the Pentagon put a stop to Abu Ghraib. As a UN official in Congo told the Telegraph yesterday: "The crux of the problem is that if the UN gets bolshie with these governments then they stop providing the UN with troops and staff."
And the problem with that is?
In Congo, the UN has now forbidden all contact between its forces and the natives. The rest of the world should be so lucky.
I take it from his use of "bolshie" that the quoted UN wallah is British. If so, that's the system in a nutshell: when a British bigwig is with British forces, he'll enforce British standards; when a British official is holed up with an impeccably "multilateral" force of Uruguayans, Tunisians, etc, he's more circumspect. When in Rome, do as the Visigoths do.
The child sex racket is only the most extreme example of what's wrong with the UN approach to the world. Developed peoples value resilience: when disaster strikes, you bounce back. A hurricane flattens Florida, you patch things up and reopen. As the New Colonial Class, the UN doesn't look at it like that: when disaster strikes, it just proves you and your countrymen are children who need to be taken under the transnational wing.
The folks that have been under the UN wing the longest - indeed, the only ones with their own permanent UN agency and semi-centenarian "refugee camps" - are the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth: the Palestinians. UN territories like Kosovo are the global equivalent of inner-city council estates with the blue helmets as local enforcers for the absentee slum landlord. By contrast, a couple of years after imperialist warmonger Bush showed up, Afghanistan and Iraq have elections, presidents and prime ministers.
When the tsunami hit, hundreds of thousands of people died within minutes. The Australians and Americans arrived within hours. The UN was unable to get to Banda Aceh within weeks.
Instead, the humanitarian fat cats were back in New York and Geneva holding press conferences warning about post-tsunami health consequences - dysentery, cholera, BSE from water-logged cattle, etc - that, they assured us, would kill as many people as the original disaster. But it never happened, any more than did their predictions of disaster for Iraq ("The head of the World Food Programme has warned that Iraq could spiral into a massive humanitarian disaster") or Afghanistan ("The UN Children's Fund has estimated that as many as 100,000 Afghan children could die of cold, disease and hunger").
It's one thing to invent humanitarian disasters to disparage Bush's unilateralist warmongering, but a month ago the UN was reduced to inventing a humanitarian disaster in order to distract attention from the existing humanitarian disaster it wasn't doing anything about.
All this derives from a UN culture in which the free nations have met the thug states so much more than half way that they now largely share the dictators' view of their peoples - as either helpless children who need every decision made for them, or a bunch of dupes whose national wealth you can reroute to your Swiss bank account, or a never-ending source of fresh meat. Those British officials trying to rationalise Oil-for-Fraud or child sex rings give the game away: it's not just the underage Congolese girls who get corrupted by contact with the UN.
-
From the WSJ Opinion Archives
THE REAL WORLD
Business as Usual
Corruption and conflicts of interest at the U.N. by CLAUDIA ROSETT
Thursday, October 27, 2005 12:01 A.M. EDT
Few outside U.N. circles have heard of IHC Services, a private company that for years was one of hundreds of firms selling goods and services to the U.N. As a rule, the U.N. keeps secret most details of these deals. But scandals involving IHC have begun lifting the lid on how the U.N. handles taxpayers' money.
The IHC story suggests that the U.N.'s failures of governance are not confined to such special projects as the Oil for Food program. If anything, Oil for Food looks more and more like a large outcropping of U.N. business as usual. And as with Oil for Food, which ran from December 1996 until the fall of Saddam in 2003, the timeline of IHC business with the U.N. starts in December 1996. That was the month before Kofi Annan took over as secretary-general, and it is on his watch that the IHC-U.N. tale has unfolded.
Headquartered on the sixth floor of a modest midtown Manhattan high-rise, with additional offices in Milan, IHC was, until this June, one of many companies approved by the U.N. as a registered vendor to its procurement division--which handles U.N. contracting for everything from office supplies to rations for peacekeeping troops. IHC signed some deals directly with the U.N., and on others served as a go-between for third-party contractors--despite the U.N.'s officially stated preference for avoiding middlemen.
Since the U.N. handles its contracts with secrecy, the full extent of IHC's involvement in U.N. business is hard to know. But from documents seen by this writer, the amounts around 1999 involved millions of dollars; a few years later they involved scores of millions; and in the past year or two--counting IHC business partnerships--the totals reached hundreds of millions.
IHC's CEO Ezio Testa, has denied any wrong-doing. But IHC's history includes hiring the son of a U.N. official who later (and unrelated to the hiring) pled guilty to corruption in federal court. In addition, a star U.N. diplomat served as chairman of the IHC board of directors while also holding a post as personal representative of the U.N. secretary-general. On top of that, IHC appears to have had access to valuable inside information on U.N. contract bids, which in at least one documented case it shared with a company involved in the bid.
Last year, information was bubbling around in unofficial quarters that something was amiss in the U.N. procurement department. Together with Fox News executive editor George Russell, I began looking into it. A name that came to our attention was Alexander Yakovlev, a Russian staffer in the procurement department. Imagine our surprise when Mr. Yakovlev was depicted in a Feb. 3 interim report from Paul Volcker's Oil for Food probe as a defender of integrity in the U.N. procurement department, where he'd handled Oil for Food inspection contracts.
Mr. Russell and I continued our reporting, and in early May--about the time the U.N. now says its own investigation into Oil for Food began--we contacted the U.N. procurement department with questions. On June 20, our story ran on Fox News, alleging that Mr. Yakovlev, while handling at least one IHC contract, had obtained a job with IHC for his son Dmitry, and providing details of a secret offshore company and bank account set up by Mr. Yakovlev and his wife. Two days later, Alexander Yakovlev had resigned, and the U.N. had suspended IHC from its vendor list. On Aug. 8, Mr. Volcker released a report that, as a sidenote to his Oil for Food investigation, alleged that Mr. Yakovlev had taken $950,000 in bribes on $79 million worth of U.N. contracts. Mr. Yakovlev was arrested, and in a Manhattan federal court pled guilty to conspiracy, wire fraud and money-laundering in relation to his U.N. procurement activities. That federal investigation has since gone on to indict the head of the U.N. budget oversight committee, Vladimir Kuznetsov, on allegations of money-laundering.
That was far from the end of the IHC trail. Last month, we obtained IHC corporate documents showing that one of the U.N.'s most prominent personalities, Giandomenico Picco--currently a special adviser to Mr. Annan--had served as a director of IHC in 1997 and then as chairman of the IHC board from 1998 until at least February 2000. Mr. Picco's initial career with the U.N. had spanned from 1973 to 1992, and at the time he joined IHC he was in private business, running a consulting firm, GDP Associates, in New York. But during his tenure as IHC chairman, he accepted an appointment from Kofi Annan in August 1999, to serve as a U.N. under-secretary and personal representative of the secretary-general for a globetrotting project called the Dialogue of Civilizations.
During the interval in which Mr. Picco was both an official U.N. representative for Mr. Annan and chairman of the IHC board--i.e., from August 1999 to February 2000--IHC signed one multimillion dollar deal to sell portable generators to the U.N. and brokered another to supply a hostel ship for peacekeeping troops in East Timor. Mr. Picco has said he resigned as IHC chairman before that, but IHC board minutes show him as chairing the company's annual meeting on Feb. 17, 2000.
It then came to light that IHC's CEO, Ezio Testa, had sent an email providing an inside tip on confidential U.N. bidding information to a corporate officer at another company, Cyprus-based Eurest Support Services (ESS). ESS was then bidding on the aforementioned contract--which it won--to supply $62 million worth of rations to U.N. peacekeepers. Altogether, ESS, which in 2004 announced a formal partnership with IHC, has in recent years won U.N. contracts that, with add-ons and options, total $351 million. ESS has now been suspended by the U.N., which is investigating the matter.
There's more. Corporate documents show that in June, just before the first wave of this scandal went public, IHC was quietly sold--in a move that raises questions about who really owned it. The buyer was a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, whose sole representative was listed in sale documents as Peter Harris--apparently an officer with ESS's parent company, the U.K.-based Compass Group, one of the world's largest catering companies. (Compass has announced it is suspending Mr. Harris and is investigating the matter.)
IHC's seller was even more intriguing. The sole shareholder was a Luxembourg-based company, Torno S.A.H. One of the two major shareholders in Torno, who voted by proxy in a Milan meeting on June 3 to approve the sale, was a Liechtenstein-based businessman, Engelbert Schreiber, Jr. A provider of financial and legal services, he, as recently as 2000, had professional dealings with Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, a naturalized Italian citizen and former honorary consul of Kuwait in Milan who in 2002 was listed on the U.N.'s roster of "individuals and entities belonging to or associated" with Al Qaeda.
What next might turn up in the IHC saga depends on a number of investigations. But in an era when many authorities are worried about the transit of millions across borders and the enforcement of good governance, it appears the U.N. has been serving as a bazaar in which corruption, conflicts of interest and shadowy financial networks have found ways to set up shop. Behind the maze, who was the real owner of IHC during its nine years of doing big business with the U.N.? The U.N. won't say, and quite possibly does not even know. Its policy, in fact, was not even to ask.
Ms. Rosett is a journalist-in-residence with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Her column appears here and in The Wall Street Journal Europe on alternate Wednesdays.
-
GM:
Please forgive me, but I have taken the liberty of renaming the thread. Of course I have no problem with the point you are making, but my intuitive sense is that the conversation here will be better this way.
TAC,
Marc
-
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,366319,00.html
UNICEF Partners With Islamic Charity Linked to Terror Groups
Thursday , June 19, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
An Islamic charity with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is now collaborating with an unlikely new partner: UNICEF, the United Nations’ Children’s Fund.
UNICEF has signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO), a Saudi charity of massive scope that keeps branches in more than 20 countries and has over 100 offices worldwide.
According to UNICEF, it will be teaming with the charity’s domestic Saudi branch to “promote children’s rights, health, equality and education,” in the oil-rich kingdom — but the organization has been doing more than just charity work.
The U.S. Treasury Department has designated the IIRO’s branches in the Philippines and Indonesia as terrorist entities for funding and supporting terrorist groups that have killed hundreds in East Asia. The Philippine branch was founded by Usama bin Laden’s brother-in-law, Muhammad Jamal Khalifah, and has long had ties to Al Qaeda.
The U.N. itself says that both the Indonesian and Philippine branches of IIRO are tied to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and has singled them out for an asset freeze, arms embargo and travel ban on members of the groups.
But that hasn’t stopped the U.N. from recognizing the Saudi office as a legitimate relief group, nor has it stopped UNICEF — or other U.N. agencies — from working with it in the past.
According to Chris de Bono, UNICEF’s chief of media, “UNICEF does not and will not engage with” the two East Asian branches. Its new partnership is with the main Saudi branch only, and UNICEF will coordinate relief primarily for children living within Saudi Arabia, de Bono said.
The U.S. government also noted the distinction between the head office and the international branches.
“We are monitoring the situation closely, but we also understand the difference between the IIRO main headquarters and its branches,” Carolyn Vadino, deputy spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., wrote in an e-mail to FOX News.
“It is the two branches in question that are designated and have ties to terrorists and at this time we have been assured that they are separate entities,” Vadino wrote.
But some critics are not convinced the distinction is so clear.
“We have to look a lot harder at whether or not an organization that’s headquartered in one country is really disconnected from operations which bear the same name in other countries and are referred to as branches,” said Anne Bayefsky, senior editor of Eye on the U.N., a watchdog group.
According to the Treasury Department, the head of the IIRO’s Eastern Province branch has been directly funding the two terror-tied branches — straight from his office in Saudi Arabia.
Abd Al Hamid Sulaiman Al-Mujil, who runs the Eastern Province branch, has been called the “million dollar man” for his support of Islamic militant groups, and the Treasury Department says he has provided donor funds directly to Al Qaeda.
According to UNICEF, there isn’t yet a financial relationship with the IIRO, but joint programs launched in the future could change that. That has some critics worried about a potential for money to make its way into the wrong hands.
“The risks involved in funding terror are sufficiently great that UNICEF officials and other U.N. officials who accredit this organization are called upon to assure themselves that there are no ties,” said Bayefsky.
The IIRO's Indonesia branch was discovered by FOX News to still be operating despite being on the U.N.’s own terror list. Questions to the Indonesian mission to the U.N. have gone unanswered.
And while UNICEF’s Gulf-area office vetted the Saudi charity’s domestic office in June, it would not confirm whether it had investigated the Eastern Province branch or its sources of financing.
Bayefsky told FOXNews.com that even such vetting might not be enough.
“One has to remind oneself over and over again that the United Nations has no definition of terrorism,” she said. “It’s very hard to investigate and object to links to terrorist groups when you don’t know what [terrorism] is."
-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/01/14/2009-01-14_unacceptable_censorship_the_united_natio.html
UN-acceptable censorship: The United Nations tries to outlaw criticism of Islam
By Floyd Abrams
Wednesday, January 14th 2009, 4:00 AM
Almost 500 years ago, on the wall of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses, characterizing as "madness" the notion that papal pardons could absolve individuals for their sins. As viewed from Rome, Luther had maligned, even defamed, the church. Luther was eventually excommunicated. His conduct ultimately led to the creation of a Protestant Church in Germany and a Reformation throughout Europe.
It is difficult to believe that in the 21st century anyone would seriously propose that conduct such as Luther's should be deemed illegal. But a few weeks ago, the General Assembly of the United Nations took a giant step in that direction. It adopted - for the fourth straight year - a resolution prepared by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference calling upon all UN nations to adopt legislation banning the "defamation" of religion. Spurred by the Danish cartoons of 2005, some of which portrayed the Prophet Muhammed in a manner deemed offensive by the OIC, the resolution was opposed by the United States, most European nations, Japan, India and a number of other nations.
Nonetheless, it has now been adopted.
From an American perspective, the resolution so plainly violates the First Amendment that it is not a close question. Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," which offended many Muslims, is protected here. So are movies such as Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," which offended many Jews, and "The Last Temptation of Christ," which offended many Christians. In 1940, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court observed that "in the realm of religious faith," despite "the probability of excesses and abuses," the liberty to speak out freely must be rigorously protected.
While relevant, the American experience is hardly the most relevant one. Far more telling is the distressing experience of nations that supported the OIC resolution. There was the student in one Islamic nation who was sentenced to death in January 2008 for distributing supposedly blasphemous material regarding the role of women in Islamic society. There was the teacher in another Islamic nation who was sentenced to jail for "insulting religion" after naming a class teddy bear "Mohammad" at the request of a 7-year-old with the same name. And there was the tragic case of the 22-year-old Hindu who, as reported by the European Centre for Law and Justice, was beaten to death by three of his fellow workers at a factory for allegedly committing blasphemy (a crime punishable by death); the workers were arrested and charged not with murder but with failing to inform the police that blasphemy was underway.
From the very first OIC resolution to the current one there has never been any ambiguity about its purpose: to intimidate those who might criticize Islam. As phrased in the original OIC resolution introduced by Pakistan in 1999, Islam was "frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism." But it is a fact that however one may debate about whether "Islam" bears any responsibility for acts of terrorism ranging from the murderous 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington to the more recent massacre in Mumbai, terrible acts of violence have been committed in the name of Islam. It is also the case that repeated human rights violations, including female genital mutilation, also have occurred in the name of Islam.
It is one thing to urge that all Muslims should not be criticized because of these acts. But the notion that it may or should be made a crime even to "associate" Islam with crimes too often committed in its name is inconsistent with any notion that both freedom of speech and religion should be protected. What cannot be even negotiable is the freedom, the unfettered freedom, to publish challenging books, movies and - yes - the Danish cartoons.
Abrams is a partner in the law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP and the honorary chair of the Coalition to Defend Free Speech, an organization that opposes limitations on "religious defamation."
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479940,00.html
============================
U.N. Agency That Runs School Hit in Gaza Employed Hamas and Islamic Jihad Members
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
By Joel Mowbray
E-Mail Print Share:
The United Nations agency that administers a school in Gaza where dozens of civilians were killed by Israeli mortar fire last week has admitted to employing terrorists to work at its Palestinian schools in the past, has no system in place to keep members of Hamas or Islamic Jihad off its payroll, and provides textbooks to children that contain hate speech and other incendiary information.
A growing chorus of critics has taken aim at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in recent years, although momentum on Capitol Hill has been slow. But last week's incident, which Israel maintains was prompted by Hamas operatives firing mortars at Israelis from a location near the school, has prompted some lawmakers to scrutinize the U.N. agency.
Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J., introduced a resolution in the fall calling for greater transparency and accountability at UNRWA. The bill called on the agency to make its textbooks available on the Internet for public inspection and to implement "terrorist name recognition software and other screening procedures that would help to ensure that UNRWA staff, volunteers, and beneficiaries are neither terrorists themselves, nor affiliated with known terrorist organizations."
Rothman said he plans to re-introduce his UNRWA resolution in the coming weeks because, "as timely as this bill was before, it is even more timely now. It is urgent that Congress can be assured that U.S. taxpayer money is not being spent to support Hamas and its murderous activities."
A spokesman for UNRWA adamantly said that the agency is now free of terrorist connections. "We're composed of social workers and teachers," the official explained. "We take every step possible to have only civilians inside UNRWA facilities."
But the U.N. Personal History form for UNRWA employees does not ask whether someone is a member of, or affiliated with, a terrorist organization such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. And there is no formal screening to ensure that employees are not affiliated with terrorist entities.
Asked about this, the UNRWA spokesman replied, "Palestinian staff sign an undertaking confirming that they have no political affiliations whatsoever, and have not and will not participate in any activities that would violate the neutrality of the U.N."
There is no formal enforcement, however, to monitor possible terrorist activities by employees after they sign the pledge at the time of hiring.
UNRWA official Chris Guinness told the Jerusalem Post this week that the agency screens names of new employees against the relatively small U.N. database of Taliban and Al Qaeda figures. Extremist Palestinians, however, are far more likely to belong to organizations, such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, that are not on that watch list.
In 2004, former UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter Hansen told the Canadian Broadcasting Company, "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime." He added, "We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another."
There have been several high-profile examples of terrorists being employed by UNRWA. Former top Islamic Jihad rocket maker Awad Al-Qiq, who was killed in an Israeli air strike last May, was the headmaster and science instructor at an UNRWA school in Rafah, Gaza. Said Siyam, Hamas' interior minister and head of the Executive Force, was a teacher for over two decades in UNRWA schools.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill say they are also concerned that terrorist propaganda is being taught in UNRWA schools. A notebook captured by Israeli officials at the UNRWA school in the Kalandia refugee camp several years ago glorified homicide bombers and other terrorists. Called "The Star Team," it profiled so-called "martyrs," Palestinians who had died either in homicide bombings or during armed struggle with Israel. On the book's back cover was printed the UNRWA emblem, as well as a photo of a masked gunman taking aim while on one knee.
There is evidence that students educated in UNRWA schools are much more likely to become homicide bombers, said Jonathan Halevi, a former Israeli Defense Forces intelligence officer who specializes in Palestinian terrorist organizations. Halevi has spent several years building an extensive database for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs of terrorist attacks by Hamas and other Islamic extremist groups.
Though he cautioned that estimates are tricky because the identity of an attacker is not always made public, Halevi estimated that over 60 percent of homicide bombers were educated in UNRWA schools. By comparison, roughly 25-30 percent of Palestinian students in the West Bank, the origin of almost all homicide bombers since the start of the intifada in 2000, attend UNRWA schools, according to the agency's figures.
A UNRWA spokesman strongly disputed any connection between the agency's schools and a greater likelihood of terrorist activity later in life. As proof, he pointed to UNRWA's "special efforts in our schools to teach tolerance, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution."
UNRWA sent an eight-page brochure to FOXNews.com that speaks about the group's tolerance, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution curriculum. But it makes no mention of tolerance toward Jews or Christians or of peaceful coexistence with Israel. Rather, it is geared toward student interaction, the rights students should expect in society, and learning to express emotions through acting, painting, and storytelling.
-
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...N-UN-Islam.php
GENEVA: Islamic countries pushed through a resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday urging a global prohibition on the public defamation of religion — a response largely to the furor last year over caricatures published in a Danish newspaper of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad.
The statement proposed by the Organization of Islamic Conference addressed what it called a "campaign" against Muslim minorities and the Islamic religion around the world since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.
The resolution, which was opposed by European and a number of other non-Muslim countries, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."
It makes no mention of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism or any other religion besides Islam, but urges countries "to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence."
Iran, whose President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," belongs to the 57-member Islamic conference.
The resolution was adopted by a 24-14 vote with nine abstentions. Canada, Japan and South Korea joined European countries in opposition, primarily citing its excessive focus on Islam and incompatibility with fundamental rights such as the freedoms of speech and thought.
"The problem of religious intolerance is worldwide and not limited to certain religions," said Brigitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany," speaking on behalf of the 27-nation European Union. Ghana, India, Nigeria, Zambia and some of the council's Latin American countries abstained.
There are 17 Muslim countries in the 47-nation human rights council. Their alliance with China, Cuba, Russia and most of the African members means they can almost always achieve a majority.
Human Rights Watch said the resolution could endanger the basic rights of individuals. The document "focuses on protection of religions themselves, particularly Islam, rather than the rights of individuals, including members of religious minorities," the New York-based rights group said in a statement. The resolution says freedom of expression "may ... be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others ... or morals and respect for religions and beliefs."
The council, which last year replaced the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission, has no power beyond drawing international attention to rights issues and scrutiny of abuses in certain countries.
The move at the council was initiated last year after protests across the Islamic world drew attention to caricatures of Muhammad first printed in Danish paper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. One of the drawings showed Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. Islamic law is often interpreted to forbid any depiction of the prophet for fear it could lead to idolatry.
-
The UN is occasionally cited around here as an authority regarding this topic or that. In view of it's systematic failure across broad categories, including the latest human rights conference examined in this piece, I'm astounded some still accept the UN as a credible source.
June 10, 2009
Durban II: Lessons for U.S. Engagement with the U.N. on Human Rights
by Brett D. Schaefer and Steven Groves
Backgrounder #2284
The 2009 Durban Review Conference (commonly referred to as Durban II) was the follow-up to the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa. The 2001 conference was hijacked by nations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that used it as a platform to criticize Israel and the United States. After trying unsuccessfully to counter those efforts, the U.S. delegation walked out of the 2001 conference.
Durban II was eerily similar to the 2001 conference on a number of levels. As in 2001, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), composed of 57 countries hostile to Israel and generally unobservant of their own citizens' fundamental civil and political rights, sought to twist the conference to serve their agenda. Specifically, they sought to include in the Durban II outcome document discriminatory references to Israel and statements supporting efforts to constrain freedom of speech and expression to prevent the "defamation of religions."
The Obama Administration determined that these and other passages in the draft outcome document were too objectionable to justify America's participation in Durban II and announced that the U.S. would boycott the conference. Last-minute changes failed to resolve U.S. objections fully, and the Obama Administration walked away from the conference as the Bush Administration did in 2001.
In the end, Durban II did very little to advance efforts to combat racism. It echoed the first conference by providing a platform for repugnant statements that ran counter to its very purpose. Both conferences saw abhorrent presentations, by Yasir Arafat in 2001 and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009, attacking Israel as a racist, cruel regime guilty of committing atrocities against the Palestinians. While NGOs were largely restrained in their actions in 2009, they were complicit in the anti-Israel efforts in 2001, stating in their conference declaration that Israel is an "Apartheid regime" engaged in "institutionalized racism."[1]
Aside from unjustly singling out Israel and providing a global platform for racist comments by representatives of Iran and other countries, the 2009 Durban Review Conference outcome document actually endorses constraints on fundamental rights to freedom of opinion, expression, and assembly to prevent "defamation of religion." While the Durban II outcome document is nonbinding, it will be referenced repeatedly in future U.N. documents, and various human rights treaty bodies will cite it as a definitive interpretation of the will of the international community. Regrettably, it sets the stage for a retreat from, rather than an advancement of, human rights.
The Durban II conference is a testament to a fundamental problem of U.N. conferences and other U.N. efforts to advance human rights. The U.N.'s universal membership allows the countries that are most opposed to advancing human rights to blunt and undermine the agendas of U.N. conferences and councils. This results in an institutional adherence to moral equivalence, which elevates and empowers the world's worst human-rights abusers by treating them as morally equivalent to countries that truly observe and value human rights. At best, the outcome is disappointing, and it is more likely harmful to the advancement of human rights around the world.
The experience of Durban II should lead the Obama Administration to revaluate its default position of supporting and participating in U.N. conferences and bodies, such as the U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.S. presence lends undeserved legitimacy to their often destructive efforts by allowing them to claim that their efforts reflect the will of the international community.
The Path to Durban II: Ample Warning Signs
The 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, became a platform for nations and NGOs to criticize Israel and the United States. After trying unsuccessfully to counter those efforts, the U.S. delegation walked out of the conference at the direction of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.[2]
To the disappointment of many, Durban II followed in the footsteps of the 2001 conference. The U.N. Human Rights Council was appointed the Preparatory Committee for Durban II--a puzzling decision considering the council's decidedly biased record against Israel and the role that anti-Israel sentiment played in undermining the 2001 conference.[3]
The council elected Libya as chair of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, which sets the agenda and objectives for the Review Conference, and elected Iran as one of the 19 vice-chairs. Both countries are members and strong supporters of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, which has historically been hostile to Israel. Libya is also a member of the League of Arab States, which has called for the elimination of "Zionism" in its Arab Charter on Human Rights. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has infamously stated that Israel "must be wiped off the map" and that "Zionists are the true manifestation of Satan."[4]
Unsurprisingly, the early drafts of the outcome document for Durban II singled out Israel through a number of biased references to Israel's alleged mistreatment of Palestinians. For example, an early draft text:
Expresse[d] deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return.[5]
In addition to the biased focus on Israel, the early drafts contained numerous troubling statements supporting efforts to constrain freedom of speech and expression to prevent "defamation of religions." For example, the draft text claimed:
[A] most disturbing phenomenon is the intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia.... [W]hen it is expressed in the form of defamation of religions, it takes cover behind the freedom of expression.... [A]ssociation of terrorism and violence with Islam or any other religion, including through publication of offensive caricatures and making of hate documentaries, would purposely complicate our common endeavours to address several contemporary issues, including the fight against terrorism and the occupation of foreign territories and peoples.[6]
The proponents of defamation-of-religions laws desire to restrict such speech in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Yet in the United States, controversial cartoons and films, however repugnant to adherents of a particular religion, are protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[7]
Faced with the question of whether or not to continue the Bush Administration's policy of boycotting Durban II, the Obama Administration sent a delegation to the February 2009 preparatory meetings on the draft outcome document. It announced that, pending progress on addressing problems with the text, the U.S. would consider attending Durban II in April 2009. However, after participating in the February meetings, the Obama Administration concluded:
[T]he document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable. As a result, the United States will not engage in further negotiations on this text, nor will we participate in a conference based on this text. A conference based on this text would be a missed opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent problem of racism.[8]
The Administration said it would participate in the April 2009 Durban II conference only if the outcome document was "shortened and [did] not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action" (DDPA); did not "single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of 'defamation of religion'"; and did "not go further than the DDPA on the issue of reparations for slavery."[9]
Shortly after the U.S. announcement, Italy similarly decided not to attend and other European counties were rumored to be considering skipping the conference. (Canada and Israel had already announced their boycott months earlier.) To avoid a broader boycott by Western countries, the OIC and other countries pressing for the more objectionable parts of the declaration relented and agreed to remove overt references to "defamation of religions," Israel, and reparations. However, they did not remove the unqualified endorsement of the 2001 Durban Declaration, which contains provisions with which the U.S. strongly disagrees, including negative references to Israel.
With its conditions not fully met, the U.S. announced on the eve of the conference its final decision that it would not attend Durban II, noting that the draft outcome document "still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action...which the United States has long said it is unable to support [and] singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians." The U.S. also stated that it "has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding 'incitement,' that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech."[10]
The Durban II Debacle
The conference proceedings on April 20-24 confirmed the wisdom of the U.S. decision to boycott. The first country representative to speak on racism was Iranian President Ahmadinejad, the world's most prominent Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Seemingly unfazed by two young men wearing rainbow-striped clown wigs who rushed the podium, Ahmadinejad unleashed attacks on Europe and the U.S. for slavery and oppression and for using the U.N. Security Council as a means for imposing racism and "discrimination, injustice, violation of human rights and belittling the majority of nations and countries."
Ahmadinejad questioned the Holocaust overtly in his prepared remarks and implicitly in his speech by referring to the "pretext of Jewish suffering." He accused the U.S. and Europe of establishing a "most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine" and of continuing to support Israel while it commits "atrocities," "brutality," and even "genocide" against the Palestinians. He called on the international community to combat Zionism, calling it "a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity at the beginning of the third millennium. World Zionism personifies a racism that falsely resorts to religion, and abuses religious sentiment, to hide its hatred and ugly face."[11]
All European delegates present walked out in the middle of the speech when Ahmadinejad made his anti-Semitic remarks.[12] The Czech Republic announced that it would not return to the conference because of the comments. Immediately following the speech, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre declared that Iran was making itself the "the odd man out."[13] U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay similarly criticized the speech:
I utterly deplore the speech of the President of Iran delivered this afternoon at the Durban Review Conference against racism.... Much of his speech was clearly beyond the scope of the Conference. It also clearly went against the long-standing U.N. position adopted by the General Assembly with respect to equating Zionism with racism.[14]
Ahmadinejad was not the only outrageous speaker at Durban II. While not as bombastic as Ahmadinejad and eschewing the term "Zionist," other delegates echoed his sentiments at the podium:
The Palestinian representative attacked Israel as a racist state that violates international humanitarian law and human rights law, calling its occupation of Palestinian territories the "worst violation of human rights and the ugliest face of racism and discrimination."[15]
Syria included "foreign occupation" (an oblique accusatory reference to Israel) among the primary reasons for holding the Durban II conference, ranking it above racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. The Syrian representative recited a litany of alleged crimes perpetrated by Israel, including the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and throwing them "into the sea."[16]
Cubalaunched an attack on Western countries for the transatlantic slave trade and colonialism and demanded that Western countries provide reparation and compensation for those acts. Cuba went on to state that racism and racial discrimination "has a greater impact and impunity in the countries from the rich and industrialized North." After the obligatory attack on Israel as an "occupying power that does not recognize the limits of justice, moral, or the international law," the Cuban delegate reached back to the 1970s for a solution to racism and inequality, calling for a "new international economic order...based on equality, solidarity, and social justice."[17]
Sudan--the regime that has committed massive human rights atrocities in Darfur that rise to the level of genocide in some people's judgment-- implausibly claimed that Sudan opposes all forms of racism and discrimination, rejected accusations of continued slavery in Sudan, and accused Israel of conducting a racist military campaign in Gaza.[18]
During the week, Durban II provided a forum for such human rights luminaries as Belarus, China, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe to profess their "dedication" and "commitment" to fundamental human rights and to combating racism while congratulating each other on their "contributions" to the Durban II process.[19]
To stanch the embarrassing news coverage following Ahmadinejad's speech and to preclude additional boycotts, the attending countries agreed, in an unusual move, to adopt the outcome document on the second day of the five-day conference. Thus, the Durban II conference achieved its primary purpose--agreement on the text of an outcome document--on Tuesday. Speeches by governments, U.N. human rights experts, NGOs, and other groups continued for three more days to no real purpose, giving their input for a document that had already been signed.
-
Unworthy of U.S. Support
In their speeches during the conference, U.N. officials, country delegates, and human rights groups repeatedly chastised the 10 countries that chose to boycott Durban II.[20] The final Durban II outcome document was hailed by its supporters as a triumph of compromise that, unlike earlier drafts, did not disparage Israel or undermine fundamental human rights. Boycotting nations were accused of being stubborn in failing to recognize the significance of the diplomatic achievement of the outcome document.
While the final document was relatively better than earlier drafts, it was improved only because the U.S. and other countries announced their intention to boycott unless the document was fundamentally changed. However, even the improved document does not merit U.S. support because it makes significant references--overt and implicit--that run counter to U.S. policy regarding Israel and the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and assembly.
On the matter of Israel, the first paragraph of the Durban II outcome document reaffirms without reservation the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action.[21] Under a section titled "Victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance," the DDPA states: "We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation."[22] The DDPA's direct implication that Palestinians were victims of Israeli racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, or related intolerance was a key reason that the Obama Administration included support for that document in toto as one of the redlines that, if crossed, would lead it to boycott Durban II.
While specific references to combating "defamation of religions," which would have serious implications for freedom of speech and expression, were removed from the Durban II outcome document, at least six paragraphs in the final outcome document call for constraints on the freedoms of speech and assembly:[23]
Paragraph 13 states that "all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared an offence punishable by law."
Paragraph 39 "rges States parties to the [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)] to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations." This provision is unacceptable because U.S. reservations to ICERD relate to protecting the free speech rights of Americans, which would have been abridged if the treaty had been ratified without reservation.
Paragraph 60 "rges States to punish violent, racist and xenophobic activities by groups that are based on neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and other violent national ideologies."
Paragraph 68 "[e]xpresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources."
Paragraph 69 "[r]esolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR [International Convention on Civil and Political Rights], fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures." This is a serious matter because Article 20 instructs parties to constrain freedom of opinion and expression to prohibit "[a]ny propaganda for war" and "[a]ny advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."[24] When it ratified the ICCPR, the U.S. made a specific reservation limiting Article 20 based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression.
Paragraph 99 "[c]alls upon States...to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form."
No reasonable person wishes to be in the position of defending ignorant, intolerant, or racist speech or any individuals endorsing such sentiments. Yet freedom of speech and assembly mean very little unless they apply equally to everyone, even hate groups that are political or social pariahs. Noncontroversial ideas or organizations do not need to fear constraints on the rights to freedom of speech and assembly. A society's true adherence to these rights is measured by the extent to which highly objectionable ideas and organizations are afforded protection.
For this reason, America's Founding Fathers included such protections in the Bill of Rights. The U.S. worked hard to ensure that they remained protected and affirmed in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the U.S. has insisted on expressing reservations in any treaty that would infringe these rights.
In the closing moments of Durban II, Pillay expressed her hope that the nations boycotting Durban II would eventually endorse the outcome document.[25] The U.S. should ignore this request. While the Durban II outcome document is nonbinding, it will be referenced repeatedly in future U.N. documents, and various U.N. treaty bodies will cite it as a definitive interpretation of the will and consensus of the international community. Regrettably, it sets the stage for a retreat on human rights rather than for advancing those standards. Endorsing the outcome document would serve neither U.S. interests nor international efforts to advance fundamental human rights and combat racism.
A Triumph of Disengagement
There is ample blame to go around for the embarrassment that was Durban II. Following the 2001 racism conference, the late Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) observed:
To many of us present at the events at Durban, it is clear that much of the responsibility for the debacle rests on the shoulders of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, who, in her role as secretary-general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track. It must be added that the Bush administration also shares some responsibility for the meltdown. Six months of unilateralist foreign policies had created such a climate of hostility and mistrust toward the United States that marshaling support among our allies to prevent the conference from being taken over and abused became an almost impossible mission. The majority of blame for the failure of Durban, however, must be laid at the feet of several members of [the] Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). These regimes, some U.S. allies, proved unwilling to yield in their campaign to scuttle the noble agenda of the conference and to turn it into a forum to shun, isolate and de-legitimize Israel, America's key democratic ally in the Middle East.[26]
Lantos concluded that the debacle occurred because the U.S. was not sufficiently engaged in the process. This is a common refrain and was often heard at Durban II. For instance, while High Commissioner Pillay criticized Ahmadinejad's racist speech, she simultaneously criticized the boycotting states for abandoning the conference to him and his allies: "The best riposte for this type of event is to reply and correct, not to withdraw and boycott the Conference."[27] Other country representatives continually voiced similar entreaties for boycotting countries to return to the conference.
But to what purpose? The writing was on the wall well before Ahmadinejad's speech at the opening of the conference. The Durban II draft outcome document contained provisions that denigrated Israel and were hostile to the freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly. Attempts to remove objectionable provisions in the final days before the conference failed, and it is highly unlikely that they would have been fixed even if the U.S. and other countries had attended. The best outcome the U.S. and other states could have hoped for was to prevent further deterioration of the outcome document. Since the draft was unworthy of endorsement, the situation amply justified abandoning the conference. The Obama Administration rightly concluded that the process was beyond redemption.
The time to fix the Durban II outcome document was in the early stages. Critics of the Bush Administration's decision to skip the early negotiations over Durban II argue that stronger U.S. participation could have salvaged the conference. This is unlikely. The Obama Administration, bolstered by a vastly higher level of goodwill among other delegates than the Bush Administration enjoyed, was unable to salvage the document during the negotiations in February 2009. Similarly, repeated efforts by many other Western countries to amend the document to address their concerns were rebuffed by OIC members and other nations with highly questionable human rights records. If High Commissioner Pillay had been more forceful in trying to excise these problematic passages from the draft document in the preparatory meetings instead of publicly defending the flawed process and lashing out at those who criticized Durban II, she might have helped to secure the changes that would have led the boycotting countries to change their minds.
Ironically, only the U.S. decision to announce its likely boycott of the conference succeeded in changing the draft outcome document in a positive way-- albeit not as much as the U.S. wished. This might be called a triumph of disengagement. If the U.S. and other countries had not decided to boycott unless specific redlines were met, the draft outcome document almost certainly would not have been changed.
Indeed, even agreeing to participate in the conference after the draft document was changed would have been counterproductive because it would have legitimized a flawed process and signaled that the U.S. will settle for less than it says it will in future forums. Worse, nothing would have prevented the OIC and others from amending the document during the conference to reinsert the objectionable provisions. Once locked into the conference, the European countries would likely not have rejected the outcome document even if the objectionable provisions were included. This conclusion is bolstered by the experience of the 2001 conference, from which only the U.S. and Israel walked out, and by continued European participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council despite its biased mistreatment of Israel and willful refusal to confront dire human rights problems around the world.
In the end, the fear that more countries might walk out forced U.N. officials and the nations in charge of the conference proceedings--specifically, Pillay and the countries serving on the Main Committee--to adopt the outcome document prematurely. Indeed, as conference president Amos Wako of Kenya hailed the final outcome document as a triumph of engagement, he refused to recognize Libya's boisterous effort to be recognized and, purportedly, express its desire that the outcome document include more condemnatory language on Israel.
What the U.S. Should Do
The Durban II experience should serve as a valuable lesson that criticism of the Bush Administration's alleged lack of commitment to multilateral negotiations was often off-target. Multilateralism is only a means to an end, and participation in multilateral negotiations is no guarantee of beneficent outcomes. On the contrary, sometimes U.S. participation only lends credibility to a process that deserves none.
This lesson applies both to Durban II and to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which oversaw the Durban II debacle. Consequently, the U.S. should:
Refuse to endorse the Durban II outcome document. In the closing moments of Durban II, High Commissioner Pillay expressed her hope that the nations boycotting the conference would eventually endorse the outcome document. Germany has already done so.[28] The document is unworthy of support, and the U.S. should not lend the outcome document the legitimacy that a U.S. endorsement would convey. While the Durban II outcome document is nonbinding, it will be referenced in future U.N. documents, and various U.N. treaty bodies will cite it as a definitive interpretation of the will and consensus of the international community. Endorsing the outcome document would serve neither U.S. interests nor international efforts to advance fundamental human rights.
Reevaluate America's default position of supporting and participating in U.N. conferences and bodies. The U.S. presence lends undeserved legitimacy to the often destructive efforts of U.N. conferences such as Durban I and Durban II and human rights bodies such as the Human Rights Council by allowing them to claim that they reflect the will of the international community. The Obama Administration should heed the lessons of Durban II and participate in a U.N. conference only if the outcome is likely to support U.S. interests and America's commitment to basic civil and political rights and fundamental freedoms. If a conference appears to undermine those principles, the Administration and Congress should work together to oppose funding for such conferences through the U.N. regular budget as the Bush Administration attempted with Durban II.[29] Similarly, Congress should withhold the U.S. portion of the cost of such conferences from its appropriation for the U.N. regular budget.
Press for serious reform of the Human Rights Council in the 2011 review. Although the U.S. won a seat on the council and will soon participate fully in its deliberations, the U.S. presence is unlikely to improve the effectiveness of the council significantly.[30] In the upcoming review of the council, which must occur before April 2011, the Obama Administration should press for adoption of serious membership criteria and other reforms.[31] To spur reforms, Congress should withhold the equivalent of the U.S. share of the council's budget from its appropriation for the U.N. regular budget until the General Assembly adopts and implements more stringent membership criteria.
Conclusion
The Durban II failure is a testament to the fundamental problem of permitting the United Nations to take the lead on human rights issues. The U.N.'s universal membership and institutional adherence to moral equivalence lead to a situation in which the "inmates run the asylum." It elevates and empowers the world's worst human rights abusers by treating them the same as it treats countries that actually promote and protect basic human rights and fundamental freedoms. It gives them a global stage to voice their lies and hypocrisies as they mock the process and debase the debate.
-
The lessons of the past 60 years amply demonstrate the limitations of working through the U.N. to advance human rights. In the end, perhaps the best the U.S. can hope for in these venues is to maintain the disappointing status quo, confirming already existing standards and human rights principles. Far more likely, regrettably, is an outcome that actually retreats from existing principles and harms the advancement of human rights around the world.
If the Human Rights Council proves immune to serious reform, the U.S. should work with countries that are genuinely interested in advancing fundamental human rights to establish an alternative human rights forum independent of the U.N. and the institutional constraints that impede its efforts in advancing this noble cause.[32]
Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs and Steven Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]"NGO Forum Declaration," World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, September 3, 2001, para. 420, at http://www.i-p-o.org/racism-ngo-decl.htm (June 3, 2009).
[2]Colin L. Powell, "World Conference Against Racism," U.S. Department of State, September 3, 2001, at http://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/
former/powell/remarks/2001/4789.htm (March 4, 2009).
[3]See Brett D. Schaefer, "The U.S. Is Right to Shun the U.N. Human Rights Council," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1910, May 2, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm1910.cfm.
[4]Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "The World Without Zionism," speech to the Islamic Student Associations conference, Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2005, at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?_r=2 (March 4, 2009), and "Ahmadinejad in Sudan: 'Zionists Are the True Manifestation of Satan,'" Haaretz (Tel Aviv), March 1, 2007, at http://www.haaretz
.com/hasen/spages/832229.html (March 4, 2009).
[5]Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Intersessional Open-Ended Working Group, "Revised Version of the Technically Reviewed Text," A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2, Preparatory Committee for Durban II, January 23, 2009, p. 9, at http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments
/documents/7376_Durban_doc_1-28-09.pdf (March 4, 2009). This document reflects the status of negotiations in the working group as of January 23, 2009.
[6]Ibid., pp. 13-14.
[7]Steven Groves, "Why the U.S. Should Oppose 'Defamation of Religions' Resolutions at the United Nations," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2206, November 10, 2008, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/
LegalIssues/bg2206.cfm.
[8]Press release, "U.S. Posture Toward the Durban Review Conference and Participation in the UN Human Rights Council," U.S. Department of State, February 27, 2009, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/02/
119892.htm (June 1, 2009).
[9]Ibid.
[10]Press release, "Durban Review Conference," U.S. Department of State, April 18, 2009, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/04/121876.htm (June 1, 2009).
[11]The prepared remarks differed slightly from the delivered remarks. For a transcript of President Ahmadinejad's remarks as delivered, see Jeremy R. Hammond, "Full Text of President Ahmadinejad's Remarks at U.N. Conference on Racism," Foreign Policy Journal, April 21, 2009, at http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/04/21/full-text-of-president
-ahmadinejads-remarks-at-un-conference-on-racism (June 1, 2009). For a news story on the changes between the delivered and prepared texts, see Bradley S. Klapper and Alexander G. Higgins, "Ahmadinejad Dropped Holocaust Denial from Speech: UN Says Iranian President Dropped Holocaust Denial Reference from UN Speech," ABC News, April 21, 2009, at http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=7386880 (June 1, 2009).
[12]Frank Jordans, "Iran Leader Sparks Walkout at UN over Israel: Iran's President Slams Israel, Sparks Western Walkout, Clown Protest at UN Conference," ABC News, April 20, 2009, at http://abcnews.go.com/
International/wireStory?id=7376946 (June 1, 2009).
[13]Jonas Gahr Støre, "Norwegian Statement," Durban Review Conference, April 20, 2009, at http://www.norway.org.sg/policy/organizations/Durban
+Review+Conference.htm (June 1, 2009).
[14]Navanethem Pillay, statement on speech by President of Iran at Durban Review Conference, April 20, 2009, at http://www.un.org/durbanreview
2009/stmt20-04-09_iran_pillay.shtml (June 1, 2009).
[15]Riyad Al-Maliki, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Statement by Representative of Palestinian Authority, April 21, 2009, Webcast, at http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/conferences/DurbanConference
/2009/durban090421am-eng.rm?start=00:40:20&end=00:55:35 (June 1, 2009).
[16]Faysal Mekdad, statement by Syrian Arab Republic, Durban Review Conference, April 21, 2009, Webcast, at http://webcast.un.org/
ramgen/ondemand/conferences/DurbanConference/2009/durban090421
am-eng.rm?start=01:47:59&end=01:59:23 (June 1, 2009).
[17]Rafael Bernal Alemany, statement by Cuba, Durban Review Conference, April 21, 2009, Webcast, at http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand
/conferences/DurbanConference/2009/durban090421pm1-eng.rm
?start=01:43:49&end=01:54:14 (June 1, 2009).
[18]Abdel Daiem Zumrawi, statement by Sudan, Durban Review Conference, April 21, 2009, webcast, at http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/
conferences/DurbanConference/2009/durban090421pm1
-eng.rm?start=02:21:43&end=02:34:39 (June 1, 2009).
[19]For respective statements of these countries, see Durban Review Conference, archived Webcasts, April 20-24, 2009, at http://un.org/
webcast/durbanreview/archive.asp (June 1, 2009).
[20]Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States.
[21]Durban Review Conference, "Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference," April 20-24, 2009, at http://www.un.org/durbanreview
2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf (June 1, 2009).
[22]World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, "Declaration," 2001, pp. 9 and 13, at http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/Durban.pdf (June 1, 2009).
[23]Durban Review Conference, "Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference" (emphasis omitted).
[24]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 20, at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm (June 2, 2009).
[25]During her closing press conference for Durban II, Pillay stated that "some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree [to] the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed [to] this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document." Navi Pillay, opening remarks at closing press conference, Durban Review Conference, April 24, 2009, at http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/stmt24-04-09_pillay.shtml (June 1, 2009).
[26]Tom Lantos, "The Durban Debacle: An Insider's View of the UN World Conference Against Racism," The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Winter/Spring 2002), p. 32, at http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/archives
/pdfs/26-1pdfs/Lantos9.pdf (June 1, 2009).
[27]Pillay, statement on speech by President of Iran at Durban Review Conference.
[28]See Anne Bayefsky, "German Double Cross on Durban II," EYE on the UN Alert: Durban Watch, May 14, 2009, at http://www.eyeontheun.org/durban
.asp?p=829 (June 1, 2009).
[29]Mark Wallace, "Explanation of Vote by Ambassador Mark Wallace, United States Ambassador for Management Reform, on Agenda Item 128: Questions Relating to the Proposed Program Budget for the Biennium 2008-2009, in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly," U.S. Mission to the United Nations, December 22, 2007, at http://www.usunnewyork
.usmission.gov/press_releases/20071222_387.html (June 1, 2009).
[30]Brett D. Schaefer , "The Obama Administration Will Not Make the U.N. Human Rights Council Effective," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2432, May 11, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/International
Organizations/wm2432.cfm.
[31]For detailed recommendations, see Brett D. Schaefer, "U.N. Human Rights Council Whitewash Argues Against U.S. Participation," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2255, April 2, 2009, at http://www.
heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2255.cfm.
[32]Kim R. Holmes, Liberty's Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation, 2008), p. 122.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg2284.cfm
-
Cognitive dissonance's acme displayed:
This Is Not from The Onion, but the UN
Posted by Juan Carlos Hidalgo
“Cuba recognized in the UN Human Rights Council”
The HRC’s press release states that:
Cuba had withstood many tests, and continued to uphold the principles of objectivity, impartiality and independence in pursuance of the realisation of human rights. Cuba was and remained a good example of the respect for human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights. The Universal Periodic Review of Cuba clearly reflected the progress made by Cuba and the Cuban people in the protection and promotion of human rights, and showed the constructive and responsive answer of Cuba to the situation of human rights. Cuba was the victim of an unjust embargo, but despite this obstacle, it was very active in the field of human rights.
Juan Carlos Hidalgo • June 11, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/06/11/this-is-not-from-the-onion-but-the-un/
-
I can't find any information on "Chairs" of the UN security council though Presidents of the security council are picked each month from the existing members (temporary and permanent) in English alphabetical order.
Yet I can't find anything on "chair".
What is the rest of the story here?
One has to ask why he is so enthralled with the UN and why so many from there love him.
It can't be good for the US. To me this guy is absolutely resolute in making us a third rate nation.
There should be no countries. Just one government of mankind with Obama as head of the world.
Megalomania to me. I don't know. This guy is nuts to me. I feel sorry for future generations of America.
***Obama First US President to Chair UN Security Council Obama First US President to Chair UN Security Council
September 9, 2009
(ChattahBox)—President Barack Obama will make history later this month when he takes the head seat at the table of the United Nations 15-member Security Council. Amazingly, President Obama will become the first United States president to chair the important international council, which deals with issues of global security, including nuclear disarmament.
President Obama’s direct involvement with the important work of the United Nations marks a distinctly different approach from former President Bush, whose unilateral foreign policy and bullying of its world partners frequently led to the isolation of the United States from the rest of the global community.
The Bush administration’s disdain for the UN came to the forefront during its rush to make the case of the existence of WMD’s in Iraq. “If we need to act, we will act. And we really don’t need United Nations approval to do so,” Bush said in 2003 before invading Iraq.
President Obama plans to join other heads of state in New York later this month for the 64th session of the UN General Assembly when the nuclear summit will be held.
Many vital issues will arise during the UN session, including a climate change debate that will set the stage for the upcoming global climate talks in Copenhagen at the end of the year. There are also the concerns with Iran’s nuclear program, which will be on the agenda during the Security Council meeting.
President Obama issued a September deadline to Iran reply to a negotiation offer, but Iran’s president recently announced that the subject of its nuclear programs would not be part of any discussions.
On the Middle East front, President Obama may host a meeting between Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas to set perimeters for a possible future peace deal between the warring nations.
Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is also attending and speaking during the UN session, where he is expected to receive a cool reception in light of the recent public outrage over the hero’s welcome given to released Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.***
-
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...7/043ytrhc.asp
You Can't Say That
At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
by Anne Bayefsky
10/05/2009 12:00:00 AM
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president's penchant for "engagement" as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America's most treasured freedom.
For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the "reformed" Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN's lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an "abuse . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination."
The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression. Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1--adopted by consensus the following day--the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:
"The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased--for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused," insisting on limits consistent with the "true nature of this right" and demanding that the "the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner."
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it. Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution's adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that "human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions." The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that "the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media" goes "well beyond" existing international law and "the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms."
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."
The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.
-
Shoulder to shoulder to shoulder, pictured as they stood up to Iran, Sarkozy with the youthful glibness and dead-man-walking Gordon Brown... missing were Putin and Hu. We are not part of a united nations whether keep holding meetings and photo-ops, passing resolutions or not.
-
"The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. "
Unless of course it is HIS Speech. We didn't elect a President of the United States. We have elected a megalomaniac.
I guess George Will was not persauded merely by HIS presence at his house for dinner what seems like many moons ago:
***An Olympic Ego Trip
By George Will
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In the Niagara of words spoken and written about the Obamas' trip to Copenhagen, too few have been devoted to the words they spoke there. Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.
Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about . . . themselves. Although the working of the committee's mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago's bid for the 2016 Games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.
In the 41 sentences of her remarks, Michelle Obama used some form of the personal pronouns "I" or "me" 44 times. Her husband was, comparatively, a shrinking violet, using those pronouns only 26 times in 48 sentences. Still, 70 times in 89 sentences conveyed the message that somehow their fascinating selves were what made, or should have made, Chicago's case compelling.
In 2008, Obama carried the three congressional districts that contain Northern California's Silicon Valley with 73.1, 69.6 and 68.4 percent of the vote. Surely the Valley could continue its service to him by designing software for his speechwriters' computers that would delete those personal pronouns, replacing them with the word "sauerkraut" to underscore the antic nature of their excessive appearances.
FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
And — this will be trickier — the software should delete the most egregious cliches sprinkled around by the tin-eared employees in the White House speechwriting shop. The president told the Olympic committee that: "At this defining moment," a moment "when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations" in "this ever-shrinking world," he aspires to "forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world."
Good grief. The memory of man runneth not to a moment that escaped being declared "defining" — declared such by someone seeking to inflate himself by inflating it. Also, enough already with the "shrinking" world, which has been so described at least since Magellan set sail, and probably before that. And by the way, the "fate" of — to pick a nation at random — Chile is not really in any meaningful sense "inextricably linked" to that of, say, Chad.
But meaningful sense is often absent from the gaseous rhetoric that makes it past White House editors — are there any? — and onto the president's teleprompter. Consider one recent example:
Nine days before speaking in Copenhagen, the president, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, intoned: "No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation." What was the speechwriter thinking when he or she assembled that sentence? The "should" was empty moralizing; the "can" was nonsense redundantly refuted by history. Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?
Becoming solemn in Copenhagen, Obama said: "No one expects the Games to solve all our collective problems." That's right, no one does. So why say that? Then, shifting into the foggy sentimentalism of standard Olympics blather, he said "peaceful competition between nations represents what's best about our humanity" and "it brings us together" and "it helps us to understand one another."
Actually, sometimes the Olympic Games are a net subtraction from international comity. But Obama quickly returned to speaking about . . . himself:
"Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. presidential election. Their interest wasn't about me as an individual. Rather . . ."
It was gallant of the president to say to the Olympic committee that Michelle is "a pretty big selling point for the city." Gallant, but obviously untrue. And — this is where we pass from the merely silly to the ominous — suppose the president was being not gallant but sincere. Perhaps the premise of the otherwise inexplicable trip to Denmark was that there is no difficulty, foreign or domestic, that cannot be melted by the sunshine of the Obama persona. But in the contest between the world and any president's charm, bet on the world.
Presidents often come to be characterized by particular adjectives: "honest" Abe Lincoln, "Grover the Good" Cleveland, "energetic" Theodore Roosevelt, "idealistic" Woodrow Wilson, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "confident" FDR, "likable" Ike Eisenhower. Less happily, there were "Tricky Dick" Nixon and "Slick Willie" Clinton. Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is "vain."***
-
BO plans to submit US sovereignty to UN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
-
It is a little hard trying to find more details of this treaty. But here is a little more:
CNSNews.com
New U.N. Climate Treaty Expected to Restrict U.S. While Exempting United Arab Emirates and China
Thursday, May 28, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Delegates attend the opening ceremony at the start of the 25th Global Ministerial Environment Forum at the United Nations Environment Program headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya earlier this year. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)(CNSNews.com) - A new United Nation's global warming treaty is expected to give some of the world's worst polluters--such as the communist People's Republic of China--and some of the world's wealthiest nations--such as the oil-rich United Arab Emirates--a license to continue freely pumping carbon into the atmosphere while restricting the emissions of the United States.
The United States will be joining other countries next month in attending “climate talks” in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for the United Nations' Conference of the Parties 15 (COP15) climate-change summit that will take place in Copenhagen in December.
At the meeting, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will oversee the drafting of an international treaty that will allow some of the world’s wealthiest nations and worst polluters to avoid the legally binding regulations on carbon emissions and greenhouse gases expected in the document.
Countries categorized by the United Nations as Annex 1 Parties, including the United States and much of the industrialized world, are considered developed nations that will not be harmed by controlling carbon emissions. Non-annex I Parties, on the other hand, are countries considered to be “developing” or have “economies in transition.”
These Non-annex 1 countries such as China – which emits the most carbon emissions of any country in the world, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Top 20 Countries for CO2 Emissions--will be able “sign on” to the treaty but will not be legally bound by it. And some of the world’s wealthiest nations, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are on the Non-annex 1 Parties list.
"It's very political,” Ben Lieberman, senior policy analyst on energy and the environment at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com. “It has as much to do with what nations are willing to accept than per capita wealth or per capita usage of fossil fuels.”
Lieberman said allowing some countries to sign the treaty gives it clout without requiring those countries to actually cut emissions. He also said without some of the worst polluters being held accountable--like China (No. 1), India, (No. 4), South Korea (No. 9), Mexico (No. 13) and Saudi Arabia (No. 14)--an international treaty will not have an impact.
“In terms of trying to solve the problem of global warming--putting aside the question of how serious a problem it is in the first place--the reality is these fast-developing nations are responsible for emissions growth much faster than the U.S.,” Lieberman said. “For example, China’s emissions are increasing six times faster than those in the U.S.
“If you want to be serious about global warming you have to be serious about doing something with these major emitters, both developed and developing,” Lieberman said.
But at a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, as reported by CNSNews.com, Obama administration climate-change czar Todd Stern said the administration is committed to working with the United Nations, reversing the Bush administration’s rejection of the 1992 Kyoto Protocol, which would have restricted “developed” countries’ carbon emissions while allowing “developing countries” to avoid those restrictions.
Stern is the special envoy for climate change appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who will represent the U.S. in Bonn in June and at Copenhagen in December.
“Countries are genuinely pleased--indeed relieved--that the United States is back in the game, committed to making rapid progress, and, as I said in Bonn [in March], seized by the urgency of the task at hand,” Stern said in his prepared statement at the hearing.
Stern said the U.S. is “fully engaged” with the UNFCCC, based on principles of global partnerships and “moral responsibilities” and expects to sign a treaty in Copenhagen.
“I believe these principles can guide us toward a pragmatic international climate change agreement that will put the world on the path that the science tells us we must be on,” Stern said.
-
Well as Marc Levin points out Obama is a counter revolutionary.
And as I've noted here liberal Jeffrey Sachs who spoke at my nephews commencement basically stated the view that the concept of country is "midevil" (sp?). He also pointed out how Reagan was a destroyer of worlds more or less and Jimmy Earl Carter was correct.
Clearly we have a whole group of radical revolutionaries in the White House.
But 42% of the country seem to be for this. Included apparently are many immigrants who don't come here as much for freedom and ideals but for benefits, handouts, and giveaways.
Independents either still don't get it, don't believe the bama is about this or don't feel this is enough of a priority I guess.
Do 95% of Blacks really believe this radical stuff? I wonder. Just when they are on the cuff of realizing their potential they are supporting a guy who is going to give it all away and change this country forever.
-
From the NRA-ILA:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5181
Friday, October 16, 2009
On October 13, the Associated Press reported that the so-called Bi-National Task Force on Rethinking the United States-Mexico Border has produced a report, which, among other things, calls for re-imposition of the federal “assault weapon” ban of 1994-2004, saying it would improve security in both countries.
The “border-rethinking” group has been put together by the Pacific Council on International Policy and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The group consists mostly of former U.S. and Mexican officials and journalists, none of them currently elected by the people of the U.S. or Mexico to make policy on these issues.
According to the Pacific Council, the report is being released under the auspices of the Mexican CFR on November 13th and is absolutely unavailable until that time. The Brady Campaign, naturally, has a copy of the report anyway, and quotes its executive summary as saying “The United States should intensify efforts to curtail the smuggling of firearms, ammunition, and bulk cash into Mexico by aggressively investigating gun sellers, regulating gun shows, [and] reinstituting the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons.”
Congress finished its hearings on the Mexico situation several months ago, and many members of Congress have declared their line-in-the-sand opposition to re-imposition of the ban. So given that Brady Campaign seems to be the only outfit that has a copy of the embargoed report, it’s safe to conclude that the “task force” is trying to keep the public primed for the next attack on the ownership of firearms like the AR-15 and Remington 11-87, and ammunition magazines designed for defensive purposes.
Whatever the opinions of those who sip tea and nibble biscuits while musing about how to restrict the rest of us, re-imposing the ban would have no effect on Mexico’s historic problem of crime and corruption, for at least three reasons.
First, as has been amply demonstrated, the cartels are not limited to semi-automatic AR-15s and AK-47s. They have hand-held and tripod-mounted, belt-fed machine guns; grenade launchers and grenades; and a variety of other high-end firearms, explosives, and special-purpose optics and communication gear acquired from countries other than the United States. Thanks to some Americans’ insatiable appetite for mind-altering drugs, they have enough money to buy the “task force” 10 times over, along with any weapon that can be found among any infantry platoon on Earth, no matter what kind of gun law gets imposed.
Second, most of the firearms seized from the cartels do not come from the United States. The claim that “90 percent” of Mexican "crime guns" originate in the U.S. is false. It does not relate to all firearms the Mexicans have seized from the cartels, but only to guns that the Mexicans have asked the BATFE to trace. As the Government Accountability Office has explained, “In 2008, of the almost 30,000 firearms that the Mexican Attorney General’s office said were seized, only around 7,200, or approximately a quarter, were submitted to [BATFE] for tracing.” The 6,700 guns that BATFE traced to the U.S. accounted for about 90 percent of the 7,200 guns that BATFE traced, but only 22 percent of all firearms seized by the Mexican government
Third, the ban did not stop the production and sale of any guns, it merely put a one-attachment limit on new guns. For example, before the ban, AR-15s had a pistol-type grip, flash suppressor and bayonet mount. The 750,000 AR-15s made during the ban had only the grip. If the “task force” thinks the fate of Mexico hinges on whether a relatively small number of semi-automatic rifles have flash suppressors and bayonet mounts, its members ought to switch to decaffeinated tea and sugar-free cookies during their get-togethers.
Make no mistake, however. Even if the “task force” doesn’t understand the finer details of the old “assault weapon” ban, leading gun ban advocates like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center, the Joyce Foundation, and the Legal Community Against Violence do. If they have their way, they will eventually drag us into a much larger battle over the right to keep and bear semi-automatic shotguns, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and Ruger Mini-14s, in addition to the AR-15s, semi-automatic AK-47s, and other commonly owned firearms that were at issue during the 1994-2004 ban.
-
U.N. Report Demands Repeal of Counterterrorism Laws to Promote 'Gender Equality'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568869,00.html
In case you weren't sure, human gender is "changeable over time and contexts," sex slaves must not be "stigmatized" for their work, and it's important to recognize the role of "transgender and intersex individuals as stakeholders" in counterterrorism policy.
Those are some of the conclusions of a United Nations report on counterterrorism that is intended to promote human rights — but that critics say is designed to redefine gender and hamstring actual counterterror efforts.
Martin Scheinin, a special rapporteur for the U.N.'s Human Rights Council, filed his report in August after six months of studying the "complex relationship between gender equality and countering terrorism."
Scheinin recommends a radical reworking of counterterrorism policies, insisting that the U.N.'s member nations "abandon the 'war paradigm'" and "enshrine the principles of gender-equality and non-discrimination in the design and implementation of all counter-terrorism measures."
Among his proposals:
• "Repeal all counter-terrorism measures" that sanction the ill-treatment of women and children as a way to put pressure on terror suspects within their families.
• Loosen terror financing laws to ensure "safe and effective channels for funding ... of organizations devoted to gender equality"
• "Repeal restrictive immigration controls" that violate human rights by "unduly penalizing transgender persons whose personal appearance and data are subject to change" as their "self-defined gender identity" changes.
Critics say the suggestions are part of an "absolutely insane" agenda at the U.N. that too often seems intent on undermining efforts to blot out terrorism across the globe.
"I would be surprised and disturbed if the U.S. took any of these recommendations seriously," said Steven Groves, a fellow and international law expert at the Heritage Foundation.
"It seems an inescapable conclusion that their desire is to greatly weaken any effective counterterrorism measure that is made by the U.S. or its allies."
The report criticized enhanced security checks "that focus attention on male bombers who may be dressing as females to avoid scrutiny [and] make transgender persons" — who might also be crossdressing — "susceptible to increased harassment and suspicion."
"Once you put them into a form of an overall policy what you do is undermine the nature of counterterrorism," said Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute. "You're trying to thwart the ability of those to counter terrorist activity."
Scheinin is set to present his findings Monday morning to the U.N.'s 3rd Committee, which helps set policy on social and cultural issues and oversees the Human Rights Council for the world body.
The Finnish law professor has been a special rapporteur since 2005. This year he visited Egypt as part of his mandate for the 47-member Council, and criticized countries like Somalia and Pakistan for selling out women's rights to arrange a tenuous peace with Islamic militants.
Legal experts said it was important to consider the effects of security measures on human rights, including the question of gender.
"It does not strike me as ridiculous ... to look at policies through the lens of gender," said Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Wittes noted that gender issues — including the Taliban's vicious treatment of women — have made it virtually impossible for Western nations and Pakistan to have normal relations with the Taliban.
"That's not an inconsiderable criticism — it's a valid criticism," he said. But Wittes added that to place "gender rights at the center of (counterterrorism policy) is kind of an absurd proposition" that he said made the report ridiculous.
Schienen did not return requests for comment.
Past reports from the special rapporteur have focused on many issues relating to women — including the challenges faced by pregnant Palestinians trying to cross border checkpoints and the effects of counterterror measures on Chechnyan women.
But U.N. watchers say the new report is a confused amalgamation of important issues like women's rights and tangential ones that have very little real application, including Scheinin's demand that invasions like the U.S.'s "war on terror" in Afghanistan be "actually responsive to the concerns of women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex individuals in local contexts."
