Zapatero: in favor of the Iranian nuclear energy

The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero here Thursday stressed Iran’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Addressing a joint press conference, Annan and Zapatero said negotiation is the best solution to Iran’s nuclear case.

It is quite right that Iran reminds the world of its right to access to peaceful nuclear energy, said Annan adding Tehran should fulfill its commitments within the regulations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He praised efforts made by Iran and the European states to resume talks and settle Tehran’s nuclear case, encouraging the sides to boost the move.

HT: Elder of Ziyon.

Well, the good thing here, is that Zapatero’s party, the Socialists are totally oppposed to Spain using nuclear plants to produce electricity. What is more, the Socialists’ program included a proposition to “dispense with nuclear energy”:

The substitution of the 9 nuclear reactors for renewable energies (7.900 W) that are functioning just now would cost between € 15.000 and 20.000 millions, depending on the chosen alternative. To this quantity, we should add the consequences in jobs, because the definitive shut will forze the sacking of 20.000 wordkers; the economic impact in zones where the nuclear plants are sited; and the lose of fiscal benefits for the municipalities. And lastly, the high cost of the dimantlement of the nuclear plants that would be shut.

So, he thinks it’s appropriate to deprive Spain of the only energy that it’s really ours, that reduces our dependence from foreigners. But yet he thinks that Iran, the forth producer of oil in the worls, and one of the first in gas, should have nuclear energy.

In fact, the link in which the Socialists said that they were going to subsitute nuclear energy for others, cheaper and environmental-friendly, has disappeared from its web page. But the Bitacora de Yok, has a very good comment about this:

If they have a better and cheaper energy, don’t they believe the greedy businessmen that are only searching for increasing their benefits would have begun to use it, without any need to force them?

A disaster very coherent. As everything our President is doing.

Technorati Tags: José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, PSOE, Socialists, Koffi Annan, UN, EU, European Union, nuclear energy, nuclear crisis

UN Security Council too often inneffective

Who said that? You're going to be surprised, very surprised.

UN: Denmark acted “irresponsibly” in the cartoon crisis

If yesterday we saw the infamous poster the UN had made about “racism”, now we have another proof of the dhimmitude of the UN:

UN: Denmark Acted Irresponsibly in Cartoon Crisis,” from Zaman.com, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:

The United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council, which prepared a report about the cartoon crisis, breaking out after the publication of insulting images of Prophet Muhammad, accused the Danish government of acting irresponsibly during the crisis period.
UN Higher Commissioner Louis [sic] Arbours special reporter Doudou Diene made harsh criticisms in his report about the Danish government and intellectuals along with the Danish daily Jyllands Posten, which published the blasphemous images first. The report stressed that beliefs should not be humiliated under the veil of freedom of expression as it dwelled on the importance of fighting against Islamophobia.

Why has the UN never issued the shadow of a hint of a peep about the many, many insults to Christianity that are published routinely in the West? The answer, of course, is because Christians don’t murder innocent people over such things.

My goodness…

Danish Muslims are to report Demark to the UN Commisioner on Human Rights

Well, this is hilarious, although knowing UN -and Louise Arbour– hmmmm, …. From TimesOnLine:

Danish Muslim groups are to report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

The 27 Muslim groups also plan to sue the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for defamation in a Danish court, according to their lawyer, Michael Christiani Havemann.

“Denmark is obliged through the UN to secure the civil rights of its citizens,” Havemann said by telephone. “The national prosecutor won’t pursue the case and, therefore, acts as a barrier to justice to the complainants.”

Henning Fode, Denmark’s director of public prosecutions, announced on Wednesday that he would not charge Jyllands-Posten, ruling that the drawings it published last September did not violate Denmark’s laws against blasphemy and racist speech.

Mr Fode said that the cartoons could be considered an affront to the Prophet, but did not break Danish law.

HT: Ace of Spades.

Well, certainly it’s an improvement from the burning of embassies and the killing of people. BUT then the State of Denmark should sue Abu Laban & Co. for the boycott and the damages they have suffered, as it was their idea to walk along this world showing the cartoons (and 3 more false). Oh, of course, and for defamation of the country too. Then all the European countries whose flags/embassies have been burnt just the same. And the people who have relatives who have been killed, too.

