Target Centermass

Category: United Nations

  • WHO Stops Hiring Smokers

    Alright, as the steady drumbeat of smoking bans has banged over and over the last several years, raise your hand if you didn’t eventually expect to see a story about an anti-smoking hiring policy. Anybody?

    Smokers need not apply, according to the World Health Organization which has stopped hiring smokers as part of its campaign to eradicate the habit.

    “WHO has taken a very public lead in the fight against tobacco use,” said the UN agency’s spokesman Iain Simpson.

    The policy comes into effect Dec. 1 and all notices of vacancy will include this line: “WHO has a smoke-free environment and does not recruit smokers or other tobacco users.”

    Applicants will be asked if they smoke or use other tobacco products, i.e. chewing or snuff tobacco, and if they answer “yes,” their application process will be stopped.

    Simpson says the ban is legal under international law, which governs operations at all UN agencies. WHO is based in Geneva but also has offices around the world including New York city. It employs 2,400 people.

    Staff who currently use tobacco will be encouraged to quit. They can also smoke in designated outdoor areas

    […]

    When asked whether the agency would consider eliminating obese people or those who drink alcohol from its staff, WHO officials said smoking was more of a “black and white” issue.

    “There is safe sex, one can drink alcohol in a reasonable way and one can attempt eating in a balanced fashion,” said WHO official Fadela Chaib. “But with tobacco, there is no middle ground … it kills half of those consuming it.”

    Actually, all of the distinctions between tobacco usage and the likes of dangerous sexual practices, alcohol consumption and obesity fall apart at some level, especially when the zero-tolerance policy during the application process is taken into account. Safe sex can be had, but so can frequent and unprotected anonymous sex. Social drinking is acceptable, but will they inquire about frequent binge drinking? Sure, the obese can eat a balanced diet, but many tend to reach the obesity issue by exactly not doing that.

    Actually, I would have no problem in such a hiring policy being put into place by any private entity, though a lot of ways in which I feel should privately-owned business shoulld be allowed to discriminate, possibly to their own detriment, are already deemed illegal. However, I certainly would have an issue with a governmental body enacting such an arbitrary standard. That the U.N. is allowed to act outside of our laws on our soil, laws that foreign companies are subject to, is quite simply not right. Then again, that is the case of so much about the U.N.

  • UN Reverses Oil-for-Food Firing

    The scandal-plagued United Nations continues to trip over its own feet.

    The only United Nations official sacked over the Iraq oil-for-food scandal has been reinstated after a UN appeals panel ruled he had done nothing wrong.

    Joseph Stephanides was fired in May for allegedly interfering in the competitive bidding process.

    Investigators said he had divulged bidding information but did not suggest he had personally benefited.

    While accepting his punishment was too harsh, the UN still insists he violated staff rules, and he plans a new appeal.

    The BBC’s Susannah Price says the decision to reverse the dismissal of Mr Stephanides will obviously be embarrassing for the UN.

    Obviously embarrassing? You betcha. When Stephanides was first canned, I blogged that it was a start. I was wrong, and we’re all back to square one in a game that very well may go absolutely nowhere despite billions of dollars of wrong-doing.

  • Islamic Troubles Link Dump, 8 NOV 05

    Sorry, folks, busy with other things tonight. I did want to leave you with some stories that caught my eye, though.

    Second Saddam trial defence lawyer murdered

    Gunmen killed a second defence lawyer in the trial of Saddam Hussein and his aides on Tuesday and the former Iraqi president’s own counsel demanded the court be moved abroad, out of reach of the U.S.-backed government.

    The sectarian anger dividing Iraq pervades the proceedings but ministers refused to consider a move abroad after a lawyer for another of Saddam’s co-accused was killed three weeks ago and the government spokesman declined fresh comment.

    The defence renewed a threat to boycott the court, which is next due to sit at the end of the month.

    Another defence lawyer was slightly wounded in the attack on their car in Baghdad; three weeks ago a colleague was abducted and shot the day after the start of proceedings in the trial for crimes against humanity on October 19. Both dead men made vocal, televised contributions on what has so far been the only day of hearings.

    In Tuesday’s attack, Adil al-Zubeidi was killed and his colleague Thamer Hamoud al-Khuzaie wounded when their car came under fire in the western Baghdad district of Hay al-Adil, police and defence team sources said. Both were working for Saddam’s brother and his former vice president[.]

    Tell the defense team to shut up and button up, move ’em into the Green Zone and let the wheels of Iraqi justice proceed. Just my two bits.

