News To You?

Taxes Without Borders

World Health Organization mulling global cigarette tax

A Tale of Two Ships

Via-Commentary

Jennifer Rubin

It is instructive to see how differently the UN and the Obama team reacted to two naval incidents: the terrorist flotilla and the sinking of a South Korean ship. Israel was and remains the target of the unending ire of the “international community,” which thrills at the prospect of another excuse to lambaste the Jewish state and to launch another attack on its legitimacy. But it’s quite a different story when there is an act of unprovoked aggression by a totalitarian state.

The Wall Street Journal editors write:

It’s as if the attack was a Sherlock Holmes mystery about a murder without a body. Never mind that everyone in the world knows that the Cheonan was sunk by a North Korean torpedo, killing 46 sailors in one of the worst acts of aggression since the Korean War ended nearly 60 years ago. A May report by a panel of global experts convened by South Korea to investigate the sinking left no doubt that the North perpetrated the act, despite Pyongyang’s denials.

Seoul went to the Security Council to seek the global rebuke of the North, but China objected to a resolution that specifically blamed its clients in Pyongyang. Thus the Security Council retreated to writing a resolution that condemned the act of aggression but named no aggressor. Apparently the rogue underwater missile targeted and then launched itself against the South Korean vessel. I, Torpedo.

This episode is a microcosm of the feckless Obama policy. First, there is the disingenuousness, which is needed to disguise the ineptness:

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice tried to make the best of this embarrassment by saying the message to the North was “crystal clear” and that “The Security Council condemns and deplores this attack. It warns against any further attacks. And insists on full adherence to the Korean Armistice Agreement.”

Then there is the appeasement mentality: “Follow the logic: Since the North wasn’t condemned for doing what everyone knows it did it, the North’s leaders might now be appeased enough to return to the nuclear talks they walked out of last year.”

Most tragically, however, it is the reliance on morally decrepit international institutions in lieu of American power and, yes, smart diplomacy. The Obami insist on using institutions that don’t — despite all his speechifying — share our values and interests. The result, whether on North Korea or Iran, is thin gruel sanctions and watered-down statements, which encourages rather than retard aggression by rogue states.

It is these same institutions that revel in the opportunity to call out Israel and condemn the Jewish State for daring to defend itself against those wishing its annihilation. Like the equally bankrupt “peace process,” Obama’s fixation on multilateralism is making the world more dangerous, America weaker, and despots breathe easier — and, of course, Israel more embattled, as the Israel-haters enjoy newfound respectability and attention from the U.S. and, therefore, the West more generally. A “smart” diplomatic approach would downplay and minimize the role of these bodies and instead emphasize the full panoply of weapons (diplomatic, economic, and military) in the U.S. arsenal. That Obama has done the opposite goes a long way toward explaining why his foreign policy is in such disarray.

The World Is Full of Bad Jokes

Via-Power Line

But the worst joke of all is the United Nations. Here is a headline from April: U.N. Elects Iran to Commission on Women's Rights.

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women....

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

Buried 2,000 words deep in a U.N. press release distributed Wednesday on the filling of "vacancies in subsidiary bodies," was the stark announcement: Iran, along with representatives from 10 other nations, was "elected by acclamation," meaning that no open vote was requested or required by any member states -- including the United States.

Fast-forward three months, to today's headline: Iran human rights chief defends stoning sentence.

Head of Human Rights Headquarters [!] of Iran's Judiciary, Mohammad Javad Larijani slammed Western protests against stoning emphasizing that stoning exists in Iran's constitution and it is "legal."

He responded to the recent campaign in international media backed by Western politicians to stop the stoning sentence of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, saying that Iran's judicial system will not change its direction because of "Western attacks" and "media pressures."

As you have probably read, Ms. Ashtiani was sentenced to death by stoning after being convicted of adultery in an Islamic court. She confessed to adultery after receiving 99 lashes and has been imprisoned for the last five years. As a result of an international campaign inspired by her son, the mullahs have now said that she will not be stoned to death--a barbaric form of execution that would involve burying her up to her chest and having a crowd of volunteers pelt her with stones that, by Islamic law, are not big enough to kill her quickly.

