Tuesday, August 9, 2011

On Deck: Why I May Run for President

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON HUMAN EVENTS


Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations that “the first duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force.” Today, failing to protect our national security inevitably endangers our economic prosperity by making us vulnerable to global adversaries.

It is clear that President Obama does not agree with Smith’s wisdom. Obama’s policies are jeopardizing not only our national security and economy, but our constitutional sovereignty too.

That is why I have been considering running for President. The Republican Party must nominate a leader who, unlike Obama, understands instinctively that America’s liberty, prosperity and national security are inextricably linked.

Sadly, last week’s debt-ceiling legislation, potentially resulting in catastrophic cuts to our defense budget, only reinforces my deep concerns. This may have been the best we could get, and it is far better than we feared. But the deal risks massive defense cutbacks, potentially pointing a dagger at the heart of our security and sovereignty.

We now face a minimum of $700 to 800 billion more in defense cuts, in addition to the $400 billion Obama has already imposed, with potentially catastrophic consequences. The joint committee established to fashion the second tranche of spending cuts (or tax increases) is not likely to protect us from massive defense cuts. The liberals will be working feverishly to put conservatives on the committee in an untenable position: a Hobson’s choice between tax increases and deep cuts in defense spending.

The debt-ceiling legislation’s trigger mechanism, with its grave risk of disproportionate cuts in defense spending, is potentially even more draconian. America’s national security is not just another wasteful government program, especially in perilous times like today. We are heavily involved in two major conflicts, the long-term global War on Terror and the critical effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Recent confirmation that Iran, on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, is materially aiding al-Qaeda only underlines the risk of massive U.S. defense cuts.

President Obama, unlike all his predecessors since Franklin Roosevelt, does not treat national security as his top priority. He does not see the world as threatening to U.S. interests. And he is comfortable with America’s “inevitable” decline in the world, rather than being determined to prevent it. Obama is our first post-American President. He fancies himself to be above mere “patriotism.” He is less an advocate for American interests than a “citizen of the world,” in his own phrase.

For two-and-a-half years, Americans have witnessed the devastating results of Obama’s “post-American” worldview. Russia has taken advantage of his naïve “reset” policy, while Iran and North Korea continue to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons. Staunch allies such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Japan question our resolve. Even France thinks he lacks leadership. China and the International Monetary Fund now openly cast doubt on the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And Obama’s policy toward Libya has been an abject failure to date. He entered the conflict for the wrong reasons, failed to allow our military to accomplish its mission, invited Russia in to mediate, and now seems content to allow Muammar Gaddafi to remain in Libya. An Obama adviser called his approach “leading from behind.” Indeed it is, but it is not the American way.

Israel Victimized

No ally has been more victimized by Obama’s worldview than Israel. As our most anti-Israel President, bar none, Obama fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the security threats to Israel and the United States in the Middle East. Iran’s support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons goes unanswered. Radical groups around the region have been emboldened in the face of sustained incoherence in U.S. policy. In addition to Israel, Arab friends in the region, especially those producing oil and gas critical to the international economy, are shocked at the Obama administration’s treatment of close friends and its inability to comprehend, let alone defend, core American interests.

In addition, Obama is enamored of European-style schemes for global governance. He has naïvely called for a world in which America voluntarily gives up its nuclear weapons in hopes that our adversaries do so too. He yearns to join the International Criminal Court and risks subjecting America’s warriors to prosecutions and trial.Unable to achieve national gun-control legislation at home, he is seeking a backdoor route through an “arms trade treaty” now under negotiation at the United Nations. Despite his pro forma denials, Obama fundamentally does not believe in American exceptionalism, nor that American strength has ensured our peace and security since World War II.

Americans should understand that Obama’s international policies have a direct and profound impact on our economic prosperity. One obvious example is the devastating impact of another terrorist attack here at home, especially one with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instability abroad has a profound impact on oil and gas supplies, and therefore the price we pay to fill up the family car with gasoline. Global supply chains vital to America’s jobs are threatened when our Navy is unable to protect U.S. shipping and vital sea lanes. Our failed border security policy allows the violence of drug cartels to spill across our borders and endanger our families. Obama’s existing cuts in our defense budget, and the ones surely coming under the debt-ceiling bill, will only magnify our inability to protect ourselves.

No GOP Candidate So Far

In 16 months, Americans will again go to the polls and vote for the person they believe can best lead our country. Beyond question, Obama’s economic policies have failed to renew the economy and are now a principal reason the recovery is stalled. His national security policies are even more dangerous. The American dream is under assault, and Obama is not fighting back. We need a real President in the Oval Office, someone who knows instinctively and by experience that, as Adam Smith said, “the first duty of the sovereign” is to protect and promote American sovereignty and national security. Otherwise, economic prosperity will count for little.

To date, in my view, no Republican candidate has persuasively argued that our economic recovery and long-term prosperity are completely intertwined with a strong national security posture. If no one else is prepared to make that case, I will.

[This story was originally published as the cover story for August 8th issue of Human Events newspaper.]

Monday, August 8, 2011

Jon Il-chun, head of Bureau 39 and master of counterfeited US$100 bills alive in Pyongyang - UNDP ATM machines are finally working

N. Korean leader's fund manager makes first public appearance in 7 months
CLICK HERE FOR STORY IN YONHAPNEWS.COM
By Kim Kwang-tae
SEOUL, Aug. 8 (Yonhap) -- The head of a shadowy North Korean agency charged with managing slush funds for leader Kim Jong-il has appeared in public for the first time in seven months.

Jon Il-chun accompanied Kim on an inspection tour of a factory, the North's state television reported on July 29, which was monitored by Yonhap News Agency.




Jon, who has rarely been exposed to media, was last seen on Kim's trip to a food factory in Pyongyang in December last year.

He heads Office 39, which has often been referred to as Kim's "personal safe" for its role in raising and managing secret funds for the aging leader.

The office is also believed to be involved in counterfeiting US$100 bills and drug trafficking.

In August last year, the United States blacklisted Office 39 as one of several North Korean entities to come under new sanctions for its involvement in illegal deeds such as currency counterfeiting.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Stop asking tough questions to Helen Clark


She becomes visibly agitated and does not like to be challenged on "UNDP reforms grounds"!

Get ready America, after AA+ rating, "U.N. Green levies" will be your new TAX

Green levies to make up increased share of tax revenue

Click here for this story on Accountancyage.com

Secretary of state for environment food and rural affairs Caroline Spelman

AN INCREASED PROPORTION of tax revenues will come from environmental levies and taxes as the UK moves to a more green economy, according to a report published today.

The business, energy and environment secretaries released their "Enabling the Transition to a Green Economy" today, which indicates the government's expectation that green taxes will grow as a percentage of overall revenues, The Financial Times reports.

"The government will increase the proportion of tax revenue accounted for by environmental taxes targeting measures to maximise opportunities for green growth in the UK," said the paper.

Businesses already face a variety of environmental charges such as; the Climate Change Levy on electricity use; Carbon Reduction Commitment, which requires companies to pay for energy related emissions; and the Emissions Trading Scheme, for energy intensive companies that are supplied carbon credits and can trade unused ones on an open market.

Environment secretary Caroline Spelman, (pictured) said a green economy would offer "huge opportunities for British businesses".

Another U.N. Ponzi Scheme: - Himachal Multi-Crore Carbon Trading Scheme


UN registers Himachal's carbon trading scheme


UN registers Himachal`s carbon trading schemeNew Delhi: Himachal Pradesh's efforts in fighting climate change have been rewarded with the UN registering its multi-crore carbon trading scheme that involves providing green cover to barren 4,000 hectares in the state.

Under this scheme, over 5000 families from remote and backward villages will receive carbon revenue for the next 20 years from the World Bank for providing green cover to several areas in across 10 districts which were declared deforested before 1990.

"This is the first such project on public land to be registered for carbon trading in India," R K Kapoor, chief project director, said.

"The project will reduce 40,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually for a 20-year crediting period, beginning 2006. The project is initially for 20 years which can be extended to total 60 years period," he said.

It is expected to sequester the emission of 800 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from 2006 to 2025 by promoting bio-diversity through native species in remote areas.

Under the Emission Reductions Purchase Agreement, the bank will buy 3.5 lakh temporary certified emission reductions for plantations raised over 4,003 hectares in the first phase covering the period 2006-2018 depending on the growth of biomass, Kapoor said.

"Villagers will be paid 90 per cent of the revenue the government will get by selling the carbon credits to the World Bank," he said.

The UN has officially registered the 'HP Mid Himalayan Watershed Project' for carbon trading scheme under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at a cost of Rs 365 crore, a state government official said.

The UN scheme has set a price of about Rs 2,500 per hectare per annum of carbon which will be measured depending on the growth of tree biomass.

The biomass stocks will be periodically measured from permanent plots to estimate the carbon revenue. The measurement will be started within a year.

"The project is estimated to generate carbon revenue of at least Rs 20 crore to the communities and individual land holders for the first crediting period of 20 years, which is strong incentive to protect forest cover. The first payment is likely to be disbursed to the stakeholders in the next two years," the project director added.

Eight Billion Dollars for the U.N. -- The Other Budget Scandal

By

Published August 06, 2011

| FoxNews.com CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON FOXNEWS

For the past few weeks, we here in the U.S. have been obsessed with the debt ceiling increase and our massive budget deficit. At the same time another budget that we spend an inordinate amount of money on has flown under the radar during this vociferous and contentious debate.

While we are in an unprecedented age of austerity and the U.S. has been flirting with default, the United Nations has continued its unchecked and profligate spending.

Last week it was announced that our share of the United Nations’ budget in 2010 had increased to nearly $8 billion, a shocking 21% increase from the year prior.

Think about that for a moment.

During this time of world economic crisis, one would think that the bureaucrats at the U.N. would have pushed, if not for a cut, then to at least hold the budget stable. Even if their only reason for doing so would be to avoid the ire of the American public, which shoulders a quarter of its gravity-defying budget.

But a 21% increase? The U.N. budget has outpaced even our own U.S spending spree, eclipsing the growth in the U.S. budget over the past few years even though we have engaged in two wars and a massive spending binge to supposedly stimulate the economy.

In fact, since I began production of my movie "U.N. Me" in 2006, the U.N. budget has increased nearly 88%, even outpacing the growth in movie prices!

Most galling is that this growth in the U.N. budget has been coupled with increasing budget opaqueness and a complete lack of budgetary accountability or reform. Transparency and better management in the system was supposed to be one of the legacies of Kofi Annan, the dapper former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Yet the U.N.’s obstinacy to cut waste, prevent mismanagement and fight corruption is a sickness that eats at the very heart of the United Nations. It’s almost as if the quality of management has an inverse relationship with the amount of U.N. spending.

What is the United States getting from the U.N. at this exorbitant price? It certainly is not getting an organization that shares and promotes its values. It is still an organization made up, in large part, of countries directly hostile to the U.S and its interests.

At times it seems as if the U.S. and the U.N. are at cross purposes. For instance, we get the privilege of funding bodies that are outwardly hostile to U.S interests. We are funding nearly 30% of UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency, that employs terrorists and teaches its children to be maliciously anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-American.

We also get to fund U.N. bodies such as, the United Nations Economic Commission, which was founded in 1947, to coordinate reconstruction of post-war Europe. It is still alive and kicking with a staff of 220 and a budget of $50mm per year (it now duplicates what some European regulatory bodies do).

