Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.N. Chief Admits He Removed Saudi Arabia From Child-Killer List Due to Extortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    U.N. Chief Admits He Removed Saudi Arabia From Child-Killer List Due to Extortion


    June 9 2016, 1:36 p.m. Photo: Amer Hilabi/AFP/Getty Images

    U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon publicly acknowledged Thursday that he removed the Saudi-led coalition currently bombing Yemen from a blacklist of child killers — 72 hours after it was published — due to a financial threat to defund United Nations programs.
    The secretary-general didn’t name the source of the threat, but news reports have indicated it came directly from the Saudi government.
    The U.N.’s 2015 “Children and Armed Conflict” report originally listed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen under “parties that kill or maim children” and “parties that engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals.” The report, which was based on the work of U.N. researchers in Yemen, attributed 60 percent of the 785 children killed and 1,168 injured to the bombing coalition.
    After loud public objections from the Saudi government, Ban said on Monday that he was revising the report to “review jointly the cases and numbers cited in the text,” in order to “reflect the highest standards of accuracy possible.”
    But on Thursday, he described his real motivation. “The report describes horrors no child should have to face,” Ban said at a press conference. “At the same time, I also had to consider the very real prospect that millions of other children would suffer grievously if, as was suggested to me, countries would defund many U.N. programs. Children already at risk in Palestine, South Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and so many other places would fall further into despair.”
    Saudi Arabia is one of the U.N.’s largest donors in the Middle East, giving hundreds of millions of dollars a year to U.N. food programs in Syria and Iraq. In 2014, Saudi Arabia gave $500 million — the largest single humanitarian donation to the U.N. — to help Iraqis displaced by ISIS. Over the past three years, Saudi Arabia has also been become the third-largest donor to the U.N.’s relief agency in Palestine, giving tens of millions of dollars to help rebuild Gaza and assist Palestinian refugees.
    “It is unacceptable for member states to exert undue pressure,” the secretary-general said. “Scrutiny is a natural and necessary part of the work of the United Nations.”
    Ban called the decision “one of the most painful and difficult decisions I have had to make.”
    Saudi Ambassador to the U.N. Abdallah al-Mouallimi, who held his own press conference afterward, offered his own back-handed confirmation of what happened. “We didn’t use threats,” he said, “but such listing will obviously have an impact on our relations with the U.N.”
    “It is not in our style, it is not in our genes, it is not in our culture to use threats and intimidation,” he concluded.
    Ban has invited a team from the Saudi-led coalition to New York to conduct a “joint review” ahead of scheduled U.N. discussions on the report, scheduled for August.
    On Monday, however, after the changes were announced, the Saudi ambassador to the U.N. declared that the changes were “final and unconditional” and that Saudi Arabia had been “vindicated.”








    Ban Ki-moon cited a financial threat to defund United Nations programs, presumably by the Saudi government.

    #2
    That's sad, on all sorts of levels. Saudi's killing people with (perhaps) American technology:

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u...bject-1.320307
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._deal_20151117

    and.... http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_a...#sophisticated

    "With billions of petro-dollars, Saudi Arabia has been buying very modern, deadly weapons from America. Many of the systems on order, such as the M-1A2 Abrams main battle tank, M-2A2 Bradley armored vehicles, F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missile, are the top-of-the-line systems deployed with U.S. forces."

    Someone needs to school me on this..... When did it become morally OK to give or sell weaponry to other nations? WWII?
    NRA LIFE | SAF | GOA | UTAH / NH / FL / PA / NY CCW | APPLESEED RIFLEMAN | RSO | FREEPORT R&R | NSCA | NYSRPA

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by SteveT View Post

      Someone needs to school me on this..... When did it become morally OK to give or sell weaponry to other nations? WWII?
      It's big business Steve.

      Click the link for a graphic.


      The units in this table are so-called trend indicator values expressed in millions of U.S. dollars at 1990s prices.
      These values do not represent real financial flows but are a crude instrument to estimate volumes of arms transfers, regardless of the contracted prices, which can be as low as zero in the case of military aid.

      Ordered by descending 2014 values. The information is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.[16]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry



      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by SteveT View Post
        That's sad, on all sorts of levels. Saudi's killing people with (perhaps) American technology:

        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u...bject-1.320307
        http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/..._deal_20151117

        and.... http://fas.org/asmp/profiles/saudi_a...#sophisticated

        "With billions of petro-dollars, Saudi Arabia has been buying very modern, deadly weapons from America. Many of the systems on order, such as the M-1A2 Abrams main battle tank, M-2A2 Bradley armored vehicles, F-15E Strike Eagle attack aircraft and Patriot surface-to-air missile, are the top-of-the-line systems deployed with U.S. forces."

        Someone needs to school me on this..... When did it become morally OK to give or sell weaponry to other nations? WWII?


        Doesn't it depend on which country? I have no problems with us selling (not giving) weapons to Israel, UK, Australia, Poland etc. Like-minded allies. As long as they are the end user.
        Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

        Comment


        • SteveT
          SteveT commented
          Editing a comment
          ... and the Saudis? Like Minded Allies?

        • Barnslayer
          Barnslayer commented
          Editing a comment
          Refer back to my mention of moslem countries. I do not consider any of them like-minded allies. The koran and democracy are mutually exclusive.

        #5
        I realize the issue isn't black or white and this has gone on for decades...... And I realize that morals and business/sales are mutually exclusive.... And I'm generally in favor of a strong military..... and ... and ... and ...

        but didn't the iran/iraq war teach nations that arming/training one side results in those same weapons/tactics eventually being used against the original provider? (Rise of the Taliban)
        Rinse and repeat 30 years later, arming the iraq army and ISIS's now massive stock-pile of weapons.

        Pretty fucking sure all of our overseas troops would be better off if American technology wasn't in the hands of anyone outside of the US forces, whether its "in a restricted/limited reduce capacity (F16 - Israel)" or not. Shit like this pisses me off. /rant

        Let me be clear, I'm an engineer in spirit, I want the US to have the biggest badass gun ever made, and I want to stand next to it, admire it, stroke it, take pictures, post them here, admire it...... But I don't expect some fucktard to sell it to "todays friendly nation" for a bag of silver. Selling arms is a disgrace and only hurts us.

        Grrr.




        NRA LIFE | SAF | GOA | UTAH / NH / FL / PA / NY CCW | APPLESEED RIFLEMAN | RSO | FREEPORT R&R | NSCA | NYSRPA

        Comment


          #6
          Originally posted by SteveT View Post
          I realize the issue isn't black or white and this has gone on for decades...... And I realize that morals and business/sales are mutually exclusive.... And I'm generally in favor of a strong military..... and ... and ... and ...

          but didn't the iran/iraq war teach nations that arming/training one side results in those same weapons/tactics eventually being used against the original provider? (Rise of the Taliban)
          Rinse and repeat 30 years later, arming the iraq army and ISIS's now massive stock-pile of weapons.

          Pretty fucking sure all of our overseas troops would be better off if American technology wasn't in the hands of anyone outside of the US forces, whether its "in a restricted/limited reduce capacity (F16 - Israel)" or not. Shit like this pisses me off. /rant

          Let me be clear, I'm an engineer in spirit, I want the US to have the biggest badass gun ever made, and I want to stand next to it, admire it, stroke it, take pictures, post them here, admire it...... But I don't expect some fucktard to sell it to "todays friendly nation" for a bag of silver. Selling arms is a disgrace and only hurts us.

          Grrr.



          You didn't qualify the morality point. Regarding moslem nations…. selling or giving them weapons is just about the stupidest thing we could possibly do. It is both amoral and suicidal.
          Exercise the Bill of Rights. It's good for your Constitution.

          Comment

          Working...
          X