The ultimate point, I think, is that opinions vary widely as to what "the status of women" should be. For the United Nations to appoint a committee that pretends to harmonize Western notions of dignity and equality with Iranian notions of subjection and sadism is a species of insanity.

If Israel Is Not Evil, the World Is in Big Trouble

Via-Townhall

by Dennis Prager

With the exception of the United States, nearly all the world's nations; newspapers, radio and TV news stations; the United Nations; and the world's Leftist academics and organizations have condemned Israel over the Gaza flotilla incident. The characterizations of the Jewish state range from a society so evil that it should not be allowed to exist to a villainous nation that is responsible for a) the suffering of millions of innocent Palestinian men, women and children; b) the lack of Mideast peace; therefore c) the Muslim world's anger at the West; and therefore d) Islamic terrorism itself.

Let's hope the world is right.
Though Israel is a thriving liberal democracy for all its citizens, including the one out of five that is Arab (83 percent of whom are Muslim), with an independent judiciary and press; though it signed an agreement establishing an independent Palestinian state; though it returned to Egypt every inch of the Sinai Peninsula, a land mass larger than Israel itself with major oil reserves -- the world deems Israel a villain.

Let's hope the world is right.

Though Hamas runs a theocratic police state based on torture and terror, with no freedom of speech, no freedom for any religious expression outside of radical Islam, seeks to annihilate the Jewish state, and its state-controlled media depict Israelis and Jews as worthy of death, the world sees Israel, not Hamas, as the villain.

Let's hope the world is right.

Here is a random sampling of world reactions:

Double Standard Watch: Singling out Israel for 'international investigation'

Via-Jerusalem Post

Alan M. Dershowitz

In a world in which North Korea sinks a South Korean naval vessel killing dozens, Iran arms Islamic terrorists, who kill hundreds, Russia bombs Chechnya, killing thousands, and the United States and Great Britain, while targeting al Qaida and Taliban, kill an indeterminate number of civilians, only Israel is subjected to international "investigations" such as that conducted by Richard Goldstone and that being called for by the Security Council in the wake of the recent flotilla fiasco.

Why only Israel? Why is the United Nations silent about other situations that cry out for international investigations? Surely it's not because what Israel did was worse than what other member nations have done. Certainly it's not because Israel lacks self-criticism or mechanisms for internal investigation. Plainly it's not because the other "offenders" were provoked, while Israel was unprovoked.

There is only one answer - because Israel has long been singled out for public scrutiny and opprobrium by the United Nations in particular and the international community in general.

This is not to say that Israel has always been blameless. It foolishly took the bait and allowed itself to be provoked into overreacting to a well planned provocation by so-called "humanitarians," who love only those who hate the Jewish state. The best proof that the flotilla had little to do with providing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza and everything to do with breaking Israel's entirely lawful military blockade of a terrorist enclave, is Hamas' refusal to accept the food and medicine that Israel removed from the captured boats. The leaders of the flotilla admitted that their object was the same as Hamas' - not to provide humanitarian assistance to Gaza but rather to break the military blockade that is designed to keep rockets and other anti-personnel weapons from the hands of Hamas terrorists.

Israel should have been smarter in its efforts to enforce its blockade, but it did nothing illegal - and what it did do certainly doesn't warrant being singled out for the stigma of an international investigation.

If the United Nations is to get into the business of ordering and conducting international investigations, it must establish neutral and objective criteria for when such an investigation is warranted. These criteria must be equally applicable to all nations, and not merely to the Jewish nation.

Primary among the criteria must be "the worst first." Under that rule, investigations must be conducted in the order of the seriousness of the offense, not the unpopularity of the offender. Israel's actions in enforcing its blockade ranks fairly low on the pecking order of offenses, compared to those that have never been subjected to a mandated international investigation. Until and unless North Korea, Iran, Russia and other nations are required to undergo international scrutiny, the demand that Israel do so is illegitimate.

The second neutral criteria should be the capacity of the accused nation to investigate itself and to be subjected to domestic scrutiny and criticism. Here too Israel fares must better than most. It has an activist Supreme Court, a free and aggressive press and a responsive political system. It doesn't need dictatorial tyrannies telling it how to defend its citizens.

For international law to have any credibility, it must be applied neutrally, objectively and fairly to all nations. Singling out Israel for special scrutiny and investigation, while far more serious offenders and offenses are ignored, is incompatible with the rule of law.

Joining the Jackals

The Obama administration abandons Israel.

Via-The Weekly Standard

BY Elliott Abrams

At the United Nations, a lynch mob for Israel is always just a moment away. The Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom, led by the Arab bloc; what we used to call the “non-aligned” are all aligned against Israel and happy to join the fun; and the Europeans can be counted on for hand-wringing rather than staunch resistance. Only the United States, and a few brave allies like Canada and Australia, can be counted upon to oppose diplomatic lynchings year after year; and only the United States can stop them in the Security Council.
In the American government, it is never the State Department bureaucracy that wishes to brave the endless assaults at the UN. Normally the resistance comes not from the various regional bureaus or from the International Organizations bureau, where Israel is so often viewed as a giant pain, but from the White House and sometimes (example: George Shultz) the Secretary of State.

This week the mob formed again, instantly, after the Gaza flotilla disaster, reinforced this time by the leadership of Turkey, whose language at the UN was more vicious than that used by the Arabs. As usual there was really only one question once the mob began to gather. It is the question that arose repeatedly in the Bush years—when the Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel, when Israel acted in Gaza, when Israel put down the intifada in the West Bank, and during the 2006 war in Lebanon and the late 2008 fighting in Gaza: would Israel stand alone, or would the United States stand with her and prevent the lynching? Would the U.S., in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable phrase, "join the jackals?"

"UN Chief:Climate Change will continue for centuries!"

Well I certainly hope so! If the climate doesn't change the alternative would be.....well to quote our new Prez. CATASTROPHIC! - Jer

from Resilient Earth

America, what's the UN doing now? All this hysteria about Global Warming; notice the green folks no longer use the term global warming. Uh-uh! The new-term is "Climate Change." Jian Liu, Chief Of The Division Of Environmental Policy Implementation's Climate Change Adaptation Unit Of The United Nations Environmental Program (How about that for a title, fellow tax payers? Liu said in Jan 2009, "Even if the most stringent mitigation measures were put in place today, the impacts of climate change would still continue for centuries." OK, people, take a coin and flip it. Heads it is warmer, tails it is cooler in the next, who knows how many, centuries? What a farce.

Here is some of this guy's weird thinking placed into words. He says, "Let me start with the term 'Adaptation' which refers to Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (IPCC 2007.) Autonomous adaptation is an unconscious response to climatic change, triggered by automatic changes in a natural system and or in human systems. Planned adaptation is a deliberate policy decision, based on available knowledge that climate is really changing, or to change, and human beings have to prepare for action to return to, maintain, or achieve a desired state. There are knowledge gaps of course in understanding autonomous adaptation. I think research should be done to simulate and manipulate a natural or human system to identify the difference between NORMAL and ABNORMAL changes distorted by human induced climate change. Long-term process study is needed. This kind of results should benefit planned adaptation decision and activities."

This king of eco-babble has so tangled the U.N.'s environmental organizational structure, and so disorganized the central control, that the UN's own report says is not even possible to know how much money the U.N. system is spending on simply managing its environmental actions. (Such records, the report demurely states, "are not available.") But even a "rough estimate" is breath-taking: about $1.65 billion in 2006, the last year for which statistics were apparently available.

In one study, the report says, UNEP identified 60,000 environment-related projects being funded by various donors, and suggested that some kind of "information sharing system" about such projects would be advisable. It will never happened. Despite repeated prods to action, the head of UNEP hasn't come up with any program that even identifies the "roles, responsibilities and activities of U.N. agencies involved in the field of environment and MEAs."

Moreover, the managerial chaos is growing steadily more acute, as U.N. anti-poverty agencies increasingly jump on the environmental bandwagon and build overlapping and conflicting initiatives on environmental protection and "sustainable development" without clarifying the difference between the two activities.

Can you belive this beucratic monster goes on-and-on at the UN, the best con-game ever, running now for over a half-century? And who leads the charge these day? None other than the self-serving creep, Al Gore, the infinite bore.More...

Complete Original Article

The UN's insanity continues

The United Nations "anti-racism" forum, known as Durban II, is becoming a more important test for President Obama's multilateralist ambitions with each passing day. Durban I was the anti-Semitic hatefest that ended three days before 9/11. Durban II - the UN equivalent of the Son of Sam - will take place in April in Geneva. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has called on Obama not to legitimize the meeting, or its message, and not to attend. Canada has decided to stay away. But Obama has still not decided whether the United States will go. This Wednesday, however, the stakes got a lot higher with the UN's release of the latest negotiating text.

Negotiators have now put on the table claims that (1) a homeland for the Jewish people is racism - a "racially based law of return," (2) Israel is guilty of "apartheid" and (3) the veracity of the murder of one-third of the Jewish people during the Holocaust is subject to question. A reference to Holocaust facts has now been "square-bracketed" because Iran and Syria have questioned the numbers of Jews that died and consensus is the only guiding principle governing the decision-making process.

In total, six provisions are dedicated to demonizing Israel as racist. Not one of the other 191 UN states is mentioned. The intention is clear: the political defeat of Israel in the same vein as apartheid South Africa, because repeated attempts at a military defeat of Israel have failed.

But Israel is not the only target of Islamic and Arab states and their developing world partners. More...The draft takes straight aim at freedom of expression and counterterrorism. Free speech should supposedly be curtailed by new laws against "projecting negative, insulting and derogatory images of religions and religious personalities" and the introduction of "a code of ethical conduct" for the media. Counterterrorism activities are "obstacles hampering progress in the collective struggle against racism."

At the top of the agenda is the creation of a hierarchy of human rights victims with "Muslim minorities" topping matters of concern. "The intellectual and ideological validation of Islamophobia" is a "most disturbing phenomenon," the agenda says. "Anti-Arabism" is introduced as intolerance of a religious minority. Religions, instead of individuals, can be defamed. Calls are made to preserve "religious and cultural identities" without reference to universal rights and freedoms. Broad condemnation of "any advocacy of racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" is coupled with a refusal to require any finding by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal and a fair and public hearing.

In other words, Durban II is a frontal assault on universal human rights and freedoms by religious fundamentalists.

The European Union members have consistently participated in the Durban process from 2001 until today, approving the conference and its agenda. Although some EU states have vigorously protested the offensive draft provisions, they have been totally unable to prevail at each step of the way. Because full democracies are a minority in the UN, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference dominates the developing world, they stand no chance of winning on the numbers alone. Western diplomats, therefore, encourage the operating principle of consensus.

The consensus requirement leaves the radicals with a controlling interest. As a result, Iran is a vice president of the executive committee of the Durban II drafting group and took the floor to voice its "human rights" preferences more often than any other state during last week's negotiating session. The chairman of the drafting committee repeatedly asked Iran if it agreed with proposals, or suggested to the EU that it negotiate agreed language with Iran. When the meeting ended last Friday, the very first state to express its satisfaction with the preparations for this conference was Iran. Though the Iranian president openly advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust, his representative cooed, "We hope we will continue in the same spirit with our work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman."

Most important for the new Obama administration, this is not a dialogue from which democratic states or values can emerge triumphant. The multilateral reality is that without the numbers to prevail, the EU will agree on an outcome regardless of the sacrifices required to achieve consensus. The first lamb to be sacrificed will be "racist Israel," just as the EU allowed in Durban I. In fact, the first Durban conference - where the United States and Israel walked out - is a good indicator of EU strategy at the United Nations: It is not prepared to walk away. This outlook, of course, is well-known to the anti-human-rights crowd. Consequently, they hold out until the end, throw the EU a bone as a "compromise" and watch them hold news conferences for the hometown crowds feigning success.

Durban II, therefore, presents a major test of Obama's multilateral prowess. If he decides to go, he will legitimize a human rights fraud. American values and interests will be pushed to the fringes while the Europeans hang onto center stage - negotiating with anti-human-rights extremists. In the end, Obama will either have to abandon human rights victims, including Jews, or be forced to walk out and denounce the "consensus" - leaving him marginalized early in his administration.

The obvious solution is both to maintain the status quo for the last 71/2 years - U.S. nonparticipation in the Durban forum - and launch energetic efforts to fashion a more advantageous playing field for multilateral engagement. Skillfully addressed, this is an opportunity to encourage multilateralism that promotes, rather than defeats, universal rights and freedoms.

Bayefsky is a professor at Touro College New York and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.


Complete Original Article From NY Daily News