    UN Extends Mandate of U.S.-Led Forces in Iraq Through 2006

    The United Nations Security Council voted 15 to 0 to authorize U.S.-led forces to remain in Iraq until Dec. 31, 2006, to give Iraqi troops time to prepare for assuming responsibility for the nation’s security.

    The resolution, drafted by the U.S. and co-sponsored by Denmark, Japan, Romania and the U.K., asks the Security Council to review the mandate of the multinational force no later than June 15, 2006, or to terminate it at the request of Iraq’s government. Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari requested the extension in an Oct. 27 letter to the UN.

    The U.S. asked for an early extension of the mandate, which wasn’t due to expire until Dec. 31, to avoid making the authorization an issue in the election of an Iraqi government on Dec. 15, U.K. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said.

    Smart move there, timing-wise.

    17 arrests in Australia terror raid

    Two Islamic terror cells were rushing to become the first to stage a major “jihad” terror bombing in Australia, a prosecutor said after armed police arrested 17 suspects in a string of co-ordinated pre-dawn raids in two cities.

    “Thankfully, the police forces of this country might just have prevented a catastrophic act of terrorism … either in Melbourne or in Sydney,” said New South Wales state Police Minister Carl Scully.

    […]

    About 500 armed police arrested nine men in the southern city of Melbourne and eight in Sydney, including one man critically injured in a gun fight with police.

    Police said they expected more arrests in coming days and weeks. Federal police have raided another Sydney home, but there were no immediate reports of arrests.

    As per the norm, there was the usual admonition that the Aussies’ participation in the Iraqi theater is the main driver behind the threats. I find that rather laughable, considering that a) the U.S. supposedly acted unilaterally in Iraq, and b) radical Islamic terror should rightly be considered a global threat — there are no safe havens, and flimsy excuses for expansionist Islamic militancy are merely pathetic aids to the danger our civilization must squarely face.

    Restive France Declares State of Emergency

    The French government declared a state of emergency Tuesday after nearly two weeks of rioting, and the prime minister said the nation faced a “moment of truth.”

    The extraordinary security measures, to begin Wednesday and valid for 12 days, clear the way for curfews to try to halt the country’s worst civil unrest since the student uprisings of 1968.

    Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, tacitly acknowledging that France has failed to live up to its egalitarian ideals, reached out to the heavily immigrant suburbs where the rioting began. He said France must make a priority of working against the discrimination that feeds the frustration of youths made to feel that they do not belong in France.

    “The effectiveness of our integration model is in question,” the prime minister told parliament. He called the riots “a warning” and “an appeal.”

    The riots are not a warning.

    They are not an appeal.

    They are an unchecked, at least as of yet, uprising against both French and Western society by an isolated and radical immigration block that has no reason to care for those same societies. Those involved are the violent children of an immigrant culture of bloody disdain for Western values, solidified and strengthened by a failed mindset of non-assimilation.

    Iraqi insurgent toll rises as offensive continues

    U.S. and Iraqi forces searched house-to-house for the third day of a major offensive near Iraq’s border with Syria on Monday, with at least 17 insurgents and one Marine killed, the military said.

    Operation Steel Curtain continued its cautious progress through areas in and around Qusayba, a dusty, low-lying town in western Iraq, most of whose 30,000 residents appeared to have already fled.

    U.S. Marines and Iraqi scouts, supported by tanks and air strikes, have met what they describe as sporadic resistance from Sunni Arab insurgents and foreign fighters armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and improvised bombs.

    […]

    Several U.S. offensives this year in the Euphrates valley, a green belt running from the border toward the capital, have been aimed at stemming the flow of Islamist militants into Iraq.

    My best wishes to the boots on the ground and their families. The spice must flow, but the Islamist militant flow must be halted.

  • U.N. Elects Five New Security Council Members

    The United Nations has selected the next five rotating seats on its Security Council.

    U.N. members on Monday elected the Congo Republic, Ghana, Peru, Qatar and Slovakia to two-year seats on the 15-nation U.N. Security Council, the world body’s most-powerful organ.

    In balloting in the 191-nation U.N. General Assembly, four of the winning candidates were unopposed for seats earmarked for Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe.

    In the sole contest — for the seat set aside for Latin America and the Caribbean — Peru defeated Nicaragua, 144 – 43.

    The Security Council is responsible for decisions on issues of war and peace, sanctions against nations and peacekeeping. Many of its resolutions are binding on all U.N. members.

