UN Secretary General: Appeal For Peaceful Solutions in Syria

UN Secretary General: Appeal For Peaceful Solutions in Syria

New York City / Ludwigshafen am Rhein. (oterapro). April 14, 2018. The founder of Liberty and Peace NOW! Human Rights Reporters, www.libertyandpeacenow.org and www.libertypeacenow.org (Blog: https://humanrightsreporters.wordpress.com), Andreas Klamm as known as Andreas Klamm-Sabaot has sent via FAX and E-mail an Appeal for Peaceful Solutions to the UN General Secretary António Guterres.

To

His Excellency António Guterres

UN Secretary General

United Nations, S-233

New York, NY 10027

 

(PRESS INQUIRIES ONLY) Tel. 212-963-7162

(ALL OTHER INQUIRIES) Tel. 212-963-1234

Stéphane Dujarric

Spokesman for the Secretary-General

 

E-mail: dujarri@un.org

Eri Kaneko

Associate Spokesperson for the Secretary-General

E-mail: kaneko@un.org

 

Farhan Haq

Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General

E-mail: haqf@un.org

 

405 East 42nd Street, Room S-0200, New York, NY 10017

Protocol General Tel: (212) 963-7170, (212) 963-7171

Protocol Accreditation Tel: (212) 963-7181

Fax: 0012129631921

 

Neuhofen, April  11th, 2018

Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany

 

APPEAL FOR PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS IN CONCERN OF SYRIA AND PEACE – The use of force will be a is prohibited

 

Dear His Excellency UN Secretary General António Guterres!

 

The media and government reports issued by the The President of the United States of America, His Excellency President Donald J. Trump, The U.S. Government, other leaders around the world are troubling and alarming.

 

As we have come to know there are officially unconfirmed reports about a possible attack with chemical weapons in the country of Syria. No proof has been provided yet. As we have learned and do know, it is not yet even certain if such attacks with chemical weapons might have taken place.

 

Threats have been issued and have been mentioned in public by several nation and Government leaders, rulers and even Presidents in Office, to attack the country of Syria with the use of force has been mentioned. Adding violence to violence is making no sense at all and it will not lead to peace and peaceful solutions which shall be and should be the first class priority and aim.

 

Based upon the Universal Declaration of the United Nations proclaimed in 1948 and the goodwill of peace loving people therefore I want to make an APPEAL FOR PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS for the country of Syria, its Government, its citizen and people and surrounding nations, such as

 

  1. Gathering of the UN Security Council which will adopt following peaceful solutions.
  2. Launch of an multinational UN investigation in concern of a possible attack with chemical weapons in Syria.
  3. The use of force and the use of lethal force will not be allowed and will be and is prohibited until certain proof of facts will be delivered to the UN Security Council and the public worldwide.
  4. Launch of a temporary Regional Security Council Assembly for Syria with members of the regular UN Security Council and with members of the official Government of Syria and with members of the official Government of Russia
  5. The aim of and for peaceful solutions for the country of Syria and its people and citizen and surrounding nations shall be set with first class priority.
  6. The aim of and for peaceful solutions shall have first class priority.
  7. As long as the UN investigation is ongoing any kind of false accusations against any country and government including, the Government of Syria, Iran and Russia will be not allowed and will be and are prohibited.
  8. Crimes according the crime of aggression according the Rome Statute  / ICC will be  and are prohibited
  9. Crimes against humanity and the use of forces and lethal force will be and are prohibited as long as the UN investigation will be ongoing and as long as not save and certain proof will be provided.
  10. Instead of the use of force there will be set and launched a regional conference or gathering assembly for peaceful solutions for Syria, its people, citizen and surrounding nations with national, international and multinational negotiators for peaceful solutions.
  11. In case if an attack against the country of Syria and its people and citizen with chemical weapons may will be confirmed based upon a just and air UN investigation a fair trial will be granted to those which are responsible and which are involved.
  12. Fair trial and negotiations will be granted and assured also to the Government of Syria and its President Bashar-al Assad. Peaceful solutions and humanitarian aid, assistance and support and for the citizen, people and animals living in the country of Syria will be have first priority.

 

 

Background, Reasoning And Sources

 

Syria´s President Bashar-al Assad may have invited according to officially not confirmed media reports already the member of the UN United Nations to launch an international and multional investigation.

