In a vote of the Disarmament Committee of the United Nations (UN), one and only one nation voted against El Baradei's proposal - George Bush's America. In that same vote, Israel abstained, apparently fearing international interference with their own outlaw nuclear weapons programme, and Britain abstained in an act of diplomatic fealty to the 'special relationship' between Tony Blair and George Bush. The final tally was 147 nations to one with the two abstentions. In a later vote of the entire UN General Assembly, Israel and Britain abstained, while America and Palau voted against El Baradei's verifiable ban on fission, and 179 nations voted in favor of his proposal. The final vote on that occasion was 179 in favor, 2 opposed (US and Palau) and 2 abstentions (Israel and Britain).
El Baradei's proposal would monitor all nuclear fission and guarantee that non-nuclear weapons states would be able to obtain adequate supplies for their non-military usage of enriched plutonium.
One nation has publicly accepted El Baradei's proposal, Iran.
(more)
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20060620&articleId=2675
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on June 22, 2006]
Note: http://www.globalresear...
Bush's America Opposes Verifiable Ban On Nuclear Fission
Posted on Wednesday, June 21 at 08:30 by The Old PoopContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Doesn't the word "pacific" mean "peaceful"? If so, why would Palau oppose the rest of the world and support the USA in warmongering? Is there perhaps some undocumented money transaction or promise of a naval base - because it is about halfway to North Korea? Or is there a threat to blow the atoll republic to smithereens, like Bikini, if they do not support Uncle Sam? I'm just asking.
Good article, as always, from Global Research.
<br />
I'm glad you asked the question; I hadn't thought to look up just who Palau was. On checking the CIAs factbook, it's easy to see why Palau would vote whatever way the US would. Their entire economy is reliant on a grant from the US to survive. They made a "free association pact" with the US some years ago. Part of the deal gives the US a 50 year right to have military bases there. I guess you could say Palau is handy for the US to have in their pocket. Aside from all the other perks, this little outfit (which I believe used to be a US "protectorate") with a population of 20,000 has a full vote in the UN.<br />
<br />
Sort of comical in a way; most towns in Canada with 20,000 people are lucky to have a laundromat; these guys have 3 airports!<br />
<br />
Anyway, here's the CIA's info on Palau:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ps.html">http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ps.html</a>
Maybe France should divest itself of Kerguelen, so that it could also become a member of the UN. Or Great Britain could sponsor the (independent) island of Sark as member. In hindsight, the latter would surely be opposed by the US, because there is no airport.
Not comical at all, just sickening. The jist of it all is that the whole world is in favour of Fissban, and the US has isolated itself completely on this issue (and on many others as well). How much more of a reality check does the US need in order to wake up and smell the coffee?