UN's Dire Warning To The World - 60 Days Left

By Susan Duclos, via All News PipeLine

The United Nations has issued a dire warning to the world, staing that according to the World Health Organization, we are warned that Ebola "is running faster than us and it is winning the race," with nearly 9,000 cases, over 4,000 deaths in multiple countries,  and that if 70 percent of the infected are not in care facilities and 70 percent of burials are not conducted without further infection, within the next 60 days, "we face an entirely unprecedented situation for which we do not have a plan."

Some might argue the global community has already failed since the Ebola outbreak started back in December 2013, and that we are already facing an entirely "unprecedented" situation for which we do not have a plan.

If the global community, WHO, the CDC and multiple countries could not prepare in nearly 11 months, what makes them think that they can do so with any efficiency in just 60 days?

"Palestine" Doesn't Qualify as a State

By Susan Duclos

As the UN prepares to vote on whether to admit the "Palestinian" Authority as a non-voting observer state and the mainstream media breathlessly reports on the status of individual countries leanings on the vote, it is noteworthy to remember that "Palestine" does not meet the criteria used to determine statehood.

Snapshot, a Camera's Blog, explains and highlights the relevant portions of the Montevideo Convention and the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, that show conclusively that "Palestine" doesn't qualify.

The again, the UN rarely bothers to follow it's own laws, agreements and criteria, so this isn't very surprising that they would even allow this to come up as a vote..

According to article 4 of the United Nations charter membership is reserved for states (and "peace loving" states at that, but that's a whole other story). But Abbas is asking for "non-member state" status. This would presumably make it easier for "Palestine" to join the International Criminal Court with the intention of bringing cases against Israeli leaders. (This could backfire, of course, since Palestinian leaders would also be subject to the ICC – see "peace loving" above.)

The question remains, however, does "Palestine" qualify as a state? Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States provides the internationally recognized criteria of statehood:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Does "Palestine" have a permanent population? If so, why do Palestinian leaders frequently demand that residents be allowed to become citizens of another state, Israel?

Does "Palestine" have a defined territory? According to article 17 of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, signed by Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the Palestinian Legislative Council does NOT have jurisdiction over "issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, specified military locations, Palestinian refugees, borders, foreign relations and Israelis". No jurisdiction over borders? No defined territory.

Does "Palestine" have a government? You could argue it has two: one government in areas of the West Bank and one in Gaza. And they don't even get along with each other. That's not an effective government by any stretch of the imagination.

Does "Palestine" have the capacity to enter into relations with other states? Again, not under the Interim Agreement. Article 9, paragraph 5-a states clearly:

...[T]he [Palestinian Legislative] Council will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff, and the exercise of diplomatic functions.

Read the entire piece.

Related: The use of the term "Palestinian" for an Arab ethnic group is a modern political creation which has no basis in fact - and had never had any international or academic credibility before 1967.

Google Take Action Petition: Add Your Voice to Keep the Internet #freeandopen

By Susan Duclos


The U.N.'s Internet Sneak Attac:

 Who runs the Internet? For now, the answer remains no one, or at least no government, which explains the Web's success as a new technology. But as of next week, unless the U.S. gets serious, the answer could be the United Nations.

Read the entire article at WSJ, then head over to the Google Take Action petition -Add Your Voice to Keep the Internet #freeandopen

Via  Google Take Action:

• The Internet has connected more than two billion people around the world. 
• Some governments want to use a closed-door meeting in December to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.  
• Join together to keep the Internet free and open. Make your voice heard.

Sign it and pass it around.

Video below explains the urgency:



Details from the video YouTube page:

Tell the world's governments you support a free and open web at http://www.google.com/takeaction.

Starting December 3rd, the world's governments are meeting behind closed doors at the ITU to discuss the future of the Internet. Some governments want to use this meeting in Dubai to increase censorship and regulate the Internet.

Tell the world's governments you support a free and open web at http://www.google.com/takeaction. Then spread the word with #freeandopen.

It is ours and it is free.
A free and open world
depends on a free and open web.
And a free and open web
depends on me.

Do you want the UN controlling your Internet?

Democrats Threatened Jewish Groups Over Palin Invite To UN Rally

Groups organized a rally outside the UN to protest Iran's Ahmadinejad, they invited politicians from both sides of the aisle. Clinton canceled upon hearing Palin would attend. Democrats threatened the Jewish Groups, forcing them to disinvite Palin.

CBS2 has a Democratic politician on record with the story of why Sarah Palin's invitation was rescinded after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the event upon hearing that Palin was also invited and planned to attend the rally to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN, with one Democratic lawmaker calling it "McCarthyism."

Once Clinton canceled and announced she would not attend according to the report, the "axes were out for Palin" and the Jewish Groups which organized the event were told their tax exempt status would be jeopardized if Palin attended but Hillary Clinton or Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden did not.

CBS 2 spoke to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Democrat from Brooklyn, who said, "This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker."

Hikind goes on to to declare, "It's an absolute shame that this has happened. To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism."

Hillary Clinton refused to answer any questions about it when CBS 2's Lou Young asked her about it on Thursday, brushing right past her without answering.

Bob Kunst of Defenders.net is a Democrat fed up and states, "I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats. I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore."

The Democrats, using Hillary Clinton, deliberately manipulated an event that should have been non-partisan with members from both sides of the political aisle standing up with the Jewish Groups at this rally, pulled Clinton for no other reason than to claim it was then partisan because Clinton chose not to attend, then threatened the Groups to assure themselves Palin could not attend.

That is pathetic and low, even for them.

Yourish.com states it beautifully:

That’s not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That’s outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats.

In fact, those are precisely the kinds of tactics that the Jewish groups will be protesting on Monday. We just never expected them from the Democrats.

That is what the Deocratic Party has become and I cannot blame Kunst one iota for leaving the party and now voting Republican.

.

Europe Fears Obama Will Rupture Ties With European Allies Over Iran

European officials are saying they fear that Obama could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies.

The issue: Iran.

Barack Obam's original campaign pledge that he would speak to Iranian leaders without preconditions (a pledge in which he now separates preconditions with simple "conditions" that would have to met before he would meet with Iranian leaders), has Europe worried that an Obama presidency would "undercut" the four existing UN Security Council resolutions that have already been passed against Iran, which demand that Iran stop enriching uranium, each time highlighting the offer of financial and diplomatic incentives from a European-led coalition if Tehran suspends enrichment, a route to producing fuel for nuclear weapons.

European officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said they are wary of giving up a demand that has been so enshrined in U.N. resolutions, particularly without any corresponding concessions by Iran. Although European officials are eager to welcome a U.S. president promising renewed diplomacy and multilateralism after years of tensions with the Bush administration, they feel strongly about continuing on the current path.

According to François Heisbourg who is a Paris-based military analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, "Dropping a unanimous Security Council condition would simply be interpreted by Iran and America's allies as unconditional surrender, and America's friends would view this as confirmation of America's basic unreliability. A hell of a way to start a presidential term."

European officials do like one of Barack Obama's ideas which would be that a U.S. official accompany Javier Solana, who is the European Foreign Policy Chief, to meetings with Iranian representatives.

Still, even the Europe expert at the Brookings Institution who has advised the Obama campaign, Philip H. Gordon, admits that the European officials "are uncomfortable with giving up the precondition of uranium enrichment right now."

