[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:34 pm    Post subject: SECURITY COUNCIL MEETING OF WORLD LEADERS (a Must Read!) Reply with quote


Resolutions 1624 (2005), 1625 (2005) Adopted Unanimously

The Security Council today, meeting in conjunction with the 2005 World Summit at Headquarters and at the level of Head of State or Government, unanimously adopted resolutions calling for strengthened steps against terrorism and to prevent armed conflict, particularly in Africa.

Condemning in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation and the incitement of such acts, and repudiating attempts at their justification, the Council called on all States to prohibit by law such incitement, prevent such conduct, and deny safe haven to anyone guilty of such conduct.

Through resolution 1624 (2005), the Council called on all States to cooperate to strengthen the security of their international borders by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures, with a view to preventing those guilty of the above-described conduct from entering their territory.

Among its many other provisions, the text also called on States to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all necessary measures to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance.

Through resolution 1625 (2005), the Council, reaffirming the need to adopt a broad conflict prevention strategy that comprehensively addresses the root causes of armed conflict and political and social crises, expressed its determination to enhance the Organization’s effectiveness in that regard and to monitor closely situations of potential armed conflict.

Urging all African States and the international community to develop the capacities of African regional and subregional organizations to deploy civilian and military assets quickly when needed, including the development of the African Union’s African Standby Force, the Council welcomed bilateral and multilateral programmes developed to that end and expressed support for the Secretary-General’s proposal to establish a 10-year capacity-building programme for the African Union.

For its part, the Council reaffirmed its determination to take action against illegal exploitation and trafficking of natural resources and high-value commodities in areas where it contributes to the outbreak, escalation or continuation of armed conflict. It also called for strengthened coordination and communication between the United Nations organizations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, particularly with respect to mediation efforts.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, focusing his remarks on efforts to combat international terrorism following the texts’ adoption, called for the Security Council’s full backing of the five elements of his proposed comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy for the United Nations. Those included completion of a comprehensive anti-terrorism convention and denying terrorists the means to carry out their attacks -– above all, by weapons of mass destruction -- through States’ accession to the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. (For the full transcript of his remarks, see Press Release SG/SM/10092.)

The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, having tabled the text on terrorism, warned the Security Council not to underestimate what the world was facing. Terrorism was a movement with an ideology and a strategy –- not just to kill, but to cause instability and confusion among the enemies of terrorism. And, it would not be defeated until “our determination is as complete as theirs. Our defence of freedom is as absolute as their fanaticism. Our passion for democracy as great as their passion for tyranny,” he said. It would not be defeated until everyone united, not just in condemning the acts of terrorism, but in fighting the poisonous propaganda that the root cause of terrorism “lay with us and not them”.

A sponsor of the conflict prevention draft, Benin’s President, Mathieu Kerekou, asked members not to await the completion of United Nations reform, which seemed to be marking time. Starting now, he urged that the arrangements for preventive diplomacy be strengthened by establishing new capacity in various regions of the world. The Security Council could establish a regular evaluation of risk situations around the world, so as to appraise existing threats, with Africa a continued centre of attention. The time frame for the international community’s coordinated intervention in crises should be shortened, and the Council should bring its full weight to bear on the course of events through, among other things, striving to enhance regional capacities and initiatives.

Statements were also made by: Benjamin William Mkapa, President of the United Republic of Tanzania; Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation; Kostas Karamanlis, Prime Minister of Greece; George W. Bush, President of the United States; Nestor Kirchner, President of Argentina; Hu Jintao, President of China; Abdelaziz Bouteflika, President of Algeria; Traian Basescu, President of Romania; Lluiz Inacio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil; Dominique de Villepin, Prime Minister of France; Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark; Nobutaka Machimura, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan; and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines in her national capacity and as Council President for September.

The meeting began at 11:30 a.m. and was adjourned at 1 p.m.


The Security Council held a summit meeting this morning at the level of Heads of State or Government, Ministers for Foreign Affairs and other distinguished representatives of Security Council member States, to consider threats to international peace and security.

Opening Remarks

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President, Philippines, said that the United Nations had been borne of conflict and its Charter continued to address that. In light of today’s challenges, it was still adequate to provide the appropriate means to meet those challenges through its Security Council. In Madrid last March, the Secretary-General had acknowledged the need for a comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism globally. The Council’s job today was to pass a resolution to support that comprehensive strategy, as well as a resolution to prevent conflict, especially in Africa. Because the Council was the only body in the United Nations whose resolutions were binding on Member States, the Council must provide the leadership to effectively solve the problems of terrorism and conflict. The Summit meeting would now begin its consideration of the question of threats to international peace and security. Members had before them two draft resolutions.

Action on Draft Resolutions

Turning to action on draft texts, the Security Council unanimously adopted the draft resolution on prevention of incitement to terrorism, as resolution 1624 (2005).

The full text of the resolution reads, as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Reaffirming its resolutions 1267 (1999) of 15 October 1999, 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001, 1535 (2004) of 26 March 2004, 1540 (2004) of 28 April 2004, 1566 (2004) of 8 October 2004, and 1617 (2005) of 29 July 2005, the declaration annexed to its resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, as well as its other resolutions concerning threats to international peace and security caused by acts of terrorism,

“Reaffirming also the imperative to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and also stressing that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law,

“Condemning in the strongest terms all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation, whenever and by whomsoever committed, as one of the most serious threats to peace and security, and reaffirming the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter of the United Nations,

“Condemning also in the strongest terms the incitement of terrorist acts and repudiating attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts,

“Deeply concerned that incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance poses a serious and growing danger to the enjoyment of human rights, threatens the social and economic development of all States, undermines global stability and prosperity, and must be addressed urgently and proactively by the United Nations and all States, and emphasizing the need to take all necessary and appropriate measures in accordance with international law at the national and international level to protect the right to life,

“Recalling the right to freedom of expression reflected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948 (“the Universal Declaration”), and recalling also the right to freedom of expression in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1966 (“ICCPR”) and that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR,

“Recalling in addition the right to seek and enjoy asylum reflected in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration and the non-refoulement obligation of States under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees adopted on 28 July 1951, together with its Protocol adopted on 31 January 1967 (“the Refugees Convention and its Protocol”), and also recalling that the protections afforded by the Refugees Convention and its Protocol shall not extend to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,

“Reaffirming that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,

“Deeply concerned by the increasing number of victims, especially among civilians of diverse nationalities and beliefs, caused by terrorism motivated by intolerance or extremism in various regions of the world, reaffirming its profound solidarity with the victims of terrorism and their families, and stressing the importance of assisting victims of terrorism and providing them and their families with support to cope with their loss and grief,

“Recognizing the essential role of the United Nations in the global effort to combat terrorism and welcoming the Secretary-General’s identification of elements of a counter-terrorism strategy to be considered and developed by the General Assembly without delay with a view to adopting and implementing a strategy to promote comprehensive, coordinated and consistent responses at the national, regional and international level to counter terrorism,

“Stressing its call upon all States to become party, as a matter of urgency, to the international counter-terrorism Conventions and Protocols whether or not they are party to regional Conventions on the matter, and to give priority consideration to signing the International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism adopted by the General Assembly on 13 April 2005,

“Re-emphasizing that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and addressing unresolved regional conflicts and the full range of global issues, including development issues, will contribute to strengthening the international fight against terrorism,

“Stressing the importance of the role of the media, civil and religious society, the business community and educational institutions in those efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding, and in promoting tolerance and coexistence, and in fostering an environment which is not conducive to incitement of terrorism,

“Recognizing the importance that, in an increasingly globalized world, States act cooperatively to prevent terrorists from exploiting sophisticated technology, communications and resources to incite support for criminal acts,

“Recalling that all States must cooperate fully in the fight against terrorism, in accordance with their obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or commission of terrorist acts or provides safe havens,

“1. Calls upon all States to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to:

(a) Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts;

(b) Prevent such conduct;

(c) Deny safe haven to any persons with respect to whom there is credible and relevant information giving serious reasons for considering that they have been guilty of such conduct;

“2. Calls upon all States to cooperate, inter alia, to strengthen the security of their international borders, including by combating fraudulent travel documents and, to the extent attainable, by enhancing terrorist screening and passenger security procedures with a view to preventing those guilty of the conduct in paragraph 1 (a) from entering their territory;

“3. Calls upon all States to continue international efforts to enhance dialogue and broaden understanding among civilizations, in an effort to prevent the indiscriminate targeting of different religions and cultures, and to take all measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with their obligations under international law to counter incitement of terrorist acts motivated by extremism and intolerance and to prevent the subversion of educational, cultural, and religious institutions by terrorists and their supporters;

“4. Stresses that States must ensure that any measures taken to implement paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this resolution comply with all of their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law;

“5. Calls upon all States to report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee, as part of their ongoing dialogue, on the steps they have taken to implement this resolution;

“6. Directs the Counter-Terrorism Committee to:

(a) Include in its dialogue with Member States their efforts to implement this resolution;

(b) Work with Member States to help build capacity, including through spreading best legal practice and promoting exchange of information in this regard;

(c) Report back to the Council in twelve months on the implementation of this resolution.