In fact, in 2005 a mandate registry was created to provide and review a list of all 9,000 individual mandates that the U.N. has world-wide. It concluded that a large percentage of these mandates were no longer “current and relevant.” What did the U.N. do with this seemingly vital information? Not only were a tiny percentage of these irrelevant mandates eliminated, they essentially eliminated the review process itself.

By drastically cutting into defense, education and other services, Americans are in the process of making major sacrifices to right our fiscal ship. Yet this insane increase in the U.N budget just feels like a slap in the face. With the United Nations’ self-vaunted reform process moribund, if not dead, we need to lead the U.N. and not wait for its tone deaf and in many instances corrupt technocrats to reform their house. The U.S. needs to identify the reforms and cuts necessary in the United Nations and threaten to withhold serious funding if our remedies are not implemented.

Ami Horowitz is a filmmaker. You can follow the release of his movie "UN Me" at:http://www.facebook.com/unmemovie or by visiting the website: theunmovie.com.

Friday, August 5, 2011

EXCLUSIVE: As Security Council Demands End to Syria Violence, U.N. Positions Itself for Assad 'Reforms'

By George Russell

Even as the United Nations Security Councildemands that the regime of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad cease its campaign of killing civilian protesters, the U.N. bureaucracy is extending its assistance to Syria through 2012 in the hope Assad’s vague promises of political reform and “national dialogue” will eventually prove to be real.

According to a document obtained by Fox News, the full spectrum of United Nations assistance programs in Syria have been extended through next year, “in order to ensure that reforms initiated by the government of the Syrian Arab Republic in 2011 are reflected in the new programs of cooperation of the United Nations agencies” that are slated to succeed them.

The revelation is contained in a UNICEF document dated July 22, 2011 -- in the midst of the latest wave of harsh Syrian repression -- and intended for the next meeting of UNICEF’s 36-nation executive board, in mid-September.

The document notifies the board of the extension, not only of UNICEF’s programs in Syria, but of a wide variety of other U.N. programs. It also informs the board that approval of UNICEF’s portion of the extension has already been granted by the agency’s executive director, Anthony Lake.

A copy of the document appeared on the executive board’s public website shortly after Fox News began asking questions about it.

The existence of the document underlines the dual-track tightrope the U.N. continues to walk in Syria, where it continues to engage the Assad regime with the carrots of humanitarian aid and assistance in modernizing its creaking and corrupt social welfare structure, while relying on international condemnation and targeted economic sanctions to restrain Assad’s brutal crackdown against demonstrators who want more fundamental change.

So far, an estimated 1,750 people have been killed by the regime as it tries to quell political protests, and scores more may be dead in an ongoing Syrian tank assault on the center of the insurgent city of Hamas.

A spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told Fox News that he “was not involved” in the deliberations that led to the U.N. program renewals, though he has been deeply embroiled in efforts to make the Syrian regime end the repression and embark on a reform agenda. The spokesman referred other questions about the U.N.’s Syria programs to the agencies involved.

“The Secretary General has repeated called for reforms in Syria,” the spokesman declared. Ban did so again yesterday, following a Security Council statement -- less forceful than a full-scale resolution -- condemning a new wave of regime violence that began to crest last weekend.

He condemned the “brutally shocking” events in Syria and declared that “the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people must be addressed through an inclusive Syrian-led political process that guarantees fundamental freedoms and rights for all.”

Most U.N. programs in Syria are slated to expire at the end of 2011, in line with a government five-year planning cycle, and replaced with a new series of development and humanitarian efforts. As the Assad crackdown has expanded, the U.S. and other Western governments have imposed selective economic sanctions to make the regime end its repressive tactics.

The new document obtained by Fox News specifically mentions the programs of UNICEF, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and a mixed bag of development assistance programs known as the U.N. Development Assistance Framework, or UNDAF, as continuing on an interim basis.

Click here to read the document.

The quiet renewal of the UNDAF programs, at a time when Western nations were tightening economic sanctions on the Assad regime in protest over the repression, was first reported by Fox News last month.

