New York City, March 13, 2005

The March 12-13, 2005, weekend Financial Times has elevated the Madrid
conference to the level of Summit. This seems to be right down UN
language except for the fact that it credits the meeting with more
common
sense and much higher potential then those displayed at the United
Nations.

The FT editorial mentions: one theme of the Madrid conference has been
“that not only is there no necessary trade-off between human rights and
counter-terrorism but also the former can reinforce the latter. Credit
for
this goes not to governments but to other institutions that make
democracy
work”. The editorial gives examples - “the US can thank its judicial
system, which gave foreign prisoners a chance to escape indefinite
detention at Guantanamo Bay”, “in Britain credit goes …mainly to
libertarians in the unelected House of Lords, and “Spain never lost
balance
in quite the same way”.

Now, at the Madrid Summit, the editorial notes, “it was not just the
human
rights lawyers but also intelligence and police chiefs who rejected the
use
of ‘extra-judicial detention’, stressing that terrorism could best be
fought
within the rule of law. Suspending human rights can exacerbate the
alienation of Muslim citizens in western countries if they feel
targeted
unnecessarily”. The editorial proceeds - “Western countries have been
targets not for what they are - democracies - bur for what they do -
support
authoritarian Arab regimes. And people turn to terrorism not for what
they
are - Muslims - but because they feel powerless to remedy injustice.

The editorial concludes: … “it is the beginning of wisdom for
democracies
to realize that human rights and good governance can reinforce their
immune
system against the disease (terrorism)”.

Let us switch now to the UN Commission on Human Rights that is having
its
61-st session at Palais Des Nations in Geneva a six weeks long and
expensive
meeting stretching from March 14 till April 22, 2005 - its annual
scrutiny
of human rights around the world. This year the meeting is chaired by
an
Indonesian diplomat, last year it was a Lybian. The 53-member body is
further laced with such “human rights affectionados” like China, Cuba,
Eritrea, Nepal, Sudan, … How can anyone in his right state of mind
even
contemplate dealing with the subject of counter-terrorism using a UN
platform?
Will any of the above mentioned countries allow a serious look into
what
goes on within their borders? Will Russia allow a look at what goes on
in
Chechnya? What place for an un-Reformed UN in all of this?
The Financial Times article mentions the western democracies and the
problem
of Moslem terrorism within their border. The concepts brought forward
at
the Madrid Summit must be instilled via an international institution in
the
governance of all countries - an un-Reformed UN is of no help there.

Above subject is all important also to the concept of Sustainable
Development as described in the Promptbook On Sustainable Development
to the
Johannesburg Summit of 2002 (P-BOOK on SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT)that
positions the SD concept on good governance and human rights in order
to
help the people of countries in need. This, rather then having
oil-exploitation policies which go under the name of Middle East
policies -
perhaps the main issue that brought us to the brink of terrorism.

Now we have returned in full circle - we must reform our own ways in
the
western democracies - in order to topple the governments we supported
and
caused by this the emergence of a terrorism scourge globally.