London, of the Hudson Institute, said that it was hopeless to look for moral guidance from a body composed of some of the world's most brutal and repressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia and China.
"The Human Rights Council and the nations that are represented on it, they're clearly involved in human rights violations," London told Foxnews.com. "They're going to be the arbiters of human rights?"
The Third Committee will hear reports from a number of its 36 special rapporteurs and pass on some of their recommendations to the General Assembly.
The committee hearings do not provide the force of law for Schienen's proposals, but some critics of the report say it represents a "stealth effort" to change international law and the meaning of gender by fiat.
"There might have been value in a report that addressed how counterterrorism efforts interact with the rights of women," said Peter Sprigg, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council.
"But by burdening this report with these extreme forms of social engineering, it makes the report kind of laughable."
-
U.S. Cedes Control of Internet
Global access to the Internet is poised to become global control of the Internet. With little fanfare, Washington has quietly ceded control over the technology the United States developed and shared with the rest of the world in the first place. According to the UK Guardian, the change came in the form of a contract negotiated between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the California-based company that "ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org." In essence, the new agreement ended the old one between ICANN and the U.S. government, "opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet."
This means that, while the United States previously held some sway over ICANN's actions, decision-making authority will now be expanded internationally, including to countries with histories of censorship and human rights abuse as well as to those with a penchant for global regulation and taxation.
Of course, the EU welcomed the cession, no doubt satisfied that its recent whining over too much American control was rewarded (surprise!) with appeasement from the Obama administration.
-
Banks around the world have been battered in the past year, but most have not responded by turning over control of their businesses to their borrowers. Yet this is what creditors at the International Monetary Fund moved closer to doing at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh last month. We understand why fund borrowers want more power, but why would creditor nations, especially Uncle Sam, cede it?
The terms "debtor" and "creditor" may seem foreign to anyone who reads IMF press releases for the first time. The fund prefers the terms "emerging and developing markets" to describe countries that traditionally borrow hard currency, and "advanced countries" to describe those that provide it. But there's no getting around the reality that only a fraction of the IMF's 186 members are long-term creditors.
That became clear earlier this year when the G-20 passed the hat to collect $500 billion for a lending facility known as "new arrangements to borrow." Major emerging countries led by Brazil quickly made clear they would only contribute if the fund issued short-term bonds that could be traded in the secondary market. In other words, no long-term commitments from them.
Creditor countries have always enjoyed more voting power at the fund because without them there would be no reliable pool of money. But several years ago borrower nations, led by members from Asia and Latin America, began clamoring for a greater voice in fund decisions. They argued that since their economies have grown and now represent a larger share of total global GDP, a "democratic" IMF ought to give them a greater share of voting rights.
Creditors might have replied that the fund is not a democracy and that anyone who wants more votes can get them by ponying up more real money. Instead, in 2008 the board approved a 5% shift in voting rights from what it called "over-represented" creditors to "under-represented" countries. Among the biggest beneficiaries of the 2008 change, once it is ratified, will be China, Korea, India, Brazil, Mexico, Spain, Singapore and Turkey. The eight biggest losers will be the U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Russia, Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland.
Now the debtors want still more power, and the creditors, led by the U.S. Treasury, are ready to yield. The Pittsburgh G-20 communique states that there will be another "shift in quota share to dynamic emerging market and developing countries of at least five percent from over-represented to under-represented countries." Why "at least?" Because the likes of Brazil and China are lobbying for a 7% shift in votes. Europe, which has the most to lose, opposes this change.
A spokesman for the fund tells us that the March 2008 voting shift increased the vote share held by emerging and developing countries to 42.1%. That means that if the new 7% solution prevails, emerging countries will have close to a majority. So politicians in Beijing and Brasilia would have more sway over how U.S. taxpayer contributions are spent.
Perhaps only Barney Frank has benefitted more from the financial crisis than the IMF has. Searching for revenue and without a mission in 2008, it has tripled its resources since the panic began and is now bidding to police the world's economic policies. Given its record of recommending tax increases and currency devaluation, this is not a road to prosperity.
At least the IMF of yore could be counted on to support Western geopolitical interests. If the IMF is going to turn into something like a bank for the United Nations, with the debtors running the joint, U.S. taxpayers should stop being asked to pay for it.
-
Comments to the recent posts in the thread. Regarding the IMF, very clever not using the terms debtor, creditor! Wouldn't want to get a stigma. Just like food stamps re-named 'Snap' for better brand appeal. My understanding is that IMF is mostly non-US control where the World Bank is more U.S. dominated. I assume US is the main funder of both. My opinion: funding from the US should be decided by the US on a case by case basis with recorded up or down votes by the people's elected representatives, not diverted to these multinational institutions including the UN.
Interesting take on the US ceding control of the internet - to countries and intl organizations more prone to global regulation and taxation. No one else seemed to pick up a negative take on our country giving up another valuable asset. I'm sure they will still want disproportionate US funding.
Also should note in this thread that references elsewhere to the controversial IPCC study regarding alleged global warming always seem to leave out the first name of the group of agreeing scientists, it is not just a random group of single minded scientists; it is the the UN - IPCC.
-
Watermelon Marxists
By John Griffing
Global warming as a science is defunct. Evidence of scientific dishonesty abounds, and the recent e-mail revelations may be the nail in the coffin. When all is said and done, temperatures are falling.
But as a tool for watermelon Marxists -- green on the outside and red on the inside -- climate change orthodoxy represents an opportunity to achieve age-old dreams of Communist wealth redistribution. Don't take my word for it. Listen to Cass Sunstein, Obama's new regulatory czar and perhaps the most powerful bureaucrat in America:
It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.
He added:
We agree that if the United States does spend a great deal on emissions reductions as part of an international agreement, and if the agreement does give particular help to disadvantaged people, considerations of distributive justice support its action, even if better redistributive mechanisms are imaginable.
Furthermore, Sunstein thinks that, "If we care about social welfare, we should approve of a situation in which a wealthy nation is willing to engage in a degree of self-sacrifice when the world benefits more than that nation loses."
Sunstein is not alone. Sacked environmental czar Van Jones talks of "eco-apartheid." To a like-minded audience Van Jones exclaimed, "Give them the wealth! Give them the wealth! No justice on stolen land...we owe them a debt."
President Obama is presumably on board, having pledged to "bankrupt" the coal industry, among other telling remarks:
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
President Obama is also on record as favoring Supreme Court intervention to "spread the wealth":
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted....
There are several things wrong with this statement, but the most chilling expression of President Obama's anti-American philosophy lies in his willingness to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution...." Somehow, President Obama thinks he is exempt from the Oath of Office he took to "protect and defend the Constitution." Within such a paradigm, anything is permissible, including the complete destruction of American economic strength as part of an abstract notion of redistributive justice.
President Obama's proposed cap and trade bill would reduce US GDP by $9 trillion...and at a time of severe unemployment. Where is the indignation? Where are the calls for his impeachment?
The UN Climate Change Conference wants to go as far as orchestrating a "planned recession," in order to begin the process. Cass Sunstein agrees.
But who needs these people when the President of the United States is willing to destroy the American Dream by his own hand? President Obama has pledged to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, the biggest transfer of American wealth and sovereignty in US history.
Few have bothered to read the agreement, which like so many other damaging agreements is excessively verbose. In the agreement are calls for climate reparations to Third World countries, what the treaty calls "adaptation debt." This isn't optional. Clause 33 on page 39 of the agreement says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]." And unlike previous climate agreements, Copenhagen empowers a new UN council to compel rich nations to comply with this theft of resources. The treaty states:
The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. [Emphasis added.]
World government will be a reality if this agreement is ratified. Notice also the use of the words "financial mechanism." The Copenhagen agreement, for the first time in the history of international legal precedent, proposes giving the UN authority to levy a global tax on rich nations to pay for "adaptation debt." Page 135 of the agreement provides for "A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex I countries are the rich nations.
What is astonishing about this "climate" treaty is that so little of it actually addresses climate. Emissions pledges remain merely pledges. The real focus of the treaty is the transfer of wealth. The words "climate debt" are used throughout the agreement, giving pseudo-credibility to the premise of wealth redistribution. But just what is "climate debt"? The essence of the concept is that rich countries raped the earth by emitting carbon, and deprived poor countries of economic opportunity. It would be funny, if it weren't actually the position of the Copenhagen Conference.
When all is said and done, what happens if we succeed in destroying American wealth and creating a world government to coerce the shift? Wouldn't world peace be a good thing? But the peace of submission is not a peace worth having, and the perceived economic benefits will be brief, owing to global economic dependence on American consumers.
Once America is gone, it will be gone forever. Nations will benefit most from the continuing existence of a strong America. Killing the golden goose will not bring balance to the universe. Plundering American wealth will provide only a temporary shot in the arm for poor nations, and then the drug will wear off, ushering in a new dark age on a global scale.
Right now, President Obama is the most powerful person in the most powerful country on earth. Obama may not have noticed, but we have world government, and America is king.
Just like the man who sells his soul for power, the Devil never delivers as promised. He's the Devil. And, paradoxically, for the world to destroy America it needs America's wealth and resources.
Whatever President Obama has been promised will evaporate the moment America loses the privilege of the last word. President Obama will be committing treason by signing this treaty, and he must be held accountable. The American Revolution was fought over this very issue: taxation without representation.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/watermelon_marxists.html at December 08, 2009 - 08:36:38 AM EST
-
To all liberals:
I apologize to no one for any success I have. The US need not aplogize for it's success.
Stop apologizing to the world for me or my country. You want to redistribute wealth then give away your own and stop telling everyone else what to do.
Thank you, I get of my soap box now. eom
-
Dear Marc,
If you think our representatives in Washington, DC are disregarding the will of the people now, wait until you see what President Obama will try to pull off in Copenhagen this week.
You see, the very thing the U.S. Senate refuses to do here at home - mandate a costly cap and trade energy tax system in the name of saving the world -- President Obama is telling the world at the Copenhagen Climate Summit that he can do it on his own through the Environmental Protection Agency. Even though that would be "taxation without representation," the President must believe that his noble intentions can override the rules of our constitutional system.
So, this week, as the Obama administration prepares to sign an international agreement that our own Senate would likely never ratify, we're running a full page ad in the COP15Post, the go-to English language paper of the Copenhagen Summit, with this simple reminder:
In America, "We the People" govern, and without our approval through our Senators, President Obama has no constitutional authority to bind the United States to any international agreement whatsoever.
It's so basic a Constitutional fact that Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) recently wrote in a letter to President Obama: "As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."1
Take a look at our ad by clicking the image below.
While other governments represented in Copenhagen may be able to ignore the will of their people, that's not how it works in America.
And to demonstrate how "we the people" govern in America, we're giving you and every American Solutions member an opportunity to sign your name onto the ad. You can do that by going here.
With a small dona tion of $5 or more to help pay for the ad, your name will be added to it.
If anyone is able to make a donation of $200 or more, we will make sure your signature is much more prominent, like John Hancock's on the Declaration of Independence. We will limit this to the first ten people to make such a donation.
Please add your name right away.
Thanks for helping us send the message that "We the People" govern in America.
Sincerely,
Vince Haley
Vice President for Policy
American Solutions
1Senator Webb Letter to the White House, November 25, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee. Not printed at government expense. www.AmericanSolutions.com
To unsubscribe from future mailings, click here: info@americansolutions.com?subject=unsubscribe
-
I'm not familiar with the group that sent me this missive, but this matter of end-running our Second Amendment via an international treaty has been bandied about before and apparently is now gaining traction.
=======================
Dear fellow patriot,
With willing one-world accomplices in Washington, D.C., gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
That’s why it’s vital you sign the special petition I’ve made up for your signature that DEMANDS your U.S. Senators vote AGAINST ratification of the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty!”
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators before it’s too late!
You see, this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
Ever since it’s founding almost 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-worlders who control the UN, the U.S. isn’t a “shining city on a hill” -- it’s an affront to their grand totalitarian designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they’ll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide oppressive power they crave.
And the UN’s apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
That’s why it’s vital you act TODAY!
The truth is, there’s no time to waste.
You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.
The fact is, the last thing the gun-grabbers in the U.N. and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to react and mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
They’ve made that mistake before, and we’ve made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the “Treaty on Small Arms” into law since the mid-1990s.
But this time, time won’t be on our side.
In fact, we’re likely to only have a few days or weeks to defeat the treaty.
Worse, there’s no longer any pro-gun Republican Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.
There’s no longer any Republican in the White House who has stated opposition to the treaty.
And you and I know good and well how Germany, Great Britain, France, Communist China or the rest of the anti-gun members of the United Nations are going to vote.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE of stopping the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.
As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.
With 40 Republicans, that should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
First, you know just as well as I do that not all the remaining Republicans in the Senate are “pro-gun” in any sense of the term.
Second, even with the partisan rancor in Washington, D.C., many GOP Senators get “queasy” about killing treaties for fear of “embarrassing” the President -- especially with “international prestige” at stake.
They look at ratifying treaties much like approving Presidents’ Supreme Court nominees.
And remember, there were NINE Republicans who voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
A dozen more GOP Senators only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.
So if we’re going to defeat the UN’s “Small Arms Treaty” we have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it’s too late!
That’s exactly where this petition comes in.
So won’t you click here to sign IMMEDIATELY?
And also, if you can, I hope you’ll agree to make a generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or even just $35.
With your generous contribution, I’ll immediately begin contacting Second Amendment supporters through mail, phones and e-mail to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.
Tops on the list are the “usual suspects” like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lindsay Graham and the rest of the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate whose votes we can never count on.
I also want to begin contacting gun owners in states represented by key Democrats -- like Senators John Tester and Max Baucus of Montana, Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb of Virginia, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.
And finally, I’ve designed a “special” hard-hitting program especially for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to let Nevada gun owners know exactly what he and his anti-gun pals have planned for you and me.
Facing a tough reelection in 2010, Senator Reid knows he’s already skating on thin ice with Nevada voters.
So you and I could end up putting the final nail in his political coffin -- if I can pull out all the stops.
Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Billboards. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting newspaper, radio and TV ads. The whole nine yards.
Of course, if I can raise enough resources, my goal is to expand this full program to ALL our target states.
But that’s not going to be cheap, and we may not have much time.
In fact, if we’re going to defeat the UN’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty,” we have to start NOW!
So please click here to sign the petition to your U.S. Senators.
And if you possibly can, please agree to make a contribution of $200, $150, $100, or even just $35.
Every petition and every dollar count in this fight.
So please sign the petition and include your most generous contribution of $200, $150, $100 or $35 TODAY.
In Liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
P.S. The Obama Administration just announced they would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new GLOBAL, “Small Arms Treaty.”
-
Interpol and U.N. Back ‘Global Policing Doctrine’
By DOREEN CARVAJAL
Published: October 11, 2009
http://www10.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/...rpol.html?_r=5
PARIS — Interpol and the United Nations are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly grooming a global police force that would be deployed as peacekeepers among rogue nations riven by war and organized crime, officials from both organizations say.
On Monday, justice and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries, including the United States and China, are gathering in Singapore for a meeting hosted by the two international organizations.
It is the first step toward creating what Interpol calls a “global policing doctrine” that would enable Interpol and the United Nations to improve the skills of police peacekeepers, largely by sharing a secure communications network and a vast electronic trove of criminal information, including DNA records, fingerprints, photographs and fugitive notices.
“We have a visionary model,” said Ronald K. Noble, secretary general of Interpol and the first American to head the international police organization, which is based in Lyon. More than 187 member nations finance the organization.
“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources,” Mr. Noble said. “When they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.”
Modern peacekeeping has evolved dramatically since the blue-helmeted U.N. military force won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Since 2005, the number of police officers within the total force of 95,400 peacekeepers has more than doubled from about 6,000 to 12,200 in 17 countries.
U.N. police are already battling kidnappings and drug crime in Haiti and illicit lumber trading in Liberia. The aim of the joint effort is to increase the ability to track the movement of criminals around the world by sharing resources and common standards, according to Mr. Noble. He is also pressing ahead with plans for special electronic passports for the agency’s staff of more than 600 Interpol investigators to speed border crossings.
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is contributing more than $2 million to finance the development of international global policing standards, according to Andrew Hughes, an Australian who currently heads the U.N.’s force of police officers.
The ambition is to create a series of networks to counter borderless organized criminal operations, Mr. Hughes said. Women, in particular, are being recruited, with a goal of reaching 20 percent of the U.N. force and the development of all-female units like the group of 140 peacekeepers from Bangladesh that is about to be deployed.
“We’re working with refugees,” Mr. Hughes said. “Many of the victims of atrocities are women, and they’ve had enough of men with guns and uniforms.”
He said that among the most critical tasks for a global police force were combating illegal arms and drug trafficking. His own officers in West Africa have watched the growth of cocaine smuggling by Colombian and Venezuelan drug cartels through weakened countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia to the lucrative consumer markets in Europe.
The United States remains the biggest market for cocaine, according to the U.N.’s annual report on drugs and crime. But in the past three years, South American cartels have moved more drugs to Europe using transit points like Guinea Bissau, where the president and the head of the military were killed in sophisticated bombing attacks in March. Each year, at least 50 tons of cocaine from Andean countries passes through West Africa to the streets of Europe, where the drugs are worth almost $2 billion, according to the U.N. report.
“Organized crime is a business that looks for opportunity to expand their market enterprise,” Mr. Hughes said. “When you have a breakdown in police and courts and corrections, organized crime is ripe. We also see the toxic effect of corruption, because they are able to corrupt officials, which makes it difficult to build a functioning society.”
In Afghanistan, where heroin and hashish trafficking is also a thorny issue, NATO announced plans this month to start training the local police — a move it has avoided in the past to concentrate on military responsibilities.
But Mr. Noble of Interpol says he takes a dim view of transforming warriors into beat cops, because the mind-sets are so different.
“We caution on making the delegation of civil police development tasks to military structures,” Mr. Noble said, citing the example of an attack that freed hundreds of Taliban from a prison in Kandahar, Afghanistan, last year. Although Interpol immediately asked for information about the missing prisoners, he said, “we were really shocked and dismayed to learn there were no fingerprints and photographs despite billions spent to train police there.”
With the meeting of justice ministers on Monday, which coincides with a general assembly of Interpol police members, the group is expected to debate the global police issue and to craft a declaration that would lead to an action plan for international police peacekeeping within 12 months.
-
Pasting here GM's post from the Issues in American Creed thread:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/23/did-obama-exempt-interpol-from-same-legal-constraints-as-american-law-enforcement/
Did Obama exempt Interpol from same legal constraints as American law-enforcement?
posted at 2:55 pm on December 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
During his presidency, Ronald Reagan granted the global police agency Interpol the status of diplomatic personnel in order to engage more constructively on international law enforcement. In Executive Order 12425, Reagan made two exceptions to that status. The first had to do with taxation, but the second was to make sure that Interpol had the same accountability for its actions as American law enforcement — namely, they had to produce records when demanded by courts and could not have immunity for their actions.
Barack Obama unexpectedly revoked those exceptions in a change to EO 12425 last month, as Threats Watch reports:
Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order “Amending Executive Order 12425.” It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other “International Organizations” as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.
By removing language from President Reagan’s 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates – now operates – on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. …
After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.
Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an “International Organization.” In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).
And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.
Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.
Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)
Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens’ Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery (“unless such immunity be expressly waived.”)
Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets – Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.
Actually, that last argument overreaches. American law does not consider people as “assets.” It does mean, though, that Interpol officers would have diplomatic immunity for any lawbreaking conducted in the US at a time when Interpol nations (like Italy) have attempted to try American intelligence agents for their work in the war on terror, a rather interesting double standard.
It also appears to mean that Americans who get arrested on the basis of Interpol work cannot get the type of documentation one normally would get in the discovery process, which is a remarkable reversal from Obama’s declared efforts to gain “due process” for terrorists detained at Gitmo. Does the White House intend to treat Americans worse than the terrorists we’ve captured during wartime?
Andy McCarthy wonders the same thing:
Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.
Interpol works closely with international tribunals (such as the International Criminal Court — which the United States has refused to join because of its sovereignty surrendering provisions, though top Obama officials want us in it). It also works closely with foreign courts and law-enforcement authorities (such as those in Europe that are investigating former Bush administration officials for purported war crimes — i.e., for actions taken in America’s defense).
Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?
I seem to recall the Left getting hysterical over the Patriot Act extensions that Obama finally backed. This gives Interpol a much wider operational latitude than anything contemplated in the Patriot Act, and with no accountability at all.
-
This is utterly remarkable.
The guy Bama is not our President working in the best interests of us.
He is a Manchurian President though he is well aware of what he is doing selling the US down the river unlike the movie wherein the guy's mind was controlled by outside forces.
-
A friend who recently retired from a long and highly distinguished career with the US Marshal's office, sees nothing amiss here and offers the following:
==========================
The Reagan version of the EO:
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669, 22 U.S.C. 288), it is hereby ordered that the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), in which the United States participates pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 263a, is hereby designated as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act; except those provided by Section 2(c), the portions of Section 2(d) and Section 3 relating to customs duties and federal internal-revenue importation taxes, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act. This designation is not intended to abridge in any respect the privileges, exemptions or immunities which such organization may have acquired or may acquire by international agreement or by Congressional action.
RONALD REAGAN
The White House,
June 16,1983.
The Obama version of the EO:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 16, 2009.
------
So the below sections are the ones affected by Obama's order:
it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act"
-
An additional offering from my friend:
Now here is the actual public law that these Executive Orders have modified:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intern...es_Act#Title_I
You will note that it was passed in 1945 and does not solely address Interpol. It actually affects ALL international organizations (I can think of the World Bank, the U.N., and the International Red Cross off the top of my head):
For the purposes of this title, the term ‘‘international organization’’ means a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any Act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation, and which shall have been designated by the President through appropriate Executive order as being entitled to enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities herein provided.
So it would seem that all affected international organizations have had all the rights accorded by the public law EXCEPT Interpol. Now Interpol has all the rights and priviliges all these other organizations have enjoyed all along.
I fail to see the evil.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDmV0ufU
-
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OThhZmZhYjI1NDI0NGNlZDUwZjYzNTNkYzNmNmFmY2Q=
January 08, 2010, 0:30 p.m.
Interpol Immunity
Obama takes America down another notch with an unnecessary, reckless act.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Finally, today, we get at least an attempt at an explanation of President Obama’s dead-of-night decision on December 16 to grant Interpol — the international police force — immunity from American law. (See here and here.) Unfortunately, in the habit to which we’ve grown accustomed, the Obama administration itself didn’t provide the explanation. It comes from Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, via an informative report by Valerie Richardson at Human Events. (Ms. Richardson, who quotes from my posts in her story, was good enough to call me for comment; I regret that, because of the press of other business, I didn’t retrieve the message until after I learned early this morning that her story was posted.)
The biggest problem with President Obama’s immunity grant is that it came without any explanation. The administration can’t or won’t explain why a president — whose administration is notoriously indifferent to American sovereignty — suddenly decided Interpol needed to be freed from the U.S. Constitution and other American law. Certainly, Interpol was not clamoring publicly for immunity; neither Noble nor any other Interpol official was heard to suggest that American law was interfering with some aspect or other of its operations.
READ IT ALL
-
Charles Krauthammer, whom I trust needs to description around here, said today on the Bret Baier Report on Fox that what BO did here is no big deal.
-
I like Krauthammer. I would point out that to my knowledge, he has no legal background while Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant US Attorney. Usually I am making a counterarguement to someone asserting that the police use of some kind of technology is rapidly leading us down the path to a police state. One of the things that reassures me is that the American system requires that everything done by a law enforcement officer, no matter if he or she is a deputy from Mayberry or a FBI Special Agent, is subject to review by someone in a black robe with a gavel and by a jury of citizens in the case of a prosecution. Everything you do in an investigation is subject to discovery and subpeona. If you, as a law enforcement officer, violate someone's constitutional rights, you are subject to multiple levels of civil and criminal liability. Why should foreign law enforcement officers be exempted from this while here on US soil?
-
That sounds well reasoned and sound to me-- and all the more persuasive because it is so contrary to perceived type! :lol:
Let me go to my retired US Marshal friend and see what he has to say.
-
Move The U.N. To Dubai
Joel Kotkin and Robert J. Cristiano 01.12.10, 12:01 AM ET
The opening last week of the world's tallest building, the half-mile-high Burj Dubai, has largely been greeted with guffaws and groans. The Daily Telegraph labeled it "the new pinnacle of vanity"--"a purposeless monument to the subprime era." The Wall Street Journal compared it to the Tower of Babel. (When the Empire State Building was completed in 1931, in the throes of the greatest financial crisis of the 20th century, it was met with similar jeers. The then-tallest building in the world was called the Empty State Building, and it remained vacant for several years.)
Yet the Burj's completion--indeed the whole wild enterprise known as Dubai--could signal a potential opportunity to the global community: turning the place into the headquarters for that other misguided ship, the United Nations.
Let's spell out the logic. The United Nations is a pain in the butt. It pays no taxes and annoys hard-working New Yorkers with its sloth, pretensions and cavalier disregard for traffic laws. The place is a sinkhole dominated by anti-American, anti-Semitic and authoritarian fantasies. It is far from the elegant crown jewel that celebrated the U.S.'s global ascendancy after the Second World War.
Today the U.N. building is a mostly empty shell--water dripping through its roof, asbestos lining its ceiling and an erratic heating and cooling system have forced most UN workers to new facilities. The building is in the midst of a $1.87 billion overhaul--of which the U.S., which could use the cash for myriad other things, would be on the hook for $437 million.
And the U.N. may be leaving anyway. A relocation committee has recommended that the organization move temporarily to Singapore by 2015. It will be hard to vacate Asia again for New York, which is far away from the bulk of the world's largest population centers.
Singapore might make a fine world capital, since it does work like a fine watch. But it's already crowded, expensive and highly regulated. You have to wonder if hard-working, rational Singaporeans would want to drive up costs and lose their ability to run things as they see fit to accommodate the U.N. bureaucracy.
In contrast, the al-Maktoum family has transformed a once vast, empty landscape into a Star Wars-like capital city of the future. There is no skyline more arresting than the one built over the past 15 years by Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the Absolute Ruler of the tiny Emirate. In just 500 square miles, about half the size of Orange County, Calif., the sheikh has created a monument to modern architectural engineering.
Sheikh Mohammed could offer to build a United Nations City to house the U.N. in any number of vacant office towers. Business Bay has 65 million square feet of office space under construction in more than 200 high-rises. Dubai already has thousands of newly constructed apartments that await the international delegates. More than 2 billion people in Africa, Europe and Asia are within a six-hour flight from Dubai. Travel connections through the world's largest airport would be a breeze. Dubai has 55 five-star hotels to accommodate every regal and royal delegation, as well as the Harvard Medical School Dubai Center, a $1,400,000,000 facility branded with the Harvard crest, just in case one of the U.N.'s elite workers breaks a gasket.
Questions of taste and timing aside, you have to admire the sheikh's chutzpah. The al-Maktoums, descendants of the Bani Yas clan, have ruled Dubai since 1833, first under the protection of the British. The United Arab Emirates was founded in 1971 with big brother Abu Dhabi, the emirate with 96% of the confederation's oil reserves.
Like New York, Dubai aimed first to be a capital of capital. Recognizing that oil revenues at $70 a barrel brought immense cash flow to the Persian Gulf, Sheikh Mohammed set out to create a setting where Arab pride and excess oil revenues could be comfortably parked. His boldness caught the attention of the world financial community and soon the tiny emirate employed more construction cranes than any site on Earth.
For now flying so close to the sun has resulted in a painful and somewhat humiliating fall. With the financial market collapse of 2008 to 2009 international buyers disappeared and property values plummeted. Half of the $300 billion in construction projects screeched to a halt. The Dubai government, with $80 billion to $100 billion of debt, was in trouble, and Dubai World, its investment arm, announced suspension of interest payments on its loans. Enter Abu Dhabi. The neighboring emirate wrote kid brother Dubai a check for $25 billion. What does $25 billion get you in 2010? On Jan. 4, at the grand opening of the Burj Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed announced that the tower would forever be known as Burj Khalifa, named after the Emir of Abu Dhabi.
Let's look a bit longer term. Right now there's 33.6 million square feet of mostly state-of-the-art office space in Dubai. More than 8 million square feet is vacant with millions more in the pipeline. There's a great airport--as opposed to that aerial dumpster, JFK--that is hours closer to the emerging economic powers of the new century, notably the oil states, India and China. The workforce is skilled and open to foreigners, since the vast majority are foreigners. In Dubai 83% of the 2.2 million residents are from somewhere else. Talk about cosmopolitan.
But how about New York? "Moving the U.N. to Dubai would be a boon for New Yorkers who have to put up with traffic jams created by the likes of Colonel Qaddafi, scofflaws protected by diplomatic immunity and the loss of real estate revenue they would gain if the U.N. building were turned into something far more useful--condos with a view," suggests urban historian Fred Siegel, a visiting professor at Saint Francis College in Brooklyn and a fellow at New York's Manhattan Institute.
Liberating New York from the United Nations, in fact, would open up some of the best situated real estate in the world. A treasure trove of great apartments and offices right along the East River would suddenly become available, bringing a potential revenue windfall to New York City, which could use it. None of this would threaten the city's---or the country's--economic and political status. That grows out of economic and military power, which the U.N. does little or nothing to augment.
What would Dubai get? It's an ideal opportunity to refurbish its tarnished image on the world stage in a way that plays to its infrastructural and geographical advantages. The Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean are increasingly the focal point of the world economic and political systems. Some of the biggest challenges facing the U.N. are concentrated in the south in Somalia and Yemen, to the west in Israel and Palestine, and to nearby Iran and Pakistan. Dubai would have to reconcile itself to a permanent Israeli presence, but that may not be as difficult as many think. Jews, and even Israelis, do business today in Dubai with perhaps less worry about running into manifestations of anti-Semitism than in London or Paris.
Bringing the United Nations to Dubai makes sense. New York gets rid of one of its worst welfare cheats, and Dubai finds new tenants to fill its vacant towers. Dubai has already built something that looks the part of a 21st-century world capital. Let it get a cast appropriate for its glittering set.
Joel Kotkin is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is also an adjunct fellow at the Legatum Institute in London and serves as executive editor of newgeography.com. He writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin in February 2010. Coauthor Robert J. Cristiano Ph.D. is a successful real estate developer and the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/11/dubai-burj-united-nations-opinions-columnists-joel-kotkin.html
-
Culture & Policy
Second Amendment: Interpol and the Executive Order
There have been disarming reports of late about an Executive Order by Barack Obama concerning the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). According to the NRA-ILA, "President Obama's order amends a 1983 order by President Reagan, in which the U.S. recognized Interpol as an international organization that is entitled to certain legal immunities under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA)." Interpol, founded in 1923 and composed of 188 countries that share information about international criminal investigations, has long been immune from civil lawsuits, so the claim that the immunity comes from Obama is incorrect. Many reports assert that Interpol personnel would be granted diplomatic immunity and would then have the ability to seize firearms, among other violations of U.S. citizens' rights. These fears are likely unfounded.
Diplomatic immunity applies only to diplomats, not agents. The immunity the agents do have is only "relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity." Furthermore, the NRA notes, "Law enforcement officers working with Interpol are detailed from agencies in various countries, such as the FBI or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They have no power of arrest outside their own countries. Therefore, a seizure of an American (or of an Americans' firearms) would likely not fall within the official duties for which Interpol officials would be immune from prosecution."
Granted, we are wary of Obama and other leftists around the world -- particularly when it comes to Second Amendment rights -- but this appears to be a false alarm.
-
http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/17/climate-crackup
Reason Magazine
Climate Crackup
A breakdown in Copenhagen saves a divided world from carbon rationing.
Ronald Bailey from the March 2010 issue
On December 18, the Copenhagen climate change conference collapsed. Heads of state from about 120 countries had flocked to the Danish capital, anticipating a historic photo op that would lead future generations to lionize them as visionary saviors who rescued the planet from the menace of man-made global warming. Instead the world’s leaders participated in an embarrassing diplomatic flop.
Officially, a Copenhagen Accord was reached, but the three-page document largely consists of vague promises expressing the “political will” to combat global warming. Many leaders were already fleeing to the airport before the conference officially closed. This fiasco could spell the end of the United Nations’ attempts to use a costly and flawed carbon rationing scheme as a way to handle man-made climate change.
The conference came to this humiliating conclusion because the world’s two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, remain at loggerheads. The U.S. needed China to accept legally binding carbon targets with some kind of monitoring arrangement to make sure the Chinese don’t cheat. Without these provisions, U.S. manufacturers (and the unions representing their workers) would be at a clear disadvantage, because their competitors in China could continue to use cheaper fossil-fuel energy. “From our point of view,” declared Todd Stern, the American special envoy for climate change, “you can’t even begin to have an environmentally sound agreement without the adequate, significant participation of China.”
Stern is right. Unless China is seen as participating in the global effort to limit carbon emissions, the Obama administration will have a very hard time convincing Congress to pass carbon rationing legislation during a time of high unemployment at home.
Not surprisingly, the most ideological wing of the environmental movement was livid at the outcome. Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S., denounced the Copenhagen Accord as “a sham agreement,” adding, “This is not a strong deal or a just one—it isn’t even a real one.” John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace U.K., agreed: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.” The American environmentalist Bill McKibben—founder of 350.org, which advocates keeping atmospheric carbon dioxide below 350 parts per million (compared to 387 parts per million today)—declared, “The president has wrecked the U.N., and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming.”
The good news for the rest of us is that the Copenhagen collapse provides the world with an opportunity to step back, reassess the political and scientific situations, and find a better way than the deeply flawed Kyoto Protocol process to address the problems associated with a warming planet. Preferably the new approach will neither clobber the global economy by dramatically boosting energy prices nor impose a Kyoto-style carbon rationing system that clearly doesn’t work. As President Obama pointed out in Copenhagen, “Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.”
What Happened?
First a bit of background. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed and ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992 after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Under the convention, signatory countries were committed to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, to prevent “dangerous anthropogenic interference with Earth’s climate system.” Every year since the treaty came into effect, a Conference of the Parties (COP) has been convened to assess what progress has been made. The Copenhagen meeting was the 15th such meeting and is thus known as COP-15.
Under the 1992 convention, which has now been signed by 193 countries, emissions goals were voluntary. But they became mandatory for 37 industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in 1997 at COP-3 and fully ratified in 2005.
The Kyoto Protocol, which President Bill Clinton never even forwarded to the U.S. Senate (President George W. Bush withdrew from it completely), set up a cap-and-trade emissions reduction scheme for participating countries. Under a cap-and-trade program, a business that wants to emit greenhouse gases—say, an electric utility or an oil company—needs to acquire permits equal to the number of tons of carbon dioxide it wants to emit. Governments then set a declining cap on emissions by issuing fewer and fewer permits each year. The permits, however, can be bought and sold on an open market. Producers that cheaply abate their emissions can sell their extra permits to other emitters that find the process more expensive. In this way, the theory goes, the market will find the cheapest way to cut emissions. As it happens, only the European Union ever established a carbon market under the Kyoto Protocol, and it has been riddled with problems. So far the scheme has not induced emitters to make significant investments in low-carbon energy technologies.
The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, after which a second commitment period is supposed to replace it, with more extensive mandatory emissions reductions. At the Bali climate conference in 2007 (COP-13), it was agreed that a binding global treaty setting the new standards would be finalized at Copenhagen. But two years of preliminary negotiations proved difficult, so that goal was dropped a month before the conference was even convened. Instead, the Copenhagen meeting was supposed to produce a “politically binding” framework agreement that would set specific commitments to emission reductions and climate aid to developing countries as a basis for future action. The weak Copenhagen Accord does not even achieve that much, putting off those decisions indefinitely.
Chiefly negotiated by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, the nonbinding Copenhagen Accord sets a goal of preventing global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. The Accord reaffirms the importance of the two degree goal and “recognizes the scientific view” that the temperature increase should be held below this number. (As Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of the global anti-poverty nonprofit Oxfam International, put it to the Times of London, the accord “recognizes the need to keep warming below 2C but does not commit to do so.”) Many environmentalists and scientists had argued for a more ambitious 1.5 degree Celsius limit. Initial drafts of the accord set a global goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent over the next 40 years, with the developed countries reducing their emissions by 80 percent. That goal was dropped at China’s insistence, according to Ed Miliband, Britain’s climate and energy secretary.
The initial aim of adopting a binding treaty by the next international climate conference, to convene this coming November in Mexico City, was also dropped. Now the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord will be reviewed by 2016.
The accord promises that the industrialized countries will supply $30 billion worth of climate change aid to developing countries by 2012 and will “mobilize” $100 billion annually in aid by 2020, using both public and private sources of funding. With regard to monitoring each country’s emission reduction pledges—the big sticking point between China and the U.S.— countries are supposed to provide information on their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the guidelines for auditing those activities are to be negotiated later. In any case, it’s unlikely that the politicians who are in office in 2020 will feel constrained to honor the Copenhagen Accord’s vague promises about emissions and financing.
Back in the USA
In the wake of Copenhagen’s spectacular blowup, what will happen to the domestic regulation of carbon? That idea is clearly advancing in one area: The Environmental Protection Agency announced in early December that it will start enforcing strict carbon controls. (See “The EPA’s Carbon Footprint,” page 36.) But what about the carbon rationing proposals advanced by the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress?
Back in June, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey Act, which aims by 2020 to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 17 percent below the level emitted in 2005. When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dropped by the Copenhagen conference, she said of Waxman-Markey, “It’s all about the jobs.” To hear Pelosi talk, saving the planet from climate doom is incidental to making sure Americans are employed making solar panels and weatherizing houses. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a co-sponsor of an energy and climate change bill in the Senate, similarly asserted in Copenhagen, “Our bill is essentially a jobs bill.”
Showering government largess on an industry will certainly increase employment in that industry. It’s much less clear that such subsidies will produce more jobs on balance. Kerry thinks it will, claiming that when Germany enacted “strong policy mechanisms to drive investment in solar power and other renewable energy sources,” the result supposedly was employment growth: “Renewable energy usage has tripled to 16 percent, creating 1.7 million jobs. By 2020, Germany’s clean energy sector will be the biggest contributor to the nation’s economy.”
An October 2009 study by RWI, a nonprofit German economic think tank, however, concluded that policies pushing renewable energy end up producing “job losses from crowding out of cheaper forms of conventional energy generation, indirect impacts on upstream industries, additional job losses from the drain on economic activity precipitated by higher electricity prices, private consumers’ overall loss of purchasing power due to higher electricity prices, and diverting funds from other, possibly more beneficial investment.” The report called Germany’s experience “a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits.”
Perhaps carbon rationing and higher energy prices will help us avoid a climate disaster. But these measures will tend to increase rather than decrease unemployment. The carbon rationing proposals in Congress are not really job bills, a fact that will make them harder to pass. Republicans seem confident that Waxman- Markey, which passed the House in June by a margin of just seven votes, will never make it to the Senate.
Before the Copenhagen conference collapsed, Sen. Kerry declared that getting climate change legislation passed in the U.S. “can be enormously assisted by what happens here.” Once the nondeal was announced, the Massachusetts senator gamely peddled the same line: “With this in hand, we can work to pass domestic legislation early next year to bring us across the finish line.” We’ll all find out this spring who is the better political prognosticator, Kerry or Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who said, “This Waxman- Markey bill would lose by 50 votes if it were up for a vote now. This bill is dead in the water as it is and that’s why it’s DOA in the Senate.” After the diplomatic debacle in Copenhagen, my bet is on Upton.
And if the U.S., as the world’s second biggest carbon producer, does not adopt some form of rationing, it is highly unlikely that the rest of the world will do so. On the way to his plane, President Obama declared the Copenhagen Accord a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.” It would be more accurate to call it a meaningful and unprecedented breakdown— one that could end up sparing the world from a costly and flawed scheme of global carbon rationing.
Ronald Bailey (rbailey@reason.com) is reason's science correspondent.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04...womens-rights/
NEW YORK — Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."
Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.
Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states — including the United States.
The U.S. currently holds one of the 45 seats on the body, a position set to expire in 2012. The U.S. Mission to the U.N. did not return requests for comment on whether it actively opposed elevating Iran to the women's commission.
Iran's election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women's rights.
"Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.
As word of Iran's intention to join the women's commission came out, a group of Iranian activists circulated a petition to the U.N. asking that member states oppose its election.
"Iran's discriminatory laws demonstrate that the Islamic Republic does not believe in gender equality," reads the letter, signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies.
The letter draws a dark picture of the status of women in Iran: "women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women's admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws."
The Commission on the Status of Women is supposed to conduct review of nations that violate women's rights, issue reports detailing their failings, and monitor their success in improving women's equality.
Yet critics of Iran's human rights record say the country has taken "every conceivable step" to deter women's equality.
"In the past year, it has arrested and jailed mothers of peaceful civil rights protesters," wrote three prominent democracy and human rights activists in an op-ed published online Tuesday by Foreign Policy Magazine.
"It has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere — as wives, daughters and mothers — with threatening national security, subjecting many to hours of harrowing interrogation. Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters."
Iran's elevation to the commission comes as a black eye just days after the U.S. helped lead a successful effort to keep Iran off the Human Rights Council, which is already dominated by nations that are judged by human rights advocates as chronic violators of essential freedoms. The current membership of the women's commission is little different.
Though it touts itself as "the principal global policy-making body" on women's rights, the makeup of the commission is mostly determined by geography and its membership is a hodge-podge of some human rights advocates (including the U.S., Japan, and Germany) and other nations with stark histories of rights violations.
The number of seats on the commission is based on the number of countries in a region, no matter how small their populations or how scant their respect for rights. The commission is currently made up of 13 members from Africa, 11 from Asia, nine from Latin America and the Caribbean, eight from Western Europe and North America, and four from Eastern Europe.
During this round of "elections," which were not competitive and in which no real votes were cast, two seats opened up for the Asian bloc for the 2011-2015 period. Only two nations put forward candidates to fill empty spots — Iran and Thailand. As at most such commissions in the U.N., backroom deals determined who would gain new seats at the women's rights body.
The activists' letter sent to the U.N. Tuesday argued that it would be better if the Asian countries proffered only one candidate, instead of elevating Iran to the commission.
"We, a group of gender-equality activists, believe that for the sake of women's rights globally, an empty seat for the Asia group on (the commission) is much preferable to Iran's membership. We are writing to alert you to the highly negative ramifications of Iran’s membership in this international body."
A spokeswoman for the U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social Affairs, which oversees the commission, did not return phone calls or e-mails seeking comment.
When its term begins in 2011, Iran will be joined by 10 other countries: Belgium, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Georgia, Jamaica, Iran, Liberia, the Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Zimbabwe.
-
Given some of the shared rhetoric from Mexico and Obama-Clinton, and the presence of Harvard prof Harold Koh in Clinton's State Dept, rumors of efforts at an international treaty to end run US sovereignty and Second Amendment rights were plausible , , , as were suspicions of these rumors being used/fomented for fund raising purposes:
=============
Hillary Clinton And The UN Arms Trade Treaty Rumor
Friday, May 28, 2010
NRA-ILA
We continue to receive numerous inquiries regarding UN international treaties, and their impact on our Second Amendment rights. The latest rumor making its way around the Internet claims that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually signed a UN small arms treaty.
Contrary to this widely circulated e-mail, Hillary Clinton has not signed any small arms treaty. She could not have done so, in fact, because no such treaty has yet been negotiated.
As we noted in an update from last November, the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be drafted between now and 2012, and even if signed, would not take effect in the U.S. until it was ratified by the Senate.
Please rest assured that, as we said in November, NRA will be actively involved in this process and will oppose any treaty that would attempt to impose limits on our Second Amendment rights. In the meantime, we urge gun owners to follow this issue in NRA's magazines and NRA-ILA's Grassroots Alerts. We also urge gun owners not to circulate misinformation on this issue.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5855
-
I also posted the following on the Kagan thread but post it here for future reference/research purposes.
============
News From the Swamp: The Kagan Hearings
The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan this past week were a glimpse into a pretty dim future for American jurisprudence. Kagan offered an obsequious and often glib performance over two days of softball pitches by Democrats and surprisingly light questioning by Republicans. She remained true to her featherweight legal background by deflecting most of the questions she received, and everyone, including the American public, walked away from the hearings just as clueless about her as when the whole charade began. Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't help matters, because they refused to follow up on some important lines of questioning. They also didn't demonstrate any coordinated plan of attack for exposing Kagan as a doctrinaire leftist with no respect for constitutional Rule of Law.
Still, the clues about the real Elena Kagan are evident in her prior record, scant though it may be. She advised Bill Clinton to veto the partial-birth abortion ban, a bill that later became law and was upheld by the Supreme Court. In doing so, she even went as far as to manipulate the medical language of a statement from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to help protect the barbaric practice. Kagan also suggested that the Court should overturn the Solomon Amendment, which provides for the removal of federal funds for schools that deny recruiting opportunities to the military. The Amendment has since been upheld unanimously by the High Court. These two instances are indicative of just how out of step Kagan is with the jurisprudential requirements of the position to which she has aspired since her college days.
More troubling, though, is Kagan's embrace of trans-nationalism, the trend among lawyers and judges who believe that the U.S. Constitution and legal system should incorporate international and foreign laws and legal rulings. On Constitution Day 2007, when most of the nation's educational institutions were embracing an educational program on the U.S. Constitution, Kagan hired noted trans-nationalist Noah Feldman to speak to the Harvard faculty. Feldman has been a constant and vocal critic of the American legal system because it has not fully embraced international law to guide its jurisprudence. Because Democrats control 58 Senate seats, Kagan is likely to win confirmation with a couple of turncoat Republicans, but the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the American public will pay heavily later.
-
U.N. Insider: ‘There Is No Transparency’
An internal memo reveals the downward spiral of U.N. oversight and accountability.
It’s often tempting, after the latest scandal, to think that the United Nations’ reputation for shoddy oversight and lack of transparency can’t sink any lower. And yet it keeps doing so.
The latest charges of mismanagement, corruption, and fraud come from the organization’s own bureaucracy. An internal memo by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, a Swedish auditor whose non-renewable five-year term as undersecretary-general of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) ended last week, charged U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon and his associates of undermining efforts to combat corruption in the organization.
This has long been obvious to observers of the U.N. Efforts to improve accountability, transparency, and oversight are often attacked from within. Many member states become angry if their citizens are fingered for corruption, and U.N. officials seem fearful that any report of problems will damage the organization’s reputation. Thus the decision to eliminate the Procurement Task Force — the only truly independent investigatory and oversight body the U.N. has ever had — in December 2008 was a frustrating but not surprising example of how effective and independent oversight is discouraged and attacked in Turtle Bay.
This also explains why scandals keep occurring. A few notable ones include:
the Iraqi Oil-for-Food scandal that Saddam Hussein used to generate some $10 billion in illegal revenue, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office;
a huge corruption scandal in which more than 40 percent of U.N. procurement for peacekeeping was revealed to be tainted by fraud, leading to three U.N. officials’ being charged in American courts;
widespread incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. personnel in Bosnia, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Guinea, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Kosovo, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Sudan.
Only rarely, however, are the efforts of those seeking to impede U.N. oversight reported by the media or otherwise brought to light. But now, we have first-person testimony from a U.N. official about just how effective the efforts to hamstring U.N. oversight have been. Among the harsh assessments relayed by Ahlenius to Ban in the summary of her end-of-assignment report, according to Foreign Policy’s Turtle Bay blog, is this:
There is no transparency, there is lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organization.
I regret to say that the [U.N.] Secretariat now is in a process of decay. It is not only falling apart into silos — the secretariat is drifting, to use the words of one of my senior colleagues. It is drifting into irrelevance.
Additional comments attributed to Ahlenius in the Foreign Policy post placed the blame squarely on Secretary-General Ban:
Your actions are not only deplorable, but seriously reprehensible. No UN Secretary-General before you has questioned the authority delegated to the [undersecretary-general of OIOS] to appoint the staff in OIOS. Your action is without precedent and in my opinion seriously embarrassing for yourself.
Ban’s defense, offered by his chef de cabinet Vijay Nambiar, essentially denies responsibility, changes the subject, and questions Ahlenius’s version of events. A choice quote:
This secretary-general, like his recent predecessors, has had to strike a balance between acting as a chief administrative officer of the United Nations on the one hand, and providing truly global leadership on the other. A look at his record shows that Secretary-General Ban has provided genuine visionary leadership on important issues from climate change to development to women’s empowerment. He has promoted the cause of gender balance in general as well within the organization. He has led from the front on important political issues from Gaza to Haiti to Sudan. And today, he is in Afghanistan.
Well, as long as the gender balance in the U.N. is being addressed, the secretary-general must be doing his job, right?
His visionary leadership didn’t prevent indecision and divisions in Copenhagen (for which we can be thankful, considering his goals). We’re still waiting for the results of his leadership to appear in Gaza and Sudan.
And Ban’s denial of impeding transparency and oversight of the U.N. is greatly undermined by his refusal to allow Ahlenius’s full 50-page report to be made public. This response serves only to confirm the lack of leadership and effective management at the U.N., exactly the failings Ahlenius focused on.
While Ban and his associates richly deserve this criticism, Ahlenius is wrong to ignore (at least in the summary of her report) the role that member states have played in preventing U.N. transparency, accountability, and oversight. Indeed, the primary pressure to eliminate the Procurement Task Force came from the Russian and Singaporean missions to the U.N. They were upset that the Task Force had charged and provided evidence that their nationals had been involved in corrupt actions. Russia even sought to prevent staff from the Procurement Task Force from being transferred to or hired by OIOS.
Regardless of whether Ban deserves most of the blame or only part of it, the assessment by Ahlenius should alarm the U.S. Congress, since the OIOS is one of the few oversight bodies in the U.N. If it remains hamstrung, there will be virtually no oversight of U.N. activities — or of the billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to Turtle Bay each year.
Congress should also closely question U.S. officials in New York, especially U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, about why the U.S. allowed Secretary-General Ban to run roughshod over Ahlenius. The interference in OIOS has been widely known. As reported in Foreign Policy, “The U.N. has failed to fill dozens of vacancies, including the chief of the U.N.’s investigations division, which has been vacant since 2006, leaving a void in the U.N.’s ability to police itself, according to U.N. diplomats.”
The unfortunate reality is that few countries are interested in making sure that the U.N. has adequate oversight and accountability. Most pay the U.N. a pittance and, therefore, have nothing at stake. If the U.S. doesn’t press this issue, no other nation is likely to step forward.
As it represents the largest financier of the U.N., the U.S. mission should be the best friend of U.N. auditors and whistleblowers. Without them, we would have little chance of keeping the organization honest and accountable. So why has the U.S. mission been so silent and seemingly indifferent?
The U.S. should demand the public release of Ahlenius’s full report. It should also argue for a fully independent U.N. oversight body modeled after the Procurement Task Force. There is a vital need to hire a competent, qualified replacement at OIOS for Ahlenius. Someone who has a record of independence. Moreover, American policymakers should make certain that the many open slots in OIOS to be filled by qualified individuals as soon as possible.
— Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation. He is also editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).
http://article.nationalreview.com/438424/un-insider-there-is-no-transparency/brett-d-schaefer
-
My Constitutional law prof is at it again. POTH approves, naturally:
Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the few prominent jurists to speak out against this trend in recent years, gave an on-the-money speech last week pointing out the xenophobia on recent display in the confirmation hearings of Elena Kagan.
At one point, Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, noted with scorn that Harvard Law School, where Ms. Kagan had been dean, required first-year students to study international law. Senator Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, asked why Ms. Kagan thought it was acceptable to use foreign law to interpret the Constitution, which she retorted was almost never the case. Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican of Arizona, summed it up: “I’m troubled by it,” not because foreign law would create a United States precedent, but “because it suggests that you could turn to foreign law to get good ideas.”
In her remarks on Friday, delivered to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University in Washington, Justice Ginsburg said that kind of thinking is completely at odds with the views of the nation’s founders, who were extremely interested in the opinions and laws of other countries. The authors of the Federalist Papers, she noted, cited the “high importance” of observing the “laws of nations.” And, of course, the Declaration of Independence itself was an appeal to the “opinions of mankind” in a “candid world.”
To the extent that the United States wants its ideals and legal system to inspire others, it should take interest in ideas from overseas, she said, not necessarily adopting them but drawing on them. Ms. Kagan made it clear that foreign opinions are not authoritative, Justice Ginsburg said, adding: “They set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions.”
In 2002, the Supreme Court prohibited the execution of those mentally retarded, noting that the practice is overwhelmingly disapproved around the world. In 2003, it struck down prohibitions on gay sex, which it called “an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.” In 2005, the court prohibited the execution of minors, again noting global opinion. “It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in that case, to acknowledge “the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples.”
The reasoning in those cases was greeted with catcalls from legal isolationists, as no doubt will be Justice Ginsburg’s brave speech. Foreign law will undoubtedly be cited this week as a reason why many Republicans will vote against Ms. Kagan’s confirmation. They might want to re-read James Madison’s description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: “He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.”
-
My read on Ruth is that she is a quintessential progressive and uses non-American sources to advance that agenda.
-
Pasting BBG's post in the Immigration thread here as well.
Utterly contemptible! :x :x :x
An U.N.-Conscionable Act
Published on September 22, 2010 by Edwin Feulner, Ph.D.
Thanks to a certain immigration law, the Obama administration isn’t very happy with Arizona these days. But did you know the White House has gone so far as to put Arizona “on report”? And to the United Nations, no less.
That’s right. Apparently the federal government can’t handle this dispute alone. It needs to elevate it to the world stage, encouraging international criticism of the offending state. So Arizona’s alleged transgression comes up in a report the administration submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council:
“A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined.
“President Obama remains firmly committed to fixing our broken immigration system, because he recognizes that our ability to innovate, our ties to the world, and our economic prosperity depend on our capacity to welcome and assimilate immigrants. The Administration will continue its efforts to work with the U.S. Congress and affected communities toward this end.”
No wonder Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, in a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called this “downright offensive.” If the administration felt compelled to mention an unsettled legal dispute in a report to an international body, it should have at least adopted a more neutral tone. Instead, it sounds like the administration is saying, “Don’t worry, world; we’re doing all we can to show this slow, backward child of ours the error of its ways.”
Here’s a larger question, one worth considering as the United Nations gathers for its annual General Assembly meeting: Should the United States even have joined the Human Rights Council, whose membership roll includes such blatant human-rights tramplers as China and Cuba?
The HRC was created in 2006 as a replacement for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. For years, the commission had failed to hold governments accountable for violating basic human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Unfortunately, the HRC’s track record has been no better. In theory, it “offers an unprecedented opportunity to hold the human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism,” as Heritage Foundation experts Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves have noted. But in practice, the HRC “has proven to be a flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from criticism.”
Consider Cuba’s report to the HRC. It turns out its “democratic system is based on the principle of ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’.” And guess what? Its citizens enjoy the right to “freedom of opinion, expression and the press.” I’m sure that will surprise the thousands of Cubans who have risked life and limb to escape the island nation, and the thousands more who remain locked in Castro’s jails for political “crimes.”
China made similarly laughable assertions in its report to the HRC. It even claimed its citizens enjoy a right to religious freedom. North Korea, too, is a downright utopia, judging from its report to the U.N.
It’s bad enough these countries lie. But it’s not unexpected. What’s worse is that the U.N. accepts these demonstrably false claims at face value. The majority of member states approve these reports.
To avoid becoming a party to this charade, the Bush administration wisely declined membership in the HRC. The Obama administration reversed that policy. So we have a situation where the U.S., just by being a member, lends legitimacy to a U.N. farce on human rights. And now the administration is compounding the error by offering up a state for criticism by a body that includes some of the world’s most egregious human-rights offenders.
Talk about “downright offensive.”
Dr. Edwin Feulner is president of The Heritage Foundation.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/09/An-UN-Conscionable-Act
-
UN to appoint Earth contact for aliens
THE United Nations was set today to appoint an obscure Malaysian astrophysicist to act as Earth’s first contact for any aliens that may come visiting.
Mazlan Othman, the head of the UN's little-known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), is to describe her potential new role next week at a scientific conference at the Royal Society’s Kavli conference centre in Buckinghamshire.
She is scheduled to tell delegates that the recent discovery of hundreds of planets around other stars has made the detection of extraterrestrial life more likely than ever before - and that means the UN must be ready to coordinate humanity’s response to any “first contact”.
During a talk Othman gave recently to fellow scientists, she said: “The continued search for extraterrestrial communication, by several entities, sustains the hope that some day humankind will receive signals from extraterrestrials.
"When we do, we should have in place a coordinated response that takes into account all the sensitivities related to the subject. The UN is a ready-made mechanism for such coordination.”
Professor Richard Crowther, an expert in space law and governance at the UK Space Agency and who leads British delegations to the UN on such matters, said: “Othman is absolutely the nearest thing we have to a ‘take me to your leader’ person.”
However, he thinks humanity’s first encounter with any intelligent aliens is more likely to be via radio or light signals from a distant planet than by beings arriving on Earth. And, he suggests, even if we do encounter aliens in the flesh, they are more likely to be microbes than anything intelligent.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/un-to-appoint-earth-contact-for-aliens/story-e6frfku0-1225929498742#ixzz10mRziEW7
-
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/aliens-schmaliens-pakistan/
Along those same lines, here’s a far more urgent reason — even if less juicy than the vision of a UN envoy for aliens — to ask whether the Obama administration is doing anything at all to mind the mess at the UN shop in Vienna.
At the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, as 2010-2011 chair of the IAEA’s governing body, UN member states have just picked an envoy of …wait for it …. Pakistan.
Yes, that’s right. Pakistan: the country that not so long ago brought the world the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation bazaar, the country that spawned the Taliban and continues to breed jihadi terrorists, the country that holds out its hand for billions in aid while pouring resources into the ability to produce yet more nuclear weapons. Behold, Ladies and Gentlemen, with crisis upon us over the Iranian nuclear bomb program, the North Korean nuclear bomb, and rumblings of a further proliferation breakout — from Venezuela to East Asia to the Middle East — the IAEA’s prime decision-making body, its 35-member governing board, as of today is chaired for the next year by one of Pakistan’s longtime nuclear insiders, Ansar Parvez of Pakistan.
Reportedly, the Obama administration did nothing to stop Pakistan winning the chairmanship of the IAEA governing board. The U.S. sits on the IAEA governing board. But according to Reuters, U.S. officials nodded along, just as they did this past spring when Iran won a seat on the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Reuters reports : “No country opposed Pakistan’s nomination by a group of Middle Eastern and south Asian member states at a meeting of the IAEA governors.” Citing an anonymous diplomat who attended the session, Reuters reports that the choice of Pakistan was approved “by acclamation.”
-
BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 16 –
BELLEVUE, Wash., Sept. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate representative to the United Nations has removed any doubt about the Obama administration's intentions regarding global gun control initiatives, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
Nickels, a founding member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the author of Seattle's failed attempt to override Washington's state firearms preemption statute, was sworn in Wednesday to "help represent the United States in the UN assembly," according to the Seattle Times.
"Putting an extremist gun banner in any position to represent this country at the United Nations amounts to renting a billboard for advertising against the Second Amendment," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "While he was Seattle's mayor, Greg Nickels supported every anti-gun scheme put forth by Washington CeaseFire, the Northwest's most active gun prohibition lobby.
"Nickels is a gun ban proponent," he continued, "so his appointment as an alternate to the UN is a clear signal of Barack Obama's intention to rubber stamp the UN's global gun ban agenda. We had to sue Nickels while he was still Seattle's mayor to overturn his illegal city parks gun ban. Now he gets to push his anti-gun philosophy on a world scale. It hardly seems a coincidence that Nickels has been appointed by the Obama administration at a time when the UN is considering treaties and initiatives that pose a serious threat to the Second Amendment."
Nickels was turned out of office in 2009, which was something of a feat in a liberal enclave like Seattle, Gottlieb recalled. His defeat in the primary demonstrated the degree of alienation voters felt from a politician who once epitomized the Seattle liberal establishment.
"By naming Greg Nickels as an alternate representative at the UN," Gottlieb stated, "President Obama has essentially told America's 85 million gun owners that their firearm civil rights are in jeopardy. Nickels cannot be counted on to defend the Second Amendment because he would like to see it erased from the Constitution."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
-
From countries who receive our aid. Well, I think we are also the biggest contributers to the UN as well.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
-
U.N. Human Rights Council Takes Aim at New Target: United States
By George Russell
Published November 05, 2010
FoxNews.com
The United Nations Human Rights Council, a conclave of 47 nations that includes such notorious human rights violators as China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia, met in Geneva on Friday, to question the United States about its human rights failings.
It heard, among other things, that the U.S. discriminates against Muslims, that its police are barbaric and that it has been holding political prisoners behind bars for years.
Russia urged the U.S. to abolish the death penalty. Cuba and Iran called on Washington to close Guantanamo prison and investigate alleged torture by its troops abroad. Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, told it must better promote religious tolerance. Mexico complained that racial profiling had become a common practice in some U.S. states.
Some of these allegations, and many more, come from Americans themselves — especially from a stridently critical network of U.S. organizations whose input dominates the U.N. digest of submissions from “civil society” that are part of the council’s background reading.
For the first time ever, the U.S. came under the Human Rights Council’s microscope as part of the its centerpiece activity, the “Universal Periodic Review,” a rotating examination of the human rights failings and strong points of every country in the world, from North Korea to Norway, by the council's members.
For two hours, council members got to say whatever they wish, good and ill, about the country that has done the most in the past 40 years to establish human rights as a global theme.
The anticipation was that that ill-wishers were planning to pack the line to the speaker’s podium, with complaints from some Western human rights organizations that Cuba, Venezuela and Iran were seeking to “hijack” the microphone and stack the speaker’s list with U.S. critics.
But what really is under review is the gamble by the Obama administration to join the council in the first place, rather than shun it in disdain, as the Bush administration did, along with its predecessor, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, because of its roster of despotic members and unbridled antagonism toward Israel.
The Universal Periodic Review, in which all countries great and small submit to human rights commentary by their peers, is supposed to help install the principle of observing human rights in the farthest reaches of the international community.
But it was also a one-sided fiasco, along the lines of such previous toxic human rights extravaganzas as the U.N.’s 2001 “World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,” and its 2006 follow-up, which turned into orgies of anti-Israeli posturing and helped to lead to the previous U.N. Human Rights Commission crackup.
So who is supposed to benefit from the U.S. submission to the UPR process?
According to Jim Kelly, director of international affairs for the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies and founder of a blog called Global Governance Watch, the main beneficiaries are likely to be the interest groups that take part in the exercise. “The fact is, they are demanding that the U.S. comply with rights that are already addressed by our own democratic system and laws,” he argues. “They are simply trying to get us to adopt U.N. standards instead of our own. It’s not as if by our participating in the human rights process Cuba is going to clean up its act.”
But according to the U.S. State Department, which led a delegation of high-level American diplomats and government officials to Geneva, the Periodic Review is a major opportunity for Washington to lead the rest of the world by example.
“Our taking the process seriously contributes to the universality” of the human rights process, one State Department official told Fox News. “It’s an important opportunity for us to showcase our willingness to expose ourselves in a transparent way” to human rights criticism.
“For us, upholding the process is very important.”
The same official, however, declared that the “most important” part of the process is “the dialogue with our own citizens.”
That was a reference to the important—and often harshly critical—role being played in the U.S. Universal Periodical Review by American human rights interest groups, or Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), also known in U.N. parlance as “stakeholders.”
The Obama administration has gone to elaborate lengths to consult with such groups in advance of the Geneva meeting. The State Department, has led delegations from a variety of government departments (including Labor, Homeland Security, Education and Justice) to consult with such groups in Chicago, Detroit, San Francisco, Harlem, and Albuquerque, according to an official at State.
Those NGOs will also get a chance to “engage” with the U.S. delegation in Geneva at what the State Department calls a “first ever town hall meeting,” after the Human Rights Council, composed of national governments, makes its views known. “Many countries stack the room with NGOs that are government controlled,” the State Department official told Fox News, adding that the U.S. obviously doesn’t.
“We hope that the Periodic Review process will be one that sheds new light on issues,” the official added, including “what we learn from our own NGOs, which we take seriously.”
How seriously the NGOs should be taken is indeed, an important part of the question surrounding the human rights tableau in Geneva. For one thing, 103 submissions by those NGOS about U.S. human rights practices—very broadly defined—are already included in the official documentation of the Universal Periodic Review itself.
In that sense, their contents provide a kind of rough road map to the rhetoric that the U.S. may face in the days—and even years—ahead, because the Universal Periodic Review process will be repeated indefinitely into the future, and is supposed to analyze progress from session to session.
According to a dense summary of the submissions circulated by the U.N. in advance of Friday's meeting, the NGOs offering briefs for this Review run a familiar gamut from the American Bar Association and British-based Amnesty International to such specialized groups as the Navajo Nation Human Rights Commission.
They also include an array of submissions from college legal faculties and their advocacy offshoots; environmental coalitions; and a smattering of other non-American organizations such as the Federation of Cuban Women, based in the Castro dictatorship. (The women’s group objects on human rights grounds to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.)
Even relatively conservative and centrist organizations are represented in submissions by the Heritage Foundation, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.
CLICK HERE FOR THE U.N. SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
Yet despite their apparent diversity, many of the submissions, as summarized briefly in the U.N. document, point to a number of common themes:
--The U.S. needs to sign, ratify and implement a wide number of United Nations-sponsored human rights conventions, whatever reservations various U.S. governments or courts have had to them;
-- All these treaties and conventions should be “self-executing,” meaning that no subsequent U.S. government action should be required for them to go into effect—regardless of the U.S. constitutional separation of powers, and the separation of powers between federal and state governments;
--the U.S. should have national human rights institutions to coordinate and enforce human rights compliance;
--racial, economic and social disparities are still endemic in the U.S. despite its own civil rights laws, and need to be eliminated to meet “international standards” embodied in U.N. treaties. Amnesty International, for example, charges that “racial disparities continue to exist at every stage [U.S.] in the criminal justice system,” and calls for laws to bar “racial profiling in law enforcement.”
The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, an offshoot of New York University’s law school, goes further, and argues that since 9/11, “the U.S. has institutionalized discriminatory profiling against members of Muslim, Arab, South Asian and Middle-Eastern communities.” The organization calls for federal laws against profiling “on all grounds, with no exceptions for national security and an in-depth audit of government databases/watchlists.”
--barbaric treatment of citizens by U.S. police is allegedly rife. Again according to Amnesty, U.S. police and custody officials “are rarely prosecuted for abuses,” prison conditions “remain harsh in many states,” and “electroshock weapons are widely used against individuals who do not pose a serious threat, including children, the elderly and people under the influence of drink or drugs.”
--U.S. social conditions are dismal. One submission claims, according to the U.N. summary, that 30% of the U.S. population “lacks an adequate income to meet basic needs,” while another notes that “there is an unequal access in the U.S. to basic amenities such as adequate food, shelter, work, healthcare and education. There is also a lack of affordable housing, job shortages and income insecurity, particularly among minorities and women.”
-- native peoples on American soil are badly neglected and need the protection of international treaties, and the U.S. treats immigrants and asylum-seekers badly. At least one organization recommends a ban on deporting indigenous peoples from anywhere in the Americas.
The sheer welter and volume of accusations, recriminations and prescriptions aimed at the U.S. that are embedded in the U.N. summary, however, obscures one important fact—an extraordinary number of them, Fox News has discovered, come from just a single source out of the 103 submissions cited in the U.N. document.
Indeed, no fewer than 60 of 162 footnote citations in the summary—37 percent of the entire total-- refer to a back-up document from a single organization, known as the U.S. Human Rights Network, or USHRN.
The 60 footnotes often cite other submissions as well, but no other organization contributing in the Human Rights Council summary comes close to USHRN as a source for accusations against U.S. behavior. (The energetic Amnesty International, by contrast, finishes in second place with just 23 footnote citations.)
Which raises the question: what, exactly, is the U.S. Human Rights Network?
According to its 423-page submission to the Geneva meeting—actually, 23 separate position papers bound together with a 15 page “overarching report,” or executive summary, USHRN was formed in 2003 as a “new model for U.S.-based human rights advocacy.”
Its intention is to “raise awareness of the human rights network within the broader social justice movement, to create linkages between traditional human rights and social justice organizations, and to facilitate sharing of information and resources among a broader network of activists.”
USHNR’s website is a little more specific: it is an agglomeration of nearly 300 activist organizations whose ultimate aim, “full U.S. compliance with universal human rights standards—will require the development of a broad-based, democratic movement that is dedicated to the long-term goal of transforming U.S. political culture.”
Funding for the network and its Geneva submission apparently comes from the Human Rights Fund, an umbrella group whose steering committee of philanthropies include the Ford Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Institute, the Overbrook Foundation and an anonymous donor.
Among the network’s membership are some prominent and familiar organizations: the American Friends Service Committee, Fordham University Law Center, the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights.
But most of USHNR’s members are a hodge-podge of relatively unknown and local organizations, like the St. Louis-based Organization for Black Struggle, the Progressive Action Alliance (“a group of progressives in the southeast Texas area”), the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and many more.
Some of them are also apparently non-American, like Rebuild Green, whose own website is entirely in German.
What they apparently share, according to their mammoth Human Rights Council submission, is a militant vision of the U.S. as a malignant force. “In the years since UNHRN’s inception,” the document declares, “constitutional protections for U.S. citizens and non-citizens have diminished, economic conditions for working and poor people in the U.S. have deteriorated, and repression has increased.”
Several of the position papers included in the submission are a lot more militant than that, and also seem to emerge from some radical left-wing time tunnel. One of the papers, entitled “Political Repression—Political Prisoners,” harks back to the 1970s to indict the FBI through Operation COINTELPRO for “maiming, murdering, false prosecutions and frame-ups, destruction and mayhem throughout the country.”
It cites the Feds for targeting such far-left organizations as the Puerto Rican Independence Front, the Black Panther Party, the Weather Underground, the American Indian Movement, the Black Liberation Army, as well as “peace activists and everyone in between,” and says that “many of today’s political prisoners” in the U.S. were jailed indefinitely as a result. That repression has increased, the paper argues since 9/11.
The political repression paper demands an “immediate criminal investigation into the conspiracy,” and also new trials for two now-aged left-wing activists jailed on murder charges, Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier.
The repression paper was authored by the National Conference of Black Lawyers and the Malcolm X Center for Self Determination, neither of which are listed among USHRN’s member organizations. It is endorsed by a host of other organizations, however, including at least that is not only a USHRN member, but is also cited in the U.N. summary as the author of a separate submission to the Periodic Review. This seems to indicate that USHRN’s collective viewpoint is being augmented by other, nominally independent contributors to the Review.
Yet another position paper, on “The Continuum of Domestic Repression” in the U.S., asserts that “today, police still routinely make unfounded mass arrests and detentions to keep people off the streets and out of the eye of the media which tends to be accommodating.” It further condemns the use of high-security detention measures against terrorists such as Sayed Fahad Hashmi , a Pakistani-born U.S. citizen who pled guilty this year to conspiracy for providing support to Al Qaeda. Hashmi, the paper says, was held in high-security custody for three years. The paper says such treatment is “typical of how terrorism suspects are being treated in U.S. prisons and courts.”
The “Continuum” paper was submitted by the African American Institute for Policy Studies & Planning, the October 22 Coalition, and the Ida B. Wells Media Institute. None of them are listed on the USHRN website as member organizations.
However, an organization called the Afrikan Amerikan Institute for Policy Studies and Planning, Inc., which calls itself “a volunteer Grassroots, community based think tank created more than 10 years ago,” and is based in Greenville, South Carolina, claims on its website that the Malcolm X Center for Self-Determination, co-author of the other repression paper in the USHRN portfolio, is one of its projects. The Coordinator/President-CEO of the Afrikan Amerikan Institute is Efia Nwangaza, a onetime Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate.
On its website, the Oct. 22 Coalition gives its full name as “The October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation.” According to its website, its birth “came out of conversations” among a group of radical activists, including a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Since 1996, the Coalition has organized national days of protest annually on its name day, and uses a post office box in New York’s East Village as a focal point for organizing. (The October 22 date, the website says, does not have a “significance in its own right.” The protesters wanted a day when “students would be back in school, and before the elections.”)
The USHRN position paper on U.S. labor relations, however, was submitted by much better-known mainstream organizations. Among them: the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the United Steelworkers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). None are listed as USHRN members.
Among other things, the labor paper points to declining U.S. union membership as a function of discriminatory U.S. labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act, and declares that “core internationally established labor rights are not adequately protected by state and federal laws that govern the American workplace” and adds that “workers have resorted to international fora to seek redress.”
It says that corporate harassment, threats, unlawful interrogations and retaliatory firings are “standard practice” in U.S. union organizing, and calls on the U.S. to obey “pertinent international instruments” to, among other things, adopt the Employee Free Choice Act, commonly known as “card check,” to ensure all workers get full federal and state labor law protection “regardless of migration status.” It also calls on U.S. governments give broader latitude to allowing public sector labor strikes.
The sheer expanse of the USHRN effort virtually guaranteed it would have a major impact on the U.N.’s summary documentation for the November 5 Periodic Review—and so, apparently, did the Network’s heavy participation in the State Department’s cross-country “consultations” in the lead-up to the review.
In an acknowledgement at the front of the document USHRN executive director Ajamu Baraka, lauds two of his workers for efforts across the country where they “continually held the State Department to its commitments even though corralling federal officials was not part of their job description.”
Baraka himself is no stranger to strenuous efforts on behalf of his causes. A onetime director of Amnesty International USA’s southern regional director and head of its anti-death penalty campaign, he has been described as “a veteran grassroots organizer with roots in the Black Liberation movement, anti-apartheid and Central American solidarity struggles.”
Personally hailed, according to various reports, by then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, as a human rights activist, Baraka was also listed in May 2000 as an attendee of the first U.N. preparatory committee meeting to lay the groundwork for the Durban World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. He apparently attended as a delegate of the World Peace Council, an organization created in the early days of the Cold War, and which now describes itself as “an anti-imperialist, democratic, independent and non-aligned international movement of mass action.”
George Russell is executive editor of Fox News
-
More prorgressism towards the ultimate goal of one world government with you guessed it, the ONE in charge:
Susan Rice kicks off U.N. series
“Because of the U.N., the world doesn’t look to America to solve every problem alone. … We’re far better off working to strengthen the U.N. than trying to starve it — and then having to choose between filling the void ourselves, or leaving real threats untended.”“The U.N. provides a real return on our tax dollars by bringing 192 countries together to share the cost of providing stability, vital aid and hope in the world’s most broken places,” Rice said in prepared remarks.
-
Exactly assbackwards. The UN should be kept, downsized and de-emphasized. If America hosts it, these dignitaries like Ahmadinejad and Chavez should visit Peoria or Sioux Falls instead of NYC with all its distractions. If the US gets one seat and one vote, then the US pays one share - whatever Djibouti is paying. It should exist as a discussion and networking hall, not a voting or governing body, or a taxing authority.
We should know now if not sooner that we don't have friends or reliable allies and neither do they. We sometimes have other nations who at the moment share a common interest on a particular matter. We need open communications with all these players. Skype is more cost effective.
-
"f we are to be told by a foreign Power ... what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little." --George Washington
Consistent with his socialist, we-are-all-one agenda, Barack Obama used a non-unanimous 10-vote nod from the United Nations Security Council to justify commencing hostilities against Libya, bypassing Congress, the Constitution, the will of the American public and a couple hundred years' worth of precedents. Since none of these have mattered in the past, why should they now? After all, in the mind of Obama -- or "Our Son, His Excellency" as his erstwhile pal Moammar Gadhafi called him recently -- UN authority supersedes U.S. constitutional authority and sovereignty.
To be sure, a long list of reasons support America's desire to oust Gadhafi and his regime, especially his role in state-sponsored terrorism. It was Gadhafi that ordered the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270, most of whom were Americans. That said, a number of countervailing arguments counsel against intervening in Libya's civil war with this, as Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes euphemistically put it, "kinetic military action." This description was later revised by Press Secretary Jay Carney to "time-limited, scope-limited" military action. That clears things up.
For one, it is a civil war. U.S. policy -- at least ostensibly -- has been to refrain from engaging in conflicts where U.S. vital national interests are not at stake. Whatever interests the U.S. has in Libya, the term "vital" certainly does not apply.
Second, as a sovereign nation, the U.S. neither seeks nor is granted authority from a supra-national organization such as the UN to use American instruments of national power, including military force. Such authority must vest from within, and in the U.S. that mechanism is the Constitution. While the president has both the authority and duty to use force in protection of the United States from an actual or imminent attack, that is the extent of his unilateral authority. Congress alone has the authority to approve the use of military force in all other circumstances as it did in the wake of 9/11. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, President George W. Bush specifically approached Congress, asked for and was granted a resolution authorizing the use of military force. His successor -- not so much.
Next, we have no idea whether the regime that replaces Gadhafi (if that happens) will actually be a change for the better. While the words "democracy" and "freedom" are bandied about indiscriminately, no one knows what Libya will look like post-Gadhafi. In fact, the rebels are self-described Islamic "holy warriors" who have at least the verbal backing of al-Qa'ida. This fact alone should advocate for restraint.
Moreover, as America nears the tenth anniversary of 9/11, we should pause to reflect upon the fact that our nation has been at war continuously for almost a decade. Should we -- or can we even afford to -- embark on a third commitment of manpower and resources, much less one that is undefined and open-ended? Supposedly, no "boots on the ground" were to be committed, but as we go to press 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit are stationed just off the Libyan coast. In the first few days of this conflict alone, we have already lost a plane and spent hundreds of Tomahawk missiles -- are we prepared to commit to this effort to the point that we're willing to sacrifice American lives as well?
In 2007, both Barack Obama and his levelheaded sidekick Joe Biden believed that the president's authority to use military force is limited to repelling an imminent or ongoing attack on the U.S., and that Congress alone has the authority to authorize the use of military force in all other circumstances. "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," said Barack Obama then. Likewise, Joe Biden chimed in, "I made it clear to the president that if he takes this nation to war without congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him. That is a fact."
These claims were made when they were "Candidate Obama" and "Senator Biden," respectively -- that is, before either decided that their heartfelt words on the campaign trail or a TV talk show were never meant to be applied to themselves at some future point.
Finally, it's worth highlighting how utterly disagreeable is the military operation label "Odyssey Dawn." An odyssey is a very long, convoluted saga -- not an event wrapped up in a few days, as this effort has been promoted, thus far. We're hoping that the Pentagon has a good sense of humor and irony. Otherwise and unwittingly, it may have aptly coined the beginning of yet another endless military journey. It might be nice to rid the world of Moammar Gadhafi. But before we commit American lives and resources toward doing so, shouldn't we first pause to ask the question: At what cost?
Quote of the Week
"We don't know whether the current U.S. president is mindful of what he is uttering, or if he is unconscious and confused." --Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei
-
Moving BBG's post to here:
==================================
Obama’s U.N. Debacle
The Obama administration’s big hopes of reforming the Human Rights Council from within are in shreds.
President Obama’s decision to place the United Nations at the center of his foreign policy took another hit Friday as the U.N. Human Rights Council ended its latest session in Geneva. One of the president’s primary justifications for joining the notorious council shortly after he assumed office was its mandatory five-year review process; if the U.S. was a member, the administration claimed, it could influence this process. The process, which quietly unfolded in back rooms in Geneva over the past six months, has been exposed to be a total fraud, taking the administration’s cover down with it.
Starting last fall, the Obama team was a very active participant in a working group of the council that had been set up to tackle reform. At the end of February, the working group produced a document summarizing its decisions, and on Friday the council passed a resolution adopting that document by consensus — that is, without a vote. Regardless of the fact that every serious recommendation of the United States was rejected, Obama’s diplomats refused to call for a vote on the resolution so that they could vote against it.
They did play a little game intended to fool uninformed listeners by claiming to “dissociate” the administration from the resolution. However, since the resolution has been adopted by consensus, it will proceed unimpeded to the General Assembly, where it will be rubber-stamped. The U.S. could not have stopped the resolution, but an American vote against the measure would have been a major blow to the credibility of the Human Rights Council. It also would have set up the U.S. to leave the council as a logical consequence of the failure to reform it.
The slap in the face to President Obama is painfully clear from a short list of American demands for reform and the council’s responses.
The council has an official, permanent agenda that governs all its meetings and consists of only ten items. One of those items is reserved for condemning Israel, and another is assigned to human rights in the other 191 U.N. member states. This session, for instance, produced six resolutions condemning Israel, one resolution each on four other states, and nothing at all on the remaining 187 countries. The American delegation huffed and puffed that this obvious discrimination — which characterizes every meeting of the council — must come to an end, and proposed that the two agenda items be rolled into one. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed creating easier trigger mechanisms for convening special sessions on specific countries when serious human-rights concerns arise. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed abolishing the council’s make-work “Advisory Committee.” It is currently populated by such human-rights luminaries as former Sandinista leader and suspended priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. (Brockmann once served as president of the U.N. General Assembly and is best remembered for a series of anti-Semitic outbursts and for coming down off his podium to hug Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.) The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed making public pre-screened complaints of gross and systematic violations of human rights that are received by the council. Specific cases, which have poured into the U.N. for over half a century from poor souls around the world, have never been revealed. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed expanding the time allocated to discussions of abuses in specific countries. The proposal was rejected.
The American delegation proposed that states running for a seat on the council should engage in a public dialogue with General Assembly members on their human-rights record, as measured by specific criteria. The proposal was rejected.
In all, the U.N. reports that 42 proposals were put forward by the American delegation orally and in writing. Only three were accepted. Those three addressed minutiae. For instance, the Obama team proposed allowing all states that wish to speak during the council’s “universal periodic review” (UPR) to be permitted to do so. The UPR is the procedure in which the council considers the human-rights record of every state, but the council tightly controls the time spent on each country. Council members are allotted three minutes’ and non-members two minutes’ worth of comments, regardless of the scope of the issues. Since the total time is fixed, would-be commentators are frequently silenced by ending up too low on the speakers’ list. The “reform” that was proposed and accepted? Keep the total time the same and reduce the allotted time per speaker. Thirty-second critiques of human-rights abuses, here we come.
Instead of admitting their complete inability to accomplish their mission of reforming the council, however, Obama’s representatives are scrambling to sweep the disaster under the rug. Admitting their error would no doubt strike at the heart of the president’s U.N. chorus line.
On March 31, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice announced that the U.S. would seek to join the council “because we believe that working from within, we can make the Council a more effective forum,” and because “the Council . . . is scheduled to undergo a formal review of its structure and procedures in 2011, which will offer a significant opportunity for Council reform.” In a New York Times op-ed on Sept. 13, 2010, Eileen Donahoe — the United States’ ambassador to the council — called the review “a serious self-reflection exercise” and claimed that “if we do not sit at the table with others and do the work necessary to influence the process, U.S. values and priorities will not be reflected in the outcome.”
Now we know there was no “serious self-reflection.” U.S. values and priorities have not been reflected in the outcome. The reform opportunity is in shreds.
The result leaves the administration with two choices. Choice number one: Admit the fiasco. Refuse to lend legitimacy to a highly discriminatory agency designed to help members such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba conceal their own abuses. And get out. Choice number two: Allow a bogus “reform” to be adopted by consensus, and stay put.
President Obama has evidently decided to take the second course, sending one more signal about how little he values Israel and how few are the number of human-rights victims around the world that stand any chance of capturing his attention.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and the editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263102/obama-s-un-debacle-anne-bayefsky
-
US out of UN, and the UN out of the US.
-
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/
Larry Bell
Jun. 7 2011 - 2:04 pm
It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.
What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?
While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights
Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”
More from contributor Larry Bell
Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.
As an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. He also served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago during a period between 1998-2001when it contributed $18,326,183 in grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.
If someone breaks into your home when you are there, which would you prefer to have close at hand: 1) a telephone to call 911, or 2) a loaded gun of respectable caliber? That’s a pretty easy question for me to answer. I am a long-time NRA member, concealed firearms license holder and a regular weekly recreational pistol shooter. And while I don’t ordinarily care to target anything that has a mother, will reluctantly make an exception should an urgent provocation arise. I also happen to enjoy the company of friends who hunt, as well as those, like myself, who share an abiding interest in American history and the firearms that influenced it.
There are many like me, and fewer of them would be alive today were it not for exercise of their gun rights. In fact law-abiding citizens in America used guns in self-defense 2.5 million times during 1993 (about 6,850 times per day), and actually shot and killed 2 1/2 times as many criminals as police did (1,527 to 606). Those civilian self-defense shootings resulted in less than 1/5th as many incidents as police where an innocent person was mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Just how effectively have gun bans worked to make citizens safer in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
Recognizing clear statistical benefit evidence, 41 states now allow competent, law-abiding adults to carry permitted or permit-exempt concealed handguns. As a result, crime rates in those states have typically fallen at least 10% in the year following enactment.
So the majority in our Senate is smart enough to realize that the U.N.’s gun-grab agenda is unconstitutional, politically suicidal for those who support it, and down-right idiotic—right? Let’s hope so, but not entirely count on it. While a few loyal Obama Democrats are truly “pro-gun”, many are loathe to vote against treaties that carry the president’s international prestige, causing him embarrassment.
Also, don’t forget that Senate confirmation of anti-gun Obama nominee Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Many within the few who voted against her did so only because of massive grassroots pressure from constituents who take their Constitutional protections very seriously.
Now, more than ever, it’s imperative to stick by our guns in demanding that all Constitutional rights be preserved. If not, we will surely lose both.
-
Will also post this on the Liberal Fascism thread
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-the-new-white-house-rural-council-uns-agenda-21/
-
Is Leon Panetta Suitable
To Head The Defense Department?
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.
Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization that promotes world government called Citizens for Global Solutions.
Also, that group's parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, backs Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya. Billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main center pushing the doctrine. That center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.
Advertisement
Panetta faces a senate vote this week on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.
Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.
The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."
Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
That UN convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, President and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.
Panneta's oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone."
CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.
CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.
The Movement openly brings together organizations and individuals which support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.
The Movement's headquarters are located near the UN building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
These locations are significant since the Movement heavily promotes the UN and is the coordinator of various international projects such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.
These latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of articles by this reporter in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.
Those articles exposed that in 1979, Panetta, then a California congressman, keynoted the conference of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.
Panetta also honored the founding member of the WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."
Separately, this journalist reported that Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks, at its discretion, of the CIA - the only government agency that contests the authority of the Congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.
Also last week, it was reported that Panetta in 1983 served on the fundraising committee of the Institute for Policy Studies, a leftist think tank that has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security.
The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.
Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter for Internet giant WorldNetDaily.com. He is also host of an investigative radio program on New York's 770-WABC Radio, the largest talk radio station in the U.S., every Sunday between 2-4 p.m.
-
We are as a nation being destroyed from within:
Obama's DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme
Co-leader of initiative to cede oceans to U.N.-based international law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 21, 2011
1:00 am Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND
Leon Panetta
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.
Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, that promotes world government.
Also, the group’s parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. It is a coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
As WND reported, billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main organization pushing the doctrine. The center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.
Panetta faces a Senate vote tomorrow on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.
Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.
Find out what's needed to restore America to greatness.
The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."
(Story continues below)
Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
That U.N. convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.
Other recommendations of Panetta's Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:
The Administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The Administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes.
Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.
Podesta served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team.
Panetta's oceans initiative, meanwhile, is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”
CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.
The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.
CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.
The movement openly brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.
The movement's headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.
Marxist ideology
The latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of WND articles in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.
WND reported last week, Panetta keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.
Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."
WND also reported Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the CIA, the only government agency that contests the authority of the congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.
Also last week, WND reported on Panetta's ties to a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.
The Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Global military scheme
The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote tomorrow that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.
In his address to the nation last month, Obama cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.
Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect.
Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."
The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.
As WND reported Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.
Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.
Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.
Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."
The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect. The center was led at the time by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.
She reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.
WND reported the committee that devised the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'
Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."
In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."
"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.
"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."
'One world'
WND reported that the Responsibility doctrine founder, Ramesh Thakur, recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."
In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."
He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."
In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.
"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.
"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.
Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."
Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott
DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=313305#ixzz1QaDsZ6jP
-
CCP, Panetta isn't even the furthest left of the Obama circle but the confirmation hearings for the Sec. of Defense certainly present a great opportunity to expose and confront these views.
Conservatives and Republicans often want to end federal departments like energy and education. If the Obama campaign had been honest they might have proposed closing the DOD. We shouldn't need to fund a full department in support porous borders, betraying allies and leading the world from behind. Decisions like troops Afghanistan could be handled from the campaign war room eliminating the obvious duplication.
-
the Nuclear Disarmament Committee. Sorry no citation, but I'm pretty confident of this one.
-
the Nuclear Disarmament Committee. Sorry no citation, but I'm pretty confident of this one.
http://www.canada.com/news/Canada+denounces+North+Korea+appointment+enough/5032624/story.html
OTTAWA — Canada ought to go a step beyond simply denouncing the ironic appointment of North Korea chairing the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, a leading foreign policy expert said Thursday.
Fen Hampson, the director of Norman Paterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa, suggested Canada temporarily withdraw from the conference as a symbol of dissent.
Given North Korea's track record on nuclear proliferation, at the very least Canada should launch an internal review of the conference which he described as a "Mad Hatter's Tea Party" under the leadership of So Se Pyong.
"This is kind of beyond the pale," Hampson said. "North Korea has clearly shown that it doesn't play by the rules when it comes to arms control and the obligations of member states."
Hampson said it wouldn't be the first time Canada withdrew its UN ambassador under similar circumstances.
*Anyone remember when we had the toughminded foreign policy and Canada had the pathetic socialist economy?
-
"Renegade nuclear-armed North Korea has taken over as head of a key UN disarmament
body, despite facing Security Council sanctions over its weapons programs.
The development comes the same week the UN defended its decision to support Iran's
holding an international "anti-terrorism" conference, at which participants
described Western powers as international terrorists.
UN officials say So Sepyong, the North Korean ambassador, becomes president of the
Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament (CD) as a result of rules that rotate the
position among its 65 member states in alphabetical order.
But critics said Wednesday the rules should be changed when they allow the CD -whose
mandate is in part to push for world nuclear disarmament -to be led by a country the
West considers an international nuclear pariah.
"No system should tolerate such a fundamental conflict of interests," said Hillel
Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which also led protests against
the UN's input at the Iranian conference.
"It's common sense that a disarmament body should not be headed by the world's
archvillain on illegal weapons and nuclear proliferation, notorious for exporting
missiles and nuclear know-how to fellow rogue regimes around the globe."
Once a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, North Korea pulled out in 2003
after violating it. In 2006, it conducted its first nuclear bomb test and is
believed to have stockpiled up to eight nuclear warheads.
Mr. So said Tuesday he was "very engaged in moving the conference forward" and would
use his four weeks as president to seek "constructive proposals" that would
strengthen the CD's "work and ... credibility."
"That might make sense, if by 'forward' he means toward a nuclear winter, or by
'constructive,' he means steering clear of anything that might impede North Korea,"
said Anne Bayefsky, head of the New York-based monitoring group, Eye on the UN.
One of the most vocal countries at the group's meetings is Iran, which William
Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, said Wednesday had just carried out secret
tests of ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in breach of UN
resolutions.
Mohammad Hassan Daryaei, Iran's ambassador to the CD, pledged his country's "full
support and cooperation" with North Korea as he congratulated the new president.
Marius Grinius, the Canadian envoy, also welcomed North Korea's succession, but
added Ottawa, along with other Western powers, believes the body has been
marginalized for years. It was "not negotiating anything," and had "not been for a
very long time."
While the UN bills the conference as the "single multilateral disarmament
negotiating forum of the international community," others exist -to the point Mr.
Grinius said the CD's inertia may seal its fate.
It was on "life support," he said, and "fast approaching a historic tipping point."
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/North+Korea+takes+over+body+disarmament/5027272/story.html
-
STRATFOR
---------------------------
July 12, 2011
LIBYA AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE HAGUE
By George Friedman
The war in Libya has been under way for months, without any indication of when it
might end. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's faction has been stronger and more
cohesive than imagined and his enemies weaker and more divided. This is not unusual.
There is frequently a perception that dictators are widely hated and that their
power will collapse when challenged. That is certainly true at times, but often the
power of a dictator is rooted in the broad support of an ideological faction, an
ethnic group or simply those who benefit from the regime. As a result, naive
assumptions of rapid regime change are quite often replaced by the reality of
protracted conflict.
This has been a characteristic of what we have called "humanitarian wars," those
undertaken to remove a repressive regime and replace it with one that is more
representative. Defeating a tyrant is not always easy. Gadhafi did not manage to
rule Libya for 42 years without some substantial support.
Nevertheless, one would not expect that, faced with opposition from a substantial
anti-regime faction in Libya as well as NATO and many other countries, Gadhafi would
retain control of a substantial part of both the country and the army. Yet when we
look at the situation carefully, it should be expected.
The path many expected in Libya was that the support around Gadhafi would
deteriorate over time when faced with overwhelming force, with substantial
defections of senior leaders and the disintegration of his military as commanders
either went over to the other side en masse, taking their troops with them, or
simply left the country, leaving their troops leaderless. As the deterioration in
power occurred, Gadhafi -- or at least those immediately around Gadhafi -- would
enter into negotiations designed for an exit. That hasn't happened, and certainly
not to the degree that it has ended Gadhafi's ability to resist. Indeed, while NATO
airpower might be able to block an attack to the east, the airstrikes must continue
because it appears that Gadhafi has retained a great deal of his power.
The International Criminal Court
One of the roots of this phenomenon is the existence of the International Criminal
Court (ICC), which became operational in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC has
jurisdiction, under U.N. mandate, to prosecute individuals who have committed war
crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. Its jurisdiction is limited to
those places where recognized governments are unwilling or unable to carry out their
own judicial processes. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the case is referred to
the ICC prosecutor by an ICC state party signatory or the U.N. Security Council
(UNSC) or if the prosecutor initiates the investigation him or herself.
The current structure of international law, particularly the existence of the ICC
and its rules, has an unintended consequence. Rather than serving as a tool for
removing war criminals from power, it tends to enhance their power and remove
incentives for capitulation or a negotiated exit. In Libya's case, Gadhafi's
indictment was referred to the ICC by the UNSC, and he was formally indicted in late
June. The existence of the ICC, and the clause that says that it has jurisdiction
where signatory governments are unable or unwilling to carry out their own
prosecutions, creates an especially interesting dilemma for Gadhafi and the
intervening powers.
Consider the case of Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia. Milosevic, like Gadhafi, was
indicted during a NATO intervention against his country. His indictment was handed
down a month and a half into the air campaign, in May 1999, by the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a court that was to be the mold,
to a large extent, for the ICC. After the intervention, Milosevic clung to power
until 2001, cracking down on the opposition and dissident groups whom he painted as
traitors during the NATO air campaign. Milosevic still had supporters in Serbia, and
as long as he refused to cede his authority, he had enough loyalists in the
government who refused to prosecute him in the interest of maintaining stability.
One of the reasons Milosevic refused to cede power was the very real fear that
regime change in Serbia would result in a one-way ticket to The Hague. This is
exactly what happened. A few months after Serbia's October 2000 anti-Milosevic
revolution, the new and nominally pro-Western government issued an arrest warrant
for Milosevic, finally sending him to The Hague in June 2001 with a strong push from
NATO. The Milosevic case illustrates the inherent risk an indicted leader will face
when the government falls in the hands of the opposition.
The case of Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb political leader, is also instructive
in showing the low level of trust leaders like Gadhafi may place in assurances from
the West regarding non-prosecution. Serbian authorities arrested Karadzic in July
2008 after being on the run for 12 years. He claimed in court proceedings at the
ICTY that he was given assurances by the United States -- denied by Washington --
that if he were to step down and make way for a peace process in Bosnia, he would
not be prosecuted. This obviously did not happen. In other words, the likely
political arrangements that were arrived at to initiate a peace process in
Bosnia-Herzegovina were wholly disregarded by the ICTY.
Gadhafi is obviously aware of the Balkans precedents. He has no motivation to
capitulate, since that could result in him being sent to The Hague, nor is there
anyone that he can deal with who can hold the ICC in abeyance. In most criminal
proceedings, a plea bargain is possible, but this is not simply a matter of a plea
bargain.
Regardless of what a country's leader has done, he or she holds political power, and
the transfer of that power is inherently a political process. What the ICC has done
since 2002 -- and the ICTY to an extent before that -- is to make the political
process moot by making amnesty impossible. It is not clear if any authority exists
to offer and honor an amnesty. However, the ICC is a product of the United Nations,
and the authority of the United Nations lies in the UNSC. Though there is no clear
precedent, there is an implicit assumption that the UNSC would be the entity to
offer a negotiated amnesty with a unanimous vote. In other words, the political
process is transferred from Libya to the UNSC, where any number of countries might
choose to abort the process for their own political ends. So the domestic political
process is trumped by The Hague's legal process, which can only be trumped by the
UNSC's political process. A potentially simple end to a civil war escalates to
global politics.
And this is not simply a matter of a leader's unwillingness to capitulate or
negotiate. It aborts the process that undermines men like Gadhafi. Without a doubt,
most of the men who have surrounded him for years are guilty of serious war crimes
and crimes against humanity. It is difficult to imagine anyone around Gadhafi whose
hands are clean, or who would have been selected by Gadhafi if their hands weren't
capable of being soiled. Each of them is liable for prosecution by the ICC,
particularly the senior leadership of the military; the ICC has bound their fate to
that of Gadhafi, actually increasing their loyalty to him. Just as Gadhafi has
nothing to lose by continued resistance, neither do they. The ICC has forged the
foundation of Gadhafi's survival and bitter resistance.
It is not a question only of the ICC. Recall the case of Augusto Pinochet, who
staged a coup in Chile against Salvador Allende and presided over a brutal
dictatorship. His support was not insubstantial in Chile, and he left power in a
carefully negotiated political process. A Spanish magistrate, a minor figure in the
Spanish legal system, claimed jurisdiction over Pinochet's crimes in Chile and
demanded that he be extradited from Britain, where Pinochet was visiting, and the
extradition was granted. Today the ICC is not the only authority that can claim
jurisdiction in such cases, but under current international law, nations have lost
the authority to negotiate solutions to the problem of transferring power from
dictators to representative democracies. Moreover, they have ceded that authority
not only to the ICC but also to any court that wants to claim jurisdiction.
Apply this to South Africa. An extended struggle took place between two communities.
The apartheid regime committed crimes under international law. In due course, a
negotiated political process arranged a transfer of power. Part of the agreement was
that a non-judicial truth commission would review events but that prosecutions would
be severely limited. If that transfer of power were occurring today, with the ICC in
place and "Spanish magistrates" loose, how likely would it be that the white
government would be willing to make the political concessions needed to transfer
power? Would an agreement among the South Africans have trumped the jurisdiction of
the ICC or another forum? Without the absolute certainty of amnesty, would the white
leadership have capitulated?
The desire for justice is understandable, as is the need for an independent
judiciary. But a judiciary that is impervious to political realities can create
catastrophes in the name of justice. In both the Serbia and Libya cases, ICC
indictments were used by Western countries in the midst of bombing campaigns to
legitimize their humanitarian intervention. The problem is that the indictments left
little room for negotiated settlements. The desire to punish the wicked is natural.
But as in all things political -- though not judicial -- the price of justice must
also be considered. If it means that thousands must die because the need to punish
the guilty is an absolute, is that justice? Just as important, does it serve to
alleviate or exacerbate human suffering?
Judicial Absolutism
Consider a hypothetical. Assume that in the summer of 1944, Adolph Hitler had
offered to capitulate to the allies if they would grant him amnesty. Giving Hitler
amnesty would have been monstrous, but at the same time, it would have saved a year
of war and a year of the holocaust. From a personal point of view, the summer of
1944 was when deportation of Hungarian Jews was at its height. Most of my family
died that fall and winter. Would leaving Hitler alive been worth it to my family and
millions of others on all sides?
The Nuremberg precedent makes the case for punishment. But applied rigorously, it
undermines the case for political solutions. In the case of tyrannies, it means
negotiating the safety of tyrants in return for their abdication. The abdication
brings an end to war and allows people who would have died to continue to live their
lives.
The theory behind Nuremberg and the ICC is that the threat of punishment will deter
tyrants. Men like Gadhafi, Milosevic, Karadzic and Hitler grow accustomed to living
with death long before they take power. And the very act of seizing that power
involves two things: an indifference to common opinion about them, particularly
outside their countries, and a willingness to take risks and then crush those who
might take risks against them. Such leaders constitute an odd, paradoxical category
of men who will risk everything for power, and then guard their lives and power with
everything. It is hard to frighten them, and harder still to have them abandon power
without guarantees.
The result is that wars against them take a long time and kill a lot of people, and
they are singularly indifferent to the suffering they cause. Threatening them with a
trial simply closes off political options to end the war. It also strips countries
of their sovereign right to craft non-judicial, political solutions to their
national problems. The dictator and his followers have no reason to negotiate and no
reason to capitulate. They are forced to continue a war that could have ended
earlier and allowed those who would have died the opportunity to live.
There is something I call judicial absolutism in the way the ICC works. It begins
with the idea that the law demands absolute respect and that there are crimes that
are so extraordinary that no forgiveness is possible. This concept is wrapped in an
ineluctable judicial process that, by design, cannot be restrained and is
independent of any moderating principles.
It is not the criminals the ICC is trying who are the issue. It is the next criminal
on the docket. Having seen an older dictator at The Hague earlier negotiate his own
exit, and see that negotiation fall through, why would a new dictator negotiate a
deal? How can Gadhafi contemplate a negotiation that would leave him without power
in Libya, when the Milosevic case clearly illuminates his potential fate at the
hands of a rebel-led Libya? Judicial absolutism assumes that the moral absolute is
the due process of law. A more humane moral absolute is to remove the tyrant and
give power to the nation with the fewest deaths possible in the process.
The problem in Libya is that no one knows how to go from judicial absolutism to a
more subtle and humane understanding of the problem. Oddly, it is the judicial
absolutists who regard themselves as committed to humanitarianism. In a world filled
with tyrants, this is not a minor misconception.
This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to
www.stratfor.com.
-
Very interesting Strat piece!
It raises serious questions, but it also answers questions I have had about what is their jurisdiction? International Law may sound good but world government does not. I recall that George Bush was unable to travel to Switzerland (allegedly) for fear of arrest. Same could be true for Obama at some point over his handling of the bin Laden operation - shooting the unarmed in the head. Unfortunately committees and conferences do not remove tyrannical dictators. Wars do.
"the International Criminal Court (ICC), which became operational in 2002 in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICC has jurisdiction, under U.N. mandate, to prosecute individuals who have committed war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity. Its jurisdiction is limited to those places where recognized governments are unwilling or unable to carry out their own judicial processes. The ICC can exercise jurisdiction if the case is referred to the ICC prosecutor by an ICC state party signatory or the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) or if the prosecutor initiates the investigation him or herself."
-
Obama and the UN: Grabbing Your Guns
August 3, 2011 by The Editors
Speaking about a gun control treaty being cooked up at the U.N. in 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “The United States is prepared to work hard for a strong international standard in this area.” That was a major change from just a year before when the Bush administration gave the treaty a big thumbs-down. Now the gun grabbers are back at the U.N. putting the finishing touches on their treaty, with tacit support from the Obama administration.
At Human Events, John Velleco writes that the U.N. deal, known as the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT),
“ … will, at the very least, require gun owner registration and microstamping of ammunition. And it will define manufacturing so broadly that any gun owner who adds so much as a scope or changes a stock on a firearm would be required to obtain a manufacturing license.
It would also likely include a ban on many semi-automatic firearms (i.e., the Clinton gun ban) and demand the mandatory destruction of surplus ammo and confiscated firearms.”
Anyone believing such laws will have a positive effect should remember that, since the end of the Clinton Gun Ban in 2003, violent crime rates have fallen 9.8% and the murder rate has fallen 12.3%.
In response to a passage in the treaty that “recognizes” countries’ rights to govern their citizens’ ownership of firearms, Velleco observes, “Americans’ right to keep and bear arms exists whether or not it is ‘recognized’ by some U.N. committee. The right enshrined in the Second Amendment predates our own Constitution, and does not need an international stamp of approval.”
Thankfully, support of two-thirds of the Senate is needed to ratify a treaty, and the proportion of current membership that is pro second amendment precludes this treaty from becoming law. That being said, shame on President Obama and Secretary Clinton for giving credence to a process that might deny Americans their constitutional rights.
-
This struck me as so incredible that I ran it by a friend in a federal agency who is in a position to know about these things. His "I'm not in a position to comment on that" left me with the clear understanding that he was giving me to understand that the report is true.-- Marc
=========================================
www.southernpulse.com
Mexico - U.S. increases role in war against drugs in Mexico
The United States is expanding their role in the war on drugs in Mexico, allowing Mexican authorities to stage cross border helicopter raids in the U.S., in addition to staging drones to eavesdrop on cartel’s cell phone communications and to capture video of drug processing labs and smuggling units. While U.S. authorities maintain these are not joint operations, rather Mexican operations staged in U.S. territory, cooperation is increasing despite historical tensions between the two nations.
-
Emily ChasanSenior Editor.When SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro said in June that investors aren’t clamoring for International Financial Reporting Standards, she may have been understating things… a bit. Now, some of the biggest U.S. investor groups are letting the SEC know in no uncertain terms that it should postpone its decision on IFRS and even stop the convergence process between U.S. GAAP and IFRS.
In comment letters to the SEC this week, some big investors and analyst groups had some scathing words about IFRS, claiming, among other things, that the International Accounting Standards Board isn’t independent enough from political interference to set accounting rules for the United States.
Capital Research and Management Co, which manages over $1 trillion, wrote that U.S. GAAP was “clearer, more effective and more advanced” than IFRS in providing the information it needs to make investments. CRMC Chairman Paul Haaga wrote in the letter:
While we support the idea of a consistent set of high quality accounting standards for companies worldwide, unfortunately we do not believe IASB has been effective in achieving this objective. Moreover, IASB’s ability to achieve this objective has been gravely diminished by political influence.
CRMC, which is the investment advisor to the American Funds mutual funds, said it doesn’t expect to benefit from the more comparable reporting IFRS is supposed to provide because the standard is applied so inconsistently around the world, and urged the SEC to retain U.S. GAAP. It also said the convergence process between U.S. accounting rule makers isn’t working and should be stopped.
Investors, analysts, and others, who use financial statement, are the purported beneficiaries of a switch to IFRS, as a single set of accounting rules should make it easier to compare publicly-traded companies around the world. Many CFOs are on record saying they would bear the cost of an IFRS switch if they think investors would benefit.
But even the CFA Institute, which represents over 100,000 portfolio managers, investment analysts and advisors throughout the world expressed doubts, saying it would be “premature” for the SEC to inject IFRS into the U.S. financial system. The CFA Institute said its continued support for IFRS is not unconditional, and that the International Accounting Standards Board needs to ensure its independence and more consistent application of its rules before U.S. companies are required to use them.
After abandoning an earlier plan that would have had U.S. companies using IFRS as soon as 2014, the SEC has said it would make a decision this year about whether companies in the U.S. should move toward the international standard, which is used in more than 100 other countries around the globe.
-
It occurs to me that if the UN is going to take up action to make sure everyone who deserves statehood is included, any proposal to add Palestine should also add Taiwan. Who represents them? PRC? Let China veto the proposal.
Alternatively, we could amend the proposal to read: Palestine in, U.S.A. out. Then I might vote for it.
-
It occurs to me that if the UN is going to take up action to make sure everyone who deserves statehood is included, any proposal to add Palestine should also add Taiwan. Who represents them? PRC? Let China veto the proposal.
Alternatively, we could amend the proposal to read: Palestine in, U.S.A. out. Then I might vote for it.
They should move the UN headquarters there too.
-
I don't suppose anyone saw Carter's interview on Rachel Maddow. He had a lot to say about the UN and Israel. I was going to look and see if there was any reaction to it, but I thought I would start here.
-
I don't suppose anyone saw Carter's interview on Rachel Maddow. He had a lot to say about the UN and Israel. I was going to look and see if there was any reaction to it, but I thought I would start here.
Maybe ccp caught it. Is Carter feeling his oats now that his reputation as the worst president in modern history is being taken by Buraq?
-
To watch a liberal get mugged by reality, do an Internet search for the video of Susan Rice at Tuesday night's Security Council debate on Syria. America's envoy to the United Nations slammed the Russian and Chinese vetoes of a "vastly watered down" resolution that criticized the Assad regime's brutal repression of its own people. Ms. Rice pronounced herself "outraged" at the U.N.'s inaction.
Soon after, on Twitter, @AmbassadorRice vented her views in five messages. "This is a sad day," she wrote. "Most especially for the people of #Syria, but also for the UN Security Council." A few seconds later, she offered a follow-on: "We will not rest until the Council rises to meet its responsibilities."
Good luck with that, Madam Ambassador. Unlike Moammar Gadhafi—a dictator who made so many enemies in the Arab world and beyond that he couldn't count on Moscow or Beijing's U.N. support—Syria's Bashar Assad is a murderer in good authoritarian standing. His security forces have killed at least 2,700 civilians and put thousands more in torture prisons. But this didn't keep the Sino-Russian duo from coming to his aid—the first time they have cast their vetoes together since 2008, when they blocked a resolution condemning Robert Mugabe's human-rights record.
Meanwhile, beyond the confines of Turtle Bay, real steps are being taken against Damascus. The U.S. and the European Union have already adopted sanctions targeting Syria's oil exports, along with the assets of the regime's top officials. Turkey broke its ties with Damascus, and Ankara this week announced military maneuvers along its Syrian border.
So why, except for reasons of masochism or moral abdication, does the Obama Administration insist on obtaining a symbolic and toothless U.N. resolution? In the seven months since the Syrian uprising started, the Security Council hasn't even mustered the votes to issue a press statement. As for the proposed resolution, it did no more than condemn Syria's human-rights violation and encourage an open political process. It included no sanctions. It didn't even contain the threat of sanctions.
The Syrian people will make their own history, with or without the U.N.'s moral imprimatur. An opposition council on the Libyan model recently formed in Istanbul. With each defection of a military conscript or senior officer, the Assad regime grows weaker. Maybe once the lesson delivered at the U.N. this week sinks in, the Obama Administration might take further steps to oust Mr. Assad. Leading from the front would be out of character for this Administration, but so was Ms. Rice's disgust this week with the U.N.
-
Yet Leon Panetta and other liberals have no problem lecturing Israeli leadership that they need to be more creative and open minded with *their* diplomacy and communication with the Arab countries.
Who the hell are these people to talk?
Like the rest of the world is not walking all over us with our great diplomacy?
-
http://pjmedia.com/claudiarosett/sleep-well-at-the-un-china-cuba-and-north-korea-are-watching-over-us-all/
Sleep Well — At the UN, China, Cuba and North Korea Are Watching Over Us All
October 26, 2011 - 8:47 am - by Claudia Rosett
In case you missed it, we’ve just had another shining moment of your United Nations at work — the same UN that the U.S. supports with contributions that last year came to some $7.7 billion.
You remember the United Nations Conference on Disarmament? That would be the Geneva-based UN conclave that recently made news for the utterly perverse reason that it was chaired in August by Cuba, and in July by one of the world’s worst rogue proliferators, North Korea.
Out of such proceedings has now come yet another report, subject of consideration and a draft resolution Oct. 21 by the UN General Assembly’s committee on Disarmament and International Security (also known as the “First Committee“). As is customary at the UN, this draft resolution reaffirms that the Conference on Disarmament is “the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community.” It goes on to lament that as such, this Conference on Disarmament has been gridlocked for years — “unable to commence its substantive work for over a decade” — and hopes for forward motion soon.
Who sponsored this draft resolution? Why, China, Cuba and North Korea.
With friends like that, maybe the best one can say about the UN Conference on Disarmament, the UN’s “sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community,” is that it is gridlocked. That may be one small reason to sleep better at night. But in that case, the chief service rendered by the Conference is to provide a UN body that gets chaired by Cuba and North Korea, and then yields UN resolutions lamenting not the monstrosity, but the futility of the exercise. Why do we need this Disarmament Conference at all?
-
Moving here due to Guro's request.
I may not have been clear with my request. I understand that China, Cuba, etc. are in the UN. I even understand that they are commissions that seem to run counter to their history. I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome. First, they aren't a majority, even when taken together, on the commission. Second, there are at least three nations, all with veto power, who are permanent members of the Security Council. These three are the US, the UK, and France, the later two of which are also members of the EU.
I don't see, then, given the institutional design of the UN (or at least my understanding of the design) allows the opportunity for the UN to act in a manner against the US and the EU.
"I have this feeling someone may come to regret encouraging GM to provide links and articles that show the UN to be a group running in a direction counter to US interests.
It was not just Cuba, but Libya and Syria were on the human rights commission. And the Obama administration was 'self-reporting' Arizona for checking IDs with cause.
What was the agenda of the UN Oil for Food scandal?
Our pathological science thread chronicles quite a duplicitous agenda coming out of the UN IPCC on manipulated climate data and studies. It wasn't 1 or 2 scientists. It was a movement with an agenda and money, within the UN bureaucracy. Yes the UN would like to have more power and bigger budgets. Yes, they want global taxes and global regulations. I know that sounds like I have a conspiracy problem, but I would only count what they say in their own words. I will put few links down but these are easy to find. I would be far more interested in seeing links that indicate otherwise.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-global-tax-proposal-up-for-senate-vote/
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17102
July [2004], Inter Presse news service reported that a top U.N. official was preparing a new study that will outline numerous global tax proposals to be considered by the General Assembly at its September meeting. The proposals will likely include everything from global taxes on e-mails and Internet use to a global gas tax and levies on airline travel. If adopted, American taxpayers could wind up paying hundreds of billions of dollars each year to the United Nations.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is among those leading the charge, having stated that he "strongly supports finding new sources of funding" for the U.N. through global taxes, according to Inter Presse. In fact, Annan made very clear his support for the imposition of global taxes in a 2001 Technical Note that he authored for a U.N. conference. "The need to finance the provision of global public goods in an increasingly globalized world also adds new urgency to the need for innovative new sources of financing," Annan wrote. The Note goes on to describe and evaluate the merits of several global tax proposals.
-----
Snopes took on the veracity of a pass around email that says a list of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia vote against us 70% of the time and found out the truth was they were voting against us closer to 90% of the time: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp
Yet we host and we pay..."
-
Part of the problem is that Baraq, Hillary (and her legal advisor Harold Koh) et al positively look to the UN and seek to empower it-- including giving it its own source of tax revenues (e.g. cap & trade). Part of the problem is that by giving the organization legitimacy which it does not deserve, we give it a power in the eyes of our own people-- which gives unearned and undue weight to the various deranged and not infrequently anti-semitic/anit-Israel votes of the General Assembly.
-
OK, so this is not really an instituional question, but rather a normative one of what constitutes the "good" of the country?
(Incidentally, I am not trying to argue with any of you, Guro, GM, DougMacG, PC. I literally study institutions, so this is my mindset here. I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about. And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)
-
OK, so this is not really an instituional question, but rather a normative one of what constitutes the "good" of the country?
(Incidentally, I am not trying to argue with any of you, Guro, GM, DougMacG, PC. I literally study institutions, so this is my mindset here. I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about. And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)
BD,
Do you think FDR would recognize or approve of the UN of today?
-
As a talk shop facilitating communication so that affairs between nations do not unnecessarily get out of hand, the UN is fine. The problems begin as soon as it seeks to become more than that e.g. posturing as some sort of moral arbitrator or voice of "the international community" or mechanism of global governance.
-
GM, I am not sure. And I am not sure that it should matter.
Guro, isn't the purpose of the UN to serve as a moral arbitrator?
"The principles of the UN as explained in the Charter are to save future generations from war, reaffirm human rights, and establish equal rights for all persons. In addition it also aims to promote justice, freedom, and social progress for the peoples of all of its member states." http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/unitednations.htm
-
BD,
When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.
-
BD:
I have next to zero respect for the legitamacy or competence of the UN towards those ends, nor am I sure that I even agree with all of them. (Whatever the hell "social progress" is according to the General Assembly of the UN, I suspect I rather strongly disagree.
This might explain the generally snarky tone of this thread towards the UN. :-D
To the extent the UN succeeds in claiming power, US sovereignty is diminished.
-
BD,
When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.
OK. So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively? If it is the design, what portion?
-
Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark. The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here. I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation. Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.
BD:
I have next to zero respect for the legitamacy or competence of the UN towards those ends, nor am I sure that I even agree with all of them. (Whatever the hell "social progress" is according to the General Assembly of the UN, I suspect I rather strongly disagree.
This might explain the generally snarky tone of this thread towards the UN. :-D
To the extent the UN succeeds in claiming power, US sovereignty is diminished.
-
BD,
When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.
OK. So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively? If it is the design, what portion?
It was a utopian concept that was flawed from the beginning and just went south from there. It assumed that every nation would rationally decide issues rather than break into voting blocs. It treats every nation as equally rational and decent. :roll:
-
Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark. The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here. I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation. Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.
BD:
I have next to zero respect for the legitamacy or competence of the UN towards those ends, nor am I sure that I even agree with all of them. (Whatever the hell "social progress" is according to the General Assembly of the UN, I suspect I rather strongly disagree.
This might explain the generally snarky tone of this thread towards the UN. :-D
To the extent the UN succeeds in claiming power, US sovereignty is diminished.
The "food for oil" corruption leaps to mind as does the endless assaults on Israel. Gee, you'd think they were North Korea or Cuba, except those countries are on the human rights councils. Even when the UN isn't on the wrong side of things, they are more corrupt and criminal in day to day operations than the typical 3rd world hellhole they coddle.
-
Thank you.
BD,
When an institution goes off the rails as the UN has, I think it does matter.
OK. So again... has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively? If it is the design, what portion?
It was a utopian concept that was flawed from the beginning and just went south from there. It assumed that every nation would rationally decide issues rather than break into voting blocs. It treats every nation as equally rational and decent. :roll:
-
I would add that many states in the General Assembly are quite tiny in land mass and or numbers, yet they get the same vote as big states of substance. Indeed they are often dominated by more powerful states and vote as they are told-- think East Europe during the Soviet Empire or states in need of oil financing during the OPEC years. In the conversion of the USA from a confederation to a federation, this was in part dealt with by having a House of Representatives and a Senate. Is the Security Council really an analog to the Senate?
Is there really a shared creed in the UN? NOT HARDLY!
America is the EXCEPTION in that we are born of a Creed, not a race, not a religion, not merely a particular piece of land. The flip side of that exception is that the UN is overwhelmingly made of countries based upon religion, race, ethnicity, and so forth. How can such an assemblage be a moral arbitor?
What twaddle!!!
-
Much of this already covered, but here is my two cents:
A point of Bigdog's: "Second, there are at least three nations, all with veto power, who are permanent members of the Security Council. These three are the US, the UK, and France, the later two of which are also members of the EU. I don't see, then, given the institutional design of the UN (or at least my understanding of the design) allows the opportunity for the UN to act in a manner against the US and the EU."
Another great question gets at this further: "OK... what constitutes the "good" of the country?"
Your point about structure and veto power is a good one. I accept that. So why all the hysteria on the right? It seems to me that it is not good to be just one, two or three vetoes away from giving up our sovereignty - and we don't trust any of those three to always do the right thing. One of my own links about the UN wanting global government, global taxes and global regulations actually came from candidate Obama. We (really only speaking for myself) don't even trust all American administrations to do what is in the U.S. interest, much less our best allies in western Europe. As your question reveals, there isn't one mindset in the US of what is in our interest. The short answer from this side in my view is that we most certainly don't want global governance; we don't even like that state powers went to Washington. Already mentioned are other great points, we don't want one sided condemnations of Israel. We don't want tyrannical dictators having any voice or podium much less an equal one. We don't want to expand the legitimacy of things that aren't.
If so-called neutral member states are voting against us 90% of the time, and if we are doing horse trades with China and Russia to keep them from vetoing certain actions, then might there also be times when we are giving away our veto that is needed to support our interest? We certainly do that in Washington!
All this unfortunately seems to focus on the negative aspects of the UN. I would be interested in learning what is happening at the UN that is positive so I would understand why we risk or tolerate all the negatives.
Crafty made a point in particular that I like: "As a talk shop facilitating communication so that affairs between nations do not unnecessarily get out of hand, the UN is fine."
But if that talk is 90% anti-American in direction, why then do we sponsor and participate? Is the other 10% that good? If so, how?
The condemnation of Iraq seemed like one example of good. I list those resolutions below, but what good came out of them? They gave cover for politicians to say they were doing something when they weren't.
I liked a proposal made by Dem Senator Zell Miller and others called an Association of Democracies. Should there not be some requirement of consent of the governed to join with leaders of peace seeking nations? I also liked the one-time type cooperations that Pres. Bush Sr. called the coalition of the willing. Can't we have our allies be people who want to be our allies and vice versa. I don't see how anyone can take lightly the fact that those horribly repressive regimes were sitting on committees judging other people's human rights violations. We stand for nothing IMO if we stand with that! I don't like giving legitimacy to illegitimacy, the soapbox for Hugo Chavez comes to mind but there were so many others, Kruschev pounding his shoe - did that really happen? If not he was still denying in 1960 that the Soviet Union swallowed up Eastern Europe. And we have a peace seeking podium for that. It doesn't make sense to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
---------------
Iraq's unenforced resolutions in reverse order from the occupation of Kuwait 1990 through the end of 2002, resolutions are clickable at the link: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
1454 (30 December 2002): Iraq-Kuwait
implements revisions to the Goods Review List. See also the accompanying UN press release.
1447 (4 December 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by 6 months, obliges the council to review the goods review list within one month and asks the Secretary General to produce a report on the adequacy of Iraq's distribution mechamisms within the country and oil-for-food revenues within six months. See the accompanying press release.
1443 (25 November 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by 9 days only, due to disagreements over US proposals to broaden the Goods Review List. See the accompanying UN press release. See also CASI's press release on the politicisation of the oil-for-food programme.
1441 (8 November 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
Earlier drafts of this resolution are as follows: the US/UK drafts of 2 October 2002, 25 October 2002 and 5 November 2002; the Russian draft and the French draft of 23 October 2002. A collections of critical comments on the resolution can be found on the websites of the Institute for Public Accuracy and Eclipse review.
Post-vote statements by the US, UK, France, Russia and China are available from the Global Policy Forum
1409 (14 May 2002): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by six months, and introduces a new import procedure. Only items on the annexed Goods Review List (GRL) are to be reviewed by the Sanctions Committee. Official version of the GRL (S/2002/515) are here (on the Unmovic site) and here (on the OIP site). Although the GRL is annexed to a letter from the US ambassador dated 3 May 2002 - before the resolution was even offically passed - it was only released on 14 August 2002. An unofficial version of the "Goods Review List" is also available on the UN Office of the Iraq programme website, in doc (2.2MB) and pdf versions (4.6MB). Some background is provided in the UN Press Release and a News Centre report. See also CASI's press release in response to the resolution (15 May 2002); Statement by Save the Children UK (May 2002); Statements by CAFOD of 16 May 2002 and 27 June 2002; and the analyses of Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctions Renewed on Iraq (14 May 2002), and Colin Rowat, Iraq Sanctions Saga Continues amid Policy Confusion (10 June 2002). See also the fact sheet from the United States mission to the UN on the "Goods Review List" (14 May 2002).
1382 (29 November 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by 180 days, commencing Phase XI on 1 December 2001. It also adopts a new "goods review list" (GRL) and procedures for its application to come into force on 30 May 2002. Note that the GRL consists not only of the items actually listed in the annex to the resolution, but also those on the "1051 lists" and those listed within a new 150-page list drawn up by the US. This latter list was an annex to a letter from the US ambassador dated 27 November 2001; a copy sent to CASI can be viewed here. All applications to import goods will have to be reviewed by Unmovic and the UN Office of the Iraq Programme to determine if the proposed imports contain items on the GRL.
1360 (3 July 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by 150 days to begin Phase X, after no agreement was reached over the new UK proposals for a modified sanctions regime. The subsequent exchange of letters between the UN and Iraq, agreeing to the continuation of the programme under the terms of this resolution, is dated 5 July 2001. The text of the Security Council debates are available for 26 June 2001 and 28 June 2001. CASI's full index of proposals and statements from May to July 2001 is available here.
1352 (1 June 2001): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends Phase IX of the oil-for-food programme by one month only, after there is general agreement that more time is necessary to review the UK's draft resolution (and annex) to change the scope and mode of operation of the sanctions.
1330 (4 December 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends the oil-for-food programme by 180 days, to commence Phase IX. The resolution also allocates another $600m to oil-industry spares, requests exploration into a "cash component" (para. 15), reduces Compensation Fund deductions to 25% (para 12), requests electricity and housing "green lists" (para 10), expresses "readiness to consider" paying Iraq's UN membership dues out of oil-for-food revenue, seeks expanded versions of the existing "green lists" (para 11), and asks the Secretary-General to report on other oil export routes from Iraq. UN Press Release here.
1302 (8 June 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase VIII of "oil for food". The UN's press release is here. Paragraph 8 asks for water and sanitation "green lists". Paragraph 9 extends the oil spare parts permission of SCR 1293. Paragraph 18 calls for the establishment of a team of "independent experts to prepare by 26 November 2000 a comprehensive report and analysis of the humanitarian situation in Iraq, including the current humanitarian needs [...] and recommendations to meet those needs, within the framework of the existing resolutions". According to a UN source, the UK and US insisted upon the final clause of paragraph 18, knowing that the Iraqi government's position would prevent it from cooperating with such an analysis. As a result, there has been no cooperation and no such report has been produced. The BBC's report outlines the politics behind the comprehensive report. AP's report concentrates on the debate around bombing in the "no fly zones". On 30 October, the chair of the group of independent experts mentioned in the resolution was announced as Thorvald Stoltenberg of Norway.
1293 (31 March 2000): Iraq-Kuwait.
Doubles permitted oil spare part imports for Phases VI and VII. The UN's press release is here. Paragraphs 53 - 57 of the UN Secretary-General's 10 March 2000 report (S/2000/208) explains the background to this doubling. See CNN's story for mention of some of the politics of the resolution.
1284 (17 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Replaces Unscom with Unmovic, demands Iraqi co-operation on prisoners of war, alters the "oil for food" programme, and discusses the possible suspension of sanctions in ambiguous terms. The statement by Sir Jeremy Greenstock in the Security Council at the introduction of the resolution is here; the full debates in the Council are here; and the UN's press release is here. The UK draft resolution preceding this is here. See also CASI's briefing or its press release.
1281 (10 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase VII of "oil for food", to start on 12 December 1999. The report requested in paragraph 9 is S/2000/26. Listen to the BBC's radio story, including an explanation that the previous week-long extensions may have been too short to allow Iraq to sign oil contracts.
1280 (3 December 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends Phase VI to 11 December 1999 due to wrangling over SCR 1284.
1275 (19 November 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Extends Phase VI to 4 December 1999 due to wrangling over SCR 1284.
1266 (4 October 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Allows an additional $3.04 billion in oil sales to offset deficits during previous Phases and (possibly) to slow the rise in oil prices.
1242 (21 May 1999): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase VI of "oil for food", to start on 25 May 1999.
1210 (24 November 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase V of "oil for food", to start on 26 November 1998.
1205 (5 November 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Echoes SCR 1194, demands that the Iraqi government "provide immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with inspectors and alludes to the threat to "international peace and security" posed by the non-cooperation.
1194 (9 September 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the decision by Iraq ... to suspend cooperation with [Unscom] and the IAEA", demands that the decisions be reversed and cancels October 1998 scheduled sanctions review.
1175 (19 June 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Gives Iraq permission to apply to import up to $300 million of oil industry spare parts this Phase to allow it to increase its oil production to the cap set in SCR 1153.
1158 (25 March 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Continues Phase III but under the enhanced provisions of SCR 1153.
1154 (2 March 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Commends the Secretary-General for securing commitments from the Iraqi government to fully comply with weapons inspections on his mission to Baghdad, and endorses the memorandum of understanding (S/1998/166) that was signed on 23 February. The mapping of the areas of the eight "presidential sites" by a UN Technical Mission is described in an annexed report to a letter from the Secretary-General of 27 February (S/1998/166/Add.1). The procedures for the inspection of "presidential sites" are laid out in an annex to the letter from the Secretary-General of 8 March 1998 (S/1998/208). This agreement put off US and British bombing threats.
1153 (20 February 1998): Iraq-Kuwait.
Agrees to increase the cap on permitted Iraqi oil sales to $5.256 billion per Phase once the Secretary-General has approved an "enhanced distribution plan" for the new revenue. Recognises the importance of infrastructure and project-based purchases. Phase IV eventually begins on 30 May 1998. Resolution passed during Unscom crisis.
1143 (4 December 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase III of "oil for food", to start on 5 December 1997 and welcomes the Secretary-General's intention to submit a supplementary report on possible improvements in the "oil for food" programme.
1137 (12 November 1997): Iraq-Kuwait
Rejects Iraqi government's announced intention to prohibit weapons inspections unless the composition of Unscom teams is altered to limit the number of inspectors from the US, and to prohibit Unscom overflights. Imposes travel ban on officials to be lifted when full cooperation resumes. Sanctions review to be in April 1998 if cooperation has been restored.
1134 (23 October 1997): Iraq-Kuwait
Reaffirms Iraq's obligations to cooperate with weapons inspectors after Iraqi officials announce in September 1997 that "presidential sites" are off-limits to inspectors. Threatens travel ban on obstructive Iraqi officials not "carrying out bona fide diplomatic assignments or missions" if non-cooperation continues. Sanctions reviews again delayed.
1129 (12 September 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
Alters timing of permitted Phase II oil sales in response to Iraqi government's refusal to sell oil until its Distribution Plan was approved by the UN.
1115 (21 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites" and "[d]emands that [they] cooperate fully" with Unscom. Suspends the sanctions and arms embargo reviews (paragraphs 21 and 28 of SCR 687) until the next Unscom report and threatens to "impose additional measures on those categories of Iraqi officials responsible for the non-compliance".
1111 (4 June 1997): Iraq-Kuwait.
Begins Phase II of "oil for food", to start on 8 June 1997.
1060 (12 June 1996): Iraq.
On Iraq's refusal to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission.
1051 (27 March 1996): Iraq.
Establishes mechanism for long-term monitoring of potentially "dual use" Iraqi imports and exports, as called for by SCR 715.
986 (14 April 1995): Iraq
New "oil for food" resolution, allowing $1 billion in oil sales every 90 days. Memorandum of understanding signed by UN and Government of Iraq on 20 May 1996; Phase I begins on 10 December 1996. The details of implementation, requested in paragraph 12, are here.
949 (15 October 1994): Iraq-Kuwait.
"Condemns recent military deployments by Iraq in the direction of ... Kuwait", demands an immediate withdrawal and full co-operation with Unscom. According to a spokesman for the US Central Command, the resolution was passed following a threatening buildup of Iraqi forces near the border with Kuwait, and bars Iraq from moving SAMs into the southern no-fly zone.