UNFPA’s extension of its Syria program was contained in documents Fox News obtained at that time. UNICEF declined to respond to questions from Fox News about its executive board document.

A UNDP spokesman confirmed the program renewal “to avoid operational vacuum,” while future programming was deferred to ensure that it “best meet the evolving needs of the Syrian people.”

The spokesman took issue with the “presumption” that UNDP’s future programming “was deferred to reflect reforms initiated by the Syrian government,” which he termed “incorrect.”

“UNDP is not examining current reforms with a view to incorporate them in any program,” he said. “Nor are we working with the government on their reform plans.”

Reform in Syria has mainly consisted of little more than vague speech-making by Assad and his top officials, coupled with attacks by security forces that are ongoing. And in the wake of yesterday’s Security Council statement, Assad showed that the game of promised reform and actual repression was still on.

The regime today issued a presidential decree authorizing a multi-party system in the one-party Ba’athist state, and a new elections law ostensibly giving candidates the right to oversee balloting. Both were dismissed as meaningless while the repression continued.

"It is incredible to see UN agencies referring to 'reforms initiated' by the Syrian government in 2011,” commented Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, and a deputy national security adviser for the region during the Bush administration. “The only actions the Assad regime has actually initiated this year have been aimed at killing unarmed civilians and crushing demands for freedom.”

Abrams has publicly advocated greater U.S. pressure to oust Assad entirely.

“U.S. policy should be that all U.N. activity in Syria cease, except for purely humanitarian programs carried out in entirely non-political terms,” added former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, who is a Fox News contributor. “Continued, visible U.N. cooperation with the Assad regime strengthens Assad and delegitimizes the U.N.”

But waving the reform flag while crushing his opposition has proved effective for Assad. In May, President Obama declared that Assad “has a choice.” He could lead a transition to greater democracy “or get out of the way.”

Yesterday, the Security Council took note of “the announced commitments by the Syrian authorities to reform,” regretted “the lack of progress in implementation,” and called upon the regime to "implement its commitments.”

So far, Assad appears to be doing nothing to make that happen.

George Russell is executive editor of Fox News and can be found on Twitter @GeorgeRussell.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Robert Watkins: - UNDP has an “image problem” with some groups in Lebanon who see UNDP as a subcontracting "spy agency"


Robert Watkins: ‘Hybrid’ U.N. representative
Watkins: UNRWA“unjustly criticized.” Photo courtesy of UNDP. 8-2-2011
Watkins: UNRWA“unjustly criticized.” Photo courtesy of UNDP. 8-2-2011

BEIRUT: Only 10 countries in the world require a “hybrid” United Nations representative, due to their unique mix of humanitarian, socioeconomic and political requirements.

Lebanon is one such country, and Robert Watkins, fills that role. As U.N. Resident Coordinator for Lebanon he must oversee the work of the 27 agencies that work in the country. He is also U.N. Development Program Resident Representative in Lebanon and Deputy Special Coordinator for Lebanon.

Arriving to Lebanon in February, the then-biggest obstacle was political stagnation, after the collapse of the former administration. Now that this hurdle has passed, the real work must begin.

After introductory meetings, the response from the current administration has been excellent, Watkins says.

“I met [Prime Minister Najib] Mikati Saturday and all of the issues that I wanted to bring to his attention, he had already raised in the ministerial statement and he reiterated in our meeting his commitment to follow up on those issues.”

Those main issues, for Watkins, are issues relating to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon: the importance of the Lebanese Palestinian Dialogue Committee, the completion of the reconstruction of the Nahr al-Bared camp, the full implementation of legislation allowing Palestinians to have access to the labor market and own property, and finding additional funds to support UNRWA, the U.N. agency which works with Palestinian refugees.

“Moral support to UNRWA,” is also vital, Watkins says, as it “has been unjustly criticized over the last few months by various sectors.”

