FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Friday, June 10, 2016

Saudi Arabia Killing Children:

Saudi Arabia Killing Children: United Nations Complicit in Crimes against Humanity

Palais_des_Nations_(Geneve)
“It appears that political power and diplomatic clout have been allowed to trump the UN’s duty to expose those responsible for the killing and maiming of more than 1,000 of Yemen’s children.”  Sajjad Mohammad Sajid, Oxfam Director in Yemen, Jun 7, 2016
It is such cases that give the United Nations a bad name.  And if heads and decay say something about the rest of the body, Ban Ki-Moon says all too much in his role as UN Secretary General.  Always inconspicuous, barely visible in the global media, his presence scarcely warrants a footnote. This has been a point of much relief for various powers who have tended to see the UN as a parking space for ceremony and manipulation rather than concrete policy.
A most sinister feature of the latest UN reversal is the role played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia behind the move.  Other powers have previously attempted to prejudice the various organs, and functions of the UN, exerting various pressures. In March, Morocco made its position clear when it expelled 84 UN staffers from a UN peacekeeping mission in the Western Sahara region after Ban deemed the disputed territory “occupied”.
The Kingdom is engaged in an enthusiastically bloody campaign in Yemen against the Shia Houthi insurgents, one that can scant be described as compliant with the laws of war.  This was one of the subjects of a 40-page report, written primarily by the UN chief’s special representative for children and armed conflict Leila Zerrougui.
In an expansive document spanning several countries and regions, it was found that the Saudi-led coalition had been implicated in the deaths of some 60 per cent of the 1,953 child deaths and injuries in Yemen last year.[1]  A policy of systematic targeting of hospitals and schools was also noted.  In Aden alone, six facilities were attacked 10 times.
On Monday, the UN announced that the Saudi-led coalition had been removed from the child’s rights blacklist.  This sent a flurry through various diplomatic channels. The Secretary-General found himself red faced and crestfallen.  According to Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric, “Pending the conclusions of the joint review, the secretary-general removes the listing of the coalition in the report’s annex.”[2]
Ban expressed a sense of helplessness.  Before reporters at UN headquarters, he explained how, “This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make.”  Before him was the “very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would de-fund many UN programmes.”
Hoping to salvage tattered credibility, Ban still insisted that he stood by the contents of the report, warning that the coalition might make an ignominious reappearance depending on the findings of an investigation.  In UN-speak, those findings can always be tinkered with.  Given that Saudi Arabia will front that investigation along UN officials, the result is as good as decided.
The response by Saudi Ambassador Abdullah al-Mouallimi on Thursday gave a true sense of implausible deniability.  “We did not use threats or intimidation and we did not talk about funding.”  A slew of aggressive calls from coalition countries suggested otherwise.  On Tuesday, Foreign Policy reported that the Kingdom had dangled the threat of severing ties with the UN and cut hundreds of millions of dollars in counterterrorism and humanitarian aid if it was not removed from the list.[3]
The Monday warning involved senior Saudi diplomats threatening UN officials with their powers of conviction, stretching across other Arab governments and those in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to similarly sever ties.
What, then, could Ban have done?  From the start, the role of the secretary-general was unclear.  A US Department of State meeting prior to the Preparatory Commission in London (Aug 17, 1945), recorded that the SG “should be a man of recognized prestige and competence in the field of diplomacy and foreign office experience.  He should be between forty-five and fifty-five years of age and be fluent in both French and English.”
In 1985, that noted doyen of international law, Thomas Franck, emphasised that the SG was an official best disposed to fact-finding, peacekeeping initiatives and good offices.  He surmised in a Hague Academy of International Law workshop that, till that point, the office had been occupied by those “completely successful in drawing a line between their role and the role played by political organs at the behest of member States.”
All in all, combative, engaged UN secretary-generals remain a distant murmur, one initially built by such figures as Dag Hammarskj√∂ld and Trygve Lie.  The last of any note to push the buttons of various powers, notably that of the US, was the late Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who brought a sustained arrogance to the office.
It was, to a degree, a fair call.  The Cold War had thawed, thereby providing the body the prospect for a more active role.  It was not to be, though Boutros-Ghali became one of the main celebrity hates for US politicians.
What we have gotten since is weak will and pliability, best reflected by Ban’s decision.  To be fair, the organisation’s effectiveness has tended to suffer at stages because of an inability to collect back dues, or keeping the line of revenue flowing.  The greatest violator of that tendency has been Washington itself.  Again, the money card has been played, with all too predictable results.  Human rights remain the playthings of the powerful.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Notes:

