New UN president chides Security Council powers UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The new president of the U.N. General Assembly opened its 63rd annual session Tuesday by accusing some of the world body's most powerful members for relying on warfare. "It is a sad but undeniable fact that serious breaches of the peace and threats to international peace and security are being perpetrated by some members of the Security Council that seem unable to break what appears like an addiction to war," Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann said, without specifying any countries. During his acceptance speech in June, he criticized what he called "acts of aggression" in Iraq and Afghanistan without mentioning the United States by name. D'Escoto, a Roman Catholic priest allied with Nicaragua's leftist president, also took a swipe at the U.S. on Tuesday for what he said was its "unjust" 46-year-long trade embargo against Cuba. His remarks before a half-filled chamber were his first as president of the 192-nation assembly. He will preside over its yearlong session, including two weeks of ministerial meetings that begin next week. Separately, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told The Associated Press in an interview that he would use the assembly's ministerial session to hold talks with world leaders on issues ranging from climate change to the detention of Myanmar opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. He called it a top priority "to mobilize and galvanize all political wills and resources starting from now" to craft a new climate change agreement next year to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Speaking about Suu Kyi, Ban said Myanmar's military junta "should release her from house arrest," to allow the 63-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner who has been on a recent hunger strike to lead "a genuine and free life." Much of d'Escoto's antipathy was directed at the 15-nation Security Council, the United Nations' most powerful body, which is dominated by the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France - the five permanent members with veto power. That configuration reflects the balance of power at the end of World War II, when the U.N. was created. It was much on d'Escoto's mind as he dedicated his presidency to seeking "the democratization of the United Nations" and to helping the "dispossessed." Turning to Cuba, d'Escoto wondered aloud why the United Nations has been powerless to overturn the U.S. trade embargo imposed on Fidel Castro's government in February 1962. "If the opinion of more than 95 percent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly?" he said. The General Assembly's resolutions aren't binding, unlike the Security Council, which can set international law. But the assembly controls the U.N. budget and serves as a world forum for debate. D'Escoto has long been a supporter of Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, who once allied himself with Fidel Castro and the Soviet Union and won re-election as Nicaragua's president in 2006. D'Escoto was foreign minister of Nicaragua when the Sandinistas ruled in the 1980s. The assembly's presidency rotates by region and lasts for a year. The assembly elected d'Escoto, who was born in Los Angeles, to succeed Macedonian diplomat Srgjan Kerim. Kerim closed out his year as president with a news conference, where he praised the assembly's last-minute consensus agreement Monday night to explore adding new members to the Security Council. Kerim used his prerogative to push through compromise language at the last minute. "We have really accomplished something," Kerim said. "The General Assembly is the only place for nations to talk on equal footing." The top candidates, if such a change were made, would likely include World War II-defeated nations Germany and Japan, along with developing powers India and Brazil. A U.N. working group began examining the possibility of expanding the council as long as 15 years ago. source
He thinks we should be nicer to communist dictators and nations that give safe haven to terrorists. Good for him.
"It is a sad but undeniable fact that serious breaches of the peace and threats to international peace and security are being perpetrated by some members of the Security Council that seem unable to break what appears like an addiction to war," Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann said, without specifying any countries. i agree completely...the US gov. is addicted to war...if there was no war many US corporations close to the government would lose a lot of money and americans would have to change their pro war culture...one day the world will be free from the USA its just a matter of arming up and stocking up on weapons of mass destruction...
Go ahead and get your buddies to pass a non-binding resolution. While your at it, set up another conference on racism so you can all go after the Jews. There is a reason counties like your have no power or authority.
sure: "If the opinion of more than 95 percent of the membership of the United Nations can be so casually ignored, of what use is this General Assembly?" racism? jews? yes its nuclear weapons and abuse of power by the US government...hell even the UN agrees with me ...but this is all anti US propaganda and is to be ignored..."Democratic" work of you in cuba BTW...keeping 11million people under embargo for 46 years keeping them in the stone age over the decisions of a handful of people...even the UN agrees with me
Communist dictators capitalist dictators what’s the difference. They both sucks people blood to feed their needs.
Capitalist "dictators" fought the communists for years to keep the world free, and helped cause the main force of communism, the USSR, to crumble. Anyone who wants to be honest, go back to post-WWII and create a hypothetical world where the US either didn't exist or isolated itself from the world. Without the US sticking its nose into the world's affairs and using its might to drive its anti-communist agenda, the USSR would have taken over. Would the world be better if the USSR was the dominant force? The embargo on Cuba might be outdated, but it served a good purpose. The USSR was evil and its influence needed to be fought against. Embargoes are political tools used by many nations. I don't know why our embargo of Cuba is always pointed to as more proof that we are evil. We're really damned if we do and damned if we don't. It reminds me of all the open source programmers who bitch about Microsoft. Communism is evil and we isolated Cuba to the best of our ability because of it. Once again, this is a case of people blaming America and not holding the real aggressors responsible, like the dictator in Cuba.
I might call Communism a flawed system but I think the term evil is a bit overreaching. I also think we need to quit handing over our sovereignty to foreign nations and pull out of the farce that the UN has become.
and capitalism is the root of all good just ask the american indians, the african slaves, the former US/UK colonies, the US bomb zones, the poor, the 3rd world ect ect... free health care and education= evil evil!!!!!!!!!! big corporations and their interests= divine! "capitalist dictators fought to keep the world free" LOL like that "african-american" woman that wanted to sit at the front of the bus back in 68? who are you to talk about freedom LOLOLOLOL! how do you keep the world "free" by imposing your army and values on it? LOL
Umm, Rosa Parks refused to sit at the back of the bus in 1955. But why should you lets facts get in the way. Carry on.
Socialism != Communism And sure, we have a violent history full of injustices just like most or all parts of the world. Our treatment of Native Americans was awful. Our involvement in slavery was awful. But actually you could argue that the creation of the United States and the principles it was founded on is what ended slavery. Slavery in the colonies started around 1607 and continued until The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed in 1865. So it existed here 169 years before the creation of the USA(1776) but only lasted 89 years after the USA was created and only for 77 years after our constitution was ratified. We impose the values of the west if we impose anything. Since WWII the US has adopted a more aggressive approach to foreign affairs. Had a force such as the US(as it exists today) stood up to Germany early on, WWII may have been contained or avoided. After WWII the US took the threat of the USSR seriously and took actions that it thought necessary to keep the USSR from spreading. People like you who come from an area of the world that isn't doing so well(I'm trying to be nice) will look at all the problems in the world and of course place the blame on the major force in the world, the US. But the truth is, is that the world is a much better place than it was 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago and it's getting better all the time. Western style economies continue to grow and their people continue to prosper. This is exactly what the US wants because it's not a zero sum game. Wealth creates wealth. We want other countries to do well. Even China is westernizing and it's becoming more prosperous. Good for China. Good for us. The world isn't full of nice people. If you're going to protect a way of life that has proven to be better, you have to be aggressive about it. Norway seems like a wonderful country, but if we were all like Norway we'd soon all be more like North Korea, The Soviet Union, or Serbia. There has to be an "asshole" to protect the west's way of life and protect against those who would threaten it. The US has basically taken on the role as the enforcer of the west. Sure, we sometimes overstep our bounds and sometimes seem arrogant, but if you just look at real history, our overriding goal has been freedom and democracy in the world and it's no coincidence that freedom and democracy has been growing and spreading throughout the world in the years that the US has been a superpower. Is every single action that we take just? No, we're certainly not perfect. But in the long run our vision for how the world should be and our role in shaping it are both just.
Thanks for standing up for the US Logic, but I wish we would start taking care of ourselves instead of sticking our prick in every 3rd world hole we can find. As far as the spread of capitalism and the constant growth of the "free" market system, it is really not turning out so well lately and I would not trust China's books to be exactly accurate. All that said I whole heartedly believe that ATVKing is not playing with a full deck when he says things like: "one day the world will be free from the USA its just a matter of arming up and stocking up on weapons of mass destruction." Really? You think the ability to blow each other up is going to solve anyones problems? You honestly think if everyone had a nuke in their backyard it would make the world a better place? Hell you sound like as big a warmonger as Bush ever was you just seem to regret you have no power. Truth be told there are far more dangerous things in the world than any weapon of mass destruction, one of which is blanket hatred for an entire nation and all the people in it. At the one moment you damn the US for having a powerful military and a government willing to use it and on the other you promote the idea of everyone else doing the same. Do you have two mouths or does all that come out of just one?