This report comes to us from FOXNEWS;
The Turkish group at the center of this week's deadly high-seas clash with Israel has been a member of a hard-to-access U.N. organization since 2004, which has given the group special access to the U.N. system.
The Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) branch of U.N.'s Department of Economic and Social Affairs invites in NGOs from around the globe, including the Turkish-based Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH).
Earlier this week Fox News reported that the IHH has links to terrorist groups including Hamas and Al Qaeda. Indeed, the IHH was described in federal court documents as playing a role in the Millennium terrorist plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport.
The Turkish charity was described in a recent report as being a "radical Islamic organization with an anti-Western orientation," and that "besides its legitimate philanthropic activities, it supports radical Islamic networks, including Hamas, and that at least in the past, even global jihad networks." (See full report below)
Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and Touro College, and an active participant in the U.N.'s NGO system, tells Fox News that the status granted to IHH gives most NGOs access to U.N. diplomats and enables them to speak at sessions of a number of U.N. bodies that are streamed online around the world and translated into six languages.
Their consultative status also allows groups to distribute their material or statements as U.N. documents, Bayefsky said, "which gives them permanence and widespread circulation."
Bayefsky says that the difficulty in joining the NGO committee often depends on the organization and the groups it seeks to protect. While "serious" human rights organizations are often blocked from gaining membership, she said, "applications from NGOs from or aligned with non-democratic states sail through without objection."
Ms. Bayefsky is simply telling half truths and not painting a complete picture which is so vitally needed to draw the necessary conclusions from the disclosure of this information. The UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs, or DESA, is headed by a member of the Chinese Communist Party by the name of Sha Zukang. Mr. Zukang, born in Shanghai in 1948 has been an apparatchik for the CP for the past 38 or so years and served on several boards and directorates which the average person may find more than ironic, perhaps hypocritical or absurd that a CP red communist Chinese would be serving on, let alone heading up. While that may not be exactly a new revelation with regards to the UN, such as Iran chairing a UN group on women's rights, this particular situation deserves special consideration for its greater detriment towards Israel, the US, and the western democratic world.
Some may not know, first of all, that Mr. Zukang also at one time coordinated the UN's Human Rights Council; an interesting post for a man directly working for a nation regarded as one of, if not the worst violator of human rights in the world. Mr. Zukang was also named as Director-General, Department of Arms Control; this as he represented the second highest spending nation on military arms against the national GDP. As with most UN efforts, the hypocrisy and overall lewd behavior of the various secretaries comes to us as no surprise. The history of this body's corruption, anti-American activity, and anti-Israel bias is now the stuff of legends. In the case of this communist, Mr. Zukang, it is not about ideology or morality; the issue is merely strategic as well as dollars and cents.
To gain a broader understanding of the dangers involved with continued membership to the UN, one only needs to look at the voting record of the Security Council and selection of the members of the Security Council itself. Typical to the George Kennan doctrine of containment, Russia and China were chosen as permanent members of the Security Council in an effort to "contain" or legitimize these otherwise isolated and belligerent regimes and charm them into reform. Of course that never worked; Reagan had to come along and disprove the Kennan theory in order for the Soviet Union to acquiesce; but that is another essay. At any rate, the two most powerful and dangerous communist regimes were installed as permanent members of the Security Council for the express reason that would somehow join the world community and mend their ways; quite the contrary happened however. Russia and China in particular have used their Council power to advance their military industry interests, their existential influence on a political level, as well as securing natural resources vital to their economic growth. (China more so than Russia with regards to petroleum) This of course brings us to Ms. Bayefsky's statement regarding which NGO's make it into official status with the UN's DESA.
Ms. Bayefsky stated that human rights groups with serious agendas rarely make it into DESA while those of undemocratic and reclusive regimes sail past the oversight. I would like to correct her on this by saying that those NGOs of the west who rate China as a major offender of human rights issues shall make no headway in gaining favour of a UN department headed by the Chinese. Furthermore, any NGO originating from a nation which stands opposed to Chinese interests in general; whether they be military, economic, or any strategic influence which can be rightfully perceived as hostile to free western democracies, will be summarily shot down in favour of those client states and potential client states of the Communist regime. China in a nutshell has little interest in Palestinian desires; what it does have is a desire and an intense interest in economic and military partnership with muslim states. Wherever there is a question of gaining petroleum contracts, as well as weapons trade, China will always prostitute UN favour in exchange for both. The issue of the Turkish terror supporting group IHH having status in the UN is a direct result of China and her shameless dedication to her national interest. While I fault no nation for pursuing their national interest, I will always use this as a major, if not primary reason for invalidating the UN as a legitimate body of nations. Quite simply put, the Russians and the Chinese will continue to act contrary to international interest with regards to combating terror and arms trade as they financially cannot afford to do so. The IHH, Iran,. Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and other rogue states, and organisations are and will continue to be empowered by this fatal flaw in the Kennan inspired UN structure for as long as we continue to be a member and ultimately fund its activities.
The only way for the war on terror, and the proliferation of nuclear material to be put in check will be to dissolve the Security Council or to withdraw from this corrupt body of nations altogether. While each UN ambassador is expected to act in the interest of their nation, the UN officials themselves are just as partisan and prone to national interest. The idea of allowing such rogue states to occupy key positions simply undermines any sort of progress or security; it is without a doubt a springboard for a global conflict. With regards to Israel, I must point out that this body is of no consequence to us whatsoever; we will defend our interests and bolster our security regardless of the corrupt wishes of this body. What I am suggesting is that the western world must re-evaluate its own membership to an organisation which is obviously benefiting the rogue and self absorbed regimes of the East. There is simply no reason to continue funding the growth and militarization of such states that have no other goal than to assume a dominant position of retribution over those who have defended freedom and common sense for the better part of a century. When conflict is inevitable, why fund the enemy? Let them reach the heights of the ability to challenge on their own. In the meantime we must use our position of righteousness, and superiority to stay ahead of the game and be ready to bring the hammer down when the time comes. I seriously doubt that there is a single mind out there who can prove to me that we have used the UN to our own benefit; the benefit is theirs and absolutely exclusive of our interests.