Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Sep 26, 2024

Javier Milei on the end of collectivism

We are facing an end of a cycle.  Collectivism and the moral posturing of the UOC Agenda have collided with reality and no longer have credible solutions to offer for the real problems of the world.  In fact, they never did.  If the 2030 Agenda has failed, as its own promoters acknowledge, the response should be to ask ourselves if it was not a poorly conceived program from the start, accept reality and change course.  One cannot insist on persisting in error, doubling down on an agenda that has always failed.

The same happens with ideas that come from the Left.  They design a model according to what they believe humans should do and when individuals freely act otherwise, they have no better solution than to restrict, repress and curtail their freedom.  We in Argentina have already seen with our own eyes what lies at the end of this path of envy and passions: poverty, ignorance, anarchy and the fatal absence of freedom.

~ Javier Milei, speech before United Nations General Assembly, September 25, 2024



Dec 28, 2023

Luke Tress on the United Nations criticizing Israel

Since 2015, the [UN] General Assembly has adopted 140 resolutions criticizing Israel, mainly over its treatment of the Palestinians, its relationships with neighboring countries and other alleged wrongdoings.  Over the same period, it has passed 68 resolutions against all other countries, UN Watch said.

In the 193-nation assembly’s most recent anti-Israel resolution Friday, it approved a call for the International Court of Justice to weigh in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

The resolution promoted by the Palestinians passed by a vote of 87 in favor, 26 against, with 53 abstentions.

The resolution, titled “Israeli practices and settlement activities affecting the rights of the Palestinian people and other Arabs of the occupied territories,” calls on the Hague-based ICJ to “render urgently an advisory opinion” on Israel’s “prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of Palestinian territory.”

[...] 

In a strongly worded statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not be bound by the “despicable decision.”

Netanyahu’s new hardline government, sworn in on Thursday, is likely to further stoke tensions with the UN and the international community.

Of Netanyahu’s coalition partners, none are on record supporting a two-state solution with the Palestinians, some support annexing the West Bank without granting equal rights to Palestinians in those areas, and many also vehemently oppose coordination or strengthening the PA [Palestinian Authority].

~ Luke Tress, "UN condemned Israel more than all other countries in 2022 - monitor," The Times of Israel, January 3, 2023



Dec 12, 2023

Sheldon Richman on the UN partition plan for Israel

By mid-November 1947 the Truman administration was firmly in the Zionist camp.  When the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations agreed that the partition resolution should be changed to shift the Negev from the Jewish to the Palestinian state, Truman sided with the Jewish Agency, the main Zionist organization, against them.  The United States also voted against a UN resolution calling on member states to accept Jewish refugees who could not be repatriated.

As the partition plan headed toward a vote in the UN General Assembly, U.S. officials applied pressure to--and even threatened to withhold promised aid from--countries inclined to vote against the resolution.  As former under-secretary of state Sumner Welles put it: 
By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct and indirect, was brought to bear by American officials upon those countries outside of the Moslem world that were known to be either uncertain or opposed to partition. Representatives or intermediaries were employed by the White House to make sure that the necessary majority would at length be secured.
Eddie Jacobson recorded in his diary that Truman told him that "he [Truman] and he alone, was responsible for swinging the vote of several delegations."

While the plan was being debated, the Arabs desperately tried to find an alternative solution.  Syria proposed that the matter be turned over to the International Court of Justice in The Hague; the proposal was defeated.  The Arab League asked that all countries accept Jewish refugees "in proportion to their area and economic resources and other relevant factors"; the league's request was denied in a 16-16 tie, with 25 abstentions.

On November 29 the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13.  The Soviet Union voted in favor of the resolution, reversing its earlier position on Zionism; many interpreted the vote as a move to perpetuate unrest and give Moscow opportunities for influence in the neighboring region. 

The period after the UN partition vote was critical.  The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not.  Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated.  The obvious difficulties in carrying out the partition created second thoughts among U.S. policymakers as early as December 1947.  The State Department's policy planning staff issued a paper in January 1948 suggesting that the United States propose that the entire matter be returned to the General Assembly for more study.  Secretary Forrestal argued that the United States might have to enforce the partition with troops.  (The United States had an arms embargo on the region at the time, although arms were being sent illegally by American Zionists, giving the Jews in Palestine military superiority, at least in some respects, over the Arabs.)

On February 24, 1948, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Warren Austin, made a speech to the Security Council hinting at such second thoughts.  His proposal to have the five permanent council members discuss what should be done was approved, but they could not agree on a new strategy.  The United States, China, and France reported to the full council that partition would not occur peacefully.  The apparent weakening of U.S. support for partition prompted the Zionist organizations to place enormous pressure on Truman, who said he still favored partition.  However, the next day at the United Nations, Austin called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine. 

On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship.  The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it.  The General Assembly was unenthusiastic.  Meanwhile, the Zionists proceeded with their plans to set up a state.  Civil order in Palestine had almost totally broken down.  For example, in mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children.  The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day.

Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state. 

Something else was working in favor of continued support for the emerging Jewish state: U.S. domestic politics.  The year 1948 was an election year and, according to memoranda in the Harry S Truman Library and Museum, Jacobson, Clifford, and Niles expressed fear that the Republicans were making an issue of their support for the Jewish state and that the Democrats risked losing Jewish support.  Clifford proposed early recognition of the Jewish state. 

His position had been strongly influenced by a special congressional election in a heavily Jewish district in the Bronx, New York, on February 17, 1948.  The regular Democratic candidate, Karl Propper, was upset by the American Labor party candidate, Leo Isacson, who had taken a militantly pro-Zionist position in the campaign.  Even though Propper was also pro-Zionist, former vice president Henry Wallace had campaigned for Isacson by criticizing Truman for not supporting partition, asserting that Truman "still talks Jewish but acts Arab."  The loss meant that New York's 47 electoral votes would be at risk in the November presidential election, and the Democrats of the state appealed to Truman to propose a UN police force to implement the partition, as Isacson and Wallace had advocated. 

The administration's trusteeship idea soon became academic.  On May 14 the last British officials left Palestine, and that evening the Jewish state was proclaimed.  Eleven minutes later, to the surprise of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, the United States announced its de facto recognition.

The significance to the Arabs of the U.S. role in constructing what they regard as another Western colonial obstacle to self-determination cannot be overstated.  Dean Rusk, who at the time was a State Department official and would later become secretary of state, admitted that Washington's role permitted the partition to be "construed as an American plan," depriving it of moral force.  As Evan M. Wilson, then assistant chief of the State Department's Division of Near Eastern Affairs, later summarized matters, Truman, motivated largely by domestic political concerns, solved one refugee problem by creating another.  Wilson wrote: 
It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947- 48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned.

Nov 28, 2023

Murray Rothbard on collective security and the Middle East crisis

We cannot fully understand the nature of the crisis in the Middle East by just following today’s and yesterday’s headlines.  There are far deeper and longer lasting factors at work than merely who commands the Strait of Tiran or who is responsible for the latest border skirmish in the Gaza Strip.  The first thing that we as Americans should be concerned about is the absurdity of the fundamental foreign policy position of the U.S. government.  This is a doctrine that the United States first adopted, to its woe, in the late 1930s and has clung to ever since: the doctrine of “collective security.”  The collective security thesis assumes that, at whatever moment of time one happens to be in, the territorial distribution of States on the world’s surface is just and proper.  Any forcible disturbances of any governmental boundary anywhere, then, automatically becomes “aggression” which must be combated either by all other nations or by the United States itself, acting as “world policeman.” 

In short, the whole thesis of collective security that has guided American policy for thirty years rests on a ridiculous analogy from private property and the function of police in defending that property.  Mr. Jones owns the property; it is then certainly not absurd to say that he has an absolute moral right to that property and that, therefore, any invasion of that property by force is immoral and unjust.  It is also not absurd, then, to say that it is just for Mr. Jones’s property to be defended by some form of police (whether public or private is not here at issue). 

But surely it is worse than absurd to leap from this concept of just private property to say that a State’s territory is equally just, proper, and sacrosanct, and that therefore any invasion of that State’s self-acclaimed territory is just as wicked as invasion of private property and deserves to be defended by some form of “police.”  All State territory, without exception in history or in any part of the world, was obtained, not by legitimate voluntary productive means such as used by Mr. Jones or his ancestors, but by coercion and violent conquest.  Therefore no one allocation of territory — certainly no allocation of territory that happens to exist at any moment of time — is ipso facto proper and just and deserving of any form of defense. If, in Year 1, Ruritania grabs part of the territory of Waldonia by force, then surely it is nonsensical for the United Sates or some other group to step in with righteous indignation when, in Year 5, Waldonia tries to grab that territory back.  Yet this is precisely what is implied in the whole theory on which the United Nations is grounded, and in the U.S. foreign policy to “guarantee the territorial integrity of all the nations in the Middle East.” 

Basic to the current crisis in the Middle East is the fact that such Israeli territory as the port of Elath, and indeed the entire Negev desert area surrounding Elath, which is now a big bone of contention between Israel and the Arab powers, was grabbed by force from the Arabs by Israel in 1948.  For the US, then, to go to war to “defend the territorial integrity” of Israel in the Negev would be, on this and on many other grounds, the height of folly.

~ Murray Rothbard, "The Middle East Crisis," 1967


Six-Day War






May 17, 2020

Bloomberg on Covid-19 impact on global economy

The pandemic is expected to wipe out $8.5 trillion in global output and could send 130 million people into the ranks of extreme poverty, according to the UN. Already, more than 100 countries have appealed to the International Monetary Fund for help as the coronavirus eradicates key sources of revenue such as tourism and travel.

~ Bloomberg, "Pandemic Shatters World Order, Sowing Anger and Mistrust," May 17, 2020, article by Nick Wadhams