899 (4 March 1994): Iraq-Kuwait.
Allows compensation to private Iraqi citizens who lost assets to the boundary demarcation process.
833 (27 May 1993): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
"Welcomes ... the successful conclusion of the work of the [Boundary Demarcation] Commission". The Iraqi National Assembly recognised the territorial integrity and political independence of the State of Kuwait, within the boundaries laid down by the Boundary Demarcation Commission, on 10 November 1994, and its decision was ratified in a decree signed by Saddam Hussein on the same day.
806 (5 February 1993): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Arms UNIKOM to prevent border incursions by Iraq.
778 (2 October 1992): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Deplores Iraq's refusal to implements SCRs 706 and 712 and recalls Iraq's liabilities. Takes steps to transfer funds (including Iraqi assets overseas) into the UN account established to pay for compensation and humanitarian expenses.
773 (26 August 1992): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Responds to a report on progress by the UN Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission and notes that the Commission "is not reallocating territory between Kuwait and Iraq".
715 (11 October 1991): Iraq (PDF).
Approves the plans of Unscom and the IAEA, including for long term monitoring. Iraq agreed to the monitoring system established by this resolution on 26 November 1993.
712 (19 September 1991): Iraq (PDF).
Rejects the Secretary-General's suggestion that at least $2 billion in oil revenue be made available for humanitarian needs; instead allows total sale of $1.6 billion. Eventually rejected by Government of Iraq.
707 (15 August 1991): Iraq (PDF).
Condemns Iraq's non-compliance on weapons inspections as a "material breach" of Resolution 687, and incorporates into its standard for compliance with SCR687 that Iraq provide "full, final and complete disclosure ... of all aspects of its programmes to develop" prohibited weaponry. Also grants permission for Unscom and the IAEA to conduct flights throughout Iraq, for surveillance or logistical purposes.
706 (15 August 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Decides to allow emergency oil sale by Iraq to fund compensation claims, weapons inspection and humanitarian needs in Iraq. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
705 (15 August 1991): Iraq (PDF).
"Decides that ... compensation to be paid by Iraq ... shall not exceed 30 per cent of the annual value of the exports".
700 (17 June 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Approves the Secretary-General's guidelines on an arms and dual-use embargo on Iraq and calls upon states to act consistently with them. Paragraph 5 of this resolution makes the 661 committee responsible for the on-going monitoring regime, thus ensuring that it would retain a role in the long-term relationship between the UN and Iraq.
699 (17 June 1991): Iraq (PDF).
Approves the Secretary-General's plan for Unscom and the IAEA and asks for support from Member States.
692 (20 May 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Establishes the UN Compensation Commission and asks the Secretary-General to indicate the maximum possible level of Iraq's contribution to the Compensation Fund.
689 (9 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Approves the Secretary-General's report on the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).
688 (5 April 1991): Iraq (PDF).
"Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population" in the post-war civil war and "[d]emands that Iraq ... immediately end this repression". 688 is occasionally claimed to provide the legal basis for the American and British "no fly zones". These claims are incorrect both because 688 does not invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter, a necessary condition for the use of force, and because it does not authorise specific measures to uphold human rights in Iraq, such as "no fly zones". The BBC has an outline of the "no fly zones" here. The UK Select Committee on Defence addresses the legal issue briefly here.
687 (3 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them. Described as a "Christmas tree", because "so much was hung on it". The fourth preambulary clause, on "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions", has been referred to as the "Saddam Hussein clause" as it has been used to link the continuation of sanctions with the survival of the present Iraqi regime. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
686 (2 March 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Affirms the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq" and sets out terms for a cease-fire. The use of force remains valid to fulfil these conditions.
685 (31 January 1991): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
678 (29 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
"Authorizes Member States ... to use all necessary means" to bring Iraq into compliance with previous Security Council resolutions if it did not do so by 15 January 1991.
677 (28 November 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Concerned by Iraq's attempts to "alter the demographic composition of ... Kuwait and to destroy the civil records".
676 (28 November 1990): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
674 (29 October 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
"Reminds Iraq that ... it is liable for any loss ... as a result of the invasion ... of Kuwait".
671 (27 September 1990): Iraq-Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
670 (25 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Strengthens and clarifies the embargo; confirms that it applies to aircraft. France and the USA disagree on whether 670 requires 661 approval for flights without cargo. Paragraph 12 of the resolution also invokes the possibility of unspecified "measures" against states that evade the sanctions regime. This paragraph seems to have been directed against Jordan and Sudan in particular. It caused disquiet within delegations, as the United Nations Charter has traditionally been interpreted as only permitting the Security Council to impose such measures against the state responsible for a breach of or threat to the peace.
669 (24 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Asks the Sanctions Committee to consider requests for economic assistance from countries harmed by the sanctions on Iraq.
667 (16 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Protests "the closure of diplomatic and consular missions in Kuwait".
666 (13 September 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
"Decides [to] ... keep the situation regarding foodstuffs ... under constant review", giving the Security Council responsibility for determining when "humanitarian circumstances" had arisen. The text of the debates on this resolution in the Security Council is available here.
665 (25 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Imposes a shipping blockade by calling for the use of "such measures ... as may be necessary" to enforce the maritime embargo. In effect, this resolution reassigns some of the practical responsibility for monitoring compliance with sanctions away from the UN machinery, in the form of the 661 committee, and to the States imposing the naval blockade.
664 (18 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Demands that Iraq release "third state nationals".
662 (9 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Decides that Iraq's annexation of Kuwait is "null and void".
661 (6 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Imposes comprehensive sanctions on Iraq and establishes a sanctions committee (the "661 committee") in paragraph 6 to monitor them. Paragraphs 3 and 4 drawn from those of SCR 253.
660 (2 August 1990): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and demands Iraq's immediate and unconditional withdrawal.
-
Very good post Doug!
-
I agree with Guro. That was a very good post, and useful. Thank you.
I do not understand, however, how you jumped to this conclusion: "I don't see how Bigdog you take lightly the fact that those horribly repressive regimes were sitting on committees judging other people's human rights violations."
I recall saying nothing of the sort.
-
I got a bit of a similar impression; the idea that communicated was "What does it matter? We have veto on the Security Council."
-
Bigdog, I'm sorry. I updated my post. The personal reference was not helpful in making my point, especially when it is wrong. Plenty of other people took those appointments lightly, including the majority of nations! I hate when people ascribe to me what I didn't say. Now it reads:
"I don't see how anyone can take lightly the fact that those horribly repressive regimes were sitting on committees judging other people's human rights violations. We stand for nothing IMO if we stand with that!"
I took the impression as Crafty expressed it. Actual quote: "I don't see, then, given the institutional design of the UN (or at least my understanding of the design) allows the opportunity for the UN to act in a manner against the US and the EU."
My view is that the UN IS acting against the US by elevating Cuba, Libya and Syria, and we have guilt in it all by our full knowledge and continuing voluntary association.
-------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2678521.stm
Monday, 27 January, 2003, 16:28 GMT
Should Libya chair UN Human Rights Commission?
Libya has been voted chairman of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, despite opposition from the United States and human rights groups.
The country was nominated by African countries and elected by a clear majority, despite the US's insistence that it will not endorse Libya's chairmanship.
The Commission, the UN's main human rights watchdog, oversees complaints of abuses worldwide, but it has been widely condemned as a toothless body.
The vote has highlighted what many see as a flaw in the way the body is set up. Libya's human rights record has been heavily criticised in the past.
The appointment has been staunchly defended, however, by the son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, who said it could embarrass middle eastern governments into improving their human rights record.
------------
The Bush administration was 'opposed' but had no veto. That IMO answers the point of how the UN can act in a manner against the US. They most certainly did (IMHO).
I understand how international stature helps the rulers in places like Libya and Syria, but what are WE doing there? No one would talk to us otherwise?
I am known for my botched analogies and here we go again... If Charles Manson or a current KKK wizard was the chairman of the membership screening committee at the west texas country club and Rick Perry strongly opposed that but kept on golfing, hunting, dining and socializing there, are we okay with that? It's okay because everyone else in the community belongs there too or because there is no other club available? No. It's not okay and he would not survive a second under scrutiny.
-
Despite this:
"Again, I am not necessarily unopposed to the snark." The role of the UN in the attempted prevention of small arms and the related limits to the 2nd Amendment spring to mind here. I just want to understand HOW, or perhaps WHY, the UN now how this reputation. Is it because of a failed, or flawed, design or it the "derailment" more of a normative sense from those of you how feel this way.
And this:
"...has it gone off the rails due to institutional design or normatively?"
And this:
"I don't understand the institutional design that leads to the conclusion that having those countries on these commissions will allow they to dictate the outcome."
And this:
"I really am just seeking clarification about an institution I know comparatively little about. And, thank you to all of you addressing this line of questioning, by the way.)"
And this:
"Could you you do me a favor and tell me what the UN's ambitions are, without the US or the EU? (This is a serious question. Since the US, UK and France are all permanent SC members with veto power, I am not sure what you mean.)"
Next time I will try harder to admit my ignorance about a subject.
I got a bit of a similar impression; the idea that communicated was "What does it matter? We have veto on the Security Council."
-
What we do NOT have here is a failure to communicate , , , on your part :lol: I got all that entirely and if I failed to communicate that in return, my bad. :-)
-
Thank you, Guro.
-
Woof,
I've tried a number of times to post this URL, I think I've finally got to stick. This is the U N's, world government building program, under the guise of environmental planning, that along with the Project 21 Agenda that George Sorros funds, is designed to make a shell of existing governments and fill them with provisions that makes them compatible with eachother legally and otherwise, with similar structure and thus linked globally just like the global financial markets and IMF. In other words they will all be similar economically and governmentally and very easily transitioned to U.N. governance and control in the future. This is why the leaders of the Socialist movement in the world are willing to do anything to push the idea of global warming and impending environmental disaster to force governments around the world to sign on to the U N agenda. It's a Trojan Horse.
www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV2VIRJKL04[/youtube]
P.C.
-
Woof,
For the record I didn't vet the video, so there's no telling what kind of fact checking there is to be done on it. For all I know they might just be a bunch of jealous Marxist. :-D
P.C.
-
**Well, at least it's not a made up crisis or anything..... :roll:
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/report-un-tax-americans-green-climate-fund/237466
Report: Obama, UN to tax US for Green Climate Fund
byJoel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
President Obama's team of negotiators at the United Nations Climate Change Conference may agree to a tax on foreign currency transactions, designed to pay for a "Green Climate Fund," that would fall disproportionately on American travellers and businesses, according to a group attending the conference that is skeptical of the UN position on global warming.
Negotiators at the conference are considering "a new tax on every foreign currency transaction in the world," according to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). "Every time you travel abroad, you'll have to pay a climate tax," explains CFACT, the group that released the "Climategate" emails. "More importantly, every time we import goods, every time we export our fine products (think jobs) we will do so with a climate tax skimming off the top."
European countries would evade much of the tax burden, however, because "transactions within the Eurozone won't have to pay this new tax."
CFACT suggests that Obama is open to implementing this tax and similar policies in the absence of a full climate treaty, which would require congressional approval. "We have learned that while many have discounted this conference, knowing that a full climate treaty is difficult to achieve especially with a U.S. Senate that will not vote to ratify," CFACT says. "Obama and his fellow climate travelers are working around the Senate and planning to stick America with the bill."
-
And I thought it was going to be bipartisan project. :-D
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qi6n_-wB154" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
-
I certainly hope that this is something that the Rep candidates notice and seize upon.
-
Dear fellow Patriot,
Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new "Small Arms Treaty."
Disguised as an "International Arms Control Treaty" to fight against "terrorism," "insurgency" and "international crime syndicates," the UN Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
I'm helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate and I want your help.
Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.
Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a good idea of what's likely in the works.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on bringing the United States to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United States of America isn't a "shining city on a hill" -- it's an affront to their grand designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they'll NEVER be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.
And the UN's apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
That's why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!
The truth is there's no time to waste.
You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.
The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical legislation.
They've made that mistake before, and we've made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.
But now time may not be on our side.
In fact, we're likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make their move.
And we definitely don't have a President in the White House who will oppose this treaty.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the ratification process in the U.S. Senate.
As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.
With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to kill this thing should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn't a pro-gun majority in the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.
You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly "pro-gun."
Not only that, but many Senators get "queasy" about killing treaties for fear of "embarrassing" the President -- especially with "international prestige" at stake.
They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President's Supreme Court nominees.
Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?
A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots pressure from the folks back home.
So if we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment are the supreme law of the land?
Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your Constitutional rights must be opposed?
If you said "Yes" to these questions, please sign the survey the National Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.
Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.
And along with your signed survey, I hope you'll send a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.
With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S. Senators.
Not only that, but they're preparing a massive program to launch the second this treaty is brought before the Senate.
Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences. Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The whole nine yards.
Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for Gun Rights can raise the money.
But that's not easy, and we may not have much time.
In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!
So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR's Firearms Sovereignty Survey.
But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250, $100, $50 or even just $35.
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.
Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second Amendment rights.
For Freedom,
Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, "Small Arms Treaty."
If we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!
Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.
And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it will make a difference.
-
As you can see, this is a fundraiser and it is from a group with which I am not familiar. That said, the basic thrust of the argument I believe to be true.
Dear fellow Patriot,
Gun-grabbers around the globe believe they have it made.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama Administration will
be working hand-in-glove with the UN to pass a new "Small Arms Treaty."
Disguised as an "International Arms Control Treaty" to fight against "terrorism,"
"insurgency" and "international crime syndicates," the UN Small Arms Treaty is in
fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
I'm helping lead the fight to defeat this radical treaty in the United States Senate
and I want your help.
Please join me by taking a public stand against this outright assault on our
national sovereignty by signing the Official Firearms Sovereignty Survey.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/2/
Ultimately, the UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE
firearms owned by private citizens like YOU.
So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new
scheme under wraps.
But looking at previous versions of the UN Small Arms Treaty, you and I can get a
good idea of what's likely in the works.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/4/
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN Small Arms Treaty would
almost certainly FORCE the U.S. to:
*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through
even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL "unauthorized" civilian firearms (all firearms owned
by the government are excluded, of course);
*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun
CONFISCATION.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this is NOT a fight we can afford to lose.
Ever since its founding 65 years ago, the United Nations has been hell-bent on
bringing the United States to its knees.
To the petty dictators and one-world socialists who control the UN, the United
States of America isn't a "shining city on a hill" -- it's an affront to their grand
designs for the globe.
These anti-gun globalists know that so long as Americans remain free to make our own
decisions without being bossed around by big government bureaucrats, they'll NEVER
be able to seize the worldwide power they crave.
And the UN's apologists also know the most effective way to finally strip you and me
of ALL our freedoms would be to DESTROY our gun rights.
That's why I was so glad to hear that the National Association for Gun Rights is
leading the fight to stop this assault on our Constitution!
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/5/
The truth is there's no time to waste.
You and I have to be prepared for this fight to move FAST.
The fact is the last thing the gun-grabbers at the UN and in Washington, D.C. want
is for you and me to have time to mobilize gun owners to defeat this radical
legislation.
They've made that mistake before, and we've made them pay, defeating EVERY attempt
to ram the UN Small Arms Treaty into law since the mid-1990s.
But now time may not be on our side.
In fact, we're likely to only have a few weeks to defeat the treaty when they make
their move.
And we definitely don't have a President in the White House who will oppose this
treaty.
So our ONE AND ONLY CHANCE to stop the UN Small Arms Treaty is during the
ratification process in the U.S. Senate.
As you know, it takes 67 Senate votes to ratify a treaty.
With new pro-gun champions joining me in the Senate, rounding up enough votes to
kill this thing should be easy, right?
Unfortunately, that couldn't be further from the truth.
Even with the Republican tidal wave in 2010, there still isn't a pro-gun majority in
the Senate to kill ratification of the treaty.
You know just as well as I do how few Senators are truly "pro-gun."
Not only that, but many Senators get "queasy" about killing treaties for fear of
"embarrassing" the President -- especially with "international prestige" at stake.
They look at ratifying treaties much like approving the President's Supreme Court
nominees.
Remember how many Senators turned their back on us and voted to confirm anti-gun
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?
A dozen more only voted against Sotomayor after receiving massive grassroots
pressure from the folks back home.
So if we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the
heat up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!
Do you believe the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment
are the supreme law of the land?
Do you believe any attempt by the United Nations to subvert or supersede your
Constitutional rights must be opposed?
If you said "Yes" to these questions, please sign the survey the National
Association for Gun Rights has prepared for you.
Your survey will put you squarely on the record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/6/
And along with your signed survey, I hope you'll send a generous contribution of
$250, $100, $50 or even just $35 to help finance this battle.
With your generous contribution, the National Association for Gun Rights will
continue contacting Second Amendment supporters to turn up the heat on targeted U.S.
Senators.
Not only that, but they're preparing a massive program to launch the second this
treaty is brought before the Senate.
Direct mail. Phones. E-mail. Blogs. Guest editorials. Press conferences.
Hard-hitting internet, newspaper, radio and even TV ads if funding permits. The
whole nine yards.
Of course, a program of this scale is only possible if the National Association for
Gun Rights can raise the money.
But that's not easy, and we may not have much time.
In fact, if gun owners are going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty pro-gun
Americans like you and me have to get involved NOW!
So please put yourself on record AGAINST the UN Small Arms Treaty by signing NAGR's
Firearms Sovereignty Survey.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/7/
But along with your survey, please agree to make a generous contribution of $250,
$100, $50 or even just $35.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/18/
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it
will make a difference.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/19/
Thank you in advance for your time and money devoted to defending our Second
Amendment rights.
For Freedom,
Rand Paul
United States Senator
P.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced the Obama Administration will
be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new GLOBAL, "Small Arms
Treaty."
If we're going to defeat the UN Small Arms Treaty gun owners have to turn the heat
up on the U.S. Senate now before it's too late!
Please return your Firearms Sovereignty Survey and put yourself squarely on the
record AGAINST ratification of the UN Small Arms Treaty.
And if you can, please make a generous contribution to the National Association for
Gun Rights of $250, $150, $100 or even just $35 right away!
And every dollar counts in this fight so even if you can only chip in $10 or $20, it
will make a difference.
http://list.dickmorris.com/t/137804/613051/909/20/
-
China and Russia vetoed a resolution on Syria this weekend that the United States and others had introduced at the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). The resolution itself was not particularly aggressive and committed the United Nations and its members to minimal actions, including expressing support for an Arab League proposal that would call for Syrian President Bashar al Assad to step down. Nevertheless, the United States responded to the vetoes with anger and fairly intense rhetoric. After its veto at the UNSC, Russia is sending a delegation led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to Damascus on Tuesday for talks with the Syrian leadership.
It is interesting that China and Russia acted together in the first place. The willingness of both to cast vetoes when one would have sufficed indicates the emergence of a bloc on Syria and beyond. The reasons for the bloc are not difficult to understand. China and Russia were both unsettled by the principles on which NATO intervened in Libya. The logic behind that intervention was simple: The Libyan government was historically oppressive and, in the course of an uprising, was planning to impose mass murder on its enemies. Given this, the international community decided that it had an obligation to intervene in order to save innocent lives.
The Russian and Chinese view was that this doctrine opened the door to unlimited interventions not in response to mass murder, but in order to prevent mass murder. From the Chinese and Russian perspective, this would allow intervention based on fears. Fears can be feigned and anyone can assert the threat of mass murder and war crimes. Therefore, the Libyan precedent seemed to be a doctrine that justified intervention based on suspicion of intent. Or, to put it more bluntly, the Russian and Chinese view was that the intervention in Libya was designed to achieve political and economic goals, and the threat of impending mass murder was simply the justification.
China and Russia viewed the Syrian resolution as a preface to more aggressive resolutions also based on the doctrine of preventing atrocities much greater than those already committed. They felt that this would set a permanent principle of international law that they opposed. Their opposition was based on the perception that this was merely a justification for interventions against regimes of which the West disapproved. They also saw themselves as potential victims over the long term. Both regimes are authoritarian, to say the least, and both face potential domestic opposition. Events could transpire such that Russia and China could one day be weakened and coping with insurgencies, and they would have implicitly agreed, by supporting multiple U.N. interventions, to interventions in their countries. It might be seen as a far-fetched idea, but it is of sufficient significance that neither Russia nor China was willing to allow the principle to take hold.
There were, of course, more immediate geopolitical issues. As we have argued before, Iran is in the process of establishing a sphere of influence in which Syria plays a strategic role. If al Assad survives, his regime will be heavily dependent on Iran. Neither China nor Russia would be particularly troubled by this. Certainly, Russia does not want to see an excessively powerful Iran, but it would welcome any dynamic that would tie American power down in a long-term duel with Iran. Creating a regional balance of power would divert U.S. power in directions that would provide Russia with freedom for maneuver.
The same can be said of China, with the additional proviso that the Chinese do not want to see anything interfere with their energy trade with Iran. So there were two issues for China. First, China did not want a precedent set that might allow an American intervention in Iran. Second, China, like Russia, welcomed the diversion of American power from the South China Sea, where it had been planning to shift forces.
In the expansion of Iranian influence, Syria is now the major battlefield. What we have now seen is that China and Russia recognize the battlefield and for now are prepared to side with Iran against the United States, a move that makes clear sense from a balance of power perspective. At the same time, challenging the United States is always potentially dangerous, and the Russians reverted to an old strategy of thwarting the United States in the United Nations, then sending a senior delegation to Syria to speak with al Assad. It is assumed that what the delegation will say are the things that the Americans would like to hear. That is undoubtedly the wink and nod behind the delegation.
What is more likely is that the Russians will make a warning to al Assad as a formality and perhaps will look around for a personality who might take al Assad’s place while preserving the regime. But the Russians understand that such a move could destabilize the Syrian regime, and they are satisfied with the way things are. Therefore, sending a Russian delegation to Damascus on Tuesday is a gesture toward settlement. It will not placate the United States. Ultimately, the Russians know that and don’t seem to care.
-
OBAMA'S SNEAKY TREATIES
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on February 7, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over -- or seeking ratification of -- five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.
Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.
• International Criminal Court -- Clinton has reversed George W. Bush's policy and entered into negotiations over U.S. participation in the court. Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of "aggression," which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court's jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Clinton says she will stop our military's hands from being tied, but we all must realize that once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.
• The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration -- with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) -- will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar's primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it ... for free.
• Small-arms control -- Clinton is about to negotiate on a global ban on export of small arms. It would only apply to private citizens but, of course, most small-arms deals come not from individuals or private firms but from governments, specifically those of the United States, Russia, China and Israel. The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired. The Second Amendment be damned!
• Outer Space Code of Conduct -- Under the guise of stopping debris from accumulating in outer space, the European Union has enlisted Clinton in negotiations over a code of conduct. The code would prohibit activities that are likely to generate debris in outer space -- space littering. The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats. European leftists reacted angrily when G.W. Bush opted out of the ABM treaty banning defensive weapons. Now they seek to reimpose it under the guise of a code of conduct.
• Rights of the Child -- Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.
European liberalism is advancing -- masked -- by way of these treaties. Defenders of liberty must say no!
-
Dick Morris on Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST). Sounds pretty awful:
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-gives-our-offshore-revenues-to-third-world-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
Does this URL work for you?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204520204577249072967967832.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY
This Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that should interest every U.S. company doing business overseas, and especially those operating in the developing world. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority raise the issue of whether corporations can be sued for violations of international law under U.S. statutes, including the Alien Tort Statute.
The ATS was adopted in 1789 by the first U.S. Congress. The statute permits suits by aliens in federal courts for certain alleged international-law violations, but it was moribund for nearly 200 years and its purpose remains opaque. The best guess is that Congress wanted to provide a means by which the U.S. could fulfill its international obligations to vindicate a very discrete set of damage claims by diplomats and other foreign nationals injured or abused by Americans.
Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, however, activists and plaintiffs' lawyers began using the law as a means of suing foreign nationals, and then U.S. nationals and companies, in federal court for alleged human rights abuses overseas. They included abuses perpetrated not by the defendant corporations but by the foreign governments with which the companies have done business. This type of "aiding and abetting" liability reached its high-water mark in Khulumani v. Barclay National Bank Ltd. (2002), a case brought in Manhattan's federal district court against dozens of U.S. companies that had done business with the South African government during that country's apartheid years.
The trial judge properly dismissed the case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit partially reversed that decision, permitting the ATS claims to go forward. The Supreme Court initially agreed to review the case but then changed its mind because too many Justices would have had to recuse themselves, being shareholders in one or more of the defendant companies. The Second Circuit decision that corporations could be sued under the ATS merely for doing business with the wrong government stands.
In Kiobel and Mohamed, the Supreme Court will again have the opportunity to bring some certainty and sanity to this area of the law. Those cases involve international tort (or damage) claims against nonnatural "persons"—oil companies alleged to have aided and abetted international law violations by Nigeria's government in Kiobel, and by the Palestinian Authority for torture and extrajudicial killing in Mohamed.
Traditionally, international law applied only to nation states. As Emmerich de Vattel, an early and influential scholar much admired by the Constitution's Framers, explained in the 18th century: "The law of nations is the science of the law subsisting between nations or states, and of the obligations that flow from it." Exceptions for individuals involved piracy and attacks on diplomats or those traveling under "safe conducts," the very claims the ATS was likely meant to address.
Yet these exceptions applied only to natural persons. The recognition of corporate entities as legal "persons" is a relatively recent development. There is no basis in customary international law—the actual practice of states in their dealings with each other—for corporate liability on the international level.
Even the dissolution of German companies implicated in Nazi atrocities after World War II was not a judicial action. The corporate entities did not stand in the dock at Nuremberg. Their punishment was a political decision by the victorious Allies intent on creating a new, democratic Germany.
Extending ATS violations to corporate entities would go beyond what international law supports. It would open U.S. courthouse doors to international disputes in which the U.S. itself may have little if any interest and/or which are more appropriately dealt with at the diplomatic level.
Permitting ATS actions against corporate entities would also expand a new frontier for plaintiffs' lawyers, seeking out wrongs committed by foreign governments overseas and then bringing actions for money damages against U.S. companies who may have dealt with, or even simply operated in, those countries. It will add to the litigation explosion that already has done much harm to the U.S. economy and society.
Messrs. Rivkin and Casey served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. They have filed amicus curiae briefs in opposition to corporate liability in both the Kiobel and Mohamed cases.
-
Not familiar with the group from which this fund raiser comes, but I suspect their concerns are well warranted:
===========
Dear Marc F.,
Left-wing activists are quick to dismiss the UN Small Arms Treaty as virtually irrelevant in the United States.
But while these armchair generals pontificate, bureaucrats at the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs are steadily pushing a global gun ban under the guise of “controlling the illicit firearms trade.”
On October 14, 2009, President Obama and newly minted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed the longstanding position of the United States and announced public support for an international gun control scheme.
This breathed new life into the so-called “Small Arms Treaty” and bureaucrats at the UN quickly began working on new ways to redefine gun ownership as a crime.
The next “UN Conference on an Arms Trade Treaty” will be held in New York City throughout the month of July. According to sources at the UN, pushing heavy anti-gun restrictions into the developing language of the treaty is top priority.
“The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a framework for gun control statutes at the national level,” said former UN Ambassador John Bolton.
The official documents of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs substantiate Ambassador Bolton’s predictions. Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is the same old gun control on a global scale.
If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly force the United States to enact new firearms licensing requirements.
It would also require the U.S. to confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms, ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons and create an international gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
Ultimately, the clear goal is to give UN bureaucrats sweeping power to restrict your Second Amendment rights.
Right on cue, left-wing activists are raising shrill protests. It would be downright funny, if the subject itself weren’t so serious. For example, one of their “experts” is a character named Professor Carl T. Bogus.
Yes, you read that right. Apparently it’s not a joke. Professor Bogus has been hailed as a hero by anti-gun groups like the “Violence Policy Center” for explaining where the Second Amendment really came from.
According to Professor Bogus, James Madison actually wrote the Second Amendment just to reassure wicked, early-American slave masters that their militias, which were the “principle instruments of slave control,” would not be disarmed.
“The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder,” says anti-gun zealot Josh Sugarman, founder of the Violence Policy Center.
Now the able Professor Bogus has brought forth a new jewel: the very idea that Hillary and the UN are anti-gun is, well, bogus.
According to Professor Bogus and the rest of the brain trust at the left-wing news website “Mother Jones,” the National Association for Gun Rights actually invented the “rumor” that Hillary, Obama and the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs want to ban guns!
The National Association for Gun Rights is proud to acknowledge that it was first on the scene more than two years ago, alerting gun owners to the dangers of the “Small Arms Treaty.”
Now, NAGR’s million member army is working to defeat this new threat, and literally thousands of gun owners are joining the fight every week. The National Association for Gun Rights will continue doing battle against this direct attack on the Second Amendment.
For Freedom,
Dudley Brown
Executive Vice President
P.S. The National Association for Gun Rights is working literally day and night to keep you up-to-date on all gun issues.
You can help out tremendously by signing up for a small, automatically-deducted monthly contribution. Just click on the banner below!
-
BD, or anyone else:
I know I should know better but , , , well I don't-- so I would be glad for some precise, informed statements/citations concerning the hierarchy between the contents of a duly ratified treaty and
a) a US law, and
b) the US Constitution. There is the case of Reid v. Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert but is there anything else to the contrary?
Thank you.
-
Another UN example of US bashing:
UN Human Rights Chief Calls For Trayvon Investigation
100 2 929
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by William Bigelow
UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an "immediate investigation" into the death of Trayvon Martin.
Leaving aside the matter of the despicable record of the UN on human rights, what kind of record does Pillay herself have on human rights, and does she have any moral leg to stand on when interfering in the domestic affaris of the United States? According to Freedom House, between September 2008, when she became the Human Rights Chief, and June 2010, Pillay made no comment whatsoever on the victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free.” Some of the countries not criticized were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
When Iranian demonstrators were abused violently by the Iranian government’s forces following the June 2009 presidential elections, Pillay refrained for three months from commenting even though video existed of demonstrators being killed; she only mentioned the matter as part of her traditional opening speech at the UN Human Rights Council session in September 2009. She did not give any statement dealing directly with the matter. And when she did speak, it was only in an “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Muslim world. While she did raise some human rights concerns, she praised Iran’s progress instead of naming violence that had been recorded or current violations.
The pattern of do-nothingness continued. In July 2010, two renowned human rights lawyers, Haytham al-Maleh and Muhanad al-Hasani were jailed for criticizing the Syrian authorities on human rights grounds. In March 2010, the Syrian military detained Kurdish leader Abdel Hafez Abdel and journalists, bloggers and writers for exposing Syria’s corruption. But Pillay did not respond at all. In addition, Pillay was a staunch defender of the falsified Goldstone Report which ripped Israel and also questioned whether the United States had the legal right to kill Osama Bin Laden.
In 2011, the United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands announced a boycott of Durban III, the UN meeting to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference, where Israel was targeted for vilification. Pillay tried to block further countries boycotting the event, and claimed that the boycotts were a “political distraction.”
Of the Trayvon Martin case, Pillay said, “I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned.”
Perhaps Martin’s family deserves reparations. But it’s none of her damn business either way -- at least based on her record.
-
Infg credible
http://www.dickmorris.com/obama-gives-away-our-sovereignty-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/mt-rushmore-un-report-james-anaya_n_1496120.html
South Dakota's Black Hills, home to the granite faces carved into Mt. Rushmore, should be restored as Native American tribal lands, a United Nations official recently said.
-
Besides the Black Hills it seems to me that the UN HQ is also on 'tribal lands'.
I hope everyone has their title insurance in place as we turn over our sovereignty to a global authority for review and distribution.
-
Clinton, Obama, UN To Tell Us How To Raise Our Children
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on May 14, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
In Screwed!, we expose the Rights of the Child Treaty which is now being negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and will likely be submitted to the Senate this year (perhaps in the lame duck session).
Twenty years ago, during the Clinton Administration, the Senate refused to ratify the treaty. But now it is being pushed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
The Treaty, literally, tells us how to raise our children. And it would be legally enforceable in American courts under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could supersede the "rights" it confers on children:
• It bans spanking or any form of corporal punishment of children.
• Article 12 of the Treaty says "when adults are making decisions which affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinion taken into account." Could this proviso establish a due process right of children to challenge their parents' divorce or their decision to move?
• Worried that your children are hanging out with a bad bunch? Article 15 guarantees children "freedom of association." It says "Children have the right to meet together and to join groups and organizations, as long as it does not stop other people from enjoying their rights."
• The Treaty would stop states from trying children as adults and incarcerating them with adult inmates. It would require that even murderers in their teens be sent to children's facilities rather than prison. Article 37 says "children should not be put in prison with adults."
The Treaty requires all signatory nations to provide children with adequate levels of food, clothing, housing, education and medical care. In Britain, Prime Minister Cameroon is facing a lawsuit for violating the Rights of the Child Treaty by proposing a cut in welfare benefits.
It also obliges rich nations to "help poorer countries achieve the best health care possible, safe drinking water, nutritious food, and a clean and safe environment for children." Enforceable in US courts, this provision might create a basis for judicial decisions ordering increases in foreign aid, just as courts now order steps to address overcrowding of prisons.
The Treaty would make a new level of busybody intrusion into our lives.
-
I must admit, I'm not sure why the UN needs to be involved, but this treaty requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach previously found in many countries, and still found in the U.S.A that treats children as possessions or chattels, ownership of which is sometimes argued over in family disputes. Frankly, I think children should have basic some rights, especially as they become older.
The "best interest of the child" is not all bad despite arguments to the contrary. Frankly, too prevalent IMHO are parents who neglect their children. In contrast, everyone on this forum seems like an excellent parent and probably in most aspects, is already conforming to this treaty.
Nearly every country in the world is party to it -- only the U.S. and Somalia are not.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that "every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/#ixzz1uxDS0hSt
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/#ixzz1uxDI8bTu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child
http://parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B53D4DCA7-5899-4242-B244-54A253AFC137%7D
http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf
However, repeating myself, I agree, I do not see the need for a UN treaty. Perhaps I am missing the point.
-
"I do not see the need for a UN treaty." [International Children's rights]
Agree! For many reasons. The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues. I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest.
--------
LOST, Law of the Sea Treaty
Moving on, my first Phyllis Schlafly post on the forum. Same argument to some extent, we don't need decision making bodies that give Cuba for example an equal say as the US.
http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/05/16/defeat_law_of_the_sea_treaty__again/page/2
There's no need for a 18-nation organization to regulate offshore and deep-sea production everywhere in the world, mostly financed by American capital, and then allow it to be taxed for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. The riches of the Arctic, for example, can be resolved by negotiation among the five nations that border the Arctic.
Environmentalists, the third leg of the unholy coalition to ratify LOST, are salivating over its legal system of dispute resolution, which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany. The tribunal's judgments could be enforced against Americans and cannot be appealed to any U.S. court.
This tribunal, known as ITLOS, International Tribunal of LOST, has jurisdiction over "maritime disputes," which suggests it will merely deal with ships accidentally bumping each other in the night. But radical environmental lawyers have big plans to make that sleepy tribunal the engine of all disputes about global warming, with power to issue binding rules on climate change, in effect superseding the discredited Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. properly declined to ratify.
A paper just published by Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation lays out the roadmap for how the radical environmentalist lawyers can use LOST to file lawsuits against the U.S. to advance their climate-change agenda.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns us that the Law of the Sea Treaty is even more dangerous now than when President Ronald Reagan rejected it: "With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty now would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities, and do nothing to resolve China's expansive maritime territorial claims." Bolton warns that LOST will give China the excuse to deny U.S. access to what China claims is its "Exclusive Economic Zone" extending 200 miles out into international waters.
The whole concept of putting the United States in the noose of another global organization, in which the U.S. has only the same one vote as Cuba, is offensive to Americans. LOST must be defeated.
-
"Agree! For many reasons. The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues. I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest."
This is interesting. Do you have particular needs (and or partnering nations or organizations) in mind?
-
This seems relevant to our discussion:
http://publicpolicyalliance.org/?page_id=38
Legislation > American Laws for American Courts
American Laws for American Courts was crafted to protect American citizens’ constitutional rights against the infiltration and incursion of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, especially Islamic Shariah Law.
Why American Laws for American Courts?
Some 235 years ago, America’s forefathers gathered in Philadelphia to debate and write a unique document. That single-page document announced the formation of a new country—one that would no longer find itself in the clutches of a foreign power. That document was the Declaration of Independence. Eleven years later, many of those same men gathered again to lay the foundation for how the United States of America was to be governed: The US Constitution, a form of government like no other by the people, of the people and for the people.
For more than two centuries, hundreds of thousands of courageous men and women have given their lives to protect America’s sovereignty and freedom.
American constitutional rights must be preserved in order to preserve unique American values of liberty and freedom. State legislatures have a vital role to play in preserving those constitutional rights and American values of liberty and freedom.
America has unique values of liberty which do not exist in foreign legal systems, particularly Shariah Law. Included among, but not limited to, those values and rights are:
•Freedom of Religion
•Freedom of Speech
•Freedom of the Press
•Due Process
•Right to Privacy
•Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Civil and Criminal Law Serve as the Bedrock for American Values: We are a nation of laws.
Unfortunately, increasingly, foreign laws and legal doctrines, including Shariah law principles, are finding their way into US court cases.
Reviews of state laws provide extensive evidence that foreign laws and legal doctrines are introduced into US state court cases, including, notably, Islamic law known as Shariah, which is used in family courts and other courts in dozens of foreign Muslim-majority nations .
These foreign laws, frequently at odds with U.S. constitutional principles of equal protection and due process, typically enter the American court system through:
•Comity (mutual respect of each country’s legal system)
•Choice of law issues and
•Choice of forum or venue
Granting comity to a foreign judgment is a matter of state law, and most state and federal courts will grant comity unless the recognition of the foreign judgment would violate some important public policy of the state. This doctrine, the “Void as against Public Policy Rule,” has a long and pedigreed history.
Unfortunately, because state legislatures have generally not been explicit about what their public policy is relative to foreign laws, including as an example, Shariah, the courts and the parties litigating in those courts are left to their own devices – first to know what Shariah is, and second, to understand that granting comity to a Shariah judgment may be at odds with our state and federal constitutional principles in the specific matters at issue.
The goal of the American Laws for American Courts Act is a clear and unequivocal application of what should be the goal of all state courts: No U.S. citizen or resident should be denied the liberties, rights, and privileges guaranteed in our constitutional republic. American Laws for American Courts is needed especially to protect women and children, identified by international human rights organizations as the primary victims of discriminatory foreign laws.
By promoting American Laws for American Courts, we are preserving individual liberties and freedoms which become eroded by the encroachment of foreign laws and foreign legal doctrines, such as Shariah.
It is imperative that we safeguard our constitutions’ fundamentals, particularly the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights, the sovereignty of our Nation and its people, and the principles of the rule of law—American laws, not foreign laws.
MODEL LEGISLATION
AN ACT to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE [GENERAL ASSEMBLY/LEGISLATURE] OF THE STATE OF [_____]:
The [general assembly/legislature] finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
The [general assembly/state legislature] fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that this right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges granted under the United States or [State] Constitution, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[1] As used in this act, “foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals For the purposes of this act, foreign law shall not mean, nor shall it include, any laws of the Native American tribes in this state.
[2] Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[3] A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for the choice of a law, legal code or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the law, legal code or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
[4]
1.A. A contract or contractual provision (if capable of segregation) which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this State and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any law, legal code or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that would not grant the parties the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions, including but not limited to due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy or marriage as specifically defined by the constitution of this state.
2.B. If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate the fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the U.S. and [State] Constitutions of the non-claimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.
[5] Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.
[6] This subsection shall not apply to a church, religious corporation, association, or society, with respect to the individuals of a particular religion regarding matters that are purely ecclesiastical, to include, but not be limited to, matters of calling a pastor, excluding members from a church, electing church officers, matters concerning church bylaws, constitution, and doctrinal regulations and the conduct of other routine church business, where 1) the jurisdiction of the church would be final; and 2) the jurisdiction of the courts of this State would be contrary to the First Amendment of the United States and the Constitution of this State. This exemption in no way grants permission for any otherwise unlawful act under the guise of First Amendment protection.
[7] This statute shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.
American Laws for American Courts has passed into law in the following states:
American and Tennessee Laws for Tennessee Courts
American and Louisiana Laws for Louisiana Courts
American and Arizona Laws for Arizona Courts
-
Security
U.S. Sovereignty Could Be LOST
Three decades after President Ronald Reagan put the kibosh on a treaty that surrendered U.S. sovereignty to a law enforcement body chosen by the United Nations, the Obama regime and its leftist followers in Congress appear ready to try to ratify the same treaty before Obama is possibly sent packing in November. The Law Of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is allegedly an attempt to protect the world's oceans, which constitute 70 percent of the Earth's surface, from environmental damage, as well as to lessen the oceans' potential as a source of conflict between nations. In reality, however, LOST is nothing more than an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, especially America's and Europe's, via a UN body called the International Seabed Authority, which would be headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica.
The ISA would have the power to regulate the entire world's oceans, including economic activities such as seabed mining, fishing and ocean petroleum exploration. Military activities would also fall under its jurisdiction, with ISA having the authority to tell the U.S. Navy where it could and could not sail. Freedom of the seas has been guaranteed by the U.S. Navy, but under LOST it would be the ISA, whose members would be chosen by the same organization that put such exemplary human rights defenders as Cuba, China and Saudi Arabia on the UN Human Rights Council. Such nations no doubt would soon be on the ISA. LOST even imposes a global tax (a.k.a. "protection") that would be paid directly to ISA by companies seeking to exploit the ocean's resources. LOST is thus a Marxist's dream come true.
While LOST's prospects for ratification seemed dim, the Congressional Quarterly says that "hopes for ratification have been revived." LOST is championed by former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MI), who opposed it while in Congress but is now lobbying for corporate and environmental interests that favor it. Additionally, soon-to-be-former Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) also backs the treaty, increasing the odds that the Obama regime could cram this treaty past the Senate before November. In the name of U.S. sovereignty and freedom of the seas, LOST must be sent back to Davy Jones' locker, just as the Gipper did 30 years ago.
-
"I do not see the need for a UN treaty." [International Children's rights]
Agree! For many reasons. The desire of some to give up our sovereignty is not tied to one or two individual issues. I don't see the need for the UN at all except as a speakers forum and a place where representatives can make contacts for voluntary cooperation. I would keep the UN, move it out of NY, scale down our contribution, and form other organizations that address specific global needs that are in our best interest.
Is this the type of thing you had in mind, Doug?
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/18/the_persian_gulf_needs_its_own_nato?page=0,0
-
"Is this the type of thing you had in mind, Doug?"
YES. Not that I know exactly what our interests in the gulf should be, but we should be in alliances with people who share our interests. We should not so much be giving people like Chavez and Ahmedinejad a platform for credibility or trading away our interests with regimes like China and Russia to get their approval, when their own interest peace and freedom is noticeably insincere.
-
As I noted above, I think the idea has merit. The is large and in many ways unwieldy. I think there is merit in exploring options, similar to that discussed in the article or an ANZUS or the strides that the US has made in recent years in Asia with the Philippines, Vietnam, S. Korea. I would like the US to continue to build/maintain relations with traditional allies such as the UK.
-
Law of the Sea Treaty Is Found on Capitol Hill, AgainBy MARK LANDLER
Published: May 23, 2012
WASHINGTON — Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican, joked that he was witnessing “sort of a Lazarus moment.” On that score, at least, Mr. Corker got no quarrel from his Democratic colleagues.
Thirty years after it was signed in Montego Bay, Jamaica, the United Nations treaty that governs the world’s oceans is undergoing one of its periodic resurrections in Congress. A Senate committee on Wednesday summoned three top national security officials to make yet another plea for the agreement, in the face of narrow, but stubborn, opposition.
The Senate has never ratified the treaty, despite the support of Republican and Democratic presidents, the Pentagon, environmental advocates, the oil and gas industry — virtually anyone who deals “with oceans on a daily basis,” in the words of Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the Republican who recently lost a primary, who is a supporter.
So long has the “Law of the Sea” treaty been stalled on Capitol Hill that its opponents — a handful of conservative Republicans who view it as an infringement on American sovereignty — have taken to calling it “LOST, ” an uncharitable, if apt, acronym.
Now, though, Senator John F. Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, sees another chance to push through a treaty last debated in 2007. In the first of a series of hearings, he enlisted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to help make the case — allowing them to argue that the treaty is increasingly important to deal with such issues as fraught relations over the South China Sea.
The treaty, ratified by 162 states and the European Union, codifies rules for the use of the oceans and maritime resources. Among its provisions, it allows countries to exploit the continental shelf, in some cases extending more than 200 miles from shore.
“Whatever arguments may have existed for delaying U.S. accession no longer exist and truly cannot even be taken with a straight face,” Mrs. Clinton said, noting that some critics still seem to believe that because the treaty was negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations, “the black helicopters are on their way.”
By refusing to ratify the treaty, Mrs. Clinton said, the United States could fail to exploit untapped oil and gas deposits buried beneath the offshore seabed. It could lose out to Russia, Norway and other countries in staking claims to the Arctic Ocean, where melting ice is opening up untold mineral riches. And it could lose credibility in reining in China’s maritime ambitions in the South China Sea.
Mr. Panetta and General Dempsey zeroed in on the national security benefits, arguing that by instituting rules and a mechanism for resolving disputes, the treaty reduces the threat of conflict in hot spots like the South China Sea and the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to shut down in retaliation for oil sanctions.
“Frankly, I don’t think this is a close call,” Mr. Panetta said.
Several Republicans agree it is a clear choice: they say the treaty ought to be mothballed for good. Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, complained that under the terms of the agreement, the United States would have to transfer billions of dollars in royalties from oil and gas production on the continental shelf to an international authority, which would redistribute the money to less developed countries.
Senator James Risch of Idaho said it would oblige the United States to adhere to international agreements to stem greenhouse gas emissions. “That’s got Kyoto written all over it,” he said, referring to the climate change treaty rejected by the United States.
Mr. Risch seemed particularly rankled by Mrs. Clinton’s contention that the treaty’s opponents were driven by “ideology and mythology,” not facts. “I hope you weren’t scoffing at us,” he said. “I’m one of those that fall into that category.”
Mr. Corker, while saying he had an open mind, suggested that there was more than a bit of politics in the timing of the treaty’s reappearance. If Republicans win the Senate, Democrats would find it even harder to win approval in the next Congress.
Despite sending a marquee delegation to testify before Congress, the White House has not exactly championed the treaty, certainly not like the New Start arms reduction treaty with Russia, which was pushed ardently by President Obama.
For his part, Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election. Still, for Mr. Kerry, whose name is on the shortlist of candidates to succeed Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state in any second Obama term, ratifying the Law of the Sea would be “a huge feather in his cap,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who has argued against the treaty.
-
"Mr. Kerry promised to keep the debate away from the “hurly-burly of presidential politics” by delaying a vote until after the election."
Right. Nothing hurts responsible governance more than consent of the governed (sarc.). Not only some Dems are leaving the Senate, but L.O.S.T. supporter Dick Lugar is leaving too. I wonder how Washington resident Lugar will vote in a lame duck, what the people of Indiana want or what "everyone" knows is best for them...
-----
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-sea-obama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/
Will U.S. Sovereignty Be LOST At Sea? Obama Supports U.N. Treaty That Redistributes Drilling Revenues
A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights.
As part of the deal, as much as 7% of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast will be forked over to ISA for redistribution to poorer, landlocked countries. This apparently is in penance for America’s audacity in perpetuating prosperity yielded by our Industrial Revolution.
Under current law, oil companies are required to pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury (typically at a rate of 12 ½% to 18%) for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and off the northern coast of Alaska. Treasury keeps a portion, and the rest goes to Gulf states and to the National Historic Preservation Fund. But if LOST is ratified, about half of those Treasury revenues, amounting to billions, if not trillions of dollars, would go to the ISA. We will be required to pay 1% of those “international royalties” beginning in the sixth year of production at each site, with rates increasing at 1% annual increments until the 12th year when they would remain at 7% thereafter.
Like the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol debacle that preceded it, this most recent LOST cause embodies the progressive ideal of subordinating the sovereignty of nation states to authoritarian dictates of a world body. The U.S. would have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money would go, and be obligated to hand over offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it… for free.
And who are those lucky international recipients? They will most likely include such undemocratic, despotic and brutal governments as Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe…all current voting members of LOST.
The treaty was originally drafted in 1968 at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in implementing a scheme to weaken U.S. power and transferring wealth from industrialized countries to the developing world. It had been co-authored by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist and admirer of Karl Marx who ran the World Federation of Canada. In a 1999 speech she declared: “The world ocean has been and is so to speak, our great laboratory for making a new world order.” Recognizing this as a global grab, President Reagan thought it was such a lousy idea that he not only refused to sign, but actually fired the State Department staff that helped negotiate it.
Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns that world circumstances are even much less favorable to the U.S. for LOST enactment now: “With China emerging as a major power, ratifying the treaty would encourage Sino-American strife, constrain U.S. naval activities and do nothing to resolve China’s expansive maritime territorial claims.”
The treaty has been pitched as an effort to protect the world’s oceans from environmental damage and to avoid potential conflicts between nations. Accordingly, ISA would settle international maritime and jurisdictional disputes, possibly even to the extent of overriding our U.S. Navy’s freedom of navigation and governing where ships can and cannot go. ISA’s prerogative to do so would be entirely consistent with a “global test” definition advocated by key LOST proponent Senator John Kerry in 2004.
The treaty contains a clause empowering the ISA to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.” According to William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, its expansive definition of pollution could be read to include “…the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.” Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.” He warns that this can easily be expanded to include anti-global warming measures, and since it would be “self-executing”, U.S. courts can be used to enforce it.
Powerful environmental organizations love LOST because it will afford a legal system for dispute resolution which culminates in a 21-member international tribunal (ITLOS) based in Hamburg which can be enforced against American companies without possibilities of U.S. court appeal. Numerous lawsuits charging global warming dangers linked to greenhouse emissions from ships will most likely supersede binding rules of the discredited Kyoto Protocol which the U.S. wisely never ratified.
The U.S. Navy maintains that we need LOST to guarantee free transit in dangerous waters, such as in the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to block, and in the South China Sea which is dominated by China. Yet freedom of navigation has been recognized under international law for centuries. It was policed by the British Navy over 400 years, and by ours since 1775. Since the U.N. has no navy, it will still be up to us to continue this role.
Given good prospects that the White House and Senate may have fewer Democrat residents after November, Senator Kerry has been working hard to speed up the approval process before moving vans arrive. Republican Senator Luger, another strong treaty supporter and career globalist, apparently didn’t want to highlight that fact during the course of his hard-fought Indiana reelection campaign. Now, with nothing more to lose following his primary defeat, he can be expected to help push for Senate ratification as early as next month.
U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had both supported the treaty during their tenures, but they never sent it to the Senate for ratification because of opposition over concerns that it will limit commerce and allow international bodies to wield control over U.S. interests. During W’s term of office, then-Senator Joe Biden introduced LOST before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he chaired in 2007, yet it was never brought to the floor for a vote. The Obama administration has now openly supported Senate action since at least 2009 when it released its Treaty Priority List.
Those who support the treaty argue that it will clarify rules regarding the high seas…ocean waters beyond our national jurisdiction and in the Arctic Ocean where the U.S., Russia Canada, and several Scandinavian countries have all claimed territorial rights. During her confirmation hearing for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton said: “If people start drilling in areas that are now ice-free most of the year, and we don’t know where they can or can’t drill or whether we can, we’re going to be disadvantaged. So I think you will have a very receptive audience in our State Department and in our administration.”
Peter Brooks, a former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and current Heritage Foundation senior fellow disagrees with that rationale. He argues that: “While LOST’s navigational tenets for operations on high seas, including establishing waters and exclusive economic zones, are of little dispute, some of the other ‘non-navigational’ provisions are what really frighten the treaty’s detractors.” And in addition to establishing and having to deal with still another U.N. agency, and giving away many billions of dollars to “any number of bad actor, corrupt or anti-American regimes” at a time when our country is facing enormous fiscal and budgetary challenges, LOST considers the deep seabed as the “common heritage of mankind”.
Brooks continues: “But what they’re really getting at is if you want to harvest Davy Jones’ locker you need to ask pretty please of…tahdah…the ISA. This Mother-may-I would likely limit or discourage the private sector’s economic opportunities in the deep seabed, affecting the provision of this likely-significant bounty to global markets. Global energy demand…and prices at the pump…seem to be going anywhere but down. We don’t want to allow our energy exploration to be held hostage to the whims of some unaccountable international bureaucrats.”
Steven Groves, an international law fellow at the Heritage Foundation agrees, and observes that opposition from Republican members of Congress who have objected reflects a legitimate deep-seated distrust of the United Nations and other international bodies, observing: “This seems to me a bit of a Trojan Horse for the ability of one country to affect another country’s environmental policy. That’s generally something we do not like as conservatives and Americans.”
And why would anyone possibly doubt the U.N.’s objectivity and sagacity as an oversight organization? Well perhaps we might think about the history of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which produced the 1992 Earth Summit Rio Declaration’s rules which have been adopted by a new U.S. National Ocean Council (NOC) established by President Obama through an Executive Order. Principal #15 states that: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
In other words, those protections can involve whatever restraints on drilling and other activities an organization such as ISA may deem necessary to protect the planet from global warming… whether or not they can scientifically establish that there is a problem…or whether or not those attempted interventions will make a bit of difference.
Headed by Science Czar and noted climate alarmist John Holdren, the NOC is seen by many as a back door way to sneak LOST in as a “soft law”, the same tactic used when the U.N.’s Agenda 21 failed to pass Congress. This enables it to avoid a 2/3 Senate approval vote hurdle required for all treaties.
What would Ronald Reagan say about what is now going on? Let me guess.
Maybe, “Law of the Sea…get LOST…this time for good!”
-
Without going into the details of this law, our Navy supports this law, Clinton AND Bush both supported this law. If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" anotherwords international waters. I'm not sure why we have any more rights to any operations, be there fishing or drilling than any other country does in international waters. Having a international body adjudicate disagreements in international waters doesn't seem all bad.....
-
"Without going into the details of this law"
- That would be no way to judge it.
"our Navy supports this law"
- We do not have rule by military. This currently is a question for the Senate. One Senator IMO already lost his seat over it.
"Clinton AND Bush both supported this law."
- And Reagan opposed it. To pick at those two, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory and hit the Chinese embassy by mistake in Belgrade. Bush in roughly your words invaded a country that posed no threat to us? I disagreed with roughly half of what he did (Harriet Miers was the wisest Amercian available for the Supreme Court) so his support gives me no guidance.
"If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" in other words international waters."
- The have been unable to ratify it for 30 years with Dem and Rep. Senates, so looking at the harmless aspects without the objectionable parts isn't very helpful. If you want to look at it thoroughly, one of the best resources available on the internet is right here in this DBMA thread.
-
Doug, I understand we do not have rule by military. However, often we listen to the our armed forces. The Navy in this instance.
No reason to denigrate either Clinton or Bush, I was merely pointing out that influential individuals from BOTH parties have supported this legislation. Perhaps they see the big picture?
While I concur that the DBMA is an excellent site, it is no offense biased against "international law". Yet I have learned a lot.
However, my "question" still stands, ""If I read it correctly, it only affects "operations beyond 200 miles of our coast" in other words international waters."
You edited later my comment, "I'm not sure why we have any more rights to any operations, be there fishing or drilling than any other country does in international waters. Having a international body adjudicate disagreements in international waters doesn't seem all bad....."
Frankly, I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters. As should China and other countries..... Of course, selfishly, we want what's ours and what's yours too, but then so does everyone else. Why not let an international body adjudicate these issues in international waters? Remember, we have no more right to these waters than anyone else does.... Or are you saying might makes right.... ?
-
"I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters."
Because it would be run in a manner similar to the General Assembly of the UN.
-
"I am still curious why we should not agree to international adjudication of international waters."
Because it would be run in a manner similar to the General Assembly of the UN.
It IS in international waters. Further, if everyone agrees, many disputes over fishing and other mining and drilling operations can be avoided.
Why should we arbitrarily have the right to decide rules for others in international waters?
To adjudicate issues, if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?
-
"It IS in international waters."
Therefore The Republic of Djibouti and the United States of America should have an equal say in defense maneuvers for example to protect Taiwan or South Korea?
"if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"
This question is posed backwards. GIVEN: NOT the UN General Assembly to resolve ANYTHING, then start forming successful, functional, responsible international organizations before ceded rights and powers to them.
-
"It IS in international waters."
Therefore The Republic of Djibouti and the United States of America should have an equal say in defense maneuvers for example to protect Taiwan or South Korea?
"if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"
This question is posed backwards. GIVEN: NOT the UN General Assembly to resolve ANYTHING, then start forming successful, functional, responsible international organizations before ceded rights and powers to them.
Doug, did you read your own excellent Forbes article? It has nothing to do with defensive maneuvers. Our own Navy supports this bill; obviously they wouldn't do this if they thought there was any military constraints. As to fishing and mineral rights in International Waters which this law pertains to, then yes, I think The Republic of Djibouti (is there really such a country? :-) ) should have a say about international waters just like we do. I don't quite get where we think we have the arbitrary right to anything in international waters or the right to cede any rights or powers in international waters. They don't belong to us.
Forbes: "A proposed Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST), which is supported by President Obama but has not yet been ratified by Congress, will subordinate U.S. naval and drilling operations beyond 200 miles of our coast to a newly established U.N. bureaucracy. If approved, it will grant a Kingston, Jamaica-based International Seabed Authority (ISA) the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights."
-
JDN, Thanks for clarifying your view. (?) My goal is to defeat that view in the electoral process.
-
"It IS in international waters. Further, if everyone agrees, many disputes over fishing and other mining and drilling operations can be avoided."
Uhhh , , , be definition the problems arise when everyone does NOT agree.
"Why should we arbitrarily have the right to decide rules for others in international waters?"
So we don't get fuct.
"To adjudicate issues, if not someone like the General Assembly, then who do you have in mind?"
In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine.
-
"In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine."
:-D
-
"In the absence of a suitable body, then the US Navy will do fine."
:-D
So might makes right; even though we are wrong....
No wonder our popularity in the world has diminished through the years. No one likes a bully.
-
Horse excrement.
On the whole, the US has an extraordinary record of defending the high seas. Name me another nation that would have come close to our standard had it had the same military dominance that we have had.
It's not a question of might vs right. It is a question of not being a clueless vagina putting our fate into the hands of something that will function something like the General Assembly of the UN and then being surprised it got fuct.
-
We are not discussing "defending the high seas".
We are talking in international waters "the power to regulate deep-sea oil exploration, seabed mining, and fishing rights."
Military domination should not be the issue. Or are you suggesting rather than diplomatic solutions we merely assert our authority/ownership
of drilling, mining, and fishing rights in international waters using our navel dominance?
Remember, it's our Navy that is in favor of this law.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/stop-un-internet-regulation-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
WSJ:
The Law of the Sea Treaty
The U.S. has more to gain by participating in convention deliberations than by staying out.
By HENRY KISSINGER, GEORGE SHULTZ, JAMES BAKER III, COLIN POWELL AND CONDOLEEZZA RICE
The Convention of the Law of the Sea is again under consideration by the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. finally becomes party to this treaty, it will be a boon for our national security and economic interests. U.S. accession will codify our maritime rights and give us new tools to advance national interests.
The convention's primary functions are to define maritime zones, preserve freedom of navigation, allocate resource rights, establish the certainty necessary for various businesses that depend on the sea, and protect the marine environment. Flaws in the treaty regarding deep-seabed mining, which prevented President Ronald Reagan from supporting it, were fixed in 1994. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have supported ratification, as do Presidents George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama, because it is in the best interest of our nation. Yet the U.S. remains one of the few major countries not party to the convention.
The treaty provides substantial economic benefits to the U.S. It accords coastal states the right to declare an "Exclusive Economic Zone" where they have exclusive rights to explore and exploit, and the responsibility to conserve and manage, living and nonliving resources extending 200 nautical miles seaward from their shoreline. Our nation's exclusive zone would be larger than that of any country in the world—covering an area greater than the landmass of the lower 48 states. In addition, the zone can be extended beyond 200 nautical miles if certain geological criteria are met; this has significant potential benefits where the U.S.'s continental shelves may be as broad as 600 miles, such as off Alaska, where vast natural resources lie.
As the world's pre-eminent maritime power with one of the longest coastlines, the U.S. has more than any other country to gain—and to lose—based on how the convention's terms are interpreted and applied. By becoming party to the treaty, we would strengthen our capacity to influence deliberations and negotiations involving other nations' attempts to extend their continental boundaries.
The U.S. currently has no input into international deliberations over rights to the Arctic, where rich energy and mineral resources are found more than 200 nautical miles from any country's shoreline. Russia has placed its flag on the North Pole's ocean floor. This is a largely symbolic act, but the part of the Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia could hold oil and gas deposits equal to about 20% of the world's current oil and gas reserves.
As a nonparty to the treaty, the U.S. has limited options for disputing such claims and is stymied from taking full advantage of resources that could be under U.S. jurisdiction. Lack of participation in the convention also jeopardizes economic opportunities associated with commercial deep-sea mining operations in international waters beyond exclusive economic zones—opportunities now pursued by Canadian, Australian and German firms.
Some say it's good enough to protect our navigational interests through customary international law, and if that approach fails then we can use force or threaten to do so. But customary law is vague and doesn't provide a strong foundation for critical national security rights. What's more, the use of force can be risky and costly. Joining the convention would put our vital rights on a firmer legal basis, gaining legal certainty and legitimacy as we operate in the world's largest international zone.
The continuing delay of U.S. accession to the convention compromises our nation's authority to exercise our sovereign interest, jeopardizes our national and economic security, and limits our leadership role in international ocean policy.
Our planet's environment is changing, and there is an increasing need to access resources responsibly. We can expect significant change and resulting economic benefit as the Arctic opens and delivers potentially extraordinary economic benefit to our country. Our coastline, one of the longest in the world, will increase.
These changes and the resulting economic effects are the substance of serious international deliberations of which we are not a part. Time moves on and we are not at the table. This is a serious problem and a significant cost for future generations of Americans.
Maritime claims not only in the Arctic but throughout the world are becoming more contentious. As aggressive maritime behavior increases, the U.S. military has become more, not less, emphatic on the need to become party to this treaty. Current and past military leaders are firmly behind accession, because while nothing in the convention restricts or prohibits our military activity, it is the best process for resolving disputes.
We have been on the sidelines long enough. Now is the time to get on the field and lead.
The authors all have served as secretary of State in Republican administrations.
===============
Would have been nice to see the creation of international tax authority over US enterprises addressed , , ,
-
Pretty impressive bipartisan (Republican) list of supporters.
The Law of the Sea Treaty
The U.S. has more to gain by participating in convention deliberations than by staying out.
By HENRY KISSINGER, GEORGE SHULTZ, JAMES BAKER III, COLIN POWELL AND CONDOLEEZZA RICE
-
New UN Treaty Bars Treating Teenage Criminals As Adults: Screwed!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 1, 2012
Printer-Friendly Version
The Rights of the Child Treaty, now in the final stages of negotiations at the United Nations, will include a provision barring the placement of any person under eighteen years of age in a prison with adults. Should the United States sign the Treaty - and Hillary is negotiating to do so - it will invalidate state laws that require teens over sixteen (fifteen in some states) accused of murder and other heinous violent crimes to be tried and sentenced as adults.
Our new book, Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy -- and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It, documents this key threat to our ability to deal appropriately with leaders of gangs like the Latin Kings. Prosecutors note that gang leaders often use juveniles to commit the worst of crimes because of their immunity from prosecution as adults. Changes in state law - that would be invalidated by this Treaty - have reduced this tendency and led to serious prison time for serious crimes committed by sixteen and seventeen year olds.
Treaties, under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, have the force of Constitutional Law in the United States and take precedence over any state, federal or local laws to the contrary. (As this thread has discussed in some detail, this statement is not quite accurate, though it may well be accurate in the matter as issue here)
In the aftermath of the crime wave of the 70s and 80s, most states changed their criminal justice laws to require that teens over sixteen be tried as adults for crimes such as murder, rape, or, in cases of gang leaders, of drug selling. These laws put the defendants, if convicted, in adult prison facilities. Children's prisons tend to be minimum security facilities designed to keep children under supervision until they reach eighteen. Then they are typically released. Very few, if any, are then transferred to adult penitentiaries to serve a full sentence.
But the Rights of the Child Treaty, in its current form, includes a provision that flatly prohibits putting children in the same prison as adults, regardless of what state and federal laws provide.
The slap-on-the wrist treatment juvenile offenders get in children's facilities contrast sharply with the effective long sentences now being meted out by the federal courts before whom most big drug cases are now prosecuted. The resulting drop in crimes, particularly in homicides, has been heartening and largely removed crime from the nation's political agenda.
Now, unless we stop it, the United Nations is about to force us to adopt sentencing laws which do nothing to punish juvenile offenders and, indeed, offer little disincentive to a life of crime.
Read Screwed! about all the Treaties Obama and Hillary are planning to push through in their final months in office and how to fight to kill them.
-
One thing that you may not be aware of is that minors do not have the same rights as adults. So, for example, a minor need not be read his/her rights upon arrest/detainment. Therefore, in some ways, there is a lower bar for a conviction for a minor than for an adult. And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison. This is also not to mention the extreme violence that takes place in detention centers, whether for juveniles or adults. A minor has not become an adult, and therefore on average, hardly has a fighting chance in an jail altercation. And, finally, a teen's brain has not fully developed, which means that holding them accountable, as an adult, from a physiological/psychological perspective doesn't make much sense.
