InnercityPress is reporting today that:
"..former President of the General Assembly Srgjan Kerim now schemes to replace Asha Rose Migro as UN Deputy Secretary General, claiming that Ban Ki-moon has promised him the job.."
"..former President of the General Assembly Srgjan Kerim now schemes to replace Asha Rose Migro as UN Deputy Secretary General, claiming that Ban Ki-moon has promised him the job.."
As reported from APA News Service - Austria is getting ready to cut its aid to U.N.
Who needs thomas Stelzer any more ?
----------------------------------------
Austria to cut UN contributions
182 words
23 November 2010
04:26
APA News Service
Brussels/Vienna - Austria was planning to cut some of its UN contributions, the weekly magazine Profil reported in its latest edition on Monday.
On the sidelines of an EU meeting in Brussels, Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger said that there will be cuts of voluntary contributions to international organisations.
But he added that it was not yet decided for which organizations or to which extent the contributions would be cut.
Profil reported that numerous UN organizations would be hit by the savings - among them the UN Development Fund for women UNIFEM, the Institute for Training and Research, the Reliefs and Work Agency UNRWA, the Population Fund UNFPA and the Fund for Industrial Development UNIDF.
According to the Profil-report, monies will no longer be allocated that would become available through expiring UN Peace Missions.
Spindelegger did not confirm the information published by Profil. He pointed out that no decisions on these savings have yet been made and that this would not happen before a budget has been set, the conservative People's Party (VP) minister said.
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:23pm EST
By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:23pm EST
(Reuters) - Classified U.S. diplomatic cables reporting corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders are expected in official documents that WikiLeaks plans to release soon, sources said on Wednesday.
The whistle-blowing website said on its Twitter feed this week its next release would be seven times larger than the collection of roughly 400,000 Pentagon reports related to the Iraq war which it made public in October.
Three sources familiar with the State Department cables held by WikiLeaks say the corruption allegations in them are major enough to cause serious embarrassment for foreign governments and politicians named in them.
They said the release was expected next week, but could come earlier.
The detailed, candid reporting by U.S. diplomats also may create foreign policy complications for the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama, the sources said.
Among the countries whose politicians feature in the reports are Russia, Afghanistan and former Soviet republics in Central Asia. But other reports also detail potentially embarrassing allegations reported to Washington from U.S. diplomats in other regions including East Asia and Europe, one of the sources familiar with the WikiLeaks holdings said.
The U.S. government has strongly objected to past WikiLeaks revelations, which it said compromise national security and can put some people at risk.
Past WikiLeaks releases of classified U.S. documents on related to Iraq and Afghanistan have given a battlefield view of both conflicts and sensitive intelligence, but contained few startling revelations.
CREATING TENSION
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Washington was assessing the implications of what WikiLeaks may reveal and was notifying foreign governments "that a release of documents is possible in the near future."
"We decry what has happened. These revelations are harmful to the United States and our interests. They are going to create tension in our relationships,' Crowley said. "We wish that this would not happen but we are obviously prepared for the possibility that it will."
Both the State Department and the Pentagon confirmed they had been in touch with lawmakers on Capitol Hill to inform them of what may be coming.
Sources said three international news organizations which previously published stories based on classified U.S. government documents acquired by WikiLeaks -- the New York Times, Britain's Guardian newspaper and the German weekly news magazine Der Spiegel -- were given access the documents some time ago by Julian Assange, the Australian-born computer hacker who says he is WikiLeaks' founder and leader.
Two of the sources said Assange has also made the documents available to at least two other European publications -- the newspapers El Pais of Spain and Le Monde of France.
Assange did not immediately reply to an email seeking comment.
The New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel are trying to coordinate when they release their first stories about the material -- likely to be next week -- but one of the sources said that it is unclear whether Le Monde and El Pais will be publishing on the same schedule.
The sources said the documents -- which also report on other local controversies beyond allegations of corruption -- may result in more international uproar than did the earlier release by WikiLeaks of Pentagon reports on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Asked by e-mail to comment on the latest anticipated WikiLeaks release, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller told Reuters: "If we had a big story in the works, we'd be disinclined to discuss it before publication."
(Editing by Andrew Quinn and Mohammad Zargham)
Almost everyone now accepts that the United Nations brought cholera to Haiti last month. The evidence is overwhelming and many experts (including the head of Harvard University's microbiology department, cholera specialist John Mekalanos) made up their minds to that effect several weeks ago.
