WHEN YOU ASK BAN KI-MOON A QUESTION, YOU ANSWER TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT

On Thursday, I was one of a handful of activists who attended an "informal conversation" of 1300 people with Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, hosted by the World Affairs Council of Northern California at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco.

We had prepared a banner demanding the enforcement of UN Resolutions 194 and 242. Under UN General Assembly Resolution 194, Palestinians have the right to choose to return to the homes they were expelled from or to seek compensation for their losses. UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the territories occupied during the 1967 war (including Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights). s Ban Ki-moon began to speak, we stood silently with the banner until security forces came and told us to sit down. We complied, and waited to hear what the Secretary General had to say about the situation in Palestine.

Ban Ki-moon acknowledged that the UN has a "humanitarian responsibility" in Palestine, in particular regarding the Palestinians in Gaza. He insisted that there be cooperation from the international community in terms of economic assistance and by "letting Palestinians engage in economic activities." He stated that the borders of Gaza must be opened and that Palestinians are suffering from a lack of freedom of movement, although he did not mention that it is Israel which is keeping the borders sealed and starving 1.4 million Palestinians. Ban Ki-moon believes there are "signs of optimism" in the Middle East today. His optimism lies with the Quartet, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, and US-Israeli puppet Abbas. He did not insist that the international community engage with Hamas, a legitimately democratically elected body. For Ban Ki-moon, the main thing standing in the way of a resolution to this conflict is "the division in Palestine" and the lack of "unity of the Palestinian people." Sure, there's division in Palestine. There's division in any country. But as Ali Abunimah recently pointed out, "the split among Palestinians today is not between Hamas and Fatah, nor between "extremist" or "moderate," or "Islamist" or "secular," but between the minority who have cast their lot in with the enemy as collaborators on the one hand, and those who uphold the right and duty to resist on the other." (July 18, "Overcoming the Conspiracy Against Palestine")

Not once did Ban Ki-moon mention the word "occupation." Not once did he acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are still refugees after almost 60 years. The organization he heads, the United Nations, has clear resolutions dealing with these issues – and yet there is a complete lack of will to enforce them, primarily due to the role the US plays in the organization. Israel is the target of sixty-five UN Resolutions, Palestine is the target of zero. And yet somehow Ban Ki-moon manages to see the major problem in the ongoing conflict as having to do with the Palestinians. Not once did he mention any responsibility on the part of Israel for the past and present suffering of the Palestinian people.

So I asked him directly, "Will you enforce UN Resolutions 194 and 242?" Instead of receiving an answer to my question, however, I learned that it is illegal to ask one! A half dozen security personnel escorted me and the other two activists who had earlier been involved in the silent banner action out of the room. We were told freedom of speech does not apply on private property, even if you are asking a question that is on-topic. We were also informed that we were being detained and that to avoid arrest, we must answer all questions asked to us by the man who would only identify himself as being with the State Department.

Ban Ki-moon, however, has a whole cadre of people shielding him from having to answer pointed questions. The entire structure of the event was set up to achieve precisely this purpose. One could only ask a question by submitting it on a card. Our friends who were able to remain in the room informed us that there were twenty minutes allotted at the end of the event to answer questions from the audience. "How do I get your job when I grow up?" and "Will there ever be a female Secretary General of the UN?" were deemed higher priorities than, "Will the UN hold Israel and the United States accountable for their violations of international law?"

Our friends also informed us that in a subsequent conversation regarding Iraq, the Secretary General offered a similar analysis to his reading of the situation in Palestine. The problem in Iraq is apparently also simply due to the lack of unity of the Iraqi people. Yes, there is sectarian fighting going on in Palestine and in Iraq. But what Ban Ki-moon failed to mention are the major parts played by Israel and the US in the creation and exacerbation of those tensions. (For a detailed analysis on US responsibility for sectarian violence in Iraq as well as on US and Israeli responsibility for Hamas/Fatah fighting in Palestine, see Jonathan Cook's June 26 article, "Divide and Rule, Israeli Style")

There are a number of UN programs that have done important life-saving work on the ground in many places. And yet the UN, contrary to its name, is designed to primarily serve the interests of the powerful nations that enjoy permanent membership and veto power on the Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. Until this is changed, those nations will bloc any enforcement of UN resolutions that are not in their interests. In the meantime, hopefully activists around the world will continue placing pressure on the UN to cease applying double standards in the enforcement of international law, in particular in regards to the United States and Israel. The tragedies in Iraq and Palestine are but two ongoing crises where the people of these nations have been failed by the UN because of the undemocratic power the US holds over that organization.

Cecilia Lucas is a resident of Oakland, CA. She can be reached at: cecilialucas@gmail.com.

Originally by Cecilia Lucas from Dissident Voice on July 30, 2007, 4:03pm

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.