Gordon makes it clear that his opinion in this regard is not speaking for the Obama campaign when he says that.

European officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be seen as interfering with U.S. politics, said the demand that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment is a European concept, not something forced on them by the Bush administration. Three European countries -- Britain, France and Germany -- persuaded Tehran to suspend its enrichment activities in 2003 while the two sides negotiated, until Iran declared in 2006 that the talks were fruitless and restarted their nuclear program.

A Middle East envoy in the Clinton administration who advises the Obama campaign also admits to hearing about the European concerns but maintains that Obama's plans would give "stronger carrots and stronger sticks" and he says, "This will give us leverage with those who are convinced Iran should be stopped but have not provided tough economic sanctions. This will give us leverage with those who are convinced Iran should be stopped but have not provided tough economic sanctions."

John McCain, on the other hand, has complimented the European efforts, saying that they "deserves praise for its great efforts to present a positive endgame: an Iran with far-reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program and integration into the international community."

The McCain campaign's national security director, Randy Scheunemann, points out, "Obama criticizes a multilateral process and disparages the European contribution. What he is proposing is unilateral cowboy summitry." He continues to say that McCain "agrees we need to have basic benchmarks, such as suspension, before you go further. And he has called for a significant increase in sanctions, through the U.N. if possible or through like-minded allies if necessary."

The United states, Russia and China did not join Britain, France and Germany, in their ongoing European efforts to stop Iran from its uranium enrichment until 2006, it was a European led effort, and the European officials are worrying that if Obama's public statements about Iran and his intentions are true, it could very well have the potential to "rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration."

.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) : Iran's Nuclear Weapons 'a matter of serious concern'

You think?

Only the willfully blind would just be seeing this and beginning to understand it, yet the IAEA has been willfully blind for a very long time.

There have been UN Security Council Sanctions as well as U.S. sanctions leveled against Iran for not living up to their international responsibilities, each set a little stronger the the previous set, but none of them with any real teeth to give Iran the incentive to stop building nuclear weapons.

FLASHBACK.

Wake up America followed along with this issue in March 2007 here, October 2007 here (US sanctions), and March 2008 here.

The first set of UN sanctions was December 2006 with Resolution 1737, the second was in March of 2007 with Resolution 1747 and the third set was in March 2008 with Resolution 1803. (All PDF files)

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France actually stated publicly that if Iran didn't curb their nuclear ambition for weapons, they would face an attack.

Angela Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, also spoke of imposing unilateral sanctions against Iran if the UN sanctions did not produce the desired results.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also weighed in saying Iran "faced a choice of either 'confrontation with the international community... or a transformed relationship with the world'."

Needless to say it is not only the United States and Israel that find the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran completely unacceptable.

In April of 2008, satellite imagery was produced showing Iran's secret launch site and at the end of 2007 the IAEA admitted that since 2006 they have not been able to verify information from Iran regarding their nuclear capabilities.

TODAY.

The New York Times published an article today saying the IAEA in an "unusually blunt and detailed report" is "concerned" about Iran's suspected research into the development of nuclear weapons and that Iran continued to owe the agency “substantial explanations.”

The nine-page report accused the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation, particularly in answering allegations that its nuclear program may be intended more for military use than for energy generation.

The IAEA presented 18 documents to Iran that indicate Iranians have ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design.

“There are certain parts of their nuclear program where the military seems to have played a role,” said one senior official close to the agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic constraints. He added, “We want to understand why.”

Although the New York Times describes this as unusually blunt and detailed, this is not the first time it has been reported that the IAEA had evidence that Iran was continuing to work on plans for a nuclear weapon.

The Washington Post, in March of 2008, reported that the IAEA, in a private briefing, had Iranian documents that strongly suggested that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons design as recently as four years ago.

In that briefing with the diplomats from IAEA member states, Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's deputy director general, revealed that revealed that the IAEA had collected corroborating evidence, from the intelligence agencies of several countries, that pointed to sophisticated research into some key technologies needed to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

Some documents showed research into modification of Iran's Shahab missile series, enabling them to detonate 600 meters above targets, which would only make sense, according to the experts, if the missile was carrying a nuclear warhead.

The New York Times, itself, reported in February, that the IAEA had confronted Iran with evidence that strongly suggested the country had experimented with technology to make nuclear weapons.

Back to today's article in the New York Times:

Iran insists that the evidence and documents gathered from multiple countries is "forged" or "fabricated".

The report makes no effort to disguise the agency’s frustration with Iran’s lack of openness. It describes, for example, Iran’s installation of new centrifuges, known as the IR-2 and IR-3 (for Iranian second and third generations) and other modifications at its site at Natanz, as “significant, and as such should have been communicated to the agency.”

The agency also said that during a visit in April, it was denied access to sites where centrifuge components were being manufactured and where research of uranium enrichment was being conducted.

According to David Albright who is a former weapons inspector who now runs the Institute for Science and International Security, "The Iranians are certainly being confronted with some pretty strong evidence of a nuclear weapons program, and they are being petulant and defensive. The report lays out what the agency knows, and it is very damning. I’ve never seen it laid out quite like this.”

The UN Security council has been incapable of passing any type of sanctions that have "teeth", in other words, sanctions that would be harsh enough to diplomatically force Iran to abandon their headlong rush in attaining a nuclear weapon.

China and Russia have been the weak links that have forced the previous sanctions to be watered down to the point of being ineffective and if something isn't done, very soon, there is going to ultimately be two options left on the table.

Either Iran will have nuclear weapons or someone is going to strike Iran to stop them from obtaining nukes.

Both options are unacceptable and yet the UN keeps dithering around and giving Iran the opportunity to force one of those unacceptable options to become reality.

The Middle East, throughout history, has been a volatile region, but should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, with their stated desire to "wipe Israel" off the face of the earth, a nuclear war in the Middle East will make today's problems seem like a day in the park on a sunny afternoon.

Many will disagree with me, but there is still time for diplomatic measures, sanctions with teeth, to force Iran to abandon their nuclear weapon ambitions, but not as long as China and Russia keep standing in the way of any meaningful sanctions.

Iran's nuclear ambitions has been a matter of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT).

(Clarifying links have been added to this article)

.

More Corruption Allegations Within the United Nations

The controversy surrounding the United Nations and claims of corruption within the body, continue today with allegations that members of the UN have engaged in a cover up stemming from allegations they have been trafficking in gold and arms.

The most recent allegations which are denied by the United Nations follow a pattern of what at best has been called incompetence and at worse, corruption within the United Nations body.

The BBC alleges that the UN ignored or suppressed evidence that its troops in DR Congo gave arms to militias, and smuggled gold and ivory.

According to Marie Okabe, deputy spokeswoman for UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the claims made by BBC, the allegations are old and after an investigation only three member soldiers were found to be involved.

After the internal probe the United Nations demanded Pakistani authorities punish the soldiers implicated in the case, including the commander, according to an April 15 letter to the BBC from Jean-Marie Guehenno, chief of UN operations, which was released Monday.

The United Nations have been accused of worse than other recent allegations, which claim that members of the peacekeeping force have traded guns for ivory, with with rebel fighters.

Poachers in Congo have slaughtered 14 elephants in Congo's Virunga National Park since the demands from China for ivory have soared and conservationists believe that UN peacekeepers have played a role in the death of those elephants and the ivory trade business which has been banned since 1989 but hasn't slowed the poachers down one bit.