I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty.
-
"And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison."
Is this what you mean to say?
"I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty."
By which you mean you disagree with treating juvenile killers as adults?
Anyway, is this really the point of joining the Treaty? I strongly suspect not. I suspect it is more more a matter of a backdoor to establishing progressive entitlements (a.k.a. "rights") that have nothing to do with the point that Morris, who lets face it is not very precise in some of his thinking, is raising here as a "And furthermore" type of point. Yes?
-
"And therefore, I do not think that it is bad thing that a 16 year old be put into an adult prison."
Is this what you mean to say?
No... it is my fault for trying to multitask, and failing. I do not think that 16 year olds should be placed into prison with adults.
"I am not saying that joining a treaty is necessary to change policy, but I whole heartedly approve of the point of joining this treaty."
By which you mean you disagree with treating juvenile killers as adults?
Yes.
Anyway, is this really the point of joining the Treaty? I strongly suspect not. I suspect it is more more a matter of a backdoor to establishing progressive entitlements (a.k.a. "rights") that have nothing to do with the point that Morris, who lets face it is not very precise in some of his thinking, is raising here as a "And furthermore" type of point. Yes?
Also yes. And, your fears about the future, possible implications is part of why I don't think joining the treaty is a necessary step.
Sincere apologies for the confusing wording of my prior post.
-
The issue of what to do with sociopathic teenage criminals can be a vexing one. Just as your logic about the drawbacks and injustice of putting them in with adult criminals makes sense, so too does the logic of saying they don't belong in with juveniles who are of the sort intended to be helped by the juvenile system instead of being preyed upon by these sociopaths.
If we want to discuss this further lets take it to the Crime and Punishment thread on the MA forum.
-
http://pjmedia.com/blog/rumsfeld-on-hill-to-stand-fast-against-kerrys-law-of-sea-treaty-drive/
-
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1719546416001/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/us-will-sign-gun-control-treaty-on-july-27-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
http://opiniojuris.org/2012/07/02/july-is-arms-trade-treaty-month/
July is Arms Trade Treaty Month
by Duncan Hollis
At one time in the mid-1990s, it seemed like a week couldn’t go by without some large gathering of States seeking to hammer out the terms of a new multilateral treaty with aspirations for universal membership. Such treaty negotiations have become a rarer phenomenon today with most meetings now emphasizing implementation of, and compliance with, existing treaties. And where new norms are called for, treaties are no longer the default vehicle — many States now favor using political commitments (e.g., the Copenhagen Accord) as an alternative to the more traditional treaty form.
Still, from time to time, treaty negotiations and all the diplomatic machinations accompanying them return to center stage. July appears to be one of those times. Starting today and running through July 27, the UN is launching a new treaty negotiation in New York for an Arms Trade Treaty. The UN General Assembly first proposed such a treaty in December 2006 in its Resolution 61/89. You can review a summary of the work of the preparatory committee since then here, including the Chair’s 2011 non-paper that outlines what an Arms Trade Treaty might look like. A compilation of State reactions to the Chair’s non-paper is also available.
The pitch for an arms trade treaty is a simple one — there are treaties regulating almost every other good as it is traded across borders; as one pro-treaty NGO representative put it, “It is an absurd and deadly reality that there are currently global rules governing the trade of fruit and dinosaur bones, but not ones for the trade of guns and tanks”. The argument goes on to suggest that this absence of regulations means that weapons can be traded to and misused by government forces or end up in the wrong hands of criminals, pirates, terrorists, etc., who then perpetuate death and destruction.
On the other hand, there are significant obstacles that may limit or obstruct any arms trade treaty. For starters, under the current rules of procedure, the treaty’s adoption will require consensus, meaning one State (think the US or Russia) could block it (it is possible though that a text supported by a sufficient number of States might be put before the UN General Assembly itself, which requires only a super-majority vote). Second, as the UN’s Register of Global Reported Arms Trade indicates, there’s a lot of arms traffic (and thus money) at stake. Thus, there is a wide array of stakeholders out there whose interests may not coincide with the sort of trade regulation that NGOs like Amnesty International envision. Third, there’s a looming fight over whether to include ammunition within the treaty, which will obviously have a fairly significant impact on the proposed treaty’s scope. And to the extent the treaty tries to regulate trade with specific actors (e.g., terrorists), there will undoubtedly be definitional and labeling issues that may make the treaty difficult to implement (for example, there is still no UN-accepted definition for terrorism).
As for the United States, the Obama Administration shifted course in 2009 and agreed not to oppose the current negotiations (which the Bush Administration had opposed in favor of better national controls). Still, the US faces a few daunting issues in any arms trade treaty, most obviously, that any focus on arms, even one limited to regulating trade in arms, engenders 2nd Amendment concerns and domestic opposition from those who resist federal laws or regulations relating to guns (and this will be true I suspect even if the Obama Administration negotiates a text that it believes steers clear of any U.S. Second Amendment jurisprudence). There’s also a question of continued US trade in arms to Taiwan and how the treaty would address whose law regulates the importation of weapons into Taiwan (with the possibility that the government of the People’s Republic of China might use any treaty to advance its position on Taiwan’s status).
In other words, there’s a lot on the table in New York this month. And I’m sure this post has only scratched the surface. So, I’d welcome reader input on other issues or views about the negotiations’ chances for success (or failure). I’d also welcome any pointers to a daily digest of the negotiation’s progress along the lines of the invaluable IISD reporting service that serves such a wonderful updating and reporting role in the international environmental context. I expect I’m not the only one interested in seeing how things progress.
-
UN calls for 'billionaires tax' to help world's poor
By Tim Witcher | AFP – Thu, 5 Jul, 2012
The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries.
An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.
The annual World Economic and Social Survey says it is critical to find new ways to help the world's poor as pledged cash fails to flow.
The report estimates that the number of people around the globe worth at least $1 billion rose to 1,226 in 2012.
There are an estimated 425 billionaires in the United States, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe, 90 in other North and South American countries and 86 in Africa and the Middle East.
Together they own an estimated $4.6 trillion so a one percent tax on their wealth would raise more than $46 billion, according to the report.
"Would this hurt them?" it questioned.
"The 'average' billionaire would own $3.7 billion after paying the tax. If that billionaire spent $1,000 per day, it would take him or her over 10,000 years to spend all his or her wealth," the report says.
It says that the wealth of billionaires grew at an average rate of four percent a year in the two decades before the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
"If that rate of growth returned with no wealth tax, the average billionaire's wealth would double in less than 18 years."
The idea could appeal to the likes of Warren Buffett, the US tycoon who has complained that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. France's new Socialist government has caused consternation by vowing a 75 percent tax on salaries above one million euros ($1.24 million).
But the UN acknowledged that the idea is unlikely to get widespread support from the target group, saying that for now its tax on the unimaginably wealthy remains "an intriguing possibility."
"It has not been regarded as a means of raising revenues for international cooperation," the report says.
The document gives other ideas for international taxes, including:
-- a tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.
-- a tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.
-- taking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.
It also suggests expanding a levy on air tickets that a number of nations already impose to raise money for drugs for poor states through UNITAID, a UN initiative.
The report says more than $1 billion has been handed over to UNITAID since the levy started in 2006.
France has a one euro tax for a domestic flight in economy and six euros for international flights -- with 10 euros for business class on domestic flights and 40 euros on international tickets. The air industry fiercely opposes any extension of the tax, arguing that it already pays heavily in taxes and levies.
However, because of budget cuts, aid and development assistance to poor countries fell $167 billion short of promised levels in 2011, according to Rob Vos, the report's lead author.
The UN expert said the taxes make "economic sense" as they stimulate the green economy and "mitigate financial market instability."
"In short, such new financing mechanisms will help donor countries overcome their record of broken promises," he added.
Without commenting on any of the individual taxes proposed, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that if the new "innovative financing" is to become viable, "strong international agreement is needed."
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-un-decides-to-tax-the-us-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/
-
Just say NO!!
That is one beauty of this forum, a place to warn people about things like this!!
Doesn't the constitution require that bills to raise revenue MUST originate in the House?
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clssorigcl.htm
Paraphrasing the President's favorite adviser Valerie: who cares about the constitution if you can just get the policy you want.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/238151-senate-republicans-sink-law-of-the-sea-treaty
-
Headline writers are funny. Republicans don't threaten the treaty, they oppose it - in numbers great enough to stop it.
"...anti-treaty advocates..." a.k.a. pro-sovereignty advocates.
"Treaty opponents claim ratification would effectively tie the hands of the U.S. Navy to conduct operations worldwide, because those missions would have to be reviewed and approved by treaty members." - Is that a claim or a fact?
-
Want some entertainment for these hot summer days? Try the theater of the absurd at the United Nations, where the Islamic Republic of Iran has earned a top arms-control post.
Iran was recently elected to the 15-member general committee of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty conference currently underway in New York. The conference is supposed to develop a treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms.
We'd be laughing if the mullahs weren't peddling weapons to some of the world's most murderous operators. Tehran provides Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups with the missiles they send willy-nilly into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. Iraqi insurgents have Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to thank for access to improvised explosive devices that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops and maimed many more. Two Iranian agents were arrested in Kenya earlier this month with 33 pounds of explosives they allegedly planned to use against American and British targets.
In their race to acquire the world's deadliest weapons, Iran's rulers have also violated every nonproliferation statute on the book. They have given the International Atomic Energy Agency the runaround for over a decade, currently banning their inspectors. The U.N. Security Council has passed six separate resolutions condemning Iran's failure to comply with its obligations under international law. Now Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will get to set the global arms-control agenda.
Perhaps behind the scenes the world's responsible powers are cringing at this latest U.N. charade. But then why do they keep paying the price of admission?
-
Obama Lets the U.N. Tie His Hands on Syria
So why didn't the president feel obliged to seek Security Council authority for drone strikes against al Qaeda
By DOUGLAS J. FEITH
To retain power in the face of a popular revolt, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has killed nearly 15,000 civilians. From a humanitarian point of view, this is a crisis. From a national-interest point of view, it is an opportunity to undermine enemies of the United States in both Damascus and Tehran. But President Obama has treated the bloody turmoil, first and foremost, as an opportunity to strengthen the idea that America should subject itself to the United Nations Security Council.
In the 16 months since the revolt began, the Obama administration has neither promoted humanitarian "safe zones" on Syria's Turkish border, nor provided arms to the rebels. It has not helped establish a no-fly zone, nor has it supported NATO military strikes against Assad's forces.
At first, Mr. Obama vainly called for Assad to behave humanely. Eventually, he vainly exhorted Assad to relinquish power.
All the while, Mr. Obama has looked to the U.N. for answers. The latest: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked with the five permanent Security Council members and U.N. envoy Kofi Annan on a June 30 accord calling for Syrians to devise a political transition for their own country—and strangely suggesting that Assad's regime may cooperate in the effort.
The accord's vacuity is a sign of the support Assad enjoys from Russia and China, each of which has a veto on the Security Council. Obama administration officials complain about that support, but Russian President Vladimir Putin shrugs them off.
Why is Russia able to shield Assad, harm the Syrian people, and frustrate U.S. diplomacy? Because Mr. Obama has made the Security Council the focus of U.S. policy on Syria. This was not inevitable, nor was it necessary.
Asked why they have not done more against the Syrian despot, Obama administration officials talk resignedly about the need for multinational approval. "We need to have a clear legal basis for any action we take," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified to the Senate in March. "Our goal would be to seek international permission." U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told a British audience in May that NATO lacked "clear regional support" and "a sound legal basis" to act in Syria. The legal justification, he noted, would "most likely" have to be a Security Council resolution.
This legalism is both bad law and bad policy. The Security Council is not a judicial forum. The U.N. Charter gives the Security Council the power to make "decisions" (special resolutions that U.N. countries are committed "to accept and carry out"), but it is precisely such mandatory resolutions that are subject to veto by any of the five permanent Security Council members. The council can be a source of useful diplomatic support and of legislative-type authority, but the charter does not say that council approval is a prerequisite in all cases for a country's military or other action abroad. Especially murky is how the charter should govern humanitarian interventions.
History shows that the Security Council is no touchstone of international legality. President John Kennedy "quarantined" Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis without any permission from the Security Council. Likewise without such permission, President Bill Clinton helped lead NATO's bombing campaign to defend Serbian Muslims in Serbia's Kosovo region from oppression by their own government. Mr. Obama has not sought Security Council authority for his drone-strike campaign against al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.
When officials of the United States or any other country believe they have compelling humanitarian or national-security interests to do something, they do it. When an American president thinks U.S. interests require action, he may reasonably seek political support from the U.N. But it is absurd to make a fetish of Security Council permission, especially if the problem in need of remedy is caused by a close friend of Russia or China and involves the kind of violent, anti-democratic action that Russian and Chinese officials themselves often perpetrate.
Syria's misery is a window into Mr. Obama's strategic mind. However much he regrets the bloodletting there, he considers Syria less important than bolstering the Security Council as a means of constraining American power.
The same was true last year when Moammar Gadhafi was attacking Libyan cities and coming close to the complete annihilation of the rebels. Mr. Obama would not intervene until the Arab League and the Security Council called for action.
By refusing to act on Syria, the president is missing an opportunity to advance U.S. security interests in the Middle East, while benefiting Iran, the principal sponsor of the Assad regime. And by suggesting that America lacks international legal authority to act, he is undermining U.S. sovereignty. Presidents have traditionally striven to bolster America's sovereignty and freedom of action, but Mr. Obama evidently sides with the global legalists who see national sovereignty as a problem to be overcome, not a principle to be cherished.
Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005.
-
By JOHN BOLTON
Leave it to a small, little-known agency to prove just how out of control the United Nations can get.
We learned last month that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which oversees multilateral treaties involving patents, trademarks and copyrights, has been delivering computer hardware and "technical assistance" to none other than Iran and North Korea. The U.N. body's actions are in blatant disregard of Security Council sanctions on Tehran and Pyongyang, prompting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to call last week for freezing U.S. contributions to the organization.
WIPO says it is merely fulfilling its responsibilities, in this case by improving the capabilities of Iranian and North Korean intellectual-property agencies. Translated: U.N. bureaucrats believed (or pretended to believe) that Pyongyang and Tehran wanted computer networks to beef up their patent offices, surely real beehives of activity. Whistleblowers who revealed the transgressions by going public with what they knew now face reprisals that could imperil their jobs.
Multiple Security Council resolutions sanctioning Iranian and North Korean nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs prohibit not only direct assistance but also "items, materials, equipment, goods and technology . . . which could contribute" to those programs. Preventing dual-use technology from falling into the wrong hands has long been central to arms embargoes (including Cold War efforts like "CoCom" to deny sensitive materials to the Warsaw Pact).
Enlarge Image
CloseGetty Images
.Consider the audacity of Iran and North Korea, taking candy from babes. By evading sanctions within the U.N. temple itself, these nuclear proliferators show how to defeat even broadly supported sanctions regimes through death by a thousand cuts.
Only the most willful or obtuse U.N. official could fail to grasp the delicacy of programs in rogue capitals like Tehran and Pyongyang. It defies credulity that WIPO would expend agency funds without bothering to check with its members—especially Washington, given America's global intellectual-property leadership. The lack of effective U.S. oversight only underlines the seriousness of the problem throughout the U.N. system.
One can only guess how other U.N. bodies are also undermining sanctions. As the whistleblowers revealed, WIPO initially did not feel restricted by the Security Council's sanctions. This reaction is symptomatic of attitudes throughout U.N. secretariats and in academic circles that U.N. bodies are not of and for their member governments, but above them.
WIPO could be disdainful of its members partly because of its funding channels—mostly licensing fees from treaties it administers, rather than from direct member-government contributions. Most U.N. agencies, by contrast, rely on "assessed" (that is, effectively mandatory) contributions from governments, allocated as percentage shares of each agency's total budget.
The current U.S. share is 22%, easily the highest. For years, because all members have one vote regardless of their assessment level, Washington has been unable to constrain U.N. budget growth even when it has tried.
The U.N. generally sees our 22% "tax" as a secure entitlement, with all the inevitable downsides created by the entitlement mentality. Only switching to voluntary contributions, where each member determines on its own how much to contribute, could fix this problem and restore American influence.
As harmful as the assessment system is, WIPO's license-fee funding makes matters worse. Such uninterrupted, fee-based funding systems, independent of member governments, constitute the "global governance" crowd's great dream. They hope to end even the residual possibility of Congress slashing assessed contributions, and they see voluntary funding as sure poison for their supranational objectives.
This debate is far from hypothetical. The main funding channels for the Law of the Sea Treaty—which President Obama has vigorously pushed the Senate to ratify—are analogous systems of royalty payments from undersea mineral production. This calls into question whether the treaty's decision-making provisions really give America the leverage that treaty advocates claim.
While the budgeting of international organizations may seem arcane, it is precisely in there where America wins or—far too often—loses its U.N. battles.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/global-taxation-through-the-un-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Strengthen the world by weakening the U.S., one would hope or think it is the Americans who would oppose this. Doesn't all foreign aid poll terribly? Isn't this the gaffe of all gaffes of this campaign? This is be one of several openings Romney has available to compete favorably in the foreign policy debate.
-
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/texas-tells-un-poll-watchers-dont-even-try-it/
TEXAS Tells UN Poll Watchers: Don’t Even Try It
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, October 25, 2012, 11:43 AM
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote the United Nations to tell them, “Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”
GOP-USA reported:
The Daily Caller reports that Texas is balking at the idea of U.N. involvement. In a letter sent by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the AG warns that U.N. poll watchers “do not have jurisdiction in the state and will, therefore, be criminally prosecuted if they attempt to interfere at Texas polling locations on Nov. 6.”
The letter, addressed to Ambassador Daan Everts, came in response to the announcement that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will deploy scores of election monitors to the U.S. in an effort to monitor conservative groups for voter suppression or intimidation.
“Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas,” wrote Abbot. “This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system.
-
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7785/obama-administration-un-election-observers-immune-to-state-laws/#ixzz2BIgEFBhY
-
Is the UN birth certificate for 'Palestine' a violation of the Oslo accords? Will the UN pass a resolution to condemn this action?
http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-ministers-oppose-palestinian-authoritys-planned-un-bid/
Ya’alon (Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister) said the move was “a flagrant violation of the Oslo agreement,” and was “geared toward avoiding entering talks” with Israel.
http://likud.nl/1999/02/palestinian-un-initiative-is-twofold-violation-of-oslo-accords/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/dont-let-the-language-fool-you-heres-why-conservatives-are-still-voicing-opposition-to-a-un-treaty-for-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/
-
One down, three to go. The U.S. Senate this afternoon rejected a proposed UN Treaty on disabilities. All but a handful of Republicans joined in killing the Treaty.
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the leader of the opposition said the Treaty would create an "unelected bureaucratic body [which] would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory."
Inhofe elaborated: "I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially over-zealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe on American society."
Bravo! The Senator echoes a key point we have been making in our book Here Come The Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom.
While the UN Treaty merely encodes in international law, provisions that are already binding on the US in the Americans with Disabilities Act, any subsequent changes our Congress wanted to make would be forbidden since jurisdiction would have been transferred to the UN. And, any further regulations the UN chose to impose would be binding on us without consulting our Congress.
Supporters of the Treaty said that it was necessary to protect Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad. This goal is worthy and can best be achieved through bi-lateral treaties with other nations that do not bind the United States hand and foot.
All Senate Republicans voted no except for: Ayotte (NH), Brown (Mass), Lugar (Ind), Barrasso (Wyo), Collins (Maine), Murkowsky (Alaska), and McCain (Ariz). (Marc: Ayotte has been gaining prominences recently, this vote is a big black mark against her. Note too presidential wannabe McCain voted for this excrement too.)
This vote is crucial! Coming behind it will be ratification votes on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, and the Internet Regulation Treaty. We must kill these encroachments on our sovereignty too.
The Law of the Sea Treaty transfers legal ownership and sovereignty over the world's oceans and seas to the UN and obliges signatories to get UN permission for off shore drilling and to share their royalties and technology with third world countries. It also could be used as a backdoor way to enforce limits on carbon emissions.
The Small Arms Treaty creates an international body to police exports of small arms from companies and individuals around the world and requires signatory countries to inventory the small arms within its borders and to adopt whatever measures are needed to prevent their export - UN gun control.
The Internet Regulation Treaty is currently under negotiation in Dubai and is due to be signed on December 14. It will impose a charge for sending steaming video to anyone outside of your own nation. You will have to pay it and can collect reimbursement from the recipient. It is designed to make it too expensive for Russians and Chinese and others in autocratic countries to access steaming video.
We have got to defeat all these treaties
-
Morris: "We have got to defeat [ratification of] all these [UN] treaties."
The secessionist movement should have begun with disbanding or leaving the UN as we know it. The UN with one 'nation' one vote, that includes all dictatorships and Kleptocracies, should be for talk, and not US hosted or sponsored. An organization of like minded democracies with some sense of proportion should be formed for negotiating treaties.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anderson-cooper-and-gop-senator-clash-during-interview-on-u-n-disability-treaty/
“Typically Anderson we use treaties to deal with international relations, to deal with the law of nations, acting on the world’s scene,” said Lee. “This deals with a lot of issues that are distinctively domestic in nature.”
-
Legal issues are well outside Morris's lane, but it is hard to imagine the UN not coming up something full of devious horse excrement of the sort Morris fears here. I'm signing the petition. It seems important to me to do what we can to keep senatorial spines strong.
Administration Moves Forward On Gun Control
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on December 10, 2012
As soon as the election returns were in, the United States voted to reopen negotiations on the Small Arms Treaty from which it had backed off in the summer of 2012. Now the Treaty is slated for signature in March of 2013.
The Treaty is designed to establish "common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." The White House claims that the goal is to "fight illicit arms trafficking and proliferation" and assures us that it will not accept any "treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms."
But, as the Washington Times noted in a recent editorial, "it is hard to take the White House response seriously." The treaty requires signatory nations to "take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty." As the Times wrote "The agreement's language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment."
The editorial warns that "activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation" could use the provisions to require gun registration and limit gun possession, even to the point of requiring confiscation. If the judges who interpret the treaty could take the position that "anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control."
The Times adds: "A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might someday be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of "international" trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic."
The question for us is: Can we marshal enough Senatorial opposition to stop the Treaty's progress? The NRA has gotten the commitments of 51 Senators to vote against the Treaty if it infringes on the Second Amendment. But the phony reassurance the Treaty will offer to supporters of gun rights in the US might provide a fig leaf to get Senators to vote yes.
We need ironclad commitments to get the no votes we need.
Please sign this petition to go to the Republican Senators to get them to stand up for our Second Amendment rights.
Click Here To Sign The Petition To Stop The U.S. From Signing The Arms Trade Treaty!
=========================================
http://dickmorris.rallycongress.com/8103/sign-petition-to-stop-arms-trade-treaty/
UN GUN CONTROL IS BACK!
Dear Friend,
After a wave of outrage stopped President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from signing the proposed UN Gun Control Treaty (called the UN Arms Trade Treaty), the treaty advocates are back with a devilish new strategy!
As we warned in Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom, the gun control advocates won't stop trying to impose gun controls on the United States through an international treaty to override the Second Amendment.
The plan was to sign the treaty on July 27th in New York, but you sent 700,000 emails through our web site (www.DickMorris.com) alone to the Senate and that led 51 Senators to urge Hillary not to sign. She backed off and the negotiations ended.
Now advocates of the Treaty, as we predicted, are back and have introduced a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for the resumption of negotiations and outlining a new procedure to get it passed even if the US objects.
Under their plan -- likely to be approved later this month by the General Assembly -- the negotiators are not going to seek consensus (read: U.S. approval) but will write the Treaty as they please and introduce it to the General Assembly for approval. If two-thirds of the Assembly vote for the treaty (a foregone conclusion), then it will be submitted to the nations of the world for signature and ratification. Nobody will be able to change the Treaty, they have the option of signing or not.
When sixty nations have signed, the Treaty will take effect and be binding on those who have signed and ratified it.
Here's the rest of the plan: After the election is over, Obama and Hillary will probably sign the Treaty. They then won't submit it for ratification since, under the Vienna Convention, it takes effect automatically on their signature even without Senate ratification. That means that the Treaty takes full effect unless one of two things happen:
(a) Either the Senate votes to kill the Treaty, or
(b) The president or a future president renounces it
The first option won't happen. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't permit the Treaty to come up for a vote in the lame duck Senate session that begins after Election Day. He knows it would lose. So, as long as Obama is president and he doesn't renounce the Treaty, it will take effect without Senate action.
We need to mobilize to stop this end run around our Constitution. Once the Arms Trade Treaty is signed by Obama, it will open the door to international gun controls imposed by the Geneva-based enforcers of the Treaty.
(Nominally, the Treaty bars the exportation of small arms by private individuals or companies to foreign countries. But, in its enforcement, it obliges signatory countries to require registration of the small arms in their citizens' possession. And, if that fails to stop the export of small arms, it empowers the global body to take further steps, likely to include prohibition and confiscation.
Please sign this petition to stop the Arms Trade Treaty. We succeeded before in forcing a postponement, now let's stop the Treaty and kill it entirely.
To do this, please send this email all over the place so it goes viral and we get millions of emails to deluge the Senate, the President, Hillary, and the UN.
We'll add your e-mail address to our Alerts list so we can keep you posted on progress and next steps.
Thanks,
Dick Morris
===================
For the record, I've seen Morris's assertion about the legal effects of Baraq signing it but it not being ratified by the Senate challenged, but what he says sounds plausible to me but no, I did not study this question in law school. :-)
-
Alert: Big Win On Internet Regulation!
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on December 13, 2012
Thankfully, the UN negotiations on Internet regulation collapsed yesterday in Dubai when the U.S. and Canada announced that they would refuse to support or sign any treaty that gave the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) the power to regulate the Internet.
They specifically rejected the efforts of Vladimir Putin's Russia to control the Internet through international treaty. Russia had sought to give each country the power to manage the Internet within their own countries and Putin's ally Toure, the head of the ITU, sought to charge Google and other content sites for any videos used internationally. The goal in these charges was to make it prohibitively expensive for Russians to download video from foreign providers.
Russia had obtained support from a strong majority of world governments because each found it in their interest to suppress the Internet at home. Our hope was that the U.S. would block the treaty and it did!
The death knell of Internet regulation is particularly welcome to us at DickMorris.com. We have collected 100,000 petition signatures against the proposed treaty, which we first outed in our book Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom. Our book was the first to explain the threat of the treaty, which had previously been negotiated in secret behind closed doors.
Coupled with the Senate rejection of the Treaty on the Disabled, these two new developments show success in rolling back the power grab of the UN.
Thank you for your help in blocking these treaties!
-
This is a POTH editorial and as such it is suspect :-D but it does seem to address a question of considerable importance to the international economic system in a thoughtful way.
===========================
When Countries Can’t Pay Their Debts
Published: January 17, 2013
A recent court decision in a long-running legal battle between investors and the government of Argentina has highlighted problems with restructuring the debts of countries that fall on hard times. The case, which is being fought in federal court in New York, suggests that policy makers must develop a more systematic way to deal with sovereign defaults.
The case deals with Argentina’s decision in 2001 to stop paying debts worth about $80 billion. The country eventually reached deals with most of its investors and banks to forgive most of the amount that they were owed. But some bondholders, including the hedge funds Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital, held out for a better deal and sued Argentina.
Until recently, the Argentina case has been a quixotic pursuit because American law makes it hard to collect money from other countries. But late last year, Judge Thomas P. Griesa of Federal District Court ruled that Argentina had to pay the holdouts as long as it was paying the investors who had agreed to the restructuring because the country couldn’t favor some investors over others under the terms of its bonds. Because Argentina has previously refused to pay the holdouts, the judge further ordered the banks and other intermediaries the country uses to make the payments from the money it sent to them. The United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit will soon hear an appeal of that decision, which has alarmed the Obama administration, banks and other countries because it could affect other cases.
The Argentina case, while unusual for being so drawn out, is just one of a rising tide of litigation involving defaults by countries. One recent study found the likelihood of such cases has more than doubled compared with the 1980s, and there were 61 cases initiated in the last decade. One explanation for the increase is that these debts are increasingly held by hedge funds, rather than banks, which often settle under pressure from policy makers in Washington and London. The threat of litigation dogged the recent renegotiation of Greek debt, which was ultimately resolved out of court after changes to local laws and intervention by European officials.
These cases have reawakened interest in an old proposal by the International Monetary Fund for a system of resolving the debts of countries that would be similar to corporate bankruptcy. The fund would oversee the process and another agency would make sure countries and their creditors come to terms that apply to all creditors.
That proposal has been blocked by the United States and others because they are uncomfortable about amending their laws and creating another international agency. They, and some in the financial industry, argue that many countries have been adding clauses to their bond contracts that all bondholders must accept a restructuring if two-thirds or three-fourths of bondholders vote to do so. These provisions would make it easier to negotiate settlements, but they do not address problems that arise when countries have multiple kinds of debts.
Some officials in the European Union are proposing a formal restructuring system for its member countries. Other nations may need to follow Europe’s lead if these kinds of suits start imposing onerous strains and responsibilities on banks and other players in the financial system.
-
Well, we'll want to set up something for our upcoming default.
-
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/02/04/obama-gives-foreign-cops-new-police-powers-in-u-s/
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/18/why-is-mexico-asking-the-u-s-senate-for-a-registry-of-u-s-gun-owners/
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/miller-un-encroaching-second-amendment/
-
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/22/1760571/rand-paul-un-budget/?mobile=nc
-
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/22/1760571/rand-paul-un-budget/?mobile=nc
Bold move. It shows that he has been reading the forum. Since this is a budget matter, what we might do is agree to pay the UN whatever the average or median country pays for one seat, one vote. Also move them out of NYC and into the heartland.
----------
Meanwhile, Sec. Kerry still looking L.O.S.T.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032813-649779-kerry-wants-law-of-the-sea-treaty.htm
-
http://patriotupdate.com/articles/bo...ing-attention/
Bond v. United States: Start Paying Attention
Written on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 by Brian Swan
Screen Shot 2013-05-15 at 11.53.34 AM
Every now and then a lawsuit comes along that singlehandedly changes our country. The list of cases that have painted a new societal landscape is long, with the most recent being NFIB v. Sebelius (where we learned that, according to our country’s final arbiter, the government does have the power to tax the individual if he or she does not purchase whatever insurance the law proposes). We may now add Bond v. United States to that list. But this one must be underscored.
The case isn’t being talked about in the media. In fact, you probably won’t hear about it at all, even when the Court decides the outcome, unless you follow constitutional law. For those who haven’t heard about Bond v. U.S. I’ll give a quick synopsis and then explain why this case is actually more terrifying than NFIB permitting the government to tax us for doing nothing.
Carol Anne Bond discovered that her best friend had an affair with her husband. Bond, a microbiologist by profession, stole a quantity of 10-chloro10H-phenoxarsine from her employer and ordered a vial of potassium dichromate online. The chemicals are toxic if swallowed or touched and are lethal in relatively small doses. Bond began depositing the chemicals on various surfaces that she knew her romantic rival would touch: door handles, mailbox, etc. On one occasion her husband’s secret lover did touch the planted chemicals. The result? A minor thumb burn.
Bond was charged, but not under any state law. Federal prosecutors rode in because of the mailbox tampering but brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1), which prohibits possession and use of a chemical weapon.
If this was the end of the story, it alone should anger everyone who holds dear the notion of state sovereignty—the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government police power, which therefore leaves criminal proceedings to the states unless the crime is of federal nature. But it’s not the end of the story. What I’m about to explain should not just anger conservatives, it should strike terror into them.
Title 18, Section 229 of the United States Code was written and passed in accordance with a 1993 international treaty known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction. That’s right, the charges brought against Bond in her domestic suburban love triangle are intended for those who violate an international treaty!
Member countries of the treaty pledged to never use chemical weapons under any circumstances or to develop, produce, or otherwise acquire, stockpile or transfer chemical weapons to anyone. The treaty further required each member country to enact domestic penalties that prohibit any person in its territory from doing the same. This is the reason for 18 U.S.C. § 229.
Essentially, the treaty required each member country to implement the very charges brought against Bond so that individual citizens who violate the terms of the treaty could be charged. Without 18 U.S.C. § 229, the treaty would only affect official government actions, and civilians stockpiling or using chemical weapons would be unaffected. Section 229 makes sense in prohibiting an individual from engaging in chemical warfare.
So, the government is throwing charges designed for international chemical warfare at a lady who caused a minor thumb burn. Egregious? Of course. But the question no one seems to be asking is, why?
In criminal law, both federally and at the state, prosecutors have discretion over what charges to bring against a perpetrator, let alone whether or not to even bring those charges. “Prosecutorial discretion” is the jargon. So, why did the federal prosecutor, in his sole discretion decide to bring these types of charges against Bond when state level battery, and possibly attempted murder charges would’ve sufficed? It doesn’t make sense.
For an administration embroiled in controversy, one that sends the IRS after its political enemies, ignores its own ambassador’s cries for help, and even solicits official legal opinion on whether Executive power permits domestic drone strikes without due process of law, I believe one reason does make sense: to bring these charges against Carol Anne Bond necessarily tests the constitutional limits of enforcing international treaty prohibitions at a state and individual level. The Prosecutor was told to bring them.
If this is so, we’ll soon find out if international treaty provisions can govern individual citizens. (Whether a treaty can govern a state is a separate issue.)
If there were ever a plan to institute a global governance, this would have to be the first step. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the last line of defense against global governance and that defense is at the very core of this case.
Paul Clement, widely regarded as the best constitutional lawyer of our lifetime, has taken on the case. He has already successfully argued that Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 229. And he’s now successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether an international treaty can expand Congress’s powers and allow it to then implement and enforce treaty provisions upon citizens.
If Clement loses this case, the door is wide open for arms treaties, police treaties, and all manner of international law to come knocking, not at the door steps of our country, but at the doors of our own homes. If a treaty entered into by our government mandates that Congress implement and effectuates its provisions into our United States Code, we will find ourselves with a new ruler: the U.N.
Don’t think it could happen because of our Bill of Rights? Think again. For that is the very issue the Court has agreed to hear.
Americans must support Clement in this case. The government, in its position, is necessarily arguing that it seeks to hand over its powers to the rule of international law. You think we’ve lost the country now because of an insurance mandate? Wait and see what happens if Clement loses this case.
-
Also posting this here:
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/hillary-clinton-pushes-to-make-criticism-of-islam-a-crime-in-the-us/question-2333671/
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/25/the_inside_story_of_russias_fight_to_keep_the_un_corrupt
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/25/the_inside_story_of_russias_fight_to_keep_the_un_corrupt
That's like fighting to keep Chicago corrupt. Hardly an uphill battle.
-
Protect Homeschooling: Defeat UN Treaty On Disabilities
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 1, 2013
Dear Friend,
Under the new Treaty on Disabilities, now before the Senate for ratification, if the UN decides that homeschooling or private schools or church schools are not environments that "maximizes academic and social development" in disabled children, they can force everyone to send their disabled children to public schools.
The UN is pushing an international treaty to regulate how all nations treat the disabled. Since the US is way ahead of the rest of the world in this category, the UN treaty doesn't go further than our own laws do. But, once the treaty is in force, it would be binding on us and we couldn't change it without UN approval.
The Treaty was rejected by the Senate right after the election but the liberals are pushing it again and it is coming up soon in the Senate for ratification.
The Treaty would force other huge changes in how we treat disabled children. Right now, under existing US law, the state can intervene in a divorced, broken, or dysfunctional family and act "in the best interests of the child." But the UN Treaty would permit the state to intervene even in functional, intact families. It would supersede the family's ability to make its own decisions for its disabled children and would vest that power in the state.
In addition, there is no definition of disability in the treaty and many worry that the UN might expand the definition to give itself more power.
Please sign this petition to stop the ratification of the UN Treaty on Disabilities.
Click Here To Sign The Petition To Protect Homeschooling And Defeat UN Treaty On Disabilities!
Thank you,
Dick Morris
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/16/here-are-some-of-samantha-powers-most-controversial-criticisms-of-america-ahead-of-senate-debate-on-u-n-ambassador-nomination/
-
BTW, Harold Koh, about whom I have warned here more than once, makes his appearance in this piece.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
American Sovereignty and Its Enemies
A group of powerful legal scholars are trying to make an end run around the Constitution.
By SOHRAB AHMARI
Washington
The George Zimmerman saga came to an end last weekend when a jury of six Florida women found the neighborhood-watch captain not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. But even before the 15-month legal process had begun last year, the United Nations' top human-rights official had rendered a guilty verdict—against Mr. Zimmerman and the entire U.S. judicial system.
"Justice must be done for the victim," said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at an April 2012 press conference. "It's not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this. . . . I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned."
Americans who ran across her statement may have dismissed Ms. Pillay as another U.N. busybody pestering the world's leading democracy. But former Sen. Jon Kyl thinks there is something more pernicious at work: Such comments express the desire, and growing power, of a global progressive elite to pierce the shield of U.S. sovereignty and influence the outcomes of the country's domestic debates.
Proponents call this movement "legal transnationalism," and as Mr. Kyl writes in a recent Foreign Affairs magazine article (co-authored with Douglas Feith and John Fonte of the Hudson Institute), "the idea that a U.N. official can sit in judgment of the U.S." is one of its main innovations. Transnationalists want to rewrite the laws of war, do away with the death penalty, restrict gun rights and much more—all without having to win popular majorities or heed American constitutional limits. And these advocates are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking.
"Transnationalists are a group of people who are convinced they are right about important issues," Mr. Kyl says as we sit down for a chat at the plush Washington office of the law firm Covington & Burling, where the 71-year-old Arizona Republican has served as an adviser since leaving the Senate in January. "But they are in too much of a hurry to mess with the difficulties of representative government to get their agenda adopted into law—or they know they can't win democratically. So they look for a way around representative government."
Mr. Kyl knows something about representative government. After a four-term stint in the House, he entered the Senate in 1995 and quickly emerged as a serious thinker on defense matters. In 1999, armed with his collegial, unassuming personality and substantive knowledge, he led Senate GOP opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The treaty's ultimate goal, he charged at the time, was "total nuclear disarmament," an effort by U.S. adversaries and global arms-controllers to defang America's nuclear deterrent.
Now he has taken it as his mission to defeat the transnationalist efforts to steer American law. And he finds himself once again contemplating treaties that don't bode well for the U.S. A favorite transnationalist tactic is pushing the U.S. to ratify treaties like the three-decades-old U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or Cedaw, and the more recent Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Such treaties, Mr. Kyl says, "have a lot of loose language that in the hands of the wrong people can demand far more than was ever intended by the American people."
Take Cedaw. If the Senate ever ratifies this piece of "1970s feminism preserved in diplomatic amber," as one commentator described the treaty, the U.S. would become subject to oversight by a Geneva-based committee that requires signatory states to, among other things, "achieve a balance between men and women holding publicly elected positions"; "ensure that media respect women and promote respect for women"; and "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of . . . stereotyped roles for men and women."
Would cooking TV shows hosted by female chefs survive Cedaw? How about Philip Roth novels?
Wiping out undesirable patterns of thought may be an easy proposition for illiberal regimes, but not for a constitutional republic. Says Mr. Kyl: "Once you have ceded authority to an external body to make decisions, our theory of government—accountability in officials, consent of the governed—is very difficult to uphold. So you want to give up sovereignty sparingly and only when there is a clear benefit to doing so. I'm not saying the Senate should never ratify a treaty on behalf of the people, but I'm saying it should take the responsibility very seriously."
To be clear, transnationalism isn't a conspiratorial enterprise. In the legal academy, its advocates have openly stated their aims and means. "International law now seeks to influence political outcomes within sovereign States," Anne-Marie Slaughter, then dean of Princeton's public-affairs school, wrote in an influential 2007 essay. International law, she went on, must expand to include "domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes" and be able to "alter domestic politics."
The preferred entry point for importing foreign norms into American law is the U.S. court system. The Yale Law School scholar Howard Koh (who was Hillary's International Law advisor during her tenure at State), a transnationalist advocate, has written that "domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law." Over the past two decades, activist judges have increasingly cited "evolving" international standards to overturn state laws, and Mr. Koh has suggested that foreign norms can be "downloaded" into American law in this manner.
Academic transnationalists insist that their work merely extends the customary law of nations that has governed relations between sovereign powers since Roman times. They note that the Declaration of Independence calls for "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." And they cite Chief Justice John Marshall's 1815 holding that American courts are "bound by the law of nations which is part of the law of the land."
But customary international law is nothing like transnational law. "It's really in the last decade or two," Mr. Kyl notes, "that the subject of a treaty hasn't been an agreement between two sovereign states but rather between the people of one country and their own government."
Another innovation has been the elevation of progressive norms, like Cedaw's prohibition of gender stereotyping in the media, to the status of customary international law. Previously a widespread state practice—for example, the ancient prohibition against harming ambassadors—would take centuries to earn the status of customary international law.
"But transnational law says a rule doesn't have to be in existence very long," Mr. Kyl says. "And it doesn't have to be demonstrated by countries through their actions. You simply have to have well-meaning people talking about it."
Cedaw, it should be noted, has been ratified by China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among other regimes with abhorrent women's-rights records. Yet transnationalists are fond of pointing out all of the areas where America supposedly lags the global gold standard: from the death penalty to state prohibitions on gay marriage.
"I wonder if we're also the only country that has all of the rights embedded in the first 15 amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Mr. Kyl says. "Does that also make those rights passé? I think not. We're the only country in the world ever founded on an idea rather than an accident of geography or blood. So the fact that other nations haven't gotten to our level . . . doesn't mean we have to throw in with them."
The transnationalists think otherwise, and President Obama has given them an opening to shape U.S. policy. Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Koh held top posts at the State Department during Mr. Obama's first term, and their tenures coincided with an aggressive push to ratify or recognize as customary law Cedaw and a host of other progressive causes.
For proof that the transnationalist threat isn't merely theoretical, look no further than the European Union. Says Mr. Kyl: "What they have now is a situation where their sovereignty has largely been supplanted by others who are not accountable to voters in individual European countries."
It was in Europe where these ideas were first implemented, and it is to the EU that transnationalists look as a model. Today over half of the regulations that affect Europeans' lives are made by administrators in Brussels, not by national legislatures.
These regulations include the EU's ban, announced in May, on restaurants serving olive oil in traditional glass jugs or terracotta bowls (to protect the "image" of olive oil); the prohibition against insurers charging women drivers lower premiums (sexism); and Commission Regulation 2257/94, otherwise known as the "bendy banana" law, which until recently required farmers to discard irregularly shaped bananas (don't ask).
American transnationalists look with admiration on Europe. "Once those laws are passed, EU institutions . . . look over national shoulders to ensure that they actually do what they commit to do," Ms. Slaughter has written. "This European way of law is precisely the role that we postulate for international law generally around the world."
Mr. Kyl is less sanguine. "When your society is regulated to that extent by someone who has no accountability to voters, something is very, very wrong," he says. "The transnationalists should be the last ones lecturing anybody about what ought to be because what is is the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes sovereignty in the American people. That is embedded in everything about our country. It's not outmoded—it's who we are. And if you're not willing to accept that, then you haven't signed on to the most basic notion of what it is to believe about our country."
Mr. Ahmari is an assistant books editor at the Journal.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/24/holmes-second-times-no-charm-for-flawed-un-disabil/
-
second postStop U.S. Aid To UNESCO
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 25, 2013
Printer-Friendly Version
Dear Friend,
President Obama has asked Congress for $225 million for aid to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Aid was cut off when the UN organization admitted the Palestinian Authority to membership.
Now UNESCO has announced that it has included "the life and works of Ernesto Che Guevara" in this year's additions to the Memory of the World Register.
Guevara, despite appearing on t-shirts on college campuses throughout the world, was a thug and a monster. He is responsible for hundreds of executions which helped keep the Castro brothers in power in Cuba.
Please sign this petition to stop U.S. aid to this leftist sham of a UN organization!
Click Here to sign the petition to stop U.S. aid to UNESCO!
-
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/06/soldier_of_misfortune_david_bax_somalia_united_nations
-
On chemical weapons in Syria:
GEORGE WILL: Our military is rightly leery of making a gesture; they're not in the gesture business. And they have a feeling that's what they would be doing. Throwing -- lobbing cruise missiles, these standoff weapons, into a country to make us, what, feel or look good? The president on CNN this week said, the use of gas is going to require America's attention and hopefully the entire international community's attention. Now, some people believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, others believe in the international community -- it's a fiction.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/08/25/george_will_on_international_community_its_a_fiction.html
-
As usual with Morris, not every point here is well made, but there is an underlying theme worth considering:
http://www.dickmorris.com/syria-deal-step-toward-one-world-government-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Implications here about withdrawing from international institutions , , ,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/11/opinion/in-africa-seeking-a-license-to-kill.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131011
-
I received the following email. Obviously we here tend to be quite hostile to the UN and the progressive mission to surrender our sovereignty to it, but is the solution really to get out? What are the consequences if we actually get out? Would we be less able to defend our interests? Would doing so leave the UN able to pretend that it is "the World Community vs. The Evil Empire" with China and Russia leading the "World Community"?
============================
Marc F. -- sixty-eight years ago a clandestine organization was born.
It was the birthdate of the United Nations.
And now, sixty-eight years later, our nation is in danger because of this very institution. The United Nations is threatening our everyday way of life, the freedoms and liberties we enjoy and the privacy our families deserve.
I want to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. That's why one of the first bills I introduced this year in Congress was HR 75 to end all US participation in the United Nations.
If you agree that our nation is better off alone then cohorting with this organization that allows dictators into this country, then add your name to my petition today.
As the United Nations grows in power and authority, the United States sovereignty dwindles with it. Our country, under the dismal direction of the Democrats, is spending millions of dollars supporting a organization that undoubtedly endangers our children and grandchildren's future.
Add your name by following this link.
We have an opportunity to change the future. A chance to make our nation a safer place, and a moment in time to make history.
Join in me stopping the United States' participation in the United Nations. Add your name by signing the petition, and afterwards make your most generous contribution so we can distribute this to every corner of our great country.
Please join me and add your name to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
God Bless,
Congressman Paul Broun
-
Cruz has a perfect background for taking on this issue:
Ted Cruz criticizes DOJ for arguing international treaty can trump the Constitution
By JOEL GEHRKE | OCTOBER 30, 2013 AT 3:50 PM
Photo - Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for actions that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. (Photo: Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner file) Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the...
Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.
That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.
"The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.
"The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.
The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.
Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.
"The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress's enumerated powers," according to Bond's lawyers.
The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.
"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.
The Judicial Crisis Network is a conservative legal activist group.
-
ALERT: Dangerous U.N. Disabilities Treaty now in Senate committee! Take Action! Blast Faxes to Senators!
American Conservative,
This week, U.S. Senators officially picked up the United Nations' Disabilities Treaty for the first time since the international agreement failed by a vote of five last December.
Now in the consideration of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it won't be long until the Treaty faces a full Senate vote.
Senators Bob Menendez and John McCain said this week "the Senate should ratify it this year" saying the globalist plan "is consistent with our nation's interests and values."
This, of course, comes as no surprise. The fact is, McCain and Menendez have been cheerleading this supranational scheme for months.
Not only that, Menendez -- chair of the Foreign Relations committee -- has been busy working on cutting deals with Republican Senators to buy votes for the U.N. Plan!
You see, the Senate globalists are doing everything in their power to secure enough votes to see this Treaty get ratified - they've have been pushing it since 2009.
This is why it is so crucial that we mobilize right away and demand U.S. Senators to oppose all "deals" and once again vote against the ratification of this Disabilities Treaty and protect national and parental sovereignty!
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
"This convention sets a precedent for treaties that would actually allow an international body to define our own domestic law." - Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
CRPD: An Attack on Sovereignty
Signed by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on July 30, 2009, the United Nations Disabilities Treaty - formally called "the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" or CRPD - is aimed at "protecting the rights of the disabled."
While this may nominally appear as noble effort, it's best the United States takes no part in it..
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) notes that "more than two dozen areas of national life including education, health, employment, accessibility, and independent living" would be affected by the U.N. Treaty.
"Ratifying nations must enact, modify, or abolish not only laws and regulations at all levels of government - federal, state, and local - but also social customs and cultural practices," says Sen. Hatch on July 10. "Ratifying nations must refrain from engaging in any acts or practices that are inconsistent with the treaty as well as ensure that all public authorities and institutions act in conformity with it."
According to Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, all treaties that receive the approval of the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."
Thus, if a Senate supermajority gives CRPD its consent, domestic courts would be bound to make decisions based upon international law in all cases involving individuals with disabilities.
Domestic abortion policy, for example, could easily be challenged under Article 25 which requires states to:
"Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes."
Liberals like Hillary Clinton have long been calling abortion a women's "right," a vital component of "reproductive health," and this treaty could make that a reality.
The simple fact is this: The United Nations has no business determining domestic policy for the United States - a responsibility that resides with the American People alone.
Tell U.S. Senators to stand for the American Way and reject the U.N. Disabilities Treaty!
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
"Ratifying the CRPD will not establish a single right for a single American, it will not provide for Americans with disabilities anything that American law has not or could not provide." - Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
CRPD: An Attack on Parents
First and foremost, let it be said that the federal government - our government - already has many laws in place that directly benefit the disabled among us. We have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, in addition to a number of others that benefit those with disabilities.
This said, we are already leading the world by example and without the aid of the United Nations.
But more than government, those responsible for the care of the less able are parents. Yes; parents - not government or outside institutions - are the primary caretakers, educators, providers, etc. for their children: those with disabilities and those without them.
The United Nation's Disabilities Treaty challenges this fact. Article 7, for example, states that "in all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
That clause "the best interests of the child" is determined not by individual parents but by a supranational U.N. board of eighteen. In other words, a far-off committee of "experts" - if this treaty is ratified by the Senate - would determine what our children need.
This is exactly why former Senator Rick Santorum rallied hard against this dangerous treaty in the final months of 2012. If a U.N. board is invited to determine what "best interests" are, they have the power to literally overhaul our entire way of life - particularly how we educate our kids. Under CRPD, homeschooling children with special needs could be prohibited.
We must urge our Senators to refuse to go along with this supranational agenda - we need to demand that they oppose this treaty when it is brought back into consideration!
We narrowly won before; we need to win again ...
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
United Nations not the Remedy
Our founders purposely created a limited government - one protecting life, liberty, and property - so that society was organized not by a centralized force, but by the cooperation between individuals and families.
In our federalist system, the government in Washington is the furthest government from the people and thus is designed to influence our affairs at home the least. The health and welfare of the People is in the jurisdiction of each and every state along with local government. This is because governments closer to the people take care of needs best.
So, if Washington is the most "far off" power in our tiers of governance, where does the United Nations stand? Nowhere.
That's right, the United Nations has no business - naturally or legally - over us, and we ought not invite them and create a very dangerous precedent.
Right now, we need to contact every Senator and demand that they defend the sovereignty of our nation and the sovereignty of parents over their children.
Send faxes, sign our petition, and call Senate offices demanding that the U.N.'s CRPD fails.
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
For America,
Conservative Action Alerts
www.ConservativeActionAlerts.com
P.S. Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
Marginalia: Did you know that the U.N. Disabilities Treaty fails to firmly define who "persons with disabilities" are? It's true; the U.N. claims that their definition is "an evolving concept."
With a definition so elastic, the globalists could change and expand its meaning at any time and without our consent.
We need to tell U.S. Senators to oppose this treaty right now.
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
Conservative Action Alerts (CAA) is a media outlet protected by the first amendment; no financial contribution to support our efforts is tax-deductible. Diener Consultants, Inc., 10940 S Parker Rd Ste# 763, PARKER, CO 80284-7440
-
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/obama-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity-at-international-criminal-court/
-
second post
"This convention sets a precedent for treaties that would actually allow an international body to define our own domestic law." - Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)
ALERT: Dangerous U.N. Disabilities Treaty must be rejected! Take Action and Blast Faxes to Senators!
American Conservative,
Senate globalists have been working hard this month to move the United Nations Disabilities Treaty forward.
Senators John McCain and Bob Menendez have already made it clear that they want to see a full Senate vote on the Treaty before the end of the year, and they are doing all they can to lobby their colleagues to support the global scheme.
They argue that the Treaty is necessary to protect U.S. Veterans abroad, yet there is no evidence at all that the agreement would accomplish such. In fact, AMVETS recently pulled their support from the U.N. Plan because it would not "have any measurable, positive effects on veterans with disabilities travelling or serving abroad."
Disability advocate and former Senator Rick Santorum recently told Fox News that "there is no point in the in the U.S. submitting itself to review by the United Nations for something where we already lead the world."
(Watch clip here.)
"We don't have to sign-off on a treaty to show the world that we treat people with disabilities with more respect than, frankly, almost any other country in the world," says Santorum. "There's no reason for us to do this, it is simply another way for us to shift responsibility out of the hands of individuals, families, communities, and local governments, and give it to international bodies..."
With the Treaty soon out of committee, it won't be long until the international agreement faces a full Senate vote. We need to contact Senators now!
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
CRPD: An Attack on Sovereignty
Signed by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on July 30, 2009, the United Nations Disabilities Treaty - formally called "the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" or CRPD - is aimed at "protecting the rights of the disabled."
While this may nominally appear as noble effort, it's best the United States takes no part in it..
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) notes that "more than two dozen areas of national life including education, health, employment, accessibility, and independent living" would be affected by the U.N. Treaty.
"Ratifying nations must enact, modify, or abolish not only laws and regulations at all levels of government - federal, state, and local - but also social customs and cultural practices," says Sen. Hatch. "Ratifying nations must refrain from engaging in any acts or practices that are inconsistent with the treaty as well as ensure that all public authorities and institutions act in conformity with it."
According to Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, all treaties that receive the approval of the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."
Thus, if a Senate supermajority gives CRPD its consent, domestic courts would be bound to make decisions based upon international law in all cases involving individuals with disabilities.
Domestic abortion policy, for example, could easily be challenged under Article 25 which requires states to:
"Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes."
Liberals like Hillary Clinton have long been calling abortion a woman's "right," a vital component of "reproductive health," and this treaty could make that a reality.
The simple fact is this: The United Nations has no business determining domestic policy for the United States - a responsibility that resides with the American People alone.
Tell U.S. Senators to stand for the American Way and reject the U.N. Disabilities Treaty!
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
CRPD: An Attack on Parents
First and foremost, let it be said that the federal government - our government - already has many laws in place that directly benefit the disabled among us. We have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, in addition to a number of others that benefit those with disabilities.
This said, we are already leading the world by example and without the aid of the United Nations.
But more than government, those responsible for the care of the less able are parents. Yes; parents - not government or outside institutions - are the primary caretakers, educators, providers, etc. for their children: those with disabilities and those without them.
The United Nation's Disabilities Treaty challenges this fact. Article 7, for example, states that "in all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
That clause "the best interests of the child" is determined not by individual parents but by a supranational U.N. board of eighteen. In other words, a far-off committee of "experts" - if this treaty is ratified by the Senate - would determine what our children need.
This is exactly why former Senator Rick Santorum rallied hard against this dangerous treaty in the final months of 2012. If a U.N. board is invited to determine what "best interests" are, they have the power to literally overhaul our entire way of life - particularly how we educate our kids. Under CRPD, homeschooling children with special needs could be prohibited.
We must urge our Senators to refuse to go along with this supranational agenda - we need to demand that they oppose this treaty when it is brought back into consideration!
We narrowly won before; we need to win again ...
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.
United Nations not the Remedy
Our founders purposely created a limited government - one protecting life, liberty, and property - so that society was organized not by a centralized force, but by the cooperation between individuals and families.
In our federalist system, the government in Washington is the furthest government from the people and thus is designed to influence our affairs at home the least. The health and welfare of the People is in the jurisdiction of each and every state along with local government. This is because governments closer to the people take care of needs best.
So, if Washington is the most "far off" power in our tiers of governance, where does the United Nations stand? Nowhere.
That's right, the United Nations has no business - naturally or legally - over us, and we ought not invite them and create a very dangerous precedent.
Right now, we need to contact every Senator and demand that they defend the sovereignty of our nation and the sovereignty of parents over their children.
Send faxes, sign our petition, and call Senate offices demanding that the U.N.'s CRPD fails.
Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/obamas-call-close-holy-see-embassy-slap-face-catho/
-
http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2013/11/un-treaty-soon-out-of-committee-rally-senators/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/urgent-d-day-for-the-2nd-amendment-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Hat tip to our BD:
http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1023.php
-
Gun Owners of America
________________________________________
The Omnibus Appropriations Bill:
Pro-gun or Anti-gun?
Dear Marc F.,
On Friday, Congress sent a $1.1 trillion government funding bill to the President, who promptly signed the legislation into law.
Like every "omnibus," the bill has a number of gun-related provisions -- some pro-gun, some anti-gun. And we suspect that a majority of our members will probably oppose this bloated monstrosity.
That being said, there were some key victories in this bill. So briefly, here are the pros and cons.
THE PROS
THE "OMNIBUS" KILLS THE ARMS TRADE TREATY. In the 113th Congress, we believe we have about twenty votes more than we need to stop ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. This is extremely important because, if implemented, this treaty -- signed by the Obama administration -- could, without further legislation, result in massive semi-auto and handgun bans, magazine bans, gun registration, and microstamping.
Even though we felt comfortable that we could stop the treaty's ratification, we were concerned that Obama would attempt to implement it by administrative fiat. For this reason, we drafted language defunding its implementation. With your help, we have spent the last year pushing incessantly for the adoption of this amendment defunding the ATT.
That language is contained on the "Omnibus." For many of our members, killing the ATT is more important than any other issue.
, , ,
-
No he is not a radical in sheep's clothing. rolleyes Just political grandstanding by right wing nuts. (heavy on the sarcasm)
And we keep hearing what a nice guy he is. If I hear O'Reilly say one more time he doesn't doubt Obama's good intentions..... rolleyes
I keep thinking how is someone who is a serial liar, serial deceiver, bully, a nice guy. Oh but he cares about the po' is always the response. It is his goals that matter not how he gets there.
****The Soul of the Obama Administration
Mona Charen
By Mona Charen February 14, 2014 3:00 AM
Few have ever heard the name Debo Adegbile. He's President Barack Obama's nominee to head the civil rights division of the Justice Department.
A few months ago, his nomination would have been a non-starter — there is more than a whiff of radicalism in his past. But we are in a new world. Sen. Harry Reid is now absolute monarch of the Senate. Republicans are largely irrelevant. They cannot offer amendments to legislation. They cannot filibuster. I suppose they can write letters to the editor, and march outside the chamber wearing sandwich boards.
Before the Reid invocation of the "nuclear option" eliminating the filibuster, Adegbile would have been considered too controversial. But now, the administration can have its head on nominations.
Adegbile is a passionate advocate for racial quotas in hiring and university admissions, and also urges that employers not be permitted to do background checks on potential hires — presumably because more African-Americans have criminal records than other applicants.
(POSTED IN THIS THREAD FOR THE FOLLOWING SENTENCES: MARC)
He has encouraged the president to nominate judges who recognize that "ratified treaties" are the law of land. Well, no argument there, but he goes further. Adegbile wants judges who will decree that "customary international law" is the law of the United States as well, asking for God only knows what mischief. Who would decide what "customary international law" is? By what authority would it be imposed on Americans? Investor's Business Daily reports that Adegbile supports George Soros's campaign to create a new "progressive" constitution. If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, you're not paying attention.
It was Adegbile's role in the case of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal that incurred the wrath of Justice Department employees though. The union representing FBI agents, which rarely expresses itself on nominations, along with the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement groups, have written to Attorney General Eric Holder to protest Adegbile's nomination. Carl Rowan Jr., a former deputy U.S. marshal, FBI special agent and chief of police, wrote: "He isn't the first questionable nomination made by a president who ... seems drawn to those with radical backgrounds, but this one is an open slap in the face to everyone in law enforcement."
Abu-Jamal has long been a poster boy for the radical left in America. His fine speaking voice (he had been a radio host), long dreadlocks, Muslim moniker (he was born Wesley Cook), radical memberships (in the Black Panthers and black liberation group MOVE), and admiration of Mao Zedong made him irresistible to the Ed Asners, Jonathan Kozolses, National Lawyers Guilds, Michael Moores and NPRs of the world. But until this administration, most mainstream liberals would have steered clear.
Adegbile revealed a great deal about himself by choosing to have the NAACP Legal Defense Fund join the campaign to defend Abu-Jamal. There are many miscarriages of justice that cry out for redress, but Abu-Jamal's 1981 conviction for killing 25-year-old Philadelphia policeman Daniel Faulkner is one of the most litigated in American jurisprudence. The verdict was reviewed or allowed to stand by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court, among others, over the course of more than 30 years.
On Dec. 9, 1981, at about 4 a.m., Faulkner pulled over a driver named William Cook (Abu-Jamal's brother) for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Cook threw a punch at Faulkner, who then hit Cook with his flashlight. At that point, four eyewitnesses said that Abu-Jamal, who had been across the street, fired at Faulkner hitting him in the back. Though wounded, Faulkner fired back at Abu-Jamal, hitting him in the chest, before falling onto his back. Abu-Jamal approached the wounded officer and holding his gun 18 inches in front of Faulkner's face, fired the shots that killed him.
Ballistics confirmed that the bullets that killed Faulkner were from Abu-Jamal's gun, found with him at the scene.
Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death, but decades of litigation and agitation on his behalf delayed the sentence. He has claimed ineffective assistance of counsel (though at one point he represented himself), racism by the judge, racism in jury selection — the usual gamut. In 2011, prosecutors announced that they would no longer pursue the death penalty.
Every defendant deserves a defense, of course. But Abu-Jamal has had a celebrity lineup of lefty lawyers. That Adegbile wanted to join their ranks is a sign of his sympathies. That Obama believes Adegbile can get confirmed by the neutered Senate is a sign of the times.
To find out more about Mona Charen and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CREATORS.COM
-
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/annexation_calls_into_question_the_foundation_of_modern_statehood
-
Hat tip to CCP:
*****U.S. to relinquish remaining control over the Internet
Joe Raedle/Getty Images - Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade.
By Craig Timberg,
U.S. officials announced plans Friday to relinquish federal government control over the administration of the Internet, a move that pleased international critics but alarmed some business leaders and others who rely on the smooth functioning of the Web.
Pressure to let go of the final vestiges of U.S. authority over the system of Web addresses and domain names that organize the Internet has been building for more than a decade and was supercharged by the backlash last year to revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.
Move comes after revelations about National Security Agency surveillance.
The change would end the long-running contract between the Commerce Department and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a California-based nonprofit group. That contract is set to expire next year but could be extended if the transition plan is not complete.
“We look forward to ICANN convening stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan,” Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said in a statement.
The announcement received a passionate response, with some groups quickly embracing the change and others blasting it.
In a statement, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) called the move “consistent with other efforts the U.S. and our allies are making to promote a free and open Internet, and to preserve and advance the current multi-stakeholder model of global Internet governance.”
But former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) tweeted: “What is the global internet community that Obama wants to turn the internet over to? This risks foreign dictatorships defining the internet.”
The practical consequences of the decision were harder to immediately discern, especially with the details of the transition not yet clear. Politically, the move could alleviate rising global concerns that the United States essentially controls the Web and takes advantage of its oversight position to help spy on the rest of the world.
U.S. officials set several conditions and an indeterminate timeline for the transition from federal government authority, saying a new oversight system must be developed and win the trust of crucial stakeholders around the world. An international meeting to discuss the future of Internet is scheduled to start on March 23 in Singapore.
The move’s critics called the decision hasty and politically tinged, and voiced significant doubts about the fitness of ICANN to operate without U.S. oversight and beyond the bounds of U.S. law.
“This is a purely political bone that the U.S. is throwing,” said Garth Bruen, a security fellow at the Digital Citizens Alliance, a Washington-based advocacy group that combats online crime. “ICANN has made a lot of mistakes, and ICANN has not really been a good steward.”
Business groups and some others have long complained that ICANN’s decision-making was dominated by the interests of the industry that sells domain names and whose fees provide the vast majority of ICANN’s revenue. The U.S. government contract was a modest check against such abuses, critics said.
“It’s inconceivable that ICANN can be accountable to the whole world. That’s the equivalent of being accountable to no one,” said Steve DelBianco, executive director of NetChoice, a trade group representing major Internet commerce businesses.
U.S. officials said their decision had nothing to do with the NSA spying revelations and the worldwide controversy they sparked, saying there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to international control.
“The timing is now right to start this transition both because ICANN as an organization has matured, and international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance,” Strickling said in a statement.
Although ICANN is based in Southern California, governments worldwide have a say in the group’s decisions through an oversight body. ICANN in 2009 made an “Affirmation of Commitments” to the Commerce Department that covers several key issues.
Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN, disputed many of the complaints about the transition plan and promised an open, inclusive process to find a new international oversight structure for the group.
“Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet,” he said.
The United States has long maintained authority over elements of the Internet, which grew from a Defense Department program that started in the 1960s. The relationship between the United States and ICANN has drawn wider international criticism in recent years, in part because big American companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft play such a central role in the Internet’s worldwide functioning. The NSA revelations exacerbated those concerns.
“This is a step in the right direction to resolve important international disputes about how the Internet is governed,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of Public Knowledge, a group that promotes open access to the Internet.
Verizon, one of the world’s biggest Internet providers, issued a statement saying, “A successful transition in the stewardship of these important functions to the global multi-stakeholder community would be a timely and positive step in the evolution of Internet governance.”
