Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Indonesia, Malaysia urge UN to forge consensus against Israel after latest massacre in Gaza

Press TV – August 11, 2024

Indonesia and Malaysia have urged the United Nations to reach a general agreement against Israel after its latest massacre in the Gaza Strip.

More than 100 Palestinians were killed on Saturday in an Israeli airstrike on a school sheltering displaced people in the east of the Gaza Strip. The Israeli regime has attacked schools at least 21 times in the past 40 days.

Southeast Asian nations have been critical of the Israeli regime, vocally supporting the defenseless Palestinian people trapped and massacred by the Zionist war machine in the besieged Gaza Strip.

On Sunday, both Indonesia and Malaysia called on the UN to unite against Tel Aviv to stop the mass killing of civilians in Gaza.

“The international community should no longer tolerate and accept the belligerence of Israel,” the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in its statement.

“Malaysia continues to call for Israel’s allies to compel Israel to immediately stop the killings of innocent Palestinians, and to stop providing Israel with the tools to continue this genocide. An immediate, urgent and decisive action by the UN Security Council is needed to enforce a permanent ceasefire.”

Malaysia said that Israel has shown “that it has no desire for peace” and urged other Muslim countries under the 57-member Organization of Islamic Cooperation to come together and work with UN member states to demand Tel Aviv comply with the UN Security Council resolution passed in June, which called for a ceasefire in Gaza.

The Israeli regime’s airstrike on Saturday sparked a new wave of international condemnation, with the UN Human Rights Office saying that it was at least the 21st attack on schools-turned-shelters that it has recorded since July 4.

Indonesia has also joined growing calls for the UN Security Council to “immediately conduct a comprehensive investigation” into the Al-Tabin school massacre.

“Indonesia also calls upon the international community to unite in stopping the crimes against humanity and genocide committed by Israel,” the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. “Israel must be held accountable for all these crimes, and all forms of impunity must be brought to an end.”

Backed by the US-led Western allies, the Israeli regime has since October launched a genocidal war on Gaza, enforcing a deadly siege of the Palestinian land by stopping the flow of potable water, medicine, and electricity into the coastal territory.

Israeli forces’ genocidal war on Gaza since early October has killed nearly 40,000 people, most of them women and children, with some 91,000 more injured.

August 11, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill Gates, U.S. Military Among Investors in GMO Insect Protein for Humans

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 2, 2024

While regulators in non-U.S. countries, including Singapore, have issued approvals for specific insect-based foods, in the U.S., the regulatory landscape is murkier — there is no legal approval process or clear-cut prohibition of insects for human consumption.

As a result, insect-containing foods have reached U.S. consumers, even though one of the few existing U.S. laws that address insects in the food supply refers to them as “filth” and a form of “adulteration.”

Crickets and grasshoppers reach U.S. consumers in a variety of forms, from protein bars to protein shakes. They’re also found on restaurant menus and are promoted as pet food and animal feed ingredients.

With few U.S. regulatory barriers to contend with, investors like Bill Gates and Big Food giants such as Tyson Foods have also begun investing in “alternative protein” startups — despite mainstream media “fact-checks” claiming Gates doesn’t support the consumption of insects.

Internist Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, told The Defender lax U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations — under which many insect-containing foods can be classified as “Generally Regarded as Safe” (GRAS) — “means they don’t require testing” and enable the FDA to “look the other way.”

“How long will it take before we learn whether these foods are safe? It could take generations,” Nass said.

Gates, U.S. military among backers of ‘alternative protein’ startups

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Grand Challenges Explorations program in 2012 funded All Things Bugs, a project to “develop a novel food product made from insects to treat malnutrition in children from famine stricken areas of the world,” according to Eurasia Review.

All Things Bugs has since expanded into the development of genetically modified insects. With funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “we are using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing and other methodologies to develop base technologies for creating insects as a new bioresource,” the company states.

DARPA is a research and development agency that operates under the U.S. Department of Defense.

All Things Bugs said that while insects are “a very sustainable source of protein,” it “is innovating to make them a feasible commodity for the food industry.”

Claire Robinson, managing editor of GMWatch, told The Defender, “With all GMOs [genetically modified organisms], including insects, it’s vital that they are subjected to a pre-marketing risk assessment for health and the environment.”

Robinson said, “This includes testing them for the presence of pathogens, possible allergens and substances that may be toxic to humans. Then they must be clearly labeled for the consumer.”

Gates’ investments in insect-based foods appear to be part of a broader strategy to invest in alternatives to animal-based foods for consumers.

In a February blog post, Gates said he invested in Savor, a startup producing butter made from air (carbon dioxide) and water (hydrogen). And in 2022, the Gates Foundation awarded a $4.76 million grant to Nature’s Fynd, a startup producing foods containing fungi-based protein. In 2020, Breakthrough Energy Ventures, founded by Gates, invested in Nature’s Fynd.

The U.S. government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) also is involved in the insects-as-food space, through its funding of the Center for Environmental Sustainability through Insect Farming (CEIF). Established in 2021, CEIF seeks “to develop novel methods for using insects as feed for livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.”

Institutions participating in CEIF include Texas A&M University, Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis and Mississippi State University — along with Tyson Foods, Protix and Innovafeed, backed by food processing giant ADM, formerly the Archer-Daniels-Midland Company.

Insect protein start-ups raised ‘over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020’

The production of insects for human food is expanding in the U.S. and globally, with support from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

In 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a seminal report, “Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security,” which promotes the environmental and nutritional benefits of insect consumption.”

A 2022 WEF paper, “5 reasons why eating insects can reduce climate change,” suggests people are “conditioned to think of animals and plants as our primary sources of proteins … but there’s an unsung category of sustainable and nutritious protein that has yet to widely catch on: insects.”

According to a November 2023 Washington Post report, “Insect start-ups have raised over $1 billion in venture capital since 2020.”

A 2021 report by Netherlands-based Rabobank claimed the demand for insect protein, “mainly as an animal feed and pet food ingredient, could reach half a million metric tons by 2030, up from today’s market of approximately 10,000 metric tons.”

A report by Grand View Research forecasted the global insect protein market will expand by an annual compound growth rate of 16.9% by 2030, while European projections estimate “the number of Europeans consuming insect-based food will [reach] a total of 390 million by 2030,” according to EuroNews.

