The
United Nations Stands in the Way of Victory Over Terrorism
By
Cliff Kincaid*
President Bush says, “we will pursue nations that
provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every
region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists.”
But the U.N. is NOT with us.
Brave U.S. military personnel will be needlessly
lost if America’s war on terrorism is run or manipulated by the United
Nations.
Liberal State Department bureaucrats are clamoring
to increase the United Nations’ role in this war on terrorism. For the sake of
our fighting men and women, we must not let liberal State Department
bureaucrats, their foreign country clientele and the U.N. dictate the course of
this war. If they succeed, then we will lose this war and we will be hit by
more terrorist attacks.
U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on October 9 that he is “disturbed” about the
U.S. announcement that we have a right as a sovereign nation to extend our
military campaign against other countries harboring
terrorists. On October 30,
Ruud Lubbers, head of the U.N. refugee agency, called for “self-restraint” by
the U.S. in the war on Afghanistan.
Nevertheless,
the State Department says the U.N. has made an ``invaluable contribution to the
global campaign against terrorism'' through a ``trailblazing resolution''
adopted September 28, which supposedly requires all 189 U.N. member states to
deny financing, support and sanctuary to terrorists. But the U.N. doesn’t
define terrorism.
Look
at the U.N. record. The U.N. Security Council, in resolution 1333 adopted on
December 19, 2000, had demanded that Afghanistan's Taliban
authorities act swiftly to
close all camps where terrorists are trained. In 1999, the
Security Council had adopted
resolution 1267 requiring that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden. None of
this happened.
This report is published and distributed by
America’s Survival, Inc. Cliff Kincaid, President,
P.O. Box 146, Owings, MD 20736
301-855-2679 FAX 301-855-3732
www.USAsurvival.org
Annan
made numerous statements about Taliban actions on accepting foreign aid, the
destruction of Buddha statues, and the plight of Afghan women. But Annan
never put his full weight behind the demand for the turnover of international
terrorist Osama bin Laden.
The
U.N.’s Declaration
on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism, adopted by the
Assembly in 1994, and a supplemental statement in 1996, condemn all acts and
practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomever
committed, and urge all states to take measures at the national and
international level to eliminate international terrorism. In total, there are
19 U.N. treaties against terrorism.
These
pieces of paper did nothing to protect us. The devastating terrorist attack on America proves that we can’t rely
on the United Nations or U.N. treaties to protect our national security.
The
United Nations wants to pass resolutions, treaties, and “negotiate”. We say no
way! These terrorists and their backers forfeited their rights when they flew
those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It’s not time to
negotiate -- it’s time to hit them back and finish them off! But that means we
have to know who the enemy is.
Bin Laden claims the U.N. is
against Muslims and Arabs because it allowed the creation of Israel. But the
1989 book, A Mandate for Terror: The United Nations and the PLO,[1] describes how, in the name of fighting
terrorism, the world body came to embrace the Palestinian Liberation
Organization’s terror campaign against Israel, culminating in the 1974 visit by
Palestine Liberation Organization chief Yasir Arafat to the U.N. General Assembly
wearing a gun. U.N. pressure is one reason why the government of Israel was
eventually compelled to recognize the PLO and treat Arafat as a partner in peace talks. Terrorists who
have carried out suicide bombing attacks against Israel have been students at a
United Nations-run institution in the West Bank.
The
U.N. has even funded bin Laden. In a startling revelation, the BBC on October 21 said the U.N.
donated over $1 million to a charity believed by the US to be a bin Laden front
organization. The U.N. donated more than $1.4 million in 1997 to the
Sudan-based Muwafaq Foundation, a
consortium of charities, floated by wealthy Arab businessman Yasin
al-Qadi, whose assets were frozen by the U.S. after the September 11 terror
strikes. Al-Qadi denied the charge.
The U.N. is not our ally in this struggle.
Every country the American government lists as a “state sponsor of terrorism”
-- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Cuba -- is considered a
“member in good standing” by the United Nations. So why in the world would we
be letting the United Nations run this war?