ICANN’s most important function is to oversee the assigning of Internet domains — such as dot-com, dot-edu and dot-gov — and ensure that the various companies and universities involved in directing digital traffic do so safely.
Concern about ICANN’s stewardship has spiked in recent years amid a massive and controversial expansion that is adding hundreds of new domains, such as dot-book, dot-gay and dot-sucks, to the Internet’s infrastructure. More than 1,000 new domains are slated to be made available, pumping far more fee revenue into ICANN.
Major corporations have complained, however, that con artists already swarm the Internet with phony Web sites designed to look like the authentic offerings of respected brands.
“To set ICANN so-called free is a very major step that should done with careful oversight,” said Dan Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers. “We would be very concerned about that step.”
-
President Obama Wins One
President Obama won a significant victory in the United Nations yesterday.
President Putin found himself surprisingly isolated.
I am often critical of President Obama and his foreign policy team but when he gets one right, he deserves recognition and the event deserves some notice.
When the United Nations votes to repudiate Putin's takeover of Crimea -- and does so by a ten to one margin -- something good has happened.
Votes in the United Nations General Assembly are expressions of sentiment. They are not legally binding. Only the Security Council -- in which Russia and China have vetoes, as do the United States, Great Britain, and France -- can pass a binding resolution.
Nonetheless a decisive General Assembly vote is psychologically useful.
Yesterday's vote in the General Assembly was so one-sided that I was startled. I can't remember the last time the United States had an almost ten-to-one vote for its position.
The actual vote was 100 "Yes" to 11 "No" with 58 abstentions and 25 countries not voting. Abstention is a method of voting without taking sides. The non-voting countries are overwhelmingly small and their government may not have been able to issue instructions in a timely manner or they may have wanted to avoid offending anyone by simply hiding.
The most startling result was the tiny number of countries who sided with Russia in voting "No". The pro-Putin alliance consisted of Armenia, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.
Putin has to be a little sobered by being reduced to an alliance of the outcast, the self-destructive and the decaying. This is a long fall from the glory days of the Soviet Union in the United Nations.
The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has to worry about two sets of countries that abstained and refused to vote against the Russian takeover of Crimea.
First, some of the largest and most important countries in the world, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa abstained. These are big countries with big populations and big economies. Their abstention is not a good sign and indicates some space for Putin to gain allies.
Second, and in some ways more troubling, are the countries in which we have invested - and in some cases for which we have bled - who refused to stand with us. Look at Afghanistan, Egypt, El Salvador, Iraq, and Pakistan. If we haven't earned the right to expect some support from these countries, something is seriously wrong.
Even with these exceptions, this is still a significant psychological victory and vividly signals how isolated Putin is in his Crimean adventure. It has to cause some of the Moscow leadership to urge caution before undertaking more adventures.
President Obama deserves credit for following through on a political-diplomatic strategy which has led to a significant psychological victory.
Your Friend,
Newt
-
The only thing more meaningless is Buraq's Nobel Peace prize.
-
Keeping the Internet Free—for Now
The Commerce Department has second thoughts about surrendering America's online oversight.
By
L. Gordon Crovitz
April 13, 2014 6:51 p.m. ET
Less than a month after announcing its plan to abandon U.S. protection of the open Internet in 2015, the White House has stepped back from the abyss. Following objections by Bill Clinton, a warning letter from 35 Republican senators, and critical congressional hearings, the administration now says the change won't happen for years, if ever.
"We can extend the contract for up to four years," Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling told Congress last week, referring to the agreement under which the U.S. retains ultimate control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, known as Icann. If the administration makes good on that reassurance, it would punt the decision to 2019 and the next president.
Mr. Strickling originally linked the end of U.S. control to the September 2015 expiration date of the current Icann agreement. He backtracked at a Hudson Institute conference last week: "We did not intend that to be a deadline after which 'bad things' would happen. There has been some misapprehension that we were trying to impose a deadline on this process. We weren't." Fadi Chehade, Icann's CEO, agreed. "There is no deadline," he said. "The U.S. has many years on the contract."
In an interview, Mr. Chehade assured me that he understands why supporters of the open Internet want the U.S. to retain its oversight role, which keeps countries like Russia and China from meddling. "I'm worried, too," he said. "There's no question that governments like power and certain governments will always try to take control of the Internet, so we will have to be careful."
The Commerce Department tasked Icann to come up with a plan to invite authoritarian governments to participate while still keeping the Internet open. This is likely impossible—and wholly unnecessary. Nongovernmental "multi-stakeholders," such as engineers, networking companies and technology associations, now run the Internet smoothly. They are free to do so because the U.S. retains ultimate control over Internet domains, blocking authoritarian regimes from censoring or otherwise limiting the Internet outside their own countries.
The Obama administration proposal would have treated other governments as equal stakeholders, turning the concept of private-sector self-governance on its head. Robert McDowell, a former commissioner at the Federal Communication Commission, pointed out at the Hudson Institute event that "'multi-stakeholder' historically has meant no government," not many governments.
Mr. Strickling tried to deflect criticism in his testimony: "No one has yet to explain to me the mechanism by which any of these individual governments could somehow seize control of the Internet as a whole." The senior State Department official involved in Internet governance, Daniel Sepulveda, similarly claimed at the Hudson Institute: "Governments can no more take over Icann than Google GOOGL +1.38% can take over Icann."
These are false assurances. Steve DelBianco of the NetChoice trade association gave this example in congressional testimony: Under Icann rules, a majority of governments can simply vote to end the current consensus approach and switch to majority voting. China and Iran are already lobbying for this change. Russia, China and other governments switched to majority voting to outfox the U.S. at a conference of the International Telecommunications Union, a United Nations agency, in 2012. Mr. Sepulveda called that an "anomaly," but the result was an 89-55 vote for a treaty giving U.N. legitimacy to governments cutting off the open Internet in their countries. This division of the Internet into open and closed networks goes into effect next year.
The Obama administration somehow thinks sacrificing U.S. control of Icann will satisfy regimes eager further to undermine the open Internet. Mr. Strickling argues: "Taking this action is the best measure to prevent authoritarian regimes from expanding their restrictive policies beyond their borders." The opposite is true. Granting these countries access to Icann and the root zone filenames and addresses on the Internet would give them the potential to close off the global Internet, including for Americans, by deciding rules for how all websites anywhere must operate.
The letter sent by Republican senators identified a dozen criticisms of the plan. They asked why it's in the U.S. interest to cede control and how control could be regained once lost.
The senators also asked to see the legal opinion claiming the executive branch has the power to transfer control of the Internet without congressional approval. A bill called the Internet Stewardship Act was introduced in the House to mandate congressional approval before any change is made. Unanimous congressional resolutions starting in 2005 have called on the U.S. to retain control over Icann.
If Mr. Obama still thinks giving up U.S. protection of the open Internet and its multi-stakeholder community is such a great idea, he should ask Congress to vote on it. He won't, because there is zero chance that an Abandon the Internet Act would ever pass
-
The point being made here would have been much better served by a different tone of voice, but the point remains
http://madworldnews.com/german-general-us-army/
-
The point being made here would have been much better served by a different tone of voice, but the point remains
http://madworldnews.com/german-general-us-army/
From the article:
"This is the first time since the arrival of US forces in Europe on D-Day during WWII, and the first time in history a non-American has EVER been placed in charge of our forces."
Except for these times: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/29/karl-rove/karl-rove-says-american-troops-have-never-been-und/. There's this, too: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/p176.pdf.
-
Good catch BD.
One suspects the recent contratemps regarding our listening in to Merkel etc had something to do with this.
-
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/05/voters-in-this-state-overwhelmingly-pass-amendmnet-to-ban-sharia-law-other-foreign-laws-here-are-the-details/
-
Other than climate change, getting economic sanctions removed from the world's number one sponsor of terror is the highest priority of this administration. Pres. Obama is putting the judgment of his "P5+1" group ahead of US people, congress or Senate ratification. Of the P5, it turns out Russia was chomping at the bit to sell them missiles and same for China with nuclear technology sales. And Germany has historically been the biggest exporter to Iran.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/europe/russia-iran-air-defense-system-sale/
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-to-build-new-nuke-plants-in-iran/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/04/germany-economy-iran-idUSL6N0SU20220141104
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/5/irans-nuclear-program-helped-by-china-russia/?page=all
Shouldn't at least Russia and China recuse themselves from this process given these facts. Of course that is a joke, they aren't allies of ours or interested in peace or western security in the first place. So why do we keep agreeing to this type of phony security framework?
The UN can't be discredited anymore than it has been already - with the Iraq 'oil for food' scandal, the phony UN IPCC reports, the use of the podium by tyrants and bloody dictators, and so many other scandals and problems. Are there not some basic values a nation must embrace to get a seat at the table?
Let's move past the old, counter-productive framework and create a new one for real international cooperation. Leave the UN in place so that places like Burundi, Djibouti and Malawi all have a place to talk. But remove US financial support down to what is commensurate with our one vote. Then form new organizations with real allies who actually do share our values. How about putting Japan, India, Taiwan, Israel and Canada on the new security council along with the US and our European allies, for starters. The topics to address would include how to contain countries like Russia and China.
-
The idea of developing an alternative/competing institution to the UN makes sense to me, though the execution of this would need nuance of a level that seems well above the capacity of our current leadership in either party.
-
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/993775303968399/
Also, Dick Morris says that it will allow free movement of labor as in the EU. I've not seen this stated elsewhere.
-
https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/993775303968399/
Also, Dick Morris says that it will allow free movement of labor as in the EU. I've not seen this stated elsewhere.
If that evil dwarf is against it, it is probably a good thing.
-
Patriot Post
The Senate voted 98-1 Thursday to approve a bill giving Congress 30 days to examine the pending nuclear deal with Iran and to express its disapproval through the resolution process. Tom Cotton (R-AR) was the lone opposing vote, a symbolic gesture of protest that the bill was not crafted more strongly. The bill, authored by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-TN), says nothing about Iran’s continued sponsorship of terrorism, for example, or its refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist. Yet Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the bill “worthy of our support,” claiming it “offers the best chance we have to provide the American people and the Congress they elect with power to weigh in on a vital issue.”
Unfortunately, it’s just the opposite. Instead of the constitutionally required two-thirds majority to approve a treaty, this bill means Barack Obama’s deal-that’s-not-a-treaty will a require two-thirds majority to reject it.
One of the issues is U.S. sanctions on Iran put in place by Congress, as opposed to other sanctions put in place by executive order or by the UN Security Council. Republican senators, led by Cotton, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, want to prevent Obama from giving away the farm by removing all U.S. sanctions as soon as a nuclear deal is signed. Obama has repeatedly claimed sanctions can “snap back” if Iran is found to be cheating and that he has the authority to remove all U.S. sanctions — including those passed by Congress — with a wave of his hand. Court jester Joe Biden and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew recently advanced that argument in a speech before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, claiming both U.S. and international sanctions could be reinstated quickly, and without serial miscreants China or Russia being able to veto such a move.
And speaking of a veto, 150 congressional Democrats sent a letter to Obama Thursday making clear they would support him if he vetoed a congressional resolution disapproving the nuclear deal. With enough Democrat signatures to guarantee a presidential veto would stand, the letter virtually preempts any significant action by Congress to stop Obama from throwing away the most effective tool the world has in forcing Iran to meet its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations. It’s also yet another example that Obama and his friends in Congress are so desperate to get a deal that they are willing to accept even a very bad one.
Still, we remain guardedly optimistic that the June 30 deadline will not yield a final agreement, as Iran has consistently and emphatically rejected the requirement for unfettered, intrusive inspections, without which no deal is possible. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has also demanded repeatedly that all sanctions be dropped permanently the moment a deal is signed, something we still hope even Obama and his sycophants won’t accept. But it remains one of the most sorry spectacles in recent memory to see the leader of the free world and his fellow travelers in Congress working so hard to ensure the world’s number-one sponsor of terror is rewarded, not punished, for its intransigence.
-
Dear Friend,
The House just passed HR 1191 that purports to restore Congressional oversight over the President’s negotiations with Iran’s fascist-Islamic leaders. I believe it completely missed the point.
Any agreement with Iran’s leaders is meaningless, because their word is meaningless. Iran’s government is a notoriously untrustworthy rogue state that has made it unmistakably clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons and once acquired, to use them. The only way to avert this nightmare -- short of war -- is for the regime to collapse from within.
Our Constitution requires that any treaty be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. This wasn’t going to happen, so Mr. Obama simply redefined the prospective treaty as an agreement between leaders – an agreement with no force of law and no legal standing.
I fear that Congress has just changed this equation by establishing a wholly extra-constitutional process that lends the imprimatur of Congress to these ill-advised negotiations with no practical way to stop the lifting of sanctions. Instead of 2/3 of the Senate having to approve a treaty as the Constitution requires, this agreement takes effect automatically unless 2/3 of both houses reject it – a complete sham.
I fear that this bill gives tacit approval to extremely harmful negotiations that Congress instead ought to vigorously condemn and unambiguously repudiate.
We can only pray that in the days ahead, what Churchill called “the Parliamentary democracies” will regain the national leadership required to prevent a repetition of the Munich Accords in the Middle East.
That will require treating the Iranian dictatorship as the international pariah that it is. And it will require providing every ounce of moral and material support that the Iranian opposition needs to rid their nation of this fascist-Islamic dictatorship, to restore their proud heritage and to retake their place among the civilized nations of the world.
Sincerely,
Tom McClintock
-
TPP Not About Trade
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on May 26, 2015
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has nothing to do with trade.
While it officially embraces 11 countries plus the U.S., 76 percent of our trade with these nations is with Mexico and Canada, already covered by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Any export growth is likely to have been already covered by NAFTA, making the TPP irrelevant to our trade relations.
The TPP is nothing but an effort by the globalists to circumvent American sovereignty, transferring a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures to international trade courts.
Start with the fact that nobody knows what is in the TPP. President Obama will not let anyone see it. Indeed, many of the provisions are said to be aspirational, setting policy goals and leaving it to the trade courts to sort out. Any assurance that the treaty curbs currency manipulation is fanciful. The courts can interpret it any way they want. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund now does so, preventing any effort to restrict Chinese manipulation, despite overwhelming evidence that it is happening.
But the main impact of the TPP is to create legal obstacles in the way of American attempts to regulate access to our market.
Does American or state law restrict genetically modified food? The TPP won't permit it.
Does the U.S. Congress impose limitations on the "free flow of labor" between America and Mexico? The TPP can stop it.
Will Congress refuse to take action to restrict greenhouse gas emissions? Lawmakers can be required to under the environmental provisions of the TPP.
Obama has labored long and hard to strip Congress of its authority over immigration, emissions and the environment, food regulations and energy policy. Congress, in turn, has worked to take away state power over insurance regulation and banking. Now comes the coup de grâce: a treaty taking many of these powers away from the United States -- executive and legislative branches -- and state government.
The long-term goal of the globalists is an international rule of law unaccompanied by democracy. Because there is no global forum for the manifestation of worldwide popular will, this formula leads to rule by bureaucrats: those who know best. It is government by a new aristocracy of civil servants and technicians.
Why are they so eager to pre-empt the power of elected bodies? Steeped in the traditions of opposition to democracy, they regard the will of the people as unpredictable and subject to demagoguery. The French and the British have always used their civil service to insulate their countries from the ravages of ambitious populist politicians. Germany has a well-deserved suspicion of popular sovereignty, and Japan has always been ruled by its bureaucracy.
Multinational corporations find bureaucrats easy to control, subject as they are to the influences of the revolving door between regulators and those they regulate. Coming from industry or planning to return there, the supposedly disinterested bureaucrats are anything but impartial.
What is incomprehensible is why normally trustworthy Republican senators and congressmen are falling in line behind Obama. Hasn't this president stripped our nation of enough power? Has he not tipped the system of checks and balances all out of kilter? Are we to trust him with more power? Are the Republicans to vote him more power?
Under fast-track authority he can negotiate anything he wants, put it in a treaty, jam it through Congress and make it the law of the land, permanently. Don't Republicans see what they are doing in handing him this kind of power?
In the hands of other presidents, fast-track made sense. Before the development of the World Trade Organization, free trade deals were the only way to stop a world of tariffs and prosperity-killing regulations. But now, the era of tariffs is over, and trade deals are really about sovereignty and power.
Don't hand over more of American sovereignty, particularly under this president!
-
This explains 100% the reason why Brock is shoving it down our throats in secret.
There is no way Brock is pushing it and it will be good for Americans. Zero chance.
No doubt rumors that it will help illegals have basis of truth to it. Cruz can say that President should pledge that he cannot do anything unilaterally towards this end but says nothing about it already being in the agreement buried on page 50,000 somewhere that it is already the case.
The Republicans are sell outs.
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-trade-agreement-fraud-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
This is from a Tea Party site of uneven reliability: http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/10/obamatrade-will-give-free-rein-to-obama-regarding-amnesty/
Obamatrade Will Give Free Rein To Obama Regarding Amnesty
June 10, 2015 By Colleen Conley
FacebookTwitterMore3.8K
Screen Shot 2015-06-10 at 3.07.38 PMTucked inside the secretive Obamatrade agreement about which Congress has been debating are broad new powers giving the President free rein over matters of illegal immigration.
A recent Wikileaks document dump on the dubious deal, described by some as more of a “treaty akin to the European Union” has prompted much commentary in the mainstream media, but little has been mentioned about the immigration chapter contained within.
Until now.
Fortunately, Breitbart looked deep within the documents and uncovered that the president’s “Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.”
Disturbingly, TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.
Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.
Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.
“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.
Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA.
It is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power, as the Senate passed the TPA last month. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union.
In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.
Obama has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. Of course, this is yet another lie by an Administration that does so with impunity.
Obama is once again attempting to circumvent the Constitution, this time with the express consent of a Republican majority Congress. Our representatives need to be told NOW that any legislation relinquishing such powers to the executive branch is unconscionable, and a violation of their constituents’ trust. Sign The Tea Party petition now to STOP OBAMATRADE!
-
I don't understand the politics of this decision at all. While I watched Dick Morris, I listened to Mark Levin on radio make the same points. They are so specific about what this and say supporters haven't read it because no one has. Well how do THEY know what is in it then.
Of course we don't trust Obama. But authority to negotiate a trade agreement for an up or down vote should include strict parameters from which to negotiate a trade agreement. In other words, an agreement named a trade agreement that includes non-trade items like all of what Dick Morris claims, giving away sovereignty etc., will NOT be brought before the House or Senate for an up and down vote. If it covers immigration issues too or changes our constitutional process, overrides congressional powers, any of these things, then it shall be amended. Put that in there and then give him the authorization.
Republicans have the majority in both the House and the Senate right now. They will have 60 days to read and argue it. Too bad Republicans can't trust Republicans to vote down a bad agreement.
-
Morris wrote this based upon a mistaken report that the bill had passed.
=======================================================
The Disgraceful Trade Vote
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 12, 2015
All but 54 courageous Republicans sided with President Obama to approve giving this president fast track authority to OK trade deals.
As a result, trade pacts will require only a majority vote in each house rather than the two-thirds specified for treaties in the Constitution. (I did not realize this!!!) And no amendments will be allowed. Debate will be limited and no filibusters permitted.
The spectacle of Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, fighting to give this president more power -- and Congress less -- is revolting.
And there is nothing to stop him from inserting anything he wants in the trade pacts. He can use them to advance his climate change agenda or to allow unrestricted immigration (free flow of labor). Obama promises not to do so, but what are his commitments worth?
So now don't trust Speaker John Boehner or Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Ryan when they protest Obama's executive power grabs. They handed him this one.
And it isn't about trade. 75% of the trade covered is with Canada and Mexico. We already have NAFTA guaranteeing free trade with them. This is about permitting a treaty to override the ability of state legislatures and Congress to govern such areas as genetic modification, intellectual property, and the like. It is a fraud and the Republicans who voted for it all deserve primary fights!
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/how-fast-track-allows-massive-immigration-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-treaties-trump-constitution/
-
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-treaties-trump-constitution/
The constitution means nothing to this lawless president.
-
http://pamelageller.com/2015/10/pamela-geller-breitbart-news-obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s.html/
-
With a New Trade Agreement, the Devil Is in the Details
Geopolitical Diary
October 6, 2015 | 00:42 GMT Text Size
Print
This morning, with little fanfare, the United States and 11 other nations announced they had reached a final agreement on the much discussed and meticulously negotiated trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is remarkable in its scale and scope, but equally remarkable have been the ordinary issues prolonging its adoption — dairy products in New Zealand, auto parts in Mexico, questions of patent regimes and new medicines. The devil is in the details, of course, and finding common ground between two nations, let alone a dozen, is rarely easy. And as difficult as the negotiations were, equally contentious political debates will soon begin in each of the new trade agreement's member countries.
The TPP was once seen as the centerpiece of the United States' "pivot" to Asia. It was a clear response to rising Chinese economic influence in the Asia-Pacific region and a push by Washington to gain increased access in Southeast Asia, one of the few dynamic markets in the world. But in recent months, the political aspects of the TPP have been played down by all involved, even by China. Rarely is the TPP described as an anti-China trade bloc any longer — unsurprising, given the significant amount of trade each TPP member does with China. There is also increased talk of the potential, however remote, of China's membership. This may all change now that the TPP has moved beyond the theoretical to the actual — or at least to the stage where the text will soon be revealed and domestic constituents will take over the role of debate.
What is a Geopolitical Diary?
Still, the political aspects of the TPP remain, no matter how each country's representatives try to downplay their implications. The TPP was not initially a U.S. invention; it was a small trade agreement among Singapore, New Zealand, Chile and Brunei. But as the United States started looking closer at the need to counter China's regional economic expansion, at least to reassure U.S. allies in the region if not to avoid falling behind the trade curve, the TPP presented an opportunity for Washington to take hold of a regional initiative and give it a new purpose. This was not the undertaking of the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama. It was initiated by the George W. Bush administration, near the end of his term, as Washington was able to focus back on the situation in Asia and begin to end its preoccupation with the Middle East.
The "pivot" was a recognition that the global geopolitical landscape was changing. The global center of gravity had shifted through the end of the Cold War to the present, moving from Europe and the North Atlantic westward, with the Pacific equaling and then surpassing the Atlantic in regard to international trade, and thus placing the Americas, and the United States, squarely in the middle. The rise of China, following on the heels of the Asian Tigers and Japan, contrasted strongly with the near economic exhaustion of Europe.
With the economic dynamism came an alteration to the balance of power. China's economic growth exerted its own pressure on Beijing, prompting and facilitating the nascent expansion of the Chinese military from a domestic security force to the early stages of an international expeditionary force. The U.S. global dominance that seemed set with the end of the Cold War was being challenged more formally than by terrorists and militants in Iraq or Afghanistan. This is not to say that China is an equal military power to the United States, and its expansion abroad remains in the very earliest of stages, but the United States is under no illusion about the growing regional implications of rising Chinese military power. Nor has it forgotten the example of Japan's rapid rise to military prominence during its emergence at the dawn of the 20th Century.
The TPP — alongside the U.S. engagement with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the political rehabilitation of Myanmar, the encouragement of Japanese "normalization" and expanding security cooperation with Vietnam and the Philippines — is part of the same response to shifting international patterns. The TPP may not be specifically about squeezing China out of its increasingly substantial economic role in the Asia-Pacific, but it is certainly in recognition of the rising significance of the region, and the challenges confronting an emerging power on the regional and global stage. China is a major power emerging a century late, long after it is fashionable to be seen as rising, expansionary or even imperialistic. The perception and responses are in part shaped by 19th and 20th century ideas of emerging powers, zero-sum games and global balances. But they are equally shaped by the new realities of integrated global markets, the heavy economic interactions and interdependencies between erstwhile competitors, and the evolving definitions and applications of "power" on a regional and global scale.
-
https://www.facebook.com/gretawire/videos/1045829935431866/
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/dolphins-facing-extermination-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
Year end is a good time for families to gauge whether our subscriptions and memberships are getting used enough to justify the expense for the new year. I was wondering if everyone thought we got our money's worth last year with our U.N. membership:
$2,957,000,000 /yr. is just one of their budgets, total expenses are hard to get a handle on.
Our share goes on that credit card where we only have to pay interest and even that can be borrowed. Favorable terms and low, variable interest because our co-signors are college students and the k-12 crowd who eventually get the bill. Some who will pay haven't even been born yet.
Like the Climate Conferences, it's nice to know the diplomats and kleptocrats are dining well with each other. But seriously, has anyone ever heard of SKYPE?
Would anyone join a peace club today where Vladimir Putin had veto power and Cuba, Iran, Syria and Nicaragua were voting members?
Our share of the worldwide cost is 22%. Other member states pay 0.001%.
-
Hat tip to DDF.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/01/10/report-obama-wants-become-un-secretary-general-netanyahu-doing-everything-he-can-stop-him
-
Hat tip to DDF.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/01/10/report-obama-wants-become-un-secretary-general-netanyahu-doing-everything-he-can-stop-him
Wouldn't that be funny, elect Obama UN Secretary General the same year that President Cruz or Rubio pulls the US out of the sham organization and puts the NY property up for sale to recover our lost dues. )
-
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/obama-administration-and-un-announce-global-police-force-to-fight-extremism-in-u-s/
When seen in the context of other actions, the smell of treason is in the air.
-
There would be no United Nations if not for the US. So of course the UN does it's best to dis respect us.
My answer would be to pull out of the UN:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/un-group-recommends-reparatory-justice-african-americans-213258469.html
-
In addition, how about reparations to Arabs that were involved in the slave trade in East Africa or victims of tribal kings who sold their own people into slavery? I could go on. But this is nothing more than an extortion attempt.
-
In addition, how about reparations to Arabs that were involved in the slave trade in East Africa or victims of tribal kings who sold their own people into slavery? I could go on. But this is nothing more than an extortion attempt.
Lots of African countries better get their checkbooks out.
-
http://www.unwatch.org/un-elect-syria-venezuela-to-top-posts-on-committee-against-subjugation-of-peoples/
-
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/28/fearing-trump-u-n-embraces-the-art-of-the-deal/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=*Editors%20Picks
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/world/asia/south-china-sea-hague-ruling-philippines.html?emc=edit_na_20160712&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
Members of the UN dropped in to Zacatecas today to inform us that their human rights report states that we (military and police) are ranked fifth in the world for torturing people.
I'm wondering how they would really know, and even if it was true (it isn't), what would that have to do with them?
They're chihuahuas with no teeth.
-
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-letter-reveals-plan-u-s-legal-commitment-unratified-nuclear-treaty/
-
Follow up from Presidential discussion:
DDF: I'm trying to do homework and also read the Trans-Pacific Partnership to pick it apart, and maybe send some things to Trump's campaign that he can use.
At 5,544 pages (it's hard to tell because the actual government link with the text is in several links due to its size), it weighs more than 100 lbs.
https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text
https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Preamble.pdf
I'm very interested in seeing that.
From a previous post in this thread:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2240.msg87731#msg87731
Crafty: In that only 5 out of 29 parts are about Trade, perhaps it would make more sense for our discussions to be the Sovereignty thread?
http://www.dickmorris.com/the-trade-agreement-fraud-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
This is my concern. I support the freedom to trade across borders without undue government interference, but I would like to know what the other 24 chapters are about. Is this where Hillary sees the gold standard in international agreements. What are the real infringements on our sovereignty in the TPP? Removing these is where Trump could call the countries back together and get a better agreement, one that doesn't violate our constitution or sovereignty, one we can sign.
-
Doug... I have two books I have to read and do reports on before Saturday AM. I'll get right on it after that, but definitely want to have it ready before the next debate, especially to get it floating around on social media.
P-Guru Crafty is correct. There are tons of things that have nothing to do with trade, child labor, healthcare, bribery, etc., that are loosely thrown in from what I've read so far.
Also, the legislation itself, doesn't even have the primary authors mentioned (from what I've seen thus far). There's a lot to it, and becoming a lawyer here in Mexico, it would behoove me to read it anyways since Mexico is a signatory.
I'll need until Sunday to process more of it, but I won't flake.
-
With hardly a peep from the media.
We the people were not asked , not consulted, not really even notified , had no say, no vote, our opinions not sought..........
Can anyone imagine if the progressive globalists have their way and succeed in eradicating borders and having one world government what that entity could do to control the world? Mind boggling:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/us-cuts-cord-internet-oversight-113602357.html
-
With hardly a peep from the media.
We the people were not asked , not consulted, not really even notified , had no say, no vote, our opinions not sought..........
Can anyone imagine if the progressive globalists have their way and succeed in eradicating borders and having one world government what that entity could do to control the world? Mind boggling:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/us-cuts-cord-internet-oversight-113602357.html
This is the first step to silencing dissent. Don't be too shocked when anything to the right of Huffpo suddenly disappears from the internet.
-
"This is the first step to silencing dissent. "
GM,
You are exactly right! Without even a single shot we are hurtling towards a world of COMPLETE totalitarianism.
And what does our candidate get bent our of shape to speak about:
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/30/496050913/trump-again-attacks-miss-universe-contestant
Forget Ailinsky,
Hitler and Mousilini and Stalin would all be in awe.
Years ago I really took our freedoms for granted. I remember discussing gun rights over 35 years ago with a friend who explained the reason for the second amendment and how he did not agree with me that it is to protect us from government after I thought perhaps we should make semi automatics etc illegal. I was dumbfounded to think we should worry about our very own American government suppressing us. Oh it can't happen here I thought.
Well it is.
But I never forgot our conversation and he changed my opinion then. Now it is in plain site.
-
Excellent work DDF and a fine choice of thread. However , , , this one is even better :lol:
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=2563.0
Please post your post here and subsequent posts there. TY.
-
"It was the last event that I'm going to be doing as first lady for Let Girls Learn and I had the pleasure of spending hours talking to some of the most amazing young women you will ever meet — young girls here in the U.S. and all around the world. And we talked about their hopes and their dreams. We talked about their aspirations. See many of these girls have faced unthinkable obstacles just to attend school. Jeopardizing their personal safety, their freedom, risking the rejection of their families and communities. So, I thought it would be important to remind these young women how valuable and precious they are.
I wanted them to understand that the measure of any society is how it treats its women and girls."
Spoken like the wife of the new head of the United Nations. Nice adjustment to Gandhi's quote as well, assuming women to be inherently "vulnerable."
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPDB3sYRWJI
-
Josh Rogin
Inside the coming war between the United States and the United Nations
By Josh Rogin December 28 at 7:01 AM
U.N. Security Council passes resolution on Israeli settlements
Play Video3:36
For the first time in 36 years, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution critical of Israel's Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory. The United States abstained. (Reuters)
Even before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, Congress is planning to escalate the clash over the U.N. Security Council’s anti-Israel resolution into a full-on conflict between the United States and the United Nations. If Trump embraces the strategy — and all signals indicate he will — the battle could become the Trump administration’s first confrontation with a major international organization, with consequential but largely unpredictable results.
Immediately after the Obama administration abstained Friday from a vote to condemn Israeli settlements as illegal, which passed the Security Council by a vote of 14 to zero, Republicans and Democrats alike criticized both the United Nations and the U.S. government for allowing what Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) called “a one-sided, biased resolution.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee for the State Department and foreign operations, pledged to lead an effort to withhold the U.S. funding that makes up 22 percent of the U.N.’s annual operating budget.
“The U.N. has made it impossible for us to continue with business as usual,” Graham told me right after the vote. “Almost every Republican will feel like this is a betrayal of Israel and the only response that we have is the power of purse.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, never shy about working with Republicans against the Obama administration, told Graham: “Please stand with us, it’s time to take the gloves off,” according to Graham.
In the days since the vote, three Republican senators and their staffs have been working up options behind the scenes for how to convert their threat into action: Graham, Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.). They believe they will have support for quick Senate action from both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a strong supporter of Israel.
There are several options under consideration, two senior Senate aides working on the issue told me. Some are considered “micro” options, such as passing a resolution that would bar any funding that might go to implementing the anti-settlement resolution. Other options include withdrawing the United States from U.N. organizations such as UNESCO or passing legislation to protect settlers who are American citizens and might be vulnerable to consequences of the resolution.
Withholding U.S. contributions to the United Nations could be done in different ways. There are discretionary funds Congress can easily cut off, but the bulk of U.S. support is obligatory, mandated by treaties that Congress has ratified, making them de facto U.S. law. Depending on how drastic the funding cuts are to be, Congress may have to pass new legislation to undo some of the obligations.
Senators are also looking at ways to withhold U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority or perhaps punish the Palestine Liberation Organization representative office in Washington. Republicans in the Senate don’t plan to wait until Trump is actually in office; aides said to expect action as soon as senators return to Washington next week.
“We will make a very strong attempt to do something immediately,” one senior GOP senate aide said. “It is a real moment to reexamine the relationship with the United Nations and what it really does.”
Not all involved agree on whether the effort is simply about pressuring the Security Council to reverse course on the settlements resolution, or to fundamentally challenge a broad range of U.N. practices and reorient the U.S. approach to the United Nations overall.
Rick Santorum, who served in the Senate the last time the United States refused to pay its dues in full, told me that the coming crisis in U.S.-U.N. relations is the perfect chance for those who want to dismantle the organization altogether.
“This has opened up the opportunity for those of us who are very anti-U.N., who think the it has passed its prime, it’s not serving any really good purpose, it’s not helping legitimate governments around the world and it’s outlived its usefulness,” he said. “To the extent we can deconstruct it, the better.”
During the presidential campaign, most observers predicted that if elected, Trump would focus his international-organization ire on NATO, which he often criticized as being obsolete and a burden on U.S. taxpayers. Now, Santorum said, the United Nations could be first up for action.
“The focus will come off NATO and will move squarely onto the U.N.,” he said. “It’s going to be a very raucous time. Barack Obama, with this move, did more damage to the United Nations than he did to Israel.”
Some Republicans in Congress are comparing the coming U.S. response to the anti-settlement resolution to the U.S. opposition in 1975 to a U.N. General Assembly resolution that equated Zionism with racism. U.S. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan led the U.S. opposition to that resolution and gave a famous speech defending the Jewish state from international persecution. That resolution was eventually repealed.
Other Republican foreign-policy experts see the coming battle as more akin to the effort by then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) to withhold portions of America’s U.N. dues in order to pressure the body into reforms. After years of tension, Helms eventually joined with then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) to pass legislation restoring U.S. funding in exchange for a compromise on reforms.
[The Obama administration fires a dangerous parting shot]
President Clinton signed the Helms-Biden legislation, and the Clinton administration negotiated many but not all of the reforms with U.N. leadership. In January 2000, Helms became the first U.S. senator ever to speak directly to the U.N. Security Council, after the deal was struck.
“The interests of the United States are better served by demanding reform and seeing that reform takes place than by removing our influence from the U.N.,” Helms said at the time. “It may surprise people to know that I advocate the reform of the United Nations, not its abolishment.”
Danielle Pletka, who served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff under Helms, said the lesson of that episode is that taking on the United Nations can be done, but not without costs and the risk of retaliation. The United Nations could stop doing things that the United States sees as important. Allied countries that value U.N. operations will be upset if those programs are affected. Also, the dues don’t go just go away.
“When you don’t pay, it’s like a mortgage, the bill just racks up. At the end of the day, we negotiated with the United Nations, but we paid a tax,” Pletka said. “This is a great opportunity for Donald Trump to show us he can negotiate the art of the deal. The Congress can give him leverage.”
There are signs that the Trump administration might be willing to make that deal. Its nominees for secretary of state and U.N. ambassador, Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, respectively have no ideological baggage on the issue. Trump himself tweeted that the United Nations “has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”
The Security Council’s anti-settlement resolution has opened up a Pandora’s box in Washington, allowing anyone with a grievance against the world body to have their day in the sun. But most in Washington believe that despite the body’s problems, the United States is better off with a functioning United Nations and should seek as much influence there as possible. Congress and the Trump administration must be strategic and thoughtful as they chart out what seems to be an inevitable clash.
-
Defund it and kick it out of the US. I bet Somalia has lots of room for the new UN complex.
-
ian bremmerVerified account
@ianbremmer
2016 UNGA Resolutions Against
Israel: 20
Syria: 1
Iran: 1
N Korea: 1
Russia: 1
Seems imbalanced.
-
It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it.
Andrew McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.
-
It needs us (to fund its corruption and globalist financial and political interests as well as those from countries that skim - no not skim milk) more then we need it.
Andrew McCarthy:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443642/us-leave-united-nations.
Repeal and replace, ASAP, s'il vous plaît.
The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget. And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.
What has the UN done lately about the South China Sea? How are they doing on Middle East peace? Did they stop the nuclear program in NK yet? China and Russia have veto power, are you kidding? Qaddafi was the head of the Human Rights Commission. George Orwell couldn't have come up with that. And the UN has the worst charity record on the planet.
-
The new organization should have entrance rules so tight that the US doesn't qualify until we pass our own reforms, get5 back some freedoms and balance our budget. And if we host it, we host it in Peoria or Topeka, not NYC, equal distant between Europe and Asia.
:-D
The Aleutian islands would be good too.
1) Not far from North Korea . Maybe , just maybe, maybe then the phonies might do something about that Kim Jong-un in N Korea. That's right the kid whose father let 1,000,000 of his fellow countrymen starve to death! Oh but israel is evil. :roll:
2) and some kodiak bears. Maybe the bears could be trained to eat communists and socialists though salmon probably do taste better.
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/united-nations-trump-administration.html?_r=0
-
"Haley’s Comet" | Editorial of The New York Sun | February 16, 2017 | on Nikki Haley
A star is born is our reaction to the first press briefing by President Trump’s new ambassador at the United Nations. The ex-governor of South Carolina was ridiculed by the Left when the president first sent her nomination up to the Hill, owing to her alleged lack of foreign policy chops. She certainly rang the wake up gong for that crowd this morning, after emerging from her first Security Council monthly meeting devoted to the Middle East. Tough as nails but with a smile and a layer of Southern charm.
The ambassador had just come from the regular monthly Security Council on Middle East issues. She said it was her first such meeting, and “it was a bit strange.” The Security Council, she said, is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But the meeting, she said, was not about Hezbollah’s illegal buildup of rockets in Lebanon, it was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists, it was not how we defeat ISIS, it was not how we hold Beshar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of thousands of civilians.
“No,” she said, “instead the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated month after month for decades. I am here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore to the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I am here to emphasize that the United States is determined to stand up to the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias.”
The ambassador made clear that the Trump administration will not support the kind of resolution from which the Obama administration’s ambassador — Samantha Power — shamefully abstained, though Mrs. Haley was too polite to name the humiliated Ms. Power. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”
“Incredibly,” Mrs. Haley said, “the U.N. department of political affairs has an entire division devoted entirely to Palestinian affairs. Imagine that. There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches form North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors, and it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us. The double standards are breathtaking.”
The ambassador warned that it is “the U.N.’s anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change,” and said America will not hesitate to speak out in defense of its friend in Israel. All this was going on while the press was questioning President Trump on what he was going to do about anti-Semitism. If his ambassador to the world body is any example, the answer is plenty. She has the principles of a Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the grit of a John Bolton, and the star power of a Jeane Kirkpatrick, and in her first press briefing she certainly made her point.
-
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Populism--VI--Populism-versus-populism-8592
"So why is the Paris Agreement an issue for Trump? Because, knowing all of this, Obama signed it anyway. He calculated that climate-change pain could be imposed without Congress’s consent—just as he unilaterally subjected the nation to the security risks of the Iran nuclear deal, another multilateral agreement that was never ratified under U.S. law but was “endorsed” by the United Nations (specifically, by the Security Council).
"Alas, Obama’s calculation was shrewd. Transnational progressives have developed cagey ways to circumvent democratic obstacles to their globalist agenda. International agreements are drafted to include terms purporting that they “enter into force” when a certain modest number of nations sign them, regardless of whether this is sufficient to bind any particular signatory nation under its domestic law. The Paris Agreement, for example, is said to have “entered into force” on November 4, 2016, on the strength of acceptance by a mere fifty-five nations (out of 197 that are “parties to the convention”). Once an agreement is “in force,” international lawyers and bureaucrats begin claiming that it has created “norms” with which even non-signatory nations must comply under “customary international law.”
"Moreover, another international agreement, the 1969 Vienna Convention on Treaties, holds that a nation’s signature on a treaty, even if not adequate for ratification under that nation’s law, obliges that nation to refrain from any action that could undermine the treaty’s objectives. Since the United States has never ratified the Convention on Treaties, you might think its provisions are irrelevant to our consideration. But the post–World War II web of multilateral conventions is the maddening thicket of transnational progressivism, where “the law” is whatever end progressives seek to achieve—and the principle of democratic consent is a quaint oddity. The U.S. State Department, a devotee of international legal structures despite their erosions of American sovereignty, tells us that because several other nations have ratified the Convention on Treaties, “many” of its provisions are now binding customary international law even if the treaty remains unratified. Thus—voila!—the conceit that presidents (progressive ones, anyway) may unilaterally subject the nation to international obligations, even ruinous burdens, without any input, much less approval, by the people’s elected representatives."
-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14414/good-trump-secretary-state-threatens-leave-hank-berrien?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=031417-news&utm_campaign=position4
-
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/new-sheriff-in-town-nikki-haley-is-blowing-up-obamas-lead-from-behind-un-strategy
-
"Consider it a campaign promise rightly kept." Unconstitutional by design, a feature not a bug.
It takes 4 years to get out of a 'non-binding agreement'. What??! Sounds binding.
The agreement holds us to a different standard and cost than our economic partners and competitors.
It's called a "treaty" everywhere else but an "Accord" in the US because liberals control the language and if we called it a treaty it would require 2/3rds of the Senate to confirm. That pesky constitution again!
Pres. Obama entered the US in the accord with lame duck timing, Sept. 3 2016. The only election referendum on the issue was Trump's win, asked and answered.
The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.
The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.
There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010. Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand.
-
""The cost estimate is $100 trillium - likely to go up from there.
The temperature mitigation through the end of the century, year 2100, is 0.3 degrees C by UN models and math, likely overstated by seven-fold, within the margin of error rounding to zero.
There is zero chance that CO2 will be our biggest worry in 2010. Carbon dioxide will still be essential for life and still have a concentration in the atmosphere of less than one part per thousand."
Doug,
I also love the LEFTIST mantra about leaving the Paris conglomeration of empty promises is that this will kill jobs and clean energy would be boon for the economy and create millions of jobs.
If clean energy is such a great business then let some of these big mouths put *their money* into it.
Let Musk pay for it! Let Zuckerdouchbag pay for it! Let GE pay for it. Let Disney pay for it! let Jeff Sachs pay for it from his book money!
Come on - they keep telling us what great business this is.
Why does it have to be tax payer money?
-
Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216
I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world. This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others.
The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup. Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics.
I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children. Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.
-
Oy vey! :-o :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
-
Pope Francis called for “a one world government” and “political authority” this week, arguing that the creation of the one world government is needed to combat major issues such as “climate change.”
Speaking with Ecuador’s “El Universo” newspaper, the Pope said that the United Nations doesnt have enough power and must be granted full governmental control “for the good of humanity.”
https://archive.fo/LM08L#selection-807.0-903.216
I have done enough defending of the Catholic Church. My last observation attending is how badly their attendance has fallen. Christianity should be a force for GOOD in the world. This man should not use his questionable authority in one area to make ignorant proclamations in others.
The United Nations is a complete failure, should be disbanded, the US shouldn't be in it, rename it an Israel hate group, and the Catholic Church should go under a money audit and be prosecuted under RICO statute for their own shameful behavior and coverup. Maybe then they won't have time for supporting failed governance and economics.
I wonder what portion of their massive money machine goes to pay for priests preying on children. Maybe he should speak out on that instead of siding with the abortion crowd on every other issue.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/we-are-witnessing-today-st.-john-paul-iis-prophesy-of-an-anti-church-cathol
We are witnessing St. John Paul II’s prophesy of an ‘anti-Church’: Catholic priest
Amoris Laetitia , Anti-Church , Anti-Gospel , Catholic , Linus Clovis , Our Lady Of Fatima , Pope Francis , Pope John Paul Ii , Rome Life Forum 2017
ROME, May 18, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- St. John Paul II’s 1976 prophetic warning about the rise of an “anti-Church” that would preach an “anti-Gospel” is being fulfilled today by leaders within the Catholic Church, even at the highest levels, said a priest in a talk given at a Catholic conference today in Rome.
Fr. Linus Clovis of Family Life International said in his talk at the Rome Life Forum, organized by Voice of the Family, that the anti-Gospel of the anti-Church is often “indistinguishable from secular ideology, which has overturned both the natural law and the Ten Commandments.”
Image
Fr. Linus Clovis at the 2015 Rome Life Forum. Claire Chretien / LifeSiteNews
“This anti-Gospel, which seeks to elevate the individual’s will to consume, to pleasure and to power over the will of God, was rejected by Christ when tempted in the wilderness. Disguised as ‘human rights,’ it has reappeared, in all its luciferian hubris, to promulgate a narcissistic, hedonistic attitude that rejects any constraint except that imposed by man-made laws,” he said.
Read Fr. Clovis' full talk here.
During his visit to America 41 years ago, Cardinal Karol Wojtyla, the archbishop of Cracow who two years later would become Pope John Paul II, delivered his prophetic message in Philadelphia, on the occasion of the bicentennial anniversary of American Independence. Wojtyle said:
We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.
We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.
Clovis said that while the rise of the anti-Church has been happening slowly but steadily over the past decades, it’s emergence has been especially noticeable in the last few years.
“For the past half-century, there has been a growing crisis in the Church, arising as much from a lack of clear and unambiguous teaching, as from the climate of dissent among priests, religious and laity. Within the contemporary Church, the crisis has been brought to fever pitch, if not breaking point, by the rejection of Our Lord’s yes/no paradigm and the undermining of established doctrinal positions by protean pastoral practises,” he said.
He noted that there is a sense among faithful Catholics that “things ecclesiastic and catholic are falling apart and a pastoral anarchy has been loosed upon the Church.” He said that a “hidden exercise of power” is currently at work within the Church that is fueling such anarchy.
[It] can reform the marriage annulment process without the customary consultation of the appropriate Roman dicasteries; issue a broad and scathing rebuke of the Roman Curia in a Christmas address; purge a dicastery’s membership, which effectively vitiate the influence of its Prefect who had stood firmly against innovations injurious both to the teachings on marriage and to the tenets of the liturgy; cripple the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate; and shut down the Melbourne campus of the John Paul II Institute.
Clovis said that accompanying the rise of the anti-Church is a direct assault on the very “pillar of creation” and foundation of the social order, namely, the truth of the relationship between man and woman as expressed in marriage and the family. He recalled how Sister Lucia, one of the Fatima visionaries, once said that “the final battle between the Lord and the kingdom of Satan will be about marriage and the family.”
“It is well known that any tampering with a keystone risks the collapse of the entire building," he said. “The keystone, the basic cell of society is marriage and family.”
And the anti-Church is working its hardest to undermine that keystone.
“With the tacit acceptance of contraception and divorce, the recent ‘merciful’ embracing of remarried civil divorcees and the benign nod to same-sex ‘marriage,’ the keystone has been tampered with and the omega point has been reached,” Clovis said.
He noted how atheistic secularism, which fuels the anti-Church, has been “working for the demise of the family, its driving spirit being the LGBT ideology; its public face, ‘political correctness;’ its Sunday dress, ‘inclusivity and non-judgmentalism.’
He warned Catholics how the anti-Church will try to deceive the faithful by passing itself off as the true Church.
It is self-evident that the Catholic Church and the anti-Church currently co-exist in the same sacramental, liturgical and juridical space. The latter, having grown stronger, is now attempting to pass itself off as the true Church, all the better to induct, or coerce, the faithful into becoming adherents, promoters and defenders of a secular ideology.
Should the anti-Church succeed in commandeering all the space of the true Church, the rights of man will supplant the rights of God through the desecration of the sacraments, the sacrilege of the sanctuary, and the abuse of apostolic power.
Thus, politicians who vote for abortion and same-sex “marriage” will be welcome at the Communion rails; husbands and wives who have abandoned their spouses and children and entered into adulterous relationships will be admitted to the sacraments; priests and theologians who publicly reject Catholic doctrines and morals will be at liberty to exercise ministry and to spread dissent, while faithful Catholics will be marginalised, maligned and discredited at every turn. Thus, the anti-Church would succeed in achieving its goal of dethroning God as Creator, Saviour and Sanctifier and replacing Him with man the self-creator, the self-saviour and the self-sanctifier.
Clovis said that the anti-Church works to achieve its goal of overcoming the true Church by intimidating the faithful, including the laity, priests, and bishops, into submission.
To achieve its objectives, the anti-Church, in collaboration with the secular powers, uses the law and media to browbeat the true Church into submission. By adroit use of the media, the activists of the anti-Church have managed to intimidate bishops, clergy and most of the Catholic press into silence. Equally, the lay faithful are terrorised by fear of the hostility, ridicule and hate that would be visited upon them should they object to the imposition of LGBT ideology.
For example, in 2015, the congregation of St Nicholas of Myra in the Archdiocese of Dublin gave a standing ovation to their parish priest when he declared from the pulpit that he was gay and urged them to support same-sex ‘marriage’ in the Irish referendum. It is not difficult to imagine the kind of treatment that an objector would have received. Thus, the oppressive influence of the anti-Church is most clearly seen at work when a person is fearful to openly uphold God’s revelation about homosexuality, abortion or contraception in their parish community.
Adherents to the anti-Church especially target priests and bishops to tow the line of the anti-Gospel, knowing that once they are brought into submission they can influence countless souls away from the true Church.
Priests and bishops are the immediate and more natural leaders of the laity and they, above all, are caught in the broadening spectrum of fear generated by the anti-Church. Additionally, because of the clerical vow of obedience and respect, their fear, being reverential, is greatly aggravated, especially when they find their ranks divided; their unity split; long standing sacramental disciplines violated; canon law ignored; their evangelising spirit dismissed as proselytism and solemn nonsense.
In regard to their persons, they are labelled as little monsters throwing stones at poor sinners, or who reduce the sacrament of reconciliation to a torture chamber or, hide behind the Church’s teachings, sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality.
As clerical sons, they see themselves as less deserving of a papal embrace than Italy’s arch-abortionist Emma Bonino and even less worthy of rehabilitation than renowned false prophet and global population and abortion advocate, Paul Ehrlich.
As priests, they are told they owe an apology to gays and that the ‘great majority’ of Catholic marriages they would have blessed are invalid; in addition, they are called sayers of prayers and, for considering Mass attendance and frequent confession as important, are branded Pelagians.
As Catholics, knowing that the Five First Saturdays were requested in reparation for blasphemy against our most Blessed Lady, they are personally affronted by the scurrilous musings that, on Calvary, where She became the Mother of all those redeemed by Christ, the Holy Virgin of Fatima perhaps, desired in Her heart to say to the Lord “Lies! Lies! I was deceived.” As ‘trees of the forest shake before the wind,’ so clerical hearts quake with fear at the possibility that they could actually be more Catholic than the Pope!
Clovis called Pope Francis’ influence within the Church a “great and true blessing” since the Pope’s ambiguous teaching have prompted the anti-Church to emerge from the shadows in clear view of all the faithful. This now gives the faithful a clear choice regarding which master they will follow.
“A hidden conflict has been raging in the Church for over one hundred years: a conflict explicitly revealed to Pope Leo XIII, partially contained by St. Pius X, unleashed at Vatican II. Under Francis, the first Jesuit pope, the first pope from the Americas and the first pope whose priestly ordination was in the New Rite, it is now full blown, with the potential of rendering the Church smaller but more faithful,” he said.
He said that Francis’ most recent Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is an example of a force at work within the Church today that helps establish the dividing line between the anti-Church and the true Church of Jesus Christ.
“The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia is the catalyst that has divided not only bishops and Episcopal Conferences from each other but, priests from their bishops and from each other, and the laity, anxious and confused,” he said.
“As a Trojan horse, Amoris Laetitia spells spiritual ruin for the entire Church. As a gauntlet thrown down it calls for courage in overcoming fear. In either case, it is now poised to separate the anti-Church of which St. John Paul II spoke from the Church that Christ founded. As the separation begins to take place, each one of us, like the angels, will have to decide for himself whether he would rather be wrong with Lucifer than right without him,” he added.
Clovis tied his main points to the 100th anniversary of Our Lady appearing in Fatima. He said that she “proposed a strategy which, if adopted would secure the salvation of a great number of souls.”
“The strategy required that, in order to ‘appease God, who was already so deeply offended,’ three major conditions should be satisfied, namely, a reform of morals with full adherence to natural and divine laws, the Five First Saturdays devotion and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,” he said.
“Then to further emphasise how perilous the approaching times would be, the Virgin, with motherly concern, warned of the consequences of ignoring Her message: wars, Russia spreading her errors, the persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father. She, nonetheless, concluded Her message with a vestige of hope: ‘in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph and a period of peace will be given to the world,’” he added.
Clovis said that Catholics seeking to be faithful to Christ and the Church he founded need not be afraid of the present turmoil they are witnessing.
“At Baptism, we became members of the Church Militant and, at Confirmation, soldiers of Christ; we, therefore, have been recruited and armed for deadly combat against the three implacable enemies of our souls: the world, the flesh and the devil,” he said.
“Recognising that ‘we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places,’ we fight, like the Apostles, taking the martyrs for our models and Christ Jesus, Himself as our reward,” he added.
-
US withdrawal from the Paris accord screwed up the the press release coming out of the G20. A site in Australia picked up the real communique as intended:
“We, the leaders of the G20 (and thousands of hangers-on), met in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7-8, at cost to taxpayers of hundreds of millions of euros.
“We remain amazed and grateful that the world’s media continues to cover this luxurious circus, unrivalled in production of inanities, year after year. We, as the world’s premier body for economic discussion, are proud of our record in lifting waffle to levels of sophistication unimaginable in an earlier era.
“The media and the political class can achieve more together than by acting alone.
“We once again met at a time of profound change amid sustained continuity. We are determined to calibrate and co-ordinate our policy frameworks to foster economic growth that is confident, strong and nice. Growth has been too wonky and lopsided, with an insufficient level of sharing.
“We undertake to consult often, widely and effectively, via landline and mobile telephone, Facebook messenger, WeChat (in China), including through use of GIFs where appropriate.
“We have come together as one to make totally unverifiable undertakings in support of three appealing nouns that we agreed at last year’s Hangzhou summit in China: resilience, sustainability, and fun. In the interests of avoiding international awkwardness we have resolved never to raise, discuss or even allude to the rationale for, or outcome of, the British general election earlier this year in front of the British Prime Minister Theresa May.
“We acknowledge that Ivanka is amazing. She is so amazing. She is absolutely terrific. We also fully support the aspirations of women and girls and applaud in particular Saudi Arabia’s undertaking to make women’s issues the centrepiece of its summit in 2020.
“We condemn actions by North Korea that risk impairing global harmony. Sad!
“We have secured the services of distinguished diplomat Hans Blix, who will spearhead a cross-country delegation charged with conveying our sentiments to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. We indicate in the strongest terms our determination to defend western, eastern, southern and northern values.
“We extend an invitation to South Australia’s Premier Jay Weatherill, and his 17 media advisers, to update the G20 on the success of his government’s bold climate saving initiatives at the 2018 summit in Buenos Aires, where, inspired by practice at APEC, we will dress up as lithium batteries for an official photograph to signal our support.
“We acknowledge differences of opinion among members on the efficacy of the Paris Agreement on climate change, and now strenuously undertake to limit global temperature increase to no more than 2.16 degrees Celsius by 2104…
“As part of our new Partnership with Africa we urge Africa to consider new ways to be less poor as part of our global efforts to reduce terrorism and the flow of refugees into G20 countries.
“We also welcome establishment of the Kleptomania Mitigation Taskforce, which will examine innovative ways to curb inappropriate use of foreign aid, to be spearheaded by Rwanda and Congo as part of the African Union’s Agenda 2063."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/the-g20-hangover.php
-
coming from the most successful diplomatic giant of the past century this really means a lot:
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/madeleine-albright-united-nations-donald-trump-speech/2017/09/20/id/814705/
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/us/politics/trump-unesco-withdrawal.html?emc=edit_na_20171012&nl=breaking-news&nlid=49641193&ref=cta&_r=0
-
Short list of countries that support the US:
https://twitter.com/noa_landau/status/943893607647449088/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.haaretz.com%2Fisrael-news%2F1.830498
Besides Israel and the US voting against the condemnation of the the US were a few small Pacific islands, Honduras, Guatemala and Haiti.
Hating us less than the others were those abstaining including:
Australia, Argentina, Canada, Hungary, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Poland
Siding with the Palestinians over the US: Most nations including Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan
Taking names and remembering.
-
How to Defund the U.N.
A few of its agencies do useful work. American taxpayers shouldn’t pay for the many that don’t.Angerer/Getty Images
By John Bolton
Dec. 25, 2017 3:17 p.m. ET
310 COMMENTS
As an assistant secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, I worked vigorously to repeal a hateful United Nations General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism. Foreign diplomats frequently told me the effort was unnecessary. My Soviet counterpart, for example, said Resolution 3379 was only a piece of paper gathering dust on a shelf. Why stir up old controversies years after its 1975 adoption?
We ignored the foreign objections and persisted because that abominable resolution cast a stain of illegitimacy and anti-Semitism on the U.N. It paid off. On Dec. 16, 1991, the General Assembly rescinded the offensive language.
Now, a quarter-century later, the U.N. has come close to repeating Resolution 3379’s original sin. Last week the U.N. showed its true colors with a 128-9 vote condemning President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
This seemingly lopsided outcome obscured a significant victory and major opportunity for the president. Thirty-five countries abstained, and 21 didn’t vote at all. Days earlier the Security Council had endorsed similar language, 14-1, defeated only by the U.S. veto. The margin narrowed significantly once Mr. Trump threatened to penalize countries that voted against the U.S. This demonstrated once again that America is heard much more clearly at the U.N. when it puts its money where its mouth is. (In related news, Guatemala announced Sunday it will move its embassy to Jerusalem, a good example for others.)
While imposing financial repercussions on individual governments is entirely legitimate, the White House should also reconsider how Washington funds the U.N. more broadly. Should the U.S. forthrightly withdraw from some U.N. bodies (as we have from UNESCO and as Israel announced its intention to do on Friday)? Should others be partially or totally defunded? What should the government do with surplus money if it does withhold funds?
Despite decades of U.N. “reform” efforts, little or nothing in its culture or effectiveness has changed. Instead, despite providing the body with a disproportionate share of its funding, the U.S. is subjected to autos-da-fé on a regular basis. The only consolation, at least to date, is that this global virtue-signaling has not yet included burning the U.S. ambassador at the stake.
Turtle Bay has been impervious to reform largely because most U.N. budgets are financed through effectively mandatory contributions. Under this system, calculated by a “capacity to pay” formula, each U.N. member is assigned a fixed percentage of each agency’s budget to contribute. The highest assessment is 22%, paid by the U.S. This far exceeds other major economies, whose contribution levels are based on prevailing exchange rates rather than purchasing power parity. China’s assessment is just under 8%.
Why does the U.S. tolerate this? It is either consistently outvoted when setting the budgets that determine contributions or has joined the “consensus” to avoid the appearance of losing. Yet dodging embarrassing votes means acquiescing to increasingly high expenditures.
The U.S. should reject this international taxation regime and move instead to voluntary contributions. This means paying only for what the country wants—and expecting to get what it pays for. Agencies failing to deliver will see their budgets cut, modestly or substantially. Perhaps America will depart some organizations entirely. This is a performance incentive the current assessment-taxation system simply does not provide.
Start with the U.N. Human Rights Council. Though notorious for its anti-Israel bias, the organization has never hesitated to abuse America. How many know that earlier this year the U.N. dispatched a special rapporteur to investigate poverty in the U.S.? American taxpayers effectively paid a progressive professor to lecture them about how evil their country is.
The U.N.’s five regional economic and social councils, which have no concrete accomplishments, don’t deserve American funding either. If nations believe these regional organizations are worthwhile—a distinctly dubious proposition—they are entirely free to fund them. Why America is assessed to support them is incomprehensible.
Next come vast swaths of U.N. bureaucracy. Most of these budgets could be slashed with little or no real-world impact. Start with the Office for Disarmament Affairs. The U.N. Development Program is another example. Significant savings could be realized by reducing other U.N. offices that are little more than self-licking ice cream cones, including many dealing with “Palestinian” questions. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees could be consolidated into the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
Many U.N. specialized and technical agencies do important work, adhere to their mandates and abjure international politics. A few examples: the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. They shouldn’t be shuttered, but they also deserve closer scrutiny.
Some will argue incorrectly that unilaterally moving to voluntary contributions violates the U.N. Charter. In construing treaties, like contracts, parties are absolved from performance when others violate their commitments. Defenders of the assessed-contribution model would doubtless not enjoy estimating how often the charter has been violated since 1945.
If the U.S. moved first, Japan and some European Union countries might well follow America’s lead. Elites love the U.N., but they would have a tough time explaining to voters why they are not insisting their contributions be used effectively, as America has. Apart from risking the loss of a meaningless General Assembly vote—the Security Council vote and veto being written into the Charter itself—the U.S. has nothing substantial to lose.
Thus could Mr. Trump revolutionize the U.N. system. The swamp in Turtle Bay might be drained much more quickly than the one in Washington.
Mr. Bolton is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (Simon & Schuster, 2007). He served as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., 2005-06.
-
We still need a new international organization - for guidance, not governance. G7 will meet tomorrow. Group of 7, wikipedia: "These countries, with the 7 largest advanced economies in the world,..." What?
Nice that the group now excludes Russia, not close to top 10 but part of the former G8 or 7+1. They were included in the past for their nuclear threat??
Also excluded is China, world's second largest economy, India, 6th, and Brazil's economy is larger than Italy's.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022415/worlds-top-10-economies.asp
If economy is measured per capita, plenty of others would jump up on the list.
We and our friends define what 'advanced' means and certainly we should be able to meet with any group of like minded people of mutual agreement. We'll see what comes out of this that is positive and relevant.
But we are still in urgent need to form a new global group of significance to take over functions of the failed UN with new credibility. The group in my mind would have criteria for membership that are realistic and attainable but not automatic. Libya and Syria won't be leading the human rights commission and Hamas and Hezbollah won't be voting on the legitimacy of Israel's defensive actions. G7 proves we can be discriminating. Looking back again to the Heritage index, an association of free countries should have to hit some kind of minimum freedom level in all of the important areas in order to have a vote and a turn at the podium. Not a group where Chavez lectures us and Kruschev pound his shoe.
Mark it up on Trump's accomplishments as soon as he gets the ball rolling. And then de-fund the UN. We'll pay for one vote at the UN, not the lion's share to be treated like a mouse.
-
Ending The ‘Theater of the Absurd’ At The UNHRC
by Gregg Roman
The Hill
June 20, 2018
https://www.meforum.org/articles/2018/ending-the-theater-of-the-absurd-at-the-unhrc
It is possible that there is no more misplaced and absurdly titled international body than the United Nations Human Rights Council. Though the name sounds noble, its work is anything but, so it is entirely correct that the United States no longer plays along with this macabre charade and has officially withdrawn from the organization.
Like all United Nations bodies, the UNHRC is a sum of its parts and, on closer inspection of the countries that make up the council such as Afghanistan, Qatar, Cuba and China, it is clear that the “inmates are running the asylum.”
Only a minority of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by the independent NGO Freedom House. The majority of nations currently represented on this self-styled “human rights” body do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global civil liberties.
The UNHRC disproportionately focuses on Israel while ignoring abuses of repressive autocracies like China.
In fact, many repressive countries seek a seat on the council not to advance the vision of Eleanor Roosevelt, chair of the committee that drafted and approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to serve as a barrier against the possibility of investigation and condemnation. It’s a strategy that has worked well for many countries where there is no democracy, freedom of religion, protections for minorities, or women’s rights.
During more than 50 UNHRC sessions, only 14 of 193 countries have been condemned, leaving the serial human rights-abusing nations completely unscathed.
One could argue that the only matter of concern to many of these repressive dictatorships is to single out one country: the State of Israel. There have been far more resolutions adopted against Israel than against all the other 192 nations on earth combined.
In addition, the UNHRC’s Article 7 singles out the “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied territories,” the only region-specific issue on the council’s agenda every month.
All of this means that the United States has no business being on a body that uniquely condemns one of its strongest allies and serves to bolster and defend autocracies, dictatorships, monocracies and regimes that massacre and repress their own people and others.
There is no justification for the presence of the United States on the UNHRC, and our leaving it sends a clear message to allies and foes alike that the situation of repressive regimes using the United Nations to shield their abuses and distract and deflect attention toward the one Jewish state stands against the lofty vision of human rights, equality and equity.
It also will hopefully shame the few other free democracies that carry on the charade that takes place on the banks of Lake Geneva. Perhaps it can even lead to some meaningful reform.
In 2003, when the UNHRC’s predecessor, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, elected the murderous regime of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi as chair, for many this was the final straw.
This prompted then-U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan to call for scrapping the commission, which he said was plagued with “politicization,” “selectivity” and a “credibility deficit,” all of which “cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.”
Some might argue, quite rightly, that the UNHRC is actually worse than its predecessor. However, there is no moral voice from above to call for its disbanding. Thus, it is left to the United States to force its hand.
By withdrawing from the UNHRC, the United States has dented the U.N. body’s credibility. Moreover, the reduction in funding which the U.S. announced, across the United Nations sphere, will force the multilateral organization to take a look at itself and see where it is going wrong. The United States is the largest contributor to the United Nations, paying 22 percent of the organization's annual budget.
