New York, U.S.A. — The American Jewish Committee (AJC) is deeply disappointed with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s decision, announced on August 22, to attend the Non-Alignment Movement summit in Iran.

“Tehran is not the place for the UN Secretary General to visit, not at this time, not to meet with this Iranian regime,” said AJC Executive Director David Harris. “We are stunned that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would honor a regime that consistently ignores both him and the world body he heads in ways that threaten regional and global security.”

AJC, a leading a global advocacy organization, had appealed directly to the secretary general in recent days, urging him to not attend.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will host the NAM Summit, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei, have stepped up their threats to “annihilate” Israel. And, they continued to make those threatening statements after Secretary General Ban condemned Khamanei’s remarks as “offensive and inflammatory.”

In addition, Iran has consistently defied the UN Security Council and International Atomic Energy Agency regarding its nuclear program; trampled on the protections enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; sponsored terrorism worldwide; denied the Holocaust which the UN commemorates every January 27; and contributed heavily to the ongoing barbarism in Syria.

Indeed, on the same day as Ban’s decision to visit Iran was announced, a member of his staff reported to the UN Security Council that Iran was definitely supplying weapons to the Syrian regime.

In the run-up to the NAM Summit in Tehran, Iranian media have been claiming that the expected large turnout will show that “The U.S. strategy for isolating Iran has failed.”

“Secretary General Ban tragically missed an opportunity to send a powerful message to the Iranian regime that its posture is totally unacceptable,” Harris added.

Image Courtesy of   fotostory / Shutterstock.com

The article AJC Criticizes UN General Secretary for Planned Visit to Iran appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon brought a radical shift in the global fight for the elimination of hunger recently when he announced the ‘Zero Hunger Challenge’ at the launch of the United Nations conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Zero Hunger Challenge calls for the participation of all the countries of the world, making them work for a future in which no individual is lacking the means or proper access to adequate nutrition. Also, all food systems will be elastic.

Ban Ki-moon envisaged a future where there will be no hunger at all, and said, “In a world of plenty, no one – not a single person – should go hungry.”

The Zero Hunger Challenge is supported by the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Food Programme, (WFP), UN Children Fund (UNICEF), Bioversity International and The World Bank.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) director Jose Graziano da Silva greatly welcomed the announcement and said, “Big problems call for bold goals. The Zero Hunger Challenge can help us mobilize political commitment, the first step to eradicate hunger,” at a meeting in Brazil.

Ban Ki-moon further said, “I am not proposing a new goal. I am sharing my vision for the future. A future where all people enjoy their fundamental right to food; where people’s livelihoods and food systems are resilient and able to withstand a changing climate.”

Here are world hunger facts from the WFP:

• 65 percent of the world’s hungry live in only 7 countries: India, China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
• 10.9 million children under the age of 5 die each year in developing countries.
• 925 million people don’t have the provision for adequate food, and 98 percent live in developing countries.
• More than 70 percent of children in the world are underweight and mostly live in 10 countries.

Eradication of global hunger had been at the heart of the Millennium Development Goals projected in the year 2000. It looks like this global call for the eradication of hunger by Ki-moon is an attempt revitalize global hunger reduction efforts.

Zero Hunger Challenge will exert tremendous pressure on governments, especially of those nations where the proportion of hunger is greater, leading to implementation of more stringent and highly effective anti-hunger measures.

Of the 8 Millennium Development Goals, the Eradication of Hunger had been considered most significant and had been ranked the first priority. Inspiration for launching the Zero Hunger Challenge for Ban Ki-moon came from the outstanding work accomplished by Spain’s national Zero Hunger campaign. Brazil had been operating an anti-poverty program called Fome Zero, which was highly successful in lifting around 28 million people out of acute poverty.

The Zero Hunger Challenge may bring a new dawn and let poverty, hunger and starvation remain in the books as the dark era of history in the hope the pulse of poverty and hunger will stop soon.

Image Courtesy of  specialoperations

The article Ban Ki-moon Announces ‘Zero Hunger Challenge’ appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

New York, U.S.A. – The Secretary-General issued his annual report on children and armed conflict to the Security Council which gives an overview of the situation of girls and boys in conflict zones and measures taken for their protection. The report includes a list of parties who recruit and use children, kill and maim, commit sexual violence or attack schools and hospitals; the so-called “list of shame.”

“2011 shows a mixed picture. While new crises erupted with a heavy toll on children such as in Syria, and also in Libya, violations against girls and boys have come to an end in other parts of the world,” the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy said.