 

Quote: „Assad denies use of chemical weapons

Syria’s president, Bashar-al Assad, has said that reports of a chemical weapons attack by his forces were „100% fabricated“.

In an exclusive interview with AFP, filmed by the Syrian presidency, he said that his country doesn’t have chemical weapons and that it was an excuse for the United States to attack his country.

Sources: AFP and BBC.com, http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-39586500/assad-denies-use-of-chemical-weapons

The entire UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Resolution 217 IIIA, United Nations, proclaimed in 1948 ff.

Article 1: Innate freedom and equality

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

 

Article 11: Right to the presumption of innocence

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, universal

 

Article 8 bis

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
  2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

(b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

(c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;

(d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;

(e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;

(f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.

Exercise of jurisdiction

Under the Statute, the conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction for the „crime of aggression“ by the Court are as defined below. With these provisions, the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over the „crime of aggression“ in one or all of the following ways.

 

State referral, proprio motu

Security Council referral

Article 15 bis

Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (State referral, proprio motu)

 

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraphs (a) and (c), subject to the provisions of this article.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.

The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

The Court may, in accordance with article 12, exercise jurisdiction over a crime of aggression, arising from an act of aggression committed by a State Party, unless that State Party has previously declared that it does not accept such jurisdiction by lodging a declaration with the Registrar. The withdrawal of such a declaration may be effected at any time and shall be considered by the State Party within three years.

In respect of a State that is not a party to this Statute, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression when committed by that State’s nationals or on its territory.

Where the Prosecutor concludes that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, he or she shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. The Prosecutor shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the situation before the Court, including any relevant information and documents.

Where the Security Council has made such a determination, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression.

Where no such determination is made within six months after the date of notification, the Prosecutor may proceed with the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation in respect of a crime of aggression in accordance with the procedure contained in article 15, and the Security Council has not decided otherwise in accordance with article 16.

A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.

This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.[6]

Article 15 ter

Exercise of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (Security Council referral)

 

The Court may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with article 13, paragraph (b), subject to the provisions of this article.

The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.

The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

A determination of an act of aggression by an organ outside the Court shall be without prejudice to the Court’s own findings under this Statute.

This article is without prejudice to the provisions relating to the exercise of jurisdiction with respect to other crimes referred to in article 5.

Activation of the Court’s jurisdiction

Since the amendments on the crime of aggression were adopted under Article 121.5, they enter into force for each ratifying State individually. In addition, the amendments require two further conditions to be fulfilled for the Court to exercise jurisdiction, both for state referrals and proprio motu investigations (15 bis) and for Security Council referrals (15 ter):

 

The Court may exercise jurisdiction only with respect to crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification or acceptance of the amendments by thirty States Parties.

The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in accordance with this article, subject to a decision to be taken after 1 January 2017 by the same majority of States Parties as is required for the adoption of an amendment to the Statute.

At the 16th annual session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Treaty, it was decided to activate jurisdiction of the Crime of Aggression starting July 17, 2018.[7]

 

ICC: Jurisdiction over Crime of Aggression Activated

(Dec. 26, 2017) The Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) met at United Nations headquarters from December 4 to 14, 2017. (Press Release, Assembly Activates Court’s Jurisdiction over Crime of Aggression, ICC website (Dec. 15, 2017).) The Assembly “is the Court’s management oversight and legislative body and is composed of representatives of the States which have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute.” (Assembly of States Parties, ICC website (last visited Dec. 20, 2017); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (in force from July 1, 2002), ICC website.)

 

Among the actions taken at the recent Assembly was the adoption of several resolutions by consensus. These included activating the jurisdiction of the ICC over the crime of aggression, thereby adding this crime to the other offenses over which ICC jurisdiction is active, which are genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The additional jurisdiction will become effective on July 17, 2018. (Assembly of States Parties, supra; Assembly Activates Court’s Jurisdiction over Crime of Aggression, supra.) The Assembly also amended article 8 of the Rome Statute, on war crimes, adding to the definition of war crimes the use of microbial, biological, or toxin weapons, weapons that cause injuries through fragments that cannot be detected by x-rays, and laser weapons.  (Assembly Activates Court’s Jurisdiction over Crime of Aggression, supra.)

 

In addition, the Assembly elected six judges for terms of nine years; a new President of the Assembly, Judge O-Gon Kwon of the Republic of Korea, for the years 2018-20; and Vice-Presidents from Senegal and Slovakia. (Assembly Activates Court’s Jurisdiction over Crime of Aggression, supra.)