Ynsect, for instance, has built factories in France and the Netherlands, and is erecting factories in the U.S. and Mexico, according to Feed Navigator. The company claims its insect-producing farms are “climate positive,” “benefit biodiversity” and are aligned with the Paris Agreement and the European Union’s “Fit for 55” goal.

In March 2022, Ynsect acquired Nebraska-based Jord Producers — a mealworm farm. And in December 2022, Ynsect signed an agreement with U.S. flour milling company Ardent Mills to build a factory in the Midwestern U.S. Ardent Mills is a joint venture between ConAgra Foods, Cargill and CHS, a global agribusiness cooperative.

Investors in Ynsect include actor Robert Downey Jr.’s FootPrint Coalition and France’s Crédit Agricole bank — along with support from the FAO and the European Commission. The company has raised over $600 million.

Celebrity chefs also are embracing insect food. In November 2023, the Financial Times featured Joseph Yoon, founder of Brooklyn Bugs, whose “goal is to popularise edible insects and build up this food source to help support global food security.”

Your dog can eat insects, too

In addition to a lack of FDA regulations governing the use of insects in foods for humans, the FDA also does not regulate the use of insects for pet food ingredients.

According to Animal Frontiers, “pet food is under the nongovernment Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO)” in the U.S. In January, French firm Ynsect became the first company to receive AAFCO authorization for commercial production of mealworm protein for dog food in the U.S.

In October 2023, Big Food giant Tyson Foods announced the acquisition of an ownership stake in the Dutch insect ingredient producer Protix. Tyson said the new joint venture would construct “the first at-scale facility of its kind to upcycle food manufacturing byproducts into high-quality insect proteins and lipids which will primarily be used in the pet food, aquaculture, and livestock industries.”

Although the announcement did not definitively exclude the production of insect-containing foods for humans, a Reuters “fact check” published in May stated, “Tyson Foods does not put insects into products for human consumption.”

Tyson has invested in Upside Foods, which in June 2023 won approval from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to produce lab-grown chicken. Upside garnered more than $600 million in research and development investments, including from Gates, Richard Branson, Elon Musk’s brother Kimbal Musk and Cargill.

Vanguard and BlackRock, the world’s two largest institutional investment firms, are also the two top institutional holders of Tyson Foods shares. BlackRock, and its CEO, Larry Fink, have promoted “sustainable” corporate practices.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 3, 2024 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

The UN Smothers the Peoples with Compassion

By Thi Thuy Van Dinh and David Bell | Brownstone Institute | June 27, 2024

“We The Peoples of the United Nations determined (…) to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,”

United Nations Charter Preamble (1945)

The United Nations (UN) Secretariat will hold the next Summit of the Future in New York on 22-23 September 2024. It is a vast political program covering the noblest of causes including poverty reduction, human rights, environment, climate change, development, and the welfare and rights of children, youth, and women. World leaders are expected to endorse a declaratory Pact for the Future, and commit to act toward its realization.

It all looks wonderful. As in days of old, the rich, powerful, and entitled are coming to rescue us from ourselves and make us live better lives. Freedom, after all, is intrinsically unsafe.

This is the first in a series that will look at the plans of the UN system designing and implementing this new agenda, covering implications for global health, economic development, and human rights.

Climate and Health at the WHO: Building the Authoritarian Dream

Amidst all the hype and posturing regarding the negotiations on pandemic texts at the recent 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) in Geneva (Switzerland), perhaps the most consequential resolution before the WHA slipped through, approved, but virtually unnoticed. The Resolution WHA77.14 on Climate Change and Health was approved without debate, opening the door for the World Health Organization (WHO) ─ a UN specialized agency ─ to claim a broad swath of normal human activity as a potential threat to health, and therefore coming under the purview of the WHO’s detached business-class bureaucrats.

It was highlighted by a Strategic Roundtable on “Climate change and health: a global vision for joint action,” where speakers, moderated by the Lancet’s Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, included WHO Director-General (DG) Tedros Ghebreyesus, former US Vice President Al Gore (by video message), and CEO of the 28th Climate Conference of States Parties Adnan Amin.

The Resolution was proposed by a coalition of 16 countries (Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Fiji, Georgia, Kenya, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Slovenia, United Arab Emirates, and the UK) and passed without changes, mandating the DG to: i) develop a “results-based, needs-oriented and capabilities-driven global WHO plan of action on climate change and health,” ii) serve as a global leader in the field of climate change and health by establishing a WHO Roadmap to Net Zero by 2030, and iii) report back to future WHA sessions.

United Nations System’s “Newspeak” on Climate Change

There is little surprise in this. It is another predictable move on the global climate chessboard. In the last decade, activities and documents from the UN system have increasingly included climate change as a “newspeak” to signal full compliance with the official narrative.

The head of the UN system, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, is known for pushing the narrative further. In 2019, he posed in water for a picture for Time Magazine’s coverage on “Our sinking planet.” Last summer, he announced that “the era of global warming has ended…the era of global boiling has arrived.”

On 2024 World Environment Day (5th June), he doubled down on his rhetoric: “In the case of climate, we are not the dinosaurs. We are the meteor. We are not only in danger. We are the danger.” We are, it appears, a poison on our planet.

Satellite entities have wildly added their creativity and imagination: UNEP hammering on the “triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss,” UNICEF reporting on the “climate changed-child,” UNWOMEN discovering the “interconnection between climate change and gender inequality,” OHCHR claiming that “climate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights including those to life, water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development,” and UNESCO fully committed “to addressing the impact of climate change on culture, and to enhancing the potential of culture for global climate action.”

Nomination of First Ever WHO Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health

As for WHO, DG Tedros Ghebreyesus has also demonstrated his mastery of dogmatic claims. Climate change, he insists, constitutes “one of the biggest health threats” and “the climate crisis is a health crisis.” His mandate has therefore been broadened from specific environmental issues including air pollution from particulates and chemicals to the whole climate change spectrum. In 2023, the WHO estimated that “between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone.”

Strangely, however, deaths attributable to cold weather, estimated at 4.6 million globally per year, were not weighed in balance. Nor are inevitable deaths from undernutrition related to a lack of accessible energy for agriculture and transport. Accounting for a reduction in such deaths would significantly reduce projected mortality and perhaps demonstrate an overall advantage. For instance, rising CO2 has increased plant growth and contributed to the world’s ability to feed 8 billion people, an achievement once considered impossible and is obviously highly critical to maintaining health.

The WHO’s leaders have become bolder. In June 2023, in a minor lapse of equity, inclusion, and transparency criteria, the DG appointed Dr Vanessa Kerry as “the first ever” Special Envoy for Climate Change and Health for being “a renowned global health expert and medical doctor and CEO of Seed Global Health.” The press release overlooked any connection with her father, former US Secretary of State John Kerry ─ a key US Democratic politician, well-known personality at UN climate forums, and first-ever US Presidential Envoy for Climate (January 2021-March 2024). Her nomination, apparently, was purely meritocratic.

It is estimated that $27.6 million is required to create the reports implementing the 2024 Resolution. Now, $20 million will come from WHO’s biennial 2024-25 budget, and the gap of $7.6 million will be raised through WHO’s continued “discussions with Member States, development agencies and philanthropic organizations.” People who will, perhaps, benefit from the WHO pushing the products they have invested in, such as heavily processed substitutes to (climate-harming) natural foods.

All of this appears to follow conventional political and diplomatic playbooks. It comes unstuck if one applies a critical look at how Resolution WHA77.14 was built.

It referred to Resolution WHA61.19 (adopted in 2008) on climate change and health, Resolution WHA68.8 (adopted in 2005) addressing the health impact of air pollution, and Resolution WHA76.17 (adopted in 2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste, and pollution on human health as follows.

Recalling resolution WHA61.19 (2008) on climate change and health and welcoming the work carried out so far by WHO in pursuit of it;

Recalling also resolution WHA68.8 (2015) on addressing the health impact of air pollution and resolution WHA76.17 (2023) on the impact of chemicals, waste and pollution on human health, which recognize the link between health, environment and climate change;

Resolution WHA61.19 was adopted based on a WHO report “Climate change and health.” This report stated that “There is now a strong, global scientific consensus that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and is caused by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels which releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere” (para. 1) and that “WHO has, for several years, stressed that the health risks posed by climate change are significant, distributed throughout the globe, and difficult to reverse” (para. 2). These affirmations were made without assessment of levels of evidence (strong, moderate, weak), of the extent to which (modifiable) human activity is involved, or of the actual positive versus negative impacts of higher temperatures (and atmospheric CO2).

Contrary to the statements by Resolution WHA77.14, neither Resolution WHA68.8 nor Resolution WHA76.17 mentioned climate change in the context of pollutants. Excluding rare natural phenomena, particulate and chemical air pollution do result from human activities, including indoor air pollution (e.g. cookstoves) and transport and industrial waste. Hence, these past Resolutions recognized a link between these pollutants and human health, which is common sense. They did not recognize a link between health, environment, and climate change.

Nevertheless, we can probably relax and wait. The WHO’s upcoming reports can be expected to claim a link. They have $27 million to spend on that.

The Climate Agenda Versus “We the Peoples”

It is easy for wealthy self-proclaimed philanthropists and international and governmental bureaucrats to call for phasing out fossil fuels. Living on tax-paid salaries in secure jobs, in economies made rich through the availability of cheap energy, they are able to renew their commitment annually at the Conference of States Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ignoring the reality that their very ability to be there is due to fossil fuels. The most recent venues ─ Dubai, Sharm-El-Sheik, and Glasgow ─ all built their prosperity on this same energy base.

Being obsessed with the man-made climate narrative, the UN system pushes poor countries to adopt green energies for lighting and cooking, rather than developing the large-scale energy infrastructure that still forms the backbone of wealthier societies.

There seems to be no shame vis-a-vis 2.3 billion people on earth that, according to the WHO, must still rely on dirty and dangerous cooking fuels such as cow dung, charcoal, and wood ─ negatively impacting women and children’s health through particulate air pollution. Increasing the cost of fossil fuels directly increases further deforestation and resultant desertification (and regional climate change) in areas such as East Africa. It feels good, apparently, for the activists of climate COPs and Extinction Rebellion to force African women to walk further each day for firewood, denuding landscapes and their meager savings.

There seems to be no shame either when Western bilateral and multilateral largesse to low-income countries comes on the condition that they pass a “climate check,” or must be spent on developing “green” but unreliable solar and wind generation which barely supplement the base energy supplies of most donor countries. We happily burn Nigerian oil, but our virtue requires Nigerians to do better. After looting wealth through colonialism, this is rubbing noses in the dirt of the poverty left behind.

One can confidently predict that the rhetoric will continue, and more “soft laws” ─ UN declarations, strategies, plans-of-action, and agendas ─ will complement the existing “hard laws” of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Protocols. At the WHO, more funding will come to extend the growing industry of climate change and health, diverting financial and human resources from far greater, but less boutique, health burdens.

A plan of action will be put before a future WHA to agree to a binding document seeking to harden the 2024 Resolution into requirements. Highly questionable assumptions that pandemics and malaria, and even tuberculosis, are worsened because of climate change will be drawn to support the global plan, complementing the coming Pandemic Agreement and the massive surveillance system set up by the freshly adopted IHR Amendments to ensure pandemic lockdowns.

Malaria, tuberculosis, and diseases of undernutrition and poor hygiene are primarily diseases of poverty. People in wealthy countries live longer primarily because of improvements in sanitation, living conditions, and nutrition. These improvements were achieved by using energy for transport, to build infrastructure, and to massively improve the efficiency of agricultural production. Locking future generations in low-income countries into poverty will not improve their health and well-being.

This increasingly charade-like global health circus will, in the end, destabilize the world and harm us all. To address complex issues, the world needs rational and honest debates, rather than games played by a self-entitled few. The WHO is demonstrating that it is no longer the organization to lead us to better health. It is on us to regain control of our own future.

June 29, 2024 Posted by | Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Leave a comment

Can the WHO and the United Nations impose sanctions on your sovereign country for non-compliance?

The UN is a far bigger threat than the WHO, which, although deserving of attention, cannot consume our entire focus.

BY SHABNAM PALESA MOHAMED | JUNE 18, 2024

This updated analysis was written in 2023 (read in full here at CHD Africa)

Sanctions are a powerful instrument of political control and economic profit. One of the rare but critical topics relevant to the international campaign to #ExitTheWHO is whether the World Health Organisation and the United Nations can impose, influence or recommend specific sanctions. The sanctions could be implemented against countries that choose to not comply or cannot comply with International Health Regulations, the proposed new pandemic treaty, or other legislative attempts that curtail rights, freedom and sovereignty.

The accelerating and profitable globalist march towards unprecedented levels of ‘1984’ style totalitarianism – using censorship, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, and CBDC’s continues. It is plausible that the WHO and the UN will move to impose, influence or recommend sanctions against countries that do not want to or cannot comply with its centralised health agenda and undemocratic legislative attempts.