Poverty and a lack of rudimentary infrastructure compels much of Haiti's population to drink untreated water, but there has been no cholera there for decades. Haitians have no experience with – and therefore little resistance to – the disease. All the bacterial samples taken from Haitian patients are identical and match a strain endemic in southern Asia. Cholera broke out in Nepal over the summer, and in mid-October a new detachment of Nepalese UN troops arrived at their Haitian base in Mirebalais, near the Artibonite river. A few days later Haitians living downstream of the base started to get sick and the disease spread rapidly throughout the region. On 27 October, journalists visited Mirebalais and found evidence that untreated waste from UN latrines was pouring directly into an Artibonite tributary.
By early November, Mekalanos couldn't see "any way to avoid the conclusion that an unfortunate and presumably accidental introduction of the organism occurred" as a result of UN troops. Mekalanos and others also refute UN claims that identification of the source should be a low public health priority.
Probably as a result of UN negligence, more than 1,200 people are already dead and 20,000 infected, and the toll is set to rise rapidly over the coming weeks. So is the number and intensity of popular protests against this latest in a series of UN crimes and misadventures in Haiti in recent years, which include scores of killings and hundreds of alleged rapes.
Rather than examine its role in the epidemic, however, the UN mission has opted for disavowal and obfuscation. UN officials have refused to test Nepalese soldiers for the disease or to conduct a public investigation into the origins of the outbreak. Rather than address the concerns of an outraged population, the agency has preferred to characterise the fresh wave of protests as a "politically motivated" attempt to destabilise the country in the runup to presidential elections on 28 November. Protesters have been met with tear gas and bullets; so far at least three have been killed.
So far, in fact, so normal. The truth is that the whole UN mission in Haiti is based on a violent, bald-faced lie. It says it is in Haiti to support democracy and the rule of law, but its only real achievement has been to help transfer power from a sovereign people to an unaccountable army.
To understand this requires a little historical knowledge. The basic political problem in Haiti, from colonial through post-colonial to neo-colonial times, has always been much the same: how can a tiny and precarious ruling class secure its property and privileges in the face of mass destitution and resentment? The Haitian elite owes its privileges to exclusion, exploitation and violence, and only quasi-monopoly control of violent power allows it to retain them. This monopoly was amply guaranteed by the US-backed Duvalier dictatorships through to the mid 1980s, and then rather less amply by the military dictatorships that succeeded them (1986-90). But the Lavalas mobilisation for democracy, which began in the 1980s, threatened that monopoly and with it those privileges. In such a situation, only an army can be relied upon to guarantee the security of the status quo.
Haiti's incompetent but vicious armed forces, established as a delegate of US power, dominated the country for most of the 20th century. After surviving a brutal military coup in 1991, Haiti's first democratically elected government – led by president Jean-Bertrand Aristide – finally demobilised this hated army in 1995; the great majority of his compatriots celebrated the occasion. Lawyer Brian Concannon recalls it as "the most important step forward for human rights since emancipation from France". In 2000, Aristide was re-elected, and his Fanmi Lavalasparty won an overwhelming majority. This re-election raised the prospect, for the first time in modern Haitian history, of genuine political change in a situation in which there was no obvious extra-political mechanism – no army – to prevent it.
The tiny Haitian elite and their allies in the US, France and Canada were threatened by the prospect of popular empowerment, and took elaborate steps to undermine the Lavalas government.
In February 2004, Aristide's second administration was overthrown in another disastrous coup, conducted by the US and its allies with support from ex-Haitian soldiers and rightwing leaders of the Haitian business community. A US puppet was imposed to replace Aristide, in the midst of savage reprisals against Lavalas supporters. Since no domestic army was available to guarantee "security", a UN "stabilisation force" was sent in at the behest of both the US and France.
The UN has been providing this substitute army ever since. At the behest of the US and its allies, it arrived in Haiti in June 2004. Made up of troops and police drawn from countries all over the world, it operates at an annual cost that is close to twice the size of Aristide's entire pre-coup budget. Its main mission, in effect, has been to pacify the Haitian people, and make them accept the coup and the end of their attempt to establish genuine democratic rule. Few Haitians are likely to forget what the UN has done to accomplish this. Between 2004 and 2006, it participated in a campaign of repression that killed more than a thousand Lavalas supporters. It laid siege to the destitute pro-Aristide neighbourhood of Cité Soleil in 2005 and 2006, and has subsequently contained or dispersed popular protests on issues ranging from political persecution and privatisation to wages and food prices. In the last few months the UN has also kept a lid on the growing pressure in the capital, Port-au-Prince, for improvement in the intolerable conditions still endured by about 1.3 million people left homeless after January's earthquake.
Today, cholera or no cholera, the UN's priority is to ensure that next week's elections go ahead as planned. For Haiti's elite and their international allies, these elections offer an unprecedented opportunity to bury the Lavalas project once and for all.
The political programme associated with Lavalas and Aristide remains overwhelming popular. After six years of repression and infighting, however, the political leadership of this popular movement is more divided and disorganised than ever. Fanmi Lavalas itself has simply been barred from participation in the election (with hardly a whisper of international protest), and from his involuntary exile in South Africa, Aristide has condemned the ballot as illegitimate. Many if not most of the party's supporters are likely to back its vigorous call to boycott this latest masquerade, as they did in the spring of 2009, when turnout for senate elections was less than 10%. This time around, however, half a dozen politicians associated with Lavalas have chosen to run as candidates in their own name. They are likely to split the vote. Haiti's people will be deprived of what has long been their most powerful political weapon – their ability to win genuine elections.
Since it is almost guaranteed to have no significant political impact, this is one election that might well achieve its intended result: to reinforce the "security" (and inequity) of the status quo, along with the many profitable opportunities that a suitably secured post-disaster Haiti continues to offer international investors and its business elite. "This will be an election for nothing," says veteran activist Patrick Elie. Properly managed, it may even provide an opportunity for rightwing presidential candidates like Charles Baker to pursue the goal that has long been at the top of their agenda: restoration, with the usual "international supervision", of Haiti's own branch of the imperial army.
And if that comes to pass, then when the UN eventually leaves Haiti its departure may only serve as a transition from one occupying force to another, reversing decades of popular sacrifice and political effort. In the meantime, though, it looks as if the UN may soon have more opportunities than ever before to fulfil its mission in Haiti.
The United Nations offered few comments Monday on an exclusive CBC News story about the 2005 killing of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
The CBC investigation, relying on interviews with multiple sources within a UN inquiry into the killing, along with some of the inquiry's own records, found examples of timidity, bureaucratic inertia, and incompetence bordering on gross negligence in the UN probe.
One of the records lays out networks of cellphones linked to the Hariri murder. The networks were uncovered by murdered Lebanese police officer Capt. Wissam Eid and UN investigators, and they provide evidence that Hariri's assassins had ties to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.
"I … don’t have any comment on the substance of those documents," UN spokesman Farhan Haq said during a daily briefing at UN headquarters in New York City.
Haq said he can't confirm the authenticity of any of the documents obtained by CBC News, adding that if they are UN documents they are privileged documents that should not be "disclosed to a third party, copied or used without the consent of the United Nations, which had not been given in this case."
He added: "We had requested CBC to contact us with information regarding the documents, so that we could assess them."
The original UN probe into Hariri's murder — the UN International Independent Investigation Commission — has subsequently been transformed into the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, residing in The Hague, where Canadian Daniel Bellemare is now its chief prosecutor.
U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon "critically important to Lebanon's future.
"Lebanon needs to end this era of impunity, which has afflicted it for years, if not decades. And we support the work of the tribunal and we look forward to completion of its investigation," Crowley said.
By Agence France-Presse, Updated: 11/16/2010
The head of the UN agency for tackling rural poverty is to move out of his luxury villa in Rome and cut his spending by 20 percent, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday in the wake of an expenses scandal.
Italian media had accused Kanayo Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), of spending up to 300,000 euros (404,000 dollars) a year on a sprawling villa in Rome's wealthy Via Appia Antica area.
"The president has asked IFAD to cancel his contract on the house and has found a new residence," Cassandra Waldon told AFP, adding that Nwanze hoped to move out of the villa before the end of the year once the terms were finalised.
IFAD said the media reports contained "inaccuracies" and were "misleading".
Waldon declined to reveal the cost of renting the villa complex -- which boasts its own swimming pool, football pitch and ancient Roman ruins -- but said the new accommodation was likely to cost 13,000 euros a month or less.
She said Nwanze "recognises his accommodation has given rise to some perceptions not in line with the IFAD mandate," adding that the UN organisation has reacted by moving to reduce his expenses by close to 20 percent.
Rome-based website Italian Insider last month quoted anonymous IFAD sources who accused Nwanze of "blowing millions" on "princely personal expenses."
Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16 Neue Zürcher Zeitung
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THIS ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICY FOUNDATION
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010
Interview: Bernard Potter
NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?
Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.
But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.
That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.
The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Nevertheless, the environment is suffering from climate change - especially in the global south.
It will be a lot to do with adaptation. But that just goes far beyond traditional development policy: We will see in Africa with climate change a decline in agricultural yields. But this can be avoided if the efficiency of production is increased - and especially if the African agricultural trade is embedded in the global economy. But for that we need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.
The great misunderstanding of the UN summit in Rio in 1992 is repeated in the climate policy: the developed countries talk about environment, the developing countries about development.
It is even more complicated. In the 1980s, our local environmental problems were luxury problems for the developing countries. If you already fed and own a car, you can get concerned about acid rain. For China, the problem was how to get 600 million Chinese people in the middle class. Whether there was a coal power plant or whether the labour standards in the coal mines were low was second priority - as it was here in the 19th Century.
But the world has become smaller.
Now something new happens: it is no longer just our luxury, our environment. Developing countries have realized that causes of climate change lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient. The people here in Europe have the grotesque idea that shopping in the bio food store or electric cars will solve the problem. This is arrogant because the ecological footprint of our lifestyle has increased in the last 30 years, despite the eco-movement.
You say that for successful climate policy a high degree of international cooperation is necessary. However this cooperation is not present.
I share the scepticism. But do we have an alternative? Currently, there are three ideas how to avoid the difficult cooperation: We try unsafe experiments such as geo-engineering, focus on the development of clean and safe energy, or one trusts in regional and local solutions. However, there is no indication that any of these ideas solves the problem. We must want the cooperation, just as you work together for the regulation of financial markets.
But unlike the financial crisis, in climate policy a country benefits if it does not join in.
The financial crisis was an emergency operation - in the face of danger we behave more cooperatively. Such a thing will not happen in climate policy, because it will always remain questionable whether a specific event like a flood is a climate phenomenon. But there is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.
In your new book you talk much about ethics. Do ethics play a role in climate negotiations?
Ethics always play a role when it comes to power. China and Latin America, for example, always emphasize the historical responsibility of developed countries for climate change. This responsibility is not to deny, but it is also a strategic argument for these countries. I would accept the responsibility for the period since 1995 because we know since then, what is causing the greenhouse effect. To extend the responsibility to the industrial revolution is not ethically justified.
Could we the ethics in order to break the gridlock?
The book contains a parable: A group of hikers, who represent the world community, walks through a desert. The industrialized nations drink half of the water and then say generously: “Let us share the rest." The others reply: “This is not possible; you have already drunk half of the water. Let us talk first about your historical responsibility." I think if we are arguing about the water supply because we cannot agree on the ethical principles, then we will die of thirst. What we need to look for is an oasis that is the non-carbon global economy. It's about the common departure for this oasis.
Copyright 2010, NZZ
Transl. Philipp Mueller
Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.
In the annals of missed opportunities, the U.N.'s decision to deny Alfred Hitchock's request to film his 1959 masterpiece North by Northwest on the grounds of its headquarters building surely must rank high. Certainly, Cary Grant's appearance at the U.N. delegate's lounge could have imbued the fledgling organization with some Hollywood glamour.
The U.N. has recently tried to make up for it, but it has yet to find a project that lives up to the critically-acclaimed Hitchcock classic. In the past two years, the U.N. has made its premises available for weekend shoots to a season opener of Ugly Betty that dealt with malaria, an episode of Law and Order that portrayed Central African child soldiers, and an Israel cooking program called The Flying Chef. Over the weekend, the world organization turned over its General Assembly Hall to the makers of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the latest in a series of apocalyptic robot actions flicks.
"I don't think I would have approved of a cooking show," said Shashi Tharoor, an Indian novelist, politician and former head of U.N. public information, who first brought Hollywood to U.N. headquarters, and who courted A-list directors like Sydney Pollack and Steven Soderberg. But he said he had no objection to bringing low-brow projects like Transformers to the U.N. as long as they promoted a positive image to its viewers and introduced the organization to a mass audience, particularly children. "After all, Hitchcock's thriller would have been considered low-brow by the standards of the 1950s."
Juan Carlos Brandt, the U.N. official who is responsible for cultivating the organization's relationship with Hollywood, points out that the filming of Transformers is part of a broader outreach to the Hollywood film industry. In March, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed to a gathering of Hollywood producers and directors to use their cinematic powers to dramatize the U.N.'s struggles to preserve peace, fight trafficking of women, and curb global warming.
"I'm here to talk to the creative community -- Hollywood -- about how they could help the United Nations' work," Ban said. " I really want to have the U.N. message coursing continually, and spreading out continuously to the whole world. The creative community, through [television] and movies, can reach millions and millions of people at once, repeatedly, and then 10 and 20 years after a film's been made."
Furthermore, the U.N.'s new Creative Community Outreach Initiative was designed to help people from the movie industry interact with U.N. officials. The initiative is currently working on a project called "Stories Waiting to be Told" that will invite U.N. staffers to write brief story proposals. "Just start writing," instructs an internal U.N. notice sent to staff. "It could be a line or two or a bit more elaborate. If you have (or know about) photos or videos, let us know."
Brandt said the U.N. only requires film companies to pay for the costs of filming at its premises, though it sometimes encourages them to make a donation to a U.N. humanitarian agency or to address a U.N.-related topic in their stories. "We want to be friendlier to these people than we have in the past," he said, noting that U.N. officials advised the makers of the television series 24, which featured the United Nations, but was not filmed there. The exposure to a U.N. cause "is better than a check for fifty thousand in rent. It can put an issue on the map." The makers of Transformers did, in fact, make a donation to a U.N. agency.
For decades, the U.N. was reluctant to let films crews onto its grounds, fearing it would cheapen the institution's reputation as the world premier diplomatic center. In 1997, the U.N. declined a request to film The Perfect Murder, a remake of another Hitchcock classic, Dial M. For Murder, starring Michael Douglas as a jealous husband who plots the murder of his cheating wife, played by Gwyneth Paltrow.
The U.N. first ended a film production boycott in 2004, when Sydney Pollack, the Academy Award winning director of Out of Africa, convinced U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to allow him to shoot his new film The Interpreter on location at the U.N. That film was as much a love song to the U.N. as an international thriller. It depicts the story of an interpreter, Nicole Kidman, who secures a job at the international organization in order to try to assassinate an African despot. "I lied to everyone else because if I didn't they wouldn't let me anywhere near the U.N., and that's the only place that I believe has a chance to change any of this," Kidman's character confides to Secret Service agent Sean Penn, who is responsible for protecting the African leader, and ultimately persuades Kidman to abandon her plot.
"It was not the biggest hit of the year, but it was still seen by millions of people," recalled Tharoor, who negotiated rights of script approval. "We had a film that made people conscious of what the U.N. did." Tharoor -- who noted that the film initiative was roundly opposed by Annan's other advisors -- said he also invited an Israeli film company that shot a reality program that featured contestants living out the fantasy of serving as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations.
The U.N. would subsequently allow Steven Soderberg to direct Che, a sprawling documentary style film that favorably portrayed the Argentine Revolutionary Che Guevara's life as a guerrilla fighter and intellectual guide to a generation of Latin American's militant leftists. The movies splices in numerous black and white scenes of Che, played by Benicio Del Toro, addressing the General Assembly and debating other Latin American ambassadors, including some stand-ins from the diplomatic community. "Cuba," Che said in the film , "can stand tall in this assembly and demonstrate the correctness of the cry with which it was baptized: Free territory of America."
"The film was sort of a flop; it went on for so long they had to split into two films, and it was in Spanish," said Steven Schlesinger, a writer who introduced Soderberg to U.N. officials, and who appears in the scene as an aide to Adlai Stevenson, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Schlesinger, who wrote a book about the U.N.'s founding, Act of Creation, said he was surprised that neither the U.N. nor the United States expressed concern about its association with a film that lionized a Communist revolutionary that devoted his life to struggle against America's political dominance in the Western Hemisphere. The Bush administration, he said, "never raised any objection to it."
No one, apparently has raised any objections to the latest film venture. U.N. officials said they are barred from describing the story of Transformers, citing a non-disclosure agreement. In the run up to shooting, the film's casting company put out a request for "Arabic/Middle Eastern, South Asian/East Indian, and African men and women with traditional ethnic wardrobe for work on Nov. 12 or Nov. 13."
But an early draft of the script, circulating on the Internet, says the U.N. is the setting for a meeting of world leaders trying to confront an alien invasion by the Decepticons, the villainous alien robots that are seeking to overthrow the world. The franchise's hero, Optimus Prime, joins forces with humans to save the earth. This time around, nobody gets murdered at the United Nations.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch