Home | About | Donate

UN Head Admits He Caved to Threats in Removing Saudi Coalition From Blacklist


UN Head Admits He Caved to Threats in Removing Saudi Coalition From Blacklist

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

United Nations head Ban Ki-moon admitted Thursday that his widely condemned removal of the Saudi Arabia-led coalition from a blacklist for killing children in Yemen was the result of direct pressure from the "key UN donor."

"This was one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make," Ban said, adding, "It is unacceptable for member-states to exert undue pressure."


Remind me, where did Saudi Arabia get those weapons? We will make sure Israel stays off that shame list too.


“key UN donor” eh, that would be Barack Obama with help from the ME primary warmonger, Israel, no doubt, backing-up and covering for their co-conspirator war criminal Saudi Arabia!
There is a component here that goes back to the Iran nuclear deal and concessions the US had to give to the Saudis and our “special ally” the war criminal in their own right, Israel!
Obama has been the most contemptible failure and betrayer of civil and human rights in my lifetime - I expect to be lied to and deceived and war being committed in my name by RepubliCons, but will not tolerate such from a DINO war whore!
The time to take-back the party, destroy it, or build a new party worthy of respect is now…


So his choice was to let Saudi kill children directly or letting children die from lack of humanitarian relief. What kind of special hell does that put the Saudi’s in.


That, actually, was the view of many, especially those from the formerly colonized or still struggling anti-imperialist states.


Lumumba … yes, a brave leader. His murder shocked much of the “Third World” states, and many still grieve when thinking of his untimely death. It was good that the Soviet Union established a university in his name.


I can hear it already, in the distance but getting nearer. The anthem of the new World Government.
“Fourth Reich, Fourth Reich uber Alles”


Sometimes, perhaps because of a slightly protruding lower chin. My first feeling - when reading and seeing his picture in a Southeast Asian paper - was that of a rather straightforward, idealistic person, the kind who perhaps would underestimate the forces opposed to him. Or it could be that he knew how he might end up but went ahead with what he wanted to do anyway. Whatever the case, he died too soon.


Did Bush seek to have made law a provision that allows indefinite detention of any US citizen by the US military at any President’s discretion? And that detained person, can be detained indefinitely without trial, and can be sent outside the US for such detention.

That is worse than Bush, in regard to destroying outright Constitutional protection against being detained by the US Military on US soil.

Reagan? Obama makes Reagan look like a flower child.

Clinton? Obama took Clinton’s DLC corporate coup of the Democratic Party and piled on.

Obama has committed war crimes, and engaged in deliberate actions as President to cover up the war crimes of the Bush Administration.

Don’t you understand this?


I would leave Kofi Anan off this list. Perhaps you have forgotten how he got the job and why. Butros Butros Ghali was ousted because he was nobody’s lap dog and the bribe to the Africans was they’d pick another African to replace him. One of the most intelligent and enlightening books I ever read was his “UNvanquished.” Was it the adjective or did he mean “UN Vanquushed?” You can’t tell which it is but if you read it, you get a pretty good idea.


Why does one man, Ban Ki Moon, have the dictatorial power to make such a decision, especially in an organization such as the UN? This is the problem in the way these types of institutions like the UN are organized - the power of decision-making is put in the hands of a few because it is much easier to corrupt single people than it is a group.


But of course. There can be no criticism of Israel.


I look forward to the time when the US and Israel will be seen (and their peoples see them) as regular parts of the world of nations and not as exceptional (and therefore entitled to special treatment).


Should be noted that Ban “caved” in not because of personal benefits, but out of concern for the many children "already at risk in Palestine, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen and so many other places would fall further into despair.”

So in this case we can see he’s a good man, not a “corrupted” one (though he could be unwise).

As for placing more power in the hands of a group, well, that’s not necessarily going to guarantee absence of corruption. Corruption of entire groups of people is precisely what Americans are up against today, and why Sanders is fighting so hard against it politically. If the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government could be bribed to support the 1%, what’s so special about placing power in a group or groups? Today the two political parties that run the nation are seen as being totally corrupt! The solution probably lies in laws that restrict power not only to any individual, but also institutions, groups, etc. In short, more oversights, more democracy in every organization. The problem is structural, systemic.


I don’t disagree with your analysis.

I would add though that even in groups such as political parties inordinate power is vested in single individuals. A consequence is that they are more easily influenced (I’ll say that instead of corrupted) by power than a group of people making a decision.

Agreed though that groups of people can be influenced/corrupted too, especially the further removed they are from answered to the people. Take the EU for example: the “representatives” that govern in Brussels were not elected by the people. Hence, they are easily influenced by the power of the corporate elite to make decisions for then entire group that no individual country would make.


Not sure why you are asking me the two rhetorical question at the end of paragraph one.

I was answering your implied assertion that Obama wasn’t worse on civil and human rights “than Reagan, Clinton, or BushCo”, and gave a good argument for it including having pushed for and and signed the NDAA provision that allows for the first time indefinite detention of US citizens by the US military on US soil, and the transport of such person out of country.

Sorry, that didn’t happen under either Bush, Clinton, or Reagan. It is clearly a ratcheting UP of executive power.

Am I arguing that the other Presidents in question didn’t do their share of violating “civil and human rights”?

Of course not. I gave a specific example where Obama actually was 100% worse than those other Presidents.

I also cited the FACT that Obama has worked hard via prosecution of whistleblowers (where he is clearly the worst) and otherwise, to protect the Bush Administration from criminal prosecution or even investigation into war crimes, including torture. Effectively, given this fact, Obama is even worse on this count because he effectively conspired in the those violations of human rights, by intentionally ensuring those crimes would go unpunished.

Equating the NDAA with Bush’s renditions and kidnappings related to the aftermath of the 9/11 false flag event are apples and oranges. Obama stepped in, and pretended to end the renditions, but the actual law states otherwise that renditions can be ongoing. What the NDAA does is uniquely Obama’s doing, and it is a worse act than his predecessors regarding the change in law that the NDAA affects.

Anyway, not trying to start a contentious argument, but rather trying to clarify the point I was making.

Of course, the rest of the Presidents engaged in criminal acts. The Obama Administration has engaged in those same criminal acts and piled on a bunch of other things that are actually even more insidious because they amount to codifying torture by the CIA and the Pentagon, codifying the US Military to detain US citizens, codifying the mass surveillance of US citizens, and the list of unique Obama acts piling on is long.

THAT is my point.


I was clarifying my argument, that you had countered. Thanks for the clarification that you agreed with me all along.