Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

CNSNews brings us a story where the International Planned Parenthood Federation has published a guide that encourages HIV-infected youth to have sex, not tell their sexual partners they are infected, and denounces laws requiring persons with sexually transmitted diseases to tell their sexual partners or face criminal charges.

Planned Parenthood Guide Tells HIV-Infected Youth to Enjoy Sex, Denounces Laws on Disclosure of HIV/AIDS to Sexual Partners

Friday, April 09, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”

“Sex can feel great and can be really fun!” the guide says. “Many people think sex is just about vaginal and anal intercourse …. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.”

“Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling,” the guide states. “Some people like aggressive sex, while others like to have soft and slow sex with their partners (sic).”

“It’s a vile and vulgar brochure,” Austin Ruse, president of the United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com.

Ruse’s group has been reporting on the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide in recent weeks after Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, attended an event for the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women and found copies of the guide in a room where Girl Scouts were meeting.

The Girls Scouts of the USA released a statement denying they were distributing the guides and suggesting the guides may already have been in the room they were using.

Ruse said that aside from the graphic promotion of sex for young people with HIV, the guide also falsely claims that there are international laws to protect their “human rights.”

“There is no such international right that says that you are not required to reveal your HIV status before having sex,” Ruse said. “There’s no such thing.”

“It is a flat-out lie to say otherwise, and in this brochure it is lies from stem to stern,” he said.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com:  “To the extent that ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are mentioned in documents of the U.N. or other international agencies, even informally, these terms often have a meaning contrary to that which IPPF gives them. For example, ‘sexual rights’ usually means the right to say NO to unwanted or coerced sex — not a right to HAVE sex under almost any circumstances.”

“By the same token, ‘reproductive rights’  usually involve the right to have children — not the right to destroy them through abortion,” Sprigg said, adding that laws requiring people to disclose to sexual partners that they have HIV protect people and promote sexual health.

IPPF defends its position, saying laws aimed at people with HIV hurt efforts to prevent the spread of the disease and discriminate unfairly against people who have the virus.

“Punitive laws that criminalise HIV transmission will jeopardise global HIV prevention efforts by acting as a disincentive for knowing one’s HIV status and by incorrectly placing an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behaviour on people living with HIV (who in many societies are already marginalised and stigmatised),” Kevin Osborne, IPPF senior advisor on HIV told CNSNews.com. “Alternatives to the criminal law must be used to foster increased HIV prevention efforts and behaviours.”

The guide also makes a plug for Planned Parenthood’s profitable “reproductive services.”

“Your local family planning clinic can help you create a plan, whether it is for having children safely, preventing or terminating unplanned pregnancies, or figuring out how to start a family if you are single or in a same-sex relationship,” the guide states.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives more than $350 million of taxpayer funding annually, although federal law prohibits those funds from being used for abortion.

In his early days in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to promote or provide abortions abroad, opening the way for U.S.-funded abortions around the world.

Read Full Post »

FOX News has an article about tomorrow’s “Earth Hour”.  The short version is that “Earth Hour”, for the typical household, creates more CO2 than using electricity.

How?  Candles.  You have to see, somehow, during that time.  The candles that a house would use to see during that hour emit more CO2 than incandescent or fluorescent lights would.

Secondly, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  You and I exhale CO2 every time we breathe, and plants need that CO2 so they can “breathe”.

This is all about money and power.  Obama’s cap-and-trade program is going to do nothing but increase your energy bill, gas prices, food, and every other good you buy now.  The extra money you get in your paychecks starting next month will mean nothing to the hundreds you are going to pay in increase costs if Obama gets his way. “Earth Hour” is just another stunt for the people who push “global warming” to keep their propaganda and agenda to the masses when more and more people and scientists are coming to the correct conclusion that “global warming” is a bunch of crap.  See the related posts below for more.

U.N.’s Participation in Earth Hour Is Full of Hot Air, Critics Say

Friday, March 27, 2009

By Joshua Rhett Miller

In what it’s calling a “vote for the future of planet Earth,” the World Wildlife Fund wants every light in the world to go dark for one hour on Saturday as a symbolic gesture to call for action on climate change.