A summer camp to have been led by UNRWA at Sidon’s Ain al-Hilweh camp was canceled in early July after the Popular Committees of the camp said the program was funded by the U.S. and was designed to presenting a disingenuous version of Palestinian history.

Watkins also admits that the UNDP has an “image problem” with some groups. One major issue, since Watkins’ arrival, has been controversy surrounding the UNDP expert assistance program. Requested by former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri after the end of the 1975-90 Civil War in the absence of a functioning civil service, the program allows the UNDP to find and contract experts with specific technical fields to various government ministries.

Staff are paid not by the U.N. but by the ministries themselves and the idea was always supposed to be temporary, allowing the government to build their own civil service.

Recently it has come under criticism from some in the March 8 camp, who, in Watkins’ words, “had this completely bizarre idea that this was some kind of tentacles that the U.N. had that was controlling the Lebanese government and dictating how it would work and that money was coming from the United States … and it was the furthest thing from the truth.”

Upon his arrival in Lebanon, Watkins saw that this is an unsustainable program, the continued existence of which provides no incentive to the government to reform the civil service. At Watkins’ meeting with Mikati over the weekend, the prime minister agreed, in principle, to phase out the program.

This does not mean, Watkins says, that technical support from the UNDP will cease completely, and the agency will continue to recommend and contract experts in certain fields, for short-term periods, to the Lebanese government as requested.

Watkins says that March 8 actors were also claiming the expert program was only working with March 14 staff. On this issue Watkins is adamant that, “We are willing to work with whatever government is in place, regardless of its political affiliations. This is completely non-politicized assistance which has been politicized by some actors.”

With Mikati, Watkins also discussed the issue of electoral reform, which, he says, the prime minister “was very reassuring that it is something which is extremely high on their agenda.”

Electoral reform and a wider change in governance are vital for Lebanon to develop, Watkins says, and the biggest challenge facing the country is the “very unequal distribution of wealth.”

Citing the environment as a major concern, Watkins says, “Solutions are known to everyone, but because of the governance issues, it is difficult for the country to solve those problems.”

“The sectarian system provides lots of challenges to governance issues … Too much of the politics of the country is rooted in sectarian affiliations rather than issues that impact the country.”

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on August 02, 2011, on page 3.

Durban III: The Monaco Factor

by Claudia Rosett @ PajamasMedia.com

On Sept. 22, the United Nations will strike a blow for bigotry, by hosting Durban III — the third in what has become a series of UN gatherings dedicated in name to fighting racism, but devoted in practise to whipping up and institutionalizing anti-Semitism. The UN’s so-called “Durban process” singles out Israel for opprobrium. The UN’s first Durban conference, held in South Africa, in 2001, turned into such a mob attack on Israel that the U.S. delegation walked out. The UN’s second Durban “review” conference, held in Geneva, in 2009, had its preparatory committee chaired by Libya, and featured as a star speaker Iran’s Holocaust-denier-in-chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The U.S. boycotted that conference, and when Ahmadinejad began to speak, a parade of Western delegates walked out.

Undeterred, the UN General Assembly is now planning to hold Durban III at the UN’s headquarters in New York, timed to coincide with the annual pileup of heads of state who come every September to tie up midtown Manhattan traffic and speak at the UN General Assembly’s annual opening. Preparations are already well-advanced for providing the assembled worthies with a full day of opportunities to “commemorate” the bigotry of the original Durban conference, as Anne Bayefsky of EyeontheUN reports in her latest article on “U.N. Busy Deciding How to Slam Israel.

The good news — such as there is — is that six countries have now announced they will not attend Durban III: Canada, the U.S., Israel, the Netherlands, Italy, and the Czech Republic all want no part of this Durban grotesquerie. The bad news is that with only half a dozen countries pulling out to date, that leaves 187 of the UN’s 193 member states (South Sudan was just enrolled by the UN as the 193rd member) either unwilling to take a stand for decency, or eager to go ahead with yet another UN festival of anti-Semitism.

What is to be done? Well, sometimes leverage can be found in strange places. So here’s something to ponder. Preparations for Durban III are being “co-facilitated” by two countries, and an odd coupling it is: Cameroon and Monaco.

There’s no point in expecting decency from the longtime dictatorship of Cameroon — which, while serving at the UN as a grandee of Durban III, has reportedly failed to end slavery on its own turf, and has fostered a system that human rights watchdog Freedom House describes as a sinkhole of cronyism, discrimination against women, and “a transit center for child trafficking.”

But what about Cameroon’s Durban III partner, Monaco? Yes, the Monaco of glamor, fashion, and oh-so-up-market Western civilization? The Monaco of the late Grace Kelly, of charity balls, of fancy royal photos and the recent wedding of Prince Albert. Monaco, with its tiny population of just under 36,000, enjoys a lovely rating by the U.S. State Department as a place where in 2010 there were no reports of anti-Semitic attacks or discrimination against any religion.

Surely, if Monaco carries on lending its name and reputation to Durban III, Monaco’s good name is due for quite a downgrade. This is a conference that the U.S., Canada, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic have all decided to spurn because, in the words of the U.S. government: “The Durban process included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism.” Does Monaco really want to make its mark at the UN as a high-end caterer to anti-Semites?

By the same token, little Monaco could do the world a big favor — by wising up and pulling out of Durban III. As “co-facilitator” of the General Assembly preparations to date, Monaco could punch well above its weight, should it decide even at this late hour to do a U-turn and boycott the conference. Unlike the quisling project of arranging the panel discussions and place settings for Durban III, backing away from the entire “commemoration” would be an act of genuine leadership, and — frankly — self-respect. Is anyone at the State Department making that case to the eminences of Monaco?

The U.N. Exposed : How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World

by Eric Shawn

Hardcover: 336 pages
ISBN: 1595230203

The "U.N. Exposed" takes you behind closed doors and reveals what really goes on when the diplomats gather in the name of the world body. The United Nations was created after World War II to promote peace and international understanding. But over the years, and today more than ever, the U.N. has failed to achieve its original mission. It has failed to address the most dangerous threats facing the civilized world, refused to condemn terrorist acts, encouraged America's enemies, and supported some of the world's most oppressive governments all while wasting billions of dollars. The book reveals how the vaunted Security Council was bought off by the very forces it is supposed to supervise, from Saddam's billions to Iran. The book gives a rare inside tour of the United Nations, focusing on many disturbing aspects that have been ignored by the mainstream media:

  • How U.N. supervised funds were diverted into weapons used against American troops.
  • How terrorists and rogue states seeking nuclear weapons flout toothless U.N. demands.
  • How our allies' selfish economic interests drive U.N. backed challenges to American interests.
  • How kickbacks, bribes, and corruption have pervaded the highest echelons of the U.N.
  • How U.N. ambassadors and staff enjoy luxurious and tax-free Manhattan lifestyles and other perks.

"The U.N. Exposed" relies on numerous interviews with United Nations diplomats, executives, staff, as well as U.N. reports and transcripts of closed door meetings to document its inner workings. How France, Russia and China were blatantly bribed by Saddam's regime through billions in contracts, the infamous Oil for Food scandal, and what Saddam's own officials admit was "Saddam's Bribery System" to win support at the U.N. How the U.N has given Iran a 21 year head start to develop its nuclear technology. And how when it comes to terrorism, U.N. diplomats admit its efforts are merely 'lip-service', or utterly inadequate. If the U.N. is to reform, this book provides the starting place. You will also learn how U.N. diplomats use plastic credit card-like ID's to skimp out on paying sales tax on their cheeseburgers, and how the non-profit, humanitarian organization houses its chief executive in one of the most expensive and elegant private mansions in Manhattan. It took a long-time New York City Hall and crime reporter to show up in U.N. World and ask..."what's going on here?" The answer, is "The U.N. Exposed".

> > Read an Excerpt from "The U.N. Exposed"