    The council has five permanent members with veto power — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and 10 rotating members who serve for two-year terms.

    The terms are staggered so that five of the nonpermanent seats change hands every year.

    Add those newbies to the five permanent members and mid-termers Argentina, Denmark, Greece, Japan and Tanzania and you have the group supposedly responsible for driving any global efforts. How confident are you in any decisive action? At least we now know which five countries will have representatives twiddling their thumbs on that high international stage.

    By the way, it looks like any council expansion (blogged about here, here and here) is currently DOA. As expected.

  • African Union Introduces UNSC Reform Measure

    United Nations Security Council expansion — the haggling begins, courtesy the Dark Continent.

    The African Union on Monday introduced a U.N. resolution on Security Council expansion, despite behind the scenes negotiations on a rival proposal presented by Japan, Brazil, Germany and India.

    The draft resolution was a chance for Africa to put forward the case for why it needed permanent seats in the Security Council. But it was not clear whether the resolution would be put to a vote.

    Nigeria’s envoy, Aminu Bashir Wali, who presented the resolution to the U.N. General assembly called it “a reference point for negotiation with other member states and interested groups.”

    […]

    Most Africa speakers said Africa was the only continent that did not have a permanent seat in the current 15-member Security Council. Latin America does not have a permanent seat, but the Africans consider the United States a representative of the Americas, while South American countries do not.

    “If we fail to seize this opportunity, the credibility and legitimacy of the Security Council and the entire system of global government will continue to erode,” said South Africa’s representative, Xolisa Mabhongo.

    […]

    Germany, Japan, Brazil and India have called on the General Assembly to enlarge the Security Council from 15 to 25. This plan has six new permanent seats, including two for Africa, but new members would not have veto power.

    The African Union’s draft resolution asks for the council to be enlarged to 26 seats, one more nonpermanent seat than the four aspirants’ proposal. It also advocates six new permanent seats but with veto privileges.

    I’ve blogged before my thoughts on the proposal by expansion by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. I agreed that, individually, each country had valid arguments for representation and even mentioned the viability of an argument for a permanent presence for Africa. That said, I was against expansion because it would leave a handicapped, commonly-ineffective UNSC hobbled by further numbers, leading to greater room for indecisiveness.

    Expanding the Security Council has been under discussion for a dozen years without a solution, mainly because each region or nation has its own aspirations. The issue was given momentum this year by Annan who argued the council was unrepresentative and should be reformed before the summit.

    Without African Union support, the four aspirants will not get enough votes for their resolution.

    “It’s not possible for any group to get two-thirds by itself,” Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Sing said on Sunday. “So we have to find a way for our differences not only to narrow, but to disappear.”

    Among the current five permanent council members with veto power, the United States and China are lobbying against all the plans under consideration. France and Britain support the four aspirants. The last step in changing the council composition needs approval from the five powers.

    In Berlin on Monday, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said the fact that no deal was reached on Sunday was not surprising.

    “Nobody expected that the African Union, which has its own resolution proposal, would quietly file it away after a talk with the G-4 foreign ministers,” he said.”

    Aye, even given African expansion, does a single country garner a permanent seat? I should hope not, as none are currently both stable and have a sufficient history of being globally positively influential, in my opinion. Perhaps Nigeria? Were one nation to be singled out, I would arbitrarily select Senegal. My reasoning? I did an amazingly-pathetic term paper on the country in college for an upper-level course on the Political Economy of Sub-Saharan Africa; the paper got me an “A-” when I really deserved not only an “F” but also to be ceremoniously drummed out of the classroom. Vive le Senegal!

    I’ll certainly be keeping an eye on this pending debate to see just how far the UN will elect to further cripple itself.

  • More on Proposed UNSC Reform

    ‘Group of Four’ drop UNSC veto demand

    Japan, Brazil, Germany and India have proposed a 15-year freeze on veto powers for new permanent members of the U.N. Security Council as part of a revised version of its draft resolution to expand the council, diplomats and governments said Wednesday.

    The so-called Group of Four has been campaigning vigorously to become permanent members of the U.N.’s most powerful body, but were forced to back down in the face of opposition from a number of countries, including some of the current permanent members with veto power.

    China rejects peppered-over UNSC reform plan

    China again poured cold water Thursday on the revised version of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform plan spearheaded by Japan, which describes an additional six new permanent members would not exercise the right of veto until 2020.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said in Beijing June 9 that China firmly opposes the “immature plan” proposed by some countries on UNSC reform. He said that a peppered-over plan will lead the United Nations reform nowhere.