Saudi Arabia Killing Children: United Nations Complicit in Crimes against Humanity

Palais_des_Nations_(Geneve)
“It appears that political power and diplomatic clout have been allowed to trump the UN’s duty to expose those responsible for the killing and maiming of more than 1,000 of Yemen’s children.”  Sajjad Mohammad Sajid, Oxfam Director in Yemen, Jun 7, 2016
It is such cases that give the United Nations a bad name.  And if heads and decay say something about the rest of the body, Ban Ki-Moon says all too much in his role as UN Secretary General.  Always inconspicuous, barely visible in the global media, his presence scarcely warrants a footnote. This has been a point of much relief for various powers who have tended to see the UN as a parking space for ceremony and manipulation rather than concrete policy.
A most sinister feature of the latest UN reversal is the role played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia behind the move.  Other powers have previously attempted to prejudice the various organs, and functions of the UN, exerting various pressures. In March, Morocco made its position clear when it expelled 84 UN staffers from a UN peacekeeping mission in the Western Sahara region after Ban deemed the disputed territory “occupied”.
The Kingdom is engaged in an enthusiastically bloody campaign in Yemen against the Shia Houthi insurgents, one that can scant be described as compliant with the laws of war.  This was one of the subjects of a 40-page report, written primarily by the UN chief’s special representative for children and armed conflict Leila Zerrougui.
In an expansive document spanning several countries and regions, it was found that the Saudi-led coalition had been implicated in the deaths of some 60 per cent of the 1,953 child deaths and injuries in Yemen last year.[1]  A policy of systematic targeting of hospitals and schools was also noted.  In Aden alone, six facilities were attacked 10 times.
On Monday, the UN announced that the Saudi-led coalition had been removed from the child’s rights blacklist.  This sent a flurry through various diplomatic channels. The Secretary-General found himself red faced and crestfallen.  According to Ban’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric, “Pending the conclusions of the joint review, the secretary-general removes the listing of the coalition in the report’s annex.”[2]
Ban expressed a sense of helplessness.  Before reporters at UN headquarters, he explained how, “This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make.”  Before him was the “very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would de-fund many UN programmes.”
Hoping to salvage tattered credibility, Ban still insisted that he stood by the contents of the report, warning that the coalition might make an ignominious reappearance depending on the findings of an investigation.  In UN-speak, those findings can always be tinkered with.  Given that Saudi Arabia will front that investigation along UN officials, the result is as good as decided.
The response by Saudi Ambassador Abdullah al-Mouallimi on Thursday gave a true sense of implausible deniability.  “We did not use threats or intimidation and we did not talk about funding.”  A slew of aggressive calls from coalition countries suggested otherwise.  On Tuesday, Foreign Policy reported that the Kingdom had dangled the threat of severing ties with the UN and cut hundreds of millions of dollars in counterterrorism and humanitarian aid if it was not removed from the list.[3]
The Monday warning involved senior Saudi diplomats threatening UN officials with their powers of conviction, stretching across other Arab governments and those in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to similarly sever ties.
What, then, could Ban have done?  From the start, the role of the secretary-general was unclear.  A US Department of State meeting prior to the Preparatory Commission in London (Aug 17, 1945), recorded that the SG “should be a man of recognized prestige and competence in the field of diplomacy and foreign office experience.  He should be between forty-five and fifty-five years of age and be fluent in both French and English.”
In 1985, that noted doyen of international law, Thomas Franck, emphasised that the SG was an official best disposed to fact-finding, peacekeeping initiatives and good offices.  He surmised in a Hague Academy of International Law workshop that, till that point, the office had been occupied by those “completely successful in drawing a line between their role and the role played by political organs at the behest of member States.”
All in all, combative, engaged UN secretary-generals remain a distant murmur, one initially built by such figures as Dag Hammarskj√∂ld and Trygve Lie.  The last of any note to push the buttons of various powers, notably that of the US, was the late Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who brought a sustained arrogance to the office.
It was, to a degree, a fair call.  The Cold War had thawed, thereby providing the body the prospect for a more active role.  It was not to be, though Boutros-Ghali became one of the main celebrity hates for US politicians.
What we have gotten since is weak will and pliability, best reflected by Ban’s decision.  To be fair, the organisation’s effectiveness has tended to suffer at stages because of an inability to collect back dues, or keeping the line of revenue flowing.  The greatest violator of that tendency has been Washington itself.  Again, the money card has been played, with all too predictable results.  Human rights remain the playthings of the powerful.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
Notes:


No comments :