Ivory Coast

I have made the early New Years resolution to blog more or maybe broadcast my thoughts via Ustream…but we’ll see how long that lasts.

Anyway, today’s story comes from Africa.

When a person has seized control of a country, open fired on UN troops and demanded that they get out, are they really going to pay attention to sanctions?

The UN, toothless as it is, needs to play a more prominent role in ensuring that it’s values are adhered to. This means that it cannot be hijacked by bigoted countries looking to curtail human rights of gays or those who wish to speak out about religion. It also means that when it see’s something like this happen, it has to act in a meaningful way.

The sanctions will not work as from all appearances, the only language that Gbagbo knows is violence. I’ll go on record now and say that if the UN presences diminishes in anyway whatsoever this will become yet another sad and unnecessary conflict on the African continent.

What’s needed to overcome this is a show of force from the international community under the direction of the UN. Without this, Gbagbo will continue to have his way in direct opposition to the values that the UN stands for.

Advertisements

United Nations Racism Summit

So; the United Nations decides to hold a summit on Racism and various countries walk out because of the comments from Iran’s Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But typically, no one, no one single nation is actually acknowledging the Elephant in the room.

For those of you who do not have time to click on the above link, here is a summary of the article:

Quote
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement criticizing Ahmadinejad for using the conference “to accuse, divide and even incite.”

Ban said he had spoken to the Iranian president and asked him not to focus on “divisiveness” in his address.

“It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian president,” Ban said.

Ahmadinejad’s Comments
During Monday’s speech, Ahmadinejad paused a moment, then continued: “In fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

“It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide,” he said, echoing Tehran’s official line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Some Facts
Israel was established in 1948 as a homeland for Jewish people after the Holocaust, on land also claimed by Palestinians.

Ahmadinejad said Zionism, the Jewish national movement, “personifies racism” and accused Zionists of wielding economic and political resources to silence opponents.

The Jewish Response
Speaking at a Holocaust remembrance service in Jerusalem, Israeli President Shimon Peres said Ahmadinejad’s address “constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it.”

“It is hard to fathom why despots such as Hitler the Nazi, Stalin the Bolshevik and Ahmadinejad the Persian chose the Jews as the main target for their hatred, their madness and their violence,” Peres said. “Perhaps they targeted the Jewish people because of its spiritual power – a nation poor in material possessions, but rich in values — for he who is infected with megalomania fears the power of the spirit.”

Europe’s response
A number of European countries had vowed to walk out if Iran’s president made offensive remarks.

“The UK unreservedly condemns Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s offensive and inflammatory comments. Such outrageous, anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a U.N. anti-racism forum,” said Peter Gooderham, Britain’s envoy to the U.N. in Geneva.

The UN Organisers comments

While rejecting the boycott, Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, urged reporters “not allow this one intervention to mar the conference.

“I prefer to move on,” she said at a news conference after Ahmadinejad’s speech. She also criticized the delegates who walked out during his speech, saying his “unsavory remarks” did not “provide justification for anyone to walk out of the conference.”

Pillay said Sunday that she regrets — and is “shocked” by — the United States’ decision to boycott.

So why is it that no one actually addresses the real reason behind all of this dissent? That no one is addressing the Elephant in the room? – because the real reason, the Elephant? The Elephant is religion!

Interestingly enough, this is the same department of the United Nations that seems to be extending this misplaced sense of non-questioning to entertaining the notion of criticising religion being against human rights.

However, luckily for all of the intelligent, free thinking individuals in the world, there is a response in the works.

The more I think about this the more outraged I become. In short, my view is…

  • Religion is a belief that someone has
  • Religion is not a human and therefore is not entitled to the same rights as a human
  • Further more, Religion (applied equally to all religions) is simply a collection of myths and legends that different groups of society assume as true without questions
  • Trying to censor critisism of religion under the guise of human rights is simple a thinly disguised form of censorship and, infact, a restriction in freedom of speech

If a logical line of questioning is applied to any religion then that religion will not hold up as true. Thus we can see the religious motivation behind the positioning that “belief without question” is a virtue. For if you never question religion, you will never see how full of falsehood it actually is.

Belief without question is not a virtue but a marker of ones lack of ability to think independently and freely. By questioning religion I truly believe that you can remove it.

So now I’ll get back to the UN racism summit.

In one corner we have the Muslims and in the other corner we have the Jews.

If you question/remove religion you can remove those labels and these groups simply become people who are arguing over a place to live.
If you question/remove religion, Israel is no longer a spiritual home of anyone, but simply land.

If you question religion you remove it.

Question religion at the United Nations racism summit and you will find the true motivation behind the dissent.

Religion is driving the racism and xenophobia.

Rid the world of religion and you’re left with open minds that can be logically rationalised with.

More so, you’re a whole lot closer to one peaceful planet!

How do you deal with North Korea?

Recently, North Korea launched what they claimed was a satellite that reached orbit and then started to broadcast music back to the DPRK. According to the US and Japan, the rocket fell into the sea, did not reach orbit and is not broadcasting anything.

According to North Korea, the launch was for peaceful research purposes.

According to the US and various experts on North Korea, this was a test run for a ballistic missile.

Now the DPRK has asked all of the IAEA representatives to leave and is going to fire up their nuclear reactors again.

Now I think that North Korea and especially that little fat man Kim Jong Il are simply dressed up bullies.

My explanation is thus:
His military is very well fed and one of the largest in the world and yet the country is existing in a mire of poverty, poor education and poor healthcare.

Kim Jong Il has his “Pleasure Brigade” being simply his harem and apparently lives a life filled with all of the luxuries that he desires while the country he leads continues to suffer.

Kim Jon Il is not a leader but a short, fat bully.

Unfortunately, due to the size of his army, invading there like was done with Saddam Hussein is not really an option, given the massive loss of life that would ensure (on all sides).

Neither is fuelling the people to rise up as they are held under his tubby little fist.

Where the other countries need to focus their action is on international sanctions and covert operations.

Sanctions can work but are flawed for two reasons. The first is that Russia and China have veto power on the UN Security Council and they have a vested interest in North Korea continuing to buy their goods. For this, among other reasons I do question the effectiveness of the UN.

The second reason that imposing sanctions is not a good idea is that it’s the people who suffer. Kim Jon Il will continue to life his closeted little life while the people suffer. Banning the materials that the DPRK require to build nuclear weapons has already been done but they continue to research this.

Therefore the majority of gains are going to come from covert operations. These, to my mind should take two paths.

Military covert operations should be based around air strikes or similar designed to take out their nuclear facilities. Diplomacy is not likely to close these down so use of force, as a last resort seems one of the only options left.

Another option is to provide support for a military coup by leaders who would bring a more even keel to the leadership of North Korea. This is ultimately where I think the path will lead us to.

Kim Jong Il will have his heart attack sooner or later and a successor will take over. What the modern world needs to do is be ready to support a leader with experience and knowledge of how to do a good job, rather than the abortion of a job that this tubby, 80s sunglass wearing fatboy is doing at present.