Encouraging is the delisting of parties to conflict in Nepal and Sri Lanka after their successful completion of Security Council-mandated action plans to end the recruitment and use of children. In 2011, five more parties in Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Chad and South Sudan entered into similar agreements with the United Nations.

In 2011, releases of children associated with armed forces and armed groups have taken place in Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, DRC, Myanmar, South Sudan and Sudan.

“The progress is continuous but the list of parties to conflict who harm girls and boys will always be too long,” SRSG Coomaraswamy said. Fifty-two parties including four new parties in Sudan, Yemen and Syria were listed.

For the first time ever, the Secretary-General listed parties responsible for attacks on schools and hospitals in addition to those who recruit, kill and maim, or commit sexual violence. The listing is the result of Security Council resolution 1998 adopted last year.

On the list are armed groups in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Iraq as well as the Syrian Government forces who regularly shell, burn, loot and raid schools, as well as assault or threat teachers, students, and medical personnel.

“In conflict, schools and hospitals must be zones of peace respected by all parties,” SRSG Coomaraswamy emphasized.

Of serious concern is also the growing list of persistent perpetrators of grave violations against children which has doubled since last year. Thirty-two parties to conflict have been listed by the Secretary-General for at least five years and are therefore considered persistent perpetrators.

“We must put more pressure on these parties through sanctions, other Security Council action, and closer collaboration with national and international courts,” SRSG Coomaraswamy said.

Action plans are another means to engage persistent perpetrators to end grave violations against children. Yet the dialogue with armed groups is often challenged by security constraints which hampers the United Nation’s independent access to these armed groups for dialogue.

Emerging situations

New crises have caused enormous suffering for children and continue in 2012. In Syria, children were victims of killing and maiming, arbitrary arrest, detention, torture and ill-treatment, including sexual violence, by the Syrian Armed Forces, the intelligence forces, and the Shabbiha militia.

Children between 8 and 13 were forcibly taken from their homes and used by soldiers as human shields, placing them in front of the windows of buses carrying military personnel into the raid on villages. Schools have been regularly raided, used as military bases and detention centres. In detention, girls and boys were beaten, blindfolded, subjected to stress positions and to electrical shocks, as well as whipped with heavy electrical cables.

“The world is keeping a detailed account of the violence committed against civilians in Syria and I am confident that these crimes will not go unpunished,” SRSG Coomaraswamy said.

Another worrisome trend is the increasing use of girls and boys as suicide bombers and “victim” bombers. “Victim” bombers are those who do not know that they are carrying explosives and are detonated from distance. In 2011 alone, at least 11 children in Afghanistan and another 11 girls and boys in Pakistan were killed while conducting suicide attacks, some as young as eight years old.

“The world should unite against this inhuman and perverse practice of child suicide bombers,” the Special Representative said.

Image Courtesy of   Herald Post

The article UN Condemns Groups for Use of Children in Armed Conflicts appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

On the anniversary of the April 8, massacre of the residents of Camp Ashraf, International Solidarity for a Democratic Change in Iran (ISDCI) calls on UN, US and EU to take necessary steps to guarantee safety and basic human rights of the residents.

ISDCI also calls on US Secretary Clinton to, firstly, uphold her last year’s December 25 commitment for a “robust Monitoring” by the U.S. at Camp Liberty and secondly remove the terror tag on the Iran’s most important opposition movement, the MEK, which is an absolute necessity to facilitate resettlement to third countries.

The UN Security Council is expected to discuss Iraq, including the situation of Ashraf residents, next week. The Secretary General Special Representative for Iraq, Ambassador Martin Kobler is also expected to report to the Security Council.

ISDCI also calls on the United Nation Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to ensure that the conditions at Camp Liberty meet minimum humanitarian standards which it currently lacks.

ISDCI further expresses its dismay that after one year past the April 8 Massacre, the perpetrators of this heinous crime against humanity are yet to be brought to justice.

ISDCI participated in an international conference in Paris on March 24, 2012 as a display of solidarity for the call to protect residents of Camps Ashraf and Liberty in Iraq as the international consensus have called for it for the past year.

On the one-year anniversary of April 8 massacre of unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf at the hands of the Iraqi Army, and by the orders of the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Iranian regime, ISDCI along with the families of the residents of Ashraf and supporters of the Iranian resistance remember the day of loss of their loved ones on April 8 of last year, knowing there is still much left to be accomplished as lives of the residents who still live in Ashraf or Liberty are in danger.