The United Nations is fast descending into a completely politicized body that attacks democracies and provides a space for rogue regimes to run the multilateral sphere. This hurts not only the United States and its interests, but certainly acts against the mandate the United Nations created for itself.
The United States has taken the moral high ground by leaving the UNHRC. This is part of this Trump administration’s message of standing firm against opponents and not turning a blind eye to allies that hurt America and its interests. This action should put the international community on notice that normal service will not be resumed in the “Theater of the Absurd.”
Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum, a nonprofit organization that promotes American interests.
-
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180622/united-states-holds-the-line-during-discussions-on-the-un-s-gun-control-programme-of-action
-
http://carolineglick.com/europe-seeks-to-pin-down-president-trump-and-america/
-
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/migrant-caravan-u-s-sovereignty/
"The U.N. is committing resources to the caravan. In essence, it uses U.S. taxpayers' money to fund a violation of their own border. That way, the U.S. can join all the other countries with a mass immigration problem.
As the UN News service reported, "A priority for UNHCR (the UN's refugee agency), which has mobilized extra staff and resources to help . Those making the journey in Mexico's southern borderlands, is ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum. In an agency video, a UNHCR protection associate said many migrants were simply unaware asylum was an option."
In other words, the U.N. has set up shop in Mexico and is pushing these migrants to go to the U.S. Once again, the U.N. violates a member nation's right to protect its own borders."
------------------------------------
Maybe one day after the election would be a good day to inform the UN that Nikki Haley will be our last ambassador and that they already received our last payment. Use it wisely. The UN facility will very possibly be bought by the largest developer in the area. Take your anti-Americanism podium and diplomatic immunity and ...
-
You have the essence right Doug, but note the weasel words:
"ensuring migrants are informed on their rights to asylum"
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/07/the-eu-has-revealed-its-true-nature-a-federalist-monster-that-wi/?fbclid=IwAR2VDJ7wftedDrX5OihYIP4hesRTtmmYs7UnIYfYDiboLHrjQhgo3eZTyD0
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13397/united-nations-chicanery
-
http://www.dickmorris.com/un-tries-to-grab-control-of-immigration-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ds3TmxWNA84
-
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/04/trump-withdrawal-arms-trade-treaty-could-harm-us-industry/156621/?oref=d-river&fbclid=IwAR1v2F-WeL5oJFz0yhz-XXbKmNMzV_XwhoLusaaiP5X5wbHsoWeUrzarE-Y
"The U.S. defense industry’s involvement helped ensure that the ATT reflected the realities of the global arms trade and did not undermine legitimate and legal business. To the contrary: when implemented effectively, the ATT helps level the playing field by requiring other countries to adopt standards similar to those that U.S. companies must follow. While Russia and China have not joined the treaty, the ATT provides a principled basis for the United States and its allies to challenge these countries’ arms exports, where appropriate, as inconsistent with international norms."
Oy vey.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Craft
she and coal billionaire third husband are big donors to Trump
she was ambassador to Canada previously
he father a staunch crat . she a can
not sure about her qualifications frankly but then again the UN is a joke anyway.
-
Pretty weak, and the personal trips back home typify a certain impression of Trump and some of his appointments.
-
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/un-set-to-elect-slave-state-to-human-rights-committee-36310
Geneva, Switzerland, Oct 16, 2019 / 04:00 pm (CNA).- Mauritania, the west African nation where slavery remains a widespread practice, is expected to be voted on to the United Nations’ Human Rights Council on Thursday.
According to its website, the UNHRC is “an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe and for addressing situations of human rights violations and make recommendations on them.”
-----------------------
The number of slaves in the country has been estimated by the organization SOS Slavery to be up to 600,000 (or 17% of the population).
"The Abolition season". Bbc.co.uk. BBC World Service. Retrieved April 20, 2017.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1458_abolition/page4.shtml
-
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-global-citizen-fraud/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/united-states-must-reject-international-criminal-court-attack-on-national-sovereignty/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-03-17&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-un-human-rights-council-coronavirus-response
-
https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-un-human-rights-council-coronavirus-response
I'm searching for words to react to this that don't involve profanity.
Exhibit A: The Chinese doctor who first spoke out about coronavirus, was jailed along with 8 others, and died.
When do we disband UN, WHO, etc and form new institutions with nations that share basic human rights values.
Russia and China are permanent members of the security council with veto power while they work non-stop against US and world interests. In what kind of world do we consent to that?
I don't know about the first short 4 years tied up by opponents in fake Russian collusion and impeachment buffoonery, but a two term President has responsibility for fixing what is wrong during his or her time in office. UN is all wrong.
-
UN, WHO
money explains nearly everything
-
Previously:
Crafty: "Looking for the info on the background of the head of the WHO (Somali?) having a terror background"
---------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tedros_Adhanom
---------------
"I could have swore he had something shady in there.
Thank you any way."
---------------
Let's not give up on this just because wikipedia didn't have it. Mark Steyn among others mentioned his shadyness. Was Ethiopia a communist regime. Was he put in as a stooge for China.
OTOH, his background isn't what matters. His governance has been somewhere between awful and criminal.
Just posted by GM and previously in these threads: WHO, Jan 14, Wuhan virus is not spread person to person. For all their money, for all their expertise, WHO did not determine this; they took regime of China's word for it. Is that incompetence, or criminal negligence?
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/lost-in-beijing-the-story-of-the-who-11586365090?mod=opinion_lead_pos10
Lost in Beijing: The Story of the WHO
China broke the World Health Organization. The U.S. has to fix it or leave and start its own group.
By Lanhee J. Chen [director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University]
April 8, 2020
Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, speaks in Geneva, April 6.
The World Health Organization isn’t just “China centric,” as President Trump called it on Tuesday. It is also broken and compromised. The WHO fell short in its dithering reaction to the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which claimed more than 11,000 lives. Now its response to the coronavirus pandemic shows it is willing to put politics ahead of public health. The way the WHO has consistently acted to placate China’s leaders makes clear the need for fundamental reform.
The U.S. is the biggest financial contributor to the WHO—more than $400 million in 2019, when China sent only $44 million, according to the U.S. State Department. Mr. Trump suggested that the U.S. might hold its funding while his administration takes a “good look” at what the country is getting for its money. He and Congress should go further.
The Coronavirus Surge
SUBSCRIBE
While Washington pays, Beijing works behind the scenes to influence WHO leaders. The current director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, was backed strongly by the Chinese government during his campaign for the job. Mr. Tedros was a controversial pick, dogged by allegations of having covered up cholera outbreaks in his native Ethiopia, where he served as health minister (2005-12) and foreign minister (2012-16). During those years, China invested in Ethiopia and lent it billions of dollars. Shortly after winning his WHO election, Mr. Tedros traveled to Beijing and lauded the country’s health-care system: “We can all learn something from China.”
Under Mr. Tedros’s leadership, the WHO has accepted China’s falsehoods about the coronavirus and helped launder them into respectable-looking public-health assessments.
On Jan. 14, before an official WHO delegation had even visited China, the group parroted Beijing’s claim that there was “no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission.” Two weeks later, after China had reported more than 4,500 cases of the virus and over 70 people in other countries were sick with it, Mr. Tedros visited China and heaped praise on its leaders for their “transparency.”
Recall that China waited six weeks after patients first saw symptoms in Wuhan to institute a lockdown there. During this time Chinese authorities censored and punished physicians who tried to sound the alarm, repeatedly denied that the virus could be transmitted between humans, and held a public banquet in Wuhan for tens of thousands of families. In the meantime, more than five million people left or fled Wuhan, according to the city’s mayor. This included the patient with the first confirmed case of the virus in America.
The WHO finally declared a public-health emergency on Jan. 30, after nearly 10,000 cases of the virus had been confirmed. China’s reported figures rose in early February to more than 17,000 infections and 361 deaths, yet Mr. Tedros rebuked Mr. Trump for restricting travel from China and urged other countries not to follow suit. He called the virus’s spread outside China “minimal and slow.” It took until March 11 for the WHO to declare a pandemic. By that point the official world-wide case count was 118,000 people in 114 countries.
China’s influence is also apparent in the WHO’s exclusion of Taiwan. The WHO didn’t even bother replying to Taiwanese inquiries in December about whether the coronavirus could, contrary to Beijing’s claims, be transmitted between humans.
Last month a Hong Kong TV reporter asked Bruce Aylward, who leads the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus, if the organization would reconsider its refusal to allow Taiwan to join. Dr. Aylward, on a remote video connection, sits silent and expressionless for nearly 10 seconds before the reporter prompts him again: “Hello?”
“I’m sorry,” he finally says, “I couldn’t hear—I can’t hear your question, Yvonne.”
“Let me repeat the question,” she says.
“No, that’s OK. Let’s move to another one then.”
When she presses him on Taiwan, he terminates the connection. The reporter calls back and tries a different tack: “I just want to see if you can comment a bit on how Taiwan has done so far in terms of containing the virus.”
His reply: “Well, we’ve already talked about China, and, you know, when you look across all the different areas of China, they’ve actually all done quite a good job.”
The exchange demonstrates how the WHO prioritizes politics over public health. It has internalized Beijing’s view of Taiwan and seeks to praise China’s leaders at every turn. And at no point during the crisis has the WHO substantively investigated the Chinese regime’s claims about the virus or been transparent about the thinking behind its decisions.
As the biggest financial contributor to the WHO, the U.S. has the leverage to push for radical reform. Congress should condition all future funding on the WHO’s explaining in detail how it reaches its public-health decisions and rigorously and independently investigating the extent of disease outbreaks.
The U.S. should work aggressively to change the culture and leadership of the WHO. The Trump administration took a good first step in January by creating a special envoy at the State Department focused on countering China’s attempts to control international organizations. The WHO’s next director-general must not be a rubber stamp for Beijing.
If efforts to transform the WHO are ineffective, the U.S. may have no choice but to walk away and start over. That could mean creating an alternative organization open to any country willing to abide by higher standards of transparency, good governance and the sharing of best practices. The world needs an organization that can be trusted to address public-health problems that transcend borders—if not the WHO, then something else.
Mr. Chen is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University.
-
WHO document from January 30, 2020 excerpted. What a bunch of fluff. They have been covering for China and not doing their own job from the start.
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-statement-on-the-second-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov)
Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
30 January 2020 Statement Geneva, Switzerland
العربية中文FrançaisРусскийEspañol
The second meeting of the Emergency Committee convened by the WHO Director-General under the International Health Regulations (IHR) (2005) regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus 2019 in the People’s Republic of China, with exportations to other countries, took place on Thursday, 30 January 2020, from 13:30 to 18:35 Geneva time (CEST).
...
Representatives of the Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China reported on the current situation and the public health measures being taken. There are now 7711 confirmed and 12167 suspected cases throughout the country. Of the confirmed cases, 1370 are severe and 170 people have died. 124 people have recovered and been discharged from hospital.
The WHO Secretariat provided an overview of the situation in other countries. There are now 83 cases in 18 countries. Of these, only 7 had no history of travel in China. There has been human-to-human transmission in 3 countries outside China. One of these cases is severe and there have been no deaths.
Conclusions and advice
The Committee welcomed the leadership and political commitment of the very highest levels of Chinese government, their commitment to transparency, and the efforts made to investigate and contain the current outbreak. China quickly identified the virus and shared its sequence, so that other countries could diagnose it quickly and protect themselves, which has resulted in the rapid development of diagnostic tools.
...
The Committee agreed that the outbreak now meets the criteria for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern and proposed the following advice to be issued as Temporary Recommendations.
The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation for China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and, it is to be hoped, with success. In line with the need for global solidarity, the Committee felt that a global coordinated effort is needed to enhance preparedness in other regions of the world that may need additional support for that.
...
The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.
The Director-General declared that the outbreak of 2019-nCoV constitutes a PHEIC and accepted the Committee’s advice and issued this advice as Temporary Recommendations under the IHR.
...
Countries are reminded that they are legally required to share information with WHO under the IHR. (Did China do that - in a timely manner??)
-
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/15/jimmy-carter-distressed-over-trump-halting-who-funding/
US fund to WHO 500 million and the Chinese 40 million
yet the WHO leader covers up for the Chinese
he must be getting cash under the table - must be
Yes. Must be. It happens all the time and there is no consequence.
The United States is the largest donor to the WHO, providing more than US$400 million in 2019, roughly 15 per cent of its budget.
Tedros added: “WHO is reviewing the impact of our work of any withdrawal of US funding and we will work with partners to fill any gaps and ensure our work continues uninterrupted.”
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3080127/coronavirus-latest-us-economy-contracts-sharply
We waited too long to clean up these organizations. China is happy to take up the slack of the US leaving, and lead the corrupt world organizations in our absence into, I guess, more bad health, more corruption and more bad governance.
What was the price paid for all the other UN money scandals? Nothing?? Oil for food? All the IPCC crap? Now we find out "world Health Organization" is just somebody else's deep state slush fund, funded by us. Where is the WHO warehouse stocking $3 billion per year of masks, gloves and ventilators? Where is the world protection for the jailed whistleblower doctors? If we have to wait for health news to reach the media We need new organizations to replace the old with new checks in place, such as zero based budgeting. that learn from what happened and prevent it from happening again. If you haven't accomplished your mission or can't account for every dime spent honestly in the pursuit, your department or division loses all funding and is replaced by someone else who will do that job.
There will be plenty of money to fund a new world health watchdog for decades coming out of reparations from the Communist Party of China.
-
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/04/23/key-questions-for-the-world-health-organization/?utm-access=powerline
If the WHO is to remain a credible international organization, it must answer these questions—publicly and in detail.
In view of ongoing controversies surrounding the World Health Organization’s response to COVID-19, we have isolated the most important questions that need to be answered in order to form an objective assessment of the organization’s record. These questions have been formulated after research of Chinese and other open sources.
When did the WHO receive information about COVID-19?
According to the pro-Beijing South China Morning Post, owned by Jack Ma (owner of the firm Alibaba and a member of the Chinese Communist Party), the first case of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, was confirmed on November 17, 2019. But according to the official website of the WHO, it first received a report from China about the virus outbreak on December 31.
Before that date, did the WHO receive or discover any other information about the outbreak? If so, what was the organization’s reaction? What did Chinese authorities say in their first report to the WHO? Can the public see that report? If not, why not?
Was the WHO aware of China’s suppression of research and information about COVID-19?
On January 1, 2020, the day after China’s report, Hubei province health authorities ordered the company that first identified and sequenced the virus to stop testing, destroy all samples, and keep information secret. According to press reports, two days later, central health authorities issued a similar official order to testing facilities across the country. If the WHO was aware of these things, how did it react to China’s cover-up?
What did the WHO do with information received from Taiwan about the risk of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19?
It is now well-known that on December 31, Taiwan alerted the WHO about the risk of human-to-human transmission of the new virus. What is less known is what the WHO did upon receiving the alert from Taiwan. Did the organization pass on the concerns to other countries?
Was the WHO aware of Chinese doctors becoming infected with COVID-19, even as the organization denied that the disease could be transmitted between individuals?
Like the Chinese government, the WHO officially denied until January 20 that COVID-19 could be transmitted from human to human. But between January 1 and January 11, at least seven doctors contracted the virus. The WHO was presumably aware that infected doctors are the most telling indicator of human-to-human transmission. Was the WHO aware of doctors infected in China during this time? Or did Chinese authorities not inform the WHO of these cases?
Why did the WHO continue to deny human transmission after confirming a case of COVID-19 in Thailand on January 13, 2020?
The WHO official timeline records that on January 13, “Officials confirm a case of COVID-19 in Thailand, the first recorded case outside of China.” Why then did the organization continue to claim at its January 14 press conference that there was no evidence showing human-to-human transmission, and no case of doctors infected in China or Thailand?
Why didn’t the WHO visit Wuhan hospitals where COVID-19 patients were being treated?
On January 20 and 21, a day before the Wuhan lockdown was declared, WHO experts from its China and Western Pacific regional offices conducted a brief field visit to Wuhan. The delegation visited the Wuhan Tianhe Airport, Zhongnan Hospital, the Hubei provincial Center for Disease Control (CDC), including the BSL3 laboratory in China’s CDC. Why did the delegation not visit Wuhan Central Hospital, Jinyintan Hospital, or Wuhan Pneumonia Hospital—that is, the main hospitals treating infected patients? Did the WHO request such visits?
Did the WHO receive information from Zhongnan Hospital head Dr. Wang Xinghuan about the spread of COVID-19?
On January 19, the day before the WHO delegation’s visit, top Wuhan public authorities came to inspect Zhongnan Hospital, and instructed the hospital administrators and professionals to be “mindful of political implications about what you are going to say to WHO.” The hospital head Dr. Wang Xinghuan responded that, “I must tell them the truth. Have we learned any lesson from SARS? Saving lives is the biggest politics, so is telling the truth.” That night, worried that Wang would reveal what he knew, the city government sent an official “friend” to talk to him. Wang told the “friend” that political integrity “requires us to stand with the people, which is good for the Party’s overall image.” Can the WHO reveal what Dr. Wang told the delegation on January 20?
Given the massive evacuation from Wuhan during the week of January 20, why did the WHO wait until January 30 to declare the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC)?
BBC health reporter James Gallagher’s January 18 report begins: “The number of people already infected by the mystery virus emerging in China is far greater than official figures suggest, scientists have told the BBC. There have been more than 60 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus, but UK experts estimate a figure nearer 1,700.”
During the WHO delegation’s visit in Wuhan, residents desperate to avoid the virus were scrambling to leave the city for destinations in China and throughout the world. Wuhan Mayor Zhou Xianwang confirmed at a January 26 press conference that more than five million Wuhan residents had left in the past week. Was the WHO delegation aware of this mass evacuation? Why was a PHEIC declaration not made at the WHO’s meeting on January 22-23?
What took place when the WHO’s Director-General met with Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping and other top Chinese leaders on January 28?
On January 28, a senior WHO delegation led by Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus traveled to Beijing to meet China’s leadership, learn more about China’s response, and offer technical assistance.
Tedros met with Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi, but did not meet with the official head of the Chinese government’s response, Premier Li Keqiang. Did Tedros request a meeting with Li? What did Tedros learn in China? Was his trip political or professional in nature?
Given China’s suppression of information, failure to contain the COVID-19 epidemic, and delays in reporting on the nature of COVID-19, why did the WHO’s Director-General praise the Chinese response and, indeed, the Chinese “system”?
In January 30, at the WHO news conference to declare the outbreak a PHEIC, Tedros hailed the CCP system, Xi Jinping’s leadership, and China’s response: “As I have said repeatedly since my return from Beijing, the Chinese government is to be congratulated for the extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak, despite the severe social and economic impact those measures are having on the Chinese people.” He went on to note that
the speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome, and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive, and beyond words. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. In many ways, China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response, and it’s not an exaggeration.
At the same conference, he said, “Let me be clear. This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China. On the contrary, WHO continues to have the confidence in China’s capacity to control the outbreak.” He seemed to feel the need to add later: “I’ll repeat this. Let me be clear. This declaration is not a vote of no confidence in China. On the contrary. WHO continues to have confidence in China’s capacity to control the outbreak.”
Given the facts laid out above, why did the WHO’s Director-General make such false claims? If the WHO was unaware of these facts at the time, does it now still stand by what Tedros said at the news conference? Does he still believe China was committed to “transparency”? Why did Tedros praise and defer to China?
Why didn’t Tedros recommend restricting Chinese travel and trade on January 30?
At the January 30 conference, Tedros repeatedly stressed that the WHO did not recommend—and indeed opposed—any restrictions on Chinese travel and trade. Given the above information, and especially the Wuhan Mayor’s admission on January 26 that more than five million Wuhan residents had escaped the city, why was Tedros opposed to restrictions on Chinese travel and trade? Does the WHO now admit that this judgment was incorrect?
Why did the WHO continue to oppose restrictions on Chinese trade and travel through the end of February?
As agreed by the two sides, China and the WHO convened Chinese and foreign experts to form a joint mission to investigate epidemic prevention and control in China. Starting on February 16, the joint mission visited Beijing, Guangdong, Sichuan, and Wuhan of Hubei province successively, ending on February 24.
The team leaders of the joint mission—Dr. Bruce Aylward, former WHO Assistant Director-General and senior advisor to the Director-General, and Dr. Liang Wannian, head of the Expert Panel on COVID-19 Response of China’s National Health Commission—held a press conference in Beijing before Aylward left China. At the press conference, Aylward continued to oppose restrictions on Chinese travel and trade. In retrospect, does the WHO think this was sensible?
Why didn’t the joint China-WHO mission inspect the infected areas of Wuhan?
At the end of the February 24 press conference, Washington Post Beijing bureau chief Anna Fifield asked the WHO’s Dr. Aylward why he was not in quarantine after staying in Wuhan over the weekend. Aylward said he didn’t go to any “dirty” areas in Wuhan and that he had been tested for the coronavirus that morning. He left China immediately without quarantining himself for 14 days. It is obvious that by “dirty areas,” Aylward meant infectious areas.
Why did the WHO experts on the mission to study and investigate the viral outbreak not go to the infected area? (The WHO delegation visiting Wuhan on January 20-21, 2020, also does not seem to have gone to “dirty areas.”) Did the WHO experts on the mission have freedom to choose where they went, what hospitals they studied, and what people to talk to—doctors, the infected, relatives of the deceased, or people on streets for that matter? Or was the mission itinerary and agenda dictated by the Chinese authorities?
Why did the WHO’s Dr. Aylward lavish praise on China’s putative success in containing COVID-19?
At the same press conference, and without having personally seen infected areas of Wuhan and other places in China, Aylward lavished praise on the government’s success in containing the virus. But when a BBC reporter asked him to what extent he thought a cover-up and censorship played a role in allowing the virus to accelerate at the rate that it did, he replied, “I don’t know, frankly, didn’t look at that. I’m just being completely honest. . . .”
One purpose of the press conference was to make recommendations for a global response. Why, then, did an expert charged with that task not consider whether China or any country had made mistakes? Why did Aylward try to avoid that question? Does the WHO now think this approach was appropriate?
Why did the WHO wait until March 11 to declare COVID-19 a global pandemic? Why did Dr. Aylward continue to minimize the scope and threat of COVID-19?
At the press conference, Dr. Aylward also said, “Because every day we stopped to think about this disease and make decisions, should we do it or not, this virus will take advantage and almost double the number of cases. We have to move fast.” This shows that he understood the vital importance of speed. By March 4, as the number of cases and death toll soared in many countries, it had long met the criteria of transmission between people, high fatality rates, and worldwide spread. Yet on March 4, in an interview with New York Times reporter Donald McNeil, he said, “We don’t have a global pandemic.”
Has the WHO run models to estimate how many lives could have been saved if it had acted more quickly to declare COVID-19, respectively, a public health emergency of international concern and a global pandemic?
-
https://summit.news/2020/04/29/who-guidelines-encourage-children-younger-than-4-be-taught-masturbation-and-gender-identity/
-
what does this shit got to do with epidemics and world health
let gates keep them afloat.
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16001/international-kangaroo-court
-
Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-director-general-ethiopia-cholera-outbreaks.html
[2017] “A leading candidate to head the World Health Organization was accused this week of covering up three cholera epidemics in his home country, Ethiopia, when he was health minister — a charge that could seriously undermine his campaign to run the agency. The accusation against Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus was made by a prominent global health expert who is also an informal adviser to Dr. David Nabarro, a rival candidate in the race for W.H.O. director general.”
-
Warning a Rogue Court
A Trump order defends the U.S. and Israel against foreign prosecutors.
By The Editorial Board
June 11, 2020 7:46 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
27
The International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
President Trump takes a lot of flak for his blunderbuss hostility to international organizations, but he’s aiming for the right target with the new sanctions he threatened Thursday against the International Criminal Court. Someone needs to rein in the ICC and it might as well be Washington.
The order allows the Justice, State and Treasury departments to impose financial sanctions or travel bans on any ICC officials who attempt to prosecute Americans. It expands on a previous round of travel restrictions on some ICC officials introduced last year. The immediate goal is to block an investigation the ICC started in 2017 into supposed war crimes in Afghanistan. That investigation is both vexatious and silly. U.S. officials accused of crimes already are subject to American law, while the ICC somehow thinks the Taliban will care if officials in the Hague prosecute the terrorists for genocide.
The bigger aim of Thursday’s sanctions is to defend American sovereignty, and that of allies such as Israel that are also targeted by the court. The U.S. is not a party to the ICC, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have long worried the court would expose American officials to politicized lawfare investigations.
Sure enough, Attorney General William Barr said Thursday the Administration believes Russia may be exerting undue influence on the court to tie down American officials in a long, costly and pointless Afghanistan prosecution. Mr. Barr also said he’s seen evidence of financial improprieties by court officials. If that’s true, the lack of effective accountability counts as another strike against the court’s legitimacy.
The Trump Administration would perform a public service by releasing whatever evidence it has of alleged wrongdoing at the court. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s order is a vital defense of the constitutional rights of American citizens to have criminal complaints against them adjudicated in impartial, democratically legitimate courts.
-
http://carolineglick.com/the-jcpoa-and-the-demise-of-the-post-cold-war-order/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/a-reminder-that-china-is-one-of-the-worlds-worst-human-rights-offenders/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202020-10-30&utm_term=NRDaily-Smart
-
https://mises.org/wire/united-nations-and-origins-great-reset
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/british-troops-mali-being-commanded-125006256.html
-
Hope Over Experience at the U.N.
Biden ‘reengages’ with a dictators’ club called the Human Rights Council.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 8, 2021 6:42 pm ET
Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday announced the U.S. would rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council, vowing to reform the body “so it can achieve its potential.” We suggest the White House aim for a more realistic goal—like attaining world peace or establishing a self-sustaining Martian colony.
The U.S. is joining the council as an observer immediately and will seek full membership when possible. It shouldn’t be hard to meet the organization’s expectations. Well over half of its members “fail to meet the minimal standards of a free democracy,” according to UN Watch.
Last fall Cuba, Russia and China were elected to the 47-seat body. Moscow won its seat after poisoning opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who has since been imprisoned on trumped-up charges. The Chinese Communist Party-sponsored genocide in Xinjiang wasn’t enough to stop its accession, though its margin of victory narrowed from previous years. Cuba’s long history of repression didn’t matter.
Like so many other U.N. institutions, the council also has a malign obsession with Israel. It has condemned the Jewish state some 90 times since its founding in 2006. No other country comes close. By UN Watch’s count, Syria and North Korea earned 13 and 35 condemnations. Russia and China? Zero.
Mr. Blinken at least acknowledged “that the Human Rights Council is a flawed body, in need of reform to its agenda, membership, and focus, including its disproportionate focus on Israel.” But these problems are endemic and predictable: Membership is based on a vote in the General Assembly, not on real standards of human dignity or freedom.
Knowing that Norway and North Korea get an equal say, George W. Bush didn’t bother seeking a seat. Then Barack Obama joined with no real results. After the Trump Administration’s attempts at reform failed, the U.S. withdrew.
Mr. Blinken argues “our withdrawal in June 2018 did nothing to encourage meaningful change, but instead created a vacuum of U.S. leadership, which countries with authoritarian agendas have used to their advantage.” This might be credible if countries like Cuba, China and Russia also weren’t members during the Obama years. Mr. Blinken doesn’t explain why this time is different.
A leading conceit of Joe Biden’s foreign policy is that the U.S. can reform international organizations—and make them live up to their ostensibly noble purposes—simply by showing up. History shows that America’s involvement condones the farce rather than ending it.
-
How Many Countries Are There in the World?
undefined and Director of Analytic Client Solutions
Amelia Harnagel
Director of Analytic Client Solutions, Stratfor
4 MIN READMar 2, 2021 | 22:22 GMT
People stand over a world map at the Monument to the Discoveries in the Belem parish of Lisbon, Portugal, on Aug. 21, 2014.
People stand over a world map at the Monument to the Discoveries in the Belem parish of Lisbon, Portugal, on Aug. 21, 2014.
(Frederic Soltan/Corbis via Getty Images)
How many countries are there in the world? It’s a seemingly simple question. But like so many things in geopolitics, the answer is, well...complicated.
The 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States listed four requirements for statehood: a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. The issue, however, is defining who meets that criteria, which varies depending on who you ask.
The Common Standards
United Nations: Since the middle of the 20th century, U.N. membership has largely been seen as the standard for what makes a country a country. South Sudan was the last new member to join the United Nations in 2011, bringing the total number of U.N. member-states (and some would say recognized countries) to 193.
Admission of new members is managed by the U.N. Secretary-General with approval from the General Assembly, based on whether the applicant is deemed a “peace-loving” state that is “able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the [U.N.] Charter.”
The United Nations also allows for non-member states to serve as “permanent observers” in the General Assembly, which currently includes The Holy See (commonly known as Vatican City) and the Palestinian territories.
Nation-State vs. Country
For the purposes of this analysis, we’ve opted to stick with the common vernacular that uses “nation-state” and “country” interchangeably. Technically, however, there’s a difference. The United Kingdom, for example, is a single nation-state made up of four countries. And while a country, Libya is not a formal nation-state since it currently lacks a unified government that’s recognized both at home and abroad.
The World Bank: Another large global body that we reference often in our work here at Stratfor is the World Bank. While World Bank and U.N. membership overlaps significantly, they have different missions and different criteria for admission. Andorra, Cuba, Liechtenstein, Monaco and North Korea are U.N. members but not World Bank members, whereas Kosovo is a World Bank member but not a U.N. member.
The Olympics: Of course, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is another large international organization with a global membership and reach. The number of countries competing changes slightly each time the events are held, as well as between the summer and winter games. But for our purposes here, we’ll consider the 2016 Summer Olympics, which saw athletes from a whopping 205 countries compete. This included all 193 U.N. countries except Kuwait (whose athletes competed under the banner of Independent Olympic Athletes), along with 12 other countries.
The Gray Areas
It is worth noting that there are dozens of areas around the world that are not formal members of these international organizations, but meet the 1933 criteria for statehood listed above (i.e. permanent population, defined borders, a government and capacity for international relations). This includes:
Self-proclaimed states like Liberland, located between Croatia and Serbia.
Partially recognized states like Western Sahara and Northern Cyprus.
Politically ambiguous states like Palestine and Taiwan, which are both recognized by some U.N. member states and not others.
“De-facto” states like Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, which operate mostly independently but are still widely recognized as part of another nation-state. Other breakaway territories that fall into this category include Somaliland, Tibet, Abkhazia and Transnistria.
Our Definition
As for our analysts and experts here at Stratfor and RANE, we use our own standard for defining countries based on geopolitical realities. We started with the U.N. list (including the permanent observers), and then added Greenland, Hong Kong, Kosovo and Taiwan. All four of these added states operate independently in the world system, at least geopolitically, which we deemed distinct enough to warrant them being treated as individual actors. While bound to spark some controversy, our standard should not be construed as taking a side in the quest for independence in these disputed regions, but rather a necessary framework for us to do our jobs.
And that, there, is why there is no one “right” answer to how many countries there are in the world, as the definition of country will always depend on the context in which it’s being used. For us, it’s outlining the constraints and compulsions within states’ (sometimes disputed) borders. But for others, it may have nothing to do with geopolitics and everything to do with what is “home.” And neither one of us is more right than the other.
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17126/international-criminal-court-violations
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-china-hunt-covid-origins-11616004512?mod=e2tw
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasurys-yellen-to-call-for-global-minimum-corporate-tax-rate-11617633701?mod=hp_lead_pos2
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/treasurys-yellen-to-call-for-global-minimum-corporate-tax-rate-11617633701?mod=hp_lead_pos2
THAT.IS.OUTRAGEOUS.
-
Yellen to call for global minimum corporate tax rate
Vladimir Lenin, 1917 ,
on return to Petrograd from exile and
on top of a tank to cheering soldiers and sailors screamed :
" long live the world wide socialist revolution ! "
[notice he did not say Russian]
the goal today is the same
-
April 9, 2021
View On Website
Open as PDF
The Myth of a Rules-Based World
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Two concepts have been constantly used in discussions of international relations of late. One is a liberal international order and the second is a rules-based system. In the former, the term “liberal” does not have much to do with what Americans call liberalism. Rather, it describes an international system that is committed to human rights, free trade and related principles. The second is the idea that there is an agreed-upon system of rules governing the relationship between nations. Together, these notions are thought to create predictability and decency in the way nations interact with each other.
This issue came up during the administration of former President Donald Trump, who was accused of undermining these principles by, for example, imposing tariffs on China and questioning the value of NATO. The question is emerging again because the Biden administration, having come to power criticizing the policies of its predecessor, has made it clear that it intends to return to these principles.
The most important question is whether there ever was a rules-based international order or whether it was an illusion. There has long been a vision that the relationship between nations should not be a war of everyone against each other, but rather harmonious cooperation between states. Philosophers and theologians have dreamt of bringing this vision to life, and at various times attempts were made to institutionalize it.
In the 20th century, two attempts were made to create a rules-based, liberal system of international governance. The first was the League of Nations, which was founded after World War I and became defunct well before World War II broke out. It had rules, but no way to enforce them, both because the very nations violating its rules were members and, more important, because there were no means of enforcement. Adolf Hitler was not created by the liberal and rules-based order, but neither was he in any way inconvenienced by it.
The second attempt was the United Nations, which was created to be a more forceful League of Nations. The major powers that won World War II were recognized to be a special class of nations and given special powers on the Security Council. The problem with the Security Council was that both the United States and Soviet Union were permanent members, and the Soviet Union demanded that permanent members be allowed to veto actions that they opposed. As the world was then divided between the United States and the Soviet Union, opposed to each other in every way possible, the result was that nothing could get done. The United Nations was unable to enforce rules and sank into a complex bureaucracy of humanitarian actions designed to mitigate the pain caused by its failure to fulfill its mission. That mitigation was not trivial, but it did not constitute a rules-based system.
The Cold War was a chaotic mixture of subversion, civil wars, interventions and threats of nuclear exchange. The world was hardly liberal, with Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and China living under communist rules, and the Third World, freeing itself from European imperialism, caught between U.S. and Soviet manipulation.
It is difficult to understand what rules-based liberal system we are expected to return to. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a momentary thrill that we were seeing the age of Aquarius rising. But it was the same illusion that followed the Napoleonic wars, World War I and World War II. The Congress of Vienna, the League of Nations and the United Nations all had rules but few of them were followed. The Maastricht Treaty was signed as the Soviet Union collapsed, and it did bring the rule of law to what had been one of the most lawless places in the world: Europe. But the rule of law was for Europe, and the rules were never as clear as was the sheer power of some of its members – namely, Germany. It’s liberal but not liberal enough to encompass the whole of European experience. The European Union has rules galore and some liberalism to boot, but Europe is just an idiosyncratic fragment of a global system it once ruled.
The post-Cold War era gave rise to Islamic radicalism, endless American wars and the rise of China, which had long followed its own rules, only some of which could be considered liberal. Accompanying this era was a sense that what mattered was the interests of the nation-state. What a state needed was its primary consideration, how to get it its obsession. Each nation determined how much liberalism it tolerated, and when instructed by outsiders as to how they should live, they often answered with insurrections.
There can be no rule of law, as the philosopher Thomas Hobbes said, without a Leviathan, an overwhelming power imposing it and administering it. For a time after the Soviet collapse, there was hope that the U.S. would helm a multilateral order rather than become the Leviathan. The U.S. had neither the interest nor the ability to rule the world, but right or wrong, it couldn't always escape trying – dominant powers tend to act in certain ways if they want to continue to be dominant powers.
And without the rule of law, liberalism was always impossible. There were international agreements followed to the extent it benefited nations, and there were some international organizations that were useful to be a part of. But the rule of law was invoked when the law supported a nation’s position, and liberalism could not rule a world that was a vast mixture of beliefs, all passionately embraced as the only truth. The liberal international order, in other words, existed when it was convenient. In some places, it never existed at all.
The idea that we must return to a glorious age in which nations were ruled by laws and liberalism is a fantasy, a fantasy that allows us to believe that we can return to it. It is a nostalgia for things that never were. The human condition binds humans to communities large and small that think of themselves as free. They do not submit to rules they have not made, nor to political principles they did not craft. The Greeks did not accept the rules of the Persians or their political order. So it was then, and so it is now. The world doesn’t change that much, and the only place we can return to is ourselves.
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/concerns-surround-imf-plan-to-flood-world-with-liquidity_3899453.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-07-14&mktids=cc79aec2861489433eb494358963bf99&est=hAYJBKu5L1AeluB4aFeMPShEdM8G%2BSASgW9bMXVlSsbg4OndJj6NiQjDspR%2FONJh3BDw
-
The Biden Administration is planning the biggest overhaul to American taxation in decades, and you’d think members of Congress might have something to say about it. But no, for the most part a strange silence has greeted Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s bid to rope the United States into a revamp of global tax rules that by design robs Congress of its sovereignty over tax matters.
We’ve described the details of global tax rules being negotiated at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The plan would create a new method for other countries to tax American tech companies (although this is billed as a tax on any big, global firm), and also would establish a global minimum corporate-tax rate of 15%. As the New York Sun reminds us, this is a fundamental affront to American constitutional governance.
A bedrock principle since the country’s beginning has been that the power to tax must rest with the representatives elected by the people who pay the tax. Washington has always sought to defend this principle in the international sphere. The Senate has ratified dozens of tax treaties with foreign governments. These agreements try to ensure that a foreign government won’t impose taxes on income Congress already has taxed within the U.S., or to which Congress might lay claim because the company is headquartered in America.
Constitutional principles aside, this is good economic policy. Despite their flaws, current global rules broadly try to hand taxing authority to the jurisdiction where a company’s investors and managers have taken risks, engaged in product development or research and the like. This arrangement lets Congress experiment with tax laws it believes are best suited to the U.S. economy, and allows voters to pass judgment on lawmakers’ successes and failures.
***
The tax rules the OECD contemplates and Ms. Yellen supports are very different. The tech tax is an immediate threat to Congress’s constitutional power. Foreign leaders admit the point of the proposals is to redistribute to them some of the corporate revenue the U.S. Congress now taxes (or not).
This would allow sclerotic European countries to tax successful U.S. firms solely by dint of housing consumers rather than encouraging investment and risk-taking—while blunting the benefit of any incentives Congress wants to provide. There’s a reason French and German officials favor this approach over economic reforms to encourage the development of their own tech companies. They can piggyback off the work U.S. lawmakers have done to foster a vibrant economy in America.
The global minimum tax might seem like less of a threat to Congress’s prerogatives only because the OECD’s proposed rate of 15% is lower than the rate Congress might impose. But here too Ms. Yellen wants to encroach on Capitol Hill’s constitutional authority.
By binding the U.S. to the OECD’s complex system for calculating a minimum tax, Ms. Yellen is limiting the ability of a future Congress to change tax rates and the exemptions, deductions and other rules of the U.S. code. Meanwhile, she’s signaling U.S. assent to a system that might allow foreign governments to tax corporate revenue Congress deliberately chose not to tax, in order to “top up” corporate taxes to some desired minimum.
***
If this sounds familiar, it’s because the Obama-Biden Administration attempted the same gambit with the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. The idea there was to sign the U.S. up to agreements that would create facts on the ground that Congress would find hard to reverse. Something similar is underway as John Kerry jets around the world negotiating American commitments ahead of another global climate summit later this year.
When will Congress stand up for itself? Sen. Mike Crapo and Rep. Kevin Brady, ranking Republicans on Congress’s tax-writing committees, warned Ms. Yellen in a letter last week not to surrender any part of the U.S. tax base to foreign governments. They also requested closer consultation between Treasury and Congress before Ms. Yellen goes any further in global negotiations. Other Republicans should awake from their slumbers and fight too.
As for Democrats, they’re either silent or supportive of Ms. Yellen’s global gambit. Some may underestimate the threat OECD proposals pose to their own power as lawmakers. Others, especially progressives, may welcome the opportunity to insulate their high-tax policies from future Republican Congresses.
Either way they’re making an historic mistake. Congress’s constitutional role in setting tax policy for the U.S. and its citizens is central to self-government. No taxation without representation. The French helped America win the revolution under that banner, but that doesn’t mean Emmanuel Macron should be able to write U.S. tax policy.
-
https://dailycaller.com/2021/10/30/g20-leaders-endorse-global-minimum-tax-summit-rome/?fbclid=IwAR09GmvSuwF1DCSBJuaT0FJyjmy3xsscu62v6VxDTL_nRxolj0q_coHNWRA
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/amid-scandal-and-ccp-influence-us-considers-rejoining-un-education-arm_4095313.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mb-2021-11-11&mktids=7de942b41a46142848fe6961b8eebbec&est=KdW0iiCCG45WI%2F9VcEl72Jt9Zq0oXckvqrh9b9kVrMwvxucOWyEV8uZu576P7E9503nN
-
WHO Skips ‘Xi’ in Greek Alphabet for Naming Coronavirus Variants ‘to Avoid Stigma’
-
https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/how-china-uses-the-un-and-who-for-its-own-nefarious-ends/?fbclid=IwAR3dT73y8i1VKtr0mT9C3U8ZSoNTK4a58FunwhDU8w-cwGuYxldeF3sZIBM
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/united-nations-lets-russia-and-china-call-the-shots-because-it-is-a-joke
-
Doug posted :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/united-nations-lets-russia-and-china-call-the-shots-because-it-is-a-joke
did a quick google search for opinions:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/avoicefromtheyouth/is-the-un-still-relevant-37747/
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/global-insider/2021/09/20/is-a-toothless-united-nations-still-relevant-494401
https://www.cfr.org/article/un-seventy-five-how-make-it-relevant-again
-
Who could have predicted that weakness invites aggression?
Doug posted :
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/united-nations-lets-russia-and-china-call-the-shots-because-it-is-a-joke
did a quick google search for opinions:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/avoicefromtheyouth/is-the-un-still-relevant-37747/
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/global-insider/2021/09/20/is-a-toothless-united-nations-still-relevant-494401
https://www.cfr.org/article/un-seventy-five-how-make-it-relevant-again
-
Who could have predicted that weakness invites aggression?
How come we can't have 100% unanimity on that?
Weakness invites aggression.
Peace through Strength.
Guns deter crime.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
Does a bully pick on the strongest or the weakest he encounters?
This stuff isn't that complicated, doesn't take second level thinking, even a Biden voter should be able to see it - now.
But no. We will learn nothing from this. Trump's fault.
-
United Nations advises staff against using ‘war’ or ‘invasion’ regarding Ukraine
Email on communications policy reminds worker of responsibility to ‘be impartial’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/united-nations-advises-staff-against-using-war-or-invasion-regarding-ukraine-1.4821438
First spell it out, it's evil you are impartial about.
-----------------------------------------------------
UN Security Council Action on Ukraine?
Russia is blocking Security Council action on the Ukraine war – but the UN is still the only international peace forum
https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Russia-is-blocking-Security-Council-action-on-the-16982938.php
-----------------------------------------------------
Permanent members (P5) of the Security Council are China, France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia. Any of the five permanent members can veto a resolution to prevent its adoption by the council regardless of the level of support.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-five-permanent-members-of-the-un-security-council.html
Well that's (in)convenient. How come Russia doesn't have a veto vote on the board of NATO? Wait, they're the ones we pay a this money all these decades to defend against.
These 5 were allies at the end of WWII and are nuclear powers.
Time to disband this evil outfit, set some new criteria, and form a new band.
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/5562215/un-aid-workers-raped-60000-people-as-its-claimed-organisation-employs-3300-paedophiles/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-n-general-assembly-votes-to-suspend-russia-from-human-rights-council/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=27289712
-
Good symbolic step but they should be removed from the US security council, 'permanent' member status - if anyone over there was even a little bit serious.
-
https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20220510/who-afraid?fbclid=IwAR0myK2u3A_zaLdk53zUAaoZjawM7prjvSQfSjuAhrbdxmVH9VQQci1uJX8
-
DANGER: The WHO's Death Trap for the US
Act Fast: They Vote Next Week
by Pete Hoekstra • May 15, 2022 at 5:00 am
This is a plan that Congress and the public need to fight vigorously.
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
"On May 22-28, 2022, ultimate control over America's healthcare system, and hence its national sovereignty, will be delivered for a vote to the World Health Organization's governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA)." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"This threat is contained in new amendments to WHO's International Health Regulations, proposed by the Biden administration, that are scheduled as 'Provisional agenda item 16.2' at the upcoming conference on May 22-28, 2022." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"These amendments will empower WHO's Director-General to declare health emergencies or crises in any nation and to do so unilaterally and against the opposition of the target nation. The Director-General will be able to declare these health crises based merely on his personal opinion or consideration that there is a potential or possible threat to other nations." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"The targeted nation is also required to send WHO any relevant genetic sequence data." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
"Under the new regulations, WHO will not be required to consult with the identified nation beforehand to "verify" the event before taking action." — Dr. Peter Breggin and Ginger Ross Breggin, America Out Loud, May 4, 2022.
Unfortunately, this "next pandemic" is neither far off nor a hypothetical "conspiracy theory." According to multiple credible reports from the U.S. Department of State, to the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Peter Jennings, China has been preparing for bio-warfare using pathogens for more than six years.
A WHO with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? Perhaps by forcing the U.S. to turn over supplies and equipment to China because of its larger population? How about an international organization that would have the power to mandate whether we should be required to be vaccinated with a particular vaccine, say China's inferior SINOVAC vaccine? Or imagine a WHO that has the power to impose what mandates or lockdowns a country would be required to impose, say like China's current lockdown of Shanghai? Unfortunately, the WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen.
A World Health Organization with expanded authority is a terrifying concept. Can you envision providing an international organization with the power to dictate how the U.S. should respond to a future pandemic? The WHO already has proven itself to be a willing organ of China's Communist leaders. Providing it with international, legal binding authority over global pandemic response must never be allowed to happen. Pictured: WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pays a visit to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on January 28, 2020. (Photo by Naohiko Hatta/AFP via Getty Images)
The Biden administration, it appears, unless stopped immediately, is tee-ing up America to make it easy for the Chinese Communist Party to defeat it, and other nations, through biological warfare.
The World Health Organization (WHO), the organization that has unhesitatingly been doing China's bidding during the COVID pandemic, is reportedly now planning to orchestrate a massive new power grab to internationally control the response to any future global pandemic. The plan is apparently to make the health of Americans dependent on the whims of China -- which is both actively seeking to displace the US as the world's leading superpower and has for years been working on new means of bio-warfare.
It is a plan that is being voted on next week: Congress and the American public need to fight vigorously -- and FAST.
-
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/?fbclid=IwAR02WYDqbe_fPJmIR039IvyFbPHAiz4Dl_O790KCCMDnZo-9LSidl84gKOw
-
https://www.theepochtimes.com/ex-who-official-david-bell-will-the-pandemic-treaty-make-lockdowns-a-permanent-feature-of-pandemic-response_4481770.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-05-24-1&utm_medium=email&est=eGYg6bG8Plgq4FkUom7iGj%2BRa%2FCju9AfsyQ%2FDenfu1MO7XomjW0PPyT1rjTquXExdMtH
-
https://dailycaller.com/2022/05/27/ron-johnson-world-health-organization-no-who-pandemic-preparedness-treaty-without-senate-approval-act/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=57hrWDheaqVFx6jco2SqA8OeoQ6hSMdmNLaym_d38BxmKD19_nqTz6gujoK8DBMV2bYOPWBu
-
President Biden is trying to hand over American health sovereignty to the WHO-- time to block this is very short:
======================
Monkeypox ‘Games’ Could Lay Groundwork for WHO Pandemic Response Takeover
Joshua Philipp
May 24, 2022
The World Health Organization (WHO) is responding to a string of monkeypox outbreaks, and will be convening an emergency meeting on the virus and its global spread.
In terms of government power, the timing of this outbreak couldn’t be better for the WHO—which may soon be granted powers to manage laws on global health outbreaks, and which is oddly well-positioned for a monkeypox outbreak following a recent “germ-games” call, and recent incidents tied to figures who include Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates.
The New York Post declared, “The World Health Organization is reportedly convening an emergency meeting into the alarming spread of monkeypox around the world—including a possible case in the Big Apple.” The Telegraph reports that the United Nations health authority will be bringing together “a group of leading experts” in the meeting, which is believed to be focused on how the virus is suddenly spreading so widely. It also allegedly will look into the virus’s prevalence among homosexual men and on the “vaccination situation.”
The numbers of infections are by no means high. By May 23, the University of Oxford and Harvard Medical School recorded 245 either confirmed or suspected cases in the entire world. Sajid Javid, the UK health secretary, wrote on Twitter: “Most cases are mild …”
Epoch Times Photo
A woman is seen cycling in a completely empty Navona Square in Rome, on March 13, 2020. The city’s streets were eerily quiet on the second day of a nationwide shuttering of schools, shops, and other public places. (Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images)
The timing of all of this is important. It gives the WHO a chance to show its worth, since it’s in the process of trying to get new and expansive powers—under the banner of governing global health emergencies.
The United Nations is considering various amendments to the WHO at its 75th World Health Assembly in Geneva, that could give its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the unilateral authority to declare a public health emergency with far-reaching powers over the laws of sovereign nations.
Not only would this give Tedros the ability to declare a public health emergency in any nation he wants—using whatever evidence he wants—but it would also allow him to dictate policies that the target country should adopt to respond to the U.N.’s declared emergency. If a country refuses, a proposed amendment could give the WHO the ability to sanction that country.
If you’re wondering whether giving such powers to a U.N. agency that couldn’t demonstrate its independence from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could fly in the face of U.S. law, it seems that President Joe Biden has the answer. Not only is the Biden administration allowing this shift in power to the WHO, but it’s also helping advance it.
The United States proposed amendments to the WHO in January, which will be considered at the U.N. meeting in Geneva, The Epoch Times reports. These included an amendment that would allow the WHO to make public declarations on a health crisis without needing to consult with the target country, and without needing to get verification from local officials. The Biden administration’s proposals would also give $2.47 billion in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for things including “enhancements to domestic sentinel surveillance programs,” “investments in global genomic surveillance approaches,” and other systems.
As The Epoch Times reports, “Respiratory surveillance platforms include video cameras and recorders that alert authorities when members of the public are seen coughing or otherwise acting in a manner that could indicate the presence of an infectious disease or help spread one already present in a population. Such equipment is widely used in China.”
Epoch Times Photo
A man wearing a protective face mask walks under surveillance cameras as China is hit by an outbreak of the novel coronavirus, in Shanghai, on March 4, 2020. (Aly Song/Reuters)
Whether or not monkeypox poses a large threat to public health, it presents a serious threat to public freedom. The virus could act as a Trojan horse, carrying inside it all the justifications to grant the WHO a dictator’s dream of global power, and give the CDC a system of surveillance beyond anything Orwell could have conceived.
Under normal circumstances, monkeypox wouldn’t be a large viral risk. The CDC states that it can be transmitted human-to-human mainly by respiratory droplets that typically don’t travel more than a few feet, and so it notes that “prolonged face-to-face contact is required.”
Even Biden is walking back his statements that people should be concerned about monkeypox, and is clarifying that it’s not as serious of a threat as COVID-19.
Regardless of its inability to spread widely under normal circumstances, a global discussion on monkeypox vaccines started in 2021 after Gates warned of a smallpox bioterrorist attack as a potential next pandemic. He called on world leaders to hold “germ games” and give the WHO new powers—similar to the ones they may soon receive—under a new WHO “Pandemic Task Force.”
Gates also called for pandemic surveillance systems, which seem eerily similar to what the Biden administration submitted in its proposed amendments for the WHO’s new powers.
“It’ll take probably about $1 billion a year for a pandemic Task Force at the WHO level, which is doing the surveillance and actually doing what I call ‘germ games’ where you practice.” Gates said in 2021, Sky News reported. “You say, OK, what if a bioterrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports? You know, how would the world respond to that?”
Even though the mention of smallpox by Gates was minor, it purportedly was used to justify new discussions on a smallpox vaccine that could also treat monkeypox. Just several days later, on Nov. 8, 2021, Precision Vaccinations reported, “Gates Germ-Game Warning Motivates Smallpox Vaccine Discussions.”
The “discussions” in question were about a Jynneos Smallpox and Monkeypox Vaccine—approved in 2019. Precision Vaccinations noted that it’s “the only FDA-approved non-replicating smallpox vaccine and the only FDA-approved monkeypox vaccine for non-military use.”
Movement within the CDC began a few days earlier, on Nov. 3, 2021. It says that “the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reviewed the two presentations focused on the smallpox vaccine Jynneos.”
And then, just several days later, an even stranger occurrence took place—carrying out the idea of a “germ game” similar to what Gates proposed.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) partnered with the Munich Security Conference to imagine a pandemic scenario with monkeypox. Following the hypothetical warning from Gates, the germ game imagined a strain of monkeypox, released through a bioterrorist attack, that had been altered to be resistant to vaccines.
On Nov. 23, 2021, the NTI published its results from the tabletop game, which showed the spread of the virus over the course of 18 months.
“By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than 3 billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide,” it states.
In an incredible act of foresight, the exercise from last year imagined that monkeypox would appear almost exactly when it did: in mid-May this year.
The NTI also published a detailed report on its results. According to a timeline on page 12 of the report, it imagined that in May 2022, the initial outbreak of monkeypox would infect 1,421 people and kill four people. By January 2023, it would spread to 83 countries, infect 70 million, and kill 1.3 million. At that point, it would be discovered that monkeypox had been engineered to be vaccine-resistant, and supply chain challenges would make a response more difficult.
After one year, on May 10, 2023, it was predicted to infect 480 million people and kill 27 million, and it would be revealed that a bioterror attack on a civilian biolab had been the origin. Then, by Dec. 1, 2023, the virus would be estimated to infect 3.2 billion people and kill 271 million.
Of course, the important caveat with their estimates is that the monkeypox strain they imagined was one that had been engineered to be vaccine-resistant. Accurate or not, the exercise gives authorities a predictive scenario to justify “pandemic response” policies. And we’ve seen this happen before.
Epoch Times Photo
Vials of smallpox vaccine sit on a counter at a vaccination facility in Altamonte Springs, Fla., on Dec. 16, 2002. (Chris Livingston/Getty Images)
A very similar “germ game” was held just before the outbreak of COVID-19, with many of the same figures involved now making noise about monkeypox and a new “pandemic.”
New York Magazine reported in February 2020 that “two months before the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 emerged in central China, a group of public-health experts gathered in New York City for a simulation.” It also noted, “The characteristics of the virus currently causing global havoc are remarkably similar to the one proposed in the simulation, dubbed ‘Event 201.’”
Partners in the exercise included the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Similar to the monkeypox “germ game” before the monkeypox outbreak, the coronavirus “germ game” before the coronavirus outbreak made predictions of a mass fatality scenario. It estimated that 65 million people would die.
The Center for Health Security issued a statement on its coronavirus exercise on Jan. 24, 2020. It stated that they weren’t predicting that COVID-19 would kill 65 million people, as the simulated virus was different from the CCP virus.
Yet the important thing wasn’t the specifics of the “germ game,” but instead, how the game and its participants went on to inform government policy.
And now, with monkeypox, we’ve arrived at a similar impasse. A “germ game” imagined the potential effect of the virus, and produced inflated numbers of deaths and infections by an imaginary version of monkeypox as the model, which was resistant to vaccines. Most importantly, this also coincides with the international community weighing whether the WHO should be granted powers to govern global health emergencies.
Among the trends of COVID-19 is that governments may now be more inclined to use a seasonal virus, already declared as endemic, to justify an indefinite global emergency. Additionally, small outbreaks can also be used to justify deeply authoritarian policies that aren’t limited to health care.
The worst example of this is the CCP, which is claiming to use single-digit infections to lock down entire megacities. And remember that under the Trump administration, the WHO was shown to be unable to demonstrate its independence from the CCP.
Health emergency response is also no longer limited to just medicine. The COVID-19 model included mass changes to election systems that undermined the basic integrity of elected government, and widespread censorship under the narrative of fighting “disinformation” and “misinformation.” Remember that at the beginning of the pandemic, the WHO and various U.N. agencies declared an “infodemic” that required controls and censorship of public information.
In the backdrop of the monkeypox scare, the world is preparing to hand the keys to the kingdom to the WHO. And with the strange track of “germ games” and overblown numbers by the so-called experts pulling the strings, the groundwork for this public takeover has already been laid.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
-
Ambassadors discuss before the opening ceremony of the 12th Ministerial Conference at the headquarters of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, June 12.
PHOTO: MARTIAL TREZZINI/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
The World Trade Organization was created to protect free-trade rules to spread prosperity. Now it’s becoming a vehicle to raid U.S. innovation. See Friday’s agreement by the WTO’s 164 members that lets developing countries, including China, steal intellectual property for Covid vaccines.
The White House is flogging the deal as a diplomatic victory. But it’s an enormous defeat for U.S. national interests that will benefit China and set a precedent that erodes intellectual property protection. This won’t be the last time global grifters seek to pilfer U.S. technology.
The WTO fight began in fall 2020 when India and South Africa submitted a resolution to suspend IP protection for Covid vaccines, therapeutics and tests. They quickly rallied support from low-income countries and progressives who complained about a lack of “equity.” Never mind that the U.S. and Europe financed the development of these technologies.
Succumbing to pressure from the left, President Biden endorsed an IP waiver. He also undercut European allies who opposed the patent giveaway. And for what? Vaccine makers had already committed billions of doses to developing countries. Now the world is awash in vaccine doses and tens of millions are thrown out because low-income countries lack the healthcare infrastructure to distribute them. This makes the WTO agreement all the more perplexing.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Opinion
Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
PREVIEW
SUBSCRIBED
WTO rules already set out a process for compulsory patent licensing of drugs in developing countries during public-health emergencies. These rules require some due process and fair compensation for drug makers. They also protect against public disclosure of clinical trial data that include trade secrets. The new agreement overrides these rules.
An earlier draft of the compromise would have prevented China from taking advantage of the waiver. Friday’s agreement doesn’t. It merely says that developing countries such as China “with existing capacity to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines are encouraged to make a binding commitment not to avail themselves of this Decision” (our emphasis).
In short, there’s nothing legally binding to stop China from stealing U.S. mRNA technology, using it to develop its own vaccines including for other diseases, and then selling the shots under their own brands. The agreement lasts five years so it could potentially cover a future combined mRNA vaccine for Covid, flu and respiratory syncytial virus.
Despite their victory, waiver advocates aren’t satisfied. “Vaccines have already lost relevance,” India’s Minister of Commerce and Industry Shri Piyush Goyal said. The West’s “hope is to unburden their chest of any guilt today, show the world that we have been so magnanimous today, kick the can down the road for therapeutics and diagnostics which are really now essential.”
Guilt for what? Saving millions of lives through biotech innovation?
The only silver lining is the agreement doesn’t extend to Covid testing technologies and therapeutics, at least for now. But it requires WTO members to decide within six months whether to do so. Will the Biden Administration rush to the ramparts to defend Pfizer’s Paxlovid patents this fall? Don’t bet on it.
Why did the Biden Administration and Europeans go along with the deal? Maybe they figure countries won’t take advantage of it because Covid vaccines are plentiful. But this is short-sighted. Now that the WTO has set the precedent of breaking patents during emergencies, there will surely be more demands to do for other “essential” technologies.
Lo, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres recently proclaimed that “renewable energy technologies, such as battery storage, must be treated as essential and freely-available global public goods” and “removing obstacles to knowledge sharing and technological transfer—including intellectual property constraints—is crucial for a rapid and fair renewable energy transition.”
Semiconductors and genetically engineered crops could become fair game too. IP protection encourages companies to invest in new technology. It is a major reason the U.S. is more innovative than China. By undermining the incentives that underpin innovation, the WTO agreement will hurt America, and that means the world too.
-
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/united-nations-scrubbed-article-heralding-benefits-world-hunger-website-went-viral/
-
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18683/world-health-organization
-
Alex Newman Explains UN Agenda 2030 Behind Farming Restrictions
By Ella Kietlinska and Joshua Philipp July 20, 2022 Updated: July 20, 2022 biggersmaller Print
The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development informs government policies to restrict farming and transform the food systems in different parts of the world, said Alex Newman, an award-winning international journalist who has covered this issue for over a decade.
The 2030 Agenda is a plan of action devised by the United Nations (U.N.) to achieve 17 sustainable development goals (SDG). The goals and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development were adopted by all UN member states in 2015.
Then-Secretary General of the U.N. Ban Ki-moon called the 2030 Agenda “the global declaration of interdependence,” (pdf) Newman said in a recent interview on EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program.
“In my opinion, [it] was a direct swipe at our Declaration of Independence … So instead of being independent nations, we will all be now interdependent.”
The 2030 Agenda “covers every element of human life, every element of the economy,” including global wealth redistribution not only within the nations but also among the nations, Newman commented. The Agenda “specifically says that we need to change the way that we consume and produce goods,” he added.
Goal number two on the 2030 Agenda deals specifically with food, Newman said.
In September 2021, the U.N. held the Food Systems Summit, which emphasized the need “to leverage the power of food systems” for the purpose of achieving all 17 sustainable development goals by 2030, according to a U.N. statement.
“Everyone, everywhere, must take action and work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes, and thinks about food,” the statement said.
Taking Over Farmland
The sustainable development agenda emerged in the 1970s when the United Nations tried to define it at a conference in Vancouver, Canada, in 1976. Newman said.
The conference, which was the first U.N. Conference on Human Settlements known as Habitat I, adopted the Vancouver Declaration (pdf), a report that provided recommendations for U.N. member states.
Newman quoted an excerpt from this report: “Land cannot be treated as an ordinary asset controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore contributes to social injustice.”
Newman said that, in his view, the U.N. ultimately wants to get rid of private land ownership. “We see this all over the world. This is not just happening in the Netherlands.”
He thinks that a war is taking place against farmers and ranchers, especially those who are independent or those who are not part of the system. “They want to remove small farmers, even medium farmers, from their land, and they want to bring it all under the control of these—I think there’s no other term to describe it—fascistic public-private partnerships.”
Newman noted some examples to illustrate his opinion: The Chinese regime forces peasants to move to megacities, farmers are killed in South Africa, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the United States proposed a new rule that could bankrupt small and medium farmers.
In March 2022, the SEC proposed a regulation that “would mandate publicly traded companies to report on their carbon emissions and other climate-related information,” as well as report similar information from any companies with which they do business, according to an SEC statement.
As a consequence, all companies in the business supply chain of a publicly traded entity would have to report their carbon emission and climate-related data.
U.S. Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and John Hoeven (R-N.D.) led 30 lawmakers to urge SEC to repeal its proposal, calling it a “regulatory overreach.”
”Imposing regulatory overreach on farmers and ranchers falls outside of the SEC’s congressionally provided authority,” the senators said in a statement. “This substantial reporting requirement would significantly burden small, family-owned farms.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the proposed rule could create “substantial costs” for farmers because they do not have teams of compliance officers or attorneys like large corporations. Moreover, it may push out of business small and medium-sized farmers and force food-processing companies to look for agricultural raw products outside of the United States, the statement asserted.
Centralizing Food Supply
1.tagreuters.com2022binary_LYNXMPEI6B10I-FILEDIMAGE
People shop in a supermarket as inflation affects consumer prices in New York on June 10, 2022. (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
“If you control the food supply, you control everything,” Newman said.
“One of the things that the communists loved to do is create scarcity and create dependents. As long as you have independent people who are able to take care of themselves, there really is no need for the government to run your life and to control everything that you do,” Newman said.
“Americans are good examples,” Newman continued. “As long as the food production is widely diffused, and it’s in the hands of independent producers, it becomes very difficult to get people to bend to your will.”
The whole idea of using food as a weapon has been a hallmark of communist regimes for 100 years, Newman explained. “It’s also been a hallmark of the very same people who are openly promoting the U.N. Agenda 2030, the sustainable development goals, and even the World Economic Forum.”
Those who contrived “the controlled demolition of our food supply … want to completely restructure it,” in order to gain total centralized control of that because it gives them absolute power over everybody under their jurisdiction, Newman said.
For example, the Chinese regime and the mega-corporations formed a public-private partnership to centralize control of the food supply, Newman said.
It’s similar to what occurred in Nazi Germany, where on paper private companies own the business and ostensibly manage their businesses, but, ultimately, the private companies will be taking their orders from the government, Newman explained.
In the United States, the ESG metrics are used to “hijack control of the business sector, of the individual companies, and put them at the service of the goals of what I call the predator class—the people behind the World Economic Forum, behind the United Nations,” Newman said. (ESG stands for environmental, social, and governance criteria that are used to evaluate companies on how compliant they are with sustainability.)
The food supply centralization is just one component of their agenda, but it is a very critical one, which along with energy and other things, allows them to control humanity, he added.
In January 2021, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the government of the Netherlands launched a new initiative called Food Innovation Hub, according to a WEF statement. The Hub, joined by several public and private sector partners, is a key platform that will use technology and innovations for food systems transformation, the statement said.
The Food Innovation Hub secured “multiyear funding “ from the Netherlands’ government and established its Global Coordinating Secretariat that would coordinate the efforts of the regional food hubs as well as align with global food processes and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit, the statement read.
The global food Secretariat would be located in Wageningen, Netherlands, at the heart of the Dutch agrifood ecosystem, and would direct the development of global, regional Food Innovation Hubs, according to the “Invest in Holland” website.
“The work of these regional hubs is already underway, with more than 20 organizations leading the initiative across Africa, ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], Colombia, and India, and the European hub,” the website said.
Ramon Laguarta, CEO of PepsiCo, said in the WEF statement: “Food is one of the main levers we can pull to improve environmental and societal health. With the right investment, innovation, and robust collaboration, agriculture could become the world’s first sector to become carbon negative. … Unlocking this potential will take ambitious multi-stakeholder, pre-competitive collaborations to transform the food system—exactly what these Hubs are designed to cultivate.”
Among the solutions advocated by the WEF to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions is replacing livestock-derived foods with alternative forms of protein, such as insects, and lab-cultured proteins, according to a 2019 white paper (pdf) commissioned by the WEF.
In response to this recommendation, several indoor agriculture start-ups have emerged, including Ÿnsect, “the first fully automated vertical insect farm in the world, able to produce 100,000 tons of insect products a year,” a WEF report said.
In March, France-based Ÿnsect acquired Jord Producers, a U.S. mealworm manufacturer, to expand its operations in the United States by entering the American chicken feed market, said a company statement.
How People Can Stop Food Takeover
If people want to prevent food supply from being used as a tool to control them, they need to find alternative sources of food locally, Newman said. “You need to have a relationship with the local farmers in your community, get to the local farmers market, deal with the local farmers, come up with some agreement,” such as getting delivery of fresh, seasonal produce from the local farms for 100 bucks a week, he said.
“We need to really start providing an alternative economic structure, because if we let them get control of the entire food supply, I guarantee you, it will be used as a weapon to take your freedom, to get you to do things you otherwise wouldn’t want to do, to undermine the sovereignty of your nation, whether you’re in the United States or another country, and ultimately to dispossess people of their private land and of their freedom.”
“If you have agricultural land, do not sell out to these people. They’re trying to bribe the farmers to leave their land.
-
ttt
-
Dear Friends,
Today and until 13 September, the World Health Organization has opened public comment on the extreme power grab they are attempting via their international pandemic treaty and via the legally binding amendments to the International Health Regulations, originally proposed by the US. Details, including contact email addresses, can be found here: https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/stopthewhocom?utm_source=email.
If ratified, these changes would hand over national self-determination in public health issues, resulting in globalist interference in personal healthcare sovereignty and bodily autonomy for people of all nations. The WHO is an unelected, unaccountable body with no oversight, checks or balances. It must not be allowed to dictate global healthcare policy. Although no one can predict what is to come, if we allow our governments to lay our sovereign self-determination at the feet of the WHO/UN, we run the risk of a technocratic, totalitarian future of forced drug treatments and injections, vaccine passports, restricted assembly, travel and commerce, quarantine camps, and constant surveillance.
Regardless of which country you live in, would you take some time to read the above link, submit an email or video comment to the WHO, and encourage friends and family to do the same? It is my sincere hope that, together, we can put a stop to this madness.
Also, US citizens, please take a moment to send this pre-written letter (https://alignact.com/go/stop-the-who-from-taking-away-our-national-sovereignty) to Congressional representatives around the country (not just your state's elected reps), alerting them to the extra-governmental activities being orchestrated by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services to surrender sovereignty in matters of public health to the WHO without Congressional approval.
If you have doubts or questions about these matters, please don't hesitate to contact me.
With love and hopeful aspirations,
Ari
===========================
https://jamesroguski.substack.com/p/stopthewhocom?utm_source=email
-
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/18/biden-administration-stephen-miller-world-health/?utm_medium=email&pnespid=prdmC3wdbrpF0aOY.D_kCJmRukqgWot3Ievk0O8ypB1mmfuW7XPyQbf4KLw0w3lDvA981gg0
-
Biden Admin Negotiates Deal to Give WHO Authority Over US Pandemic Policies
New international health accord avoids necessary Senate approval
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Kevin Stocklin
Feb 18 2023
The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would give this Geneva-based UN subsidiary the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.
Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” Together, they developed a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S. government-WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”
These discussions and others spawned the “zero draft” (pdf) of a pandemic treaty, published on Feb. 1, which now seeks ratification by all 194 WHO member states. A meeting of the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) is scheduled for Feb. 27 to work out the final terms, which all members will then sign.
Written under the banner of “the world together equitably,” the zero draft grants the WHO the power to declare and manage a global pandemic emergency. Once a health emergency is declared, all signatories, including the United States, would submit to the authority of the WHO regarding treatments, government regulations such as lockdowns and vaccine mandates, global supply chains, and monitoring and surveillance of populations.
Centralized Pandemic Response
“They want to see a centralized, vaccine-and-medication-based response, and a very restrictive response in terms of controlling populations,” David Bell, a public health physician and former WHO staffer specializing in epidemic policy, told The Epoch Times. “They get to decide what is a health emergency, and they are putting in place a surveillance mechanism that will ensure that there are potential emergencies to declare.”
The WHO pandemic treaty is part of a two-track effort, coinciding with an initiative by the World Health Assembly (WHA) to create new global pandemic regulations that would also supersede the laws of member states. The WHA is the rule-making body of the WHO, comprised of representatives from the member states.
“Both [initiatives] are fatally dangerous,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. “Either one or both would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros. If either one or both of these go through, Tedros or his successor will be able to issue orders that will go all the way down the pipe to your primary care physicians.”
Physician Meryl Nass told The Epoch Times: “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”
Regarding medical treatments, the accord would require member nations to “monitor and regulate against substandard and falsified pandemic-related products.” Based on previous WHO and Biden administration policy, this would likely include forcing populations to take newly-developed vaccines while preventing doctors from prescribing non-vaccine treatments or medicines.
Circumventing America’s Constitution
A key question surrounding the accord is whether the Biden administration can bind America to treaties and agreements without the consent of the U.S. Senate, which is required under the Constitution. The zero draft concedes that, per international law, treaties between countries must be ratified by national legislatures, thus respecting the right of their citizens to consent. However, the draft also includes a clause that the accord will go into effect on a “provisional” basis, as soon as it is signed by delegates to the WHO, and therefore it will be legally binding on members without being ratified by legislatures.
“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said. In addition, “the Biden administration will take the position that this is an international executive agreement that the president can conclude of his own accord without approval by Congress, and is binding on the United States of America, including all state and local democratically elected officials, governors, attorney generals and health officials.”
There are several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that may support the Biden administration in this. They include State of Missouri v. Holland, in which the Supreme Court ruled that treaties supersede state laws. Other decisions, such as United States v. Belmont, ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent can be legally binding, with the force of treaties.
There are parallels between the WHO pandemic accord and a recent OECD global tax agreement, which the Biden administration signed on to but which Republicans say has “no path forward” to legislative approval. In the OECD agreement, there are punitive terms built in that allow foreign countries to punish American companies if the deal is not ratified by the United States.
As with the OECD tax agreement, administration officials are attempting to appeal to international organizations to impose policies that have been rejected by America’s voters. Under the U.S. Constitution, health care does not fall under the authority of the federal government; it is the domain of the states. The Biden administration found this to be an unwelcome impediment to its attempts to impose vaccine and mask mandates on Americans, when courts ruled that federal agencies did not have the authority to do so.
“To circumvent that, they went to the WHO, for either the regulations or the treaty, to get around domestic opposition,” Boyle said.
According to the zero draft, signatories would agree to “strengthen the capacity and performance of national regulatory authorities and increase the harmonization of regulatory requirements at the international and regional level.” They will also implement a “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach at the national level” that will include national governments, local governments, and private companies.
The zero draft stated that this new accord is necessary because of “the catastrophic failure of the international community in showing solidarity and equity in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.”
A report from the WHO’s Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness and Response (pdf) characterized the WHO’s performance as a “toxic cocktail” of bad decisions. Co-chair Ellen Johnson Sirleaf told the BBC it was due to “a myriad of failures, gaps and delays.” The solutions proposed by that report, however, did not suggest more local autonomy or diversified decision-making, but rather greater centralization, more power, and more money for the WHO.
‘One Health Surveillance’ and Misinformation
The WHO pandemic agreement calls for member states to implement “One Health surveillance.” One Health is a concept that has been embraced by the UN, the CDC, the World Bank, and other global organizations.
“The term originally meant a way of seeing human and animal health as linked—they sometimes are—so that you could improve human health by acting more broadly,” Bell said. “It has become hijacked and now is used to claim that all human activities, and all issues within the biosphere, affect health, and are therefore within Public Health’s remit. So public health can be deemed to include climate, or racism, or fisheries management, and this is being used to claim that addressing carbon emissions is a health issue and therefore a health ‘emergency.’”
The WHO zero draft states that “‘One Health surveillance’ means …,” leaving the definition to be worked out in future drafts. Whatever One Health surveillance ultimately entails, however, the signatories must invest in it, implement it, and “strengthen” it. In September 2022, the World Bank approved a Financial Intermediary Fund (FIF) to finance, among other things, One Health surveillance.
Signatories also agree to support the official narrative when it comes to information about a pandemic. Specifically, they will “conduct regular social listening and analysis to identify the prevalence and profiles of misinformation” and “design communications and messaging strategies for the public to counteract misinformation, disinformation and false news, thereby strengthening public trust.”
This aligns with efforts by the Biden administration to, as former White House Press Secretary Jennifer Psaki put it, “make sure social media companies are aware of the latest narratives dangerous to public health … and engage with them to better understand the enforcement of social media platform policies.” Or as UN Undersecretary-General Melissa Fleming stated at a 2022 World Economic Forum panel on “Tackling Disinformation” in Davos, “We own the science and we think that the world should know it.”
The official narrative during the COVID pandemic included support for lockdowns, school closures, and masking—all of which have since proven to be ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus and damaging to public health. A group of more than 900,000 doctors, epidemiologists, and public health scientists jointly signed the Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, expressing “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.” This declaration was widely derided as dangerous misinformation and was censored on social media.
“The views that they crushed were orthodox public health,” Bell said. Up until 2019, public health guidelines “specifically said that things like prolonged border closures, closing stores, etc. were harmful, particularly for low-income people, and shouldn’t be done beyond a few weeks.”
Those who pushed for lockdowns “were very clear that what they were recommending for COVID was going to be extremely harmful, and that the harm would outweigh the benefit,” Bell said. “They were clear because they wrote that down before, and there’s nothing new in the idea that impoverishing people reduces life expectancy. Something dramatically changed their minds, and that something wasn’t evidence, so we can only assume that it was pressure from vested interests.”
In January, a survey presented at the World Economic Forum found that public trust in government has plummeted since the start of the pandemic, though attendees were at a loss to explain the reasons for the decline in trust. Instead, the discussion at the panel, titled “Disrupting Distrust,” focused on combating rogue news sources that challenged the central narrative.
America’s Membership in the WHO
In July 2020, then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from membership in the WHO. Citing the WHO’s dismal performance in responding to the COVID pandemic and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Trump said that U.S. funding of approximately half a billion dollars per year would also cease.
In response, then-presidential-candidate Joe Biden vowed: “On my first day as President, I will rejoin the WHO and restore our leadership on the world stage.” Biden kept his promise and took it one step further, negotiating the pandemic accord.
Today, GOP lawmakers are attempting to revive the effort to take the United States out of the WHO. On Jan. 12, House Republicans introduced the “No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act,” which was sponsored by 16 representatives.
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), lead sponsor of the bill, stated: “Funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to the corrupt World Health Organization that serves the Chinese Communist Party is a slap in the face to hardworking American families struggling under record high inflation, and to all those whose lives and livelihoods were ruined and destroyed by the COVID pandemic. The WHO … praised China for their ‘leadership’ at the beginning of COVID-19 and has done nothing to hold the CCP accountable for the spread of COVID-19.”
The pandemic accord, a spokesman for Roy told The Epoch Times, “is just another reason to defund the WHO.”
Redefining Sovereignty and Human Rights
The zero draft of the accord states that national sovereignty remains a priority, but within limits. “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to pubic health,” the draft declares, “provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries.”
The accord states that human rights are also important, and it mandates that “people living under any restrictions on the freedom of movement, such as quarantines and isolations, have sufficient access to medication, health services and other necessities and rights.” The accord presents human rights as “health equity, through resolute action on social, environmental, cultural, political and economic determinants of health.”
-
Republican Senators Push Back Against Accord Giving WHO Power Over US Pandemic Response
Legal experts question whether Senate approval is necessary
By Kevin Stocklin
February 21, 2023Updated: February 22, 2023
As member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) prepare to gather in Switzerland next week to negotiate final terms of an accord that will give the WHO centralized authority over U.S. policy in the case of a pandemic, Republican senators are pushing back with an effort to reinforce congressional power to authorize treaties.
The draft accord, which would be “legally binding” on all 194 member nations, gives the WHO the authority to declare pandemics and submits member countries to “the central role of the WHO as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work,” in areas like lockdowns, treatments, medical supply chains, surveillance, and “disinformation and false news,” once a pandemic is declared.
Seventeen U.S. senators, led by Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), introduced the “No WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Without Senate Approval Act” on Feb 15, which states that the pandemic accord must be deemed a treaty, thus requiring the consent of a supermajority of the Senate, which is two-thirds, or 67 senators. The legislation comes as the WHO gears up to present what it calls the “zero draft” of the accord, negotiated with the help of U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, to all member nations on Feb. 27 to agree final terms.
Other sponsors of the bill included Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), and Katie Britt (R-Ala.).
“The WHO, along with our federal health agencies, failed miserably in their response to COVID-19,” Sen. Johnson stated. “This failure should not be rewarded with a new international treaty that would increase the WHO’s power at the expense of American sovereignty.”
But some doubt this bill, even if approved, will stop the WHO accord from going into effect once President Joe Biden signs it.
“With all due respect to the sponsoring senators, that will not do the trick,” Francis Boyle, professor of international law at Illinois University, told The Epoch Times. The reason, he said, is that the WHO accord is drafted specifically to circumvent the Senate-approval process, and Congress instead should immediately withhold its yearly contributions to the WHO and take the United States out of the organization.
Currently, the United States is the largest contributor to the WHO’s $6.72 billion budget, of which $1.25 billion is for “health emergencies.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest donor to the WHO, contributing 9 percent of its budget in 2021; China is the third.
Will Biden Need Senate Approval for WHO Accord?
It remains unclear if the Biden administration will need Senate approval for the WHO accord to go into effect. The accord itself states that it will become effective and legally binding on member states “provisionally,” as soon as it is signed and before any national legislatures approve it.
“The Biden administration can indicate that it is provisionally bringing this treaty into force upon the mere signature of the treaty,” Boyle said. “Hence, it will come into force here in the United States provisionally until the Senate decides whether or not it is going to give its advice and consent to the treaty. I personally know of no other U.S. treaty that provides for its provisional application pending the U.S. Senate giving its advice and consent to the treaty.”
While the U.S. Constitution states that the president can make treaties “provided two-thirds of the senators present concur,” American presidents have increasingly been signing international agreements without Senate consent, and those agreements have taken effect in the United States regardless.
According to the Senate’s website: “Treaties to which the United States is a party also have the force of federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ … In recent decades, presidents have frequently entered the United States into international agreements without the advice and consent of the Senate. These are called ‘executive agreements.’ Though not brought before the Senate for approval, executive agreements are still binding on the parties under international law.”
A report by Justia, a legal analysis and marketing firm, states that “the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.
“During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to 60 treaties but to only 27 published executive agreements,” the report states. “Between 1939 and 1993, executive agreements comprised more than 90 percent of the international agreements concluded.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions supported the notion that these executive agreements constitute federal law and supersede state laws and regulations. This includes State of Missouri v. Holland, which ruled that treaties supersede state laws, and United States v. Belmont, which ruled that executive agreements without Senate consent are legally binding on Americans. Under the U.S. Constitution, health policy falls under state jurisdiction, but the WHO pandemic accord may be a way to bring health policy under the jurisdiction of the federal government, once the WHO declares a pandemic.
Increasingly, the Biden administration is looking toward international agreements to do what it can’t get be achieved through Congress. Most recently, having failed to increase corporate taxes in Congress, the Biden administration entered into an international agreement with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to set minimum tax levels on all corporations within signatory countries. While GOP lawmakers said the agreement had “no path forward” toward approval as a treaty, provisions written into the agreement allowed foreign countries to tax U.S.-based corporate profits as a punitive measure, if senators do not approve it.
-
The Wrong Way to Beat Putin
The U.S. should steer clear of endorsing the International Criminal Court’s warrants.
By The Editorial BoardFollow
March 17, 2023 6:37 pm ET
There’s no doubt that Russia has committed horrific war crimes in Ukraine, and the perpetrators deserve to be punished. But Friday’s decision by the International Criminal Court to issue arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and another Russian official is the wrong way to do it.
The ICC, an international institution separate from the United Nations and based in The Hague, didn’t disclose the details of the warrants even as it announced them. But they appear to be aimed at the deportation of children to Russia from Ukraine by Russian forces since the invasion. The Kyiv government says some 16,000 children have been taken to Russia from Ukrainian territory, and only 307 have been returned.
In addition to Mr. Putin, the ICC issued a warrant against Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, the commissioner for children’s rights in the Kremlin. She has overseen the deportations. “There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility” for the crimes, the ICC said.
The warrants are no doubt satisfying as a moral statement, and Ukraine welcomed them. Human-rights and international-law aficionados are praising the warrants as a sign that even heads of state and military leaders can’t commit war crimes without being held accountable.
NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP
Morning Editorial Report
All the day's Opinion headlines.
Preview
Subscribed
But the Biden Administration should steer clear of endorsing the ICC’s action even in this case. The U.S. hasn’t ratified the Rome Statute that formed the governing charter for the ICC. Neither have Russia and China. The U.S. has never endorsed the idea that a treaty applies to a country that isn’t a party to it.
Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but George W. Bush repudiated it on grounds that anti-American ICC prosecutors and judges might target U.S. soldiers or government officials. That has proven to be wise.
In 2017 ICC prosecutors sought to open an investigation into alleged war crimes by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. The Trump Administration protested and in imposed sanctions on ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and another court official. The court later suspended the investigation, but the fact that it was even considered shows the political nature of the court.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Not much is likely to come from the latest ICC warrants. The only way to enforce them is to have some future Russian government turn Mr. Putin over to the court. Issuing warrants that are feckless may be worse than doing nothing. The best way to defeat Mr. Putin is to give Ukraine the arms it needs to defeat Russia on the battlefield. The path to justice is for Ukraine to prosecute those responsible, rather than an unaccountable international court.
-
The Global Minimum Tax Shakedown
Biden is holding Congress hostage: Impose the levy, or see foreign nations seize American profit anyway.
By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon
April 6, 2023 6:34 pm ET
The Biden administration wants to make the world safer for tax increases. That’s the message the White House has sent by enjoining the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to agree on a new global levy. The proposal, thus far endorsed by 137 nations, imposes a 15% global minimum tax on multinational corporations with sales of over €750 million and a profits tax levied where sales are made—not where profits are reported—on companies with over $20 billion of revenue.
It isn’t difficult to figure out who would bear the brunt of this economic burden. Neither tax is calculated to include the amortization of intellectual property, and both would primarily hit American corporations, which are bigger and more profitable and own more intellectual property than their international competitors. Though a Democratic Congress rejected the tax last year, President Biden has now spearheaded the international agreement to let foreign nations tax American companies to collect the equivalent of the tax on their U.S. earnings if Congress won’t impose the tax.
The 2017 tax cut lowered America’s federal corporate tax rate from 35%, the OECD’s highest rate, to 21% in what the OECD director then described as a “race to the average.” With state corporate taxes added, the average combined U.S. rate is now 25%, slightly above the global mean of 23%. The economy grew 2.9% in 2018, the strongest growth rate in 13 years, and almost certainly would have broken 3% had the Trump administration not launched a trade war that year, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would cost the economy some half a percentage point of economic growth.
Since corporations are nothing but legal structures, no one has ever seriously disputed the notion that corporations don’t pay taxes. If a corporation can’t pass a tax on to customers, the burden will fall on investors and workers. As expected, after the 2017 tax cuts went into effect, real wages grew 43% more in 2018 and 93% more in 2019 than the 2011-17 average increase.
Pension and mutual funds, charitable organizations and insurance companies holding equities to fund death and annuity benefits—which own some 72% of all American equities—saw their rate of return increase 22% relative to the average 2011-17 returns in the two years following the tax cuts before the pandemic. After the 2016 elections, when it became clear a tax cut was coming, until the beginning of the pandemic, equity values rose twice as fast annually as they had risen during the previous seven years. A corporate-tax increase would be expected to produce the opposite results.
When Mr. Biden took office he proposed a massive corporate-tax increase of $1.9 trillion—four times the estimated cost of the 2017 corporate-tax cuts. But the Democratic Congress rejected the proposal and adopted a dramatically smaller corporate-tax increase that raised only a fifth of the revenue set out in the president’s plan. Now facing a Republican House, the Biden administration’s only hope of raising corporate taxes is by using the OECD agreement to pressure Congress to impose the tax or see those nations that do adopt the corporate minimum tax impose additional taxes on subsidiaries of U.S. companies effectively to collect the minimum tax on their U.S. earnings. The global minimum tax is conveniently set to go into effect in 2025, after the elections and when many popular provisions of the 2017 tax cut expire.
The OECD minimum-tax agreement is estimated to collect some $236 billion in new taxes and redistribute some $200 billion of tax collections by allocating taxing authority based on where sales occur, not where profits are reported. Despite the OECD’s decade of work on the tax, the organization along with the Treasury Department claims not to know how much of this tax will be paid by U.S. companies—or, more precisely, by American investors, workers and consumers.
But the answer seems obvious since only two of the 25 top tech companies and two of the top 25 Fortune 2000 companies are based in Europe, while 18 and 13 are based in the U.S., respectively. Denying amortization of intellectual property, allocating taxing authority based on where sales are made, and imposing what amounts to an excess profits tax on very large, highly profitable companies guarantees that American companies will pay most of the tax in virtually every nation in the world where the tax is collected. The Oxford Center for Business Taxation has estimated the U.S. will pay 64% of the profits tax, compared with 9.5% for China, 3.8% for the U.K., 1.6% for Germany and 0.7% for France. Based on all available evidence it appears the burden of the corporate-minimum-tax provision will also fall primarily on U.S. corporations.
Taxing nonvoters is government’s oldest game. Yet this time the European Union, which dominates the OECD, is playing it with a willing American partner. It’s easy to understand why other countries are willing to agree to an international tax system in which Americans pay most of the taxes. But the White House’s championing of the tax reveals how committed the administration is to pushing big government everywhere and how desperate it is to raise U.S. corporate taxes.
Republicans can’t afford to stand by and let the Biden administration use an international agreement that the American people’s representatives never approved to pressure Congress to raise taxes on investors, workers and consumers. This blatant misuse of executive power cries out for Congress to repudiate the international agreement, mandate a retaliatory response to any effort by foreign nations to collect the tax on U.S. earnings, and terminate U.S. funding for the OECD until the minimum tax agreement is vitiated.
If the Biden administration can conspire with European nations to raise U.S. taxes, how long will it be before the same process imposes European environmental and regulatory policy on the U.S.? The recently exposed Federal Trade Commission “coordination” with European regulators to kill mergers that the U.S. courts wouldn’t allow the agency to stop suggests it won’t be long.
Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a nonresident senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is an adviser of US Policy Metrics.
-
A Look Back at a Landmark South China Sea Ruling, Five Years On
undefined and Director, Stratfor Center for Applied Geopolitics at RANE
Rodger Baker
Director, Stratfor Center for Applied Geopolitics at RANE, Stratfor
7 MIN READJul 12, 2021 | 17:34 GMT
An aerial photograph taken by the Philippine Air Force in November 2003 shows Chinese-built structures near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
On July 12, 2016, an international tribunal in The Hague effectively ruled that China’s sweeping nine-dash line in the South China Sea had no international legal standing under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), siding with the Philippines. Ahead of that landmark ruling, I had the opportunity to take part in a semi-formal dialogue between researchers and officials from both the United States and China (notably, Philippine delegates were not invited). The Chinese side set the tone of the meeting. They considered the Philippine case without merit (China boycotted the tribunal), reasserted their historical claims to much of the South China Sea, and not so subtly told the United States to stay out of regional Chinese affairs. There was no dialogue. The meeting was intended to deliver a message that China would continue to assert its sovereignty over several built-up artificial islands and that it saw U.S. moves to challenge these claims or support regional counterclaimants as interference and acts of aggression against China and its core interests.
In the five years since the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled on the case brought by the Philippines, China’s response has highlighted the challenges of maritime claims in the region, as well as the limitations of international law. Without willing compliance or international enforcement, relative power remains the true arbiter — allowing for Beijing to gain an advantage in the disputed waterway.
A Look Back
Five years on, China continues to ignore the U.N. tribunal ruling, has hardened its positions in the South China Sea, formalized its administrative claims to the territory, and expanded its maritime patrols and exercises. In part, this was facilitated by the Philippines itself. Just two months before the tribunal issued its ruling, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte took office and rapidly distanced himself from the tribunal ruling and his predecessor’s China policies. In return, Duterte sought Chinese investment and stable relations, which would enable him to focus on his domestic priorities, including his anti-drug campaign and his push for greater federalism as a way to manage the restive southern provinces.
Manila’s shift in tone regarding China also comes amid Duterte’s frequent threats to distance the Philippines from the United States, as well as end the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which is a 70-year-old framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in the Philippines. This means that even if the United States sought to challenge China’s claims on the basis of the tribunal ruling, Washington would find little support from the very country that had brought the case against Beijing to begin with. The negative U.S. response to Duterte’s anti-drug campaign, which was reportedly rife with extrajudicial killings, added to tensions between the two erstwhile allies. While the U.S. Navy continued to carry out Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) around the Chinese-occupied islets, it did little more to try and dislodge the Chinese forces. Tribunal ruling or not, Beijing remains the de facto controlling power over the disputed islets, and also retains control of related fishing grounds.
The Challenges of International Law
One of the frequent arguments Duterte has made for his China policy and his reluctance to press the tribunal ruling is that Manila simply does not have the capacity to enforce the ruling, and that Washington has failed to step up and shoulder the responsibility. In short, Duterte has essentially said that, while he still holds that the islands and other landmasses in the South China Sea are Philippine territory, Manila is incapable of asserting its claims, and thus it is near futile and self-defeating to undermine relations with China over something that cannot be altered any time soon.
In a similar vein, Duterte has blamed both the previous Philippine administration and the United States for failing to dislodge China in 2012, when Washington helped ease rising tensions around the disputed Scarborough Shoal. Duterte and his supporters have questioned why the United States failed to push Chinese ships out of the shoal after the Philippine ships withdrew. The crux of the argument is that, despite the U.S.-Philippine mutual defense treaty and the superiority of the U.S. Navy at the time, Washington failed to fulfill its responsibilities to its ally. Thus U.S. freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) are disruptive and cause problems for Manila, but do not include any real benefit.
China wagered that the United States would not risk triggering a larger military engagement over a few spots of rock and sand in a distant sea.
Despite his frequent rhetorical flourishes and occasional foul language, Duterte isn’t entirely off the mark. The inconvenient reality of treaties and international law more broadly is that they are only effective so long as they are enforced or willingly adhered to, or at least perceived by third parties to be actually binding. If China truly believed that the United States would risk its own ships, aircraft and personnel to preserve Manila’s claims to the unoccupied shoals and islets, Beijing may have taken a different path. But China’s experience has led it to assess that while the United States would complain, Washington would not take on the risk of a larger military engagement with China over a few spots of rock and sand in a distant sea, no matter how strategic the overall waterway may be. And the United States reinforced this view by frequently claiming it did not take sides in the Philippines' South China Sea dispute with China, thus failing to assertively back Manila’s claims. Not only was this the longstanding U.S. policy, it also matched the tribunal ruling, which did not assess Philippine sovereignty despite rejecting China’s claims.
The Limitations of U.S. Power
The United States has long had mixed views on treaties, international law and multinational organizations. From its earliest days, U.S. leaders argued against entangling alliances, fearing that such relations could force the United States into economic or military action that would be detrimental to its own domestic interests. Like any large power, the United States has used international systems, laws and organizations when they largely fit U.S. needs and interests, but shied away when they did not. The United States has even failed to ratify UNCLOS, despite that being the basis for the tribunal ruling, as well as part of Washington’s justification for its naval operations in the South China Sea.
For much of the last three decades, even as there were growing voices urging Washington to take heed of China’s rise and its potential challenge to the U.S.-supported international order, U.S. administrations largely sought to entice Beijing through engagement, hoping China would “westernize” by default. While that idea has since lost credence, it does in part explain U.S. reticence in the past to directly challenge China, despite Beijing’s assertive behavior in the South China Sea. In more concrete terms, Washington has also felt that the risk of military escalation with China exceeded the threat posed by each incremental step China took in occupying, building up and arming the islets.
For the past 20 years, the primary U.S. security focus had been on counterterrorism efforts and on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. Great power competition was simply not in vogue, and U.S. training cycles and force deployments reflected the prioritization of non-state actors as the primary security threat. While that pattern is now shifting rapidly, the United States is no longer in a position to prevent Chinese action. Washington must instead either manage the new reality of power in the South China Sea, or take on the cost of trying to roll back Chinese positions. It’s one thing to stop something from happening, but it’s quite another to reverse an existing reality.
-
https://washingtontimes-dc.newsmemory.com/?token=1bbc291ec07c58e48febbdb68812e89f_64886f11_6d25b5f&selDate=20230613
Why the back fees?
What does Chinese AI have to do with it?
-
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/06/united-nations-finalizes-plan-to-regulate-ammunition/?ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)#axzz84ifRZZhe
-
The Implications of Using Frozen Russian Assets To Rebuild Ukraine
undefined and Global Economy Analyst at RANE
Markus Jaeger
Global Economy Analyst at RANE, Stratfor
Aug 10, 2023 | 16:02 GMT
Rescuers use a crane to dismantle the rubble of a building destroyed by a Russian shelling on Aug. 8, 2023, in Pokrovsk, Ukraine.
Rescuers use a crane to dismantle the rubble of a building destroyed by a Russian shelling on Aug. 8, 2023, in Pokrovsk, Ukraine.
(Serhii Korovayny/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)
Western governments are facing mounting pressure to use the roughly $300 billion in Russian central bank assets they froze back in February 2022 to fund Ukraine's reconstruction. In late June, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the European Union would soon outline how it intends to use proceeds from seized Russian assets for Ukraine's post-conflict recovery efforts. In the United States, lawmakers in Congress have also recently introduced bills that would grant the U.S. president the authority to confiscate Russian assets frozen within the country and allocate them to Ukraine.
Such propositions are intuitively appealing for several reasons, with the most obvious being that they'd reduce the financial burden on Kyiv's partners in rebuilding the war-torn country. From an economic and legal standpoint, expropriating Russian government assets would also help hold Moscow accountable for the destruction it has wrought on Ukraine, as well as for violating international and moral norms by invading the country. And from a strategic standpoint, it might help deter other countries from engaging in military aggression.
However, expropriating assets owned by a sovereign state is a complex issue with myriad legal, economic and strategic implications that are worth exploring as Western policymakers mull such a major decision.
Legal Challenges: International
As it stands, there are significant obstacles to expropriating state-owned foreign assets without breaching customary international law, which is wedded to the doctrine of sovereign immunity. This doctrine establishes that a state is immune from criminal prosecution and civil suit in another state's domestic courts, meaning that assets held by a foreign state cannot be expropriated based on decisions made by domestic courts.
In mulling the potential implications of Western countries paying for Ukraine's reconstruction with frozen Russian funds, some legal scholars have debated whether, in the event of a violation of international norms (in this case, Russia's invasion of Ukraine), customary international law may allow to implement extra-judicial (outside the remit of domestic courts) ''confiscatory action'' qua (in the capacity of) legal countermeasures. At the heart of this debate is the question of whether expropriating Russian government assets to help finance Ukraine's reconstruction would constitute such a countermeasure by forcing Russia to meet its legal obligation to compensate for the damages caused by its ongoing war. But while scholarly opinion differs, there appears to be a consensus that countermeasures have to be revisable and temporary. And since expropriation constitutes a permanent transfer of ownership, using Russian funds to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction would not seem to meet that definition. Moreover, by sidestepping the domestic-legal process, executive action would deprive a foreign state of due process, which may raise additional legal-procedural issues, including the violation of the rule of law.
International law does provide for exceptions to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, including expropriating state assets, in the case of a violation of international norms. But there are only two ways to procedurally establish that Russia's invasion of Ukraine constitutes such a violation. The first is the adoption of a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution, which is a non-starter since Russia's permanent member status would enable it to block such a vote. The second is a favorable ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which also represents a high hurdle because the court would need to find Russia guilty of having committed genocide in order to waive the country's sovereign immunity (and so far, the ICJ has only called for Russia to cease its attack on Ukraine).
State-owned assets can also be seized in the context of a peace treaty. A country may, for example, agree to see its assets transferred into another country's ownership as part of an agreement on war reparations. This, however, requires the consent of the state whose assets are being seized — something Russia is highly unlikely to provide unless it suffers a major defeat in Ukraine, which most military analysts believe is not in the cards. But most importantly, as non-belligerents in the war, the United States and the European Union are not a party to peace negotiations and would therefore have no right to confiscate another state's assets as part of any treaty reached between Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict..
Legal Challenges: Domestic
Many states have also incorporated the doctrine of sovereign immunity into domestic law, creating further procedural-legal obstacles to seizing Russian assets. In the United States, for example, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (1976) grants significant protections to states, though it also allows for some exceptions. Under the so-called doctrine of restricted sovereign immunity, the commercial (as opposed to strictly public) activities of a foreign state may be exempted from sovereign immunity. This means that state-owned commercial assets can in principle become the subject of domestic litigation and expropriation, while a presidential aircraft, for example, may not. The legal hurdles are high even when it comes to attaching commercial assets, but they are not necessarily impossible to surmount. Nevertheless, U.S. courts have consistently shielded foreign states' holdings of foreign-exchange reserves from domestic commercial litigation, most recently in the case of creditor litigation against the government of Argentina. This would seem to put the expropriation of $200-300 billion worth of Russian central bank foreign-exchange holdings beyond the reach of commercial litigation.
Per U.S. domestic law, property taken in violation of international law may also be exempt from sovereign immunity. And a foreign state can waive its immunity. In the United States, a foreign state that has been designated as a sponsor of terrorism may also not benefit from sovereign immunity, possibly making foreign-exchange holdings subject to attachment. The U.S. Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (2002), for example, allows plaintiffs seeking to enforce terrorism-related judgments compensatory damages, including from a foreign state. But the U.S. government has not designated Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, legally sharply circumscribing this avenue when it comes to using frozen Russian funds to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction.
In the United States, state-owned assets can also be seized in the event of a state engaging in armed conflict with another state. Under the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (1977), the federal government is authorized to block and immobilize foreign assets, but the United States can only expropriate assets if it's engaged in armed conflict with another country. Under this law, the United States would have to declare war on Russia before it could seize Russian assets.
Current U.S. domestic law could, of course, be reformed to allow for the use of frozen Russian funds in Ukraine's reconstruction. Congress would probably have to pass a new law, authorizing the expropriation (as opposed to the mere blocking of) Russian assets. This would violate international law, but it could certainly be done, unless the Supreme Court takes a different view.
But the European Union will find it difficult to agree on a common position, in part due to these various legal obstacles. The European Commission appears to be keen on expropriating Russian assets, but the European Central Bank (ECB) and various member states are not. The ECB is worried about the potential real-world consequences of weakening the rule of law, such as damaging the euro's attractiveness and increasing the risk of financial instability.
Some EU member states like Germany are concerned that if the weakening of sovereign immunity were to become a general trend, it might be exposed to World War II-related lawsuits. To the extent that these legal issues make the various relevant actors reluctant to weaken sovereign immunity in order to facilitate the expropriation of state assets, agreeing on a joint EU position towards expropriating Russian state assets will be difficult. While adherents of realpolitik argue that legal norms do not constrain state behavior, the existence of such norms does create procedural-institutional and political obstacles to expropriation.
Economic Implications
Seizing another state's assets also has economic-financial consequences. For the United States and its European allies, seizing Russian state assets would limit the call on their own resources in funding Ukraine's reconstruction. But it might also expose Western countries to financial retaliation and concomitant financial losses — especially those with greater foreign private investment in Russia.
Admittedly, Russia has already imposed a policy of ''indirect expropriation'' by requiring foreign companies to pay an exit tax to finance the war efforts or lock up the proceeds for an extended period of time before they can be transferred. More recently, Russia has expropriated foreign companies outright without paying compensation. But if the West decides to use frozen Russian assets to pay for Ukraine's reconstruction, Russia may decide to expropriate assets held by foreigners, which would primarily affect private investors. Even if the U.S. government holds no assets in Russia, U.S. companies could still become subject to retaliation, possibly causing a domestic political backlash.
In the short-to-medium term, the economic costs would likely be manageable — especially if the United States, the euro area, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia act jointly. But expropriating Russian government assets may diminish demand for U.S. and European financial assets, including by third parties concerned about the potential erosion of the rule of law and sovereign immunity. But admittedly, even if this happens, the economic costs may be quite manageable.
Strategic Implications
The outright or even indirect expropriation of government-owned foreign assets would have consequences at the strategic level as well. For a start, it would make the Russian government even more reluctant to reach a compromise to end its war in Ukraine, which would then require greater resources for Kyiv to decisively prevail on the battlefield to impose a punitive peace, including the forfeiture of Russia's foreign asset holdings. Leaving aside the question of how desirable a punitive peace might be, outright expropriation would remove the option of holding foreign assets ''at risk'' and of using them as a bargaining chip in getting Russian to sign a peace agreement. Admittedly, the geopolitical interests that initially provoked the conflict in Ukraine will much more strongly influence whether a peace deal is reached compared with a few hundred billion dollars worth of foreign assets. But freezing rather than seizing those Russian assets might make it easier to reach a peace agreement.
In this context, an important distinction needs to be drawn between the legal protections afforded to assets owned by a state, and those afforded to assets owned by another state's companies or individuals. Under international law, private foreign ownership of domestic financial and real assets does not benefit from immunity, making them subject to domestic law and hence expropriation. However, the state is obligated to compensate the owners of the expropriated assets. The World Bank's Investor-State Dispute Settlement, for example, provides for arbitration in case of dispute and can award plaintiffs damages, even though it has no power to enforce these claims. (International investment treaties weaken state sovereignty by providing for a dispute settlement mechanism that allows private foreign investors to pursue legal claims against a host state, including expropriation and discriminatory treatment.) But in case of criminal activity (like sanctions violations), assets owned by foreign legal or private persons can become subject to expropriation without compensation, though this can generally be challenged by the party subject to expropriation in the domestic courts.
Expropriating private-sector assets would also mean reducing the Western countries' ability to influence the attitudes of Russian private economic actors as the prospect of regaining assets may make the private sector more inclined to favor a resolution of the conflict. Finally, from a tactical point of view, expropriating Russian assets would also do little to weaken Russia's ability to prosecute the war, relative to a scenario where the assets are merely frozen.
A Complex Calculus
Seizing (or expropriating) assets is fundamentally different from blocking (or freezing) assets. Mindful of the legal obstacles and reputational consequences of outright expropriation, some observers have proposed imposing a windfall tax on profits linked to Russian assets, as well as schemes to invest Russian assets to generate higher yields and then channel the excess returns into Ukrainian reconstruction efforts. The former would undoubtedly qualify as ''indirect expropriation'' by treating Russian holdings differently from the holdings of other states. The latter would be risky, as higher-risk investments might go bad, forcing governments and taxpayers to compensate the Russian government for any losses. Both proposals would create reputational costs for limited financial gains. For Western policymakers, it will thus be a question of whether the potential political-economic costs of expropriation outweigh the potential benefits.
From Washington and Brussels' viewpoint, there is no doubt that territorial integrity is an international norm worth defending by penalizing those who violate it, at least in the hopes of deterring potential future violators. Economically, it is also no doubt desirable to limit the financial resources Western countries will need to mobilize to rebuild Ukraine. For Western decision-makers, the question is whether expropriating Russian assets is the best and most cost-effective way to achieve these goals, all risks and benefits considered.
-
https://frontline.news/post/un-approves-pandemic-declaration-at-general-assembly
-
https://www.thaimbc.com/2023/09/30/wef-caught-orchestrating-u-s-border-crisis-from-military-bases-in-panama/?fbclid=IwAR1n6_59aO8TJTfeZ0HghQHqigj_WQecc6NCIfUyGSHIwRSyjiufv2cO7ik
-
"If you can't own property, you are property."
"No farmers, no food."
"Eat insects."
Hard to overstate how far the global Left wants to go. Hard to understate how fast it is coming.
https://expose-news.com/2023/10/15/agenda-2030s-goal-is-no-farmers-no-food/
Folks, the issue isn't Joe Biden's age. The Left is organized, entrenched, worldwide and motivated.
How come we aren't?
Even when we win elections, it is only a pause in the move toward total Leftism.
Do what you can right now to stop it.
-
The WHO is pretty much an entirely owned subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party, so count me among the “who the hell cares?” club. Somewhat surprised to see the Israeli ambassador playing along, but the UN and its make work tail chases have certainly subverted many more concerned with self interest than more noble ends.
-
Biden Gets European Help for His Big-Government Agenda
When Congress and the courts say no, his agencies recruit foreigners to apply pressure here at home.
By Phil Gramm and Jeb Hensarling
Oct. 17, 2023 6:15 pm ET
American exceptionalism, the product of economic freedom and source of our prosperity, is being threatened by the Biden administration, which seeks to circumvent Congress, the courts and the Constitution to Europeanize the American economy. The administration, which can’t get Congress to legislate its agenda or the courts to allow it through executive orders, is now using international agreements and coordination in tax, antitrust, environmental and financial policy to empower Europe to impose the administration’s agenda on the U.S.
Europe is more than willing to share its constraints with its more efficient competitor, but the Biden administration is the driving force behind this regulatory race to the bottom. This mounting regulatory burden is dragging down the unique productivity, wages and profits that Americans view as our birthright.
A perfect example is the Biden administration’s agreement to allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies on their U.S. earnings if Congress refuses to adopt the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s global minimum tax. The administration not only supports the international tax increase but was its principal author. While 137 nations endorsed the OECD tax agreement, a Democratic Congress rejected it last year. Now, with a Republican House, the administration’s only chance to raise corporate taxes is to use the OECD agreement to pressure Congress to impose the tax or let foreign nations collect the equivalent tax on U.S. subsidiaries operating in their countries. The Trump administration blocked France’s proposed digital services tax on U.S. tech companies by threatening tariffs on its wine and cheese exports to the U.S. But the Biden administration has pledged not to retaliate when foreign nations tax American companies on their U.S. earnings.
Another example of this collusion is the Federal Trade Commission’s coordination with the U.K. antitrust watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority. After the FTC wasn’t able to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard in federal court, the agency appears to have conspired with the CMA to block the acquisition.
When asked about FTC involvement in its objection, the CMA admitted it had 26 meetings and exchanged 74 emails with the commission about the Microsoft case. Based on this evidence Activision CEO Bobby Kotick charged: “The CMA is being used as a tool by the FTC to be able to create these kinds of outcomes, and [this] isn’t the way that they’re supposed to be operating.” Quaint as it may sound, the FTC is “supposed to be operating” according to the rule of law and the Constitution. Undeterred, the FTC and the Justice Department continue to sue Google and Amazon not for exploiting their customers, the U.S. antitrust standard, but for failing to protect their competitors, the European standard.
The Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate-change standard, under which all large public and private companies would be forced to disclose their carbon footprint and those of their suppliers and customers, would impose European-style environmental reporting rules on American companies. Lacking the clear legislative authority to issue such a rule, the SEC likely faces a Supreme Court challenge similar to West Virginia v. EPA (2022), which overturned President Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
But the SEC has a backup plan. The European Union-dominated International Organization of Securities Commissions, of which the SEC is a member, has recently endorsed the International Sustainability Standards Board’s “sustainability-related financial disclosures standards.” Will the administration coordinate with the EU to enforce its rules against U.S. companies operating in Europe and their American suppliers and customers?
While the SEC has used its regulatory power to impose the administration’s anticarbon initiative, it has also pushed to expand its jurisdiction to cover the $20 trillion private-funds industry. In August the SEC approved sweeping new rules to expand its regulatory authority over investments made by sophisticated investors that historically have been considered capable of protecting their own interests such as pension plans, university endowments and wealthy individuals.
Based on his concern over the size and profitability of hedge funds, private equity and venture-capital firms, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has pushed his agency to adopt the largest expansion in its regulatory authority in 80 years on a 3-2 partisan commission vote. Republican Commissioner Hester Peirce objected: “The rule-making is ahistorical, unjustified, unlawful, impractical, confusing and harmful.”
Given the absence of clear legislative authority for such a massive power grab, this is another invitation to a court challenge. But large financial-service providers have European investors, acquire European assets and operate in Europe. Don’t be surprised if Mr. Gensler starts coordinating with European regulators.
The Biden administration’s Europeanization of the American economy is a political agenda meant to expand the size and power of government. Most American families don’t have a political agenda. They have jobs, bills and responsibilities; they want a better life for their children.
Over the past 30 years, real per capita gross domestic product in France and Germany, the EU’s two largest economies, have grown, respectively, from $28,670 to $38,913 (a 35.7% increase) and from $30,615 to $43,032 (40.5%). Real per capita GDP in the U.S. has grown 56.7%, from $40,108 to $62,866. Making America more like Europe gives the Biden administration the government it wants, but European economic results won’t give American families what they want.
Mr. Gramm, a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee (1999-2001), is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He holds stock in Amazon and Google and is an adviser to a private-equity fund. Mr. Hensarling, a former chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (2013-19), is an advisory council member to Americans for Prosperity. He holds stock in Amazon and Microsoft.
Copyright ©2023 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
Appeared in the October 18, 2023, print edition as 'Biden Gets European Help for His Big-Government Agenda'.
-
The Disgrace of the United Nations on Israel
The Secretary-General abandons Israel, a state the U.N. helped to create.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated Oct. 25, 2023 6:21 pm ET
In the ever-expanding hall of shame for propagators of global disorder, prepare a special pedestal for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres. His disgraceful remarks Tuesday to the Security Council are an example of why the U.N. can’t be counted on to keep the peace anywhere.
Mr. Guterres’s comments amount to nothing less than an apologia for Hamas terrorists, despite a few thin caveats. “It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum,” he said of the Iran-backed terror group’s Oct. 7 invasion of southern Israel, which claimed more than 1,400 lives.
Lest anyone miss his point: “The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished.”
Although he allowed that these “grievances” don’t justify the “appalling attacks by Hamas,” he warned that “those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.” We quote Mr. Guterres at length in case readers assume someone in his position couldn’t really have delivered a speech of this sort. He did.
Mr. Guterres seems to know little about the institution he leads. A U.N. resolution passed in 1947 recommended the partition plan for Palestine that led to the creation of Israel the following year, as our friends at the New York Sun note in a sharp editorial.
Meanwhile, for decades the U.N., under the auspices of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) refugee agency exclusively for Palestinians, has discouraged permanent resettlement by refugees and runs schools that teach children Israeli territory belongs to them.
Far worse is Mr. Guterres’s parroting of what amounts to a modern-day blood libel that Israel is indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians. The Israel Defense Forces more than a week ago tried to warn Gazans to flee the likely path of an invasion; Hamas discouraged civilians from doing so and the U.N. criticized . . . Israel.
Civilians are dying because Hamas deliberately targeted Israelis and now uses Gazans as human shields, as Mr. Guterres had to acknowledge Tuesday. By calling for Israel to accept a cease-fire, Mr. Guterres is effectively rewarding the terrorists’ civilian-killing strategy while denying a U.N.-approved state the same ability to defend itself that every other country enjoys.
This false equivalence elevates Mr. Guterres’s comments to the destructive from merely foolish. His message to the world’s rogues is that if you go on a killing spree, the U.N. will help justify your depredations. Will Mr. Guterres concoct some excuse if Beijing invades Taiwan—or Philippine territory? This is how the U.N. makes itself a fellow traveler in the advancing march of global disorder.
-
·
🚨 Breaking: 🇨🇿 Czech Defense Minister Jana Černochová calls to leave the UN 🇺🇳 for supporting terrorism: “Three weeks ago Hamas murdered over 1400 Israelis, more victims for their population than Al Qaeda murdered in the US on 9/11. And only 14 countries, including ours, have spoken out clearly against this unprecedented terrorist attack. I am ashamed of the UN. Czech Republic has no place in an organization that cheers on terrorists and does not respect the fundamental right to self-defense. Let's get out!”
----
UN, an overfed rats nest
-
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/un-moves-to-advance-pandemic-treaty-and-regulations-signaling-urgent-need-for-public
-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/who-cleaned-ebola-rape-fiasco-250-payoff-congolese-victims-documents
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-n-women-retracts-statement-condemning-hamas-attacks-on-israel/
-
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-n-women-retracts-statement-condemning-hamas-attacks-on-israel/
Not One Thin Dime to this rogue organization should be our policy.
Women who retract the condemnation of rape, murder, kidnap...
To call them worthless would be to miss the danger they pose.
-
China’s race to dominate deep seabed minerals
U.S. participation in Law of the Sea Treaty needed
By John Norton Moore
The Washington Post recently published a front-page story as to how Xi Jinping’s China is seeking to dominate the mineral resources of the deep seabed. These resources of copper, nickel, cobalt, manganese and rare earth minerals are the most important remaining strategic minerals on Earth. Moreover, China seeks to control the important environmental rules that will govern the harvesting of the nodules containing these critical minerals.
But the Post piece left out the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as to how this happened and the simple solution that will put the U.S. back in the game.
The U.S. led the world in the negotiations leading to the Law of the Sea Treaty and was by far the biggest winner. We quadrupled our sovereign territorial sea and extended our control over offshore resources, both fisheries and oil and gas, in an area larger than the entire U.S. landmass — for the largest such area in the world.
We also won our “no sign” issues, ensured access to strategic minerals of the deep seabed, and navigational freedom for our Navy and commercial shipping.
Thus, we ended the negotiations with four USA-designated deep seabed sites in the mineralrich Clarion-Clipperton Zone of the Pacific — each site approximately the size of Rhode Island, and each containing minerals estimated at $1 trillion in value.
We secured freedom of navigation in the new 200-nautical-mile “economic” zones as well as the right of transit passage for our ships and aircraft through straits used for international navigation.
Since no nation owned the deep seabed and our industry needed clear property rights to a specific site before spending the billions required to develop a site, the U.S. supported the creation of a small international agency called the International Seabed Authority to provide those property rights through licenses to be issued to treaty parties.
When early drafts of the seabed mining regime were unacceptable, President Ronald Reagan announced changes required for the U.S. to accept the treaty, changes that were subsequently agreed upon in a lengthy renegotiation.
As part of this renegotiation, the U.S. was given the only permanent seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority, a seat with substantial authority over deep seabed harvesting rules, environmental rules, and other critical council decisions. This renegotiation was a victory for Reagan.
After this renegotiation, our NATO allies, as well as China and Russia, quickly became parties to the Law of the Sea Treaty. Today, 168 countries and the European Union are parties to the treaty. But responding to a drumbeat of false and misleading arguments against the treaty for over 25 years, the Senate has never given advice and consent.
The result has been the loss by the United States of “USA-2” and “USA-3” and a growing risk of loss of “USA-1” and “USA-4.” In the meantime, Russia has been licensed for three deep seabed sites and Xi Jinping’s China for five.
Just as Russia and China are seeking dominance over land-based deposits of these minerals in Africa and Latin America, they are taking advantage of the United States’ absence from the treaty to seek to do the same in the deep seabed. As our national security, business and environmental leaders told the Senate in 2012, the last time the treaty was before the Senate for advice and consent, it is imperative that the U.S. accede to the treaty. But the 10-plus years since this last Senate consideration of the treaty, coinciding with Mr. Xi’s rise to power in China, has made U.S. adherence of much greater importance today. Today, America’s absence from the treaty has empowered three critical security threats from Mr. Xi’s China. The first is the effort to obtain dominance over strategic minerals from the deep ocean floor and to exclude the United States from this most important remaining source of such minerals, as discussed in the Post story. The second, of equal concern for the United States, is China’s wholeof- government campaign to increase the restrictions on navigational freedoms embodied in the treaty that are critical for the U.S. Navy and American trade. Our allies need us in the effort to enforce these freedoms won in a difficult negotiation lasting a quarter century and now embodied in the treaty. The third is a Xi-Putin laser focus on the Arctic, America’s fourth seacoast, while nonadherence to the treaty is inhibiting the United States’ response to their Arctic activism.
There is a simple solution that can change the game overnight. That is for the Senate to provide prompt advice and consent to the treaty and for the United States to take its seat on the Council of the International Seabed Authority and license our remaining two USA-designated sites.
This provides both U.S. input on the important environmental rules for seabed mining and protects access to $2 trillion in critical strategic minerals. Our membership in the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea will also immediately strengthen our hand against these other efforts from Mr. Xi’s China to dominate ocean space. John Norton Moore formerly served as U.S. ambassador for the U.N. Law of the Sea Convention and chair of the NSC Task Force for UNCLOS. His book about the urgent need for the United States to adhere to the Law of the Sea Treaty, “The Struggle for Law in the Oceans: How an Isolationist Narrative Betrays America,” was just published by Oxford University Press
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/22/global-pandemic-agreement-at-risk-of-falling-apart-who-warns
-
Found this through a usually reliable source quoting the NYT, which I won't set an account with. I'll amend it if I find confirmation or refutation:
Details emerge on the 12
@UNRWA
employees who participated in the Oct 7 massacre (from
@nytimes
):
🔴 9 employees have been fired; 2 are dead.
🔴 6 were confirmed to be inside Israel on Oct 7 based on their phones; others discussed their involvement on intercepted phone calls; 3 received texts telling them to report to meeting points on Oct 7, and one was told to bring RPGs stored at his home.
🔴 7 were teachers at UNRWA schools; 2 worked at schools in other capacities; the remaining three were a clerk, a social worker, and a storeroom manager.
🔴 A school counselor from Khan Yunis and his son abducted a woman from southern Israel.
🔴 A social worker from Nuseirat helped bring the body of a dead Israeli soldier to Gaza and helped distribute ammunition and coordinate vehicles on the day of the attack.
ETA: though I can't open it without registering, here is the NYT link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/gaza-unrwa-hamas-israel.html?fbclid=IwAR166nStU1hGzS-rhFWEyXCv0V9xE5Md6CHGlnTzQJ48bFkj_52qy5GTc-I
-
Read a couple different sources claiming just prior to publicly cutting UNRWA of from funds due to its support of Oct. 7 atrocities the Biden admin quietly slipped them $10 million to tide them over. Rumor has it Trudeau of Canada did the same. Will update if further confirmed or disproven.
-
United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA)
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/einat-wilf-without-unrwa-there-would-be-no-hamas-it-must-be-dismantled
---------------------------
[Doug] The first two letters is what must be dismantled.
Question, are they, the UN, doing more harm than good?
-
https://amgreatness.com/2024/02/17/natos-new-mission-peace-through-censorship/
-
The mission against Hamas is "over the top"?
Cease fire needed?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/19/un-resolution-cease-fire-gaza-00142140
Or is it that Democratic Muslim American votes are needed?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rep-rashida-tlaib-urges-michigan-democrats-vote-biden-primary-rcna139360
-
The latter.
-
Let's bring the discussion of India getting a seat on the Security Council here.
As we started discussing in the Indo-Pacific thread, Britain and France are on the Council due to stasis, not because they really deserve it any more.
What would it take for India to get a seat and break the stasis, and who would be the countries pushing to replace Britain and France?
-
Trump Should Lay Off NATO, Target the U.N.
Military alliances provide hard security benefits to the U.S. Turtle Bay is useless at best and often inimical to America.
By John Bolton
March 8, 2024 3:25 pm ET
Share
Resize
324
Listen
(3 min)
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
TAP FOR SOUND
Wonder Land: Historical parallels are never perfect. But given Donald Trump's isolationist rhetoric and increasingly threatening actions from Iran, Russia and China, the former President could learn much from the Munich Agreement of 1938. Images: Reuters/CTK via ZUMA Press Composite: Mark Kelly
Donald Trump’s assault on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization began in his first term and has continued as he campaigns for a second. NATO certainly has its problems, as Henry Kissinger argued in “The Troubled Partnership: A Re-Appraisal of the Atlantic Alliance” (1965). But it serves U.S. national-security interests. Undermining U.S. strength by eroding alliances hardly amounts to an America-first agenda. Further, Mr. Trump’s focus on NATO shields from scrutiny the United Nations and other international institutions that are much more inimical to America.
Mr. Trump’s acolytes recognize that his NATO withdrawal threats have kicked up problems. Tellingly, however, their efforts to clean up after him are themselves unwise and unworkable. They unintentionally reflect the irrationality of Mr. Trump’s longstanding effort to debilitate NATO and his blunderbuss approach to world affairs generally.
One MAGA-world alternative to complete withdrawal is creating a “two-tier NATO,” in which any member not meeting the 2014 Cardiff summit commitment to spend 2% of gross domestic product on defense wouldn’t receive alliance protection. This notion is toxic to alliance solidarity and impractical. Iceland, a NATO member, has no military and therefore spends nothing on defense. I never discussed Iceland with Mr. Trump, but I expect he’d question why it was even allowed in NATO. The simple answer: Look at a map. Shall we concede Iceland to Russia or China so it can “persuade” Reykjavik to allow naval and air bases there?
Consider the vulnerability of Poland, the Baltics and others on Russia’s periphery. Because of geography, they are at risk no matter how high their defense spending—and all now exceed the Cardiff target. NATO deterrence provides their only real protection. If that deterrence recedes or fails, the Moscow-Beijing axis will seize these low-hanging fruit, notwithstanding that they satisfy Trump accounting rules.
Finally, a two-tiered NATO would be untenable in combat, logistics and communications. Imagine that Russia invades Poland. The U.S. springs to its aid, but Russia advances close to the German border. The U.S. field commander calls his Russian counterpart to say: “You can do whatever the hell you want in Germany. Please excuse us while we retreat to the next NATO country that spends 2% of its GDP on defense. We’ll see you there if you attack them after you finish Germany.” The Russians are already enjoying vodka toasts over a two-tiered NATO.
Another Trump World proposal is to impose tariffs on NATO member countries that don’t reach the 2% spending level. Presumably, this logic also applies to non-NATO allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia if Mr. Trump believes they aren’t carrying their fair share of the defense burden. This gambit is a non sequitur to everyone but Mr. Trump, for whom international problems are nails crying out for his tariff hammer. Penalizing the economies of U.S. allies to encourage them to increase defense spending sounds like “the beatings will continue until morale improves.”
More practically, on what authority could Mr. Trump draw to impose such tariffs? Even a Republican-controlled Congress, which is far from certain, is highly unlikely to give him new tariff authority. Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, often cited in Mr. Trump’s first term, applies when foreign actions are “unreasonable or discriminatory, and burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” That hardly covers sovereign defense-spending decisions we happen not to like.
Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Act, authorizing tariffs to protect American national security, is closer to the mark. Mr. Trump used Section 232 to impose tariffs on Canadian and European steel and aluminum imports, thereby proving, unsurprisingly to everyone but Mr. Trump, that penalizing your allies doesn’t weaken your adversaries. Obviously, the opposite is true: we should be unifying allies against China economically as well as politically, not splitting the camp of those harmed by Chinese intellectual-property piracy and harmful trade policies.
Even if all NATO members reached the Cardiff targets, the spending issue wouldn’t disappear. Facing mounting global threats, Washington’s defense budgets need to increase to Reagan-era levels, perhaps 5% to 6% of GDP from the current 3.5%. Inevitably, therefore, NATO members (and other allies globally) will have to increase to perhaps a 4% minimum. Getting to 2% is the easy part. The Trump-mitigating proposals are untenable, evanescent, and inadequate to keep NATO strong.
Besides, there are better targets for MAGA ire. Mr. Trump could usefully wreak havoc on the U.N. As I said 30 years ago, you could lose the top 10 floors of the U.N. Secretariat building and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. Things have only gotten worse.
In 2022, Washington spent about $18.1 billion across the U.N. system, far more than any other contributor. Contributions are made via several methods in a complex, nearly incomprehensible system, most commonly through “assessed” contributions, with the U.S. generally paying 22% of agency budgets so funded. Washington has had limited success in constraining U.N. budgets, and has often itself prompted significant increases.
Assessed contributions are functionally taxes. Contrary to what some Trump supporters have said, defense expenditures aren’t. We need to spend on our defense whether we have allies or not. Allies help reduce that burden. The U.N. only makes it heavier.
One powerful reform would be shifting from assessed contributions to wholly voluntary ones. America and other members would pay only for what they want and insist they get value for money. Even if only the U.S. switched unilaterally to voluntary contributions, it would create a tsunami that could fundamentally change the entire U.N. Or not, in which case at least we wouldn’t be paying for it.
Advertisement
There is no chance any U.N. component will ever voluntarily adopt such a system, because the U.S. has been the U.N.’s cash cow since 1945. Instead, a President Trump could simply say we are moving to voluntary contributions whether anyone else does or not. Under Article 19 of the U.N. Charter, failure to pay assessments for two years running could cost a country its vote in the General Assembly, but that loss is insignificant. General Assembly votes are nonbinding, and the U.S. carries no more weight than Vanuatu or Eritrea.
America’s Security Council vote, and therefore its veto power, is totally secure, guaranteed by the charter’s Article 27, and the charter itself can’t be amended without consent from all permanent members, including the U.S., per Article 108.
For those U.N. specialized agencies and programs already funded voluntarily, Inauguration Day would present immediate opportunities to defund some entirely and reduce funding for others. In his first term, Mr. Trump defunded the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, a decision Joe Biden reversed. Given that some Unrwa employees joined Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, defunding it should be a top priority.
As Washington implemented a switch to voluntary contributions, it would face important decisions on continuing membership in several U.N. entities, decisions which would involve not merely defunding, but withdrawing from them completely. The U.S. has been in and out of the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization for decades, withdrawing first under Ronald Reagan, inexplicably rejoining under George W. Bush. Mr. Trump took us out again, and Mr. Biden again returned. A Trump win should guarantee a third withdrawal, hopefully for good. Mr. Trump also served notice of withdrawing from the Universal Postal Union but later backed down. UPU warrants another look.
Beyond massive changes in U.N. funding and membership, Mr. Trump should insist that an American become U.N. secretary-general when António Guterres’s term expires in December 2026. Although I have no prospect of and no desire for a position in Mr. Trump’s second-term administration, I would be available as our candidate for secretary-general.
The ultimate question is whether America should withdraw from the U.N. altogether. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick was once asked that question. She paused, then answered: “No, it’s not worth the trouble.”
Although technically part of the U.N., international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank should also be carefully re-examined. On the IMF, Mr. Trump should read the seminal 1998 op-ed in these pages by George Shultz, William Simon and Walter Wriston, “Who Needs the IMF?” No one has answered the question adequately.
Not since the Reagan administration has there been a comprehensive review of multilateral foreign assistance. Proponents long argued that multilateral development banks help Washington mobilize development resources, but private capital is now far more widely available than when they were founded. Multilateral foreign aid only marginally advances U.S. national-security interests, but these banks have powerful Washington lobbies. Mr. Trump should mark them down for defunding or withdrawal. That would free up greater resources for bilateral foreign assistance, which, if implemented effectively, can advance core American interests.
Finally, a wall of pretend international courts—including the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty’s tribunal and the World Trade Organization’s dispute-resolution process—are already on history’s ash heap, or on their way there. Clearing away what remains is still important work. In his first term, Mr. Trump stymied the WTO judicial mechanism, and even the Biden administration has kept it stymied so far. Mr. Trump’s focus shouldn’t be limited to international trade, but to all manifestations of emerging “global governance,” heartily encouraged under Mr. Biden and Barack Obama.
A related issue is arms control, particularly how to handle a potential renewal of the New Start Treaty. Although we persuaded Mr. Trump in 2019 to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces and Open Skies treaties with Russia, New Start was never much of an issue. Mr. Trump’s desire to cozy up to Vladimir Putin may give Mr. Putin an opportunity to cajole Mr. Trump into negotiations to extend New Start. Mr. Trump should resist any such temptation. Moreover, any strategic weapons negotiations should include China as well as Russia, given China’s rising nuclear and ballistic-missile capabilities.
Mr. Trump rightly never expressed support for the “rules-based international order” the left loves to conjure. As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel, and countless other examples demonstrate, there is no such thing. A president who truly grasps this can reawaken Americans to the necessity of operating from positions of strength in the world, not high-minded rhetoric and virtue-signaling.
NATO and other U.S. politico-military alliances aren’t acts of charity, and they are fundamentally different from the U.N., the international financial institutions and the global-governance project. We founded and support NATO because it serves hard U.S. national-security interests, not because of warm feelings for Europeans or abstract notions of “democracy.”
Nobody is going to defend us or maintain an international system favoring America if we don’t. That requires spending the necessary resources and extending our reach through alliances like NATO. If we reduce our defense capabilities or retreat from positions of strength, others will fill the vacuum, invariably to our disadvantage.
Mr. Bolton served as President Trump’s national security adviser, 2018-19, and ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-06. He is author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.”
-
(2) OFFICIALS PLAN TO BLOCK TRUMP FROM STOPPING UKRAINE AID: According to U.S. and European officials, the U.S. and NATO allies are considering a plan to transfer control of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group from the U.S. to NATO to ensure arms transfers continue ahead of a potential Trump presidency.
Former Pentagon and NATO official Jim Townsend said some NATO officials think it is better to institutionalize the arms transfer process, and this plan isolates Ukraine arms transfers from a Trump reelection or the U.S. getting distracted by a conflict with China (!!!).
Why It Matters: This is another instance of the Biden administration attempting to “future-proof” policies against a future Trump administration. The Biden administration’s goal is very likely to prevent a repeat of 2017 when Trump and House Republicans used the Congressional Review Act to repeal last-minute Obama administration rules on energy emissions. – R.C.