Syria, a terrorist state, occupies Lebanon in
violation of U.N. Security Council resolution 520 and yet Syria is rewarded
with a seat on the U.N. Security Council, getting 160 out of a possible 177
votes. Showing its bias in this area, the U.N. ended months of denials in July
by confirming that U.N. “peacekeepers” had taken videotapes of a location on
the Israeli side of the border with Lebanon where Hezbollah terrorists had
seized three Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah had bribed the peacekeepers with cash,
women and alcohol to turn a blind eye to the abduction. The terrorists were
said to have been dressed in U.N. uniforms and driving two vehicles bearing
fake U.N. license plates when they lured the Israeli soldiers to the border
fence.
On September 28, the United Nations lifted sanctions
against the genocidal Christian-killing regime in Sudan after the United States
dropped its objections to the move. The U.S. abstained from the Security
Council vote, but all the other 14 members voted to end the sanctions. The U.N.
had imposed the sanctions in 1996 to try to force the country to hand over
several people suspected of involvement in a failed plot to assassinate Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak.
Earlier this year, the U.S. was kicked off the U.N.
Human Rights Commission in favor of Sudan. In this context, the U.N. and Kofi
Annan have not condemned the radical Muslim mass murder of millions of Sudanese
Christians, specifically targeted because of their faith. Two million people
have died in this Islamic Jihad as the regime in Khartoum, which hosted bin
Laden, has sought to seize the rich southern oil fields.
The U.N. should stop coddling regimes that support
terrorism. Like Palestinian
Authority chief Yasir Arafat, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro gets standing
ovations at U.N. conferences. U.N. members enjoy his America-bashing.
Giving support to an anti-American terrorist cause
long championed by Castro, the U.N. in May held a “decolonization” conference
in Cuba that was designed in part to promote the ‘liberation” of Puerto Rico,
an American Caribbean possession that has repeatedly voted to remain with the
United States. In 1999, President Bill Clinton gave pardons to several Puerto
Rican terrorists, most of whom were members of a Marxist group, the FALN. It
had been responsible for 130 bombing attacks in the U.S. from 1974 to 1983 that
killed six people and wounded dozens.
In Afghanistan, President Bush has launched a war to
protect the American people, but the State Department is making the same
mistake that was made in the Persian Gulf War – turning the war effort over to
a global coalition and the United Nations. As General Norman Schwarzkopf points
out, U.N. resolutions stopped the U.S. from going to Baghdad and capturing or
killing Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War.
In the current crisis, it is clear that the U.N.
wants to save Saddam Hussein again. This is why Annan says he is “disturbed” by
the U.S. announcement that the war may
extend beyond Afghanistan.
U.N.,
Kofi Annan Sell-Out Victims of Pan Am 103
America’s Survival, Inc. has been warning about the
international terrorist threat to America, and how the United Nations provides
a haven, sanctuary and platform for America’s enemies. We sponsored a National
Press Club conference featuring families of the American victims of the Pan Am
103 terror bombing, who were concerned about the international trial of the two
Libyans indicted for the mass murder of 270 people, including 189 Americans. We
filed a Freedom of Information Act request for documents in the case,
demonstrating a pro-terrorist deal by the Clinton Administration, the Tony
Blair government of Britain, and the U.N. with Libya. Oil companies were
driving this policy of appeasement.
These documents showed that U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, in preparation for a trial of those two Libyans, made a deal that
let Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi off the hook for his role in the mass
murder. In the documents outlining the deal, which resulted in the turnover of
the two defendants, Gadhafi received a get-out-of-jail-free card through a
promise that the trial would not “undermine” his regime. This was widely viewed
as a guarantee not to charge Gadhafi or his top aides in the terrorist
incident. The documents had been kept secret for more than one year because the
Clinton State Department had put a "classified" stamp on them.
Gadhafi, of course, had them all along, and had confirmed the existence of the
deal in an interview with British Sky TV. The trial before a Scottish court
resulted in one of the Libyans, an intelligence official, being convicted. The
U.N. suspended sanctions against Libya.
