I say we don't need no stinkin' reason from Kofi-co to defend ourselves.
The day we march to those socialist pigs' agenda is the day America crumbles.
|
|
Posted on 11/29/2004 6:45:27 PM PST by Rain-maker
However, the report says that any final decision on such action rests with the Security Council.The report, commissioned by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, also upholds the international community’s duty to intervene in any state where the government is unable or unwilling to protect its people, and offers two proposals for expanding the Security Council.
The report, portions of which appeared in The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, tries to set benchmarks for judging the legitimacy of using force preemptively or preventively for self-defence. It says that before preemptive military action, there should be a review to determine whether force is the last and best resort.
The report says that force is legitimate if an endangered state, backed by the Security Council, decides that a threat is serious and imminent; every nonmilitary option has been explored; the state has assessed the means, duration and scale of the strike needed to meet the threat and has no hidden agenda; and the military moves would not create consequences that are worse than the threatened action.The charter now permits the use of force in self-defence if an attack occurs, or if authorized by the Security Council in the event of a threat to world peace.
Former Thai prime minister Anand Panyarachun heads the 16-member panel, which is due to deliver its report on December 2.After he has done his work on the report, the secretary-general will present the reform proposals to the world leaders attending next September’s summit meeting marking the 60th anniversary of the United Nations.
The high-level panel was asked to examine issues of collective security in September 2003, after the United States led an invasion of Iraq without the Security Council’s blessing.
In a speech to the General Assembly then, Annan said the United Nations was in a crisis and needed to be radically reformed to remain the main theater for multilateral security. “We have reached a fork in the road ... a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the U.N. was founded,” he told the leaders of 191 nations at the time.
Annan said he wanted a fresh look at how to deal with new threats posed by terrorist networks, the illicit spread of nuclear weapons technology and the persistent threats of disease and poverty that affect most people’s sense of security every day.
The report urges the Security Council to consider backing early action against “urgent but non-imminent” threats, such as terrorist groups that are pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Some of the report’s conclusions are likely to be unpopular in Washington where the sentiment against the U.N. is currently running high.
Annan’s assessment two months ago that the Iraq invasion was “illegal” and his recent letter warning Bush that a U.S.-led assault on the Iraqi city of Fallouja would alienate Iraqis and make elections more difficult have come come under sharp criticism in the White House and among some in Congress.
Despite polls showing that the majority of Americans support the U.N. as an institution, recent allegations of corruption involving its “oil-for-food” programme in Iraq and revelations of sexual exploitation by peacekeepers and U.N. officials in Congo have damaged the world organization’s image, the LA Times pointed out.
U.N. officials hope that the report will help the organization recover traction and move to the center of a global discussion about security. The panel also proposed two options for making the Security Council more effective and representative.
The report recommends expanding the panel to 24 members with 6 each from the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe under 2 alternative formulas. The present makeup is 5 permanent veto-bearing members and 10 other countries, elected in annual blocks of 5, which serve two- year terms.
One of the two suggested options would create a new tier of eight semi-permanent members with renewable four-year terms and one additional conventional two-year term member. The other would expand the number of permanent members to 11 from 5 and the number of those elected to two-year terms by 3.
Neither option, however, extends granting veto power beyond the existing five countries - a point that is sure to sharpen the debate in the General Assembly, which seems certain to continue into next summer.
Changes in the composition of the Security Council must be approved by two-thirds of the 191 United Nations members and ratified by the legislatures of two-thirds of those governments, including those of all five permanent Council members.The Council was last expanded, to 15 from 11, in a 1963 General Assembly vote that took effect in 1965.
In 1971, The Peoples Republic of China took over the permanent seat on the Council that had been occupied by Taiwan. The current 15-member body, which makes key security decisions for the world, was formed just after World War II.
Its five permanent, veto-wielding members represent the power brokers of that time: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The other 10 members serve two-year terms.A new configuration for the council, the panel hopes, would make the decision-making process more representative of the power centers over the next 50 years.
Pakistan opposes inducting more permanent members in the Security Council. At the same time, Pakistan, along with other like-minded nations, is campaigning for more members in the “non-permanent category” who serve for a period of two years.
Pakistan and other members of the 30-member “coffee Club” have also been advocating that the process of discussions on the panel’s recommendations should be “transparent, inclusive, participatory and inclusive.”