What is the basis for me raising the red flag on sanctions in 2023?

Health is no longer just health, as it is defined in the WHO’s constitution. Through Covid-19, and other controversially declared pandemics, health is now a multi-billion dollar health security industry. With it, creeps in the tyranny of secrecy, surveillance, vaccine certificates, forced quarantines, and the undemocratic censorship of free speech. Given the absence of public participation, the WHO is a strategic spear for oligarchs and corporations, and given international resistance to its power grab, it becomes desperate and argues or pushes for sanctions.

Reported in 2021: “In 2021, German Health Minister Jens Spahn called for sanctions against countries that hide information about future outbreaks. Citing the World Trade Organization’s power to sanction countries for non-compliance, Spahn said “there must be something that follows” if countries fail to live up to commitments under a new pandemic treaty that the World Health Assembly will take up in November.”

Further, it is entirely under reported that controversial “World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also urged countries to consider the idea as they take up the treaty, a legally binding tool. The treaty should “have all the incentives, or the carrots” to encourage transparency, Tedros said, appearing at a press conference with Spahn in Berlin. “But maybe exploring the sanctions may be important,” he added.”

Also reported in 2021: “Speaking at the WHA in June, Mike Ryan, WHO Health Emergencies Programme Executive Director, also spoke out in favour of the treaty, despite the fact that WHO technical staff have historically avoided taking positions on controversial policy choices before member states. “My personal view is that we need a political treaty that makes the highest-level commitment to the principles of global health security — and then we can get on with building the blocks on this foundation.”

I engaged renowned international law expert Professor Francis Boyle about the possibility of sanctions via the WHO. He had no doubt “They will pursue sanctions against countries that do not comply with their orders, coming from Geneva. Both economic and political sanctions. However, they will only have the power to pursue sanctions if we accept their authority. We cannot. We must exit the WHO.”

UN Power Grab. Disaster Capitalism 101.

With far less public scrutiny currently than the controversial WHO, the United Nations is simultaneously seeking exponential new powers and stronger global governance mechanisms, including multilateralism, to deal with what they define as international emergencies.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ Common Agenda report arises from a UN declaration on the commemoration of its seventy-fifth anniversary. This report states “All proposed actions are designed to accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Our Common Agenda is intended to advance the 12 themes of the declaration.”

In March 2023, UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres released a related policy brief: To Think and  Act for Future Generations – OUR COMMON AGENDA – Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform. 

One of this policy brief’s 12 key themes is ‘Being Prepared’, which includes:

1. Emergency Platform to be convened in response to complex global crises

2. Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report by the United Nations every five years

3. On global public health:

a) Global vaccination plan
b) Empowered WHO
c) Stronger global health security and preparedness
d) Accelerate product development and access to health technologies in low- and middle-income countries
e) Universal health coverage and addressing determinants of health

Under the topic of addressing major risks, Guterres states:

98. An effort is warranted to better define and identify the extreme, catastrophic and existential risks that we face. We cannot, however, wait for an agreement on definitions before we act.

99. Learning lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic, we can seize this opportunity to better anticipate and prepare to respond to large-scale global crises. This requires stronger legal frameworks, better tools for managing risks, better data, the identification and anticipation of future risks, and proper financing of prevention and preparedness. Importantly, however, any new preparedness and response measures should be agnostic as to the type of crisis for which they may be needed. We do not know which extreme risk event will come next. It might be another pandemic, a new war, a high-consequence biological attack, a cyberattack on critical infrastructure, a nuclear event, a rapidly moving environmental disaster, or something completely different such as technological or scientific developments gone awry and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.

101. Secondly, I propose to work with Member States to establish an Emergency Platform to respond to complex global crises. The platform would not be a new permanent or standing body or institution. It would be triggered automatically in crises of sufficient scale and magnitude, regardless of the type or nature of the crisis involved. Once activated, it would bring together leaders from Member States, the United Nations system, key country groupings, international financial institutions, regional bodies, civil society, the private sector, subject-specific industries or research bodies and other experts. The terms of reference would set out the modalities and criteria for the activation of the platform, including the scale and scope of the crisis; funding and financing; the identification of relevant actors who would form part of it; the support that it would be expected to provide; and the criteria for its deactivation. The platform would allow the convening role of the Secretary-General to be maximized in the face of crises with global reach.

DIAGRAM: Policy Brief 2 – Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform

UN’s Emergency Platform = One World Government backdoor

The emergency platform would be activated during any event that is deemed to have a global impact, and would provide the UN the authority to actively promote and drive an international response. Antonio Guterres, UN secretary-general, declared: “I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.”

The policy further argues that such authority would “Ensure that all participating actors make commitments that can contribute meaningfully to the response, and that they are held to account for delivery on those commitments.” While the policy states that the emergency authority would have limited duration, it also states that the UN would be able to extend its own powers if it decides to do so. These powers would effectively render public consensus unnecessary, democracies obsolete, and the role of politicians largely irrelevant.

These all encompassing areas of expanded emergency powers relate to:

  1. pandemics
  2. wars and nuclear events
  3. climate or environmental events, degradation or disaster;
  4. accidental or deliberate release of biological agents;
  5. disruptions in the flow of goods, people, or finance;
  6. disruptions in cyberspace or “global digital connectivity;”
  7. a cyberattack on critical infrastructure
  8. a major event in “outer space;”
  9. “unforeseen risks (‘black swan’ events)
  10. technological or scientific developments gone awry – and unconstrained by effective ethical and regulatory frameworks.

At least 7 out of 10 of the above areas have already happened or are happening.

What does the UN have planned?

On September 20th 2023, the UN intends to adopt a high level political declaration on pandemics. In my analysis, the UN pathway to the one health and one world government agenda is a back up plan to the WHO’s trajectory which is increasingly exposed and resisted.

The UN is planning to host its related ‘Summit of the Future’ in September 2024. Guterres stated “The Summit of the Future is an opportunity to agree on multilateral solutions for a better tomorrow, strengthening global governance for both present and future generations.” The UN website states “The General Assembly welcomed the submission of Our Common Agenda and passed a resolution to hold the Summit on 22-23 September 2024, preceded by a ministerial meeting in 2023. An action-oriented Pact for the Future is expected to be agreed by Member States through intergovernmental negotiations on issues they decide to take forward.”