 

Background

 

The activation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over “aggression” follows many years of debate on how the crime would be prosecuted in practice. Although the mandate to bring aggressors to trial was part of the original jurisdiction of the ICC, its implementation was postponed pending agreement on the meaning of “aggression” and the role of nations with vetoes in the United Nations Security Council.

 

At a meeting held in Kampala, Uganda, in 2010, diplomats reached consensus that the ICC Prosecutor would take on cases of aggression only with the approval of the Security Council. In the absence of an acknowledgment by the Security Council that aggression has occurred, the Prosecutor must request a case from that body. Should the Security Council not reply for six months, the Prosecutor may seek approval from the ICC judges to proceed with an investigation. In addition, States may opt out of allowing ICC jurisdiction over crimes of aggression, sending a declaration to that effect to the Registrar of the Court. At the 2010 meeting, it was decided that the jurisdiction would come into effect in 2017 if adopted by 30 Member States and promulgated by the Assembly of States Parties. The 30th adoption, by Palestine, took place on June 26, 2016. (Stéphanie Maupas, After 15 Years, ICC States Still Debating Crime of Aggression, JUSTICEINFO.NET (Feb. 15, 2017).

Source:

http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/icc-jurisdiction-over-crime-of-aggression-activated

 

 

Article 7

Crimes against humanity

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, „crime against humanity“ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

 

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

 

(c)     Enslavement;

 

(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

 

(e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

 

(f)     Torture;

 

(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

 

(h)     Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

 

(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;

 

(j)     The crime of apartheid;

 

(k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

 

  1. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a)     „Attack directed against any civilian population“ means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b)     „Extermination“ includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

 

(c)     „Enslavement“ means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

 

(d)     „Deportation or forcible transfer of population“ means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

 

(e)     „Torture“ means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

 

(f)     „Forced pregnancy“ means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;

 

(g)     „Persecution“ means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

 

(h)     „The crime of apartheid“ means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

 

(i)     „Enforced disappearance of persons“ means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

 

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term „gender“ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society. The term „gender“ does not indicate any meaning different from the above.

 

 

Article 8

War crimes

 

  1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

 

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, „war crimes“ means:

(a)     Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i)     Wilful killing;

(ii)     Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

 

(iii)     Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

 

(iv)     Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

 

(v)     Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power;

 

(vi)     Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

 

(vii)     Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

 

(viii)     Taking of hostages.

 

 

(b)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;

 

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

 

(iv)     Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

 

(v)     Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;

 

(vi)     Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

 

(vii)     Making improper use of a flag of truce, of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, resulting in death or serious personal injury;

 

(viii)     The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;

 

(ix)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

 

(x)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

 

(xi)     Killing or wounding treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

 

(xii)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

 

(xiii)     Destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;

 

(xiv)     Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;

 

(xv)     Compelling the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent’s service before the commencement of the war;

 

(xvi)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

 

(xvii)     Employing poison or poisoned weapons;

 

(xviii)     Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

 

(xix)     Employing bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions;

 

(xx)     Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

 

(xxi)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

 

(xxii)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions;

 

(xxiii)     Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;

 

(xxiv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

 

(xxv)     Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;

 

(xxvi)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities.

 

 

(c)     In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:

 

(i)     Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(ii)     Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

 

(iii)     Taking of hostages;

 

(iv)     The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.

 

 

(d)     Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

(e)     Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

 

 

(i)     Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;

(ii)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law;

 

(iii)     Intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, as long as they are entitled to the protection given to civilians or civilian objects under the international law of armed conflict;

 

(iv)     Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

 

(v)     Pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault;

 

(vi)     Committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f), enforced sterilization, and any other form of sexual violence also constituting a serious violation of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions;

 

(vii)     Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate actively in hostilities;

 

(viii)     Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;

 

(ix)     Killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary;

 

(x)     Declaring that no quarter will be given;

 

(xi)     Subjecting persons who are in the power of another party to the conflict to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

 

(xii)     Destroying or seizing the property of an adversary unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of the conflict;

 

 

(f)       Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

  1. Nothing in paragraph 2 (c) and (e) shall affect the responsibility of a Government to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the unity and territorial integrity of the State, by all legitimate means.