“7. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

Then, the 15 members adopted the draft resolution on prevention of conflict, particularly in Africa, as resolution 1625 (2005).

The full text of the resolution reads, as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Decides to adopt the attached declaration on strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Council’s role in conflict prevention particularly in Africa.


“The Security Council,

“Meeting on 14 September 2005 at the level of Heads of State and Government to discuss how to strengthen the effectiveness of the Security Council’s role in the prevention of armed conflict, particularly in Africa;

“Reaffirming its commitment to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

“Bearing in mind its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security;

“Deeply concerned by the high human cost and material losses caused by armed conflicts and recognizing that peace, security and development are mutually reinforcing, including in the prevention of armed conflict;

“Reaffirming the importance of adhering to the principles of refraining, in international relations, from the threat or the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and of peaceful settlement of international disputes;

“Reaffirming the need to adopt a broad strategy of conflict prevention, which addresses the root causes of armed conflict and political and social crises in a comprehensive manner, including by promoting sustainable development, poverty eradication, national reconciliation, good governance, democracy, gender equality, the rule of law and respect for and protection of human rights;

“Recognizing the need to strengthen the important role of the United Nations in the prevention of violent conflicts, and to develop effective partnerships between the Council and regional organizations, in particular, the African Union and its subregional organizations, in order to enable early responses to disputes and emerging crises;

“Recalling the Constitutive Act of the African Union, the Protocol relating to the establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, and the African Union Non-Aggression and Common Defence Pact adopted in Abuja on 31 January 2005, as well as the African Union position on unconstitutional changes of governments, as stated in the 1999 Algiers Declaration and the 2000 Lomé Declaration;

“Recognizing the important supporting roles played by civil society men and women in conflict prevention, and the need to take into account all possible contributions from civil society;

“1. Expresses its determination to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations in preventing armed conflicts and to monitor closely situations of potential armed conflict;

“2. Affirms its determination to strengthen the United Nations conflict prevention capacities by:

(a) assessing regularly the developments in regions at risk of armed conflict and encouraging the Secretary-General to provide information to the Council on such developments pursuant to Article 99 of the Charter;

(b) promoting the follow-up of preventive-diplomacy initiatives of the Secretary-General;

(c) supporting regional mediation initiatives in close consultation with regional and subregional organizations concerned;

(d) supporting regional and subregional capacities for early warning to help them in working out appropriate mechanisms to enable prompt action in reaction to early warning indicators;

(e) requesting as necessary and appropriate information and assistance from the Economic and Social Council in accordance with Article 65 of the United Nations Charter;

(f) taking measures to contribute to combating illicit trade of arms in all its aspects and the use of mercenaries;

(g) helping to enhance durable institutions conducive to peace, stability and sustainable development;

(h) supporting efforts of African States to build independent and reliable national judicial institutions;

“3. Requests the Secretary-General to:

(a) provide to the Council regular reports and analysis of developments in regions of potential armed conflicts particularly in Africa, and as appropriate a presentation of ongoing preventive diplomacy initiatives;

(b) assist countries at risk of armed conflict in performing strategic conflict risk assessments, in implementing the measures agreed by the concerned countries, in enhancing national dispute management capacities, and in addressing the root causes of armed conflict;

(c) promote coordination with regional conflict management machinery in Africa which would provide the Security Council with additional reliable and timely information to facilitate rapid decision-making;

“4. Stresses the importance of establishing effective comprehensive strategies of conflict prevention, focused on averting negative developments in the security, economic, social and humanitarian sectors and in the field of governance and human rights in countries which are facing crises, with special attention to:

(a) developing quick win activities to prevent conflicts arising from competition for economic resources and to monitoring tension arising from economic and social issues;

(b) encouraging United Nations regional offices to facilitate the implementation of strategies aimed at curbing illicit cross-border activities;

(c) strengthening the capacities of civil society groups, including women’s groups, working to promote a culture of peace and to mobilize donors to support these efforts;

(d) developing policy measures to foster good governance and the protection of human rights in order to strengthen weakened or collapsed governance mechanisms and to end the culture of impunity;

(e) promoting the fairness and transparency of electoral processes;

“5. Stresses the critical importance of a regional approach to conflict prevention, particularly to Programmes of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, as well as the effective and sustainable reintegration of ex-combatants;

“6. Reaffirms its determination to take action against illegal exploitation and trafficking of natural resources and high-value commodities in areas where it contributes to the outbreak, escalation or continuation of armed conflict;

“7. Calls for the strengthening of cooperation and communication between the United Nations and regional or subregional organizations or arrangements, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, particularly with respect to mediation initiatives;

“8. Encourages all African States to adhere to the African Union Non-Aggression and Common Defence Pact adopted in Abuja on 31 January 2005, and to sign where appropriate subregional pacts on peace, security, democracy, good governance and development, and calls on the United Nations system and the international community to support the implementation of the Pacts;

“9. Encourages also African countries to continue to work closely with the United Nations Secretariat and United Nations regional offices in the implementation of measures aimed at securing peace, security, stability, democracy and sustainable development consistent with the objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development;

“10. Urges the international community including the United Nations system and International Financial Institutions to support African countries in their efforts to achieve the above objectives and in this respect welcomes the decisions taken by the G-8 Summit held in Gleneagles, 6-8 July 2005, for combating poverty in Africa;

“11. Urges all African States and the international community to fully cooperate in developing the capacities of African regional and subregional organizations to deploy both civilian and military assets quickly when needed, including the development of the African Union’s African Standby Force; welcomes bilateral and multilateral programmes developed to this end, and expresses its support for the Secretary-General’s proposal to establish a ten-year capacity-building programme for the African Union;

“12. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”


KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary-General, said the subject the Council was debating was a broad and complex one. Focusing his remarks on efforts to combat international terrorism in all its forms, he said terrorism constituted a direct attack on the values the United Nations stood for, namely, the rule of law, protection of civilians, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and mutual respect between people of different faiths and cultures. The Organization must be, therefore, at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. That was why, on the anniversary of the Madrid bombings, he had proposed a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy for the United Nations.

He said he was heartened that the World Summit outcome document had welcomed the elements of that strategy, and had committed to their early consideration of it in the Assembly’s sixtieth session. The strategy consisted of actions in five areas. First, it was important to work to dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic. That meant the international community should complete a comprehensive convention that outlawed terrorism in all its forms. It also meant civil society and religious leaders must raise their voices against terrorism. Everyone had to make clear that terrorism “committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes” could never be accepted or justified.

Continuing, he said it was also necessary to deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks, above all with weapons of mass destruction. The ongoing implementation of Council resolutions was critical. Five months ago, the General Assembly had reached a milestone by approving the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. He hoped States would accede to the Convention without delay. It was also important to deter States from supporting terrorism. All States must know that, if they provided support for terrorist in any form, the Council would not hesitate to take coercive measures against them. It was also necessary to develop State capacity to prevent terrorism, including promoting good governance and the rule of law. In that context, he welcomed the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund, and thanked the nearly 30 States who had supported it. Defending human rights was also essential to prevent terrorists from unravelling the very fabric of societies they attacked.

Concluding, he said the world must never forget the victims of terrorism. The Council had agreed to explore the possibility of an international fund to compensate victims and their families, to be financed in part by assets seized from terrorist organizations. He hoped members would give their full backing to all points of the strategy, ensuring that the United Nations played its role in the fight to the full.

BENJAMIN WILLIAM MKAPA, President of the United Republic of Tanzania, said terrorism, violence and conflict topped the list of current threats to international and regional peace and security. Terrorism and conflict undermined the socio-economic development of all States and threatened global stability, security and prosperity. As the custodian of international peace and security, it was important that the Council address not only those threats, but also their underlying causes. Symptoms had causes, and unless their causes were understood, they would not go away. When affected people did not see light at the end of the tunnel, poverty, injustice and exclusion became fertile grounds for crime, violence and even terrorism.

While the Council did not yet have a common definition and understanding of terrorism, he did not think that it had disagreements on its impact on society. His country had experienced the negative impact of both terrorism and conflict. It had been the direct victims of terrorism when, in 1998, the United States embassy in Dar es Salaam had been attacked by terrorists, resulting in the loss of Tanzanian lives, human injuries and the destruction of property. At the same time, his country was situated in a neighbourhood that had a long history of deadly and destabilizing conflicts.

As a country and a region, his country had tried its level best to address them and was continuing to do so, he added. The United Nations had been very helpful in Tanzania’s efforts to resolve conflicts in the Great Lakes region. The United Nations contribution had been particularly useful in the organization of the first International Conference on the Great Lakes Region in Dar es Salaam last year. In the context of regional development, he hoped that the focus on terrorism and conflict was not misplaced. In the spirit of multilateralism, the opportunity must be used to underline the importance of strengthening the United Nations role in preventing and combating terrorism and conflict. The Council needed to agree on, and pursue, an effective strategy that would legitimately and comprehensively address the root causes and underlying conditions of terrorism and conflict. That called for a holistic approach to prevention, one that addressed and recognized the nexus of, and the linkages between, development and security.

