Obama to Head UN Security Council

[Warrior-Mentor]

Obama to seal US-UN relationship
By Harvey Morris
September 8, 2009

Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council.

The topic for the summit-level session of the council on September 24 is nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament – one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level.

“The council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it’s the world’s principal body for dealing with global security cooperation,” Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, said last week.

Her remarks were the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, sometimes criticised by its UN partners for seeking to use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies. The US currently holds the month-long rotating presidency of the Security Council.

Mr Obama will join other heads of government in New York during the week of the nuclear summit for the opening of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly. The annual meeting of world leaders is this year raising expectations on a number of fronts.

UN officials hope a climate change debate on September 22 will give fresh impetus to the search for a global climate deal at Copenhagen in December. There are also hopes a possible meeting between Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, and Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Authority president, that Mr Obama would host, could lead to a breakthrough about a timetable for Middle East peace.

Heads of state are also likely to consider how to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mr Obama gave Tehran a September deadline to reply to his offer of negotiations. Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad will attend the General Assembly “to encourage Iranian views in managing the world,” an aide said.

US officials are concerned Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi might try to steal the limelight during his first visit to New York. A public outcry at the Libyan leader’s visit after he last month welcomed home Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the freed Lockerbie bomber, has already stymied his plans to pitch his tent in Central Park.

“How President Gaddafi chooses to comport himself, when he attends the General Assembly and the Security Council in New York, has the potential either to further aggravate those feelings and emotions or not,” Ms Rice said.

The State Department has not ruled out the possibility that Mr Obama and Colonel Gaddafi would cross paths. They are both due to address the General Assembly on the same day, and the Libyan leader, whose country is a temporary member of the Security Council, is entitled to attend the nuclear summit session that Mr Obama will chair.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d0c7a3a-9ca4-11de-ab58-00144feabdc0.html

[Paslode]

Like he doesn't have enough on his plate as it is.

[ZonieDiver]

Like he doesn't have enough on his plate as it is.

Nope, he will just get a bigggggger plate!

[akv]

This is a historic moment for Kenya!

[Richard]

What's an organization without an organizer - does this mean we're now planning on paying all of our back dues to the UN which have been held in protest for all these years? :confused:

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

[incarcerated]

The World President comes home.

http://threatswatch.org/commentary/2009/09/basic-instincts-black-septembe/

Basic Instincts, Black September?

Obama To Chair UNSC Session As China, Russia Push UN To Replace US Dollar As Reserve Currency
Commentary
By Steve Schippert
September 9, 2009
If September is to be governed by presidential instincts and an over-valued view of the role of the United Nations, it may mark a significantly bad turn for American power, particularly economically. And that would inevitably translate into an eventual high surcharge on American security on many levels and in many places.

The Financial Times notes that President Obama will be the first US president to chair a UN Security Council session. September 24th, President Obama is to preside over a UNSC session focusing on "nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament - one of several global challenges that the US now wants to see addressed at a multinational level." Anyone keeping score on the UN Security Council (to say nothing of the IAEA) on issues nuclear?

Nuclear disarmament is indeed an issue - a campaign promise - that President Obama is bent on pursuing. And it's a fool's errand that will only end badly in the form of unilateral disarmament before our enemies or die away into the ether. During his campaign, besides unilateral cuts in the US nuclear arsenal, then-candidate Obama pledged to "seek the ban of fissile material." Perhaps he did not know what he was talking about, because that fantastical vision would not only halt nuclear weapons production, but also the operation of all nuclear electricity plants.

But the problem with the Obama Administration on issues of National Security are founded less in specific campaign promises and more in basic instincts, depth and perceptions. Worldview, if you will. Consider President Obama's appointed UN ambassador Susan Rice.

"The council has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it's the world's principal body for dealing with global security cooperation," Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN, said last week.

Her remarks were the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, sometimes criticised by its UN partners for seeking to use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies. The US currently holds the month-long rotating presidency of the Security Council.

First, Susan Rice has to say such things about the UN Security Council. The problem is that she believes it. If "the world" looks to the UN Security Council for adequate "dealing with global security cooperation," it is banking on success where there is no track record but failure, particularly in the nuclear arena. Reference: Iran, North Korea.

Secondly, the Financial Times simply can't resist taking a shot at that rotten cowboy villain, President George W. Bush. Remind all, they must, that adversaries on the Security Council continually railed that Bush and America would "use the world body principally to endorse its own unilateral policies." Oh, really?

Common sense dictates that all policy initiatives are "unilateralist" in proposition until a coalition is built. Such as the Iraq war coalition. Such as the Six-Party Talks with North Korea. Such as, after immediate US initiative, Afghanistan.