The ivory trade has been banned since 1989, but that has not stopped poachers from harvesting elephant tusks for sale, especially to China, Japan and Thailand. The elephant population has plummeted from 3,500 in 1959 to 350 today.

According to a spokesperson for the UN, Kemal Saiki, these allegations have been investigated and "These investigations found cases of misconduct by a handful of individuals but no evidence of systematic wrongdoing."

Corruption allegations against members of the UN are not new and over the years many have been proven true.

SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UN PEACEKEEPERS.

Over a decade ago, in 2004, the Washington Post obtained a copy of a 34 page report in which there were accusations of at least 68 cases of alleged rape, prostitution and pedophilia, leveled against UN Peacekeepers in Pakistan, Uruguay, Morocco, Tunisia, South Africa and Nepal, with more than 150 allegations of sexual misconduct.

Sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly prostitution of minors, is widespread and long-standing," says a draft of the internal July report, which has not previously been made public. "Moreover, all of the major contingents appear to be implicated."

At that time UN officials had already confirmed that that a senior U.N. official in Congo was suspended from his job with pay in recent weeks pending an investigation into allegations of "inappropriate conduct."

In 2005, the UN was facing even more allegations about their peacekeepers in Burundi, Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere, which led to Jane Holl Lute, a senior U.N. peacekeeping official who heads a U.N. task force on sexual exploitation, telling a congressional committee, "The blue helmet has become black and blue through self-inflicted wounds. We will not sit still until the luster of that blue helmet is restored."

Report after report showed levels of abuse that were seen as a pattern, one that the UN seemed incapable of getting a handle on.

In November of 2006, the BBC published the findings of an investigation showing that children have been subjected to rape and prostitution by United Nations peacekeepers in Haiti and Liberia.

Girls have told of regular encounters with soldiers where sex is demanded in return for food or money.

A senior official with the organisation has accepted the claims are credible.

The UN has faced several scandals involving its troops in recent years, including a DR Congo pedophile ring and prostitute trafficking in Kosovo.

Lute also commented for that report saying, "We've had a problem probably since the inception of peacekeeping - problems of this kind of exploitation of vulnerable populations. My operating presumption is that this is either a problem or a potential problem in every single one of our missions."

That is but one example of confirmed corruption that runs rampant throughout the UN and their missions.

OIL FOR FOOD SCAM.

The Oil-for-Food initiative was established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

As the program ended, there were revelations of corruption involving the funds.

Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was able to siphon off an approximate $10 billion from the Oil-for-Food program through oil smuggling and thievery, by demanding illegal payments from companies buying Iraqi oil, and through kickbacks from those selling goods to Iraq--all under the noses of U.N. officials The members of the U.N. staff administering the program were accused of gross incompetence, mismanagement, and possible complicity with the Iraqi regime in perpetrating the biggest scandal in U.N. history.

On Monday August 8th, 2005, an independent commission has found that Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq, “corruptly benefited” from kickbacks while he was in charge. Another UN official, from the procurement office, is accused of soliciting bribes.

It bears noting that the son of the secretary general of the United Nation Nations, Kofi Annan, turned out to have been receiving payments as recently as early this year from a key contractor in the oil-for-food program.

UNITED NATIONS AND RWANDA GENOCIDE-1994.

The Rwandan Genocide was the systematic murder of the country's Tutsi minority and the moderates of its Hutu majority, in 1994. This was both the bloodiest period of the Rwandan Civil War and one of the worst genocides of the 1990s.

In 1999, an international panel of experts issued a report which held the United Nations as well as other member countries, including and primarily, the United States, responsible for not preventing nor ending the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

But the leader of the investigation, Ingvar Carlsson, a former Swedish prime minister, did not place all the blame on the United Nations. At a news conference today he said it would ''always be difficult to explain'' why the Security Council -- managed by the world's major powers and not the United Nations bureaucracy -- drastically cut the peacekeeping force in Rwanda, reducing it to a few hundred from 2,500 when the genocide began, and then increasing it to 5,500 when the weeks of massacres were over.

In 2004, a decade later, Kofi Annan, who at the time was the secretary-general for the United Nations, admitted their failings and said, "The international community failed Rwanda and that must leave us always with a sense of bitter regret and abiding sorrow. If the international community had acted promptly and with determination, it could have stopped most of the killing but the political will was not there, and nor were the troops.

Worse than that though was testimony given before the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, by General Romeo Dallaire, revealed that the UN was warned three months before genocide about the stockpiling of arms and that they refused "his request to raid the arms caches later used in the massacre of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus."

Taking his stand in the witness box for the second day, the former commander said he requested authorisation to raid arms caches in January 1994.

But General Dallaire said UN headquarters informed him this was outside the mandate of his mission.

Three months later, a wave of killing swept Rwanda.

These scandals, allegations and investigations is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems that have plagued the United Nations since it was created in 1945 to replace the League of Nations.

Other claims and convictions include bribery scandals, accusations of bias in the Arab-Israeli conflict and anti-Semitism, a UN ambulance was videotaped transporting Palestinian armed forces in 2004 as well as what has been listed above.

.

UN Passes Third Round of Sanctions Against Iran

The other day we showed the IAEA made an announcement at a private briefing by the International Atomic Energy Agency's top security expert to diplomats in Vienna, stating that Iran had not come fully clean about their nuclear activities.

More on that meeting:

In Vienna on Monday, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that newly disclosed intelligence reports that Iran secretly researched how to make nuclear weapons were of "serious concern" and would be pursued by his office.

"Iran continues to maintain that these alleged weaponization studies related to conventional weapons only are fabricated," ElBaradei said in a speech to the agency's 35-country policy-making body. "However, a full-fledged examination of this issue has yet to take place."

The studies were described Feb. 25, in a briefing for the governing body by Olli Heinonen, the agency's senior inspector.

They included sketches and a video that appeared to have come from Iran's own military laboratories, and Heinonen said they showed work "not consistent with any application other than the development of a nuclear weapon."

The display of new and newly declassified information was part of the latest effort to pressure Iran to disclose information about its past atomic activities and offer proof that its current program is benign.

The French ambassador, François-Xavier Deniau, said questions raised by the Vienna meeting had opened a "new chapter" in the West's effort to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, according to participants.

Today we see that the Security Council has passed it's third set of sanctions against Iran. The resolution was co-sponsored by Britain and France.

It was nearly unanimous Indonesia abstaining saying it "remained to be convinced of the efficacy of adopting additional sanctions at this juncture."

The other fourteen countries voted in favor of the new sanctions. The resolution authorizes inspections of cargo to and from Iran that is suspected of carrying prohibited equipment, tightens the monitoring of Iranian financial institutions, and extends travel bans and asset freezes against persons and companies involved in the nuclear program.

They have also added 13 names to the existing list of 5 individuals and 12 companies subject to travel and asset restrictions.

One of the new individuals subject to these sanctions is Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Naqdi, who is a prominent member for the Revolutionary Guards and close to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The new names include people with direct responsibility for building fast-spinning centrifuges that enrich uranium ore, and a brigadier general engaged in "efforts to get round the sanctions" in the two earlier resolutions.

The new measure also bans all trade and supply of so-called dual-use items - materials and technologies that can be adapted for military as well as civilian ends.

Of course, as expected Iran, via Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee ,stated before the vote that it would not comply with “unlawful action” against its “peaceful nuclear program.”