    “China is very concerned about this action,” Liu said.

    […]

    Other countries like Italy, Republic of Korea, Pakistan and Mexico have opposed the G-4 plan, and put forward their own plan to restructure the UNSC, by adding 10 non-permanent members. China supports the plan.

    Of the five current permanent members, China is firmly against Japan’s bid to become a permanent member of UNSC, on account of Japan’s consistent whitewashing of WWII history. Its Primer Minister Koizumi has been paying homage to the Yasukuni Shrine at the center of Tokyo, where 14 WWII Class-A criminals were honored together with 2.5 million war dead.

    The Bush administration is reluctant to support Germany’s bid, according to the New York Times.

    The G-4 has indicated they will put their revised plan to a vote by the UN General Assembly before the end of June.

    […]

    The G-4 plan needs to be approved by two-thirds of the 191 UN member states, or 128 at least, in order to be adopted.

    I find it interesting the the China and the U.S. find two different reasons to come to a similar stance, a stance with which I happen to agree.

  • Security Council Expansion Proposed

    The nations of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have unveiled their proposal for a large expansion of the United Nations Security Council, including more than doubling the number of permanent members.

    Japan, Brazil, Germany and India – known as the Group of Four nations – who are seeking permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council, presented a draft resolution Monday calling for the council’s expansion.

    The draft, unveiled at a meeting of representatives from about 70 countries, calls for the creation of an additional six permanent and four nonpermanent seats.

    The draft also states the new permanent members should be elected at the U.N. General Assembly, which should then adopt a revised U.N. Charter bearing the names of the newly elected members no later than two weeks after the vote.

    The four countries aim to have the resolution adopted by the end of June in the General Assembly and new permanent members to be elected in mid-July.

    Two-thirds of the 191 U.N. member countries – or at least 128 votes – must vote for the resolution at the General Assembly for it to be passed.

    Monday’s meeting, at Germany’s permanent representatives office in New York, aimed to explain the resolution and solidify support among the 70 or so countries believed to be in favor of the proposed expansion.

    With approximately 70 countries viewed at favoring UNSC expansion, I feel that enough momentum can be attained to garner the others needed if the proposal is put forth in a flexible, go-along-to-get-along manner. A strong argument in its favor is the current make-up of the permanent members of the council, with its strong European representation and lack of membership for South America, Africa and the Arab nations. The Group of Four are all deserving nations when judged on their populations, economic strengths, and prominence globally and in their respective regions. These four obviously aim to be among the six new permanent members, but one wonders which six would eventually attain the prize. Germany would only add to the Eurocentricism already present, Africa and the Arab nations still must be considered but have no obvious candidates, and at least two unnamed nations must be selected. Expect Italy, also desiring a seat, to push for a voice in this matter.

    Will the four nations go forward with enough flexibility to successfully manage passage? They will if they follow Japan’s lead.

    The latest draft, which the four countries initially had expected to finish in early May, was delayed by almost two weeks, mainly due to prolonged debate between India and Japan, according to sources.

    The sources said Japan and India had argued fiercely over the wording of the document as India insisted the new permanent members “shall have” the same veto rights as the so-called big five, while Japan supported a compromise under which new members “should have” veto rights.

    Japan feared a direct demand for veto rights would inevitably invite opposition from such countries as the United States.

    The current version states that the new permanent members “should” have the same “responsibilities and duties” as current permanent members.

    But Japan’s proposal to insert “in principle” to further weaken the demand for veto rights was omitted.

    Any new permanent nations should be happy with their constant presence on the council; expansion of the veto power would only serve to render the UNSC more hamstrung than it has already become. For that matter, though I expect it to pass in some form or other, I personally oppose this expansion. The greater the numbers involved in making a decision, the less likely a decision will be actually be made.

    If expansion must be, I would argue for the inclusion of Australia, Brazil, India and Japan. Heck, throw in Israel and Syria, give them both veto power, pick up a six-pack and tune in to watch the UN dismantle itself.

  • UN Approves Nuclear Terrorism Treaty

    You can sleep soundly tonight, safe under the warm, fuzzy blanket of security provided by the United Nations.

    The United Nations has approved a treaty aimed at preventing nuclear terrorism. Passage of the measure ends seven years of negotiations.

    In the end, no vote was necessary. The 191-member General Assembly adopted the “International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism” by consensus.