It’s called Earth Hour — and among the places where the lights will go out are the Eiffel Tower, the Bird’s Nest Stadium in Beijing, the Pyramids of Giza and Niagara Falls.

And, for the first time in the event’s three-year existence, the New York headquarters of the United Nations will also go dark, a move officials say will save a whopping $102, a figure that fluctuated wildly when requested from U.N. officials.

Earth Hour — 8:30 to 9:30 p.m in every time zone on the planet — promises to be “the largest demonstration of public concern about climate change ever attempted,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said earlier this month.

Click here for video.

But critics say the U.N.’s participation in the event is a “self-serving,” thinly guised “gimmick” to sway public opinion ahead of the U.N.-led conference in Copenhagen in December at which world leaders will seek to approve a new global warming treaty.

var adsonar_placementId=”1425871″,adsonar_pid=”1367767″,adsonar_ps=”-1″,adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv=”ads.adsonar.com”;
qas_writeAd();

“It’s like a lot of what the U.N. does — it’s a gimmick, it’s empty, it’s shallow and it’s not going to lead to anything,” said Thomas Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization founded by Oliver North.

“The bigger problem is that they’re doing this leading up to the conference in December. They’re trying to consolidate their authority to push their agenda.”

WWF organizers say nearly 2,900 cities worldwide will participate in Earth Hour, with at least 250 American cities among them, including Chicago, Dallas, Miami and San Francisco. Plenty of celebrities have signed on to the cause, including musicians Alanis Morissette, Melissa Etheridge and Wynonna Judd, as well as actors Edward Norton, Cate Blanchett, Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick.

And, of course, the United Nations.

“It’s an attention-grabbing gesture that they expect to pay off for them big time,” Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told FOXNews.com. “For the U.N., climate change is the biggest cash cow of all time. They expect it to pay off for them big-time at the enormous and unaffordable expense of this and future generations.”

Critics like Rosett say the U.N.’s role in Earth Hour is merely the public face of its much larger push to reorder the world’s economy with new taxes, tariffs and subsidies for greenhouse gas abatement.

Click here for the details on the U.N.’s new plan to combat climate change.

“It’s an immensely destructive gesture,” Rosett said. “The U.N. has been busy manipulating and politicizing the science on this for years…. The whole climate obsession has the potential to make Oil for Food look like a drop in the ocean.”

Based on average energy consumption levels from 2006-08, U.N. spokeswoman Vannina Maestracci said the world body’s New York headquarters will save $102 while observing Earth Hour. Maestracci initially estimated the savings would be $81,000 before revising it to $24,300. She ultimately estimated the savings would be just $102 for the darkened hour.

Though she stressed that the U.N. is just one of many institutions across the world observing the event, she acknowledged it’s a “strong symbol” in the climate change debate.

“It sends a strong message that we need a new agreement on climate change,” Maestracci told FOXNews.com. “It’s symbolic. It’s part of an effort to mobilize support.”

Whatever the savings, Rosett accused U.N. officials of distorting facts to make its participation in the event appear more impactful.

“That’s a marvelous figure,” Rosett said of the initial estimate. “If turning off the lights of the United Nations will save $81,000 an hour, it would be a great idea to keep them off every day of the year.”

WWF spokeswoman Leslie Aun said Earth Hour will serve as a dramatic “visual message that the people of the world” are concerned about climate change.

“This is a reminder to our leaders around the world that people care about this issue,” she said. “People told us last year they loved feeling connected to something big.”

Asked to estimate how much energy could be saved worldwide during the 60 minutes of darkness, Aun replied, “We don’t even calculate the emissions that we save in that hour. That’s not the point.”

But Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and director of the Denmark-based think tank Copenhagen Consensus Centre, said the event could actually increase emissions.

“When asked to extinguish electricity, people turn to candlelight,” Lomborg wrote in an op-ed in The Australian. “Candles seem natural, but are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light globes, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. If you use one candle for each extinguished globe, you’re essentially not cutting CO2 at all, and with two candles you’ll emit more CO2. Moreover, candles produce indoor air pollution 10 to 100 times the level of pollution caused by all cars, industry and electricity production.”