He further stated, "Iran cannot and will not accept a requirement which is legally defective and politically coercive. History tells us that no amount of pressure, intimidation and threat will be able to coerce our nation to give up its basic and legal rights."

This resolution additionally financial monitoring on two banks with suspected links to proliferation activities, Bank Melli and Bank Saderat and calls on on parties to exercise vigilance in entering into trade with Iran. Dealings with Iran's Bank Sepah were banned last year.

In Vienna, Britain, France and Germany said they were preparing a draft resolution critical of Iran that could be adopted by the agency's policy-making body later this week. The United States, Canada, Australia and Japan have already indicated privately hat they would support such a move.

It would be the first time the board had passed such a resolution on Iran since it sent Iran's file to the Security Council for review two years ago.

The United States, which in the past has criticized ElBaradei for not being tough enough on Iran, expressed support for this approach.

Russian diplomats complained that the were not informed about Britain, France and Germany's resolution and Grigory Berdennikov, the chief Russian delegate to the IAEA, said in Vienna that “we are not happy about developments here in Vienna — we were not informed.”

TOUGH.

The fact is Russia and China have been the weak links in the Iranian situation for too long and kudos to Britain, France and Germany for stepping up to the plate.

More from ABC.

The fact is the first two sets of sanction were watered down to the point that they couldn't work because Russia and China, the weak links in the UN, had financial ties and do business with Iran. Those ties haven't change and are not severed but for the first time, with a lot of work behind the scenes, Russia and China, both members of the permanent council, signed on to a tougher set of sanctions.

It is doubtful that Iran will comply because of these sanctions, but they are a step in the right direction in the diplomatic dance.

In the meantime, the IAEA is still urging Iran to cooperate with the investigation of intelligence saying it studied how to make atom bombs.

Breitbart has the gist of the sanctions listed:

The Security Council:

-- calls on all states to act under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7.

-- reaffirms that Iran shall without further delay take the steps required by the December 2006 resolution calling for suspending uranium enrichment.

-- decides that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals who are related to Iran's proliferation sensitive nuclear activities or for the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems.

-- calls on all states to exercise vigilance over the activities of financial institutions in their territories with all banks domiciled in Iran, in particular with Bank Melli and Bank Saderat.

-- calls on all states to inspect the cargoes to and from Iran, of aircraft and vessels, at their airports and seaports, owned or operated by Iran Air Cargo and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line, provided there are reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft or vessel is transporting prohibited goods.

-- requests that IAEA submit a further report on whether Iran has established full and sustained suspension of all enrichment activities within 90 days.

-- reaffirms that it shall adopt further appropriate measures under Article 41 of the U.N. Charter's Chapter 7 if the report shows Iran has not complied with three resolutions.

Nothing to guarantee compliance from Iran, to be sure, but tougher than the last set, yet weak enough to get all on board.

When is the international community going to understand that if they do not use sanctions with teeth to them, something guaranteed to work, then it will be much harder to deal with Iran once they have a nuclear weapon?

.

United Nations Briefing on Iranian Nuclear Weapons Research

In the ongoing dance between the United States and Iran, there has been much back and forth bantering over the intentions of the Iranian nuclear program. A UN nuclear watchdog has announced that Iran had designs for Nuclear weapons four years ago.

The announcement was made at a private briefing by the International Atomic Energy Agency's top security expert to diplomats in Vienna. The findings show that Iran continued to work on plans for a nuclear weapon for months after U.S. intelligence said that the Iranians had halted development on such weapons.

Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's deputy director general, was elaborating on a public report released Feb. 22 that questioned whether Iran had come fully clean about its nuclear past. In the report, the watchdog agency said Tehran had not credibly explained documents that appeared to point to research programs devoted to uranium processing, high explosives and missiles design -- all of which can be used in making nuclear weapons. Iran has denied ever seeking nuclear weapons and has dismissed the documents as fakes.

In the technical briefing Monday with diplomats from IAEA member states, Heinonen offered new details about the Iranian documents, according to notes obtained by The Washington Post. He revealed that the IAEA had collected corroborating evidence, from the intelligence agencies of several countries, that pointed to sophisticated research into some key technologies needed to build and deliver a nuclear bomb.

Some documents showed research into modification of Iran's Shahab missile series, enabling them to detonate 600 meters above targets, which would only make sense, according to the experts, if the missile was carrying a nuclear warhead.

The discovery of these documents makes Iranian claims that they are working on an atomic energy program only to be used for peaceful purposes less credible, and more difficult for the international community to take their word that they are not currently researching and designing a way to deliver nuclear warheads to distant targets. Mohammad Khazee, Iran's UN ambassador, stated that the claims by the IAEA were "baseless," and repeated the Iranian position of denial that they had ever been researching a nuclear weapons program.

The UN Security Council is expected to vote tomorrow on a third set of resolutions which would impose financial sanctions and travel sanctions on Iranian individuals and businesses, which are intended to pressure a halt to Iran's programs to enrich uranium, which is used in the development of nuclear weaponry.

Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iranian Security Council diplomat and top Iranian envoy to the IAEA, responded angrily after the briefing last week that the documents could have been obtained by any college student for "$100," and "that the IAEA had exceeded its mandate as a technical agency by engaging in intelligence activities."

More Iranian denials and reactions are expected tomorrow after the Security Council vote.

Students Riot In Iran

Despite clampdowns on rioting in Iran against the regime led by the Mullahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, students stormed Tehran University, the largest and one of the oldest Universities in Iran, staged a protest on Sunday to demand the release of fellow students who have been jailed in recent months.

Signs that read "Live Free or Die" were held and stones were thrown at police as the students crashed the gates of Tehran University, other slogans included "No war, no fascism" and "Women must decide their fate, not the state."

Iranian press news has more photos of the protest and word is that there were many arrests and that Professors have joined in to criticize Ahmadinejad for clamping down on dissent on campuses.

It is also being reported that 'Human Rights Activists in Iran' that after breaking through the 16th Azar gate of the Tehran University , students from other universities and polytechnics joined Tehran University students. They sang 'Yare Dabestani' (school mate) song which has now become a revolutionary song whilst moving towards the engineering faculty of the University where they held a free tribune ceremony. 7 speakers from different political backgrounds and representations displayed an unprecedented and exciting united front and solidarity.

The New York Times quotes a witness that says there were approximately 1,500 demonstrators and that Advar News, a Web site run by former students, reported Sunday that one advocate, Ali Nikoonesbati, who was arrested last month, had been released.

In related news, The Telegraph is reporting that the recent sanctions against Iran are having the desired effect and their banks are on the brink of collapse, because of the boycott by European, Japanese and American banks its manufacturers are facing severe difficulties as a crippling shortage of equipment and materials from overseas suppliers has resulted in a dramatic fall in production.

A British official working closely with the UN says "There is no doubt that the Iranian regime is now paying the price in economic terms of its defiance of the international community."

Despite recent public statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that sanctions by America and the UN "are not working", a confidential report submitted to the Iranian parliament said that continued economic isolation was having dire consequences.

The whole point of sanctions is to force Iran to comply with their international obligations and stop enriching uranium which can be used to produce nuclear weapons and it appears the sanctions are starting to work.

.

IAEA Admits Knowledge of Iran's Nuclear Program "Diminished"

Since 2006, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)has not been able to verify information from Iran regarding their nuclear capabilities.

