Resources updated between Monday, May 27, 2013 and Sunday, June 02, 2013
May 31, 2013
The latest UN report from Richard Falk, the Boston terror apologist, is outrageous. But just what his UN employers ordered. On the Palestinian Arab - Israeli conflict, Falk advises against "the value of direct negotiations at this time." And then he rails against Israel's killing of Hamas "military leader" Ahmed Jabari. Jabari was the Hamas military chief who led the development of the terror organization's core military abilities in the Gaza Strip. He held Gilad Shalit prisoner for over 5 years and personally released him (following Israel's agreement to release over a thousand Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were convicted murderers.) From Richard Falk? Israel should be condemned for killing Jabari because he "kept Shalit in good health."
UN-NGO accreditation entitles NGOs to speak at various UN meetings, have statements published on the UN website, hold panels on UN premises, distribute publications at UN venues, and attend UN conferences, among other things. This week the UN committee which grants such status refused to approve two U.S.-based giants supporting NGOs, and in many cases, their UN-based activities - the Ford Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The committee did not take an up or down vote, but postponed the decision at least until next January. In the case of Ford, the rationale for not approving the application: "The representative of Venezuela requested further information on its projects in Latin America." In the case of MacArthur, "the representative of China requested it correct on its website terminology regarding Taiwan Province of China." The questions now: How forthcoming will the Ford Foundation be about its Latin American activities that do not meet Venezuelan approval? Will the MacArthur Foundation buckle in the face of China's blackmail and alter its website? Or will becoming victims of the UN of the 21st century have any bearing on their grant-making in support of the UN?
Senator Mike Lee has introduced S. 988 which would require an annual reporting of all U.S. contributions to the UN. Rep. Mo Brooks is introducing a companion bill on the House side. Congratulations for their outstanding leadership. It is a scandal that American taxpayers do not know what they contribute to the UN.
May 30, 2013
The State Department has released its latest Country Reports on Terrorism and has this to say about Benghazi: "In Libya, the security vacuum in the aftermath of the 2011 revolution provided greater opportunity for terrorists to operate. This vacuum, combined with the weakness of Libya's nascent security institutions, allowed violent extremists to act, as we saw too clearly on September 11 in Benghazi, when J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three staff members, died during attacks on U.S. facilities." What a difference congressional oversight makes. Now if only they'd come clean a year ago, maybe these four brave Americans would not have died.
May 29, 2013
How the UN empowers a government that openly advocates genocide against the people of Israel, currently provides military and financial support for the Syrian government's crimes against humanity, denies the Holocaust, is the leading state sponsor of terrorism, and actively pursues the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The title: "His Excellency Mr. Mohsen Naziri Asl, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Geneva and President of the Conference on Disarmament." The opening statement: "Mr. Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament, Excellencies, Distinguished Colleagues, It is an honor for the Islamic Republic of Iran to assume the duties of the President of the Conference on Disarmament...Nuclear disarmament has always been our utmost priority and we have always been committed to efforts towards the attainment of a world free of nuclear weapons." Posted on the UN website and disseminated around the world.
At its latest session, the UN NGO Committee, which considers applications from NGOs for UN accreditation, has voted to grant status to two gay organizations. Israel voted for. No Muslim states on the committee voted to support the applications. China, Morocco, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Senegal and Sudan voted against. Kyrgyzstan and Mozambique abstained. Square that with the gay rights organizations heavily involved in the Israel-bashing "human rights" movement.
If one was ever confused about what's wrong with the United Nations - take a look at opening day of the Conference on Disarmament (CD). It opened with a speech by Ambassador Mohsen Naziri Asl of Iran, the Conference's incoming president. The Iranian President had this to say to the other 64 UN CD member states: "During its Presidency, Iran would continue to consult with Member States in order to find ways to unlock the Conference, a deadlock created by the lack of political will in the field of nuclear disarmament." Of course, he knew full well that it is Iran's lack of political will that is the central stumbling block to progress. He continued: "Members should work together to preserve the credibility of the Conference." Even though the first act of achieving any kind of credibility would be for Iran to resign or be removed as President. There is a reason, however, for Iran's brazenness. Every speaker who followed the Iranian President supported him, while at the same time laying claim to represent the wishes of the developing world that is the UN majority. A sampling of the incredible insulting charade: From Iran's client state Syria - "Syria believed in the importance of the Conference." "Pakistan expressed appreciation for Iran's assessment of the prevailing situation." Russia: "The initiative to take the issue of nuclear disarmament out of the Conference...was fraught with danger...It was very important to keep the Conference as the single multilateral disarmament forum." The Muslim Brotherhood's Egypt "reaffirmed the importance of the Conference...Egypt wished the President success." The Conference gets it money from Western governments who pay the vast majority of the UN's bills - starting with the United States. The Obama administration has sent a low-level diplomat to listen and take notes of this rot, and no steps to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars. Why would Iran not be emboldened?
May 28, 2013
It is opening week of another session of the UN's top human rights body, the UN Human Rights Council, and anti-Semitism will once again be promoted around the globe via an organization built on the ashes of the Jewish people and sworn to hatred's eradication. In March of last year, Israel decided not to cooperate with a UN "human rights" establishment that promises equality and delivers discrimination. Under heavy pressure from the Obama administration and European governments not to spotlight the dark anti- Semitic underbelly of UN "human rights" operations, however, Israel is considering reversing this decision. Without fundamental reform, such an unfortunate about-turn by Israel would be a major boost to Israel's delegitimizers. The cornerstone of every credible human rights institution is equality. Israel can and must articulate clearly identifiable sources of inequality that can be fixed – if the commitment to universal human rights standards is bona fide. The UN Human Rights Council can modify its agenda to place Israel under the same item as all other states. The mandate of the Council special investigator on Israel can be changed to require reporting on the human rights abuses of all parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Western states in Geneva can end the exclusion of Israel from its regional group and abide by the UN Charter's promise of the equality of all nations, large and small. A global vehicle for modern anti- Semitism or a human rights instrument? The ball should not be in Israel's court.
Combating Antisemitism at the UN Article
A bipartisan letter from members of Congress objecting to Iran assuming the presidency of the Conference on Disarmament is being ignored by United Nations officials. The Washington Free Beacon reports that a UN spokesperson told it: "the Conference on Disarmament, sets its own rules and procedures, and its presidency rotates every four weeks in alphabetical order in English. Asked if the U.N. would respond to Congress, the spokesperson said that "the Conference on Disarmament sets its own rules and procedures; it is not a U.N. body as such."" Another classic "who me?" response from the UN secretariat (who are handsomely paid on US $). Here's the actual relationship between the UN and the Conference on Disarmament. This is the UN web page on the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference was established in 1979 as a result of the first Special Session on Disarmament of the UN General Assembly held in 1978. The current Director-General of the UN in Geneva is the Secretary-General of the Conference as well as the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General to the Conference. The Conference reports to the General Assembly. The budget of the Conference is included in that of the United Nations. The staff members of UN Department for Disarmament Affairs service the meetings of the Conference. The meetings of the Conference are held at the United Nations building in Geneva, the Palais des Nations. Etc. And the UN Secretary-General still thinks he has no responsibility to call on UN member states to ensure that a state bent on acquiring nuclear weapons is not heading the body tasked with preventing their acquisition.
The UN's top human rights official opened the latest session of the "Human Rights" Council with a frontal attack on the United States. According to Navi Pillay, Guantanamo is "an example of the struggle against terrorism failing to uphold human rights...and the injustice embodied in this detention centre has become an ideal recruitment tool for terrorists." Pillay demanded "European States undertake public and independent investigations of past involvement in the U.S. renditions programme...and to make this a priority." She "worried" about "a lack of clarity on the legal bases for drone strikes" and demanded "prompt investigations" and remedies of violations. What she didn't say: one word about Iran, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. Her preposterous series of countries having "crises" worthy of specific criticism were Syria, Myanmar, Iraq, the Central African Republic, Israel and the United States.
May 27, 2013
It's official. Iran is now the President of the UN Conference on Disarmament. The Obama administration will not be boycotting Iran's month at the helm. Instead, team Obama umbrage will amount to sending a "low-level" diplomat (and your $$-taxpayer dollars). The advertised schedule today included "Presidential Consultations." No reports out, but speculation is that the meeting will deal with how to build a nuclear bomb asap under the watch of the UN.
Conference on Disarmament Development
U.S. taxpayers do not know what they pay the UN. This is a prime example of an unaccountable government. Expenditures are distributed across government agencies, buried in many budgets, and no one digs all of them up and adds them together. Republican Senators Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah, and others, are trying to change this and require an answer to this simple question: How much do American taxpayers contribute to the UN annually?