Terrorism was evil and despicable and there should be no room for equivocation or inaction, he said. Violent conflicts were evil and preventable. He called on members to summon the will and resources to build an effective global partnership between States and institutions that would work in unison to prevent and combat terrorism and violent conflicts.

VLADIMIR PUTIN, President, Russian Federation, said that the gathering here not only demonstrated the common responsibility and solidarity in combating the global terrorist threat, but underlined the fundamental importance of the United Nations and its Security Council as the key coordinating institution -- the headquarters for the international anti-terrorist front. It was here, and today, where the most important ideological, political, legal and operational framework for the fight against terrorism was being formulated. He welcomed such an approach and was ready to take practical steps to strengthen the United Nations’ central role in ensuring international security and stability.

He said that the new resolution on terrorism reflected not only the lessons learned in that war against terror, but also set new serious tasks, including the need to put an end to the incitement to terror. Such actions must be qualified as “criminal by all States without exception”. The common task was to create a truly solid front in the fight against that evil. Any attempts to condone terrorism and to “flirt” with terrorists, to use them for different political preferences or goals must be unanimously condemned. Those who advocated terrorism, propagated racism, ethnic or religious intolerance must be fought, using not only the power of the State, but also engaging civil society, the mass media, cultural and humanitarian cooperation, and inter-religious dialogue.

The Russian Federation had just signed the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and it had initiated that document, he said. His country and its partners had worked together and created an efficient legal instrument to tackle the real threat of terrorist use of mass destruction weapons. The current General Assembly session might well result in the completion of a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The issues of fighting terror and its roots, as well as further cooperation in that area, must be permanent items on the United Nations agenda, as well as that of its Security Council and other United Nations bodies.

KOSTAS KARAMANLIS, Prime Minister of Greece, said that the end of the cold war had ushered in a new era in international relations, which dissipated the threat of military confrontation among the two power blocks. The world community, however, still faced violent internal conflicts, civil wars, genocide and other large-scale atrocities, causing immense suffering to millions of people.

He said that terrorism was undeniably one of the most serious threats to peace and security, menacing the foundation of democratic societies. The signing, during the present Summit, of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the adoption during the sixtieth General Assembly session of a comprehensive convention against terrorism were very important steps in the struggle against that scourge.

Actions to combat terrorism and the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms were not mutually exclusive, he said. He fully subscribed to the recent statement of the Secretary-General that “in the long term, we shall find that human rights, along with democracy and social justice, are one of the best prophylactics against terrorism”. He welcomed the adoption of the new Security Council resolution on the prohibition of the incitement to commit terrorist acts; however, the text should not affect established principles relating to freedom of expression and “non-refoulement”.

At the same time, the United Nations should be strengthened in managing, resolving and preventing conflicts and their recurrence. Early, comprehensive and coherent prevention of conflicts lay at the heart of the Organization’s mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security. Integrated, long-term strategies to address the root causes of conflicts were needed. In that respect, he fully supported the establishment of a Peacebuilding Commission. He also supported the adoption of the Council’s resolution on conflict prevention in Africa, the most conflict-ridden continent. Yet, all of today’s threats and challenges required a more comprehensive concept of collective security and a strengthened United Nations. International regional organizations should also be effective, and international treaties should be respected.

GEORGE W.BUSH, President of the United States, said the presence of Council members today reaffirmed the seriousness of the challenges the international community faced and its determination to confront them. The Council was meeting just two months after the attacks in London, one year after the Beslan attack, and four years after the attack in New York City. Terrorism emerged from a radical ideology that justified the murder of innocent people to achieve its goals. The United States supported the resolution sponsored by the United Kingdom that, among other things, condemned the incitement of terrorism and called on all States to end such incitement. The United States strongly supported the resolution’s implementation.

He said the international community had a solemn obligation to stop terrorism in its early stages, to defend citizens against terrorism, to attack terrorist networks, and to promote an ideology of freedom that refuted the dark vision of the terrorists. Each State must act consistent with past Council resolutions to freeze terrorist assets, to deny them freedom of movement, and to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons, including weapons of mass destruction. Each State must share information to prevent attacks before they happened. The United States would continue to work with and through the Council to help nations meet commitments.

The United States reaffirmed its commitment to preventing unjust armed conflict, he continued, which was why the United States joined Algeria, Benin and the United Republic of Tanzania as co-sponsors of today’s second resolution. The United States supported the need to improve the ability of the African Union to deploy civilian and military assets to prevent conflicts. Over the next five years, the United States would provide training to more than 40,000 African peacekeepers and would help African forces to preserve justice and order in Africa. In closing, he thanked Council members for supporting today’s resolutions.

NESTOR KIRCHNER, President, Argentina, said that, despite the efforts of the international community, global peace and stability were still a remote dream. Threats to peace came from terrorism and the preservation of weapons of mass destruction. Peace was much more than a lack of conflict, but a dynamic culture which fostered dialogue and understanding. It was much more difficult to secure peace after an outbreak of conflict. Prevention required the right response to long-standing disputes, the avoidance of pandemics and famine and the other dreadful catastrophes affecting Africa. That must be the Council’s dominant agenda. At the same time, all nations were required to preserve the peace. Anyone who took shelter behind his own security would not contribute in that regard. A threat to one was a threat to all.

He said that terrorism was a threat to life and human dignity, an affront to human civilization. All terrorist acts were criminal and unjust. Any racial, ethnic or religious motivation could not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians. His country had experienced two dreadful assaults in the 1990s and shared the victims’ pain worldwide. Properly tackling terrorism required a legitimate international response. That required looking at the problem in a broader perspective, rather than unilaterally. Peace and development were mutually reinforcing, and there should be a closer relationship between preserving human rights and combating terrorism. The vulnerability of all nations -- large and small, rich and poor -- could be reversed through intelligent international action based on a legitimate respect for human rights, a proportional response and the backing of international public opinion. When responding to specific events, the rights of the individual must be defended and international law upheld.

HU JINTAO, President of China, noted that 60 years ago the founding Members had made the maintenance of international peace and security the Council’s mandate. The past decades had shown that the Council had an irreplaceable role to play in resolving major global and regional issues bearing on world peace and security. First, he said it was necessary to uphold the Council’s authority by adhering to multilateralism. Only by enhancing the United Nations’ role and maintaining the Council’s authority could it cope with increasing global threats and challenges and realize universal security. When it came to major issues, the Council should be left to judge on the merits of the actual situation and in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It was also necessary to improve the Council’s efficiency, so as to respond to threats more effectively. The Council should address both the symptoms and root causes of problems by forming a comprehensive strategy that included prevention, peace restoration, peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction.

Coercive measures alone would not solve problems, he said. What was achieved through negotiations lasted much longer. China supported an enhanced role of the Security Council in responding to terrorism and other non-traditional threats. It also supported closer cooperation between the Organization and other regional organizations in the interest of sharing resources and responsibilities. As terrorism posed a serious threat to global peace and security, the international community should act in strict accordance with the United Nations Charter and work closely to wage a more effective fight against terrorism. It was necessary to promote dialogue among civilizations, address problems such as poverty, and remove the soil that bred terrorism. It was also necessary to pay closer attention to African concerns and increase the Council’s input accordingly. China was ready to work with other Member States in advancing the lofty causes of peace and development of mankind.

ABDELAZIZ BOUTEFLIKA, President, Algeria, said the meeting could not be isolated from the discussion under way on United Nations reform. Without question, there was a link between development and peace. The United Nations’ mission quite rightly went beyond the maintenance of peace and security to dealing with economic and social development, friendly relations among States, and the right of a people to self-determination. The Security Council had the principal, but not exclusive, responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. He condemned all manifestations of terrorism, and, under the United Nations’ authority, everyone must work together to combat it. Accordingly, the draft comprehensive anti-terrorism convention should be completed as soon as possible, to fill that gap that still existed with respect to terrorism-related activities not yet covered by existing international instruments.

He called for an agreed definition of terrorism that recognized the legitimate struggle for self-determination -- a struggle covered by international law and international humanitarian law. The negative impact of globalization must also be confronted. All international bodies must do their utmost to promote cooperation and exchange information in combating terrorism. Africa’s commitment to combating terrorism was crystal clear. For example, the Algiers Convention was now in force. Algeria’s commitment to combating terrorism had enabled it to deal in a significant manner with that phenomenon. His country had emerged from a crisis, which had not prevented it from combating terrorism. It was now possible to return peace to the cities and countryside and to repair the fabric of society by encouraging social reintegration of those misled by false propaganda. There would be a referendum on 29 September on the national reconciliation policy.

TONY BLAIR, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said the Council should not underestimate what the world currently faced. Today, terrorism had claimed the lives of innocent people -- Muslims, queuing for jobs in Iraq. Terrorism had disfigured countries in every continent, with every conceivable mix of races, and religions. Terrorism was a movement with an ideology and strategy. That strategy was not just to kill, but also to cause chaos and instability, to divide and confuse. Terrorism would not be defeated until the Council’s determination was as complete as theirs and until its defence of freedom was as absolute as their fanaticism, and until its passion for democracy was as great as their passion for tyranny.

Terrorism, he continued, would only be defeated when the Council united not only in condemning acts of terrorism, but also in fighting the poisonous propaganda that the root causes of terrorism lay with the Council, and not them. Terrorists wanted the world to believe that their extremism was somehow the international community’s responsibility. “They play on our divisions. They exploit our hesitations. This is our weakness. And they know it”, he said.

There were real injustices in the world, he said. There was a duty to eradicate poverty, resolve conflicts and nation-building to deliver. But, none of that had caused terrorism. Two years ago, the Council had been divided over Iraq. But by June 2003, Saddam had been removed. Since then, in unity under resolution 1546, there had been a United Nations-backed political process to give democracy to Iraqis. They wanted democracy -– eight-and-half million voters had shown that by voting. The obstacle was terrorism and the victims were largely Muslim. It was obscene, therefore, for the terrorists to claim that their terror was in response to Western aggression against Muslims in Iraq. They used Iraq to divide the Council. Just as they used Afghanistan, where terror was the only obstacle to democracy. Just as they used Palestine, where terrorism did not create progress, but destroyed it.

It should not be forgotten, he said, that 11 September had happened before Iraq and Afghanistan. The root cause of terrorism was not a decision on foreign policy, however contentious, but was a doctrine of fanaticism. The Council had to unite to uproot it, by cooperating on security, taking action against those who incited extremism and eliminating its own ambivalence, “by fighting not just their methods, but their motivation, their twisted reasoning, wretched excuses for terror”, he said.

At the same time, the Council had to fulfil its duty to act against injustice, he said. The Council had to show its strength in democracy and tolerance. Above all, it had to demonstrate that the future did not belong to fanatics, but to those who believed in living in peace together.

MATHIEU KEREKOU, President, Benin, said there was a clear picture of the threats and challenges facing the Council at the current decisive turning point in the life of the Organization. The two resolutions adopted today properly reflected his perception of the current threats to international peace and security, which included terrorism and armed conflict. Those had achieved a threatening level fraught with consequences. It was up to the Council to identify specific and appropriate measures to be taken both at the State level and within the United Nations and the international community as a whole to step up prevention. The terrible attacks of 11 September 2001 had proved that the inconceivable was now possible.

He said he welcomed the significant progress made by the United Nations in fostering strategic guidance and multilateral cooperation. Combating terrorism required a scrupulous respect for the sovereignty of States and international law, and the protection of human rights and international humanitarian law. The activities of the Council’s counter-terrorism committees had made it possible to devise an effective monitoring apparatus, which would lend greater effectiveness to the coordinated activities, thereby promoting coherence and efficiency.

Regarding conflict prevention, he said the Council’s actions were less visible, given the impediments which were historical and conceptual in nature. The Council, therefore, should endow itself with the necessary means to respond to crises. For one thing, the time frame for coordinated intervention by the international community should be shortened, so as to assure protection of civilian populations. The Council should also revitalize the political field of action, mobilizing other international actors to help restore normality. Together, with the efforts of local protagonists, operational and systemic measures should be taken at the appropriate level. Perhaps a politically high-level regional organization could be set up, making it possible for the Council to bring its full weight to bear on the course of events and enhance regional initiatives.

It was not necessary to await completion of United Nations reform, which seemed to be marking time, he said. Starting now, the arrangements for preventive diplomacy should be strengthened by establishing a new capacity in various regions of the world. The Council could establish a regular evaluation of risk situations around the world, so as to appraise existing threats. Africa required specific attention, he concluded.

TRAIAN BASESCU, President of Romania, saw a great deal of consistency between the work of the Security Council, which had become more involved in development issues and human rights concerns, and deliberations within the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly. The two meetings should, therefore, lead to mutually reinforcing conclusions and recommendations. Against that backdrop, he said the Council’s meeting aimed at taking the international response to acts of terrorism to a new level. The terrorism threat was the critical security issue for the beginning of the new century and millennium.

The Council had been remarkably fast in responding to post 9/11 realities that had so dramatically changed the world. Its championing of counter-terrorism as an integral part of responsibilities towards international peace and security was the most significant feature of its work. Yet, its contribution to the global effort was still a work in progress. The recent terrorist strikes in London, Sharm el Sheikh ( Egypt) and Baghdad, or throughout Bangladesh, were reminders that, without an enduring security net, there could be no safe haven.

Explaining Romania’s approach to fighting terror, he said there was no culture or religion that generated or endorsed terrorism. The world had to face a new ideology that respects neither States nor societies, neither cultures nor human rights. It was his belief that that ideology was the new enemy of mankind. The solidarity and action of like-minded United Nations Member States could offer solutions for fighting the threat. The Security Council and the United Nations shared great responsibility in developing policies towards that end.

Recalling his country’s chairmanship of the Security Council Committee established in accordance with resolution 1540 of 2004, he said reducing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction should be a concern of all Member States. Global anti-terrorism efforts could be sustained only by action taken at Security Council level. It had to be a United Nations undertaking as a whole. Romania’s experience in south-eastern Europe and the Black Sea region indicated that, in case of conflict management, regional action was also decisive in responding to transnational threats. He called for cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Romania had actively promoted such cooperation.

He said the way in which the Kosovo issue was addressed in the coming months by the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other regional and subregional actors would be decisive for the overall prospects of lasting stability, integration and prosperity for the whole of south-eastern Europe. He said under its presidency of the Council in October, Romania would invite Council members to deliberate further on the subject of cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations. The Council should consider adopting its first-ever resolution on the topic.

LUIS INACIO LULA DA SILVA, President of Brazil, said the Council needed to be adapted to the political and economic requirements of a world undergoing deep transformation. This was only the third Council Summit in 60 years. in 1992, the Council had celebrated the end of the East-West confrontation with new prospects for the promotion of international stability. In 2000, the Council’s meeting had coincided with brutal acts of violence fuelled by racial and religious intolerance. Striving to learn lessons from civil wars in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the world was striving to restore the Organization’s capacity to counter massive human rights abuses.

Today, the Council faced threats of growing complexity, he said. Both resolutions were attempts to respond to those challenges. Barbaric acts of terrorism continued to be perpetrated against innocent and defenceless people. Combating those scourges demanded resolve. Repression alone, however, would not defeat it. Terror must be prevented from breeding in hotbeds of hopelessness. In combating irrational violence, the best means at the Council’s disposal were the promotion of a culture of dialogue, development and the unyielding protection of human rights. The Council also had to devote attention to African issues. The firm political will of African leaders to overcome today’s conflicts and to cope with a legacy of dependency had culminated in the establishment of the African Union. That example should inspire parts of the world that were working towards integration to the international community in a sovereign and peaceful manner. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti offered a new paradigm of response to the challenges of conflict resolution and national reconstruction.

The establishment of a Peacebuidling Commission demonstrated that the international community shared the same view, he said. Better coordination between the Security Council and Economic and Social Council would ensure that situations such as those in Haiti, Guinea-Bissau and Burundi were adequately dealt with. The United Nations role in such cases was irreplaceable. That was also the case in the Middle East conflict, where sensitive political issues needed to be solved with credibility and transparency. In that spirit, Brazil supported the Quartet’s efforts to promote the implementation of the Road Map.

United Nations reform, he said, could not be dissociated from restructuring the Council. New responsibilities, many of them not anticipated by the Charter, had given rise to a wider agenda. The values of good governance and democratic principles should lead the Council to embrace multilateralism and collective decision-making in multilateral institutions. The Council had a historic opportunity to expand in an equitable manner. For the majority of United Nations Member countries, that meant expanding the number of seats, with developing countries from all regions as both permanent and non-permanent Council members.

There would be no peace or security as long as a billion people were oppressed by hunger, he said. That evil could be considered the most devastating of all weapons of mass destruction. Hunger and poverty fuelled a vicious cycle of frustration and humiliation that set the stage for violence, crises and conflicts of all sorts. The Council must continue to be the principal international body for the promotion of international peace and security. A reformed Council would be better equipped to take the lead in facing the complex decisions imposed by the current historic moment.

DOMINIQUE DE VILLEPIN, Prime Minister, France, on behalf of President Jacques Chirac, said that in the face of discouragement and violence, the world needed more unity than ever. It demanded resolve and a collective project. That resolve could serve only the general interest and justice: that was the condition for legitimacy. That project could only be taken forward by all the assembled nations for it to be effective. The Security Council had to embody that common determination. It was already engaged in the field, deploying 80,000 peacekeepers to stop conflicts, prevent their spread and help with reconstruction. ”We must respond to people’s expectations -– from Côte d’Ivoire to Darfur to Haiti, let us collectively have the courage to shoulder our responsibilities at each stage.”

He said that that was also true for Iraq, which was in crisis. The Council, together with the Iraqi authorities, would again have to address that question. So many things were at stake –- in the first place, the unity of Iraq, stability in the region and collective security. At the same time, the Council must respond to new threats -- terrorism, first of all. The attacks carried out this summer in London and Sharm el Sheikh, Turkey and Israel were a reminder that no State was immune; none had the means to respond alone to that scourge. Cooperation would be our strength, he said.

The day after 11 September 2001, the Council met and adopted the first necessary measures to track down the terrorists, act against their financing, and prevent the possession of weapons of mass destruction, he recalled. Today, in the spirit of the global strategy proposed by the Secretary-General, the international community must go further. One principle must prevail: total compliance with the rule of law, because the exemplary nature of democracies was the best card in confronting terrorists. There was one requirement, namely, resolute action on everything that fuelled terrorism -– the inequalities, the persistence of violence, injustices and conflicts, and the lack of understanding among cultures. Force alone would never defeat terrorism, because that did not answer peoples’ frustrations or address the roots of evil.

He said that the proliferation of mass destruction weapons also called for a determined response. In the nuclear sphere, everyone had put their trust in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There were rights to uphold, particularly the peaceful use of nuclear energy. But, there were also duties to enforce, for the security of all. If a State failed in its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it was legitimate, once dialogue was exhausted, to refer that to the Security Council. It was in that spirit that France urged Iran to conform to the resolutions of the IAEA and comply with its international commitments, starting with the Paris Agreement.

The Security Council, with its key role in international peace and security, should be strengthened, he said. “Let us be bold enough to enlarge the Security Council to make it more representative”, he urged. France supported the balanced and realistic proposal presented by Germany, Brazil, India and Japan. In the higher interest of the United Nations, it would like to see an agreement on enlargement before the end of the year -– for greater solidarity, in a more just world. Make no mistake: in the face of threats that ignored State borders, real security would only come with collective security.

He said that in the face of scarred identities, the demand for respect and justice was not only a political imperative, it was a condition for peace. In the face of growing inequalities between rich and poor countries, solidarity was a condition for security. It also required a commitment from all to promote sustainable development. In the face of trouble in the world, a common vision was needed. The United Nations must act apace with a rapidly changing world: the pain of men and women confronting health or political crises did not wait. It must also remain the forum for dialogue and decision, which shaped world destiny. It was an honour and a responsibility to sit in the Council. “Let us not give in to division and inaction”, he said

ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN, Prime Minister of Denmark, said the discussion was timely and relevant. Terror attacks in several countries during the last years had underlined their obligation for joint, efficient action against the scourge. He made clear that terrorism could not be justified, nor was it a legitimate weapon. The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians was unacceptable. He found it appalling that four years after the 9/11 attacks, a few countries were still blocking agreement on a common definition of terrorism. There ought to be absolutely no doubt or ambiguity about the obligation of each and every Government to destroy terror networks, to dismantle training facilities and to cut off the supply of money and recruits.

He said freedom of speech and expression was the very foundation of any modern, democratic society, but it must never be an excuse for inciting terrorism and fostering hatred. He saw a major role for the United Nations in the battle against terrorism, and welcomed the Secretary-General’s outline of a counter-terrorism strategy. But, that was not enough, he said. The United Nations must be empowered to fulfil its obligation to ensure security for all in the age of global terrorism. All Member States needed to sign, ratify and implement the United Nations terrorism conventions, and incorporate the relevant provisions into their national legislations. The United Nations should constantly ensure that Member States fulfilled their obligations by monitoring their performance.

He said countries that lacked the necessary capacity to enforce the new legislation deserved full and generous assistance. Those that lacked the necessary political will deserved “our wrath”. He said the nuclear programmes of Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were a particular and urgent concern. “We shall be ready to deal with them at this table, if other avenues fail”, he said. Acquiring nuclear weapons did not enhance the security of any State; it only decreased it for all.

Noting that 70 per cent of all conflicts discussed by the Security Council took place in Africa, he said that draft resolution put forward by the Council’s three African members was an important one. He hoped its adoption would enable the international community to better prevent international disputes and internal crises from spilling over into armed conflicts, particularly in Africa.

NOBUTAKA MACHIMURA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, noted that in the fight against terrorism there were three important areas in which the international community must intensify its efforts. First, priority must be placed on the strengthening of measures to prevent terrorist acts. For its part, Japan had adopted the Action Plan for Prevention of Terrorism last December and was in the process of reviewing both its legal institutions and government practices. It was also important to enhance international legal frameworks, as well as to improve domestic legal systems. Tomorrow, Prime Minister Koizumi would sign the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism here at the United Nations. He called on all Member States to show the utmost flexibility, so as to ensure the early conclusion of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism.

Continuing, he said it was also necessary to increase assistance for capacity-building against terrorism. The United Nations, particularly the Council, had the capacity to play a greater role in each of those areas. Resolving conflicts in Africa was a global challenge. In that regard, Japan welcomed the establishment of a proposed Peacebuilding Commission. Japan completely concurred with the importance of a comprehensive, all-inclusive strategy, as stressed in today’s resolution. He also stressed the importance of the concept of human security, which Japan had long advocated. Human security, which focused on developing human potential of individuals and communities, was integral part of a comprehensive strategy and a guiding principle in transitional situations. In that regard, he announced that Japan would soon hold the Tokyo International Conference on African Development on issues arising from post-conflict situations in Africa.

In addressing such global challenges as anti-terrorism and conflict prevention in Africa, the Security Council must play a key role, he said. To that end, the Council needed to be reformed to reflect today’s reality. Japan would continue to make its utmost efforts to realize Council reform.

Ms. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, speaking in her national capacity as President of the Philippines, said that, like many countries, the Philippines had been struck by the pain of terror, but it had fought back with the vigilance of ordinary citizens, a strong bilateral and regional security network, its strategic alliance with the United States, and the tools of inter-faith dialogue. Since the international war on terror began in 2001, nearly 4,000 terrorists in the Philippines had been killed or captured, mostly from the New People’s Army, but also including some 300 Abu Sayaff group members and about 40 international terrorist personalities.

She noted that a few days after “9/11”, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia entered into an operational agreement to protect their common seas from terrorism, and other countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) had subsequently joined. They had been able to dissuade the rebels in Mindanao from choosing terrorism as a tactic to achieve their goals. They had also isolated the insurgent formations from the terrorist cells, negotiating with the former and hunting down the latter, without spawning collateral conflict. The peace process was perhaps the only one in the world that formally incorporated an anti-terrorism component. Alongside the ceasefire agreement, there was an agreement on the interdiction of terrorist cells through the exchange of intelligence, information and orders of battle.

To deny terrorists the means to carry out their attacks, it had been practical to recognize the leadership of the United States in the war against terror, she said. She worked closely with that country on intelligence and security matters and in intercepting clandestine fund transfers through the Anti-Money Laundering Law, which was enacted after 9/11. To develop the Philippines’ State capacity to prevent terrorism, it had accepted United States assistance for the ongoing defence reforms and soon for Philippine law enforcement reforms. Her country also supported the United States’ Proliferation Security Initiative. The United States was the natural leader in the war on terror; it was the first and remained the biggest victim of terrorism in the present era. And, it was the most motivated and best equipped Member State in that fight.

Thus, she said, it would be practical for the Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee to undertake a special intelligence coordinating project with the United States to consolidate all overt and covert international sources of information relevant to the war against terrorism, including an immediate inventory of private organizations that might be working as fronts for terrorist activities
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Liberty Now !

Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 521

PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:35 pm    Post subject: UN video Reply with quote

14 Septmeber 05
Security Council: Threats to International Peace and Security.



14 Septmeber 05 Security Council: Threats to International Peace and Security.

Paayande Iran
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Blair's Plenary Summit speech, (as copied off #10 Downing st. website)



The UN must come of age. It must become the visible and credible expression of the globalisation of politics. The modern world insists we are dependent on each other. We work with each other or we suffer in isolation.

The principles of the UN have always had a moral force. Today they receive the sharper impulse of self-interest.

The terrorist attacks in Britain on 7 July have their origins in an ideology born thousands of miles from our shores.

The proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will never be halted outside of an international consensus to do so.

Failed states, as we know to our cost, fail us all. The protection of the environment, the promotion of international trade: we can do nothing without effective action together.

And when we look with revulsion, as we should, at the misery of the millions who die in Africa and elsewhere through preventable famine, disease and conflict, the urgency to act is driven not just by conscience but by an inner sense that one day, if we refuse to act, we will reap a dire reward from our refusal.

What's more, humanity today is confident of its common values. Give people the chance and they always vote for freedom; always prefer tolerance to prejudice, will never willingly accept the suppression of human rights and governance by extremism.

So the challenge is clear; the values clear; the self-interest in upholding them together also clear.

What must now be clear is that the UN can be the instrument of achieving the global will of the people.

It must give leadership on terrorism. There is not and never can be any justification, any excuse, any cause that accepts the random slaughter of th innocent. Wherever it happens, whoever is responsible, we stand united I condemnation.

The United Nations must strengthen its policy against non-proliferation; in particular, how to allow nations to develop civil nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.

The new Human Rights Council must earn the world's respect not its contempt.

The United Nations Peace-building Commission must become the means of renewing nations, where war and the collapse of proper systems of government have left them ravaged and their people desolate.

For the first lime at this Summit we are agreed that states do not have the right to do what they will within their own borders, but that we, in the name of humanity, have a common duty to protect people where their own governments will not.

Stalking this summit, like a spectre, are the Millennium Development goals.

The struggle against global poverty will define our moral standing in the eyes of the future.

The G8 in Scotland shows how we redeem it. I have heard people describe the outcomes of this Summit as modest, No summit requiring unanimity from 190 nations can be more than modest.

But if we did what we have agreed on doubling aid, on opening up trade, on debt relief, on HI V/AIDS and malaria, on conflict prevention so that never again would the world stand by, helpless when genocide struck, our modesty would surprise.

There would be more democracy, less oppression. More freedom, less terrorism. More growth, less poverty. The effect would be measured in the lives of millions of people who will never hear these speeches or read our statements.

But it would be the proper vocation of political leadership; and the United Nations would live up to its name. So let us do it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

President Bush's remarks at the Plenary Summit Sept 14, 2005


THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: Thank you for the privilege of being here for the 60th anniversary of the United Nations. Thank you for your dedication to the vital work and great ideals of this institution.

We meet at a time of great challenge for America and the world. At this moment, men and women along my country's Gulf Coast are recovering from one of the worst natural disasters in American history. Many have lost homes, and loved ones, and all their earthly possessions. In Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, whole neighborhoods have been lifted from their foundations and sent crashing into the streets. A great American city is working to turn the flood waters and reclaim its future.

We have witnessed the awesome power of nature -- and the greater power of human compassion. Americans have responded to their neighbors in need, and so have many of the nations represented in this chamber. All together, more than 115 countries and nearly a dozen international organizations have stepped forward with offers of assistance. To every nation, every province, and every community across the world that is standing with the American people in this hour of need, I offer the thanks of my nation.

Your response, like the response to last year's tsunami, has shown once again that the world is more compassionate and hopeful when we act together. This truth was the inspiration for the United Nations. The U.N.'s founding members laid out great and honorable goals in the charter they drafted six decades ago. That document commits this organization to work to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," and "promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." We remain committed to those noble ideals. As we respond to great humanitarian needs, we must actively respond to the other great challenges of our time. We must continue to work to ease suffering, and to spread freedom, and to lay the foundations of lasting peace for our children and grandchildren.

In this young century, the far corners of the world are linked more closely than ever before -- and no nation can remain isolated and indifferent to the struggles of others. When a country, or a region is filled with despair, and resentment and vulnerable to violent and aggressive ideologies, the threat passes easily across oceans and borders, and could threaten the security of any peaceful country.

Terrorism fed by anger and despair has come to Tunisia, to Indonesia, to Kenya, to Tanzania, to Morocco, to Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to the United States, to Turkey, to Spain, to Russia, to Egypt, to Iraq, and the United Kingdom. And those who have not seen attacks on their own soil have still shared in the sorrow -- from Australians killed in Bali, to Italians killed in Egypt, to the citizens of dozens of nations who were killed on September the 11th, 2001, here in the city where we meet. The lesson is clear: There can be no safety in looking away, or seeking the quiet life by ignoring the hardship and oppression of others. Either hope will spread, or violence will spread -- and we must take the side of hope.

Sometimes our security will require confronting threats directly, and so a great coalition of nations has come together to fight the terrorists across the world. We've worked together to help break up terrorist networks that cross borders, and rout out radical cells within our own borders. We've eliminated terrorist sanctuaries. We're using our diplomatic and financial tools to cut off their financing and drain them of support. And as we fight, the terrorists must know that the world stands united against them. We must complete the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that will put every nation on record: The targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.

And the world's free nations are determined to stop the terrorists and their allies from acquiring the terrible weapons that would allow them to kill on a scale equal to their hatred. For that reason, more than 60 countries are supporting the Proliferation Security Initiative to intercept shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, on sea, and in air. The terrorists must know that wherever they go, they cannot escape justice.

Later today, the Security Council has an opportunity to put the terrorists on notice when it votes on a resolution that condemns the incitement of terrorist acts -- the resolution that calls upon all states to take appropriate steps to end such incitement. We also need to sign and implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, so that all those who seek radioactive materials or nuclear devices are prosecuted and extradited, wherever they are. We must send a clear message to the rulers of outlaw regimes that sponsor terror and pursue weapons of mass murder: You will not be allowed to threaten the peace and stability of the world.

Confronting our enemies is essential, and so civilized nations will continue to take the fight to the terrorists. Yet we know that this war will not be won by force of arms alone. We must defeat the terrorists on the battlefield, and we must also defeat them in the battle of ideas. We must change the conditions that allow terrorists to flourish and recruit, by spreading the hope of freedom to millions who've never known it. We must help raise up the failing states and stagnant societies that provide fertile ground for the terrorists. We must defend and extend a vision of human dignity, and opportunity, and prosperity -- a vision far stronger than the dark appeal of resentment and murder.

To spread a vision of hope, the United States is determined to help nations that are struggling with poverty. We are committed to the Millennium Development goals. This is an ambitious agenda that includes cutting poverty and hunger in half, ensuring that every boy and girl in the world has access to primary education, and halting the spread of AIDS -- all by 2015.

We have a moral obligation to help others -- and a moral duty to make sure our actions are effective. At Monterrey in 2002, we agreed to a new vision for the way we fight poverty, and curb corruption, and provide aid in this new millennium. Developing countries agreed to take responsibility for their own economic progress through good governance and sound policies and the rule of law. Developed countries agreed to support those efforts, including increased aid to nations that undertake necessary reforms. My own country has sought to implement the Monterrey Consensus by establishing the new Millennium Challenge Account. This account is increasing U.S. aid for countries that govern justly, invest in their people, and promote economic freedom.

More needs to be done. I call on all the world's nations to implement the Monterrey Consensus. Implementing the Monterrey Consensus means continuing on the long, hard road to reform. Implementing the Monterrey Consensus means creating a genuine partnership between developed and developing countries to replace the donor-client relationship of the past. And implementing the Monterrey Consensus means welcoming all developing countries as full participants to the global economy, with all the requisite benefits and responsibilities.

Tying aid to reform is essential to eliminating poverty, but our work doesn't end there. For many countries, AIDS, malaria, and other diseases are both humanitarian tragedies and significant obstacles to development. We must give poor countries access to the emergency lifesaving drugs they need to fight these infectious epidemics. Through our bilateral programs and the Global Fund, the United States will continue to lead the world in providing the resources to defeat the plague of HIV-AIDS.

Today America is working with local authorities and organizations in the largest initiative in history to combat a specific disease. Across Africa, we're helping local health officials expand AIDS testing facilities, train and support doctors and nurses and counselors, and upgrade clinics and hospitals. Working with our African partners, we have now delivered lifesaving treatment to more than 230,000 people in sub-Sahara Africa. We are ahead of schedule to meet an important objective: providing HIV-AIDS treatment for nearly two million adults and children in Africa. At the G-8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, we set a clear goal: an AIDS-free generation in Africa. And I challenge every member of the United Nations to take concrete steps to achieve that goal.

We're also working to fight malaria. This preventable disease kills more than a million people around the world every year -- and leaves poverty and grief in every land it touches. The United States has set a goal of cutting the malaria death rate in half in at least 15 highly endemic African countries. To achieve that goal, we've pledged to increase our funding for malaria treatment and prevention by more than $1.2 billion over the next five years. We invite other nations to join us in this effort by committing specific aid to the dozens of other African nations in need of it. Together we can fight malaria and save hundreds of thousands of lives, and bring new hope to countries that have been devastated by this terrible disease.

As we strengthen our commitments to fighting malaria and AIDS, we must also remain on the offensive against new threats to public health such as the Avian Influenza. If left unchallenged, this virus could become the first pandemic of the 21st century. We must not allow that to happen. Today I am announcing a new International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza. The Partnership requires countries that face an outbreak to immediately share information and provide samples to the World Health Organization. By requiring transparency, we can respond more rapidly to dangerous outbreaks and stop them on time. Many nations have already joined this partnership; we invite all nations to participate. It's essential we work together, and as we do so, we will fulfill a moral duty to protect our citizens, and heal the sick, and comfort the afflicted.

Even with increased aid to fight disease and reform economies, many nations are held back by another heavy challenge: the burden of debt. So America and many nations have also acted to lift this burden that limits the growth of developing economies, and holds millions of people in poverty. Today poor countries with the heaviest debt burdens are receiving more than $30 billion in debt relief. And to prevent the build-up of future debt, my country and other nations have agreed that international financial institutions should increasingly provide new aid in the form of grants, rather than loans. The G-8 agreed at Gleneagles to go further. To break the lend-and-forgive cycle permanently, we agreed to cancel 100 percent of the debt for the world's most heavily indebted nations. I call upon the World Bank and the IMF to finalize this historic agreement as soon as possible.

We will fight to lift the burden of poverty from places of suffering -- not just for the moment, but permanently. And the surest path to greater wealth is greater trade. In a letter he wrote to me in August, the Secretary General commended the G-8's work, but told me that aid and debt relief are not enough. The Secretary General said that we also need to reduce trade barriers and subsidies that are holding developing countries back. I agree with the Secretary General: The Doha Round is "the most promising way" to achieve this goal.

A successful Doha Round will reduce and eliminate tariffs and other barriers on farm and industrial goods. It will end unfair agricultural subsidies. It will open up global markets for services. Under Doha, every nation will gain, and the developing world stands to gain the most. Historically, developing nations that open themselves up to trade grow at several times the rate of other countries. The elimination of trade barriers could lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the next 15 years. The stakes are high. The lives and futures of millions of the world's poorest citizens hang in the balance -- and so we must bring the Doha trade talks to a successful conclusion.

Doha is an important step toward a larger goal: We must tear down the walls that separate the developed and developing worlds. We need to give the citizens of the poorest nations the same ability to access the world economy that the people of wealthy nations have, so they can offer their goods and talents on the world market alongside everyone else. We need to ensure that they have the same opportunities to pursue their dreams, provide for their families, and live lives of dignity and self-reliance.

And the greatest obstacles to achieving these goals are the tariffs and subsidies and barriers that isolate people of developing nations from the great opportunities of the 21st century. Today, I reiterate the challenge I have made before: We must work together in the Doha negotiations to eliminate agricultural subsidies that distort trade and stunt development, and to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to open markets for farmers around the world. Today I broaden the challenge by making this pledge: The United States is ready to eliminate all tariffs, subsidies and other barriers to free flow of goods and services as other nations do the same. This is key to overcoming poverty in the world's poorest nations. It's essential we promote prosperity and opportunity for all nations.

By expanding trade, we spread hope and opportunity to the corners of the world, and we strike a blow against the terrorists who feed on anger and resentment. Our agenda for freer trade is part of our agenda for a freer world, where people can live and worship and raise their children as they choose. In the long run, the best way to protect the religious freedom, and the rights of women and minorities, is through institutions of self-rule, which allow people to assert and defend their own rights. All who stand for human rights must also stand for human freedom.

This is a moment of great opportunity in the cause of freedom. Across the world, hearts and minds are opening to the message of human liberty as never before. In the last two years alone, tens of millions have voted in free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, in Kyrgyzstan, in Ukraine, and Georgia. And as they claim their freedom, they are inspiring millions more across the broader Middle East. We must encourage their aspirations. We must nurture freedom's progress. And the United Nations has a vital role to play.

Through the new U.N. Democracy Fund, the democratic members of the U.N. will work to help others who want to join the democratic world. It is fitting that the world's largest democracy, India, has taken a leadership role in this effort, pledging $10 million to get the fund started. Every free nation has an interest in the success of this fund -- and every free nation has a responsibility in advancing the cause of liberty.

The work of democracy is larger than holding a fair election; it requires building the institutions that sustain freedom. Democracy takes different forms in different cultures, yet all free societies have certain things in common. Democratic nations uphold the rule of law, impose limits on the power of the state, treat women and minorities as full citizens. Democratic nations protect private property, free speech and religious expression. Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. And democratic nations contribute to peace and stability because they seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, not the conquest of their neighbors.

For these reasons, the whole world has a vital interest in the success of a free Iraq -- and no civilized nation has an interest in seeing a new terror state emerge in that country. So the free world is working together to help the Iraqi people to establish a new nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. It's an exciting opportunity for all of us in this chamber. And the United Nations has played a vital role in the success of the January elections, where eight and a half million Iraqis defied the terrorists and cast their ballots. And since then, the United Nations has supported Iraq's elected leaders as they drafted a new constitution.

The United Nations and its member states must continue to stand by the Iraqi people as they complete the journey to a fully constitutional government. And when Iraqis complete their journey, their success will inspire others to claim their freedom, the Middle East will grow in peace and hope and liberty, and all of us will live in a safer world.

The advance of freedom and security is the calling of our time. It is the mission of the United Nations. The United Nations was created to spread the hope of liberty, and to fight poverty and disease, and to help secure human rights and human dignity for all the world's people. To help make these promises real, the United Nations must be strong and efficient, free of corruption, and accountable to the people it serves. The United Nations must stand for integrity, and live by the high standards it sets for others. And meaningful institutional reforms must include measures to improve internal oversight, identify cost savings, and ensure that precious resources are used for their intended purpose.

The United Nations has taken the first steps toward reform. The process will continue in the General Assembly this fall, and the United States will join with others to lead the effort. And the process of reform begins with members taking our responsibilities seriously. When this great institution's member states choose notorious abusers of human rights to sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission, they discredit a noble effort, and undermine the credibility of the whole organization. If member countries want the United Nations to be respected -- respected and effective, they should begin by making sure it is worthy of respect.

At the start of a new century, the world needs the United Nations to live up to its ideals and fulfill its mission. The founding members of this organization knew that the security of the world would increasingly depend on advancing the rights of mankind, and this would require the work of many hands. After committing America to the idea of the U.N. in 1945, President Franklin Roosevelt declared: "The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man, or one party, or one nation." Peace is the responsibility of every nation and every generation.

In each era of history, the human spirit has been challenged by the forces of darkness and chaos. Some challenges are the acts of nature; others are the works of men. This organization was convened to meet these challenges by harnessing the best instincts of humankind, the strength of the world united in common purpose. With courage and conscience, we will meet our responsibilities to protect the lives and rights of others. And when we do, we will help fulfill the promise of the United Nations, and ensure that every human being enjoys the peace and the freedom and the dignity our Creator intended for all.

Thank you. (Applause.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 1455
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 3:24 pm    Post subject: Rice Urges U.N. to Stand Up to Iran Nuclear Bid Reply with quote

Rice Urges U.N. to Stand Up to Iran Nuclear Bid

Paul Taylor and Sue Pleming, Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the United Nations on Saturday to stand up to Iran, which she said was seeking a nuclear weapons capability that would undermine global security.

Iran's new president was to unveil proposals later in the day intended to allay international suspicions over its nuclear ambitions, with Western powers poised to haul Tehran before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

What President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tells the U.N. General Assembly may determine whether the world nuclear watchdog moves next week to report Iran's secretive atomic program to the highest U.N. body, diplomats said.

Before he spoke, Rice told the assembly the Security Council should take up the case unless Tehran returned to talks with the European Union and abandoned "its plans for a nuclear weapons capability."

But she omitted harsher anti-Iranian remarks in her prepared text and left the timing of a U.N. referral open.
The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Rasker,

I've read both the prepared and the given...the only thing she "ommitted " was a direct reference to IRI as the #1 sponsor of terrorism....which in context of the rest of her remarks may have seemed a bit redundant, as this is a well known fact in the international community already.

This is in no way "going soft" on the IRI, but the way the press describes it would tend to confuse the strategy and focus of the recent SEc. Council resolution on "incitement of terrorism"

Not to worry, As I understand it, a number of resolutions are to be presented by John Bolton in the next few days to come...this is like the outriggers of the diplomatic hurriucane that have just made landfall.

SMCCDI proposed dropping a diplomatic nuke (which I fully support) , but how the eye of the hurricane effects the IRI may be just as devestating...but slower moving.

In the end, I think it will produce similar results.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm sitting here reading Antar's diatribe, and the level of hypocracy just in the first couple paragraphs is very illuminating.

"On the other hand, the prevalence of military domination, increasing poverty, the growing gap between rich and poor countries, violence as a means to solve crisis, spread of terrorism, specially state terrorism, existance and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the pervasive lack of honesty in interstate relations, and disregard for the equal rights of peoples and nations in international relations, constitutes some of the challenges and threats."

Taken on it's own, this paragraph would be true enough.....considering who's delivering the remarks and the regime he represents....it becomes absurd propaganda.

He goes on to state:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran is born out of a movement, based on the pure primordial nature of a people who rose up to regain their dignity, esteem, and human rights. The Islamic Revolution toppled a regime which had been put in place through a coup and supported by those who claim to be advocates of Democracy anf Human Rights thwarted the aspirations and development and progress for 25 years through intimidation and torture of the populace, and submission and subservience to outsiders."


If he was speaking himself and about the IRI, he'd be dead on accurate, all the while he kissed Putin's ass....the torture, repression, human rights violations, terrorism, proliferation, development and aquisition of WMD's continues under this very regime that he praises.


"The Islamic Republic of Iran is the manifestation of true Democracy in the region. The discourse of the Iranian nation is focused on respect for the rights of all human beings and a quest for tranquility, peace, justice and development for all through monotheism."


Monkey boy is posing all this in a religeous context which these quotes here skipped the intro ...so I'd suggest reading the whole of it...as I'm just getting warmed up here....

From SMCCDI public letter to John Bolton--

{ The body of evidence compiled over the long history of
the Islamic Republic's systemic methodology of torture,
political repression and murder of journalists and
dissidents; crimes against humanity including the past and
current crackdown on ethnic and religious minorities, and
"troublemakers" (i.e.: political dissidents of the regime);
applying a Gender Apartheid policy and sexual
discrimination against women; sponsoring and officially
engaging in terrorism (internally and externally), by its
leadership and proxy; suppression of the press, closing of
TV and newspapers as well as confiscation of satellite
dishes, the arrest of "bloggers" and the shutting down of
internet sites, arbitrary arrest and lack of "due process";
the denial of requested information to the UN Commission on
Human Rights (and its sub committees), the denial of access
and information to the IAEA, false declaration to various
UN committee; The failure to uphold the tenants of the UN
Charter signed by Iran in 1948 (in multiple aspects,
consistently and premeditative, and the long history of
denial, subterfuge, bribery, and false public statements on
the record in the UN we believe must be addressed in
totality, before the Security Council, along with other
issues and recommendations brought before the council
regarding this regime, to obtain a holistic solution to a
common threat. }

And this:

{ Indeed, the Islamic Republic regime is engaged in terror,
torture and atrocity on a daily basis, and this
illegitimate regime dares to call itself Democratic, an
advocate of human rights, and protector of the oppressed
throughout the region. A cruel joke added onto the injury
to our nation's pride and heritage,...}

And now folks will understand the importance of SMCCDI's letter in anticipation of monkey boy's address....

I will post more, but I gotta grab a breath of fresh air for a bit...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 1166
Location: SantaFe, New Mexico

PostPosted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After reading this, I think the Opposition should bombard CNN with the truth...


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told delegates Saturday at the United Nations General Assembly that his country had a right to pursue nuclear power.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour spoke to Ahmadinejad a few hours before that speech.

Amanpour: You're here in New York ,and you've come to speak to the United Nations and to the world. What proposals are you going to make that will defuse the current crisis over Iran's nuclear activities?

Ahmadinejad: In the name of God. In my opinion we cannot, we shouldn't, use the word "crisis." There are issues between different countries such as ours and they continue. And in the future they'll probably continue in some other forms. The first point is stressing the right of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pursue and have the nuclear cycle.

Number two, the acceptance of all the points and agreements of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Number three, reserving such rights for all countries.

Number four, the creation of a special committee that controls the proliferation of nuclear weaponry in the countries who have the means to carry such weaponry. And then the continuation of such talks in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency with other countries.

These are the points that we've considered, on the basis of which we will put forth a proposal. We're against "nuclear apartheid," which means some have the right to possess it, use the fuel, and then sell it to another country for 10 times its value. We're against that. We say clean energy is the right of all countries. But also it is the duty and the responsibility of all countries, including ours, to set up frameworks to stop the proliferation of it.

Amanpour: You do have the right under international law. Is it enough for Iran to have a small laboratory able to do research and, yet, have an outside party deliver your fuel in order to defuse people's suspicions?

Ahmadinejad: Why do others insist on having the fuel and selling it to us? I tell you, we will commit ourselves to -- right now, I give them commitment that we will sell it to them at 30 percent less than the prices that they're proposing. Is that fine?

Amanpour: You are determined? You are determined to proceed?

Ahmadinejad: We are determined. Certainly we are determined. Why should other people have it and sell it to us? We will make it and sell it to them.

Amanpour: So are you saying you're determined to pursue enrichment?

Ahmadinejad: This is the right of a country.

Amanpour: But we're talking about the words now. Are you determined to pursue enrichment? And you said it's your right. I want to know if that's your policy?

Ahmadinejad: This is a nuclear cycle for civilian peaceful purposes, it's a right of a country, and our country will pursue it.

Amanpour: Do you accept at all that the United States, Europe, they're deeply suspicious about your intentions. They just think that you want to build a bomb. Do you understand that? And why do you want to have this crisis?

Ahmadinejad: Yes, you see, we understand, we know that their intentions are bad intentions, their intentions towards us are bad. When have they ever shown or have had clean, clear, pure intentions towards us?

We don't have expectation for anything else coming from them.

What rights do they have when they want to talk about such issues to us, they need to proceed according to international laws. They cannot say that we don't like the intentions -- what we think are the intentions -- of your country, therefore, we want to prevent you.

All of our activities have been transparent to the agency, and we've announced many times that because of our religious views, our cultural views, we're against the creation and or use of nuclear weaponry.

We're a country that rules according to our religious laws. And our religious scholars have issued religious decrees that the creation, the research towards the creation and use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction is not allowed. Therefore, our country cannot allocate any specific budgets or resources to such activities.

Amanpour: If you were referring to the Security Council and if sanctions were imposed on Iran, will you take counter measures? Already, some of your officials have threatened to provoke a rise in oil prices, have potentially threatened to pull out of the NPT [Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty]. What will you do if sanctions are imposed?

Ahmadinejad: I think any intelligent, healthy, smart human being should use every resource in order to maintain his or her freedom and independence.

Amanpour: So you could see interfering with oil prices?

Ahmadinejad: I doubt that the leaders of the United States and Europe are that far removed from reality. I think they're smarter than denying us this legal right.

It is natural, of course. They will use whatever they have in their hand, which is the U.N. Security Council. And our nation has the means to defend and obtain its own rights. Do not doubt that our people will not lose.

Amanpour: It sounds very aggressive, what you're saying. It sounds like we're heading toward real confrontation.

Ahmadinejad: No it isn't. No, we have no such intentions. All we're saying is that we will go according to all of the provisions. There are cameras set up here, you are the ones who are saying do not proceed. According to what law is this being imposed on us? You'll have come, and you are putting, you are interfering in our internal affairs against international laws. Who is at fault? Who is being aggressive?

Now, in this instance if the International Atomic Energy Agency gives us the lawful framework, of course we'll cooperate. The biggest degree of cooperation has been carried out by the International Atomic Agency by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Like I said, in the last 34 years there have not been inspections done, been conducted on any country like they have been with the Islamic Republic of Iran. So this is unprecedented in the history of the agency. So we think that the dictation of rules in the international arena by some powers is unacceptable to us. And this is what we refuse to surrender to.

Amanpour: You know, in your campaign when you ran for president, you talked about increasing economic opportunities for the poor, for the lower middle class in Iran. You talked about making the lives better. How can you do that if you're going to be as isolated? Surely that depends on Iran being integrated with the world.

Ahmadinejad: You see, what I said during the presidential election is what I said generally. Everything we talk about is in order to keep our national interest and what is at the heart of our national interest. We need to keep those at the forefront. One of the slogans during the presidential elections for my campaign was that we will have access to the nuclear supply process.

Amanpour: So is nuclear supply more important than having your country improve its economic situation and having people have a better life? I mean, are you really ready to have a real confrontation with the world over this?

Ahmadinejad: No, we don't want to be at war with the world. I explained, you see, they're trying to impose their will on our country. I'm confident we'll reach both. I have no worries about it. We will have peace, prosperity and the nuclear supply cycle.

Amanpour: Mr. President, on the eve of the elections in Tehran, I spoke to your challenger, Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who said that it was time to mend relations with the United States, to find a way to try to bridge these decades of confrontation. Do you believe it's time to do that?

Ahmadinejad: You see, during the elections, different topics, different issues were addressed, and people chose. I said no such thing.

Amanpour: As you know, there were a number of former American hostages, who were held hostage in Iran in the late '70s, who accused you as being one of the hostage-takers and interrogators during that time. Is that true?

Ahmadinejad: You see, I heard the same news after I was elected and, you know, quite frankly, I laughed at it. Either the memory had been erased and replaced anew. I don't know how they had reached such a conclusion. Back then I didn't have the beard I do now.

Amanpour: So you were not involved?

Ahmadinejad: No, it's not like that. I was not involved. But I have a question. What I would like to say today to the people of the United States and to the government of the United States is that we need to change our views. We need.... We cannot keep imposing our will.

It is not the foundation, the solid foundation for peace. I understand that the United States government, that they had announced this officially. They expected our people to make a different choice than they did.

Obviously the democracy and the people of this country get to decide. They decided. We have a great deal of turnout for this election, and they made their decision. Why is it that after they decided, after the people of Iran decided, why is it that after the decision was made public that such accusations started being leveled against us?

Now let's say I don't like you, for whatever reason there may be. Do I have the right to keep bringing accusations against you in order to discredit you? What kind of behavior is this? You see, we think a new school of thought on the worldwide stage should be applied nowadays. We need to address issues openly.

Ahmadinejad: Let me tell you something else. If we can accept the following: In the relation between countries that, let's say, a country at her own will can bring accusations towards another country. Instead of requesting proof from the accuser we are requesting proof from the accused. What way is this? What way of international norm does this reflect? This is the wrong way to go. This is a hostage taker, this is a terrorist. What kind of thought is this? What kind of words are these. I saw the picture that they tried to impose. It didn't even resemble me.

Amanpour: Let me ask you about terrorism. One if the big issues between Iran and the U.S. and many other countries is that they believe that Iran sponsors terrorism. A state sponsor of terrorism around the world. What can you do and say to stop that and to change that?

Ahmadinejad: We go back to the previous question. They like to accuse us. What are we to do?

And they also believe that they read our intentions before we actually state our intentions. So how can we provide proof for such people? How can we satisfy them? Seventy-two of our biggest leaders were killed by a terrorist group. Our president and one of our prime ministers in the past were killed by a terrorist group. We have been victims of terrorism.

Amanpour: Both governments outside of Iran and many people inside Iran are quite alarmed because your election, they think, symbolizes a step back, a step away from reform, away from democratic progress, away from women's rights.

Ahmadinejad: You see, the people who were not victorious in the election, they would say such things. So how can you say these elections were a step backward? How can elections, the results of them, be a step backward? Election is a result of democracy. When our people turn out in such high numbers and cast their votes, over 60 million votes are cast, how can you call that a step back?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group