The International Atomic Energy Agency's knowledge of Iran's current nuclear program is "diminishing," the agency's director general reported Thursday, because Iran suspended cooperation in key areas in early 2006 and has not restored it.

The IAEA "is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities," the agency said in a report issued to its 35 board members.

The report confirmed that Tehran has continued to defy the U.N. Security Council by ignoring its repeated demands to freeze uranium enrichment, a potential pathway to nuclear arms.

So, all the assurances the IAEA have been giving reports of over the last year have been nothing more than false assurances since they have no way of confirming them, as they have just admitted that the information they have been supplying is not "credible".

From AP:

The report was unlikely to satisfy the United States and its allies, who have said they will press for new Security Council sanctions unless Iran suspends enrichment and provides a full and detailed disclosure of past suspicious nuclear activities.

Reflecting that stance, Britain's Foreign Office said shortly after the report was issued that it would pursue further sanctions from the Security Council and the European Union.

"If Iran wants to restore trust in its program, it must come clean on all outstanding issues without delay," the statement said. It also said Tehran must restore broader and stronger inspection rights to IAEA teams and mothball its enrichment activities to avoid such penalties.

Much of the 10-page report made available to The Associated Press focused on the history of Iran's black-market procurements and past development of its enrichment technology — and the agency appeared to be giving Tehran a pass on that issue, repeatedly saying it concludes that "Iran's statements are consistent with ... information available to the agency."

The IAEA's standard of deciding Tehran's truthfulness are written reports FROM Tehran instead of being able to verify the information themselves.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that the agency received written answers to the questions supporting documentation and interview with officials involved in the P-1 and P-2 uranium enrichment program.

The agency continued discussions with the Iranian authorities on the centrifuge enrichment program, Iran provided additional supporting documentation and written amplification and the agency held discussions and interviews with the Iranian officials in nuclear activities in the 1980s and 1990s.

On November 5-12, 2007, Iran provided in writing its response to the agency's questions about the P-1 and P-2 uranium enrichment program, it said.

Iran wouldn't dare lie, now would they?

Anyone think the IAEA is naive instead of obviously crooked?

Reuters:

The IAEA said it remained unable to ascertain that Iran did not have a secret, parallel military enrichment program because Tehran was still denying inspector visits to anything but its few declared nuclear facilities.

"... its cooperation has been reactive rather than proactive," the International Atomic Energy Agency said. "Iran's active cooperation and full transparency are indispensable for full and prompt implementation of the work plan."

The United States said the report showed Iran continued to defy the international community and to give only "partial answers." Britain urged Tehran to "come clean."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the IAEA report showed Iran had been telling the truth about its nuclear plans and was right to resist Western pressure to halt the program.

A senior Iranian atomic official said the report meant further Security Council action would be illegal.

In a disclosure likely to alarm the West, the International Atomic Energy Agency report said Iran's number of centrifuges enriching uranium had jumped by a third to 3,000 since August, a level that could start industrial output of nuclear fuel.

SKYNEWS:

Iran has reached a landmark stage in its nuclear programme, the United Nation's nuclear watchdog has confirmed.

The IAEA said Tehran had expanded uranium enrichment despite demands to stop and had raised the number of centrifuge machines to 3,000.

Recently Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel visited with President Bush and in a joint press conference she made it clear that the U.S. with Germany would be pushing for further sanctions against Iran.

CHANCELLOR MERKEL: (Translation continues.) Let me say, first of all, that we did make the best possible use of our time to exchange our views on a number of issues. We did talk about Afghanistan, as the President already said, where we just recently were, and where we say that together with the Afghan government, we need to do more in order to help them continue to build up the police and to continue to also build up the army there, improve that, and go on with the training that we have already embarked on.

We addressed the issue of Iran. We were at one in saying that the threat posed through the nuclear program of Iran is indeed a serious one. We both share this view, but that we also were of the opinion that we think that this issue can be solved through diplomatic means; that the next step, then, obviously, would be a resolution. There is already work underway to prepare for this next step.

We have also been very clear in saying that if the talks with the representatives of Iran and Mr. Solana, as the representative on the European Union side, do not yield any results, then further steps will have to be made. Also, if the reports remain unsatisfactory that the International Atomic Energy Organization puts on the table, unsatisfactory, we need to think about further possible sanctions. And we do not only need to think about them, but we also have to then talk and agree on further possible sanctions, if all of these conditions are [not] met.

She went on to discuss what type of unilateral measures Germany will take, bypassing what has been an ineffective UN.

We then also said that Germany needs to look somewhat closer at the existing business ties with Iran. There are certain companies that have business with Iran. We have already done that. And we need to look, as the situation unfolds, whether we have to have a closer look again at that, and possibly need to work together with our German business community. I will talk with them again on further possible reductions of those commercial ties, as we have already launched that in that tendency already now.

The U.S. has already implemented further unilateral sanctions against Iran, just recently.

The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has also issued statements warning of their own sanctions:

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he would push for a block on foreign investment in new Iranian oil and gas projects along with sanctions on the financial sector if the Gulf state did not comply with requests to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme.

In a speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet here, Brown said Iran now faced a choice of either 'confrontation with the international community... or a transformed relationship with the world'.

The reason we and our allies are imposing unilateral sanctions against Iran is because China and Russia are the weak links that prevent the UN Security Council of implementing any meaningful sanctions and have rendered the UN impotent.

Russia talks a good game, threatening Iran, but as of yet has not followed up with any action:

Despite the well known opposition of the Russians and Chinese to harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran, sources said Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his recent visit to Tehran, used "extremely harsh language" in his personal meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warning him that more sanctions will be forthcoming if Iran does not halt its enrichment of uranium.

The so-called "Putin proposal" for ending the standoff between Iran and the West over enrichment, never publicly defined or explained, was nothing more than a restatement of Russia's previous offer to Iran to conduct enrichment on foreign soil so Iran can enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy without suspicion that it is diverting nuclear fuel for military purposes.

Ahmadinejad rejected that proposal swiftly.

The international community is headed toward a showdown with Iran and Putin's offer to Ahmadinejad could have prevented it, but Iran shows, once again, they words do not match their actions and the IAEA has finally admitted that they can give no "credible" assurances about Iran.

Now what?

.

Zogby on Striking Iran- Very Disturbing Results

I have often said that something needs to be done about Iran and their desire to obtain nuclear weapons. It cannot be allowed to happen.

My thoughts which I have stated frequently is that China and Russia need to back harsher sanctions, stop weakening them to the point of being ineffective and allow very harsh sets of sanctions that will force Iran to comply with their international obligations and give up their nuclear ambitions and that we still have a window of 1-3 years to make this happen.

Russia and China are the weak links of the UN and are largely responsible for the fat that the U.S. and our allies are being forced to impose separate, unilateral sanction against Iran.

An example of that is the "Sense of the Senate Resolution that was passed which stated:

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Full text of that Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which passed with a vote of 76-22, can be found here.

Since then, the U.S. has imposed those recommendations in the latest announcements about the U.S imposing new sanctions against Iran.

If our allies join in imposing harsher sanctions, bypassing the UN because of China and Russia standing in the way of harsh UN sanctions, we can stop Iran without military action or air strikes against their nuclear facilities.

Which is where this latest Zogby poll comes in and which is why it is very disturbing, to say the least.

