September 16, 2002
The hurtful suggestion that the U.S. is partially to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks may not have originated with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Chretien, in hot water on both sides of the border, after his remarks were revealed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the first anniversary of the terrorist attacks was parroted by his former finance Minister Paul Martin in the same interview.
Both Canadian politicians–Martin in particular--are fans of fellow countryman Maurice Strong, who was secretary general of the historic UN Earth Conference in Rio. Strong was Martin’s partner in his company, Canadian Steamship Lines.
Indeed, the irreverent Canadians seem to be mouthing the theories of Klaus Teopfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, who noting shortly after the collapse of the World Trade Centre that while poverty wasn’t a factor on its own, said, "But it can fan the flames of hate and ignite a belief that terrorism is the only solution to a community’s or nation’s ills."
Here in Canada, we have Canadian born British philosopher Ted Honderich, advocating the theory that richer nations are partly responsible for the terrorist attacks on America because they have failed to help poorer nations in his newly released book, After the Terror.
Honderich is the youngest brother of former Toronto Star publisher Beland Honderich. The Star just happens to be an unabashed supporter of Canada’s Chretien -led Liberal federal government, and a frequent UN messenger.
Maurice Strong acolyte World Bank president James Wolfensohn is on the public record for linking poverty to terrorism…." The face of bin Laden, the terrorism of al-Qaeda, the rubble of the World Trade Centre and of the Pentagon are just symptoms. The disease is the discontent seething in Islam and, more generally, in the world of the poor."
Ambassadors to the United Nations singing from the same page are legion.
In attacking Americans in the aftermath of 9/11, Chretien, Martin and company seem to have all gone to the same school: The school of the United Nations.
Meanwhile, even as American President George W. Bush was making his speech to the UN General Assembly last week, the UN was promoting its first ever, Sept. 21st World Ceasefire and Non-Violence Day.
Touted as a do-it-yourself day of action, Sept. 21 is shaping up as a new form of political leftwing action. See Cover Story.
UN moves forward with first war crimes tribunal
The United Nations hopes to have the world’s first permanent war crimes tribunal up and running by next year, AP reports.
Ratifying the treaty for the tribunal was the Assembly of States Parties, made up of the 76 nations, including Canada.
At the opening ceremony last week, the assembly elected Prince Zeid bin Raad, Jordan’s envoy to the UN and a cousin of King Abdullah 11, as its president. Sierra Leone’s Deputy UN Ambassador Allieu Kanu and Uruguay’s UN Ambassador Felipe Paolillo were elected as vice-presidents.
Representatives of dozens of nations that support the court, but haven’t ratified the treaty were in the UN conference room as observers. Many of the more than two dozen countries that haven’t signed or ratified were also there to watch. But the seat for the United States was conspicuously empty.
"We see the dawn of a new age in the pursuit of justice," said UN Undersecretary-General Hans Corell. "Impunity for those who commit the most heinous crimes will be curtailed."
The court is the culmination of a campaign that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II’s German and Japanese war criminals. It has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity taking place after July 1, 2002.
The United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court’s jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated persecutions, especially of U.S. troops.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement