 この work は、パブリック・ドメインに寄贈されています。 |
Adding the Fuel of cooperation to the Fire of independence |
|
The Ireland people The Scotland people The Chechen people The Nagorno-Karabakh people The Abkhazia people The South Ossetia people Etc. Are you going to leave Tibetan the bag to hold? Your supports are indispensable for Tibetan. Please remember a strike by WGA (Writers Guild of America) from 2007 to 2008. SAG (Screen Actors Guild) and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc cooperated WGA on this strike. WGA succeeded to strike a new bargain with AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers). It seems that the cooperation between WGA, SAG and International Brotherhood of Teamsters forced AMPTP to appease. This is the victory to the cooperation between WGA, SAG and International Brotherhood. Isn't it possible that this case set as a success model, and that apply this to your independence movement? In 2012 the Olympic Games will hold in London. In 2014 the Olympic Games will hold in Sochi. In this time, by your cooperation with Tibetan independence movement, there is a possibility that Tibetan cooperate on your independence movement? In 2012 on Northern Ireland and Scotland, In 2014 on Chechen、Nagorno-Karabakh、Abkhazia、South Ossetia On this Tibet protests, Tibetan got sympathy of International Community. If you can set Tibetan cooperation, they should be a strong all of your independence movement. If Tibetan succeeds to independence by your cooperation, and if a system of cooperation between independence movements all over the world, then it might profitable for International Community. It's because, a new system for International Security perhaps could be established. There is a question. Is independence difficult without cooperation with the permanent member of the UN Security Council? In case which fall independence, If it is possible to possess the cooperation with the permanent member, then it is possible to restore independence immediately, if any, a country is invaded. It is a case of Kuwait which once felt independence in 1990. But, if it is not possible to possess the cooperation with the permanent member, then it is difficult to restore independence, if any, a country is invaded. It is a case of East Timor which once felt independence in 1975. In case which realize independence, If it is possible to possess the cooperation with the permanent member, then it is possible to realize independence, though opposed firmly. It is a case of Kosovo which realized independent in 2008. But, if it is not possible to possess the cooperation with the permanent member, then it is difficult to realize independence. It is a case of most of independence movement all over the world. It would seem that independence is virtually impossible without the cooperation with the permanent member. On present showing, right or wrong of independence seems to be controlled by the will of the permanent member. So, is it mean that if there is the cooperation with the permanent member, then independence is indemnified, but there is not it, then the independence is not indemnified? So therefore, the independence of country except for the permanent member cannot chose but depend on the permanent member. So consequently, the country except for the permanent member cannot but to resign position of protectorate of the permanent member. It is nothing less than the colonial order by the permanent member, isn't it? Is it contributed for world peace? According to Opinio Juris U_S_ Reconsiders its Bilateral Immunity Agreement Policy, "the Bush administration is reconsidering its policy of refusing to provide economic and military aid to countries that refuse to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements with the U.S (BIA's). Such agreements ? commonly known as "Article 98 agreements," in reference to the Rome Statute provision dealing with requests for surrender ? prohibit countries from transferring U.S. nationals, current or former U.S. government officials, members of the military, and other personnel to the the ICC." http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1151225211.shtml It is difficult to refuse sign BIAs for recipient. It's because, it means to loose cooperation in national security with the United States, and weaken its national security. It is rightly that recipient put sign on BIAs. Recipients have no option. But, Is it contribute for world peace? The permanent member distorts world order. However, it is an act worthy of special mention that many states refused sign BIAs. International Community salutes these states which precede international interest than national interest. But, is it enough to salute these states? These states which refused sign lost important support for national security. If International Community leave these states, then it is clear some states will sign BIAs someday. Is it right to leave states which refused sign? International Community should offer new machinery for security take the place of the United States to reward these states. It is in order to protect ICC. By the way, is the permanent member contributing for world peace? Up to now, the permanent member has invaded again and again. 1950 Tibet 1979 Republic Afghanistan 1983 Grenada The permanent member vetoed Security Council resolution against these invasions, except for Tibet. 1980 January 7-9 USSR 13-2-0 S/PV. 2190 Coor.1+Add.1 para 140 S/13729 Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan 1983 October 27 USA 11-1-3 S/PV. 2491 para 431 S/16077/Rev.1 Invasion of the Republic of Grenada by US Troops (Extract from: The Security Council Veto - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm) The permanent member threatens world peace. There is a case which a permanent member intervene and infringes sovereignty of other country. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=nus&case=70&k=66 A permanent member vetoed Security Council resolution against this Military and Paramilitary Activities. 1986 July 31 USA 11-1-3 S/PV. 2693 p. 54-55 S/18250 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA (ICJ Judgment) 1986 October 28 USA 11-1-3 S/PV. 2718 p. 51 S/18428 Complaint of Nicaragua against USA (ICJ Judgment) (Extract from: The Security Council Veto - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm) The permanent member distorts world order. The permanent member threatens world peace and distorts world order. International Community cannot help saying the permanent member is a threat to world peace. Is the permanent member contributing for world peace? In the first place, is the permanent member necessary? The United Nations dates back to World War II. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: After World War II in 1945 Humankind establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations. The present permanent member is the victorious countries of World War II, which against the Axis powers. Enemy Clauses is a relic of it. On World War II, the permanent members had cooperated, and had fought against threat to world peace. Needless to say, in grace of the permanent member to maintain international peace and security, and could achieve the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, from World War II to now. Thank you very much. And Good bye. May be it was necessary to grant advantage to the Allies in the anarchy of right after World War II. But, Now, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc namely former the Axis powers are alliances of the United States. The British Empire disrupted. China disrupted to the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. France lost colonies. The Soviet Union disintegrated to Russia and some countries. The countries of Europe are united to EU. In economic world, BRICs and MENA are rising. The Structure of International Community has changed between right after World War II and now. The world is no longer after World War II. In the first place, is The permanent member necessary? It's high time which International Community soon independent from the protection by the permanent member, as if children someday independent from the protraction by parents. International Community hopes the permanent member warmly sees of the independence of International Community. As long as International Community depend on the United Nations on security, As long as the United Nations rank the Security Council as a main agency on security, International Community cannot self defense from the permanent member. Isn't it possible to establish another International organization for the purpose of security but the United Nations? Independence is not tool to increase national power. Outsider has no right to burst in. Much less, there is nonessential to pay attention to the will of the government of the permanent member of the UN Security Council. Keep a power able to compete against International politics, And, avoid the situation which independence is depend on the will of some states, For the purpose of it, establish a security system which doesn’t depend on states. Isn't it possible to establish such a system, start from a cooperation of independence movement all over the world? It becomes benefit of International Community to increase option of security, doesn’t it? It is not loss for International Community to prepare backup system for the contingency which the UN fail and the world peace came to a head, isn’t it? Don't you think so? > Mr.Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama There is merit for Tibetan to cooperate with another independence movement, isn't there? Does Tibetan think there is state which volunteer to support independence? Does Tibetan think there is nation who prepare to urge its state should support Tibet protests, even though wage war on? For example, is Tibetan welcome the United States as a liberator? Does Tibetan consider how the United States behaved to independence movement in Philippine? How is the present situation in Iraq which is liberated by the United States? Is the United States inviting partner? Are another independence movement uninviting partner? According to English_Xinhua dated on 2008-04-25, "China's central gov't department to meet with Dalai's private representative". http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/25/content_8049766.htm It seems that the cooperation between Tibetan and RWB (Reporters Without Borders) forced China to appease. This is the victory to the cooperation between Tibetan and RWB (Reporters Without Borders). Only, this news is only "department to meet", so the movement hereafter is not clear. From now onward, the Tibetan will need cooperation with International Community. This Tibet protests is a chance for your independence movement, isn't this? How about independence movements establish friendly relations, through cooperation with Tibetan? It is not loss for you to cooperate with Tibet protests and appeal your presence, isn't it? It is double standard to back Tibet protests, and not to back another independence movement. International Community ought not to be able to oppose independence movement except for Tibet protests, isn't it? Are independence movements all over the world only sitting back the fight of Tibetan? Independence movement all over the world should help Tibet protests, shouldn't it? Tibetan is your colleague. Are you going to leave Tibetan the bag to hold? Your supports are indispensable for Tibetan. Solution of the Jerusalem problem http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/7659/ *********************************************** v(^o^)v daisy Chun Jiuqien ( x ) daisy ICQ:38969410 m m=* daisy e-mail:chunjiuqien@infoseek.jp *********************************************** |
|
/*
This statement is
*/COPY FREE MODIFICATION NG ATTRIBUTION FREE COMMERCIAL OK |
|
この work は、パブリック・ドメインに寄贈されています。 |