Sweden vs Morocco -- Another Swedish Diplomatic Blunder?

ꕤ Article SOURCE as marked Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) partially recognized state controls thin strip of Western Sahara region claims sovereignty over entire territory of Western Sahara Western Sahara -- a former Spanish colony SADR proclaimed by the Polisario Front - 1976, in Bir Lehlou, Western Sahara SADR government controls about 20–25% of the territory it claims territories under SADR control referred to as "the Liberated Territories" or "the Free Zone". Morocco controls and administers the rest of the disputed territory and calls these lands its Southern Provinces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic Polisario Front aka , Frente Polisario, FRELISARIO or POLISARIO "Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río de Oro" Sahrawi rebel national liberation movement working to end Moroccan presence in Western Sahara militating for independence of Western Sahara since 1973 originally against Spanish rule but after 1975: against Mauritania & Morocco 1979 onwards:  against Morocco only Polisario Front is based in Algeria, Algeria Polisario Front is responsible for the Tindouf refugee camps Polisario Front maintains a cease-fire with Morocco since 1991 (see Settlement Plan) Polisario Front is outlawed in parts of Western Sahara under Moroccan control Sahrawi Sahrawis are Sunni Muslims of the Maliki rite or school As with most Saharan peoples living in the Sahara, the Sahrawi culture is mixed. Shows mainly Berber-Tuareg characteristics eg privileged position of women identical to the neighbouring Berber-speaking Tuaregs plus:  some additional Bedouin Arab and black African characteristics strong tribal & cultural links between the Sahrawis and Mauritanian populations, incl. historical allegiance to some Moorish emirates 1975 - Internatinal court ruling recommended the UN to continue to pursue self-determination for the Sahrawis, enabling them to choose for themselves whether they wanted Spanish Sahara to turn into an independent state, or to be annexed to Morocco or Mauritania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polisario_Front https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_people Morocco 99% Muslim Sunni majority at:  67% Official languages:  Arabic & Berber  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco Algeria 99% Muslim Majority Sunni - Maliki tradition EXTRACTS Morocco has blocked the opening of Ikea’s first store in the kingdom In Retaliation Of Sweden’s Plans to:  recognise a republic sought by the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. SADR is recognized by a number of states and is a member of the African Union, no Western country has formally recognized it, and activists have accused a number of states – including France and Spain – of backing Morocco in the dispute. United Nations recently renewed a peacekeeping force that’s been there since 1991. Morocco claims Western Sahara, which is rich in offshore fishing, phosphates and potentially large reserves of crude oil, as its territory and has controlled most the sparsely populated stretch of desert since 1975. By Jack Phillips on Oct 03, 2015 http://www.jewocity.com/blog/morocco-blocks-ikea-store-opening-in-retaliation-of-sweden-s-plans-to/88017 Western Sahara: The Historical Commitment Sweden Should Remember Friday 2 October 2015 - 18:51 EXTRACT Sweden among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras Yet there exists a solid historical and legal argument that has to be brandished in the face of the Swedish government to show them that by siding with the Polisario, they fail to respect the commitment they made over a century ago with regards to Moroccan territorial integrity. This argument will demonstrate to Swedish politicians and its public opinion that their position on the conflict over the years is based on a false historical assumption. Not only did the SADR not exist before 1976, but Sweden signed an international treaty with respect to Morocco in which it committed along with all Western powers to preserve Moroccan territorial integrity. By virtue of the Treaty of Algeciras of April 7, 1906, all Western powers, including Sweden, committed to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Was the so-called Western Sahara part of Moroccan sovereignty at the time? The answers is yes. The spirit of the Treaty of Algeciras was based on the international agreements signed between Morocco and some Western powers, mainly the United Kingdom, which recognized that this territory was an integral part of Morocco. According to Frank E. Trout, author of the book Moroccan Saharan Frontier, in accordance with the agreement signed between Morocco and the UK in March 1895, the British government recognized that the territory between Cap Juby (the area near Tarfaya) and Cap Bojador (present day so-called Western Sahara), belonged to Morocco. Since then until 1904, when the UK signed an agreement with France, the British, as well as the French and Spanish recognized that this territory was under Moroccan sovereignty. The premise on which the Swedish government bases its position is that the so-called Western Sahara never belonged to Morocco before 1975, and as such Morocco can lay no claim of sovereignty over this territory. However, this premise itself is false. Contrary to common belief in the West, Spanish occupation of the territory was in total violation of international law at the time. When the British government accepted the principle of a French and Spanish protectorate over Morocco, it clearly insisted in article 3 of the secret accord signed between Paris and London in April 1904 that Spain could not undertake any action that would alienate the sovereignty of territory of its sphere of influence. This British position was based on the understanding that the so-called Western Sahara belonged to Morocco and was not to be alienated by any Western power. However, in accordance with the French-Spanish accord of October 1904, Spain was given possession, but not sphere of influence, of the disputed territory, without informing Morocco or seeking the approval of the British, who had signed an agreement recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory. The arrangements made between Western powers were carried out without consulting with Morocco, which was the main party in interest in the agreements signed between France and Spain on the one hand and the France and the UK on the other hand. Without a renunciation of the agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 1895, the agreement signed between Western powers in 1904 by virtue of which they defined their spheres of influence in Morocco contravened international law. According to Frank E. Trout, even in the event London gave its formal approval and recognition that Seguia El Hamra (present-day so-called Western Sahara) was to become Spanish territory outside of the limits of Spanish sphere of influence in Southern Morocco, ”it would have meant a unilateral — and presumably secret — renunciation of the agreement signed with Morocco in 1859, [which would have been meaningless since Morocco was not informed of the renunciation.” Additionally, Spain was given possession of the Sahara based on a secret accord of which neither Morocco nor the other Western powers were informed. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the Swedish government is taking a stance against Morocco, without taking cognizance of the historical fact that it was among the signatories of the Treaty of Algeciras, which committed those signatory countries to preserving Morocco’s territorial integrity. Instead, as a signatory of the treaty, the Swedish government should seek to help Morocco secure its historical and legal rights over the territory. That the predominant narrative on the conflict omits mention of this fact gives no license to the Swedish to dismiss the fact that they have failed to fulfill their commitment to preserving Moroccan territorial integrity. Morocco was the victim of Western colonialism and Moroccans have paid a costly price to regain the independence of their country and restore its territorial integrity. By going down this path, Sweden deepens the wound and turns its back on the commitment it made to the Moroccan people over a century ago. On the other hand, the Swedish government should not disregard the growing consensus among both diplomats and scholars in recent years that the concept of self-determination as it was perceived in the 1960’s is not a one-size fit-it all approach that can be applied to every territorial conflict, and that the UN settlement plan of 1991 has proved to be unworkable. Sweden’s Erik Jensen, who served as Head of MINURSO between 1994-1998 said in his book that the 1991 settlement plan has showed its limits, and there is a need to find an alternative likely to help the parties to reach a settlement. According to Jensen, Javier Pérez de Cuellar and Boutros Ghali, the two former UN Secretary Generals, were intimately convinced that the settlement plan was unworkable, and called on the Security Council to explore other ways. “Perez De Cuellar’s memoirs show that he had doubts about certain aspects of the settlement plan, and Boutros Ghali repeatedly hinted to the Security Council that it might consider an alternative way forward,” said Jensen. Therefore, rather than taking sides with one of the parties, it would be wiser for Sweden to help the parties explore the possibility of working out a middle ground solution where none of the parties would come out as loser. Samir Bennis     Samir Bennis is a political analyst. He received a Ph.D. in international relations from the University of Provence in France. He also holds a Master’s degree in political science from the University of Toulouse I, a Master’s degree in Iberian studies  EXTRACT source http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2015/10/169343/western-sahara-the-historical-commitment-sweden-should-remember/ Morocco weighs boycott of Swedish firms REUTERS RABAT Morocco said it was considering a boycott of Swedish companies operating in the North African kingdom because of Sweden's position on the conflict over Western Sahara. The territory has been disputed since a war two decades ago. The government said Sweden has been campaigning to boycott products from Western Sahara and international companies with a presence there. Morocco has controlled most of Western Sahara since 1975 and claims the sparsely populated stretch of desert, which has offshore fishing, phosphate reserves and oilfield potential, as its own. However, the Algeria-backed Polisario Front seeks independence, and a United Nations mission was formed more than 20 years ago anticipating a referendum, which has never taken place, on Western Sahara's political future. Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have backed Western Saharan self-determination, while France and Spain have been accused by activists and human rights organisations of supporting the Moroccan line. Moroccan authorities have already blocked the opening of IKEA's first store this week, citing a lack of permits. source http://www.dailysabah.com/money/2015/10/03/morocco-weighs-boycott-of-swedish-firms United Nations Current strength (30 June 2015) 210 total uniformed personnel: 26 troops 6 police officers 178  military observers 84 international civilian personnel* 162 local civilian staff* 12 United Nations Volunteers Fatalities 5 troops 1 police 1 military observer 3 international civilian personnel 5 local civilian personnel _____ 15 total  Approved budget (07/2014– 12/2014): $55,990,080 source http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/facts.shtml ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT A United Nations 'mission' was formed over 20 years ago, on the basis that a referendum would take place ... but it hasn't. Why not? It looks like there's been a UN 20-year military presence and, apparently, the parties are no closer to resolving this dispute. Check out what is spent on interfering in the Western Sahara region.  Nearly $56-million in a mere 6-months was approved. If that's chewed up in 6-months, imagine how much money's gone down the tubes since 1991. Taxpayer funds of these countries are being spent on this: Image Source  |  Wikipedia ꕤ COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Twenty-four years of taxpayer funds being blown on this, why? So it's austerity for European taxpayers, while taxpayer funds are funnelled to futile UN projects. Article Detailing The Involvement Of The Un In Western Sahara And Morocco. EXTRACT (United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara) The UN operation in Western Sahara between 1991 and 1997 was so ineffectual that it became one of the main symbols of UN waste and inefficiency for a hostile US Congress. It cost more than five million dollars a month yet did little useful work. UN staff were paid inflated salaries due to the 'hardship' conditions. It is claimed that some UN staff would overstay their tour of duty by a day so as to qualify for a second tranche of 'hardship' money. source http://newint.org/features/1997/12/05/un/ Clinton Foundation is reportedly getting cash from 'one of the world's most controversial mining companies' Colin Campbell May 8, 2015, 1:19 AM Another one of the Clinton Foundation’s major donors is drawing new scrutiny amid former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. A joint investigation by ABC News and Yahoo published Wednesday accuses the Clinton Foundation’s Global Initiative of “being hosted this week at a five-star luxury hotel in Morocco by one of the world’s most controversial mining companies.” According to the report, the Moroccan government-owned mining company Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP) has been criticised for “serious human rights violations” by the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice. The company reportedly operates in Western Sahara, disputed territory the Moroccan government seized after Spain withdrew in 1975. The Washington Post reported that both human rights activists and US lawmakers have slammed OCP’s mining operation because it “does not have the consent of the indigenous population there.” ABC reported that OCP is “criticised for removing the resources without adequately compensating the impoverished people who live there.” David McKean, a Kennedy Center official, said the inhabitants of Western Sahara are being “systematically suppressed.” “OCP’s operations in Western Sahara are only appropriate under international law if they are acting in the best interests of the people of Western Sahara, and right now they are not,” McKeon told The Post. “The fact that OCP carries out its operations in Western Sahara so publicly seems intended to send the message that they feel they can do so with impunity.” Accordingly, OCP’s financial support for the Clinton Foundation raises questions about whether it is trying to curry favour with the US government. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania) called the arrangement a “blatant conflict of interest.” “Morocco would like nothing more than having a possible future First Family condone its illegal exploitation of natural resources,” Pitt told The Post. Indeed, according to ABC, OCP has has “sharply accelerated its lobbying of US government officials in recent years — more than quadrupling its spending — as the Moroccan government was pressing its case for sovereignty over Western Sahara.” For its part, OCP defended both its operations in West Africa and its support for the Clinton Foundation. The firm told ABC that, despite its critics’ claims, it actually reinvests money into Western Sahara. OCP executives also reportedly said “their involvement in the Clinton Foundation was intended to help make phosphate-based fertiliser available to needy farmers in Africa — work the foundation has helped make possible.” “We have good spots and bad spots, and when we have a bad spot we try and improve it as much as we can,” said the company’s spokesman. “That’s all I can say, I guess.” The foundation also defended its connections to OCP by touting the nonprofit’s projects around the world. “Our sponsors made it possible for hundreds of CGI members to come together in Morocco to launch new programs designed to help hundreds of thousands of people,” a foundation spokesman told ABC. OCP is just the latest in a series of controversies related to the Clinton Foundation, some of which were spurred by a new book by conservative author Peter Schweizer, “Clinton Cash.” Schweizer accuses Hillary Clinton of trading State Department favours for money to her family foundation. Her campaign has aggressively dismissed Schweizer’s work as a unsubstantiated partisan smear. However, as Schweizer himself likes to point out, a number of mainstream news organisations have investigated the foundation based on information in his book. Notably, The New York Times published an in-depth story linking undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation to the sale of US uranium production to a Russian government agency. source http://www.businessinsider.com.au/clinton-foundation-funded-by-controversial-mining-company-2015-5 ꕤ

Syria - US Ambassador to UN Samantha Power - Monstrous Lies

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2015/september/14/samantha-power-slams-russias-support-for-assad-downplays-isis-threat/ Samantha Power Slams Russia's 'Support' For Assad, Downplays ISIS Threat Written by Daniel McAdams Monday September 14, 2015 More evidence that the current "Russia invaded Syria" media frenzy is a Washington-engineered psy-op to provide cover for a final US push against Bashar al-Assad, is provided in today's outburst from US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power, the fuel injector in the neocon "regime change" engine. While the US has conducted more than 2,500 airstrikes against ISIS in Syria over the past year to very little effect, Power has taken to warning Russia that its claimed "military deployment" to Syria is "not a winning strategy." One can only imagine the guffaws in Moscow over the architect of the US interventionist fiascos in Libya and Syria advising anyone on how to craft a winning foreign policy strategy. But Power, evidently utterly incapable of seeing the world as those of us in the reality-based community see it, takes to revising history to provide "evidence" for her Russia advice.  [... lol] Power repeats on CNN today the old discredited claim that Assad "gassed his own people" back in 2013 -- a claim so flimsy that Obama was forced to back down on his promise to begin bombing the country in retaliation. In other words, in the below statement to CNN today, the US Ambassador to the UN lied and she knew she was lying when she warned Russia that:     Doubling down on a regime that gases its people, that barrel bombs its people, that tortures people who it arrests simply for protesting and for claiming their rights -- that's just not going to work. Meanwhile, Power downplays the threat of ISIS vis Assad, suggesting that it is "Machiavellian" to get too worked up over the possibility of an ISIS victory in Syria:     Even if you were Machiavelli and all you cared about was ISIL, to support a regime like this and to not take account of the views of the vast majority of the Syrian people that want to go in a different direction is not going to either bring peace or actually succeed in defeating terrorism, which is what President Putin says his priority is. Of course Power has no way of knowing what the majority in Syria prefer. But we do know that when asked, they clearly prefer Assad over ISIS. So she lied again. While the US and its allies -- Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Gulf States -- have openly trained, funded, and equipped radical jihadists to further their policy of regime change in Syria, Power displays again her astonishing chutzpah by blaming the ensuing rise of terrorism on...Russia and Iran!     Russia and Iran may be the place really where one should lodge much of that criticism for supporting a regime that is carrying out these monstrous attacks against civilians, and again fueling -- whether wittingly or unwittingly -- the rise of terrorism. But the "humanitarian" Power, is "just focused on what is going to make things better in the here and now" in Syria. To her this apparently includes damning Russia for its opposition to al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and continuing to promote these same groups. Power's chutzpah does not stop there -- indeed it seemingly knows no bounds. While US intervention and regime change policy has directly led to the massive exodus from the country and resulting refugee crisis in Europe, the US diplomat pins the blame on...not enough US interventionism!     You can't look at 12 million people being displaced from their homes, and desperate families washing up on shores and be satisfied with where we are. I think the challenge is to find what is the policy tool that's going to make things better. Here's a suggestion: leave Syria alone! Let those in the neighborhood like Iran and Russia take care of the jihadist problem. The more the US "helps" the Syrians, the more Syrians die.  Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2015/september/14/samantha-power-slams-russias-support-for-assad-downplays-isis-threat/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Watch this Repulsive C*nt Lie U.S. to Russia: Backing Assad 'not a winning strategy' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf62Vc4p0zg * COMMENT LOL ... cannot stand that Power woman.    What a lying cow. Funny article.  Even funnier video after reading the article.  :) Not so funny for the people that are victims of this kind of Machiavellian aggression and deceit, US proxy war (ie US & ally funded & equipped terrorist op to destabilise and effect regime change in Syria) and far from funny for victims of imminent US 'intervention' -- ie more US aggression. ꕤ

Milo Yiannopoulos: ' UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings'

