Corrupt communist degenerate Antonio Guterres is the new head of the OIC controlled UN. The UN has replaced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights…which means infidels have the right to live under Islam.
NWO socialist Antonio Guterres of Portugal (shown), infamous primarily for helping to engineer the massive tsunami of Islamic immigration into the West, has been officially selected as the next secretary-general of the United Nations. His prescription for what ails the world: more socialism at the planetary level, more power for the UN, more “global governance,” and more mass migration from the Third World to Western countries. In other words, more of the same
extremism destruction that already has the world and the West on the brink. (Source)
Before Guterres worked for the UN, he served as the president of Socialist International (SI), a global network of national socialist parties seeking to establish
“democratic socialism” communism around the world.
The UN is dangerous!
The appointment of Antonio Guterres as Secretary-General of the United Nations poses significant danger to the free world.
As president of Socialist International, Guterres envisaged a radical model of government led by a UN parliamentary assembly that would facilitate the emergence of “global citizens”.
During his term as UN high commissioner for refugees, he acted in accordance with socialist ideology by pressuring Western states to open borders and accept a large influx of immigrants from Islamic regimes. Despite the evidence that open border policy facilitated transnational jihadism and the mass murder of Western innocents, Guterres continued to shame governments that protect their citizens with secure borders.
New UN Boss Tells Europe Migration Unstoppable, Says Politicians Should Ignore Voters
The incoming Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) told a room of policymakers in Europe on Wednesday that “migration is not the problem but the solution”, and said politicians should ignore voters.
Speaking in Lisbon at the Vision Europe Summit, António Guterres said European nations have no right to control their borders and that they must instead take in floods of the world’s poorest people.
“The idea that management of migration is a matter of national sovereignty is extremely limited. The truth is that in the meantime, the real controllers of international mobility are the smugglers and criminal organisations. It must be recognised that migration is inevitable and will not stop”, the socialist told the crowd of policymakers and researchers. (More below the fold)
Guterres was president of the Socialist International at its 22nd congress which resolved that: “the goal of the SI must be to parliamentarise the global political system” by the establishment of a “UN parliamentary assembly”. There is nothing sinister about the dream of a peaceful world order led by powers invested in global security and democracy.
However, a UN parliament would produce the opposite. Liberal democratic states constitute a numerical minority which would be overwhelmed by Islamist, communist and socialist states in a global assembly. The consequence is evident in the transformation of the UN over the past two decades.
The largest voting bloc at the UN is the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. The OIC replaced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the Islamic Cairo Declaration whose articles are not universal, but established “in accordance with the Islamic Shariah”.
The UN was charged with responsibility for translating the Kantian ideal of lasting peace into an international norm by establishing institutions of liberal governance to encourage states to codify universal human rights.
However, communist and Islamist states diverted the UN’s path from liberal democratic principles to a more totalitarian tendency.
UN leaders have not corrected this downward trajectory. Rather, they accommodate it. In declarations against totalitarianism, the UN consistently criticises fascism while omitting the ideologies of most murderous regimes of the 20th and 21st century: communism and Islamism. In June, outgoing UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon admitted to whitewashing a report on children killed in conflict zones that held Saudi Arabia and its partners responsible for 60 per cent of child casualties in the region. Citing external pressure, he decided to: “remove the Saudi-led coalition countries from the report’s annex”.
Over the past two decades, the UN’s organisational mode shifted from liberal internationalism to transactional transnationalism in an attempt to accommodate the influence of wealthy but illiberal regimes. In 2007, as UN refugee chief, Guterres addressed the League of Arab States. He credited Islamic law as an “invaluable foundation for the legal framework” used by his office. He acknowledged that the majority of the world’s refugees were Muslim, but focused on “developed societies”, citing “racism” and “xenophobia” as the primary cause of refugee victimhood instead of holding to account the Islamist regimes refugees flee. Guterres encouraged Islamic states to become “more involved in the UNHCR’s governing body”. Today, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is Jordan’s Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.
The UN and Socialist International stances on border policy are virtually interchangeable. The 2015 SI Charter of the Rights of Migrants, which reflects UN and EU articles, is incorporated into the UN’s new migration agenda: the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. In the declaration, the UN brands dissenters from its open border ideal xenophobic. We used to be called realists.
While acknowledging the need to tackle the causes of mass migration, its authors omit the common denominator of the major refugee-producing states: political Islam. Only recently the UN published a report showing that about half of the world’s refugees are produced by three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. Instead of investigating the causal link between Islamist government and asylum-seekers, the UN cites environmental degradation, poverty, inequality and conflict as the causes of the refugee crisis.
Guterres is highly critical of Western states that strengthen borders in response to jihadist attacks, stating: “Let us be perfectly clear: Refugees are not terrorists, they are the first victims of terror.”
That is a false dichotomy. The jihadists who entered Europe thanks to the EU socialist bloc’s porous border policy and murdered hundreds of European citizens are both product and cause of Islamist terror. Islamist ideology produces Islamist terrorism which in turn creates refugee crises. The UN routinely denies that reality.
Australia’s border security policy developed by the Abbott government and consolidated by Malcolm Turnbull is earning international praise while the UN open borders approach is viewed increasingly as ideological and harmful. Thanks to our rigorous screening of asylum-seekers, up to 22 jihadists trying to enter Australia as Syrian refugees face rejection. By contrast, the UN has become so irrational that its envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, has offered to personally escort 900 jihadists out of Aleppo.
The UN’s refusal to hold refugee-producing regimes to account and its habit of shifting the blame for the refugee crisis to Western states makes it part of the problem, not the solution. The UN has colonised the moral high ground on refugees for decades, but refugee numbers are now at a record high.
As UN high commissioner for refugees from 2005-2015, Antonio Guterres played a central role in the UN’s accommodation of Islamist regimes and Europe’s porous border response to the Muslim migration crisis.
Guterres is part ideologue, part pragmatist, part diplomat — the ideal combination for a UN Secretary-General. But he is not a realist. What the world needs now is leaders capable of impartial reasoning with the courage to exercise realism. Guterres falls short.
Can incoming UN boss Antonio Guterres end Syria’s war?
What can Antonio Guterres, the next UN leader, do to end six years of war in Syria?
When Antonio Guterres, the UN’s new Secretary General, assumes his duties in January – he will inherit, among other challenges, six years of war in Syria.
His predecessor, Ban Ki-moon, failed to engineer an end to the Syrian conflict that has killed an estimated 400,000 people and displaced almost 11 million Syrians – half the country’s pre-war population.
Guterres has said ending the war will be a “top priority”, and he is currently in Russia meeting President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, allies of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
But the 67-year-old isn’t the only new face at the UN.
US President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Nikki Haley as UN ambassador, a former US governor who fought against settling Syrian refugees in her state.
So, what can we expect from these new arrivals? And can we expect a shift in how to end the war?
Presenter: Jane Dutton
Marwan Kabalan – Syrian academic and analyst with the Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies at the Doha Institute.
Hillary Mann Leverett – Political analyst and former White House National Security Official.
Vyacheslav Matuzov – Former Diplomat and Chairman of the Russian Friendship Society with Arab Countries.
If Republican candidate Donald Trump is elected president of the United States, it would be “dangerous from an international point of view”, the top United Nations human rights official says.
“If Donald Trump is elected on the basis of what he has said already – and unless that changes – I think it is without a doubt that he would be dangerous from an international point of view,” Zeid told a news briefing in Geneva.
Zeid, a Jordanian prince, also told reporters on Wednesday he doesn’t plan to tone down his recent remarks decrying dangers posed by “populists and demagogues.”
Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said Zeid shouldn’t criticise foreign heads of state and government.
“He should stick to human rights,” Churkin said. “He should not be criticizing foreign heads of state and governments for their policies. This is not his business. He should be more focused on his specific responsibilities.”
Regarding priorities for the UN, when he takes over from South Korean Ban Ki-moon as Secretary-General, Guterres said he already has “several items to put on the discussion table to drive positive developments” with regards to the goal of making Europe accept more migrants.
This will take place in the form of “develop[ing] legal migration opportunities as the only way to fight against criminal networks”, he hinted.
Guterres insisted that every European Union (EU) nation must be forced to “share the burden” of mass migration.
Despite having used the word “burden” to describe giving residence to large numbers of aliens, the 67-year-old went on to declare: “We must convince [Europeans] that migration is inevitable and that it is the multiethnic societies which are multicultural and multireligious who are building wealth.”
The UN’s next head acknowledged he is “not convinced that it will be easy, given the state of [public] opinion”. Calling for politicians to put “tolerance” and “reason” at the heart of their decision making, Portugal’s former prime minister urged lawmakers to prioritise “values” over respecting voters’ wishes.
He stated: “When elected officials hesitate to choose between values and the next election, I would advise them to choose values. If they go for short term [electoral gain] they will lose both, because there will always come a time when they lose an election At that point, it becomes very hard to recover the values that have been abandoned.”
Quoting Winston Churchill’s condemnation of then-Prime Minister of Britain Neville Chamberlain, in 1938, Guterres said: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”
Far from being linked to wealth, data from different European countries support the idea that non-European migrants are a net cost to nations’ treasuries. In the Netherlands, 65 per cent of non-European migrants who arrived during the 1990s are still living on welfare.
The research of University College London psychology professor Dr. James Thompson shows Europe is being harmed by mass migration from poorer countries, as on average the newcomers’ intellectual competence is much lower than that of natives.
Partly as a result of their culture and partly due to genetics, he notes that the difference in intelligence results in migrants having “lower status, lower wages and higher resentment at perceived differences.
“On the latter point, if the West cannot bear to mention competence differences, then differences in outcome are seen as being due solely to prejudice,” Thompson warns.