Joining with Pan Am family members, we have
encouraged Attorney General John Ashcroft to seek Gadhafi’s indictment. More
than that, however, Gadhafi should be eliminated in the U.S. war on terrorism.
The
International Criminal Court: An Arab Weapon
We joined with then-Senator John Ashcroft and
sponsored a Capitol Hill news conference in 1998 to oppose U.N. plans for an
International Criminal Court (ICC). Other speakers included former Attorney
General Edwin Meese. The Bush
Administration opposes the ICC because it could indict, arrest and prosecute
American citizens, including U.S. military personnel, on dubious political
charges.
Dr. Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni, an Egyptian serving as
a law professor at DePaul University in the U.S., was chairman of the Drafting
Committee of the Diplomatic Conference on the Establishment of an International
Criminal Court. He is also a prime mover
behind the U.N.-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia. When this tribunal was unveiled, half the judges were from Muslim
countries such as Pakistan and Malaysia. Bassiouni was accused of ignoring
evidence presented to him of crimes committed by Muslim and others against
Serbs. Bassiouni, who is also advertised as an expert on terrorism, has called
Russian military actions against Islamic terrorists in Chechyna “war crimes.” [2]
He wrote the introduction to the book, Islamic Criminal Law & Procedure
(Greenwood Publishing Group, 1988).
The
Smallpox Threat
The
U.N.’s World Health Organization, which maintains that smallpox has been
eradicated as a health threat, never took any action against the Soviets over
violating WHO rules on storage of remaining stockpiles of the virus. Violations
have been documented in such books as Biohazard by Ken Alibek, who
helped run the Soviet Union’s biological weapons program. The Soviets provided
biological weapons to Iraq, a likely source of the anthrax attacks on the U.S.,
for use during the Persian Gulf War. However, in a decision that could benefit
the Russians and their allies, the WHO recommended the destruction of those
stockpiles. Since “officially” only the Russians and the Americans have such
stocks, and since the Russians can clearly not be trusted to emliminate them,
following these recommendations would leave the U.S. at a fatal disadvantage.
Russian violations of WHO’s rules that were supposed to
safeguard the smallpox virus go hand-in-hand with their violations of the 1972
treaty, the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, supposedly banning such
weapons. Revelations that the Russians have violated that treaty have NOT led
Kofi Annan to call on Russia to abide by its international commitments. Russian
President
Bin Laden Appeals to the United
Nations
In a
video message broadcast on November 3, bin Laden was reported to have
castigated the United Nations, saying it had stood by while crimes were
committed against Muslims. "Those who today are referring our tragedies to
the United Nations and want to resolve them there are hypocrites, who try to
deceive God and His prophet and the believers. Have our tragedies not resulted
from the United Nations?" He said the United Nations had given Arab land
"to the Jews" in 1947. "Those who claim to be leaders of the Arabs
and who are still at the United Nations have disavowed what was revealed to
Prophet Muhammad," he said. “Under no circumstances should a Muslim - or
any sane person for that matter - resort to the United Nations. The United
Nations is only one of the tools of crime. Every day we are being slaughtered
and the United Nations does not lift a finger. For over 50 years, our brothers
in Kashmir have been suffering the worst pain. They have been killed and
slaughtered and their honor, blood, and homes are being violated and the United
Nations did not lift a finger," he said. “Today, without any evidence, the
United Nations peddles the resolutions that support the unjust and tyrant
America against a helpless people who have just come out of a fierce war against
the Russian Federation."