The Attack of April 8, 2011 on the unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf, who were declared “Protected Persons” under the “Fourth Geneva Conventions” by the American forces following the invasion of Iraq, left 36 residents dead, including 8 women, one as young as 19 years old.

The Attack was the second of its kind. The first attack, leaving 11 unarmed residents dead, took place in July 2009 shortly after the handover of the protection of the camp to Iraqis, despite persisting opposition on the part of residents, realizing the close ties between the governments of Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki and the theocratic regime ruling in Iran, foreseeing a human catastrophe.

Last February the residents accepted an international call supported by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to move to Camp Liberty located in Baghdad under the condition that their safety and security as well as humanitarian and human rights standards would be guaranteed and honored in the new Camp.

About 1200 residents have moved to Liberty up until now despite the new camp’s lack of adequate and basic accommodation particularly for so many people. The inadequacies include drinking water, electricity, and proper sewage system, not mentioning the 24 hour presence of police guards armed with heavy machineguns.

At the March 24 Conference in Paris, speakers from the United States and Europe stressed on the need for protecting the rights of Ashraf and Liberty residents. Speakers included Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the Iranian resistance, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and US Presidential Candidate (2008), Michael Mukasey, US Attorney General (2007-2009), Secretary Tom Ridge, the first US Homeland Security Secretary (2003-2005) and former Governor of Pennsylvania;

John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the United Nations, Patrick Kennedy, member of the US Congress (1991-2011); Glenn Carle, former Deputy National Intelligence for Transnational Threats; Col. Wesley Martin, former Commander of the MNF-I anti-terrorism unit and commander of Forward Operation Base in Ashraf; Lt. Col Leo McCloskey, Commander of Forward Operation Base in Ashraf until 2008. Additionally, a number of European personalities also made remarks during the conference.

Speaking in front of a crowd of about one thousand cheering supporters, the speakers stressed on the necessity for the U.S. Government to remove the unjust terror tag on the Iranian resistance, as the Europeans and the British have done, paving the way for a smooth transit by the residents to other countries.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/perspective/

The article ISDCI Calls On for Protection of Iranian Opposition Members of Camp Ashraf appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The Andean Commission of Jurists and five prestigious international law experts from around the world have joined a growing chorus of criticism targeting Chevron’s attempt to use a secret investor arbitration as part of its campaign to evade an $18 billion environmental judgment in Ecuador, according to letters released.

In a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Andean Commission said it was “alarmed” at Chevron’s attempt to use a private investor arbitration convened under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) to influence the outcome of a private litigation between indigenous groups and Chevron in Ecuador’s courts.  The panel meets in secret and bars the Ecuadorians from appearing before it.

After an eight-year trial, a three-judge appellate panel in Ecuador on January 3 affirmed an $18 billion judgment against the oil giant for causing what experts believe is one of the worst oil-related disasters on the planet. The decision was based on a 220,000-page evidentiary record, more than 100 expert reports from both parties, and 18 years of litigation in the courts of the U.S. and Ecuador.

The letter from the Andean Commission, part of growing chorus of international criticism of Chevron, accused the oil giant of continuing to use “questionable litigation tactics to deny those injured any forum to seek justice and compensation for their injuries.”

“The latest such tactic is the issue by Chevron of … an arbitration … to force Ecuador’s government to violate international law and quash the human rights of its own citizens by essentially nullifying the result of their case after almost two decades of litigation,” said the letter.

The Andean Commission, which has consulting status with the United Nations, is one of the leading human rights organizations in South America.  Its board members include Diego Garcia-Sayan, the former Chief Justice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court; renowned investor-state arbitrator Pedro Nikken; and other distinguished jurists from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

Separately, five international law experts wrote a letter to a United Nations official who oversees international arbitrations to question Chevron’s attempts to bypass the public court system of a sovereign nation where it wanted the trial held just because it lost based on the evidence.

“Allowing (arbitration) panels to determine recognition and enforcement issues in private litigation transforms them into venues of final appeal in a way that was never intended and offends the inherent trustworthiness of legal systems around the world to determine matters for themselves,” the jurists wrote to Renaud Sorieul, the Secretary of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

“(Treaty) panel awards ordering States to interfere in private judicial proceedings between different parties is a direct violation of well settled principles of sovereignty and, in this particular case, human rights under international law,” the letter added.  The letter was sent Feb 9, when the U.N. arbitration body headed by Sorieul was in session in New York to discuss the need for greater transparency in investor-State arbitration.