Understanding Sanctions or Unilateral Coercive Measures

Sanctions are action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws. There are several types of sanctions imposed through the United Nations:

It is plausible that the UN’s controllers realise that the world is pushing back against the WHO’s overreach, or find it irrelevant to real health. Given that sovereign nations will choose to exit the WHO, the UN decided to launch plan B and ascribe to itself even greater powers. Technically, there is no legislation to exit the United Nations within the UN Charter. Again, this is a critical issue of national sovereignty.

Can the WHO and the UN collaborate on sanctions?

The WHO is an agency of the United Nations.

  • In 2015, on punishing member states who violate the International Health Regulations (IHR), as reported: “United Nations health officials said  they want to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with public health regulations meant to avoid the spread of dangerous epidemics, such as the Ebola outbreak that killed more than 9,000 people and ravaged domestic health care systems in West Africa last year.
  • World Health Organization Director Margaret Chan said she is investigating ways to reprimand countries that disobey the IHR — a set of rules adopted in 2005 and mandate that countries set up epidemiological surveillance systems, fund local health care infrastructure and restrict international trade and travel to affected regions deemed unsafe to the public, among other provisions. Chan is on a panel set up by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who instructed the group to think of ways to hold countries accountable for how they manage public health crises and punish those who violate the IHR.”
  • In 2022, according to commentators in a policy article: “In order to enforce compliance, some commentators have recommended concluding the treaty at the United Nations level. However, we fear that it has been already decided with the INB (mandated by WHASS) that a treaty will be developed under the roof of WHO. They added: “To move on with the treaty, WHO therefore needs to be empowered — financially, and politically. If international pandemic response is enhanced, compliance is enhanced. In case of a declared health emergency, resources need to flow to countries in which the emergency is occurring, triggering response elements such as financing and technical support.
  • These are especially relevant for LMICs, and could be used to encourage and enhance the timely sharing of information by states, reassuring them that they will not be subject to arbitrary trade and travel sanctions for reporting, but instead be provided with the necessary financial and technical resources they require to effectively respond to the outbreak. High-income settings may not be motivated by financial resources in the same way as their low-income counterparts. An adaptable incentive regime is therefore needed, with sanctions such as public reprimands, economic sanctions, or denial of benefits.”

Conclusion

Given the rapidly growing distrust in the WHO, its historical failures and harms, Covid-19 failures and harms, and the fact that it cannot maintain independence because it is a largely privately funded entity; it is plausible that the WHO and/or the UN will move to impose or influence sanctions via the World Trade Organisation, ahead of Agenda 2030. This act of aggression weaponises the WHO and/or the UN against countries that influential funders and unethical stakeholders have an interest in destabilising for power and resource control.

This sinister strategy has disturbing implications for democracy, peace, and prosperity around the world. Freedom faces an existential risk through unelected bureaucratic entities. Nations can and must protect their sovereignty by defunding and exiting WHO, and, by critically assessing the true history, nature, value, and risks of continued membership in the 78 year old United Nations. Not to do so, means to ignore the risks of UN peacekeepers, known to commit crimes with impunity, being deployed in your country to enforce UN and WHO governance.

June 20, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Timeless or most popular | , , | 1 Comment

West Confirms Its Intention to Militarize Space – Nebenzia

Sputnik – 20.05.2024

UNITED NATIONS – Having prevented the UN Security Council from adopting Russia’s draft resolution, the West has confirmed its intention to continue militarization of space, Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vasily Nebenzia said at a meeting of the Security Council.

Earlier, due to the position of Western countries, the UN Security Council did not adopt Russia’s resolution on preventing an arms race in space. Russia, China, Algeria, Guyana, Ecuador, Mozambique, Sierra Leone voted in favor of the resolution. Switzerland abstained. The United States, France, Britain, Japan, Slovenia, the Republic of Korea, and Malta voted against.

Nebenzia recalled how in April the US and its allies in the UNSC were loudly assuring everyone of their commitment to peaceful space.

“Today, after they have confirmed their real intentions to continue militarizing space and creating appropriate weapons, attempts to justify their actions by the allegedly non-consensual nature of our project look especially cynical and hypocritical,” Nebenzya said.

According to him, Russia is generally satisfied with the result of today’s vote. “In addition to the numbers, it has demonstrated the watershed between those who seek peaceful space exploration and those who are leading the way towards its militarization. Western countries found themselves today essentially isolated in the Council. And this is symptomatic,” the permanent representative emphasized.

According to the permanent representative, it is deeply regrettable that these countries did not allow the Security Council to make a balanced “and urgently needed decision in favor of preserving space exclusively for peaceful use.”

“Thus, today they finally threw off their masks, self-disclosed themselves and showed us what they really are,” Nebenzia noted.

“The reason why you did not support our project is trivial and simple. You just want to leave yourselves free hands to use space for military purposes and to place any kind of weapons there,” the permanent representative concluded.

The militarization of space by the West will require analysis and retaliatory steps by Russia, but Moscow will remain committed to its obligations under international law, Nebenzia highlighted.

“Of course, the current situation will require analysis and response steps from our side. At the same time, Russia will remain committed to its obligations in outer space in accordance with international law,” the diplomat stressed.

“We have repeatedly confirmed and reaffirm our commitment. Despite the aggressive attitude of the United States and its allies, we will continue to work in this direction and make every effort together with responsible UN member states to keep space peaceful,” he emphasized.

May 20, 2024 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

15 nations have made their position on the WHO sovereignty grab public before the WHA meeting commences

How many other countries are entirely fed up with the World Stealth Organization’s misleading spin about “equity”?

BY MERYL NASS | MAY 12, 2024

The negotiations have been controlled by globalists, not nations, from day one.

Eleven nations informed the UN General Assembly they were not going along with the UN’s support for the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agenda last September. In alphabetical order:

  1. Belarus
  2. Bolivia
  3. Cuba
  4. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  5. Eritrea
  6. Islamic Republic of Iran
  7. Nicaragua
  8. Russian Federation
  9. Syrian Arab Republic
  10. Venezuela
  11. Zimbabwe

The Netherlands’ government has been instructed to delay the WHO votes or vote No by the lower house of Parliament.

Slovakia said it will not sign current drafts of both documents.

Croatia’s new majority party is against the WHO’s pandemic preparedness plan

Italy’s Senator Borghi said Italy will vote No on the treaty and furthermore that there are 10 more months in which to reject the IHR Amendments.