Bin Laden knows better than this. His attack on the
U.N. was a clever attempt to force the world body to try to stop the U.S.
bombing of his hideout in Afghanistan. Not only has the U.N. been coming down
on the side of the Arab-Muslim bloc of nations in various disputes, so has the
U.S. In a September 21 column, Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Let us look at
American policies. America conducted three wars in the 1990s. The Gulf War
saved the Kuwaiti people from Saddam. American intervention in the Balkans
saved Bosnia. And then we saved Kosovo from Serbia. What do these three
military campaigns have in common? In every one we saved a Muslim people. And
then there was Somalia, a military operation of unadulterated altruism. Its
sole purpose was to save the starving people of Somalia. Muslims all. For such
alliances and actions, we get more than 5,000 Americans murdered…” If the
American people understood how Washington, NATO and the U.N. have been working
to expand the reach and influence of Islam worldwide, in such places as Bosnia
and Kosovo, they would be outraged. But the wars in Yugoslavia weren’t framed
in terms of protecting Muslims. Rather, the American people were told we were
fighting a dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, who was committing massive human
rights violations.
Vladimir Putin must
aggressively cooperate in an investigation of this matter so a possible
U.S.-Russian partnership in the war on terrorism can move forward.
On
another matter critical to the survival of America and our people, the U.N. has
failed to make North Korea live up to its commitments under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons in violation
of that treaty.
In
another case, when a Communist Chinese aircraft collided with a U.S. Navy
aircraft in international airspace, in violation of the international law the
U.N. claims to respect, U.N. boss Kofi Annan refused to condemn the Chinese
regime. When the Chinese violated the sovereignty of the aircraft and
incarcerated the crew, Annan again refused to condemn the Chinese regime.
In the present context, foreign countries like
Communist China demand that we “clear” everything we do through the United
Nations. This is suicide. It puts our troops in danger and keeps the
terrorists alive to hit us again. Chinese government media have glorified the
terrorist attack on America.
Islam’s
War Against the West
The war in Afghanistan takes place in a year
proclaimed by the U.N. General Assembly as the United Nations Year of Dialogue
among Civilizations. But what we really have is a clash of civilizations. Some
experts say that the Muslim Holy book, the Koran, justifies a violent Jihad
against non-believers.[3]
One also has to question Annan’s concern about the
plight of Afghan refugees. In preparation for Annan’s one-hour April 2001 visit
to the Shamshatoo Afghan refugee camp just outside of Peshawar, Pakistan,
officials were instructed to build him a Western-style latrine with a flush
toilet enclosed in a building. Annan also required a helicopter pad so he could
be flown in. In the end, he used the helicopter
pad but not the toilet. The building for the toilet was torn down, with the
commode all that remained. Annan spokesman Fred Eckhard, who was with Annan,
insists “we saw no signs of flush toilets” and that arrangements for the
helicopter pad were made by the Pakistan government. Other U.N. officials were
outraged by the spectacle.
During
the U.S. war on terrorists in Afghanistan, however, Annan shed crocodile tears
for the plight of the Afghan people. On October 30, Annan said
that he hoped U.S. military raids on Afghanistan would end soon so that relief
workers could step up deliveries of badly needed aid. ``We would want this
whole military operation ended as soon as possible, particularly the air
action, so that we can begin to move in our supplies,'' he said.
During the Cold War, the U.N. was on the side of the
Soviet Union and its client states. During this war, the U.N. is on the side of
the Arab-Muslim bloc of nations, known as the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC), a group of 56 nations possessing what Osama bin Laden calls
“Islamic wealth” – the oil resources that serve as leverage over U.S. foreign
policy.
OPEC – the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries – consists of Algeria,
Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Venezuela. Ten of the eleven members belong to the OIC. The other,
Venezuela, has close ties to Castro.
“I have long considered the OIC a vital partner for
the United Nations throughout the Islamic world, and beyond,” says Annan. “The
cooperation between our two organizations continues to deepen and broaden as we
find growing areas of common interest.” [4]
During a December 9, 1997 appearance before the OIC, Annan declared:
“In the Balkans, we
cannot forget the horrifying atrocities inflicted upon the population,
particularly the Muslims of Bosnia. It is the duty of the international
community to ensure that those responsible for such genocidal policies are
brought to justice at The Hague Tribunal. In such situations, peace and justice
are indivisible.”[5]
This is the kind of rhetoric we heard from Annan to
justify intervention in Bosnia from the enemy described by bin Laden as “the
Christian Serbians.”[6]
It was framed by the “international community” in compassionate terms. Bin
Laden declared:
“Without shedding blood
no degradation and branding can be removed from the forehead. I remind the
youths of the Islamic world, who fought in Afghanistan and Bosnia Herzegovina
with their wealth, pens, tongues and themselves that the battle had not finished
yet.” [7]
While the attention of the world was focused on the
“Christian Serbians,” another
Afghanistan was being created in the southern region of Europe. The U.N., NATO,
and the U.S. installed as President of Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic, who had written
in his “Islamic Declaration”:
“There can be no peace
or coexistence between the ‘Islamic faith’ and non-Islamic societies and
political institutions. Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of
activity of any strange ideology on its own turf…and the state should be an
expression …of the religion.”
They have indeed given the world another Afghanistan.
As noted on October 7 by Craig Pyesjosh Meyer and William C. Rempe of the Los
Angeles Times:
“ZENICA,
Bosnia--Herzegovina -- Hundreds of foreign Islamic extremists who became
Bosnian citizens after battling Serbian and Croatian forces present a potential
terrorist threat to Europe and the United States, according to a classified
U.S. State Department report and interviews with international military and
intelligence sources. The extremists include hard-core terrorists, some with
ties to Osama bin Laden, protected by militant elements of the former Sarajevo
government. Bosnia-Herzegovina is ‘a staging area and safe haven’ for
terrorists, said one former senior State Department official. The secret
report, prepared late last year for the Clinton administration, warned of
problem passport-holders in Bosnia in numbers that ‘shocked everyone,’ he said.
The White House leaned on Bosnia and its then-president, Alija Izetbegovic, to
do something about the matter, ‘but nothing happened,’ the former official
said.”
Today, Bosnia is an observer state member of the OIC.
The appeasement of the Arab/Muslim bloc, especially Iraq, has been
noticed in Israel, where Uri Dan wrote in the Jerusalem Post:
“Saddam
Hussein used gas to kill not only Iranians on the battlefield, but also
thousands of Kurds in Halabja. He also invaded Kuwait. But he has never been
declared a war criminal, even though he has continued his murderous ways to
this day, and even more seriously, continues to brazenly ignore his commitments
and solicit from Europe the means to build weapons of mass destruction.
Milosevic, however, has been declared a war criminal. Why the difference?
“Because
Iraq has enormous oil reserves, and Saddam is, after all, an Arab ruler,
defended by his fellow Arab rulers and the notable Arab nation. Yugoslavia has
enough oil to meet only 20 percent of its own needs, and Milosevic is, after
all, just a Serb.”
In contrast to how the U.S. and NATO
treated Yugoslavia and Milosevic, the U.S. in early 1998 asked Kofi Annan to
make a deal with Iraq over its failure to permit limited inspections of its
weapons production facilities. Clovis
Maksoud, former Arab League Ambassador to the U.N., declared that the U.N. boss
was “reigniting [the] hopes of Arabs everywhere...” by going to Baghdad. After
the visit, Saddam Hussein declared February 23, 1998, the day the deal was
signed, a national holiday. Eventually, the deal fell apart and the weapons
inspectors left Iraq. Annan was denounced by Senator Trent Lott as a virtual foreign
agent of Iraq.
It is significant that Clinton and
NATO did not begin implementing their new “Strategic Concept” by waging another
war against Iraq, building off the model of an allied coalition that President
Bush assembled against the Arab state after it invaded Kuwait. Instead, a
low-level war against Iraq has been conducted which has not affected Saddam’s
ability to market his oil.
At the same time, neither the U.S. nor Annan has sought to brand Saddam
a war criminal and expel Iraq from the U.N. for its obvious violations of
international law. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which violated the U.N. charter with
its invasion of Kuwait and has failed to comply with U.N. Security Council
resolutions on disarmament, continues to enjoy membership in the world body.
Former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler called Annan’s relationship with Saddam “deeply alarming,”
and that Annan “repeatedly tried to deal
with the problems raised by an outlaw regime by papering them over with
diplomacy.” Butler implies that Annan was deliberately pursuing a policy to enable Saddam to avoid
inspections and reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction. Rather than seek
Saddam’s indictment as a war criminal, Annan made a deal with the Iraqi
dictator respecting “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.” The
U.N.’s economic and military sanctions against Iraq are laughable. Even so,
Annan suggests that the sanctions against Iraq should be lifted.
Incredibly, during the General Assembly’s debate on
measures to combat terrorism, Iraq’s Ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, said his
country “had suffered and is still suffering” from acts of American terrorism.
The U.N. reported:
“On the distinction
between various forms of terrorism and legitimate resistance, the
representative of Iraq said that his country suffered from acts of terrorism,
including State terrorism, such as the sanctions imposed by the United States
through the Security Council and United States-trained mercenaries carrying out
terrorist acts in its cities. He
added, as did representatives of other Arab countries, that the acts carried
out by the Israeli authorities in Palestine and the occupied Arab territories
could only be described as organized terrorism. The legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people against
occupation, terrorism and Zionist aggression could not be considered as
terrorism, he said.”[8]
This from a country whose official al-Iraq
newspaper declared in a headline after the September 11 terror attacks,
“America burns," and said
"the myth of America was destroyed with the World Trade Center in
New York." al-Iraq wrote:
"It is the prestige, arrogance and institutions of America that
burn." The paper said it would be difficult for the US to find the
perpetrators of the attack, since America has made so many enemies.
"Thousands if not a million or billion hands were behind these
attacks," it said. al-Iraq
hailed the attackers, saying, "Whichever party committed these attacks, it
has dragged the dignity of the US government into the mud and unveiled its vain
arrogance."
An official Iraqi statement said, "Brutal
America, suffering from illusions of grandeur, has inflicted humiliation,
famine and terrorism on all of the world's countries and today it reaps the
fruits of its arrogant and stupid policy." It said,
"the American cowboys
are reaping the fruit of their crimes against
humanity." Interestingly, the debate also featured the representative of
the Afghanistan government in exile telling the Assembly
“that
the recent volte-face of the military clique in Pakistan in no way exonerated
its military intelligence from the crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan
in alliance with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban mercenaries. Pakistan’s military intelligence (ISI) was
solely responsible for creating, organizing, instigating and tolerating
terrorist activities in Afghanistan.
The Pakistani Government, and especially the ISI policy-makers and
high-ranking military officers, who were behind the alliance between bin Laden,
the Taliban and other extremist religious groups of Pakistan, were to be
considered criminals.” [9]
This “military clique,” which now rules the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan and tested the first “Islamic nuclear bomb” in 1998, is
now a U.S. “ally.” Pakistan is being paid hundreds of millions of dollars in
foreign aid to be a member of our “coalition” against terrorism.
U.N. “cooperation” in the “war on terrorism” has
also come at a price. The State Department moved quickly since September 11 to
pay off two-thirds of the U.S. “debt” to the United Nations and to promote a
U.N. role in fighting terrorism and building a future government in Afghanistan.
The State Department is now paying $1.67 billion by the end of the year and
pushing for the world body to take over ``nation-building'' once the U.S.-led
military campaign against Afghanistan is finished. However, the official
estimate of this “debt” does not take into account all of the extra
peacekeeping assistance the U.S. has provided to the U.N., including the billions of dollars spent to
conduct U.N.-authorized operations supposedly designed to contain Saddam
Hussein. If these calculations are made, it turns out the U.N. owes the U.S.
well over $10 billion. [10]
It has been estimated that the U.S. is spending
about $50 billion annually on the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf. [11]
The U.S. now has troops deployed in
135 countries. Such costs and deployments will dramatically
escalate if the U.S. and NATO begin to bear the burden of guaranteeing access
to oil in the Caspian Sea and “peace” in the Middle East.
America’s war on terrorism cannot be waged
successfully unless we free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil from those
regimes financing terrorism against us.
These
regimes belong to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which
criticizes the terror attacks on America but also defends Libya against charges
that the Gadhafi regime sponsored terrorism against the U.S. An OIC official at the recent U.N.
conference on racism denounced the “racist policy” of Israel, complained that Jews have adopted a policy of “so-called
racial superiority,” and accused the Israeli government of “war crimes.” Such a
speech contributed to the atmosphere that led to the walk-out of the U.S.
delegation to the conference.
In
an editorial, The Arab Paradox,[12]
The Washington Post noted that the OIC, in its statement on the
September 11 terror attacks on America, demanded that the U.S. not carry the
war on terrorism forward against Saddam Hussein :
[Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak's longtime foreign minister, Amr
Moussa, now the secretary general of the Arab League, prompted first Arab
states and then the 56-nation Islamic Conference to adopt a resolution
yesterday opposing U.S. attacks on any Arab country as part of the
anti-terrorism campaign -- a position that offers cover to Iraq's Saddam
Hussein (emphasis added).
A story about the
OIC terrorism meeting by Daniel Williams of the Washington Post Foreign
Service [13] noted
that
…the group called
for future battles against terrorism to be waged under the flag of the United
Nations and to be narrowly defined so as to exclude Palestinian and Lebanese
groups -- such as the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas, and
Hezbollah -- that are fighting Israel.
The OIC has called for “an international Conference
under the aegis of the United Nations to define the concept of terrorism and to
make a distinction between terrorism and peoples’ struggle for national
liberation.” This, of course, is designed to allow terrorism for the purpose of
“liberating” Palestine from Israel. Article II of the
Charter of the OIC says the Islamic Conference shall “coordinate efforts for
the safeguarding of the Holy Places and support of the struggle of the people of
Palestine, to help them regain their rights and liberate their land.” This
is code for the destruction of Israel.
And yet Kofi Annan on October 9 issued a statement saying the OIC “has a
central role in devising an effective strategy to combat terrorism.”
President Bush says he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or
alive and ruled out negotiations with the Taliban. But the State Department
tells Israel to negotiate with its terrorist enemies. Israel is being carefully
excluded from the “New Order” that British Prime Minister Tony Blair says is
supposed to demonstrate that Islam can co-exist with the West. In response to
the terror attacks, the Bush Administration is being pushed toward supporting a
Palestinian terrorist mini-state in the Middle East. This has been one of bin
Laden’s goals, but it is not the only one. Even with him gone, the threat
remains.
*Cliff Kincaid is president of
America's Survival, the leading U.N. watchdog group in the U.S.; contributing
editor of the AIM Report; and Washington columnist for the American Legion
Magazine. A longtime investigative reporter and media critic with a
degree in journalism and communications, he currently specializes in coverage
of the U.N. and other global institutions. Kincaid also helps write and broadcast
Accuracy in Media's "Media Monitor" radio commentaries, airing on
about 100 stations nationwide. He is the author or co-author of six books,
including Profiles of Deception, The News Manipulators and Global Taxes for
World Government. He served as aide to former White House National Security
staffer Oliver North, was a guest co-host many times on CNN's
"Crossfire" program, served as a radio talk show host for several
years, and appears frequently on programs such as Fox News Channel's “Hannity
and Colmes.”
WHAT KOFI ANNAN SAYS ABOUT ISLAM
“…allow me
to pay tribute to the great faith and civilization of Islam. It has ennobled
and enriched humanity throughout its history. Today, it inspires the belief of
almost one billion men and women, and is a universal spiritual force for
mankind. This fact makes it all the more distressing to witness the increasing
resort to violence and terror by extremist groups in the name of Islam. They
are sullying the image of a religion.”
·
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Speech to the Islamic
Conference, December 18, 1997
WHAT THE KORAN SAYS ABOUT ISLAM
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and
take them captive, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every
ambush."
·
Sura
9:5:
"Fight
against such of those who have been given the Scripture and believe not in
Allah..., until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low."
·
Sura
9:29
"Fight those of the
disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you."
·
Sura 9:123:
"Obey not the
disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavor."
·
Sura 25:52
"If thou comest on
them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind
them, that haply they may remember."