Recently, distinguished international law jurist Jose Daniel Amado issued a separate letter to U.N. Secretary General Ki-moon asking for a review of Chevron’s “egregious misuse” of the BIT.  Amado, a specialist in international arbitration, told the Secretary General that Chevron’s attempt to use the arbitration “stands in direct violation of international law” and threatens to “quash” the fundamental human rights of the 30,000 citizens who initially brought suit against Chevron in the United States in 1993.

Chevron shifted the environmental lawsuit from U.S. federal court to Ecuador in 2002 after praising the country’s judicial system and promising to abide by any judgment there, subject only to narrow enforcement defenses that did not include international arbitration.

The five international jurists who signed the Sorieul letter are Donald K. Anton , Associate Professor of International Law, The Australian National University College of Law; Naomi Roht-Arriaza, Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Jorge Avendano V., Principal Professor of Law, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru; Timo Koivurova, Research professor, The Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law, Arctic Centre, University of Lapland; and Professor Cesare Romano, W Joseph Ford Fellow, Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.  Other jurists are expected to sign on in the coming days.

Separately, the indigenous rainforest communities filed suit last week in Washington, D.C. before a renowned international tribunal seeking an order that would prevent the oil giant from using the secret arbitration to violate their human rights.

The Ecuadorians are seeking an order from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights requiring Ecuador’s government to protect their right to life, physical integrity, health, a fair trial, and equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the American Declaration of the Rights of Man and other international human rights treaties.  Any order from the Commission, which was established by the treaty that created the Organization of American States, is binding on the government against which it is issued.

The Ecuador court found that Chevron deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways that local inhabitants relied on for drinking water. The Ecuador trial court found evidence that Chevron’s contamination decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer, spontaneous miscarriages, and other oil-related diseases.

On January 4, the day after the Ecuador appellate court decision, Chevron petitioned the private arbitration panel to order Ecuador’s President to interfere in its independent judiciary and block the ability of the indigenous rainforest communities to enforce their judgment in countries around the world. Chevron had stripped its assets from Ecuador to avoid paying the judgment.

Lawyers for the Ecuadorians say the arbitration panel does not have the authority to do what Chevron is seeking, and that in any event Ecuador’s government is obligated to ignore its orders given its own binding legal obligations under the Ecuador Constitution and various international treaties protecting the human rights of its citizens.

The private arbitration system under the BIT has come under withering criticism for its conflicts of interest and lack of due process.  Some commentators have likened the secret arbitration panel to a “kangaroo court” imbued with a pro-business culture.

The three arbitrators hearing the Chevron claims – all private lawyers who represent clients before other arbitration panels in the same treaty system – stand to personally reap millions of dollars in fees if they grant jurisdiction over the case, which in itself is a hotly contested issue given that Chevron left Ecuador five years before the U.S.-Ecuador BIT took effect.

In any event, it is clear that any “award” from the panel will be treated with skepticism in countries that observe the rule of law and will not be an obstacle to enforcement of the Ecuador judgment, said Amado.  ”It is our duty as international arbitration experts to prevent it from causing collateral damage to the international legal order that protects the human rights of all peoples worldwide,” he emphasized.

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/rainforestactionnetwork/

The article Chevron Tries “Secret” Panel to Evade $18 Billion Ecuador Judgment appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

A distinguished international law jurist from Latin America has issued a letter to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, asking for a review of Chevron’s “egregious misuse” of an investor treaty to evade its $18 billion liability in Ecuador for creating one of the world’s worst oil-related disasters in the Amazon rainforest, according to a letter released to thousands of arbitration specialists around the globe.

Jose Daniel Amado, a leading law scholar in Peru and a specialist in international arbitration, told the Secretary General that Chevron’s latest attempt to deny the legal claims of the rainforest communities to be decided by an arbitration panel that meets in secret “stands in direct violation of international law” and would “quash” the fundamental human rights of the 30,000 citizens who initially brought suit against Chevron in the United States in 1993.

Chevron shifted that lawsuit to Ecuador in 2002 after praising the country’s judicial system and promising to abide by any judgment there, subject only to narrow enforcement defenses that did not include international arbitration. ”Chevron has constructed what appears to be a calculated plan to manipulate a commercial investment dispute system to evade the outcome of a private litigation,” wrote Amado, who has served as a consultant to the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

Amado asked the Secretary General to conduct a review of the matter “to ensure that the BIT arbitration system is not used by Chevron to undo international law protections guaranteeing access to justice.”

In January, after a nine-year legal proceeding, a three-judge panel of the Ecuador appellate court confirmed an $18 billion award against Chevron for the deliberate dumping of billions of gallons of toxic waste into Amazon waterways that local inhabitants relied on for drinking water.  The Ecuador trial court found evidence that Chevron’s contamination decimated indigenous groups and caused an outbreak of cancer and other oil-related diseases.

The trial in Ecuador produced 220,000 pages of evidence and more than 64,000 chemical sampling results from independent laboratories which proved that dozens of Chevron oil production facilities suffer from extensive levels of life-threatening heavy metals and toxins, according to the findings of the Ecuador court.

On January 4, the day after the Ecuador appellate court decision, Chevron petitioned a private arbitration panel convened under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (“BIT”) to order Ecuador’s executive branch to interfere in its independent judiciary and block the ability of the Ecuadorian citizens to enforce their judgment in countries around the world.  Chevron had stripped its assets from Ecuador to avoid paying the judgment.

Lawyers for the Ecuadorians say the arbitration panel does not have such authority, and that in any event Ecuador’s government is obligated to ignore its orders given its own binding legal obligations under the Ecuador Constitution and various international treaties protecting the human rights of its citizens.

The arbitration panel prohibits the Ecuadorians from appearing before it and takes no steps to inform them (or the public) of the status of its proceedings or when or where it is meeting.  Nor does it release its decisions in a system that clearly lacks due process of law, said Aaron Page, who represents the Ecuadorians and who has represented governments in the arbitral proceedings.

Some commentators have like ecuadorians end the secret arbitration panel to a “kangaroo court” rife with conflicts of interest and imbued with a pro-business culture.

The arbitrators are private sector lawyers who generally rule in favor of investors and against sovereign governments — a fact which in recent years has led several countries to withdraw or threaten to withdraw in recent years from the arbitral system, said Page. ”Chevron’s radical request for relief in this case potentially undermines the credibility of the entire investor arbitral regime,” Page said.

In the letter to Ban Ki-moon, Amado noted that a recent “interim” order by the arbitration panel asking Ecuador’s government to freeze the environmental case “makes a travesty of the bilateral commercial treaty system” and represents an “illegal expansion of arbitral powers with wide-ranging implications for well-settled principles of international law, including fundamental human rights and state sovereignty.”

“Such a result is simply untenable under international law — BIT arbitral panels cannot be called on by investors to set aside countries’ constitutional systems and sovereignty, which are essential components of modern democracies,” he added.

Concern over Chevron’s latest stratagem, Amado pointed out, is shared by a U.S. federal appellate court which ruled last year that the longstanding legal claims of the Ecuadorians “cannot be settled” through the BIT arbitration given that they are not a party to those proceedings.

“The international legal community was shocked by this [interim] Order, which Chevron interpreted to force the Ecuadorian executive branch affirmatively to interfere in a judicial process and limit Ecuador’s sovereignty vis-a-vis a case that has been in the courts for 18 years,” he said.

The Amado letter was emailed to 7,000 arbitrators around the world by the Peruvian Arbitration Institute, which said it considered the letter to “of high interest” to the international arbitration community.

Amado is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the founding partner of Miranda & Amado, one of Peru’s leading law firms.  He has published numerous articles on international law topics, has lectured in various countries, and has represented both private investors and governments before BIT arbitration panels.

Amado is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Peru and is President of the Energy Legal Committee of Peru’s National Mining, Oil and Energy Society.

The three arbitrators hearing the Chevron claims — all private lawyers who represent investors before other arbitration panels in the same treaty system — stand to personally reap millions of dollars in fees if they grant jurisdiction over the case, which in itself is a hotly contested issue given that Chevron left Ecuador five years before the U.S.-Ecuador BIT took effect in 1997, Page said.

R. Doak Bishop, an American from the firm King & Spalding who is Chevron’s lead lawyer in the Ecuador matter, has served as an arbitrator in numerous cases convened under the BIT process while he simultaneously represents private clients in the same system.  Ecuador’s American lawyers are only putting up a nominal defense, essentially leaving the Ecuador plaintiffs without representation before the panel, said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the plaintiffs.

In any event, it is clear that any “award” from the panel will lack legitimacy in countries that observe the rule of law and will not be an obstacle to enforcement of the Ecuador judgment, said Amado.

“This is a far-fetched strategy by Chevron that has little chance of working,” said Amado.  “But it is our duty as international lawyers to prevent it from causing collateral damage to the international legal order that protects the human rights of all peoples worldwide.”

Image Courtesy of   http://www.flickr.com/photos/rainforestactionnetwork/

The article Letter to UN Asks for Review of Chevron in Ecuador Case appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.