Dr. Kenneth Green, a resident scholar on environmental science at the American Enterprise Institute, said Earth Hour shouldn’t even be considered an environmental activity, since there will be no tangible benefits.

“If the U.N. is trying to show it’s really committed to the Earth,” he said, “they should scrap the giant fleet of black limousines they drive around in and buy hybrid cars in the United States to help the economy of the country they’re in.

“That’s the real tragedy in what this symbolizes. They’ve taken the one thing that symbolizes man’s advancement over animals — that is, man’s ability to create light — and they’ve turned it into a bad thing.

“It’s the reversal of the Enlightenment. This is ‘the Disenlightenment.'”

Related Posts: ‘Global Warming’ Update
On “Green Energy” And Global Warming

Japanese Scientists On ‘Global Warming’ Research: Propaganda, Immature, And Like Ancient Astrology

Energy Secretary Makes Environmental Predictions, Joins Crowd Of False Prophets

Read Full Post »

CNSNews reports that the Obama Administration has offered its support of the U.N. “gay rights” declaration.  The Bush Administration concluded that “gay rights” were a matter of the States, and that the declaration could commit the federal Government to overriding States’ rights on the issue.  The Obama Administration has so far failed to say how it came to a different conclusion.

U.S. to Sign United Nations ‘Gay Rights’ Declaration

Wednesday, March 18, 2009
By Matthew Lee, Associated Press


Washington (AP) – The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration’s French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration’s position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” said one official.

“As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora,” the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about “violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals” and was also “troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries.”

“In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation ‘has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom’,” the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

It was not immediately clear on Tuesday how the Obama administration had come to a different conclusion.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the declaration which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination.

But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution. More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration.

Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to “the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts” such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily is reporting that, on November 30, 2008, a female aide to an unnamed U.S. Congressman entered the Gaza Strip under cover of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, UNWRA, to secretly meet with Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ chief political adviser, and Siad Siam, Hamas’ former “interior minister” who was killed last month.

The State Department says the meeting with Hamas is illegal.  The formal policy of the U.S. is to not negotiate with Hamas, but a Hamas parliament member, Mushir al-Massri, says that they have direct communication with U.S. Congressmen and European Parliament members.

Congressman’s aide sneaks secret terrorist rendezvous

Undercover meeting with Hamas called illegal by State Department


Posted: February 22, 2009
7:41 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Ahmed Yousef

JERUSALEM – An aide to a member of the U.S. Congress held a secret meeting in the Gaza Strip with leaders of the Hamas terrorist organization, according to information obtained by WND.

Sources intimately familiar with the meeting told WND the aide, a woman, met in Gaza on Nov. 30 with Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’ chief political adviser in Gaza, and Siad Siam, Hamas’ “interior minister.” Siam served as chief of Hamas’ executive force, a guerrilla militia heavily involved in terrorism, until he was eliminated in an Israeli strike last month.

According to the sources speaking to WND, the meeting took place at the Museum, a fish restaurant in the Sudaniya neighborhood of the Gaza Strip, just next to the Gaza port. The restaurant is owned by the brother of Jamal al-Khudari, who heads the Palestinian Authority’s Committee for Breaking the Israeli Siege on Gaza.

What do terrorists really talk about behind closed doors? Find out in Aaron Klein’s “Schmoozing with Terrorists” from WND Books!

WND’s sources said the aide – whose name and congressman they refused to divulge – entered Gaza under the cover of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, or UNWRA, which came under fire this past weekend for reportedly handing Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a Hamas letter to deliver to President Obama.

Kerry’s visit to Gaza, which took place last Thursday, coincided with a similar trip that same day by U.S. Representatives Brian Baird, D-Wash., and Keith Ellison, D-Minn.

Hamas’ official charter calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel. The Islamist group is responsible for scores of suicide bombings, shootings and rocket attacks aimed at Jewish civilians.

A spokesman for the State Department confirmed to WND the congressional aide’s purported meeting with Hamas would break U.S. law.

Mushir al-Massri, a Hamas spokesman and Hamas parliament member, told WND his group is in direct communication with members of Congress.

“We are speaking to U.S. Congressmen,” he claimed, “also members of the European Parliament.”

Hamas’ Yousef also said his Islamist group was in contact with members of the U.S. Congress, but he wouldn’t divulge any names.

Official U.S. policy supports sidestepping Hamas, but the group has been making major inroads toward ending its isolation.

Some trace Hamas’ claim of newfound international dialogue to Jimmy Carter’s visit in April, when the former president met with top Hamas officials.

Immediately after Carter’s meeting, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner confirmed Paris held talks with Hamas, and Norway’s deputy foreign minister, Raymond Johansan, admitted meeting with Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum confirmed to WND that Hamas this year “met a delegation from the European Parliament, from France, and from Italy, and Norway, and from the EU parliament and from Carter.”

“All of these are supporting Hamas, and they have a plan to support Palestinian rights and interests,” Barhoum said, speaking from Gaza.

Read Full Post »

WorldNetDaily reports that a treaty that was signed by the U.S., but never ratified, could come back up for ratification during the Obama administration.  The treaty severely limits the rights parents have over their children, and gives children a range of far-reaching “rights” that no child should have over their parents.

United Nations’ threat: No more parental rights

Expert: Pact would ban spankings, homeschooling if children object


Posted: February 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families’ religion is on America’s doorstep, a legal expert warns.
Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child’s best interest.

“It’s definitely on our doorstep,” he said. “The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we’re stuck with it even if they lose the next election.”

The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there’s been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law.

Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives’ efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The international treaty creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child and states that “the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” It is monitored by the CRC, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following:

  • Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
  • A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
  • Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
  • The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
  • A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
  • According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
  • Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
  • Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
  • Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

“Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,” Farris said. “The implications of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.”


Michael Farris

The government would decide what is in the best interest of a children in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws, Farris said. Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children’s lives.

“If you think your child shouldn’t go to the prom because their grades were low, the U.N. Convention gives that power to the government to review your decision and decide if it thinks that’s what’s best for your child,” he said. “If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.”

He continued, “If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.”

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

Farris said it could be easier for President Obama to push for ratification of the treaty than it was for the Clinton administration because “the political world has changed.”

At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action.

“It’s embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,” Obama said. “I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty’s submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.

Farris said Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed in a private meeting just before Christmas that the treaty would be ratified within two years.

In November, a group of three dozen senior foreign policy figures urged Obama to strengthen U.S. relations with the U.N. Among other things, they asked the president to push for Senate approval of treaties that have been signed by the U.S. but not ratified.

Partnership for a Secure America Director Matthew Rojansky helped draft the statement. He said the treaty commands strong support and is likely to be acted on quickly, according to an Inter Press Service report.

While he said ratification is certain to come up, Farris said advocates of the treaty will face fierce opposition.

“I think it is going to be the battle of their lifetime,” he said. “There’s not enough political capital in Washington, D.C., to pass this treaty. We will defeat it.”

Read Full Post »

Who said Liberal’s don’t pray?  The Washington Post has an article up about how many in the U.N. feel about the upcoming U.S. presidential election.  There shouldn’t be any surprise that they not only favor Obama, but some are even praying for his success come November 4th.

Proverbs 29:2 says “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”  If Obama wins, there will be a lot of mourning to be had, indeed.

At the U.N., Many Hope for an Obama Win

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 26, 2008; A17

UNITED NATIONS — There are no “Obama 2008” buttons, banners or T-shirts visible here at U.N. headquarters, but it might be difficult to find a sliver of territory in the United States more enthusiastic over the prospect of the Illinois senator winning the White House.

An informal survey of more than two dozen U.N. staff members and foreign delegates showed that the overwhelming majority would prefer that Sen. Barack Obama win the presidency, saying they think that the Democrat would usher in a new agenda of multilateralism after an era marked by Republican disdain for the world body.

Obama supporters hail from Russia, Canada, France, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. One American employee here seemed puzzled that he was being asked whether Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was even a consideration. “Obama was and is unstoppable,” the official said. “Please, God, let him win,” he added.

“It would be hard to find anybody, I think, at the U.N. who would not believe that Obama would be a considerable improvement over any other alternative,” said William H. Luers, executive director of the United Nations Association. “It’s been a bad eight years, and there is a lot of bad feeling over it.”

Conservatives who are skeptical of the United Nations said they are not surprised by the political tilt. “The fact is that most conservatives, most Republicans don’t worship at the altar in New York, and I think that aggravates them more than anything else,” said John R. Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. “What they want is the bending of the knee, and they’ll get it from an Obama administration.”

The candidates have said little about their plans for the United Nations, but Obama has highlighted his desire to pursue diplomacy more assertively than the Bush administration, whereas McCain has called for the establishment of a league of democracies, which many here fear is code for sidelining the United Nations.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has avoided showing a public preference about the presidential campaign — although he has hinted at a soft spot for Obama in private gatherings, according to U.N. officials. His top advisers say they think McCain and Obama would support many of Ban’s priorities, including restraints on production of greenhouse gases that fuel climate change.

“The secretary general and the Secretariat of the United Nations take no position on the U.S. election,” said Ban’s chief spokeswoman, Michele Montas. “The secretary general deeply respects the democratic process, and he looks forward to working with whomever the American people choose.”

Many U.N. rank and file are less circumspect, saying they see in Obama’s multicultural background — a Kenyan father, an Indonesian stepfather and a mother and grandparents from Kansas — a reflection of themselves. “We do not consider him an African American,” said Congo’s U.N. ambassador, Atoki Ileka. “We consider him an African.”

One U.N. official threw a party over the summer and asked guests to place stickers of either an elephant or a donkey on the front door to show their political preference. At the end of the night, the door was covered with about 30 donkeys and two elephants. “We found out that one of the Republicans was an American and the other couldn’t vote,” according to a U.N. official who attended. “So we convinced the American to vote for Obama.”

“I have not heard a single person who will support McCain; if they do, they are in hiding,” said another U.N. Obama booster from an African country. “The majority of people here believe in multilateralism,” he said. “The Republicans were constantly questioning the relevance of the United Nations.”

For the small minority of U.N. officials who have stuck with McCain — only two of 28 U.N. officials and diplomats questioned said they favored the Arizona senator — life in Turtle Bay can seem lonely. “I keep my mouth shut,” said one American official here who plans to vote for McCain. “Everyone is knocking on wood, counting the days to the elections. Some Americans here are planning to move to Washington,” in search of jobs in an Obama administration.

“It will be devastating if Obama loses,” the official said. “There has been such an amount of faith placed on the outcome.”

The official, who like all other Secretariat staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled that Democrats have not always been so supportive of the United Nations, citing the Clinton administration’s lone 1996 campaign to block the reelection of then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And some foreign delegations, including Georgia, have been outspoken in their support of the foreign policy approach of McCain, who reacted quickly and sharply to Russian intervention in Georgia.

Still, the Obama candidacy has enormous emotional resonance among delegates from developing countries, particularly for what it says about race in America. They recall that one of the United Nations’ most famous civil servants, Ralph Bunche — an African American who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his Middle East mediation — could never have risen to the same heights in U.S. foreign policy circles. And Kofi Annan, the first black U.N. secretary general, said the prospect of an Obama presidency would be “phenomenal.”

Even while critics of the Bush administration here root for Obama, they acknowledge that the U.S. attitude toward the United Nations has improved dramatically in recent years, citing cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

They say President Bush deserves much credit for supporting U.N.-backed initiatives, including the provision of billions of dollars in funding to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa as well as support for the largest expansion of U.N. peacekeeping in history. And they expect that whichever candidate prevails will be compelled by the United States’ falling financial fortunes to work more cooperatively with foreign governments.

“We don’t have voting rights,” said Yukio Takasu, Japan’s ambassador to the United Nations.

But, he added, “We expect whoever [wins] in Washington will have a fresh look at the U.N. and the utility of working through the U.N. And, of course, we have to adjust to them.”

Read Full Post »