    There, there, rest your little head. We’re all snug and safe now. The vigilant UN is immediately on the case to deal with a threat.

    The measure is the 13th U.N. anti-terrorism convention, and the first adopted since the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States.

    Well, please realize that “immediately on the case” leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

    The treaty adopted Wednesday obligates governments to prosecute or extradite anyone who possesses or threatens to use radioactive materials with intent to cause death or injury.

    The accord is to be opened for signatures on September 14, during a summit of world leaders in New York. It needs ratification of 22 countries to become international law.

    I expect it to become international law. I expect it to look nice, printed in a good font, adorned by meticulously-drawn signatures on the finest of paper. I also expect its enforcement to show it’s not worth the cost of that paper.

  • Iraq Ambassador Urges Lifting Sanctions

    When the United Nations meets reality in Iraq — and rational arguments — the wheels of progess just seem to grind to a halt.

    Iraq’s U.N. ambassador urged the Security Council on Monday to lift the arms embargo and economic restrictions it imposed on Saddam Hussein’s government, calling them “shackles and burdens” on Iraq’s fledgling democracy.

    Samir Sumaidaie said Iraq’s new transitional leaders want the council to end the use of Iraqi oil revenue to pay U.N. weapons inspectors and to dismantle other legal and bureaucratic restrictions “which have outlived their relevance.”

    Sounds reasonable.

    Officially, Sumaidaie noted, Iraqi imports are still subject to inspection — a restriction that can only be lifted by the Security Council, along with the arms embargo imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

    “We must not be kept waiting (and paying) month after month,” he told council members. “Iraq is a fledgling democracy committed to the rule of law, both internationally and domestically. As such, it has the legitimate right to expect to be treated like any other member state.”

    Sounds reasonable.

    Last month, Sumaidaie complained that more than $12 million annually in Iraqi oil money is going to the U.N. commission charged with chemical, biological and missile inspections and $12.3 million in the next two years to the International Atomic Energy Agency for nuclear inspectors.

    The U.N. and IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before the March 2003 U.S.-led war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and the United States has barred them from returning.

    The two bureaucracies “are doing absolutely nothing that is relevant to Iraq” and the money should be going to the Iraqi people for reconstruction, he said.

    Sounds reasonable.

    China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said lifting the arms embargo on Iraq should be considered “as we see this political process moving forward,” and he said decisions on the future of U.N. inspectors will be made “in the next few months.”

    Why wait months after all of these reasonable points? Oh yeah, it’s the bureaucratic-rich communist China exercising their influence over the bureaucratic-rich UN.

    The Security Council welcomed the selection of Iraq’s transitional leaders and called for the early approval of ministers and a quick start to the drafting of a constitution.

    Sumaidaie said the assembly will soon start preparations for writing a constitution and expects to conclude the process by the end of the year with elections for the country’s first constitutionally elected government.

    “Now that Iraqis have had their first taste of freedom they will not be denied it,” he said.

    Damn that virus that is democratic exression and freedom. Well, that explains China’s problem.

    Sumaidaie said the United Nations had appointed Fink Haysom, a South African lawyer who formerly advised Nelson Mandela, to be lead U.N. constitutional adviser for Iraq. U.N. officials had not announced Haysom’s appointment because Iraqi leaders had yet to accept it, U.N. Associate spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

    Acting U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson, speaking on behalf of the more than 130,000-strong U.S.-led multinational force from 27 countries, urged the United Nations to play a greater role in promoting a national dialogue in Iraq and building consensus on the new constitution.

    Did the AP just say multinational? Did they point out 27 current participants in the coalition? I thought this was a unilateral action. Damn, looks like the U.S. missed out on its chance to be the imperialistic bastards they were so widely proclaimed.

    “We would like to see the U.N. expand implementation of its responsibilities for economic and humanitarian reconstruction assistance,” she added, urging a robust U.N. presence in the northern city of Irbil and the southern city of Basra where the world body established a small presence in February.

    Sumaidaie criticized the United Nations for “going overboard” with security concerns. “Especially for Irbil and Basra, there is really not justification for such caution,” he said.

    U.N. envoy Ashraf Qazi said the United Nations hope a review currently under way will lead to an increased U.N. presence in Irbil and Basra.

    I really have little to add after my injections except that it is just another statement to the sadness that is the UN — events so far outstrip and so quickly outpace the UN’s ordained concepts, but yet reality continues progressing.