52% of likely voters support a military strike against Iran?

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

I am not downing Zogby, they are reputable and a great polling organization. The media on the other hand has been pounding the "strike Iran" theme and how we are prepared to do so, plans have been drawn up and have treated a military strike on Iran as almost inevitable.

It isn't. We have time to use sanctions to our maximum benefit, especially if China and Russia understand that they they to sit down, shut up and let the UN act in a manner that they are meant to for a change.

Barring that, our allies, excluding China and Russia can use their own independent sanctions to match our new ones against Iran and accomplish the same goal.

Severely harsh sanctions that give Iran no choice but to give up their nuclear ambitions.

We all need to step back, take a deep breath and think about this rationally and stop letting the medias "inevitability" meme rule our better judgment.

I am the first person to admit that it may come to a choice of military action or a nuclear armed Iran, to which I will support military action, at that time, not before.

Let me be clear here. I understand that Iran has been hostile and actively at war with us for 29 years, have been pushing and killing our people for almost 3 decades and that patience is wearing thin, rightly so.... but until every single diplomatic measure has been tried and has failed, we have to keep trying until we no longer have any diplomatic options left.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

Updated an Related:
An excellent piece by one of my readers and a frequent commenter at her blog "Great Satan's Girlfriend".... go check it out, it is chalk full of verifying links.

Thanks for the email Courtney!!!

.

President Bush Addresses the UN- Text:Update-Sarkozy Speaks at UN

From the White House: (Video of the Cuban delegation walking out when Bush mentioned them is below)

PRESIDENT BUSH: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the opportunity to address the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Sixty years ago, representatives from 16 nations gathered to begin deliberations on a new international bill of rights. The document they produced is called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- and it stands as a landmark achievement in the history of human liberty. It opens by recognizing "the inherent dignity" and the "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family" as "the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world." And as we gather for this 62nd General Assembly, the standards of the Declaration must guide our work in this world.

Achieving the promise of the Declaration requires confronting long-term threats; it also requires answering the immediate needs of today. The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree. When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the Declaration is not being upheld. When millions of children starve to death or perish from a mosquito bite, we're not doing our duty in the world. When whole societies are cut off from the prosperity of the global economy, we're all worse off. Changing these underlying conditions is what the Declaration calls the work of "larger freedom" -- and it must be the work of every nation in this assembly.

This great institution must work for great purposes -- to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and disease, illiteracy and ignorance, and poverty and despair. Every member of the United Nations must join in this mission of liberation.

First, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from tyranny and violence. The first article of the Universal Declaration begins, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The truth is denied by terrorists and extremists who kill the innocent with the aim of imposing their hateful vision on humanity. The followers of this violent ideology are a threat to civilized people everywhere. All civilized nations must work together to stop them -- by sharing intelligence about their networks, and choking their -- off their finances, and bringing to justice their operatives.

In the long run, the best way to defeat extremists is to defeat their dark ideology with a more hopeful vision -- the vision of liberty that founded this body. The United States salutes the nations that have recently taken strides toward liberty -- including Ukraine and Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and Mauritania and Liberia, Sierra Leone and Morocco. The Palestinian Territories have moderate leaders, mainstream leaders that are working to build free institutions that fight terror, and enforce the law, and respond to the needs of their people. The international community must support these leaders, so that we can advance the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security.

Brave citizens in Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have made the choice for democracy -- yet the extremists have responded by targeting them for murder. This is not a show of strength -- it is evidence of fear. And the extremists are doing everything in their power to bring down these young democracies. The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help. And every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them.

Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship. In Belarus, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration. Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. Basic freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship are severely restricted. Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking, and rape are common. The regime is holding more than 1,000 political prisoners -- including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.

The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable. This morning, I'm announcing a series of steps to help bring peaceful change to Burma. The United States will tighten economic sanctions on the leaders of the regime and their financial backers. We will impose an expanded visa ban on those responsible for the most egregious violations of human rights, as well as their family members. We'll continue to support the efforts of humanitarian groups working to alleviate suffering in Burma. And I urge the United Nations and all nations to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom.

In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly, and ultimately, free and competitive elections.

In Zimbabwe, ordinary citizens suffer under a tyrannical regime. The government has cracked down on peaceful calls for reform, and forced millions to flee their homeland. The behavior of the Mugabe regime is an assault on its people -- and an affront to the principles of the Universal Declaration. The United Nations must insist on change in Harare -- and must insist for the freedom of the people of Zimbabwe.

In Sudan, innocent civilians are suffering repression -- and in the Darfur region, many are losing their lives to genocide. America has responded with tough sanctions against those responsible for the violence. We've provided more than $2 billion in humanitarian and peacekeeping aid. I look forward to attending a Security Council meeting that will focus on Darfur, chaired by the French President. I appreciate France's leadership in helping to stabilize Sudan's neighbors. And the United Nations must answer this challenge to conscience, and live up to its promise to promptly deploy peacekeeping forces to Darfur.

Second, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from hunger and disease. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food and clothing and housing and medical care." Around the world, the United Nations is carrying out noble efforts to live up to these words.

Feeding the hungry has long been a special calling for my nation. Today, more than half the world's food assistance comes from America. We send emergency food stocks to starving people from camps in Sudan to slums in -- around the world. I've proposed an innovative initiative to alleviate hunger under which America would purchase the crops of local farmers in Africa and elsewhere, rather than shipping in food from the developed world. This would help build up local agriculture and break the cycle of famine in the developing world -- and I urge our United States Congress to support this initiative.

Many in this hall are bringing the spirit of generosity to fighting HIV/AIDS and malaria. Five years ago, in Sub-Saharan Africa, an AIDS diagnosis was widely considered a death sentence, and fewer than 50,000 people infected with the virus were receiving treatment. The world responded by creating the Global Fund, which is working with governments and the private sector to fight the disease around the world. The United States decided to take these steps a little further by launching the $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Since 2003, this effort has helped bring cutting-edge medicines to more than a million people in sub-Sahara Africa. It's a good start. So earlier this year, I proposed to double our initial commitment to $30 billion. By coming together, the world can turn the tide against HIV/AIDS -- once and for all.

Malaria is another common killer. In some countries, malaria takes as many lives as HIV/AIDS -- the vast majority of them children under the age of five years old. Every one of these deaths is unnecessary, because the disease is preventable and treatable. The world knows what it takes to stop malaria -- bed nets and indoor spraying and medicine to treat the disease. Two years ago, America launched a $1.2 billion malaria initiative. Other nations and the private sector are making vital contributions, as well. I call on every member state to maintain its focus, find new ways to join this cause, and bring us closer to the day when malaria deaths are no more.

Third, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from the chains of illiteracy and ignorance. Article 26 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to education." And when nations make the investments needed to educate their people, the whole world benefits. Better education unleashes the talent and potential of its citizens, and adds to the prosperity of all of us. Better education promotes better health and greater independence. Better education increases the strength of democracy, and weakens the appeal of violent ideologies. So the United States is joining with nations around the world to help them provide a better education for their people.

A good education starts with good teachers. In partnership with other nations, America has helped train more than 600,000 teachers and administrators. A good education requires good textbooks. So in partnership with other nations, America has distributed tens of millions of textbooks. A good education requires access to good schools. So in partnership with other nations, America is helping nations raise standards in their schools at home, and providing scholarships to help students come to schools in the United States. In all our education efforts, our nation is working to expand access for women and girls, so that the opportunity to get a decent education is open to all.

Finally, the mission of the United Nations requires liberating people from poverty and despair. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, [and] to just and favorable conditions of work." In the 21st century, this requires ensuring that people in poor countries have the same opportunity to benefit from the global economy that citizens of wealthy countries have.

The United Nations provides vital economic assistance designed to help developing nations grow their economies and reach their potential. The United States agrees with that position; we've dramatically increased our own development assistance -- and we're delivering that aid in innovative ways. We started the Millennium Challenge Account to reward nations that govern justly, fight corruption, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom. With this aid, we're reaching out to developing nations in partnership, not paternalism. And we're ensuring that our aid dollars reach those who need them -- and achieve results.

In the long run, the best way to lift people out of poverty is through trade and investment. A nation that is open and trading with the world will create economic rewards that far exceed anything they could get through foreign aid. During the 1990s, developing nations that significantly lowered tariffs saw their per capita income grow about three times faster than other developing countries. Open markets ignite growth, encourage investment, increase transparency, strengthen the rule of law, and help countries help themselves.

The international community now has an historic chance to open markets around the world by concluding a successful Doha Round of trade talks. A successful Doha outcome would mean real and substantial openings in agriculture, goods, and services -- and real and substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies. The world's largest trading nations, including major developing countries, have a special responsibility to make the tough political decisions to reduce trade barriers. America has the will and flexibility to make those necessary decisions. Our negotiators are demonstrating that spirit in Geneva. I urge other leaders to direct their negotiators to do the same. And I'm optimistic that we can reach a good Doha agreement -- and seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity.

In the meantime, America will continue to pursue agreements that open trade and investment wherever we can. We recently signed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements embody the values of open markets -- transparent and fair regulation, respect for private property, and resolving disputes under international law rules. These are good agreements, and they're now ready for a congressional vote, and I urge the Congress to approve them as soon as possible.

As America works with the United Nations to alleviate immediate needs, we're also coming together to address longer-term challenges. Together, we're preparing for pandemics that could cause death and suffering on a global scale. Together, we're working to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Together, we're confronting the challenges of energy security, and environmental quality, and climate change. I appreciate the discussions on climate change led by the Secretary General last night. I look forward to further discussions at the meeting of major economies in Washington later this week.

The goals I've outlined today cannot be achieved overnight -- and they cannot be achieved without reform in this vital institution. The United States is committed to a strong and vibrant United Nations. Yet the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council. This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran -- while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel. To be credible on human rights in the world, the United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council.

Some have also called for reform to the structure of the Security Council, including an expansion of its membership. The United States is open to this prospect. We believe that Japan is well-qualified for permanent membership on the Security Council, and that other nations should be considered, as well. The United States will listen to all good ideas, and we will support changes to the Security Council as part of broader U.N. reform. And in all we do, I call on member states to work for an institution that adheres to strict ethical standards, and lives up to the high principles of the Universal Declaration.

With the commitment and courage of this chamber, we can build a world where people are free to speak, assemble, and worship as they wish; a world where children in every nation grow up healthy, get a decent education, and look to the future with hope; a world where opportunity crosses every border. America will lead toward this vision where all are created equal, and free to pursue their dreams. This is the founding conviction of my country. It is the promise that established this body. And with our determination, it can be the future of our world.

Thank you, and God bless. (Applause.)

Hat Tip to Hot Air, we have the video of the Cuban delegation walking out when Bush spoke of them.



[Update] French President Nicolas Sarkozy also spoke in front of the UN with some harsh words about Iran.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday the international standoff over Iran's nuclear program will only be resolved with a combination of "firmness and dialogue," and that appeasement may only lead to "war."

Sarkozy, addressing the UN General Assembly for the first time since becoming president in May, said allowing Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons would be an "unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."

Iran was entitled to nuclear power for civilian purposes, he said, "but if we allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we would incur an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world".

"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace. They lead to war," he declared.

"There will not be peace in the world if the international community falters in the face of the proliferation of nuclear arms," Sarkozy said. The Iranian crisis "will only be resolved if firmness and dialogue go hand-in-hand."

I am REALLY beginning to like this guy.



.

France and U.S. in Agreement About Sanctions on Iran

With all the fuss about Ahmadinejad being in America and his speaking at Columbia University, the United States and France are keeping our eye on the ball, which is keeping Iran from obatining nuclear weapons.

Last week US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns chaired talks discussing further sanctions won Iran, which Burns called "constructive".

That will be followed up Wednesday and Thursday with the six powers, the Security Council's permanent members China, France, Russia, Britain, the European Union and the United States, plus Germany. (Source)

The U.S. and France are in full agreement, a far cry from when Chirac was president of France, no surprise that China and Russia, the weak links, are in disagreement with the type of sanctions that should follow up the two previous rounds of sanctions, which due to them specifically, were so weakened they were ineffective.

“I think it’s first important to note that we have set out a diplomatic path that includes negotiation as the preferred means by which to resolve this issue,” Ms. Rice said at a joint news conference with her French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner.

On Sunday, Mr. Kouchner kicked up a small diplomatic storm when he raised the possibility of war with Iran. He subsequently moderated his statements and dropped references to war. Ms. Rice noted that a diplomatic league of the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany had offered “a very, very good package of initiatives that Iran could take up if it wished to stop its enrichment and reprocessing activity.”

But she said, “We will seek further resolutions in the U.N. Security Council should Iran not take up the negotiating track.”

Toward that end, the Foreign Ministry political directors from Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia met at the State Department on Friday with R. Nicholas Burns, the United States under secretary of state for political affairs, to press ahead on a possible third Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. After the meeting, Mr. Burns issued a statement on behalf of the six officials that “reaffirmed their commitment to maintain a dual-track approach on Iran’s nuclear activities.”

The discussions on Friday “were serious and constructive,” the statement said. The officials “had a detailed discussion of the elements of a new United Nations Security Council resolution, as well as possibilities of continued dialogue with Iran.”

Supporters of new sanctions were buoyed by a decision at the conclusion of Friday’s meeting to schedule another working session next week. That meeting is “to prepare recommendations” for a high-level conference next Friday, at which Ms. Rice and her five ministerial counterparts will discuss the potential for a new sanctions resolution.

Although senior officials from all six nations involved in the sanctions talks agreed on the urgency of preventing Iran from going nuclear, deep disagreements remained over the speed of imposing new sanctions, and on how deeply they should cut into the Iranian economy.

Russia and China are the most reluctant to move ahead, while the United States is pushing for faster action. Iranian officials say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

More from the AP on the improved relations between the U.S. and France:

Since taking power in May, Kouchner's boss, President Nicolas Sarkozy, has set a very different tone of cooperation with the United States than that of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac. But Kouchner's visit and France's recent moves on Iran seemed to illustrate that the change was more than in tone.

"We know that France, Europe and the United States have recently gone through one of the most strained periods in the history of their relations," Kouchner said in a speech Thursday, referring to differences over the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "We have put this behind us."

On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also acknowledged the transformation.

"It's an excellent relationship," she said while standing next to Kouchner after a meeting and lunch. "I think there are many, many things that France and the United States are going to be able to do together."

On what to do about Iran, she said, the two countries agreed entirely on the problem and how to deal with it. Kouchner's rhetoric, in fact, could not have been better formulated by a White House speechwriter to fit Washington's policy.

"To those who say that we should handle Iran with kid gloves, since it could destabilize the region, I say this: Look at its adventurism today, and imagine what it would be like if Tehran thought itself one day protected by a nuclear umbrella," he said in his speech.

Reports from The Politico tells us that President Bush met with Norman Podhoretz for roughly 45 minutes at the White House. The discussion was about what to do about Iran

The meeting was not on the president’s public schedule.

Rove was silent throughout, though he took notes. The president listened diligently, Podhoretz said as he recounted the conversation months later, but he “didn’t tip his hand.”

“I did say to [the president], that people ask: Why are you spending all this time negotiating sanctions? Time is passing. I said, my friend [Robert] Kagan wrote a column which he said you were giving ‘futility its chance.’ And both he and Karl Rove burst out laughing.

“It struck me,” Podhoretz added, “that if they really believed that there was a chance for these negotiations and sanctions to work, they would not have laughed. They would have got their backs up and said, ‘No, no, it’s not futile, there’s a very good chance.’ ”

Podhoretz walked out of the meeting neither deterred nor assured the president would attack the Persian state.

Yet prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York for the United Nations’ General Assembly, Podhoretz said he believes that “Bush is going to hit” Iran before the end of his presidency.

His assumption is based on intellectual instinct.

If Podhoretz were merely another old man of the chattering class, his intellectual instincts would hardly be worth pondering. But Podhoretz, after a half-century in argument, remains fiercely relevant.

He is a senior foreign policy adviser to Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani. He participates in weekly conference calls with the campaign and says he is in constant contact via e-mail with the foreign policy team. The meeting with the president was at Podhoretz’s request.

Frankly, I would have laughed also because it is obvious that China and Russia will not agree to any type of sanctions that will be effective but Bush is in a spot where he must run through all diplomatic channels before we can do anything about Iran, even while knowing the lunatic from Iran will not stop until he has a nuclear weapon, which even Russia and China admit is unacceptable.

They speak so very well out of both sides of their mouths.

Russia and China need to ask themselves a serious question here and that is: "Is harsh, effective sanctions against Iran better than someone having to commit massive air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities?"

That should be a no brainer, but for some reason, it isn't as of yet for those two countries.





.

Iranian Officer Arrested In Iraq

While the US is allowing Ahmadinejad to come into the United States of America to address the UN's General Assembly, and while the University of Columbia is welcoming this murdering madman to speak, we have an Iranian officer that smuggles powerful roadside bombs into Iraq to kill OUR soldiers, being arrested in Iraq.

Anyone else see something seriously wrong with this picture?

The suspect - a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - was detained in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah, the military said.

He was allegedly involved in transporting roadside bombs, including armor-piercing explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, into Iraq, according to a statement. It said intelligence reports also indicated he was involved in the infiltration and training of foreign fighters in Iraq.

Officials have said the Bush administration is expected to soon blacklist the Quds force as a terrorist organization, subjecting part of the vast military operation to financial sanctions. The move would be in response to Iranian action in Iraq and elsewhere.

Also Thursday, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq a 7-month-old security operation has reduced violence by 50 percent in Baghdad, but he acknowledged that civilians were still dying at too high a rate.

Ahmadinejad had the audacity that only a madman could have to request a visit to Ground Zero in New York, which officials wisely decided to deny.

Michelle Malkin asks if it is time to organize a "welcoming party" for Ahmadinejad.

Power Line regarding Columbia's disgraceful invitation to Ahmadinejad:

Columbia and President Bollinger are a disgrace. They welcome to their campus a man who is a ringleader in the seizure of American hostages, a terrorist, the president of a terrorist regime, and the representative of a regime responsible at present for the deaths of American soldiers on the field of battle. Columbia's prattle about free speech may be a tale told by an idiot, but it signifies something. And President Bollinger is a fool who is not excused from the dishonor he brings to his institution and his fellow citizens by the fact that he doesn't know what he is doing.

Rarely will you see me say anything good about Hillary Clinton, but she and Rudy Giuliani spoke out against Ahmadinejad's request to visit Ground Zero.

Clinton:

"It is unacceptable for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who refuses to renounce and end his own country's support of terrorism, to visit the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history,"

Giuliani says it is "outrageous":

"This is a man who has made threats against America and Israel, is harboring [Osama] Bin Laden's son and other al Qaeda leaders, is shipping arms to Iraqi insurgents and is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons,"

Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin (linked above) Ahmadinejad says that depsite NYC's rejection of his request, he intends to go to ground zero anyway!!!!

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad requested to visit Ground Zero during an upcoming trip to New York. That request was rejected Wednesday. But a source tells Eyewitness News that the decision may not stop him.

A law enforcement source says the Iranian mission to the United Nations has informed the Secret Service that the Iranian president intends to visit Ground Zero Monday at 10 a.m.

The source says regardless of the NYPD's rejection of the request for a Ground Zero tour, Iran's president and his entourage will be accompanied by a Secret Service protective detail, a detail provided to all heads of state when they visit the United States.

Captain Quarters correctly states what will happen if Ahmadinejad attempts to get near Ground Zero:

I'm not in New York City. However, I'm sure that the same people who strapped a nation on their back and showed us how Americans react to cowards and their sneak attacks will not allow Ahmadinejad to make it to Ground Zero. We can expect a massive example of civil disobedience, with New Yorkers lining the streets to block Ahmadinejad's access to the site. If enough of them hit the street, the police will not be able to stop New Yorkers from bringing Ahmadinejad's progress to a standstill -- and given how many NYPD and FDNY heroes died at the site, they may not be motivated to assist Ahmadinejad at all.

We need to send a message to the jihadists: Terrorists, Go Home. That includes their chief sponsor.

He is right and leading the charge is Pamela from Atlas Shrugs:

He funds and supports terror around the world.
He wants a world without the US and Israel..
He is developing nuclear weapons..
He denies the Holocaust.

Join the National Rally to End the Threat Now Monday, September 24

12:00 noon, rain or shine

Dag Hammarskjold Plaza
2nd Avenue at 47th Street
(across from the United Nations) New York City

I expect every Atlas reader that can be there, to be there. We need to make a statement.

9/11 Families will also be there to block the path:

Just shove the wreath you want to place at Ground Zero, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Those are my words and so are these: if you try to set one foot on where the terrorists your regime supported murdered a member of my family and 3,000 others, I will be there standing in your way.

[...]

No, I do not want to get arrested and would not resist arrest for blocking his path but I will not stand by idly while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad walks on our sacred ground.

Mark Levin:

I’ve never been arrested yet I will be if that terrorist tries to set one foot on Ground Zero. I will stand in his way at that sacred ground and they will have to arrest me if he comes there. That is where the very same terrorists thta [sic] he and his regime supported murdered a member of my family.

For those too brain dead to understand the outrage being shown, this lunatic is an Extremist, one that has made threats against Israel, the United States and the UK as well as other countries.

He is head of a state that sponsors terror and as we showed above, it is HIS officers, Iranian officers that are smuggling weapons, bombs, into Iraq to kill our soldiers.

The people of New York will not allow him near Ground Zero and they are right in their outrage over the mere thought of it.

More reactions over at Stop the ACLU.

More at Drudge.


Tracked back by:
To allow Ahmedinejad to visit Ground Zero would be from Tel-Chai Nation...





.