At least, Lebanon and Syria have promised to pay for the damages caused by fire to the Danish Embassies. HT: Freedom for Egyptians.

At the same time, Agora has posted an interview with Al-Asadi, the Chief editor of the Yemen Observer, who really is facing the death penalty. Here are some extracts:

Mohammed al-Asadi gave this interview which was published today, to the Danish newspaper Information’s correspondent in Cairo. He was released on bail February 22, following international pressure. Al-Asadi is still in good health and managed on March 10 to leave Yemen to attend a journalists’ conference. Contrary to some reports he is facing the death penalty as this article makes clear. He intends to return to Yemen to fight the good fight.

It’s not my Prophet

“I don’t regret printing those cartoons. I was defending the Prophet, I was defending Islam against those who wish to use the religion to create conflicts and maintain their grip on power,” says Mohammed al-Asadi – the editor in chief of The Yemen Observer who is now on trial for his life for having printed three of the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

By Rune Lykkeberg

The Friday after he was released from jail, he went to pray at the Mosque. Mohammed al-Asadi had become a known face in Yemen: He had been presented as a criminal on national TV and in government-friendly newspapers. He was also a known face outside of Yemen: Newsweek did a telephone interview with him in prison where they called him a “martyr for the free press” and BBC World has told his story. This Friday Mohammed al-Asadi didn’t wish to be recognised. All he wanted to do was to go to Friday Prayers, so he walked towards a Mosque in a part of Sanaa, the capital of Yemen, where he doesn’t usually go:

“When I entered, I bowed my head and listened. The preacher warned against a terrible sinner among us, against one in Yemen who has dishonored our religion and our prophet. He talked of how disgraceful this man was. I realised that I was who he was talking about. I was their sinner. I dared not lift my head. I covered my head with my scarf and looked down. There and then I realised how bad things are. If the others in the Mosque had recognised me, they would have killed me. With their shoes if they had nothing else to do it with.”

[…] “My trial will recommence on March 22. I have three children and my wife in Yemen, who I must return to. And I have my newspaper and my fight against our fanatical leaders.”

[…] “It will be hard to rebuild the editorial staff. We have written of the government’s corruption. In our last issue we wrote of how Yemen’s embassies abroad are so corrupted that it is fair to call it ‘exporting corruption’. So when we printed the cartoons, they took their chance and shut us down and destroyed our foundation.”

The prosecutors started the trial against him with a parable: There was once a woman who insulted the prophet Muhammed, saying horrible things. When a man of her city heard of this, he went and killed her. A couple of days later, the prophet Muhammed passed through the city and said: “That was good, that was just.” That was how the prosecutors presented their demand for the death penalty for Mohammed al-Asadi.

al-Asadi emphasises that this isn’t only his battle. Reporters Without Borders supports him, colleagues in the West have told his story and international media have appealed to the government of Yemen to release him and two other journalists who are also on trial for having printed cartoons:

“In Yemen we are outnumbered and the fanatics have succeded in pressuring us. But this is an international battle in all countries against all fanatics. And there the balance of power is much more equal. It’s an international battle for release from the bondages of extremisms and fanatics.”

We also know that the student editor of a newspaper that published the cartoons has been fired (Last night’s meeting before the board of directors took only about 10 minutes of the 30 minutes I was allotted to defend myself against the allegations levied against me. There were no questions. Just a curt dismissal after my statement. And I wasn’t interviewed by the “student task force”). On the other hands,the Berkeley paper -student- has reprinted them.

Elder of Ziyon informs about a conference in Copenhagen to open a dialogue between Muslim youths and Danish ones (excerpt):

The first day of the two-day conference was dedicated to dialogue among the youths. They discussed who Islam’s prophet is; what Islam is all about; freedom of expression from the Muslim point of view; respect of the other’s holy scriptures. Young Muslim participants also proposed practical projects encouraging mutual respect and co-existence.

“The Danish youths were impressed and we, too, were very happy to find that many Danes are friendly to foreigners, had no biases against Arabs and Muslims, and in some cases, wore the Palestinian scarf to show solidarity with the Palestinian issue,” Barakat said. The impression was based on field survey the young Muslims carried out, talking to Danish people in the streets, and asking them questions about the cartoon crisis.

“Many said they were against the publication of the offensive cartoons, but that they were equally offended to see their flags and embassies burnt,” Barakat went on. “The dialogue was indeed a step forward on the way to building bridges. People should realise that the Danes are not a single entity and that we still have friends there. It’s enough to know that we left with tears in our eyes.”

Read the rest: it’s very useful.

The Pub Philosopher informs that a Muslim group is organising counter-demonstrations against the March for Free Expression and has issued a press release condemning the free speech rallies.

By the way, according to all these issues is there any religious tolerance in the West? The answer is hilarious (HT: Drinking from Home).

Of course, there are others who are just as totalitarians as the Islamists. Or just as foolish.

Others posting over this issue: Atlas Shrugs, Blue Star Chronicles, LGF, NoisyRoom.Net (this news are astonishing…), Sandmonkey (Pakistanis still protesting the cartoons)

Technorati : Al-Asadi, Denmark, Jyllands-Posten, Louise Arbour, Mohammed cartoons, UN, UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Yemen Observer
Del.icio.us : Al-Asadi, Denmark, Jyllands-Posten, Louise Arbour, Mohammed cartoons, UN, UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Yemen Observer

UN: no consesus over the definition of terrorism

From the Counterterrorism blog:

The UN appears no closer to working out a consensus on a definition of terrorism – a key element holding up the adoption of new UN Comprehensive Anti Terrorism Convention – than it was at the start of this sixtieth session of the UN General Assembly last fall. Achieving a Comprehensive Anti Terrorism Treaty is one of the principal objectives set by heads of state attending this special anniversary session. Nevertheless, UN legal committee negotiators continue to wrangle over phrases that continue to convey major differences over the application and scope of the convention. The drafters, members of a working group of the UN General Assembly’s Sixth (Legal Affairs) Committee ended their week-long meeting March 3rd without even setting a new date to reconvene. All 191 UN members have a seat on the working group.

Following negotiations last summer, the Sixth Committee Working Group Coordinator put together a consolidated draft convention text for further consideration. Article 2 in that draft states:

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of the present Convention
if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes:
(a) Death or serious bodily injury to any person; or
(b) Serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public
use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure
facility or to the environment; or
(c) Damage to property, places, facilities or systems referred to in paragraph
1 (b) of the present article resulting or likely to result in major economic loss;
when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a
population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to
abstain from doing any act.
2. Any person also commits an offence if that person makes a credible and
serious threat to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference Countries (OIC) protested the consolidated draft stating that it prejudiced its position in the negotiations. The OIC, along with the Unaligned Group insist on additional language in the treaty that could be interpreted as exempting armed resistance groups involved in so-called “struggles against colonial domination and foreign occupation.” At the same time they want the convention to specifically cover the activities of regular armed forces, which, because they are covered by other humanitarian and Law of War Conventions, now fall outside the purview of the terrorism convention. (For more details on these issues see my October 25, 2005 Blog)

Read all: I repeat it: the OIC wants to exempt armed resistance groups “on struggles against colonial domination and foreig occupation” and to punish the regular armed forces. These countries are the same that signed an Islamic Human Rights Treaty, that do not apply the Human Rights all the other countries in the world -regardless their religion- apply and that are funding just now Hamas, that yesterday rejected (again) the two state-road map.

A Hamas spokesman in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) told AFP, the French news agency, that Hamas rejects the two-state Road Map. Assad Farhat said Hamas

considers the Road Map an “American Zionist program”, in response to a Russian Foreign Minister’s statement that Hamas has not turned down the Road Map.

Farhat said Hamas would only be willing to negotiate with Israel under the these conditions:

– “When Israel announces that it will retreat from the conquered territories of 1967
– releases the Palestinian [terrorist] prisoners
– stops its aggression against the Palestinian nation
– announces its willingness to solve the refugee problem [accepts the right of return of millions of Arabs into Israel

only then will we agree to negotiate.”

Arabian Dissent has a very good comment about these “conditions“.

Other blogs treating this issue: Noisy Room.Net, The Muslim Question.

Technorati : OIC, UN, terrorism
Del.icio.us : OIC, UN, terrorism
Ice Rocket : OIC, UN, terrorism
Buzznet : OIC, UN, terrorism