Source:  http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

 

May the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY and may supreme natural and supernatural powers and forces will provide freely love, knowledge, justice, strength, health and wisdom to the UN Secretary General António Guterres and all people  and persons involved in efforts for peace, love, justice, security and peaceful solutions for the country of Syria, its citizen, people, animals and surrounding nations. 

 

Thank you in advance.

Sincerely,

Andreas Klamm – Sabaot, Journalist, Autor, Schriftsteller, staatlich geprüfter Gesundheits- und Krankenpfleger, Rettungssanitäter,

Gründer und Projekt-Leitung von Regionalhilfe.de (www.regionalhilfe.de ), Tel. 0621 5867 8054 und Tel. 030 57 700 592, E-Mail: andreas@regionalhilfe.de und E-Mail: andreasklamm@hotmail.com

Gründer und Projekt-Leitung von Liberty and Peace NOW! Human Rights Reporters, www.libertyandpeacenow.org , www.libertypeacenow.org und Blog: https://humanrightsreporters.wordpress.com

Gründer, Verleger und Herausgeber von British Newsflash Magazine seit 1986, www.britishnewsflashmagazine.org und www.britishnewsflash.org

Gründer, Verleger und Herausgeber von Radio TV IBS Liberty, IBS TV Liberty seit 1986, www.ibstelevision.org und www.ibstelevision.com

Gründer und Projektleitung von ISMOT International and Social Medical Outreach Team

 

114181_UN_Secretary_General_Peaceful_Solutions

Appeal to the UN Secretary General United Nation in PDF version:

https://humanrightsreporters.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/114181_un_secretary_general_peaceful_solutions.pdf

Liberty and Peace NOW! 2

Resolution des UN-Sicherheitsrates gegen die Regierung von Libyen verkündet

Resolution des UN-Sicherheitsrates gegen die Regierung von Libyen verkündet
New York City, USA. 27. February 2011. (and). Die internationale Welt-Gemeinschaft hat heute früh gegen 2.00 Uhr eine Resolution gegen die Regierung von Libyen verkündet. Die Regierung von Libyen wird aufgefordert, unverzüglich die Gewalt gegen zivile Bürger, Staatsbürger und Gäste in Libyen zu beenden. Ziel der Resolution, die als Signal gelten soll für die Regierung von Libyen, ist die sofortige Beendigung der Gewalt und des Blutvergiessens gegen Zivilisten in Libyen. Die Sprecher und Sprecherinnen der Länder-Vertretungen für Brasilien, Groß Britannien, Frankreich, Nigeria, Bosnien, Deutschland und weiterer Staaten verurteilten die Gewalt gegen friedlich demonstrierende Menschen. Die Menschenrechte und das Recht der Menschen sich friedlich zu versammeln, müssten geschützt und gewahrt werden. Die Sprecher und Sprecherinnen bekundeten ihre tiefe Anteilnahme zum Verlust des Lebens von Menschen in Libyen. Die UN-Resolution gegen das Regime von Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi wurde einstimmig abgestimmt. Die Resolution wurde mit 15 Stimmen in Übereinstimmung am Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011 (deutsche Ortszeit, lokale Ortszeit: Samstag Nacht, 26. Februar 2011, cirka 22 Uhr) beschlossen.

Die begangenen Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit sollten vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof untersucht werden, forderte ein weiterer Sprecher. Das Regime von Militär-Führer Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi habe seine Legitimität verloren. UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon begrüßte die Resolution des UN-Sicherheitsrates. Der UN-Generalsekretär verurteilt die Verbrechen und Übergriffe auf Zivilisten und die allgemeinen, universellen Menschenrechte, die auch Grundlage für Frieden und Stabilität seien. Die andauernde Gewalt müsse sofort beendet werden und weitere Verstösse gegen die Menschenrechte würden nicht weiterhin toleriert werden. Die Situation in Libyen werden weiterhin sehr genau überwacht werden. Ban Ki-moon bekundete seine Solidarität mit den Menschen von Libyen. Die Zukunft der Menschen von Libyen liege in der Hand der Menschen von Libyen. Er hoffe auf Demokratie, Frieden und Menschenrechte für die Menschen in Libyen. Der UN-Generalsekretär hat weitere Massnahmen in seiner Rede um 2.50 Uhr (deutsche Ortszeit) heute früh nicht ausgeschlossen.
Die finanziellen Mittel der Gaddafi Familie werden eingefroren und gesperrt. Für Mitglieder und Unterstützer des Regime von Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi gilt zum Teil ein Reiseverbot.

Amy Goodman to receive Right Livelihood Award

Amy Goodman on her educational program Democracy NOW! Democracy NOW! broadcast daily Monday to Friday. For more information go to: www.democracynow.org. Photo: 3mnewswire.org

Amy Goodman to receive Right Livelihood Award

By Andreas Klamm, journalist, broadcast journalist and author of Liberty and Peace NOW!

Washington D. C. / New York City / London/Stockholm/October 28, 2008. The international and excellent journalist which is known as one of the world best top journalists, authors and broadcast journalists has been awarded to receive the Right Livelihood Award on December 8, 2008 by the Right Livelihood Award Foundation in Stockholm in Sweden.

Amy Goodman will share the right Livelihood Award with four other woman which have been taking part in a vital role of social transformation.

The three other women which will receive also the Right Livelihood Award 2008 are

Krishnammal and Sankaralingam Jagannathan / LAFTI (India)

„…for two long lifetimes of work dedicated to realising in practice the Gandhian vision of social justice and sustainable human development, for which they have been referred to as ‚India’s soul‘.“

Asha Hagi (Somalia)

„…for continuing to lead at great personal risk the female participation in the peace and reconciliation process in her war-ravaged country.“

and

Monika Hauser (Germany)

„…for her tireless commitment to working with women who have experienced the most horrific sexual violence in some of the most dangerous countries in the world, and campaigning for them to receive social recognition and compensation.“

Amy Goodman will be honored for „…for developing an innovative model of truly independent political journalism that brings to millions of people the alternative voices that are often excluded by mainstream media.

Presented annually in Stockholm at a ceremony in the Swedish Parliament, the Right Livelihood Award is usually shared by four recipients. One of them may receive an Honorary Award, given to a person or group whose work the Jury wishes to recognize but who is not primarily in need of monetary support. The others share the prize money of 2,000,000 Swedish kronor (approximately USD 310,000). The prize money is for ongoing successful work, never for personal use.

The media is sometimes called the fourth power in a democracy. But in many countries of the world such as for example Germany, Iran, Iraq, China, North Korea and many others the media is today no longer willing or able to play this role. Instead it defers to commercial and political interests, thus eroding democracy and destroying elementary and fundamental vital parts of a democracy such as the freedom of the press, liberty, peace, free speech and justice.

With Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman has shown what the alternative to this dangerous trend can look like. Democracy Now! is the largest public media collaboration in the U.S. which is now available to people seeking alternative viewpoints around the globe.

Career
Amy Goodman was born in 1957, graduated from Harvard in 1984 and became news director at the New York radio station WBAI a few years later. In 1996 she launched the daily one-hour news broadcast Democracy Now!, which she now hosts with Juan Gonzalez, and which is produced live from 08.00 to 09.00 US EST.

Unembedded reporting
Democracy Now! focuses on issues its producers consider under-reported or ignored by mainstream news coverage, like global news or reporting on anti-war activism in the U.S. It provides hard-hitting, independent, breaking coverage of war and peace, U.S. domestic and foreign policy, and struggles for social, racial, economic, gender and environmental justice in the U.S. and abroad.


Democracy Now! seeks to give voice to the voiceless. Its broadcasts include:

  • in-depth interviews with community members, activists, academics, artists and journalists shut out by the mainstream media,

  • debates between activists and people in power,

  • investigative reports and exclusive interviews with usual and controversial guests,

  • and on-the-ground reporting from protests, the recent conventions and hot spots round the world.

Democracy Now! – Facts and figures
Democracy Now! is the fastest growing independent news program in the United States of America . The educational program is now syndicated to more than 700 radio and TV, satellite and cable TV networks in North America reaching millions of people worldwide.
Democracy Now! is produced by seven producers, 20 full-time and 15 paid part-time staff as well as many volunteers. Broadcast daily as an hourly TV show, but with its founding on radio, it is produced in such a way that the stories never rely on the pictures, which allows it to be sent out as a radio show on community radio stations all over the US.
Democracy Now! has an outreach team working to encourage communities to demand that their community radio stations transmit the program.
Democracy Now!’s innovative technical solutions allow for high usability for any kind of audience. There is ‚close captioning‘ for deaf people and numerous voluntary transcribers produce full transcripts of the show. On the website, there are different types of streams and downloads, e.g. audio files, but also high-quality video files that are sent out, for example, by a Japanese TV channel once a week. Democracy Now! also keeps a complete archive of all its shows, which people can research for free.
Democracy Now! receives no government or corporate funding. Because of its educational mission, it has charitable status according to US law (501c3). Major organizational donors have been the Lannan Foundation and the Wallace Global Fund. Significant contributions also come from listeners themselves.
What Amy Goodman is calling Trickle-up journalism”
Amy Goodman describes Democracy Now! as ‚trickle-up journalism‘, because the stories it runs are often taken up by the mainstream media and her interviewees are very often interviewed by other channels after they have appeared on Democracy Now! Thus, the significance of Democracy Now! goes beyond the show as such: It also serves to open up the media landscape, acting as a ‚conveyor belt‘ for stories that otherwise would not reach the mainstream media.

