This is not the first time that both DC and NYC have simultaneously suffered attacks from within and without: during the recent inauguration essentiallly the same thing happened. DC shut down completely during the parade, and NYC began rejecting posts for reasons that in retropect were laughable: "Will the Inauguration Be Televised" was rejected as "electromagnetic alien spam". OK so Mayday is coming up and also, a major oil- oriented turning point in the Caspian region, and the news is being silenced by those who would manipulate the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenian so that

Intervention by the US military will soon be justified.

Rumsfeld has been working on this project for quite some time: he made a recent suprise visit to Baku to close the deal with Ilham Aliyev, and Aliyev dodged him: heading out on "official bussiness" as Rumsfeld arrived. As my coverage continues, here is one of the "censored" stories from DC that was marked as "racist". You read it yourself and decide.

Several stories about Azerbaijan have been "hidden" by a self appointed censor of "revisionist history" at the DC Indymedia Center. "Revisonist History" is a term that was coined by Joseph Stalin for those who dared to debunk his propaganda. Currently, the Azeri people are stuck between an illegally elected son of a KGB agent, and a relentless occupation by neighboring Armenia. To keep this article brief, I will limit myself to the presentation of an article published at globalpolicy.org which provides a partial list of the UN resolutions currently being ignored by Armenia.

822 (1993) Armenia

Calls for Armenia to implement the "immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan."

853 (1993) Armenia

Demands "complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces" from Azerbaijani territory.

874 (1993) Armenia

Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces.

884 (1993) Armenia

Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces.

as cited by Stephen Zunes on February 28, 2003:

The only difference today is that Armenia has begun a public relations campaign to distract the international community with the issue of a 1918 genocide that the Armenians suffered at the hands of the Turks.
The role of Turkey in the current situation is only peripheral, although important. More about that later. For now, here is an excerpt from Zunes's article explaining the citations above: and Armenia remains has in fact, aggravated the situation since: precipating a largely ignored humanitarian crisis that has resulting in 100s of thousands of deaths: including Azeris and Armenian due to the intractable nature of the Armenian occupying forces.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq

In its effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has emphasized the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions. However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions currently being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 88 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that are also currently being violated. This raises serious questions regarding the Bush administration's insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating UN Security Council resolutions are close allies of the United States. Stephen Zunes zunes@usfca.edu, University of San Francisco professor and Middle East Editor for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org),compiled the following partial list of UN resolutions that are currently being violated by countries other than Iraq.

Explanatory Notes:

This list deals exclusively with resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, a fifteen-member body consisting of five permanent members (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) and ten non-permanent members elected for rotating two-year terms representing various regions of the world. The Security Council's primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, is for the maintenance of international peace and security. For a resolution to pass, it must be approved by a majority of the total membership with no dissenting vote from any of the five permanent members. Since the early 1970s, the United States has used its veto power nearly fifty times, more than all other permanent members during that same period combined. In the vast majority of these cases, the U.S. was the only dissenting vote. The preceding list, therefore, includes only resolutions where the United States voted in the affirmative or abstained.

This list does not include resolutions that merely condemn a particular action, only those that specifically proscribe a particular ongoing activity or future activity and/or call upon a particular government to implement a particular action. Nor does this list does include resolutions where the language is ambiguous enough to make assertions of noncompliance debatable, such as UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 on the Arab-Israeli conflict that put forward the formula of "land for peace," to cite the most famous. Similarly, it does not include broad resolutions calling for universal compliance not in reference to a particular conflict, particularly if there is not a clear definition. For example, in a resolution that proscribes the harboring of terrorists, there is no clear definition for what constitutes a terrorist. This list does not include nonstate actors, such as secessionist governments, rebel groups or terrorists, only recognized nation-states.

Furthermore, this list does not include resolutions that were also violated for a number of years that are now moot (such as those dealing with Indonesia's occupation of East Timor, South Africa's occupation of Namibia, and Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon). If these were also included, the number of violations would double. In most of these cases, the United States played a key role in blocking enforcement of these resolutions as well.

Finally, it should be noted that this is only a partial list, since some of the resolutions involved technical questions I was unable to judge, particularly when they involved parts of the world with which we were less familiar.

Full Story by Stephen Zunes at globalpolicy.org

David Roknich,
Editor

DOGSPOT

RELATED

http://electromagnet.us/dogspot/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=273

http://electromagnet.us/dogspot/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=342