It is very unusual to have this level of disagreement made public even before the start of the World Health Assembly meeting. And with “hybrid negotiations” aka backroom horse-trading, leading right up to the meeting, nobody will have time to consider the treaties before they are due to be voted on. It has been a corrupt process from start to finish. It could only succeed with stealth (no one knowing what is really in the treaties) and bribes.

Now that the US has announced that 100 countries are being paid off to develop their pandemic preparedness agenda, will the bribes be enough to get these treaties across the finish line? Will the unbribed be miffed? How much will it cost the US taxpayer for the world’s nations to agree to dictatorial control of pandemics and health information going forward?

May 12, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 2 Comments

UNGA backs membership for Palestine

RT | May 10, 2024

The UN General Assembly passed a resolution accepting Palestine as the 194th member of the world body on Friday. The US has previously vetoed Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, however.

Palestine has been a non-voting observer in the global body since 2012. The new resolution would grant it “new rights and privileges,” as well as full membership if approved by the Security Council. It was adopted with 143 votes in favor, nine against, and 25 abstentions.

US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood said his government was opposed to the resolution, indicating that Washington would veto Palestinian membership at the council again – as it did last month.

Friday’s resolution included an expression of “deep regret and concern” by the General Assembly that the US had vetoed the admission of Palestine on April 18, and urged the council to “reconsider the matter favorably” in line with the UN Charter and decisions by the International Court of Justice.

The General Assembly voiced its “unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.”

Though Israel has nominally accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood in the abstract, the government in West Jerusalem has rejected its implementation in practice. During last month’s Security Council debate, Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan described the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, as “a terror-supporting entity that does not deserve any status in the UN.”

Israel has also vowed to completely destroy Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, after last year’s October 7 attacks.

After exercising his veto last month, Ambassador Wood said that the US action “does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood, but instead is an acknowledgement that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties,” adding that Palestine can’t join the UN so long as Hamas is in control of Gaza.

Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has accused the US of holding the Security Council “hostage” over events in the Middle East. He also argued that Palestinian statehood and UN membership would “equalize the starting negotiating positions of the parties.”

An estimated 1,200 Israelis died in the October 7 attacks by Hamas. More than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent Israeli offensive, which is presently targeting the city of Rafah in the south of Gaza. Israel has pressed the attack despite the reservations of the US, made known at official levels.

May 10, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

UN Official Condemns Health “Misinformation,” Advocates for “Digital Integrity Code”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2024

The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.

This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.

In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”

A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”

(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).

You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.

However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:

“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.

Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.

Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).

Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”

And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.

“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.

But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The sanctions regime against the DPRK under threat

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 24.04.2024 

On March 28, 2024, Russia vetoed the extension of the mandate of the UN panel of experts to monitor the sanctions against the DPRK until April 30, 2025. This is important, because according to the established procedure, the decision to extend the term of office of the so-called 1718 Sanctions Committee must be made by April 30, otherwise it will be unable to continue with its activities.

What is the 1718 Sanctions Committee?

Resolution 1718 was adopted in October 2006 in response to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Resolution prohibited the supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of any military equipment and weapons, and also of materials, equipment, goods and technology that could be used in North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted a number of other resolutions tightening the sanctions on North Korea.

The eight-member Panel of Experts supporting the UN Sanctions Committee on North Korea was established in 2009 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which was adopted in response to the DPRK’s second nuclear test, to monitor compliance with the sanctions imposed on the DPRK by the UN member states. A panel of eight UN Secretary General-approved experts from the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan and Singapore (theoretically) – collects, studies, analyzes data on the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK, submits a twice-annual report on sanctions violations to the United Nations Security Council based on information from UN member states and other open source materials, and makes recommendations on the sanctions issue.

Since its founding the group has reportedly uncovered a number of sanctions violations, including those related to the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs and other prohibited activities such as the import of luxury goods and ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned items.

The UN Security Council votes annually to extend the Panel’s mandate, and in 2023 Russia voted in favor of the extension.

Two days before the vote, NK News, citing “informed sources at the UN,” reported that Russia and China had proposed adding “sunset” clauses to the sanctions regime against the DPRK as a precondition for extending the Panel’s mandate. They proposed adding an expiration date to the de facto open-ended sanctions regime, and requiring a new consensus of the UN Security Council member states in order to renew the sanctions for a further term. Russia also proposed reducing the frequency of the group’s reports submission from twice to once a year.

The NK News article noted that the US, UK and France refuse to accept these proposals, which means that Moscow will be likely to veto the extension of the Panel’s mandate.

The Russian proposals were rejected and Russia blocked a draft resolution submitted by the United States, although 13 of the 15 UN Security Council members voted in favor of it. The representative of China, who abstained from voting, expressed support for Russia’s position, saying that the proposal to set an expiration date for sanctions on North Korea was “highly practical and quite feasible.”

Russia’s arguments

Explaining the reason for Russia’s exercise of its veto right Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the authors of the document did not take into account Moscow’s proposal to set a time limit for the sanctions against North Korea, which remain indefinite.

As Vasily Nebenzya stated before the vote, it was “long overdue” for the Council to update the sanctions regime against the DPRK in light of the realities of the situation.

However, all attempts by Russia and China to link the level of sanctions pressure with the current behavior of the DPRK “have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to depart from their destructive and punitive logic towards the DPRK.”

The 1718 Committee’s Panel of Experts, tasked with monitoring the sanctions policy, “failed to perform its direct duties” and was unable to “develop sober assessments of the state of the sanctions regime,” and as a result “its work was reduced to playing along with the West’s policies, repeating biased information, and analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality pictures.”

Unfortunately, the present author has to agree with this statement, because the Panel’s reports included almost exclusively “investigations” made by sensationalist media outlets, with no critical analysis and an overreliance on the phrase “highly likely.”

According to the Russian representative, the West, led by the United States, is trying to “strangle” the DPRK through unilateral restrictions, propaganda and threats against the country’s leadership.

Given the above background, Russia proposed that the Council embark on an open and honest review of its sanctions measures against the DPRK, but “the US and its allies did not want to hear us and did not include our proposals in the draft resolution which was put to a vote today. Under these conditions, we do not see any ‘added value’ in the work of the Committee’s Panel of Experts and cannot support the American draft.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has twice commented on the problem, emphasizing that “the Council can no longer act according to its established patterns with regard to the Korean Peninsula issue.” The security situation in the region has not improved over the long years of sanctions (the DPRK’s missile and nuclear capabilities have only grown, the present author would add), and the devastating humanitarian consequences of the sanctions on the DPRK’s civilian population are evident. Moreover, it is not the DPRK that is aggravating the current situation, but rather the increasingly aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies that is leading to a new round of escalation in the region.

Many experts agree with this assessment. For example, Andrei Lankov, a prominent Russian-speaking researcher on the DPRK, told NK News that the increasing politicization of the Panel of Experts’ work has rendered it unable to reliably monitor the extent of the DPRK’s sanctions evasion. In his view, the differences of opinion within the DPRK Panel of Experts “reflect the main problem with the UN in its current form: it can only work if there is a consensus of the major powers.”

What was the reaction of the “international community”?

As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev notes, the suspension of the Panel of Experts’ mandate significantly undermines the viability and certain legal aspects of the sanctions regime in its previous form.

But, of course, the reaction of US and South Korean officials and experts has been to condemn Russia. Western analysts say the absence of the 1718 Committee, whose main task is to monitor sanctions violations, would make it easier for Russia to engage in arms deals with the DPRK – long accepted in the West as an established fact.

US Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller expressed disappointment over Russia’s veto of the resolution and China’s abstention, calling the Committee the “gold standard” for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations.

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry expressed “deep regret” over the veto: “The Panel of Experts has fulfilled its role in monitoring the DPRK, which… continues to violate sanctions through various illegal actions such as nuclear and missile provocations, arms exports, sending workers abroad, cyberattacks and military cooperation with the Russian Federation, and is building up its nuclear and missile potential.”

Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, said that the key factor behind the lifting of the UN’s sanctions monitoring of North Korea was not only by the rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow, but also by growing hostility between the United States and Russia, which “pushed the latter to establish closer ties with North Korea. Their strategic relationships are inherently interconnected. In addition, there is growing criticism in the UN Security Council that the sanctions are useless.”

Maria Zakharova’s second statement was a response to such rhetoric. In addition, Russia pointed out the inadmissibility of such criticisms on the part of the United States, which for the past five months has been blocking UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Gaza Strip, thereby covering up the mass deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli actions.

In turn, the DPRK expressed its gratitude to Russia. As the DPRK’s permanent representative to the UN, Kim Song, said, “we highly appreciate the decision of the Russian Federation to veto the Security Council’s draft resolution on the 1718 Committee.” Kim recalled that Pyongyang has never recognized either the sanctions imposed by the Security Council or the work of the sanctions committee.

Does all this mean the end of the sanctions regime?

Unfortunately not. Of course, the West is stoking fears that “the end of the Expert Panel will encourage North Korea to continue to engage in prohibited acts with impunity and frustrate international efforts to deter growing nuclear and missile threats.” However, Seoul, Washington and other like-minded countries will step up their coordination by imposing individual or multilateral sanctions in order to keep “turning the screws” on Pyongyang. As Kim Eun-hye stated in a briefing, “Despite the suspension of the Panel, we will continue to honor the sanctions against North Korea and make every effort to create an environment in which North Korea has no choice but to refuse to move in the wrong direction.”

Most likely, the panel of experts will simply be replaced. Victor Cha already proposes to fill the vacuum with an “alternative mechanism” involving countries with similar positions on the issue, such as the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc., who will cooperate by sharing information.

Eric Penton-Voak also suggests that as an alternative to the Expert Panel the activities of think tanks and media specializing in the area be stepped up, which could make the enforcement of the sanctions more effective.

The first steps in this direction have already begun. On April 5, 2024, the US State Department stated that “amid the growing need for tighter international cooperation to address North Korean threats following Russia’s recent veto of a resolution on the annual renewal of a UN panel monitoring the enforcement of sanctions against the North” US Senior Official for North Korea Jung Pak will visit Romania, Poland, and Sweden. She will negotiate on challenges from North Korea’s “unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, malicious cyber activity, and deepening military and political partnership with Russia.”

Some experts, however, are more pessimistic. Frank Aum, a senior expert at the US Institute of Peace, notes that “the termination of the panel further erodes the multilateral sanctions regime against North Korea and forces the United States and other countries to pursue more unilateral, bilateral or monolateral efforts to crack down on North Korea.” In his view, “this scenario represents not just a crisis for advocates of pressure and sanctions against North Korea, but also the broader functioning of the UNSC and the post World War II international order.”

The present author rather agrees with these views. Yes, the UN structure will be replaced by a private shop whose verdicts will be even more biased, but less binding. The US is unlikely to lift the sanctions, considering any movement in this direction ideologically unacceptable. But another deep crack has appeared in the façade of the UN as an independent arbitration institution.

Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

April 24, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Human Rights Experts and Activists: UNHRC Is Lending Support to US Regime Change Plans for Nicaragua

Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition | Alliance for Global Justice | April 18, 2024

Masaya, Nicaragua – Human rights experts and activists are expressing concern over a flawed and seriously unbalanced report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (GHREN), released by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on February 24, 2024.

The UNHRC, says the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, is lending itself to the U.S. regime-change strategy against Nicaragua by highlighting only evidence supplied by opponents of Nicaragua’s government, while omitting highly pertinent information submitted to the GHREN by a number of individuals and groups.

An open letter has been sent to the President of the UNHRC, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General, pointing this out. Former UN Independent Expert on International Order, Alfred de Zayas, described the GHREN as set up for the purpose of “naming and shaming” the Nicaraguan government, not for objective investigation. Signed by leading human rights experts, 49 organizations and more than 300 individuals, the letter says that the GHREN’s report should never have been published.

Coordinator of the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, Barbara Larcom, said:

“The work of the UN’s so-called group of experts is a disservice to the Nicaraguan people. It has deliberately ignored considerable evidence sent to it which contests its findings. This unprofessional report should immediately be withdrawn by the UN Human Rights Council and the group disbanded.”

The Coalition, which represents individuals and organizations across Nicaragua, other Latin American countries, the US and Europe, notes that April 18, 2024, marks the sixth anniversary of an attempted coup in Nicaragua. According to considerable evidence, this was financed by US agencies intent on regime change. Since the failed coup, the US has continued to apply pressure via other methods, including the GHREN report, using these to justify sanctions against Nicaragua’s economy and society.