Awards and books received by Amy Goodman
Amy Goodman’s awards include the Golden Reel for the Best National Documentary for ‚Drilling and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria’s Oil Dictatorship‘ in 1998, and the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Prize for ‚Massacre: the Story of East Timor‘. This story had almost cost her life: In East Timor, she survived a massacre in 1991 in which Indonesian soldiers gunned down 270 Timorese people.
The journalist, author and broadcast journalist has also written three hard-hitting books with her brother, David Goodman: The Exception to the Rulers (2004); Static: Government Liars, Media Cheer-leaders and the People who Fight Back (2006); and Standing up to the Madness (2008). She also syndicates a column to national papers.
Democracy Now! is broadcast daily from 8-9am EST/1-2pm GMT. To watch today’s show and for a list of international and domestic stations that carry DN!, please go to www.democracynow.org.

Quotation: What Amy Goodman has said about the Right Livelihood Award

„I am completely honored to have my work and the work of my colleagues held in such high regard, it makes me realize how important the work of bringing a truly independent voice to broadcast news and journalism really is. I really believe in free speech and independent journalism as a tool for peace, for understanding. It is so important, especially during times like these, that the media hold the politicians feet to the fire… we all need the real answers, the truth as best we can. This is why I get up every morning and go to the red firehouse we broadcast from everyday, still as excited as my first day at Democracy Now! over 12 years ago.“

Amy Goodman


The murder and killing of independent journalists fighting for liberty and democracy

Not all journalists which do publish alternative and independent reports do receive an award. Many of these journalists instead of receiving awards have been murdered. According to the Committee to Protect Journalist in 2008, 33 journalists have been killed. In 2007 according to information in the USA a number of 67 journalists have been killed.

The International Press Institute in Europe knows already about 37 journalists which been murdered in the year 2008. In the years 2007 93 journalists have been killed according to the International Press Institute.

Reporters without borders knows about the death of 34 journalists in 2008 while 126 journalists are imprisoned. About so called 93 “cyber dissidents” and 9 media assistant staff do serve in prison for simply speaking out a part of the truth for laboring for liberty, democracy and peace.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS

UNITED NATIONS, New York City, United States of America, 1948

www.un.org

Source: Right Livelihood Foundation, Sweden.

IBS Independent Broadcasting Service Liberty, Radio IBS Liberty and IBS Television Liberty is supporting international understanding since 1986.

References:

For more information visit please.:

http://www.rightlivelihood.org/home.html

http://www.cpj.org/

http://www.freemedia.at/Heroes_IPIReport2.00/00Heroes_index.htm

MJB Mission News, ISSN 1999-8414, printable and portable PDF Magazine

mjbnewsamygoodmanrightlivehoodaward081

3mnewswire.org

Letter from the United Nations in Geneve to journalist Mr. Andreas Klamm



Letter from the United Nations in Geneve to journalist Mr. Andreas Klamm

Washington D.C. / New York City/October 21, 2008/3mnewswire.org/– . The journalist Andreas Klamm, founder of British Newsflash Magazine, IBS Independent Broadcasting Service Liberty, Radio IBS Liberty, IBS Television Liberty, MJB Mission News, ISSN 1999-8418 has officially confirmed that he has written some petitions to the United Nations offices in New York City and in Geneve. It seems that already since years he has communication with the United Nations.
„The petitions have be written in concern of human rights issues, elementary and fundamental human rights such as the right to live for all people, change of citizenship according to Article 15, Universal Declaration of the Human Rights by the United Nations (UN), targeted killing, the murder of people and other important issues. I believe it is the duty of every human being to stand up for human rights and it does not matter this much, in which countries the abuses and the serious violations against the human rights are going to happen. However even if some rich and wealthy people and certain members of the government believe they might have the right to oppress the truth and to murder people this does not mean that these people and political forces have the right to do so. This does not mean that I am anti-German. I am only against the massive abuses and violations against the human rights and this is a different and important issue.“, said Andreas Klamm.
3mnewswire.org

Artikel 15: Weshalb ich an elementaren Menschenrechten festhalte

Artikel 15: Weshalb ich an elementaren Menschenrechten festhalte
Von Andreas Klamm
Washington, D.C. / New York / London/21. Oktober 2008/3mnewswire.org/– Für viele Menschen ist es offenbar nicht nachvollziehbar weshalb ich an der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechten der United Nations (UN, Vereinte Nationen) in New York City festhalte.
Das ist ganz sicher auch eine Frage des Glaubens und des Gewissens. Obgleich ich nur Journalist, Autor und Moderator und kein Jurist bin, glaube ich daran, dass die Allgmeine universelle Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen weltweit und damit auch in Deutschland gültig ist. Kein Mensch wird wohl bestreiten, dass auch Deutschland ein Teil der Welt ist.
Von Geburt an, bin ich Französisch-Deutscher Bürger, ein Fakt, den keine Macht in dieser Welt auch die deutsche Bundesregierung und die mächtigste Frau der Welt, laut dem US-Magazin FORBES, Bundeskanzlerin Dr. Angela Merkel (CDU), nicht ändern kann.
Im Jahr 1950 gab mir meine Großmutter, Martha Kolacz ein Beispiel dem ich beabsichtige zu folgen. Sie verliess Deutschland im Jahr 1950 für immer und wurde im State of Victoria in der Stadt Melbourne, Australien, Staatsbürgerin von Australien. Wenn mir jetzt also gewisse Menschen in Deutschland versuchen zu erklären, dass ein Wechsel der Staatsbürgerschaft nicht möglich ist, dann bin ich der Überzeugung, dass dies schlichtweg eine Lüge ist.
Schon mittels Gen-Tests und anderer Beweise ist es NACHWEISBAR, dass mein Großvater, Haedi Sabaot, Französischer Staatsbürger war, der in einem anderen Kontinent, ausserhalb von Europa geboren wurde. Die Beweise, dass mein Grossvater Französischer Offizier und 1945 in Kaiserslautern in Deutschland stationiert war, liegen den deutschen und französischen Behörden NACHWEISBAR bereits vor.
Das Land das ich bevorzuge heißt United States of America (U.S.A.), in deutscher Sprache Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika.
Im Artikel 15 der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (United Nation, UN) heisst es so wörtlich:
„Artikel 15
1. Jeder hat das Recht auf eine Staatsangehörigkeit.
2. Niemandem darf seine Staatsangehörigkeit willkürlich entzogen noch das Recht versagt werden, seine Staatsanghörigkeit zu wechseln.
Quelle: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/ger.htm,
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Meiner persönlichen Auffassung nach sind die Angaben im Absatz 1 und Absatz 2 des Artikel 15 so eindeutig, dass ich an meinem Wunsch und Standpunkt festhalte.
1. Ich möchte die deutsche Staastbürgerschaft in die amerikanische Staatsbürgerschaft wechseln.
2. Zudem lehne ich es ab im Falle meines Todes in Deutschland beerdigt zu werden.
3. Erkläre ich hiermit erneut in aller Deutlichkeit die Distanzierung von den politischen Ereignissen in Deutschland, etwa der massiven Verletzung von Menschenrechten, der Verletzung der Meinungs- Presse- und Informationsfreiheit, der Verletzung der Relgions- Gewissens- und Glaubensfreiheit, der vorsätzlichen Diffamierung von Menschen in Armut und Not, der Verfolgung von Menschen in Not, der Verfolgung von Menschen aus Glaubens- Gewissen und politischen Gründen.
4. Zudem versichere ich hiermit erneut, dass ich mich ausdrücklich GEGEN MEINEN WILLEN in Deutschland befinde, in einem Land, in meiner Überzeugung nach viele Menschen, GOTT sei DANK nicht alle Menschen, in vielen Bereichen Menschenwürde und Menschenrechte verachtet und massiv verletzten.
An diesen Wünschen und Standpunkten halte ich fest.
Für den Fall, dass Bundeskanzlerin Dr. Angela Merkel (CDU) die sofortige Auflösung der United Nations (UN, Vereinte Nationen) erklären sollte und bekannt geben sollte, dass die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte in Deutschland für Französisch – Deutsche Bürger und für die Menschen in Deutschland keine Gültigkeit in Deutschland hat, werde ich eine internationale Prüfung beantragen, ob eine solche Erklärung rechtlich möglich ist und ob mittels einer solchen Erklärung es möglich ist, die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (UN, United Nations) ausser Kraft zu setzen.
Über die Erklärungen und Hinweise, zahlreicher Menschen und Behörden, dass ich keinen Anspruch auf die Inanspruchnahme der Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte in Deutschland haben soll, kann ich mich nur sehr wundern und ich kann nur zur Überzeugung gelangen, dass diese Erklärungen und Hinweise doch mehr als ?sonderbar? sind. Faktisch bedeutet dies, dass mir doch allen Ernstes einige Menschen erklären wollen, dass elementare und fundamentale Menschenrechte in Deutschland keine Gültigkeit haben.
Nach zahlreichen Recherchen und nach dem was in der Proklamation der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinte Nationen im Jahr 1948 deklarariert wurde, kann ich hiermit nur eindeutig feststellen, dass ich zur Überzeugung gelangt bin, dass die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (United Nations, UN) universell gültig ist und damit auch in Deutschland.
Dass Anhänger der Nazis in Deutschland sicherlich nicht die Freunde der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (UN, United Nations) sein können, kann ich verstehen, doch die Nazis in Deutschland sollten bitte nicht erwarten, dass ich deren Standpunkte zu meinen Standpunkten machen könnte.
Daher appelliere ich ausdrücklich auch an die deutschen Nazis: „Es gibt nun wahrlich nicht viele Menschen, die so behaarlich wie ich, die euer Land verlassen wollen. Lasst uns doch einfach gehen, dann wird es keine weiteren Diskussionen über die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (UN, United Nations) in Deutschland mehr geben und ihr könnt euch in eurem Deutschland wohl fühlen, ohne die Menschen, die die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen (UN, United Nations), Demokratie, Freiheit, Meinungs- Presse- und Informations-Freiheit für sich beanspruchen.“
Meine Überzeugung ist, dass jeder Mensch das Recht auf Leben, auf Glaubens- Gewissen- und Religionsfreiheit hat und dass jeder Mensch auch das Recht hat, aus Glaubens- Gewissens- und politischen Gründen einen Antrag auf den Wechsel der Staatsbürgerschaft zu stellen, die Staatsbürgerschaft zu wechseln und Deutschland auch für immer zu verlassen.
Es gibt nicht einen einzigen Grund dafür, der mich überzeugen könnte, in Deutschland bleiben zu wollen. Sicher bin ich kein Gegner von Deutschland, ich bin auch nicht anti-deutsch, doch ich bin DEFINITIV GEGEN die Verletzung und Verachtung der Menschenwürde, Menschenrechte, Meinungs- Presse- und Informations-Freiheit von vielen Menschen in Deutschland.
Unerfüllbare Forderungen kann ich NICHT erfüllen. Ohne einen einzigen Cent, ist es nicht möglich zu reisen, noch nicht einmal von Heidelberg nach Erfurt.
In diesem Land, in dem so viel Leid meinen jüdischen Brüdern und Schwestern, christlichen Brüdern und Schwestern, Roma, Sinti, politischen Gefangenen, Kriegs-Gefangenen, Journalisten, Autoren, Nonnen, Geistlichen und auch SPD-Politikern zugefügt wurde und zugefügt wird, kann ich mich beim besten Willen schon aus Glaubens- Gewissens- und auch aus politischen Gründen nicht wohl fühlen. Für meine Überzeugungen, Standpunkte und Entscheidungen bitte ich um Verständnis.
Die Entscheidung ist eindeutig und definitiv: Wechsel der deutschen Staatsbürgerschaft in die amerikanische Staatsbürgerschaft und Deutschland verlassen. Im Oktober 2007 habe ich beim U.S. Department for Justice in Washington, D.C., Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika einen entsprechen Antrag schriftlich gestellt und auch daran halte ich fest.
Daher halte ich an der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte der Vereinten Nationen fest und beanspruche diese auch für mich.
3mnewswire.org