He said that the process should lead to an international consensus on the key question of the Security Council expansion.Earlier this month, a group of UN ambassadors belonging to the “Coffee Club”, including Pakistan’s ambassador Munir Akram, met General Assembly President Jean King to counter a move by the four candidates for permanent seats seeking quick action for the Council’sexpansion.
Twelve ambassadors belonging to the Club argued that the move by India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for a General Assembly resolution aimed at accomplishing their objectives would be “counterproductive” and could derail the entire reform process.
Among others who called on the president were ambassadors of Italy, Canada, Spain, Algeria, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Argentina, and Kenya.
They emphasised that the reform process should be transparent and based on the UN Charter principles, especially those relating to sovereign equality of member states.
The ambassadors also pointed out that majority of the UN membership stood for the expansion in the non-permanent category of the Council and for curtailment of the veto powers of the five permanent members in an effort to make it more democratic.
At the start of the 59th session of the General Assembly, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan joined forces to work together for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.The high-level panel also offered a definition of terrorism, which has been an unresolved debate within the world body, according to published reports.
Arab and Muslim states in particular have argued against labeling as terrorists some groups that they consider freedom fighters. The panel, which included Arab League chief Amr Moussa and Dr. Nafis Sadiq of Pakistan, agreed that any politically motivated violence against civilians should be considered a terrorist act.
The 16 leading officials and experts from around the world who served on the High Level Panel for Threats, Challenges and Change were chosen by the secretary-general for their experience in world affairs and ability to promote the panel’s conclusions.
They are:Anand Panyarachun, chairman (Thailand); Robert Badinter (France); Gro Harlem Brundtland (Norway); Mary Chinery-Hesse (Ghana); Gareth Evans (Australia); David Hannay (Britain); Enrique Iglesias (Uruguay); Amr Moussa (Egypt); Satish Nambiar (India); Sadako Ogata (Japan); Yevgeny M. Primakov (Russia); Qian Qichen (China; Dr. Nafis Sadiq (Pakistan); Salim Ahmed Salim (Tanzania); Brent Scowcroft (United States); and Joao Baena Soares (Brazil).
In the UN, it's always a level playing field. You can be a tinpot dictator or a murdering oligarchy or even the homeland of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. You're just as good as the US, especially if you're on the Security Council.
But next stop isn't tactical nuclear war. It'll be the US getting a minor nuke exploded somewhere, probably a US port city, likely Texas or Florida. The US will then get pissed at the entire MidEast and finally grow a pair, which could mean nukes, could just mean we get serious about troops on the ground, or could even mean we develop genetically-based biological weapons. If a nuke or large-scale WMD is used, the US will HAVE to respond somehow in kind. But that doesn't mean nukes, necessarily.
FC..great find..thanks..AD..FYI check out the link in #20..
LOL!
Couldn't we just pre-emptively not pay them any more? We could say we need the $1.2B/yr to make more bombs. :O)
Looking back at that. makes me realize that it was really a warm up for the 68 Dem convention in Chicago..
Yeah, me too, but I'm afraid if I used the words I wanted to about the UN, it'd get the post pulled. :)
|
|
Does this vindicate Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's strike on Pearl Harbor?
Unilateralist Cowboy BTTT
BINGO!
TRANSLATION: The top ring of crooks at the U.N. is being publicly exposed, the U.N. Building is crumbling, there is a hostile PJHadeen pushing to get the UN off our land and out of our lives and the PEOPLE are pressing their legislators to STOP paying the 22% we contribute toward the U.N.'s budget. So, they now concur we are OK to have invaded Iraq.... I'd say they better kiss up better than this.
And the Jr. Senator from Mass. is married to one. Don't think the two shrews would get along very well....would be a great catfight! Don King, I have an idea!
Get them out of America, and America out of the U.N.
In home ec, we used to make goodie packages for the soldiers over there. We made and sent one every week.
I'm ramblin', sorry.
Would he be talking about sKerry's 'Global Test'?
"... and just who is supposed to do the preemptive striking for the UN?"
I think you already know the answer to that. Uh-huh.
The greatest ongoing scam in the world is the one the UN pulls where they manage to wringe a full 22% of their annual budget out of the U.S., while making a mint from it's other member nations off of anti-U.S. actions and sentiments. Great Satan, please give us your money!
It's enough to make me puke. If the U.S. ever again takes the Klintoon route and puts our national security in the hands of this laughably corrupt collection of tyrants, dictators, socialists, Islamo-Fascists and thieves, then GOD HELP US!
Oh, sure, now it comes out, now that factions in the UN have failed in their bid to influence the outcome of the US election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