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ CENSORSHIP The UN Wants To Censor The Entire Internet To Save Feminists’ Feelings BroadbandCommissionReportLaunch September2015_RLB_4011_400x267 UN Women/Ryan Brown by Milo Yiannopoulos 25 Sep 20150 In a report released yesterday, entitled “Cyber Violence Against Women And Girls: A Global Wake-up Call,” UN Women, the group behind last year’s risible “He for She” campaign, called on governments to use their “licensing prerogative” to ensure that “telecoms and search engines” are only “allowed to connect with the public” if they “supervise content and its dissemination.” In other words, if search engines and ISPs don’t comply with a list of the UN’s censorship demands, the UN wants national governments to cut off their access to the public. So, what sort of content does the UN want to censor? ISIS recruitment videos, perhaps, which lure women into lives of rape and servitude? Live-streamed executions from Syria? Revenge porn or snuff videos? There’s no shortage of dangerous and potentially traumatising content on the web, after all, much of it disproportionately affecting women. Alas not. The UN is hung up on “cyber violence against women,” a Kafkaesque term that is apparently shorthand for “women being criticised on the internet.” At least, that’s how at least two attendees at the launch of the UN report, published by the United Nations Broadband Commission, explained it yesterday. According to feminist culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, who spoke at the event, online “harassment” doesn’t simply consist of what is “legal and illegal,” but “also the day-to-day grind of ‘you’re a liar’ and ‘you suck,’ including all of these hate videos that attack us on a regular basis.” Unable to prove that they are the victims of a wave of “misogynistic hate” – no bomb threat against a feminist critic of video games has ever been deemed credible and there are serious doubts about threats supposedly levelled at transsexual activist Brianna Wu – feminists are trying to redefine violence and harassment to include disobliging tweets and criticisms of their work. In other words: someone said “you suck” to Anita Sarkeesian and now we have to censor the internet. Who could have predicted such a thing? It’s worth noting, by the way, that if Sarkeesian’s definition is correct, Donald Trump is the world’s greatest victim of “cyber-violence.” Someone should let him know.  [lol  Milo's always so funny.] Sarkeesian’s comments were echoed by former video game developer, feminist activist and professional victim Zoe Quinn, who told the United Nations: “There are individuals on YouTube who have made a living off of [sic] abusing Anita and I.” Quinn does not name any specific YouTubers, and we are left guessing as to who these mysterious “abusers” really are. Hmm. Quinn makes more than $3,000 a month on donation site Patreon as she travels around the world talking about her “harassment” story. If anyone is turning a profit from alleged “online abuse,” it’s not the YouTubers. The message from the UN seems to be: “cyber-violence” against women, at least according to their invited guests, is somehow equivalent to getting thumped, or bullied, or abused in real life, and it’s worth clamping down on basic free speech provisions to insulate these delicate first-world feminist wallflowers from the consequences of their own purposefully provocative statements. The UN ignores the fact that both of their high-profile invitees are professional wind-up merchants who have capitalised on a media environment in which it has become acceptable to say almost anything about “straight white males” and which women, no matter how preposterous their opinions, can get column inches for saying they’ve been “threatened.” (No journalist will ever check their claims.) Sarkeesian and Quinn are perhaps the finest living examples of what I call quantum superstate feminism, whose figureheads are at once aggressor and victim; trolling, provoking and ridiculing their ideological opponents while at the same time crying foul when their provocative language is returned in kind. Somehow, I doubt women in actual peril outside Europe and the US will have much time for this self-regarding baloney. Ridicule and criticism are not harassment. What your guests have done on the internet is harassment. @googleideas — Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) September 23, 2015 The UN report itself contains a number of bizarre attempts to equate critical tweets on the internet with physical violence. “A cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch” says the report. In their press release, UN Women claim that “cyber violence … places a premium on emotional bandwidth.” It doesn’t tell us what “emotional bandwidth” means, so we are left to guess. It sounds like “emotional quotient,” which girls say their boyfriends are lacking despite their higher IQs. Nonetheless, the concept of “emotional bandwidth” raises interesting questions. Is it a crime when Netflix starts buffering during a romantic comedy? Inventing nebulous terms is a speciality of the UN. It allows them to “take action” (that is: issue reports no one reads) on something that doesn’t exist, which disguises their impotence when dealing with real human rights abuses. Needless to say, not everyone agrees that “cyber-violence” and “emotional bandwidth” are urgent humanitarian issues. Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha — Tyler, The Creator (@fucktyler) December 31, 2012 Tyler isn’t alone. As the Washington Post’s Caitlin Dewey points out, the UN’s grand plan to censor the web fights against the rising tide of cultural libertarianism. If UN Women think they have civil society on their side, they are mistaken. Everyone from academics and Hollywood actors to gamers and reddit users are sick of mendacious, sinister and profoundly anti-intellectual attempts to attack free expression with bizarre concepts like “cyber-violence” and “safe spaces.” Even Dewey, a critic of unfettered free speech on the web, thinks the UN’s recommendations are “several steps too revolutionary.” The UN report’s ham-fisted attempt to equate unwelcome words with violence isn’t its only problem. Its explicit focus on women is never justified, and runs contrary to the data. Research from the Pew Centre has found that “men and women are equally likely overall to have experienced “severe” [online] harassment.” (The research also found that women are twice as likely to be upset by online harassment, but that’s a separate question.) Yet the U.N. group appears to think women’s online harassment merits a special focus. Why? The UN report’s explanation of the causes of “online cyber violence” echoes the tired language of 1990s moral panics, and in some cases even relies on outdated research from the same period. It blames the “mainstreaming of violence against women” on “popular music, movies, the gaming industry, and the general portrayal of women in popular culture.” As an enterprising redditor has discovered, the UN’s source is an article from 2000, describing the theories of former Army psychologist Lt. Colonel David Grossman, which accuses Nintendo of manufacturing “equipment for satanic video games.” In the aftermath of the Columbine school shootings, Grossman appeared on TV alongside the evangelical moral crusader Jack Thompson, where he supported Thompson’s argument that video games “trained” school shooters. The report also has a strange preoccupation with pornography, which it accuses of causing “aggressive behavioural tendencies” as well as “increased interest in coercing their partners into unwanted sex acts.” Their citation is a link to “Stop Porn Culture,” a campaign group chaired by the militantly sex-negative and widely criticised feminist Gail Dines. Other citations in the report are dead links to old blog posts. One has to wonder if the UN expected anyone to fact-check it at all. Given that most of their “reports” are boondoggles, I suspect they’re surprised by all the attention. You’d think UN Women would have more pressing concerns than porn, video games, and “cyber violence.” After all, Saudi Arabia, a country with a real violence against women problem, was recently selected to chair a key human rights panel elsewhere in the sprawling UN ecosystem. But ethical priorities don’t seem to be the UN’s strong suit. It can be pointless and pedantic to play what some of us call “Oppression Olympics,” but in this case the discrepancy between this UN group’s complaints and the real suffering of women is too great to ignore. In a world afflicted by female genital mutilation, forced marriages and acid attacks on girls whose only crime is wanting an education, the UN has chosen to focus on the professional whinging of privileged and mendacious western activists. The UN has always been a joke, but in this case, by providing a platform for such ludicrously entitled windbags, they have provided us all with the punchline themselves. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/25/u-n-womens-group-calls-for-web-censorship/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT What, in my view, amounts to Western social and political oppression, driven by a melange of exploitative politicians and their parties, supranational organisations, non-government organisations, interest groups, various media darlings, the complicit corporate media, and leftist independent media, is suffocating. Social media 'victimhood' lobbying culture has a parallel industry of 'victimhood' professional media messaging, sensationalising, and delivering a Chinese water torture of incessant dripping of subjective and agenda-driven complaint and sermon of one kind or another, posing as 'universal truth', delivered from a position of moral 'authority,' insisting the world is not as it ideally 'should' be, according to these self-appointed 'authorities' and their 'victim' ego identified exhibits, various 'supporters,' and other professional beneficiaries of 'victimhood' of some kind or other. Self-interested and/or agenda-pushing parties receive rewards of a personal, professional and/or political nature, while pushing for a state-mandated emotional and social 'nirvana', that defies reality. What they have in common is exploitation of what they portray as the 'need' to 'protect' some group or other (the designated 'victim', portrayed as 'helpless' etc), and calling for measures that ultimately put at risk important civil (and therefore political) liberties of all people.  And when dealing with the internet, any incursion on freedom of speech is not merely confined to the nations of specific agenda-pushers; detrimental impact is amplified:  internationally. Taking a 'protective' path concerning freedom of expression and freedom of speech, will not deliver the blissful conditions sought. Instead, we can expect:  state-serving, and  state enforced, social and political oppression and sterility. Milo's right about the UN being a joke.  On top of publicly severing heads in the hundreds per annum, Western ally, Saudi Arabia has recently sentenced a teenager to crucifixion. As well as benefiting politicians that wish to stifle dissent and criticism (and abusers of power the world over that wish to silence critical voices), the path of censorship also benefits heavy-duty oppressors such as Saudi Arabia, when censorship is used (as it will be) to stifle criticism and information. Freedom of speech (and therefore personal and political freedom) should be vigorously defended, first and foremost. As a measure of where we are heading, check out the following item. An Oxford educated libertarian described the item as 'beyond parody' and an example of politically correct student union suppression of free speech: http://home.warwickpride.org/welfare/safe-space-policy/ Read ... and, once you've stopped laughing:  weep.  But do it quietly.  lol [*Had to take a second look at that, as I thought that maybe he was mistaken and that this had nothing to do with students.  Nope, he's not mistaken.] Other Source | here Source | here Source | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- ꕤ

Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry

November 08, 2012 Who Will Watch the Watchmen? Amnesty International and the Human Rights Industry by DANIEL KOVALICK When I studied law at Columbia in the early 1990s, I had the fortune of studying under Louis Henkin, probably the world’s most famous human rights theoretician.   Upon his passing in 2010, Elisa Massimino at Human Rights First stated in Professor Henkin’s New York Times obituary that he “literally and figuratively wrote the book on human rights” and that “[i]t is no exaggeration to say that no American was more instrumental in the development of human rights law than Lou.” Professor Henkin, rest his soul, while a human rights legend, was not always good on the question of war and peace.  I know this from my own experience when I had a vigorous debate with him during and continuing after class about the jailing of anti-war protestors, including Eugene V. Debs, during World War I.  In short, Professor Henkin, agreeing with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, believed that these protestors were properly jailed because their activities, though peaceful, constituted a “clear and present danger” to the security of the nation during war time.  I strongly disagreed. That Professor Henkin  would side with the state against these war protestors is indicative of the entire problem with the field of human rights which is at best neutral or indifferent to war, if not supportive of it as an instrument of defending human rights.   This, of course, is a huge blind spot.   In the case of World War I, for example, had the protestors been successful in stopping the war, untold millions would have been saved from the murderous cruelty of a conflict for which, to this day, few can adequately even explain the reasons.   And yet, this does not seem to present a moral dilemma for today’s human rights advocates.  (I will note, on the plus side, that Professor Henkin did become increasingly uneasy with the Vietnam War as that conflict unfolded, and specifically with the President’s increasing usurpation of Congress’s war authority). In the end, it was not from Professor Henkin, but from other, dissident intellectuals who I learned the most about human rights and international law.  The list of these intellectuals, none of whom actually practice human rights in their day job, includes Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Jean Bricmont and Diana Johnstone.  And of course, I have read a lot of what they have to say on this subject on these very pages of CounterPunch. And, what all of these individuals have emphasized time and time again is that international law, as first codified in the aftermath of World War II in such instruments as the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter, was created for the primary purpose of preserving and maintaining peace by outlawing aggressive war.   And, why is this so?  Because the nations which had just gone through the most destructive war in human history, with its attendant crimes of genocide and the holocaust, realized full well that those crimes were made possible by the paramount crime of war itself.  As Jean Bricmont, then, in his wonderful book Humanitarian Imperialism, explains, the first crime for which the Nazis “were condemned at Nuremberg was initiating a war of aggression, which, according to the 1945 Nuremberg Charter, ‘is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes is that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’” In other words, the logic of the very founders of international law, including international human rights law, was that, to preserve human rights, the primary task of nations is to ensure peace and to prevent war which inevitably leads to the massive violation of human rights.  As Noam Chomsky has noted for years, quite notably in his 1971 Yale Law Review article entitled, “The Rule of Force in International Affairs,” 80 Yale L.J. 1456, one of the very first substantive norms established by the UN Charter is prohibition against aggressive war.   Such a norm is contained, as Chomsky relates, in Article 2(4) which provides that all UN members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force . . . .”   And, contrary to the position of the new humanitarian interventionists, Article 2(7) of the Charter specifically states that “[nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state . . . .” Sadly, as Chomsky noted even back in 1971, these norms, the paramount ones of the entire UN system, have sadly been read out of international law.   And, they have been read out by, among others, such chief human rights groups as Amnesty International (AI) and Human Rights Watch (HRW).   As Jean Bricmont, citing international law scholar Michael Mandel, explains in Humanitarian Imperialism, while AI and HRW urged all “’beligerents’” (without distinguishing between the attackers and the attacked) at the outset of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq to respect the rules of war, neither group said a word about the illegality of the war itself.  As Bricmont quite correctly stated, “[t]hese organizations are in the position of those who recommend that rapists use condoms,” ignoring the fact that once the intervention they failed to oppose  “takes place on a large scale, human rights and the Geneva Conventions are massively violated.” This brings us to the present time.   Just last week, Amnesty International issued a long statement in opposition to an article I penned for Counterpunch on “Libya and the West’s Human Rights Hypocricy.”   AI, in its counter-blog, entitled, “A Critic Gets it Wrong on Amnesty International and Libya” (see, owl.li/eYmTb), AI claims that I was wrong in stating that it had supported  the NATO intervention in Libya.  AI, affirming the critiques of Bricmont and Mandel, claims in this blog, that “Amnesty International generally takes no position on the use of armed force or on military interventions in armed conflict, other than to demand that all parties respect international human rights and humanitarian law.”  AI then goes on to try to clarify that, in advance of the NATO intervention in Libya, AI, in a February 23, 2011, release, merely called on the Security Council to take immediate measures against Libya and Gaddafi, including [but not limited to] freezing the assets of Gaddafi and his senior military advisers, and investigating the possibility of a referral to the International Criminal Court. In its blog contra my article, AI claims that it called for such action based upon Gaddafi’s  verbal “threat to ‘cleanse Libya house by house’” to end the resistance.  While this is true, this is not the whole truth.   Thus, in AI’s Feburary 23, 2011 release, it also based this call upon “persistent reports of mercenaries being brought in from African countries by the Libyan leader to violently suppress the protests against him.”   And, as we learned from our own Patrick Cockburn in an Independent article from June 24, 2011, entitled, “Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as a weapon of war,” Amnesty ended up debunking the reports (though well after NATO’s attack against Libya had begun)  that Gaddafi was bringing in foreign mercenaries to fight. As Cockburn, citing Donatella Rovera, senior crisis response adviser for Amnesty International, explains:     “Rebels have repeatedly charged that mercenary troops from Central and West Africa have been used against them. The Amnesty investigation found there was no evidence for this. “Those shown to journalists as foreign mercenaries were later quietly released,” says Ms Rovera. “Most were sub-Saharan migrants working in Libya without documents.” In other words, AI, on Feburary 23, 2011, was calling for Security Council action against Libya based upon reports about foreign mercenaries which it would later conclude were false, and upon verbal threats Gaddafi had made  — very weak bases indeed for Security Council action. And what about the calls for such action themselves?  As we all know, the Security Council did act, authorizing a NATO attack upon Libya which began on March 19, 2011.  The ordering of such an attack was a possible and indeed likely action which the Security Council would take, especially given that countries like the U.S. and France were aggressively pushing for such action at the time.  And, AI full well knew this, and its calls for Security Council action worked in tandem with the efforts of the U.S. and France to obtain authorization for such an intervention. In other words, AI, based at least in part on false reports, was pushing for Security Council action which it knew could, and most likely would, result in the authorization of force against Libya.  And indeed, AI’s other call for possible referral of sitting Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court was tantamount to a call for armed intervention, including regime change, because only such intervention could bring about the hauling of sitting government officials to The Hague.   AI’s current professions of neutrality on the issue of intervention notwithstanding, it can truly be stated that AI supported the intervention that took place in March of 2011 as an objective matter. And sadly, this objective support was based in part on false reports of foreign, black mercenaries being brought into Libya.   These false reports of mercenaries, in addition to feeding the calls for intervention, had another terrible effect – they helped lead to the massive reprisals against black Libyans and foreign guest workers during the conflict in Libya and continuing after the time that Gaddafi was toppled.   The most notable of such reprisals was the utter destruction of the town of Tawarga, a town largely populated by black Libyans, by anti-Gaddafi rebels.  To its great discredit, AI, in its rush to push for Security Council intervention, spread the very false reports which fueled such acts of vengeance. And, what about AI’s response to crimes committed by NATO’s intervention in and bombing of Libya?  AI, in its response to my article, cites to its criticism of NATO as evidence of its even-handedness in responding to the conduct of all sides of the Libyan conflict.  Specifically, AI cites to the following criticism it made as such evidence:     Although NATO appears to have made significant efforts to minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties, scores of Libyan civilians were killed and many more injured. Amnesty International is concerned that no information has been made available to the families of civilians killed and those injured in NATO strikes about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury. Of course, this mere criticism demonstrates AI’s utter lack of even-handedness.   First of all, in order to please its NATO patron, AI obviously felt compelled to lead its criticism with a compliment – patting NATO on the back for allegedly trying to “minimize the risk of causing civilian casualties,” as if aerial bombardment of major cities can ever constitute the minimization of such risks. Then, AI complains that “no information has been made available” to the families of civilians killed or injured “about any investigations which may have been carried out into the incidents which resulted in death and injury.”   What “investigations” is AI referring to here?  Clearly, AI is complaining that NATO, left to police itself, has not shared the results of its own investigations into its own crimes. The truth is that AI, which called for Security Council and possible ICC action against Libya as NATO was sharpening its knives to invade, has not called for a body outside NATO (e.g., the ICC) to investigate and possibly prosecute NATO officials for their crimes.  What is good for the goose then, is not good for the gander in AI’s view.  Of course, the ICC does not exist to prosecute those from the paler, Western countries.   No, the ICC (which the U.S. is not even a signatory to and is therefore exempt from) is, in practice, for the darker races of the poorer countries; for those from Africa, Asia, and from time to time, the lesser Slavic nations.  And, therein lies the problem inherent in the entire international human rights system of which AI is an integral part. As we learn from Diana Johnstone in a CounterPunch article entitled, “How Amnesty International Became the Servant of U.S. Warmongering Foreign Policy,”  AI’s journey to becoming an appendage of the U.S. and NATO recently became complete with its appointment of Suzanne Nossel as the new Director of Amnesty International USA.  Diana Johnstone explains that Suzanne Nossel openly advocated, and indeed coined the term, “soft power” projection by the U.S. when she served in her last job as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations at none other than the U.S. State Department.  And, as Jean Bricmont notes in Humanitarian Intervention, and as Ms. Nossel herself and AI fully understand, “soft power” only works because it has the very real threat of “hard power” (including economic sanctions and military intervention) behind it.  AI has sadly forgotten that the wielding of such power by the rich countries to bully the weak is forbidden by the UN Charter which prohibits both the actual use and threat of force.   It is those prohibitions which must be enforced first and foremost to truly protect human rights. What’s more, as Diana Johnstone further explained in her CounterPunch article, Suzanne Nossel, just before being hired by AI, played a direct role while at the U.S. State Department in ginning up the pretexts for the NATO intervention in Libya.   Ms. Johnstone explains that,  “As Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations, Ms. Nossel played a role in drafting the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution on Libya. That resolution, based on exaggeratedly alarmist reports, served to justify the UN resolution which led to the NATO bombing campaign that overthrew the Gaddafi regime. “  In other words, Ms. Nossel’s role in pushing the NATO intervention was similar to that of AI’s at the time, with both pushing exaggerated, and indeed false, claims to justify stepped up action against Libya. AI’s current attempts to distance itself from the very NATO intervention which AI and Ms. Nossel worked together to help bring about simply do not ring true.  I would submit that it is time for AI to do some real soul-searching on the issue of whether it wants to serve the interests of human rights or to serve the interests of NATO and Western military intervention, for it truly cannot serve both masters. Daniel Kovalik is a labor and human rights lawyer living in Pittsburgh.  He currently teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/08/amnesty-international-and-the-human-rights-industry/ COMMENT HILLARY CLINTON WE CAME, WE SAW, HE DIED .... HAHAHHAHHAAAA ***** International law and humanitarian organisations are a bad joke. How many acts of aggression has the US committed since the post WWII UN charter? The US 'defender' of the world's humanity, freedom, democracy, and all that manipulative pretext baloney, isn't even a signatory to the ICC and is exempt from being tried for war crimes, while the human rights brigade work in tandem with Western warmongers (serving corporate interests) to push the US-NATO imperialist war agenda. Note also, backing intervention based on false reports & massive reprisals against black Libyans as a result. Given that UN charter prohibits intervention, why are these people even backing intervention in the first place, and why aren't they all being tried somewhere? Gaddafi - Zenga Zenga Song (Noy Alooshe Extended Version) Source:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kygc0PzaQGY

Stand by for: Killer Robots

Killer robots must be banned, warns Amnesty International By WMNDavidWells  |  Posted: April 16, 2015 DRONE-POLICE-1 Not a ‘killer robot’ – but a surveillance drone being tested by Merseyside Police in 2007 Killer robots must be banned before their “insidious creep into policing” puts lives at risk and “poses a serious threat to human rights”, Amnesty International has said as it launched a new briefing in Geneva. Amnesty said that governments must ban any further development of killer robots as there is a “likelihood that they will be used in police operations” in an address to the UN’s Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The organisation is calling for a pre-emptive ban on the development, stockpiling, transfer, deployment and use of fully autonomous weapons systems (AWS or killer robots), including drones. The call comes months after a report highlighted how police in Wiltshire, Merseyside, Staffordshire, Essex, and the West Midlands have already acquired or used drones for surveillance and other operations. That report, published last year by the University of Birmingham Policy Commission, in research led by Sir David Omand, a former director at the Government’s listening post at GCHQ, warned that authorities must look at governing how and when drones can be used. Last year, the Royal Navy also launched its first-ever squadron comprised entirely of unmanned aircraft in Cornwall. The new squadron, based at RNAS Culdrose in Helston, is also responsible for trialling the next generation of pilotless aircraft. The pilotless drones of 700X Naval Air Squadron act as 'eyes in the sky' on reconnaissance missions and and counter-piracy patrols. The fleet includes three high tech Boeing Insitu ScanEagle devices, which are launched from aircraft carriers with a giant catapult. Each plane can spend up to 18 hours in the air beaming back live footage of targets to a three-man Royal Navy operating team. The drones have previously been used to locate mines in the Gulf but will now be assigned to Lieutenant Commander Alan Rogers, whose new squadron is one of the Navy's smallest in terms of human personnel. Amnesty today said that precursors to fully autonomous weapons – including drones and other unmanned weapons systems which are currently operated by humans –are already used to commit violations and present serious challenges to ensuring accountability. But, the organisation said, rapid advances in technology could mean the next generation of robotic weapons would be able to select and attack targets, potentially killing or injuring people, without effective human control – a chilling prospect which carries a new set of concerns. “The second round of talks in Geneva this week are a clear sign that governments are waking up to the wide range of serious concerns posed by killer robots, whose development and deployment in the near future seem all but inevitable if we don’t act now,” said Rasha Abdul Rahim, Campaigner on Arms Control, Security Trade & Human Rights at Amnesty International, who is currently at the CCW talks in Geneva. “The legal, ethical, and moral quandaries of using these systems in warfare are rightly beginning to receive the attention they deserve. But what’s still being widely overlooked is the likelihood that they will also be used in police operations, and it is urgent that this is addressed now. “Relying solely on machines to maintain law and order is not just a hypothetical scenario explored in countless sci-fi films. It is a chilling idea which may actually be realized if current developments are left unchecked. Now is the time for states to ban killer robots both on the battlefield and in policing, before we reach the point of no return.” Amnesty International’s new briefing, Autonomous Weapons Systems: Five key human rights issues for consideration, focuses on the implications of police use of killer robots in law enforcement. It argues that police use of robotic weapons would be fundamentally incompatible with international human rights law, resulting in unlawful killings, excessive use of force causing injuries, and undermining the right to human dignity. Unlike highly trained law enforcement officers, robots could not by themselves peacefully diffuse confrontations, distinguish between lawful and unlawful orders, make decisions about graduated response with a view to minimising harm, or be held accountable for mistakes or malfunctions that result in death or serious injuries, Amnesty said. Fully autonomous weapons without some level of human oversight have not yet been deployed, but rapid advances in technology are bringing them closer to reality, the organisation suggested. Amnesty’s address suggested there is just a “small leap” from products that are already on the market to fully fledged killer robots. It said companies in the UK, USA, Jordan, Israel, Spain and elsewhere are already developing “less lethal” robotic weapons for policing that are remotely operated or which fire automatically when touched. These include unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, and ground vehicles that can apparently shoot electric-shock darts, tear gas and other less-lethal projectiles, resulting in the risk of death or serious injuries. One example is the ShadowHawk drone being developed by US-based Vanguard Defense Industries. The ShadowHawk is designed to carry out operations similar to those of a surveillance helicopter, but it can also be weaponised. A media report hailed these capabilities when a Texas Sheriff’s office purchased one in 2011: “Although its initial role will be limited to surveillance, the ShadowHawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, previously used against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and East Africa, has the ability to tase suspects from above as well as carrying 12-gauge shotguns and grenade launchers”. Amnesty International believes that in policing operations, autonomous weapons systems would not be able to properly assess complex policing situations and comply with relevant standards. “Under international standards, police may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty. They prohibit the use of firearms except in defence against an imminent threat of death or serious injury. It’s very difficult to imagine a machine substituting for human judgment, which is critically important to decisions on the use of potentially lethal force,” said Rasha Abdul Rahim. Amnesty International and its partners on the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots are calling for a global pre-emptive ban on the development, transfer, deployment and use of autonomous weapons systems, for either armed conflict or law enforcement. In the absence of such a prohibition, Amnesty said that states must publicly support and implement a call by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to impose a moratorium on the development, transfer, deployment and use of such systems. The organisation said that, in the meantime, “it is imperative that due consideration be given to the human rights implications of autonomous weapons systems”. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Killer-robots-banned-warns-Amnesty-International/story-26342813-detail/story.html COMMENT Thought this was an interesting article.  Militarised police is already an issue in USA and it looks like UK is heading that way. Check out what the Texas police have got!  Bet the Chicago PD's envious. Killer robots don't sound too good to me, so I'm all for stopping development etc. But Amnesty International sounds like it's another tool in the imperialist arsenal:  SYRIA: “Human Rights” Warriors for Empire Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have chosen the side of Empire in the Washington-backed belligerency http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-human-rights-warriors-for-empire/29422 EXTRACT Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are swigging the ale with their fellow buccaneers. These “human rights” warriors, headquartered in the bellies of empires past and present, their chests shiny with medals of propagandistic service to superpower aggression in Libya, contribute “left” legitimacy to the imperial project. London-based Amnesty International held a global “day of action” to rail against Syria for “crimes against humanity” and to accuse Russia and China of using their Security Council vetoes to “betray” the Syrian people – echoing the war hysteria out of Washington, Paris, London and ... Riyadh and Doha. New York-based Human Rights Watch denounced Moscow and Beijing’s actions as “incendiary” – as if it were not the empire and its allies who were setting the Middle East and Africa on fire, arming and financing jihadis – including hundreds of veteran Libyan Salafists now operating in Syria.   http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-human-rights-warriors-for-empire/29422 So the Amnesty International call for a moratorium or ban on autonomous weapons systems (killer robots), would just be what:  performance?