Republicans in the House of Representatives have advanced a significant bill that would defund a department in the United Nations that is antithetical to liberty: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The UNFPA has been accused of being far too complacent regarding China’s population-control practices.
Introduced by Representative Renee Ellmers (R-N.C.), the legislation to defund the UNFPA passed in the House Foreign Relations Committee on a party-line vote of 23-17. The bill would save $400 million over the next 10 years in funding to the agency.
In 2002, President George W. Bush defunded UNFPA, pointing to the 1985 “Kemp-Kasten amendment” that prohibits federal funding for any agency that “supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion of involuntary sterilization.” Then Secretary of State Colin Powell declared, “Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA’s support of, and involvement in, China’s population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”
The United Nations expects to build a massive new office complex next door to the globalist behemoth that already towers over Turtle Bay in Manhattan. And it will raze a neighborhood playground to do it, showing that nothing, not even children, obstructs globalism on the march. Even worse, critics have reported, American taxpayers will cough up the usual 22 percent of the bill.
As well, someone is going to benefit from the project: Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who wants to transfer the two-thirds of an acre to the UN to help push forward his dream of a major waterfront development.
The new UN tower will encompass some 900,000 square feet and cost upwards of $450 million and perhaps even more. The present 39-story UN Secretariat Building and new structure (which will be no taller, say planners) will connect “with with an underground tunnel to facilitate movement between the two buildings,” the Heritage Foundation’s Brett Schaefer reported in early September.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced recently that the Palestinian Authority intended to seek official recognition of statehood by the United Nations. The UN Security Council president announced Monday that the council would meet today to begin formal consideration of the Palestinian request for membership in the world body.
Predictably, the United States has announced that it would veto any Security Council resolution accepting Palestine’s application for recognition. The exercise of the veto would prevent the proposal from being placed before the 193-member General Assembly for the needed two-thirds vote. A yes-no vote in the Security Council is not expected to occur for some time, perhaps a month.
If the United States and Israel are successful in thwarting the Palestinian plan to gain full membership in the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority will likely recur to the General Assembly, where the possibility of a veto is obviated and there remain a few less desirable, though more likely, alternatives to official recognition of statehood.
The United Nations is preparing for what is sure to be a contentious showdown, as on September 23 the Palestinians sought recognition from the world body as an independent state.
Fox News reports:
Earlier in the week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rebuffed an intense, U.S.-led effort to sway him from the statehood bid, saying he would submit the application to U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon as planned. A top aide, Mohammed Ishtayeh, said Thursday that Abbas asked Ban and the Council's Lebanese president this month to process the application without delay. ...
To be sure, Abbas’ appeal to the U.N. to recognize Palestinian independence in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip would not deliver any immediate changes on the ground: Israel would remain an occupying force in those first two territories and continue to severely restrict access to Gaza, ruled by Palestinian Hamas militants.
Abbas told the Palestinians, “We’re going without any hesitation
President Obama lavished praise on the United Nations and its controversial military interventions during his September 21 address to the UN General Assembly, promoting big-government policies and even more international “cooperation” on everything from protests in Syria and the global economic crisis to healthcare, climate, and poverty.
Throughout the speech to world rulers assembled in New York, Obama barely mentioned traditional American notions of liberty and individual rights. Instead, he spent most of his time boasting about military operations and advocating expanded government power at the national and international level.
Obama demanded, for example, that all governments submit to the socialist principle that “freedom from want is a basic human right.” He also expressed support for “gay rights” and the UN’s universal declaration of human “rights” — more accurately described as a list of revocable privileges granted by the state.
During his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama boasted about the alleged successes of U.S. and international military interventions from Libya and Iraq to the Ivory Coast and Afghanistan — even calling on the UN to wage more wars to promote peace if necessary. But according to critics, the results and justifications for the operations Obama cited leave much to be desired.
After noting that American troops would be leaving Iraq by the end of the year and that an “increasingly capable” regime in Afghanistan was beginning to take charge, Obama claimed that “the tide of war is receding.” He promptly followed that statement by discussing other nations where U.S. and UN troops are either currently waging war or recently did so.
Obama then offered a list of more countries that should — in his mind, at least — be next in the crosshairs. Iran and Syria featured prominently among the future targets.
“There is no excuse for inaction,” he declared. “Throughout the region, we will have to respond to the calls for change.” Obama also mentioned — albeit much more mildly — U.S. allies such as Bahrain and Yemen, where the U.S. government has been waging a secret war for years.
If the Palestinians really wanted peace, they would have to stop shooting rockets from Gaza into Israeli towns. The rocket attacks have been going on for years. But the Palestinians have decided to acquire statehood, not by an agreement with Israel that would require them to end their war against the Jewish state, but by a vote of recognition in the United Nations General Assembly. They have been told that the United States would veto such a bid in the Security Council. But a positive vote in the General Assembly would upgrade the Palestinians’ observer status in the UN and permit them to participate in that body’s activities virtually as if they were a member state.
If the Palestinians really want peace they would have to stop killing Jews in Samaria and Judea, otherwise known as the West Bank. They would have to agree that Jews could live in their ancient homeland under a democratic Palestinian authority just as over a million Palestinians live in Israel and enjoy Israeli citizenship.
But the Israelis have no reason to believe that the Palestinians will stop waging war against them.
The United Nations Security Council is considering a resolution to establish a UN mission in Libya, unfreeze assets of two major oil companies and repeal a ban on flights by Libyan aircraft. Great Britain was circulating a draft of the resolution among the 15 member nations of the Security Council Tuesday night and is hoping for a vote on it by the end of this week, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday.
Meanwhile the Financial Times of London quoted an unnamed U.S. official as saying that the United States will play a "modest" role in aiding recovery in Libya, where rebel forces recently ousted Muammar Qaddafi, ending his 42-year reign.
"We're not going to be engaged in nation building in the traditional sense of what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are not going to be millions or billions of US taxpayer dollars going out there," a senior administration official in Washington told the international business daily. Instead, Libya's reconstruction would be guided by a UN framework and assisted by unspecified number of countries and by multilateral organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary fund.