Posted on 10/09/2001 7:10:14 PM PDT by freedomnews
Annan to address US public in nationally broadcast Town Hall meeting
9 October – Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, will address the United States public on 11 October - one month to the day after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. - during a Town Hall meeting that will be broadcast nationwide.
Moderated by Walter Cronkite, the event will enable Mr. Annan to engage the US public in a conversation by reaching out to their communities. Via satellite from the UN in New York, the Secretary-General will detail how the UN can support the global effort against terrorism. After his address, he will take questions from people gathered in ten cities - Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis and Tampa.
Each individual city will host a panel of experts and a local moderator to facilitate ongoing discussion after the satellite portion of the broadcast concludes. The focus of the local meetings will be the impact of the terrorist attacks on the United States and the world. Some of the moderators include NBC's Bob Costas in St. Louis, former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth in Boston, and the National President of the League of Women Voters, Carolyn Jefferson-Jenkins, in Denver. The invitation only audience will be comprised of business and civic leaders, elected officials, youth, community leaders and clergy.
The Town Hall meeting is being produced by The Better World Campaign, a project of the Better World Fund, a sister organization to the United Nations Foundation. The Fund was created from a portion of an initial gift of $1 billion from American philanthropist and businessman Ted Turner. The organization is a bi-partisan, non-profit education and outreach initiative that aims to enhance awareness and appreciation for the work of the UN and the role it plays in international affairs.
1. Scrubbing my toilet.
2. Scrubbing anybody's toilet.
3. Counting the pinto beans in my cupboard.
4. Enjoying a good meal of beans and beer, then lighting my farts.
5. Taking the neighbors' rat-sized, barky poodle for a walk/drag/kick-a-long (I'd love to make it a one-way trip).
6. Smoke crack with Alec Baldwin/any other Baldwin/Rene Russo/Rosie O'Donut/Julia Roberts/[INSERT YOUR FAVORITE WORTHLESS DELUSIONAL HOLLYWOOD EGOMANIAC DRUGGIE HERE].
The U.N.
Is it not amazing that this statemnet comes from Kofi Annan, he harbours most if not all the terrorist nations in his organization. When Mugabe and Muhamar Kadhafi can be on the human right commission but we can't, this is an organization we need to disassemble, we need to condemn them and take back all of our military hardware from the U.N.
Good to see people denouncing the U.N.
Thanks
I believe I hold that title. My screen name proves it.
While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile, emphasizing the sloth in this regard, those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those impractical dreamers are entitled to ask their critics what is so practical about war.
It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace.
To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.
Needless to say this upcoming townhall is a pitch for a One World Government....everyone at peace with each other being controlled by the UN....nice!
He knows that when this war is over the UN will have fallen a few more notches and may indeed get their walking papers out of New York.
<A HREF="http://jamesbredin.tripod.com/numberfour/id16.html> United Nations</A>
He's with the U.N., that says it all.
We should run the U.N. out of America, ship the U.N. building to Nevada, and let them run a high-rise brothel out of the place. It would be better for society than the U.N. is right now.
By Jonathan Wright
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States should fight Syria's bid to win a seat on the U.N. Security Council next week as incompatible with its war on terrorism, a member of the House of Representatives International Relations Committee said on Thursday.
But diplomats said regardless of any U.S. opposition, Syria -- which Washington calls a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' -- is expected to take a seat at the table.
``The election of Syria to the U.N. Security Council would be an outrage, making a mockery of the council's recent counterterrorism resolutions,'' Rep. Tom Lantos (news - bio - voting record), the ranking Democrat on the House of Representatives International Relations Committee, said in a statement.
``As the United States and the world prepares to wage war on terrorism, a state sponsor of terror such as Syria has no place on the U.N.'s leading forum for defending international security,'' the California Democrat said.
Syria is trying for one of five seats on the council which change in the new year.
Despite an outcry from Lantos and the pro-Israeli lobbying group AIPAC, Syria is considered the consensus candidate of the Asia group at the United Nations (news - web sites) and diplomats think the United States has no chance of keeping it off the council.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, asked how the United States would vote on Monday, said it was standard practice not to say because many countries sought its support.
But in the case of Sudan's candidacy last year, the United States lobbied vigorously and publicly to split the African vote. The move helped to win the seat for rival candidate Mauritius.
The United States opposed Sudan on the grounds that it was under U.N. sanctions and had attacked U.N. relief planes in the south.
SYRIAN CASE IS DIFFERENT
The case of Syria is different because the Asia group agreed months ago to give the slot to Damascus and no alternative candidate is ready to challenge the consensus. Syria's candidacy is especially sensitive in Washington as the Bush administration tries to build up an international alliance against terrorism following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) spoke by phone with Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara after the attacks to sound out Syria's willingness to cooperate with the United States against extremist groups.
Syria condemned the attacks, but in subsequent statements it has drawn a distinction, unwelcome to the United States and Israel, between terrorist groups and groups which fight to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territory.
Syria supports or protects a wide range of Palestinian and Lebanese groups which attack Israelis, including Hizbollah, Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
The pro-Israeli lobbying group AIPAC said in early September, before the attacks, that the United States must continue to oppose efforts to give Syria a seat.
``Given Syria's decades-long destructive conduct in the international arena, its coming election to the Security Council is truly shocking,'' it said in a statement.
The Security Council has 15 members, five with permanent seats and 10 with nonpermanent seats. The 10 nonpermanent members serve two-year terms, with five changing each year.
Also running unopposed on Monday are Cameroon and Guinea, representing two vacant African slots. In eastern Europe, Belarus and Bulgaria are competing for one seat. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the Dominican Republic is challenging Mexico for the same seat.
The five new members would replace Bangladesh, Jamaica, Mali, Tunisia and Ukraine.
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.