Let's be clear about the UN Security Council and the entire UN General Assembly - there is no such thing as "consensus" or "unanimity." The world's most powerful nations are competing interests. And the weaker cast their lots for greatest national gains.

If there was anything the world would seemingly find "consensus" on, it would be keeping the Iranian terror-sponsoring regime from attaining nuclear weapons. Yet, every time sanctions come up for vote at "the world's principal body for dealing with global security cooperation," Russia objects to anything that would amount to being actually prohibitive in measure.

Why? Russia is building their reactors for them, and it's a multi-billion dollar trade off.

And that's without even mentioning China. No, the unilateralist days are over. Let the healing begin.

And what, might you ask, can Russia and China agree on when it comes to the UN and disarmament? Let this headline grab you: UN wants new global currency to replace dollar.

Now, the UN has thrown its weight behind the Russian and Chinese endeavor. Of course, that can't be considered unilateralist if both of them want it. And certainly not if a UN body has officially sanctioned it as a good idea. In contrast, British and Canadian support (et al) of US endeavors couldn't shake the unilateralist label from President Bush. That's apparently altogether different entirely.

For what it's worth, the following needs to sink in a bit.

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.
It added that the present system, under which the (US) dollar acts as the world's reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.
Just in time for the president's arrival, at the table with both China and Russia. Where does the President of the United States stand on this issue? It's a fair question. He has supported in the past a global tax governed and administered by the United Nations. Is this - "replacing the dollar with an artificial [UN] currency" - congruous with his thinking towards that end?

The upcoming meetings at the United Nations present unsettling potential with a president out of his depth. International leaders, unlike the international media, do not seem particularly fond of President Obama. His first meeting with Vladimir Putin consisted of a lecture on Russian history, who did not even bother to feign chumminess as he had with George W. Bush.

Obama's instincts are all wrong on security matters and his bloated budgets (except for Defense, naturally) in times of funding shortfalls combined with massive money printing at US mints have China pushing to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency. And their argument resonates, fueled not simply by the adversarial nature of certain interests, but by unsound US economic policy.

We grow weaker, in real and perceived terms, with each passing month. And September may start a pivotal turn. Not for the good, but rather for accelerated decline.

[armymom1228]

As I recall reading somewhere along the campaign trail. BHO spent his first two yrs in Congress over in Kenya stumping for his cousin to be president or head medicne man or whatever they call it over there. Instead of being back here, representing his constituents. Nothing seems to have changed.

[Red Flag 1]

Like he doesn't have enough on his plate as it is.

The only task plate zero sees is in front of others.

Upon zero's plate there is only room for reward, and accolades, etc., etc.


My $.02.

RF 1

[Sten]

This might just be the first sign of the Apocalypse.:D

[Warrior-Mentor]

If he attempts (and/or succeeds) in getting Isreal to give up their nukes under the promise "we'll protect you...:" Then it will be time to get scared.

[Defender968]

If he attempts (and/or succeeds) in getting Isreal to give up their nukes under the promise "we'll protect you...:" Then it will be time to get scared.

With the way he's acted towards them thus far I doubt there's any chance of that happening!

[Gypsy]

Think of it this way. That was two years he spent screwing up that country instead of this one.

No, that was 2 years he was able to ignore his constituents who stupidly voted for him. Twice. :rolleyes:

[echoes]

If he attempts (and/or succeeds) in getting Isreal to give up their nukes under the promise "we'll protect you...:" Then it will be time to get scared.

(Reading the title of this thread, I thought it was satire.)

WM Sir,

Very good point. Can only hope at this point that more Americans would understand it.

Am scared, and am not afraid to admit it. WTF???:confused:

Holly

[incarcerated]

Basic Instincts, Black September?

Obama To Chair UNSC Session As China, Russia Push UN To Replace US Dollar As Reserve Currency


The following is from a BLOG: it is not reportage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/09/taking_liberties/entry5298305.shtml

United Nations Proposes New "Global Currency"

September 9, 2009 3:46 PM
Posted by Declan McCullagh
The United Nations would like the dollar, euro, yen, and other national currencies to be succeeded by a new "global currency."

That recommendation appears in a U.N. report released this week, which suggests the dollar's outsize role in international finance has ended -- and says that it's time to invent a successor currency that would be managed by a "Global Reserve Bank."

Countries could "agree to exchange their own currencies for the new currency, so that the global currency would be backed by a basket of currencies of all the members," says the 218-page report from the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development.

Keep in mind that this is a U.N. report written by bureaucrats without any actual legal ability to create the global equivalent of the Federal Reserve. Anyone who remembers how a U.N. agency once called for a global e-mail tax of one cent per 100 e-mail messages -- but didn't exactly get it -- can attest to that.

The U.N. report grew out of the financial problems that swept the world in the last year or two, which it diagnoses as arising from too much speculation in commodity markets, a bubble in stock markets and housing markets, and trade imbalances between countries like China and the United States. Its prescription? "More stringent financial regulation" and "diversification away from dollars" as part of a new system of constant exchange rates. (Supachai Panitchpakdi, UNCTAD's secretary-general, also wants "vigorous" global actions, including "managing" energy prices through taxes, to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.)

The diversification-away-from-dollars idea is a close cousin to what the Chinese government has been saying recently. China, of course, can now claim the dubious honor of being the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasurys worth a total of $776.4 billion as of June 2009. According to a U.S. government report from 2007, China was the top foreign owner of Freddie and Fannie bonds too.

One aspect of the U.N. report that stands out is that, in all of its 218 pages of analysis and charts, it doesn't seriously contemplate a new currency that's based on something other than paper money, which can be devalued as fast as governments can run their printing presses or add zeros to their banknotes. The two classic options are gold and silver -- which are resistant to governmental inflationary urges -- though I prefer economist David Friedman's suggestion of a bundle of commodities. Then again, returning to money that's backed by something tangible may not require the ongoing services of an entire U.N. bureaucracy.

[incarcerated]

No, that was 2 years he was able to ignore his constituents who stupidly voted for him. Twice. :rolleyes:


Maybe we'll get lucky, and Raila Odinga will be up for election again next year...? :D

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

As an act of good will maybe BHO will forgo the US's veto power as a Permanent Member of the Security Council. :)

How else can he achieve the pillars of "Peace and Security" and "Economic and Social Development" that the UN has come soooo close to in the past?:rolleyes:

[sf11b_p]

Thinking a bit smaller I wonder his ideas of reversing prior U.S. policy.

In a July 28 speech at the outset of the conference, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, speaking for the U.S. delegation, stated that U.S. representatives would not support an agreement that, among other things, made any reference to ammunition, civilian possession of small arms, or weapons transfers to nonstate actors.

These demands put the United States at odds with dozens of delegations that wanted to expand the scope of the 2001 agreement.

An article from the WSJ July 8, 2006 - online.wsj.com/article/SB115231797501901294.html

17th July 2009: UN – First Consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty

For the first time all governments agreed that international action is needed to address the problem of the unregulated arms trade. In contrast to the first Open-Ended Working Group in March 2009, this week almost no States seriously questioned the merit of developing international regulations and a majority of the countries urged that negotiations begin on an Arms Trade Treaty. A clear message was given that a small number of States must no longer block the desire of the overwhelming majority for a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty.

While the US has previously opposed discussions on a future Arms Trade Treaty, they are now willing to fully engage in the debate. - controlarms.org/en/media/index.htm

The second meeting of the UN Open-Ended Working Group towards an Arms Trade Treaty concluded on the 17 July 2009 with consensus for the first time that the lack of international regulation of the conventional arms trade is a serious problem that an Arms Trade Treaty could address. Consensus was also achieved on an Open-Ended Working Group report to the next UN General Assembly.

United States Marks International Small Arms Destruction Day

Bureau of Public Affairs, Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
July 9, 2009

The United States is pleased to join in observing International Small Arms Destruction Day, initiated by the United Nations in 2001, as part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to reduce armed violence and support the rule of law around the world. - www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125870.htm

The Council, as you well know, has a very important role to play in preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons, and it's the world's principal body for dealing with global security cooperation. The session will focus on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any particular countries. Key areas to be highlighted will include arms control and nuclear disarmament, strengthening the NPT regime, and denying and disrupting trafficking in and the securing of nuclear materials. We are consulting with colleagues on a potential product for that session, and will keep you posted as that evolves. - usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2009/september/128596.htm

Now the U.N. states the small arms treaty does not affect the private ownership of guns or the U.S. Second Amendment. Could be true, but, why has so many anti-gun groups including the Brady Campaign people been interested in being close to these conferences.

Remember these statements.

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said.

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns."
-- Rahm Emmanuel, senior advisor to Bill Clinton

Our main agenda is to have ALL guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
- Sarah Brady to Senator Howard Metzenbaum, The National Educator, January 1994, p.3

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
-- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D/CA) speaking of her authorship of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban on "60 Minutes" 2/5/95

Of course the President would never sign a treaty without two thirds Senate approval, and probably nothing evil like subverting the Second Amendment is on the agenda anyway. Though sole-executive agreement could possibly allow... no that's just crazytalk.