Link to open letter, online version (Spanish): https://bit.ly/NicaCartaONU2024
Link to open letter, online version (English): https://bit.ly/NicaLetterUN2024
See full list of signatories: https://bit.ly/NicaUN2024Signers

The Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition is an international coalition of organizations and individuals in solidarity with Nicaragua, supporting its sovereignty and affirming its achievements. We are not affiliated with any governmental entity of any nation. We provide accurate, verifiable information and other resources about Nicaragua, and we work to counter misinformation about the country disseminated by the media, public events, and other sources.

Email: johnperry4321@gmail.com

NicaSolidarity.net

NicaraguaSolidarityCoalition@gmail.com

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

US Shows True Attitude to Palestinians by Casting Veto on State’s Membership in UN – Russian Envoy

Sputnik – 18.04.2024

UNITED NATIONS – The United States has shown its true attitude towards the Palestinians by blocking the recommendation to admit the country to the UN. For Washington, the Palestinian people have no right to their own state, Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzia said at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

“In essence it was a simple question: whether the Palestinians deserve to be part of the world family, to fully participate in all decisions of international life,” Nebenzia said.

“By using the veto for the fifth time since the beginning of the escalation in Gaza, they have again demonstrated their true attitude towards the Palestinians. For Washington, they do not deserve to have a state of their own. They are only an obstacle on the way to the realization of Israel’s interests,” the representative added.

The United States veto cast against the proposed resolution on Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations is a hopeless attempt to change the course of history, the envoy stressed.

“Today’s use of the veto by the US delegation is a hopeless attempt to stop the inevitable course of history. The results of the vote, where Washington was practically in complete isolation, speak for themselves,” Nebenzia emphasized.

However, history will not forgive the United States for its actions, the diplomat added.

Earlier on Thursday, the UN Security Council convened and discussed the proposed resolution on Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations. The United States, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, cast a veto against adopting the proposed resolution.

April 18, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The collapse of the concept of a rules-based international order

By  Veniamin Popov – New Eastern Outlook – 18.04.2024

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States believed that a unipolar world would last forever: year after year, day after day, it became increasingly blatant in its disregard for the interests of others and the opinions of the rest of the world.

Then the concept of an international “rules-based order” was born: a group of American scholars, former and future officials, presented a paper at Princeton in 2006 entitled “A World of Freedom Under Law”. They framed this as a response to the weaknesses of international law, suggesting that when international institutions fail to produce the outcomes preferred by the “world of freedom”, there is “an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorise collective action”. In practice, this forum has most often been the White House.

During the Libyan crisis of 2011, the United States and its allies used Security Council authorisation for a no-fly zone to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

American troops have now been operating in eastern Syria for more than eight years – yet there is no justification in international law for their presence.

Even American political scientists describe this concept as a kind of asterisk placed over international law. The “rules-based order” absolves the US and its allies of responsibility and fundamentally undermines the concept of international law. US policymakers use this theory to entrench US advantages as a global power. When the prerogatives and rules of international law coincide with the canons they establish, Washington calls them synonymous. Thus, on the eve of February 2022, i.e. the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, Secretary Blinken warned of a moment of danger for “the foundations of the United Nations Charter and the rules-based international order that preserves stability around the world”, but when US prerogatives diverge from international law, the concept of a “rules-based order” comes into play, which “should ultimately benefit global stability”.

A prime example is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which the George W. Bush administration cynically justified as a means of enforcing UN disarmament mandates. Iraq was declared an invader, it survived the military occupation, the death toll of Iraqis is approaching 1 million, and the country is still reeling from America’s brazen attack.

Washington’s military and economic might at the time ensured that America would face few consequences for invading without UN authorisation.

The very concept of a “rules-based order” set America at odds with the rest of the world, which recognised that international relations were becoming multipolar. Many leaders of developing countries, especially Russia, China, India and Brazil, talked about the same thing. Even American allies tried to show the flaws in the concept. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder warned of the “undeniable danger of US unilateralism”, and former French Minister Hubert Védrine once said that “France’s entire foreign policy … is aimed at making tomorrow’s world consist of several poles, not just one”.

According to Harvard University professor Stephen Walt, the US was carried away by a show of force, disregarding the opinions of even its allies and international organisations, and then went off on its own to gain the advantage.

The Gaza war drew a final line under the concept of the “rules-based order”: on 25 March, 14 members of the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding an immediate end to the war in Gaza, with the US abstaining. The resolution became a legally enforceable document, but Israel, unwilling to accept UN mandates, continued to bomb the southern town of Rafah and besiege Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Shortly after the vote, a spokesman for the Biden administration called Resolution No. 2728 “non-binding”, in a clear attempt to deny its status as international law. At a State Department press briefing, the spokesman said the measure would not lead to an immediate ceasefire or affect the complex hostage negotiations.

International law is clearly against what Israel is doing in Gaza. 2 months before Resolution No. 2728 was adopted, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s ongoing campaign could plausibly be considered genocide and called on Israel to take measures to prevent genocide.

On the eve of the passage of Bill 2728, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion to halt new arms transfers to Israel. On the day the Security Council adopted the resolution, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, recommended that member states “immediately” impose an arms embargo on Israel for failing to comply with mandatory measures ordered by the International Court of Justice.

After the above resolution was passed, White House national security spokesman John Kirby clarified that American arms shipments and sales to Israel would not be affected, while the State Department stated, and the White House later confirmed, that “there are no incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.

All of this comes after Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of them women and children, and displaced and permanently starved two million people in Gaza. In addition, the Israeli military bombed a convoy of aid workers from the World Central Kitchen.

The crux of the matter is that Washington is arming a country that has been ordered by the Security Council to cease hostilities. Washington’s actions are at odds with reality: the massacre in Gaza has made many foreign figures and organisations reluctant to listen to American officials on other issues. According to US press reports, Annelle Sheline, a State Department human rights official who recently resigned, said that some activist groups in North Africa have simply stopped meeting with her and her colleagues: “Trying to defend human rights has simply become impossible as long as the US is helping Israel,” she said.

Two years ago, US diplomats seeking support for Ukraine faced “a very clear negative reaction to America’s penchant for defining the global order and forcing countries to take sides”. In this regard, the New York Times concluded on 10 April this year that “Resolution No. 2728, which passed without result, may well be remembered as a watershed moment in the decline of the ‘rules-based international order’ – that is, the world the United States seeks to build and preserve… Gaza is a chilling reminder that in a world of exceptions to international law, it is the least powerful who suffer the most.

All these developments were accurately characterised by China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, who described the US statements and actions as incompatible with the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and said that Washington was undermining the authority of the Security Council.

April 18, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »