Category Archives: U.N

Hey! The UN circus is in town!

25.09.2013

Hey! The UN circus is in town!. 51182.jpeg

Roll up! The UN circus is in town with its General Assembly Annual Debate! Get your tickets ladies and gentlemen to see our collection of freaks, clowns and weird and wonderful creatures from the four corners of the globe spouting hot air in a piss and wind rendition of “all together now”. What policymaking can we expect for the forthcoming years?

So, here we go again with another meeting of 130-odd world leaders getting together in New York for another General Assembly annual general debate which will last all this week and part of next. The hot air focus of this year’s magnificent event is about global development, promoting equity, protecting the planet, justice and (violins) prosperity for all (cheers) (end violins).

Permit me to write a paragraph of UN-speak, the language spoken by the UN: We are gathered together here today to create a brighter tomorrow learning from the mistakes of yesterday and building a common garden for all of us to prosper in starting next week, remembering last month’s challenges to implement a new direction this year, living a common goal which reaches out to all colours, races and creeds, living together like brothers and sisters around our common lake, the seas. (Raspberry).

This type of discourse is going to last day in, day out all week long. The tangible results will be a lot of promises, a lot of hand-shakes, some very bland chicken lunches and dinners, some bored old sod falling asleep in his soup plate on day three, the high point of the meeting and the subject of mirth-filled e-mails for the coming six months, some token moves on sustainable development (whatever that means), a few wishy-washy sentences on the Millennium Development Goals and er…

Now, if the UN General Assembly, many of its 130-odd world leaders, its 84 heads of state, 41 heads of government, 11 deputy prime ministers and 65 foreign ministers are going to spend our taxpayers’ money on hot air, let us address the real issues, without spending a cent.

For a start, President Vladimir Putin has proved himself a Statesman by using every fibre of his existence and every drop of his energy by averting another of Washington’s imperialist ventures, for now at least. Perhaps he should be the one speaking and the representatives of the FUKUS Axis (France-UK-US) should sit quietly in the front row listening and taking notes before he passes the word to his fellow leaders of the BRIC bloc.

Secondly, a motion should be tabled depriving President Obama of his Nobel Peace Prize for insulting the Institution by being weak, arming terrorists by proxy, lying to his people and to the world and kowtowing to the lobbies in Washington which pull his strings, a situation he vowed to er… “change”, remember? Also because his real plans are allegedly to go to war in Syria and then in Iran. Watch this space. Read his lips as he addresses the meeting and watch his fingers crossed behind his back as he lies through his teeth, him or his queen of lies John “There’s no al-Qaeda in Syria” Kerry.

The General Assembly’s General Debate is, and will always be, a joke and an insult to the international community until the world leaders come together with tangible plans to address the real issues today at the beginning of the Third Millennium of the Christian Calendar. One of these is the one point seven trillion dollars spent each year on weaponry to kill each other, that is one point seven thousand billion dollars, or in plain numbers, 1,700,000,000,000 USD. If that much money was invested in schemes to eradicate poverty, provide environmentally clean energy, build schools and send kids to them, in safety and create water distribution networks (and let us remember NATO’s act of bombing the Libyan water supply and then strafing the civilian factory making the pipes to repair it, “to break their backs”). But no. They speak about these things, then distribute military contracts to their cronies.

Speaking of NATO, why does this organization exist if the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and why has NATO encroached eastwards when it promised it would not? And why does NATO control the foreign policies of its member states when this area is enshrined in their Constitutions as being a national and not a supra-national prerogative? If NATO is unconstitutional in many cases and is the spider at the centre of the war mongers’ web, then we may see that the military complex which fuels today’s wars and distributes contracts to the lobbies which feed off its teats, is the root of today’s evils.

They will defend the status quo claiming that this complex creates jobs and maintains economies, but suppose someone figured out that spending one point seven thousand billion dollars a year on creating plants to create environmentally friendly energies, fuelling the backbone of the economy which is civil construction and not bullets and providing public services would be a viable alternative?

These are the issues that UN General Assembly should be covering in its General Debate and these are the issues which the grass-roots public should, if they care, bring into the political arena when they select their representatives.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Published September 25, 2013

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/25-09-2013/125752-un_circus-0/

The Sellstrom Report: The United Nations’ Syria Inspector Shills for NATO and Israel

By Yoichi Shimatsu

Global Research, September 18, 2013

Instead of a non-politicized investigation and lab analysis, the UN investigation of alleged nerve-gas attacks inside Syria was led by Professor Ake Sellstrom, a man of mystery who keeps a veil of secrecy around his research and political-military relationships.

Sellstrom’s report on Syria for the UN and his prior inspections record in Iraq are dubious, to say the least. In the eyes of laymen, his seeming objectivity and non-partisanship is based on the myth of Sweden’s neutrality. The public assumes – wrongly- that Sweden never takes sides in wars or geopolitical conflicts.

Fraud of Neutrality

This cosmetic veneer of Swedish neutrality has been deftly exploited by Israel and NATO to perpetrate falsehoods throughout Sellstrom’s work for the UN, including denial of the chemical-and-biological causes for “Gulf War Syndrome” and the shipments of U.S. chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime.

The Hans Blix-Ake Sellstrom inspection teams in Iraq did not investigate the special-weapons bunkers that were bombed by American warplanes in the U.S. invasion.

Sellstrom also never made any attempt to probe the U.S.-produced 20-foot-long cannisters of VX nerve gas discovered at Balad Air Base by American National Guardsmen. His mission was not to prove Iraqi guilt but to get Washington off the hook for supplying tons of nerve gas to Baghdad. Saving U.S. officials like Donald Rumsfeld from disgrace and treason charges is far more important to imperial power that disclosing any facts in a theater of war.

The salient critique of the UN inspections in Iraq was made by American inspector Scott Ritter who accused the team of spying for Washington and NATO. The same question hangs over Sellstrom’s report on Syria. Is Sellstrom acting on behalf of Washington and Tel Aviv?

NATO Front Man

What is publicly known about Sellstrom is that the biochemist heads the European CBRNE Center [Center for advanced Studies of Societal Security and Vulnerability, in particular major incidents with (C)hemical, (B)iological, (R)adiological, (N)uclear and (E)xplosive substances], at Umea University in northern Sweden, which is sponsored by the Swedish Defense Ministry (FOI). Though not a NATO member, the Swedish military and police have a leading role in European security affairs as drafters of the repressive 2009 EU action plan based on the Stockholm Counterterrorism Programme.

Major funding for the CBRNE multidisciplinary research projects at Umea comes from the EU budget for the war on terrorism. These projects include: defense strategy for large-scale terrorist attacks (notice the term “relatively large scale” in his just-released Syria report); recommendations for EU medical emergency responses; and specialized training at Umea for experts, including military officers attached to NATO.

Sweden’s military-industrial complex, which includes Saab and Bofors, is anything but peace-loving and neutral. The kingdom’s cloak of neutrality is most useful for Israeli interests, which have exploited Scandinavia’s clean image to skew international policy against the Palestinians and Arab states, as demonstrated in the half-baked Oslo Accords.

Israeli Infiltration of Scandinavia

Umea University is deeply involved in joint research with Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), the Haifa-based university that provides state-of-art technology to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and its intelligence agencies. Several departments, which are involved in joint Israeli research, participate in multidisciplinary studies at Sellstrom’s CBRNE center. These include: the computer department, which has cooperated with Technion on control systems since 2004; the medical faculty; and chemistry, his own field of studies.

The Israeli-Swedish research cooperation is fostered by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which provides scholarships and awards to bind together the industries and universities of the two countries. This year the State of Israeli is sponsoring the Start Tel Aviv program for expanded cultural ties, in its relentless campaign to subvert Scandinavia. The political agenda and military links behind the bilateral cooperation has prompted an anti-Israel boycott by conscientious Swedish academics.

No Credibility on Syria

The term “relatively large scale” chemical-weapons attack used in the introduction to the UN report on Syria is hyperbole, since any major attack with sarin would have resulted in tens of thousands of fatalities, especially if dispersed by military rockets. The first videos from Ghouta showed residents pouring out of their homes onto the street, gasping for fresh air. If indeed highly efficient rockets had been used, every one of them would have been killed instantaneous. The gassing, therefore, must have been an accidental release indoors, probably from a hidden rebel arsenal.

Chemical residues from the alleged rockets would have been oxidized by the heat of impact and certainly no intact organophosphate traces would be detectable, since sarin is designed to decompose after 20 minutes. Rockets are designed to use a binary system by which two chemical precursors are mixed during mid-air dispersal. Thus, there is no need for stabilizers or dispersants, meaning an absence of any identifying chemicals. The UN inspectors arrived long after the expiration period for sample testing. There is a possiblity also that the site and rocket parts may have been tampered with falsified evidence by the rebels and their foreign military advisers.

The casualty figures are unverifiable, and certainly not any of the videos showed more than a dozen corpses at a time. The scenes of swaddled infants is typical of war propaganda, certainly not believable when only a few faces were visible. The sum effect of these images is closer to theater than credible reporting.

Sellstrom’s strategy is to point fingers of guilt at the Syrian regime, while avoiding all possibility of alternative and more probable scenarios.

Hidden Agenda

American ambassador to the UN Samantha Power made emphatically clear that the “nerve gas used in Syria was more concentrated than the nerve gas in Iraqi.” Her statement should be rephrased as: “Saddam may have trans-shipped U.S.-supplied nerve gas into Syria, but it wasn’t our nerve gas used against Syrian civilians.”

That is the essential point of the Sellstrom report: To take Washington off the hook for being the major supplier of nerve gas precursors, formulations, delivery technology and storage systems to the Middle East, incluing Israel, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and very possibly Syria (during the Clinton era of good will).

The UN report of chemical weapons on Syria lacks basic credibility due to the duplicitous record of its chief inspector, Ake Sellstrom, who is politically and financially compromised at every level. An impartial fact-finding mission of credible international experts is required, but it would have no chance of conducting a fair investigation so long as Washington provides weapons and political support to the insurgency, including its Al Qaeda faction.

The geopolitical objective underlying the White House orchestrated hystrionics over Syria is to strip Damascus of its limited deterrence capability against Israel’s nuclear forces. Nerve gas may not be much of a counter-strike response compared with atomic warheads, but it seems Israel’s goal is absolute strategic supremacy against the Arab states and Iran. With the new UN report on Syria, Tel Aviv is a giant step closer to the dream of rendering all its neighbors defenseless and divided.

Yoichi Shimatsu, a science journalist based in Hong Kong, led a team of investigative reporters for the Japan Times Weekly and served as consultant to Takarajima 30 magazine during the Tokyo subway gassing in 1995.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-sellstrom-report-the-united-nations-syria-inspector-shills-for-nato-and-israel/5350287

UN Arms Trade Treaty’s Deadly Loophole

By Nile Bowie

April 08, 2013 “Information Clearing House” -“PTV” – Foundation fellows and diplomats have lauded the overwhelming approval of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by the General Assembly of the United Nations, with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon describing it as a means to obstruct the illicit arms flow to warlords, pirates, terrorists, criminals and the like.

Many who have critically monitored the situation in Syria and the ramifications of foreign intervention in Libya may have difficulty swallowing Ban’s words, as some would argue that the UN has itself been complicit in these crises for turning a blind eye to arms and funding going to al-Qaeda-linked rebels in various countries.

Twenty-three countries abstained from the vote (representing half the world’s population), including Russia, China, India, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Egypt, while three – Syria, Iran, and North Korea – voted no. Iran’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Gholam-Hossein Dehqani called the treaty a political document disguised as an Arms Trade Treaty, and with highly legitimate reasons for doing so.

“The right to acquire and import arms for their (importer states’) security needs is subject to the discretionary judgment and extremely subjective assessment of the exporting states. That is why this text is highly abusable and susceptible to politicization, manipulation and discrimination,” said Dehghani, referring to conditions that arms exporting states would be able to impose on importing states.

The pact prohibits the export of conventional arms to countries deemed guilty of violating international human rights laws and committing crimes against humanity – sure, this appears to be ethical and just at first glance, but more careful reflection is required. If we assume that the United Nations makes the call on which states qualify as human rights abusers and which states do not, then Israel would not be hindered from purchasing conventional weapons, but a country like Syria would be barred from purchasing arms to defend itself and its territorial sovereignty.

What makes the treaty not only toothless, but also particularly dangerous, is the fact that it lacks any explicit prohibitions regarding arms proliferation to terrorists and unlawful non-state actors.

“Without such provisions, the ATT would in fact lower the bar on obligations of all states not to support terrorists and/or terrorists acts. We cannot allow such a loophole in the ATT,” said Sujata Mehta, India’s lead negotiator for the ATT in a statement.

What this means is that NATO and Persian Gulf states that supply arms to opposition groups in Syria will retain the flexibility to continue to do so, while at the same time having a greater say over whether individual importing states can arm themselves in accordance with their legitimate defense and national security interests. There is no doubt that certain states would take advantage of this loophole’s vast potential for misuse.

The treaty does not recognize the rights of all states to acquire, produce, export, import and possess conventional weapons for their own legitimate security purposes. In theory, this treaty gives the United States, the world’s largest arms exporter with heavy sway over the UN, much greater ability to influence whether or not an individual country is allowed to obtain weapons for its own defense. The treaty, in its glaring bias and predictability, completely fails to prohibit the transfer of arms to countries engaged in military aggression against other nations, such as Israel.

“Somebody probably wants to have free rein to send arms to anti-government groups in countries ruled by regimes they consider inconvenient… When we started work on the document, the General Assembly set the task of establishing the highest possible international standards in the area of arms transfers. In reality though, the treaty has established minimally acceptable standards,” said Russian treaty negotiator Mikhail Ulyanov in a recent interview.

The treaty applies to the transfer of conventional weapons such as battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, small and light weapons, while the proliferation of UAV drones and other modern military technology is not addressed or scrutinized. While feel-good rhetoric prevails and politicians pat themselves on the back, the United Nations by its own admission concedes that the treaty does not ban or prohibit the export of any type of weapon. It is clear that the countries that rely most on the illicit trafficking of arms to execute their foreign policy objectives have had noticeable influence over the contents of this treaty. The treaty depends on how stringently individual countries implement it, and international arms transfers that involve barter deals or leases are also not scrutinized.

While many call it a welcomed development and the first step in regulating the $70 billion global conventional arms trade, there is little evidence that it will accomplish anything more than increase the frequency of illicit transfers under different guises and further legitimize the ‘Good Terrorist-Bad Terrorist’ dichotomy – it also contains no language concerning the right to self-determination by people who are under occupation, as is the case in Palestine. The treaty contains some reasonable common-sense measures, such as introducing national systems that monitor arms circulation in countries that lack such systems, but the absence of progressive processes lends credence to accusations that the text is highly industry-friendly and serves to reinforce the status quo.

Most importantly, the treaty pays no focus to actually reducing the sale of arms by limiting global production, which should rightfully be the objective of a treaty that uses global mass causality figures to legitimize itself. According to the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, armed violence kills more than half a million people each year, a figure that should rightfully strengthen calls to regulate and decrease global production rather than solely focusing simply on trade. Rather, the treaty institutionalizes and legalizes the arming of good terrorists while denying arms to unfriendly governments. Until the UN can cease being an appendage of a handful of the most powerful arms exporting states, there is little hope that any international arms trade treaty can reduce human suffering and have a meaningful impact on the lives of the most vulnerable in conflict zones around the world and elsewhere.

Nile Bowie is an independent political commentator and photographer based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He can be reached atnilebowie@gmail.com

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34536.htm

2013: What is the United Nations Organization for?

09.01.2013

2013: What is the United Nations Organization for?. 49064.jpegThe United Nations Organization was founded in 1945 to stop conflicts and provide a forum for debate, discussion and dialogue for crisis management. It costs around 15 billion USD a year to run, so in indexed terms has already spent some one thousand billion dollars of taxpayers’ money. On…er…?

The basic question is, what is the UNO for? If the answer is a repetition of the paragraph above, then the response is that it has failed miserably and that it is an absurdly expensive waste of time and space.

If it costs around 15 billion USD annually to run, that is getting on for two dollars per person per year, every year, and for what?Did the United Nations Organization provide a basis for debate before the invasion of Iraq? No, because the United States of America, the United Kingdom and a handful of NATO countries simply decided to sidestep the Organization, avoiding the UN Security Council because it would have voted against an invasion.

The USA and UK therefore rendered it useless back in 2003. Since then, the UNO has spent an additional 150 billion dollars doing what exactly?Did it stop the war in Libya? No, it stood back as the aforementioned demonic duo, now joined by France (to form the FUKUS Axis – France, UK, US) ran amok, supporting terrorist groups on their own lists of proscribed groups, placing boots on the ground, despite being bound not to by UNSC 1970 and 1973 (2011) and yet again breaking every law in the book.

If the British Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary of State, William Hague, is still sitting smugly in his job despite breaking the law of his own country, then it becomes patently obvious that the United Nations Organization has as much clout as a squashed, syphilitic slug lying under a tonne of sea salt.However, the slug doesn’t spend one thousand billion dollars and certainly doesn’t cost fifteen billion a year.

Let us now move on to Somalia: this conflict started back in the early nineties (more precisely in 1991). What has the United Nations done? What has the United Nations done to stop al-Qaeda, apart from allowing al-Qaeda into Iraq, from which it was barred by Saddam Hussein, and allow al-Qaeda into Libya, from which it was barred by Muammar al-Qadhafi?Did the United Nations stop the conflict in the Balkans, as the West moved in to stir up hatred among Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Macedonians? Did the UNO stop al-Qaeda moving into the Balkans? Did the UNO stop the Albanian terrorist movement Ushtria Çlirimtare ë Kosovës (Kosovo Liberation Army) perpetrating civil unrest attacks in Kosovo? Did the UNO stop the illegal declaration of independence of the Serbian Province of Kosovo and its subsequent (illegal and inconsequential) “recognition” by FUKUS poodle states?And what has the UNO done to prevent the bloodshed in Syria, where once again the FUKUS Axis has sided with terrorists, is sending in its own special forces and is making the conflict bloodier, the more the Syrian Government resists this demonic scourge?True, the UNO does some excellent humanitarian work, clearing up the mess it has failed to prevent; yet, if it did its job properly in the first place, there would be no need for the fire engine.

True, UN Women does some excellent work against gender violence and towards women’s rights; UNESCO does a lot to protect world heritage, register languages and so on, António Guterres does a superb job in helping refugees at UNHCR and true, UNICEF does some excellent work in protecting and educating children.As for the World Health Organization, it is useful as a research facility and reasonably good at distributing medicines and mosquito nets; as a disease prevention organism it is as risible as the crisis management arm – after all, during the Swine Flu crisis in 2009 it limited itself to informing us as to what Phase the new potentially fatal virus was reaching as the WHO sat back and watched Influenza A H1N1 go globe-trotting.If this is where the UNO is at after sixty-seven years, then let us conclude it is a useful humanitarian organization but would be rendered useless if an effective United Nations Organization was to do the job the UN was set up to do in the first place.

Let us be honest, if any manager of any company had spent a thousand billion dollars over 67 years producing the same sort of ineffective results the UNO has presented, then (s)he would be crucified. As for the UNO, this year it is set to waste another 15 billion USD…of OUR money.Give me ten valid professionals, a fraction of the money the UN has spent and seven years, not 67, and I can state publicly I would do a far better job myself.Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/09-01-2013/123425-uno_what_for-0/

U.N. Set to Implicitly Recognize Palestinian State, Despite Threats

Israeli hypocrisy on a nuclear Middle East

Memo to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: The Door on a Two-state Solution was Closed 45 Years Ago

Allen West to U.N.: U.S. ‘Angel of Death’

LXVII General Assembly Meeting: A time of turmoil

U.N. Report Chastises U.S. for Status of Native Population

NAM Summit: Ban Ki-Moon in disgraceful show of US puppetry

Is the UNO on cloud cuckoo land?

Whose side is the UNO on?

Whose side is the UNO on?. 46553.jpeg

After reading the statement on Syria by UN SG Ban Ki-Moon, the notion arises that far from being impartial, the United Nations Organization is in fact two organisms – one, a humanitarian institution to pull the wool over our eyes and the other, to pander to the geo-political caprices of its master, in whose house it is a guest and a hostage.

If the United Nations Secretary-General were totally impartial, if the UN Secretary-general respected his position and the institution he represents, there would be as many declarations from him denouncing the war crimes and breaches of international law by the FUKUS-Axis (France, UK, US and Israel) as there are deriding their enemies, as was the case against Libya, as is the case against Syria.

However, as one may have expected, this is not the case. His constant rebuttals and accusations against the Government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya rang loud and clear, as it tried to defend itself and its people against murderous gangs of FUKUS-Axis backed thugs – torturers, murderers, rapists, racists, arsonists, looters, thieves, sodomists and serial sexual abusers.

However, where was he when the FUKUS-Axis was strafing the Libyan water supply, to “break the backs” of the civilians and deprive families with babies of drinking and bathing water, in the North African mid-Summer? Where was he when the FUKUS-Axis was placing special troops on the ground, despite the terms of the UNSC Resolutions 1970 and 1973 governing the crisis stating clearly there was to be no arming of either side, a total arms embargo on Libya and no boots on the ground?

Where was he when the FUKUS-Axis strafed civilian buildings from 30,000 feet, where was he when the FUKUS-Axis murdered the Gaddafi grandchildren, where was he when the FUKUS-Axis targeted civilian structures with military hardware, where was he when the FUKUS-Axis backed terrorists slit the throats of Negroes in the streets, where was he when they performed acts of ethnic cleansing?

And now his voice rings out loud and clear again, not because the FUKUS-Axis is doing its best to find a way to bomb Syria and thereby murder thousands of Syrian civilians, not because the FUKUS-Axis is allegedly involved directly or indirectly in once again supplying  bands of thugs with weaponry, not because there are allegations that the FUKUS-Axis or forces close to this has planned and continues to consider a chemical attack inside Syria to create a false flag event. No, about this he is silent.

But here is Ban Ki-Moon complaining that the Syrian government forces are carrying out violence which is “totally unacceptable before humanity”. Suppose, then, Ban Ki-Moon considered what the Syrian armed forces are fighting? Does he imagine they are shelling unarmed civilians going about their daily lives? Or terrorists armed to the teeth, the ones shown on SKY News, which look just like the thugs we saw in Libya, labelled as “unarmed civilians”?

Why does Ban Ki-Moon not refer to the three thousand Syrian Security Forces murdered by this scourge? Or does he think they were killed by whom, unarmed women and children? Why do Ban Ki-Moon and his FUKUS-Axis friends not tell the truth about Syria, namely that around 55 to 60% of the population supports the President (Bashar al-Assad) around 15% are apolitical, leaving at most 30% supporting around 30 Opposition parties? How much support does that leave each one?

Why don’t Ban Ki-Moon and his FUKUS-Axis friends mention what the armed gangs are doing? Why don’t they mention the murder of Allouite minority members by these thugs? Why don’t they state clearly where the Enemies of Syria are based, namely in Turkey, in an organization called Suriye Ulusal Geçiş Konseyi? Why don’t they state clearly what the terrorist group Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslmoon is, what it does and the links it has with the Syrian Opposition?

Why don’t Ban Ki-Moon and his FUKUS-Axis friends analyse the photographic “evidence” of the “massacres” and reach the same conclusions as Pravda.Ru sources inside Syria reach, namely that in one “massacre” the bodies were Allouites who had been massacred by the FUKUS-Axis backed “Opposition” then placed on the ground, handcuffed, before it was claimed that the Syrian Armed Forces had strafed them with artillery fire; other “Syrian” locations turn out to be photographs from Gaza (without the Israeli phosphorous bombs) and Iraq (without Abu Ghraib concentration camp and its American perverts sodomising prisoners and urinating on them)?

Why don’t Ban Ki-Moon and his FUKUS-Axis friends say anything about the “Opposition” protests in which they torched Government and private property and lynched people in the streets?

We know the answers to these questions. In fact, can anyone rightfully claim today that the UNO as a body to enforce international law is valid, efficient or worth the money it costs? In which case, how can Ban Ki-Moon justify his position, whatever that really is? And in which case, does it not make sense to say: US out of UN, or UN out of US?

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-02-2012/120440-uno_side-0/


UNO on how to build a better future

26.01.2012

UNO on how to build a better future. 46465.jpeg

With so many experts working in so many different fields, with so much collective academic weight and expertise, it seems strange that the United Nations Organization speaks about the ways and means to build “The future we want” – you would have thought they would already have done it, rather than be still speaking about it.

Let us examine what Ban Ki-Moon suggests that the global community does over the next five years to build what he sees as a collective future. His vision is based upon five imperatives: sustainable development; preventing and mitigating conflicts, human rights abuses and the impacts of natural disasters; building a safer and more secure world; supporting countries in transition; and working to engage the talents of women and young people.

For the Secretary-General of the UNO, tackling these five areas will “help create a safer, more secure, more sustainable, more equitable future. A plan to build the future we want.” The action agenda includes a campaign to eradicate the world’s most deadly diseases and medical conditions: malaria, polio, paediatric HIV infections, maternal and neonatal tetanus, and measles and a plan to make Antarctica a World Nature Preserve.

On the table is a World Humanitarian Summit to establish common best practices and the creation of a New UN Partnerships Facility “to harness the full power of transformative partnerships across the world body”.

Sexy soundbites
Sexy soundbites, the key words are all there, namely sustainable development, empowerment, Nature, combating diseases, mitigation of conflicts and (violins) making the world a better place. In fact, sexy soundbites is what Ban Ki-Moon and the United Nations Organization is all about, in other words, pith and wind, flights of fantasy, verbosity, a load of hot air and in plain English, a pretentious verborrea followed by chronic constipation of action.

Despite the very considerably great work being carried out by some UNO departments, among these being Michelle Bachelet’s UN Women and António Guterres’ UNHCR (the High Commission for Refugees), how long and after spending how many trillions of dollars has it taken the United Nations Organization to ask itself the question how we can build the future we want?

Five alternative points for a better world
And the future does not pass by verbosity, pie-in-the-sky ideals and wasting billions of panels of experts and meetings, it has to do with drawing up simple and concrete plans and it has to do with their effective implementation.

While a Nature Reserve for sea birds, narwhals, seals and microscopic bacteria in Antarctica may be a very noble ideal and wonderful as it sounds to say “just because you can’t see something, doesn’t mean that it does not exist”, there are more pressing areas that need attention.

1. First and foremost, the world community needs a law-making body with the powers to implement international law. The situation today is that international law exists but is disrespected, breached and insulted by NATO, by the FUKUS-Axis (France, UK; US and Israel), countries which do as they please when they please with impunity. It would not be difficult for a fresh law book to be drawn up with clear rules and procedures for crisis management, signatory states being bound to adhere to them under penalty of exclusion from the UNO and the consequent total international isolation.

2. An international court which uses the same sets of weights and measures for all under equal conditions, with legal powers over all citizens. How can we have an international penal system from which some states declare their citizens immune from prosecution while these same countries prosecute those from others?

3. A universal charter of human rights, expressing clearly universal values which include the integrity of the person at least until adult age, which would exclude practices such as female genital mutilation; a charter which would be all-inclusive and which would outlaw racism, sexism, bride killings, honour killings, homophobia and which would be implemented worldwide into the current legal systems, ensuring swift punishment for infraction.

How can you speak about empowerment for women when women are being killed for not wearing a veil in some countries, when they can be stoned to death for being raped in others or when they have their clitoris cut out when they are girls so they “will not feel like fooling around” when they are women? A part of this would also include dismantling networks of human trafficking, child abuse, sexual abuse and slavery and forced prostitution, the implementation of laws in legal codes worldwide and the means to police and follow-up.

4. A worldwide crackdown on illegal trafficking and production of harmful substances, policed by a UN body which acts as if it meant to do something, instead of running round in circles while Institutions close to the authorities in certain countries in fact control the drugs trade and use it as a financial and social weapon. Included in this should be a far-reaching study into transgenic production and genetically modified foodstuffs, a labelling campaign where all substances are clearly marked on the container on the shelf and a policy which goes back to the implementation of healthy food production and healthy food on the table, instead of a pile of chemicals which if used over a period of time is downright dangerous.

5. The fifth and final point has to do with the dismantling of the idiotic financial and economic system which has been imposed upon the population of the world in a top-down and arrogant approach, favouring the haves and keeping the have-nots down, creating conditions for those who control production to spiral upwards and for the growing number of poor to spiral downwards.

There has to be an alternative to a system in which tendentious ratings agencies dictate a country’s debt rating, which in turn has concrete and tangible effects upon the present and future welfare of citizens who have nothing to do with the implementation of policies which made them vulnerable. The capitalist market-oriented system simply does not work and there are numerous models, past and present, of alternative systems where a social umbrella is provided and works, where wealth is distributed more evenly, where the use and ownership of resources is universal and where basic rights to education, to healthcare, to work, to housing, to transportation, to public utilities are guaranteed and are not the subject of a business exercise. Such a system does not necessarily have to forbid a person from working for him/herself and should include the vector or rewarding people for their endeavour.

Five simple points, easy to draw up and to implement. If the United Nations cannot do this with the resources at its disposal, if the community of nations cannot do it after all these years, then let others try. I for one would do it for free with a minimum of resources in a very short space of time.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/26-01-2012/120340-uno_future-0/

UN: Cynicism and inconsistency

By: Arnaldo M. Cogorno

In a cable dated 04.11.2011: “The secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, said yesterday that the efforts of Palestinians to enter other organizations in the world body, once they succeeded in entering UNESCO, benefit no one.” According to Ban, “millions and millions of people could be affected if UN agencies see their funding reduced as a result of Palestinian efforts.”

It continues to amaze, the servility bordering on perversion, of these “spokespersons” of the so-called international organizations, with U.S. interests and allies. Now it turns out that the blame for UNESCO having no budget will not be the Americans, but the Palestinians, with the favorable vote of 146 countries to become part of the cultural body attached to the UN.

The reasoning of the secretary-general is similar to the approaches that were used to overcome and justify the oppression of peoples and races a long long time ago.

Thus, the Indo-American genocide was not the fault of the Spanish, but the natives themselves, who refused and were too lazy to become Christianized and so had to be made to submit.

Blacks were brought as slaves and should be punished and beaten, to avoid uprisings and impure thoughts.

Similarly, the great British Empire had to subjugate by force and violence all those people and subjects who refused to be “civilized.”

There was always an explanation for all this, the natural order of things requires that some are to rule and subdue, the others to obey and be subdued. The abnormal is that the latter seek to rebel, claiming their right to exist and live together on equal terms with the human race, and those who assisted in such claims must also suffer the consequences of their daring.

Thus we see a Ban Ki-Moon making it clear that America and Israel are not threatened by claiming absolute dominion over the Middle East and the world at large, but the Palestinian thugs are guilty for claiming a place in the community of nations, a daring that has cost thousands of lives over the years and now will set aside one quarter of current funding to the agency that serves cultural issues in the UN .

Moon

Unfortunately, there are many who walk the world to justify all atrocities and barbarities that occur from the dominant countries in the name of “progress” and “democracy.” It is obvious that the UN model is not only exhausted, it is a real threat to the survival of the human race and the planet itself.

There is a need to create structures that allow organizations to recognize people in a framework of inclusion, in conditions of equality in the international arena. It’s an ambitious goal, utopian others may think, but essential if you think about the consequences of continuing to accept the inconsistency and cynicism with which the current UN operates.

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/15-11-2011/119630-UN_Cynicism_and_inconsistency-0/

%d bloggers like this: