A nuclear-free zone is an area where nuclear weapons (see nuclear-weapon-free zone) and nuclear power are banned. The specific ramifications of these depend on the locale in question. In reality, nuclear-generated electricity and nuclear weapons and components have freely traversed through, nearby, or above "nuclear-free" zones via military transport or through electricity grids without the knowledge or attention of local authorities.

Nuclear free zones usually do not address nor prohibit radiopharmaceuticals used in nuclear medicine, even though many of these are produced in nuclear reactors. Nuclear Free Zones typically do not prohibit other nuclear technologies such as cyclotrons used in particle physics.

Several local authorities worldwide have declared themselves "nuclear-free". However, this label is often symbolic, as nuclear policy is usually determined and regulated at higher levels of government. New Zealand was the first Western-allied nation to legislate towards a national nuclear free zone, effectively renouncing the nuclear deterrent.^[1]

Nuclear-free zone by geographical areas[link]

Austria[link]

Austria is a nuclear free zone, when a nuclear power station was built during the 1970s at Zwentendorf, Austria, start-up was prevented by a popular vote in 1978. The completed power plant is now marketed as a shooting location for film and television^[2]. On July 9, 1997, the Austrian Parliament voted unanimously to maintain the country's anti-nuclear policy.^[3]

Ironically, the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency is located in Vienna, and the IAEA maintains nuclear laboratories both in Vienna and Seibersdorf^[4]. The IAEA has also established programs to assist nuclear energy projects in developing countries.

Austria's anti-nuclear stance also causes tension with its nuclear neighbors. Vienna is located close to the Czech reactor at Temelin, and four reactors are being built in neighboring Slovakia and two in neighboring Hungary^[5]. Austria also draws from regional electricity grids, meaning it imports nuclear power, although chancellor Werner Faymann has pledged to eliminate Austria's reliance on foreign power by 2015^[6]

Canada[link]

Vancouver is a nuclear weapons free city. Victoria, British Columbia also is nuclear weapons free city. This has caused problems as nearby Esquimalt houses CFB Esquimalt, Canada's Pacific naval base, is used frequently by the United States Navy. The USN routinely sends ships or aircraft carriers loaded with nuclear weapons to Esquimalt. As a result, the ships are forced to dock out of the city limits as not to violate the city by-laws. The policy does not limit operations at TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for nuclear and particle physics at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Kitimat, British Columbia; Red Deer, Alberta, and Regina, Saskatchewan are also nuclear weapons-free cities.

Estonia[link]

After the end of Russian occupation in Baltic countries in early 1990s, Estonia became a nuclear-free country. The two land-based nuclear reactors of Soviet Navy nuclear submarine training centre in Paldiski were completely removed when Russia finally relinquished control of the nuclear reactor facilities in September 1995. There are no nuclear power stations in Estonia.

Japan[link]

Nuclear-free Kobe Port, seen from Po-ai Shiosai Park in 2011

As resource-poor nation, Japan is heavily reliant on nuclear power, but its unique experience in the second world war has led to the wholesale rejection of nuclear weapons, holding nuclear weapons shall not be manufactured in, possessed by, or allowed entry into Japan. These tenets, known as the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, were first stated by Prime Minister Eisaku Satō in 1967, and were adopted as a parliamentary resolution in 1971, though they have never formally been entered into law. They continue to reflect the attitudes of both government and the general public, who remain staunchly opposed to the manufacture or use of nuclear weapons.

The Japan Self-Defense Forces have never made any attempt to manufacture or otherwise obtain nuclear arms, and no nuclear weapons are known to have been introduced into the Japanese Home Islands since the end of World War II. While the United States does not maintain nuclear bases within its military installations on the Home Islands, it is believed to have once stored weapons at Okinawa, which remained under US administrative jurisdiction until 1972.

Italy[link]

Italy is a nuclear free zone since the Italian nuclear power referendum of November 1987. Following center-right parties' victory in the 2008 election, Italy's industry minister announced that the government scheduled the construction to start the first new Italian nuclear-powered plant by 2013. The announced project was paused in March 2011, after the Japanese earthquake, and scrapped after a referendum on 12–13 June 2011.

New Zealand[link]

In 1984, Prime Minister David Lange barred nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships from using New Zealand ports or entering New Zealand waters. Under the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987,^[7][8] territorial sea and land of New Zealand became nuclear weapons and nuclear-powered ship free zones.

The Act prohibits "entry into the internal waters of New Zealand 12 miles (22.2 km) radius by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power" and bans the dumping of radioactive waste within the nuclear-free zone, as well as prohibiting any New Zealand citizen or resident "to manufacture, acquire, possess, or have any control over any nuclear explosive device."^[8][9] Combined with the firm policy of the United States to "neither confirm nor deny" whether particular naval vessels carry nuclear weapons, the Act effectively bars these ships from entering New Zealand waters.^[10]

New Zealand's security treaty with the United States, ANZUS, did not mention nuclear deterrence and did not require unconditional port access. However, after New Zealand refused entry to USS Buchanan, the United States government suspended its ANZUS obligations to New Zealand, seeing New Zealand's effective rejection of United States Navy vessels as voiding the treaty. The Lange Labour government did not see their stance as incompatible with the treaty and sought a compromise for over two years before passing the Act.^[10] Support for the non-nuclear policy was bolstered by the perceived over-reaction of the United States and by the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by French spies while docked in Auckland. According to some commentators, the legislation was a milestone in New Zealand's development as a nation and seen as an important act of sovereignty, self-determination and cultural identity.^[11][12] New Zealand’s three decade anti-nuclear campaign is the only successful movement of its type in the world which resulted in the nation's nuclear-free zone status being enshrined in legislation.^[13]

The nuclear-free zone law does not make building land-based nuclear power plants illegal.^[14]

Nordic countries[link]

Nuclear weapons-free Nordic (Finn. Ydinaseeton Pohjola) was an initiative by the President of Finland Urho Kekkonen for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Nordic countries. The aim was to prevent the Nordic countries from becoming a nuclear battleground and a route for cruise missiles in the event of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and NATO.

Nuclear energy, however, is used in both Finland and Sweden.

United Kingdom[link]

The Nuclear Free Zone Movement in the United Kingdom was very strong in early 1980s; up to 200 local authorities including County councils, District councils and City councils such as the Greater London Council (GLC) (before its abolition) declared themselves to be 'nuclear free'. The first 'Nuclear Free Zone' in the UK was Manchester City Council in 1980 - this still exists to this day. Wales became 'nuclear free' on 23 February 1982 after Clwyd County Council declared itself 'nuclear free' and the Nuclear Free Wales Declaration was made. This policy was legally underpinned by Section 137 of the Local Government Act, which allowed local authorities to spend a small amount on whatever members considered was in the interest of their area or a part of their area.

UK nuclear-free local authorities refused to take part in civil defence exercises relating to nuclear war, which they thought were futile. The non-cooperation of the nuclear-free zone authorities was the main reason for the cancellation of the national 'Hard Rock' civil defence exercise in July 1982. In England and Wales 24 of the 54 County Councils refused to participate and seven more co-operated only in a half-hearted way.^[15] This has been seen as a victory for the British Peace movement against the policies of Margaret Thatcher. Generally, nuclear-free zones were predominantly Labour Party controlled Councils but Liberal Party and even a few Conservative Party Councillors were often active in this respect too.

United States[link]

A pair of billboards in Davis, California advertising its nuclear-free policy.

A number of towns, cities and counties in the United States established themselves as Nuclear-Free Zones in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The first was Missoula, Montana. In the November 1978 general election, Missoula voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in the form of a land-use ordinance establishing the entirety of Missoula County as a "'nuclear free' zoning district" banning all nuclear facilities except those for medical purposes. (In the same election, Montana voters approved a statewide initiative by a 2-1 margin barring nuclear facilities or reactors without strict state-enforced regulatory standards and ratification by popular referendum, and in a follow-up 1980 initiative, Montanans narrowly voted to ban the disposal of nuclear waste.) That Missoula's measure was originally drafted as a zoning ordinance legally enforceable by the county planning department apparently created the popular term "Nuclear Free Zone" adopted as the name of the local political action group sponsoring the initiative and later used by other jurisdictions worldwide. (For more on the Missoula zoning ordinance, see Missoula Independent, Nov. 30, 2000, at: http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/reading-the-sign/Content?oid=1133059. For the zoning ordinance text as updated in 2007, see Missoula County, MT Nuclear Free Zone, at: http://greenpolicy360.net/index.php?title=Missoula_County%2C_MT_Nuclear_Free_Zone.)

Subsequently, the tiny town of Garrett Park, Maryland, attracted world wide attention with its referendum in May, 1982. The following year, Takoma Park, Maryland, was officially declared a nuclear-free zone in 1983 by then-mayor Sam Abbott. A citizen committee of the local city council continues to monitor city contracts. The city cannot hold contracts with any company associated with any aspect of nuclear weapons without a waiver from the citizen committee. In September 2005, Takoma Park took a stand against the transportation of high-level nuclear waste through the City. It voted to amend its Nuclear-Free Zone Ordinance to give its citizen committee responsibility to collect information and from this information and from consultations with individuals and organizations involved in the transportation of high-level nuclear waste, to advise the City on how to promote the safety and welfare of its citizens from harmful exposure to high-level nuclear waste. For more on Takoma Park's nuclear-free history see: http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/committees/nfz/nftpc.htm.

Another well-known nuclear-free community is Berkeley, California, whose citizens passed the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act in 1986 which allows the city to levy fines for nuclear weapons-related activity and to boycott companies involved in the United States nuclear infrastructure. The City of Berkeley has posted signs at each of its borders proclaiming its nuclear free status, which specifies possible fines for such activities within its borders. However, the University of California, Berkeley is deeply involved in the history of nuclear weapons, and the University of California system until recently managed operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a U.S. nuclear weapons design laboratory, and continues to manage the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. As well, at the time of the passage of the act, the University operated a nuclear reactor for research purposes, which it continued to operate after the act went into effect. However, The University of California, as a state institution, is not subject to Berkeley's municipal regulations (including the ban). Berkeley also has major freeway and train lines which are used in transporting nuclear materials.

On November 14, 1984 the Davis, California City Council declared the city to be a nuclear-free zone.^[16] Davis has major freeway and train arteries running through it which are used for transporting nuclear materials. The University of California, with a campus at Davis, runs a research reactor at the nearby former McClellan Air Force Base, as well as workers who are involved with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

On November 8, 1988 the city of Oakland, California passed "Measure T" with 57% of the vote, making that city a nuclear free zone. Under Ordinance No. 11062 CMS then passed on December 6, 1988, the city is restricted from doing business with "any entity knowingly engaged in nuclear weapons work and any of its agents, subsidiaries or affiliates which are engaged in nuclear weapons work."^[17] The measure was invalidated in federal court, on the grounds that it interfered with the Federal Government's constitutional authority over national defense and atomic energy.^[18][19] The issue being Oakland is a major port, and like Berkeley, and Davis, has major freeway and train arteries running through it. In 1992, the Oakland City Council unanimously reinstated modified elements of the older ordinance, reportedly bringing the total number of Nuclear Free Zones in the United States at that time to 188, with a total population of over 17 million in 27 states.^[20]

Other cities, counties, and other governments within the United States passing nuclear free zone ordinances and the date of adoption, when known:

• Arcata, CA (9/15/1989) ^[21]
• Boulder, CO (1985) ^[22]
• Chicago, IL (1986) ^[23]
• Cleveland Heights, OH
• East Windsor, CT (12/16/1992) ^[24]
• Eugene, OR (11/1986); revised measure defeated 5/15/1990 ^[25]
• Garrett Park, MD (1982)^[26]
• Hawaii County, HI (1981); amendment excluding military approved by referendum 11/1986 ^[25]
• Hayward, CA (9/15/87) ^[27]
• Homer, AK (10/3/89) ^[25]
• Iowa City, IA (1985) ^[28]
• Marin County, CA (1986) ^[29]
• New York City, NY (11/8/1984) ^[30]
• Sac and Fox Nation, OK (8/28/1993) ^[31]
• Santa Cruz, CA (11/17/1998) ^[32]
• Sykesville, MD (6/16/1982) ^[33]

See also[link]

• African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty
• Antarctic Treaty System
• Anti-nuclear movement
• Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
• Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
• France and weapons of mass destruction
• Helen Caldicott
• Mongolian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Status
• Nagasaki and Hiroshima
• Non-nuclear future
• Nuclear-Free Future Award
• Nuclear testing
• Nuclear weapons and the United States
• Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
• Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior
• Treaty of Tlatelolco
• United States and weapons of mass destruction

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Resolution To Ban the use of Depleted Uranium

• France's Nuclear Weapons Program at the Atomic Forum
• Mururoa protest,Time 1973
• “By-laws beat the bomb” – Commentary by Frank Johnson
• Bikini Atoll Atomic test zone
• Pictures of victims of US nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands.
• Nuclear Testing in Australia 1952-1958
• British Nuclear Test Veterans Association
• Australias Maralinga nuclear test site
• "Nuclear Free Berkeley Act" - Nuclear-free zone legislation for Berkeley, California
• Radio Nizkor International Nuclear conference

v t e Anti-nuclear movement Protests and groups Anti-nuclear organizations Anti-nuclear power groups Anti-nuclear protests Anti-nuclear protests in the United States Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Nuclear disarmament Nuclear Information and Resource Service Nevada Desert Experience Pembina Institute Sortir du nucléaire (France) By country Australia Austria Canada France Germany India Japan Kazakhstan New Zealand Philippines Poland Russia South Africa South Korea Spain Switzerland Taiwan Turkey United Kingdom United States People Tadatoshi Akiba Larry Bogart Helen Caldicott Frances Crowe John Gofman Jim Green Paul Gunter Nobuto Hosaka Kate Hudson Jacqui Katona David Lange Amory Lovins Caroline Lucas Arjun Makhijani Zhores Medvedev Gregory Minor Linus Pauling Joseph Rotblat Bertrand Russell Jens Scheer Jonathan Schell Harvey Wasserman Media Books about nuclear issues Films about nuclear issues Nuclear weapons in popular culture Related articles Anti-war movement France and weapons of mass destruction History of the anti-nuclear movement Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents Nuclear-Free Future Award Nuclear-free zone Nuclear power debate Nuclear power phase-out Nuclear weapons debate Peace movement Peace camp

Look up free zone in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Free Zone may refer to:

• A free economic zone or free port, an area with relaxed customs, immigration, visa, and/or taxation jurisdiction with respect to the country of location
• The Zone libre, the part of France during World War II to remain unoccupied by foreign troops under the June 1940 armistice between France and Germany
• Free Zone (region), a region of Western Sahara, a disputed territory in Morocco
• Free Zone (Scientology), a colloquial term for various groups and individuals who practice Scientology beliefs and techniques independently of the Church of Scientology and without official sanction by Church authorities
• Free Zone (film), a 2005 film directed by Amos Gitai

Freezone may refer to:

• Salicylic acid, by trade name Freezone

See also[link]

• "Free Xone", a song on R&B/pop singer Janet Jackson's studio album The Velvet Rope

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject or an institution related to the subject, and may not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Tagged since February 2009. It may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since February 2009. It has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Tagged since February 2009. It may contain improper references to self-published sources. Tagged since February 2009.

The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. Please improve the article or discuss the issue. (February 2009)

James Henry Fetzer (born December 6, 1940 in Pasadena, California) is an American philosopher, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth,^[1] and a well-known conspiracy theorist.^{[2][3][dead link][4][dead link]} He has written on the philosophy of science and on the theoretical foundations of computer science, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. Two of his most recent books were on the evolution of intelligence and philosophical aspects of "the Christian Right's crusade against science". He is also an advocate of the 9/11 conspiracy^[5] and John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. He has published three collections of studies on the death of JFK, co-authored another on the plane crash that took the life of Senator Paul Wellstone, and edited the first book from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, an organization he founded. Fetzer makes frequent appearances on radio and television.

Biography[link]

James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California, in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School.^[6] He went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962.^[6] After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his PhD in the history and philosophy of science.^[6]

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.^[1] At the University of Kentucky, he received the first Distinguished Teaching Award from the UK Student Government.

Works[link]

Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science.^[1] He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes, and the professional organization, The Society for Machines & Mentality.^[7] The Society for Machines & Mentality has been accepted as a special interest group (SIG) of the International Association for Computing and Philosophy (IACAP).^[8] His first article in the philosophy of computer science, "Program Verification: The Very Idea", Communications of the ACM (1988), ignited an international debate that has not subsided to this day.^{[9][dead link]}

Controversial views[link]

Fetzer has written about the John F. Kennedy assassination and has been interviewed on his theories about the September 11, 2001 attacks, by Richard and Kate Mucci, hosts of Out There TV, and radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham, Jerry Springer, Donny Deutch and several hosts on Air America, among others.^{[10][11][dead link]} He has been interviewed on Hannity & Colmes (twice) and on The O'Reilly Factor as well as other television programs. Some have questioned his apparent endorsement of a military coup to overthrow the Bush administration,^[12] members of which he believes have betrayed the country and violated their oaths of office. From the fall of 2006 to November 2008 he co-hosted an internet radio program "The Dynamic Duo" on the Genesis Communications Network with Kevin Barrett. He co-edits an on-line journal for advanced study of the death of JFK.^[13]

Assassination of John F. Kennedy[link]

Fetzer maintains that John F. Kennedy was assassinated as the result of a well-planned and precisely executed conspiracy, which included altering the autopsy X-rays, substituting another brain, and recreating the Zapruder film using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. He has edited three collections of studies on the assassination, run four conferences on the subject, and continues to make numerous talk show appearances on the topic.^[14] Fetzer has lectured on this subject at Harvard, Yale, and Cambridge Universities.^[15] In June 2007 he published a detailed review and rebuttal of Vincent Bugliosi's massive study of the assassination, Reclaiming History, for Assassination Research.^[16]

In January 2009, in collaboration with Jack White, he published a new study of the Moorman photo and the Zapruder film of the assassination.^[17] This was a recent development in a long-standing dispute with Josiah Thompson, which he has discussed in numerous articles, including New Proof of JFK Film Fakery^[18] and Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid.^[19] A recent study, "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"^[20] demonstrates inconsistencies between Clint Hill's description of his actions that day and what the film records. Another, "Did Zapruder take 'the Zapruder film'?^[21] argues that Zapruder cannot have taken the film that bears his name. Fetzer has observed that presuming its authenticity functions as the backbone of the cover-up, since it becomes impossible to reconstruct the actual sequence of events in Dealey Plaza on the basis of a fabricated film.

In response to the announcement that a Dartmouth computer scientist, Hany Farid, had shown that the "backyard photograph" of alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was authentic, after decades of controversy, he and Jim Marrs, the author of Crossfire (1989), one of the primary sources for Oliver Stone's "JFK", published an article arguing that Farid's research was inadequate on multiple grounds, including (a) that he only studied one feature (the nose shadow) of one photo, when there are four, (b) that he ignored other, more imposing proofs of fakery (including the block chin, the insert line between the chin and the lower lip, and the cut-off finger tips of his right hand), and (c) a demonstration by Jack White using the newspapers as an internal ruler that the person was too short to be Oswald or that the newspapers had been made too large.^[22]

September 11, 2001 attacks[link]

Fetzer supports the assertion that elements within the U.S. federal government orchestrated the September 11, 2001 attacks for political and economic gain and that World Trade Center One and Two were destroyed using a novel form of controlled demolition from the top down, while World Trade Center Seven was brought down by a conventional controlled demolition from the bottom.^[23] Fetzer also believes the hijackings were staged and that calls from passengers to relatives and operators were faked.

During recent lectures, Fetzer encourages the study of the possibility that high-tech weapons, including ground or space-based directed-energy military weapons, may have been used to bring down the Twin Towers.^[24] He has not endorsed any specific hypothesis about the destruction of the WTC, but he has expressed skepticism that conventional explosives, including thermite/thermate, could have brought about such devastating effects. On May 17, 2007, he presented a two-hour critique of Steven E. Jones' work, which has been archived under the title, "The Manipulation of the 9/11 Community".^[25]

On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories.^[26] That weekend, he appeared at the 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium in Los Angeles, California.^{[27][dead link]} On December 18, 2006, he was the featured guest on a three and 1/2 hour television program devoted to 9/11, which was broadcast live from Athens by satellite worldwide.^{[28][dead link][29]} During June 2008, he was flown to Buenos Aires to present a series of lectures on 9/11 and JFK. His visit received considerable publicity, including a 20-minute television interview broadcast across South America and articles in the News Service of the Republic of Argentina.^[30][31] He was flown back to Buenos Aires and presented the principal lecture during "The International Conference for 9/11 Truth and Justice" held at The National Library on September 11, 2009.^[32] On 14 July 2010, he spoke along with Kevin Barrett and Gilad Atzmon at a symposium, "Debunking the 'War on Terror'", at Friends House in London, which was moderated by Ken O'Keefe.^[33]

In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state." Fetzer agreed to appear on O'Reilly's show himself on October 12, 2006.^[34] Fetzer has detailed his research and theories during the Midwest Social Forum held on the campus of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in a joint presentation with Kevin Barrett, also a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which they recently reprised at the University of Wisconsin–Madison^[35]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth[link]

Fetzer is founder and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, "a non-partisan association of faculty, students, and scholars dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11".^[36] Differences in attitude and approach toward the science and the politics of 9/11 research led to a split with Steven Jones, whom Fetzer had invited to be his co-chair, in December 2006, almost exactly one year after its creation. Many 9/11 activists support Jones over Fetzer. A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments^[37] On August 3–5, 2007, he conducted the first conference sponsored by Scholars on "The Science and Politics of 9/11", and produced its first DVD.^[38] With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.^[39]

In his most recent work as a columnist for Veterans Today, "Seven Questions about 9/11" and "More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", he has presented evidence that all four of the plane crashes on 9/11 were faked, where no planes crashed in Shanksville or at the Pentagon and one or another form of fakery was used in New York.^[40][41] Even more strikingly, in collaboration with T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer, he has challenged "the myth of nanothermite" by explaining that it does not have the gas-expansion properties of explosives and, with a detonation rate of 895 m/s, cannot have destroyed the concrete or the steel in the Twin Towers, which would require rates in excess of 3,200 m/s for concrete and 6,100 m/s for steel, which has contradicted perhaps the most widely held belief within the community about how the towers were destroyed and accented his disagreements with Jones.^[42]

Fetzer has spoken positively of Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, who left Scholars due in part to disagreement with the organization, objecting to the unwillingness of the society to consider 'no big boeing' theories (conspiracy theories arguing that no large aircraft hit the World Trade Center and that video evidence of the planes hitting the towers have serious inconsistencies showing them to be "doctored").^[43] Fetzer has been impressed by their efforts to clarify the extent of devastation at the World Trade Center and mentions a wide range of theories, including that a "satellite-mounted military weapon" may have been used to destroy it, as among those that deserve investigation. He has written that "the range of alternative explanations that might possibly explain the explanandum must include non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using mini-nukes, and . . . non-classic controlled demolition from the top-down using directed energy weapons. . . . The specific weapons used to destroy the WTC could have been ground based or space based."^[44]

Video Fakery[link]

For Fetzer, "Judy [Wood] appears to have done far more to develop her "proof of concept" than has Steven [Jones]".^[44] Steven Jones and others claim to have refuted the mini-nuke hypothesis^[45][46] Jones has responded to Reynolds and Wood directly, but they have not viewed his remarks as refutations.^[47] After featuring fifteen or more students of video fakery as guests on his radio program, Fetzer decided that claims of video fakery and claims that no planes hit the tower are logically distinct issue. He has become convinced that video fakery took place on 9/11 and has published several articles about it, including "Mounting Evidence of Video Fakery on 9/11"^[48] and "New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11".^[49] Wood and Reynolds both contributed chapters to his first book for Scholars, The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007).

In Fetzer's use of the term "video fakery", however, he encompasses any use of videos to convey a false impression about the plane crashes, including what he now believes was probably a close formation of unmanned aerial vehicles that hit the North Tower^[50] and where the plane shown in the Hezarkhani and Fairbanks videos is performing feats that no real plane could do, including traveling at 560 mph at 700-1,000' altitude and smoothly entering the South Tower in violation of Newton's laws.^[51] He has therefore concluded that the weight of the evidence supports the use of a holographic projection, which could have appeared to have flow faster than a real plane and have entered the building in violation of Newton's laws. He has interviewed several students of about this possibility, including Stephen Brown, who had recently completed a course on holography at Cambridge and confirmed its feasibility.^[52] "Video fakery", therefore, does not necessary require the faking of videos themselves but can include the faking of the images of planes to create a false impression of real planes hitting the Twin Towers.

Anthony Lawson, who produced "This is an orange" and "9/11: Towers of Dust", which Fetzer admires, has attacked him repeatedly on the internet, to which Fetzer has replied with "9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about 'Absurdities'", in which he forcefully rebuts (and in his opinion successfully refutes) Lawson's attacks on Veterans Today.^[53] He has also offered an extensive critique of the Toronto Hearings, "The Science and Politics of 9/11: The Toronto Hearings,"^[54] which represents the culmination of his differences with those, including Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, who split with him over the focus of research that should be pursued by Scholars for 9/11 Truth. His latest 9/11 lecture, "9/11: False Flag Terror and the Rise of the Global Police State", was presented in Portland on September 9, 2011, and is now archived on YouTube.^[55]

Death of Paul Wellstone[link]

Fetzer has co-authored a book in which the authors collect and analyze public information and witness statements, arguing that Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone's death in an airplane crash was not accidental but resulted from a small-scale conspiracy to ensure Republican control of the Senate.^[56] He has co-authored a study of the documents on which the NTSB's report was based with John P. Costella, a PhD in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which was published in Michael Ruppert's "From the Wilderness" newsletter.^[57] He recently addressed this subject again in the context of an article inspired by the revelation of Seymour Hersh that Vice President Dick Cheney had been running an assassination operation from his office.^[58] and in another article in Veterans Today, "Sen. Paul Wellstone: More Proof of Assassination"^[59]. On October 25, 2011, the 9th observance of his death, he presented a public lecture at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, "What happened to Sen. Paul Wellstone?", which included new research^[60].

Disinformation[link]

In Fetzer's words, "in this day and age, we all have to become experts on disinformation."^[61][62] According to Fetzer, "disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise."^[61] Misinformation Fetzer defines as "false, mistaken, or misleading information"; disinformation is misinformation propounded "in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse."^[63] Fetzer describes five levels of disinformation.^[64] He has been featured in the two BBC "Conspiracy Files" documentaries on 9/11, where he recently published a critique of the subtle ways in which his views were misrepresented in "The BBC's instrument of 9/11 misinformation" on Veterans Today^[65].

Radio[link]

From 2001-08, Fetzer made regular appearances on Black Op Radio,^[66] an internet broadcast dedicated to conspiratorial subject matter, primarily the JFK assassination. He still appears on the show occasionally, but less often than before. For a time, Fetzer co-hosted "The Dynamic Duo", a show on the GCN network, along with fellow 9/11 Truther Kevin Barrett. Today, Fetzer solo hosts a show called "The Real Deal" on Revere Radio.^[67] He has interviewed a wide range of experts on various subjects, including JFK, 9/11, election fraud, domestic politics and foreign affairs.^[68] A recent series of four programs was devoted to suspicious non-combat military deaths, a subject he was drawn into by research on the death of Cpl. Pat Tillman for his OpEdNews article, "Has Cheney been Murdering Americans?".^[58]

Publications[link]

Philosophy of Science:

• Principles of Philosophical Reasoning. Rowman & Littlefield. June 1984. p. 292 p.. ISBN 0-8476-7341-3. 

• edited by James H. Fetzer. (August 1985). Sociobiology and Epistemology. Springer. p. 296 p.. ISBN 90-277-2005-3. 

• Definitions and Definability: Philosophical Perspectives. 1991. ASIN B000IBICGK. 

• James H. Fetzer (October 1992). Philosophy of Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 197 p.. ISBN 1-55778-481-7. 

• ed. by James H. Fetzer (January 1993). Foundations of Philosophy of Science: Recent Developments (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 512 p.. ISBN 1-55778-480-9. 

• Charles E. M. Dunlop; James H. Fetzer. (March 1993). Glossary of Cognitive Science (A Paragon House Glossary for Research, Reading, and Writing). Paragon. p. 288 p.. ISBN 1-55778-567-8. 

• James H. Fetzer. (January 1997). Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Paragon Issues in Philosophy). Paragon. p. 191 p.. ISBN 1-55778-739-5. 

• Minds and Machines: Journal for Artificial Intelligence, Philosophy, and Cognitive Science, Vol. 7, No. 4. Kluwer. November 1997. ASIN B000KEV460. 

• edited by James H. Fetzer. (December 2000). Science, Explanation, and Rationality: The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel. Oxford. p. 384 p.. ISBN 0-19-512137-6. 

• James H. Fetzer. (January 2001). Artificial Intelligence: Its Scope and Limits. Springer. p. 364 p.. ISBN 0-7923-0548-5. 

• Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are Not Machines. Springer. January 8, 2002. p. 352 p.. ISBN 1-4020-0243-2. 

• ed. by James H. Fetzer (May 2002). Consciousness Evolving (Advances in Consciousness Research). John Benjamins. p. 251 p.. ISBN 1-58811-108-3. 

• James H. Fetzer (2005). The Evolution of Intelligence: Are Humans the Only Animals With Minds?. Open Court. p. 272 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9459-7. 

• James H. Fetzer. (August 9, 2006). Scientific Knowledge: Causation, Explanation, and Corroboration. Springer. p. 348 p.. ISBN 90-277-1335-9. 

• James H. Fetzer (December 28, 2006). Render Unto Darwin: Philosophical Aspects of the Christian Right's Crusade Against Science. Open Court. p. 288 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9605-0. 

Conspiracy Research:

• edited by James H. Fetzer. (October 1997). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Open Court. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9366-3. 

• ed. by James H. Fetzer. (August 2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then. Open Court. p. 496 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9422-8. 

• ed. by James H. Fetzer (September 2003). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK. Catfeet Press. p. 480 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9547-X. 

• Four Arrows (aka Don Trent Jacobs) & James H. Fetzer. (November 2004). American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone. Vox Pop. p. 188 p.. ISBN 0-9752763-0-1. 

• ed. by James H. Fetzer. (March 28, 2007). The 9/11 Conspiracy. Open Court. p. 450 p.. ISBN 0-8126-9612-3. 

References[link]

External links[link]

• Scholars for 9/11Truth, an organization founded by James H. Fetzer which is dedicated to exposing falsehoods and to revealing truths behind 9/11
• The Dynamic Duo, Fetzer's radio show on The Genesis Communications Network, cohosted with fellow 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett
• 911 a Hoax? Scholar for 911 Truth versus American Thinker, discussion between Fetzer and J.R. Dunn from The American Thinker (September 18, 2006)
• A Critical Review of James Fetzer's Thinking about "Conspiracy Theories": 9/11 and JFK by Jim Hoffman (February 6, 2006).
• James Fetzer's comment on Wikipedia - Google Video
• The Company We Keep by Michael Green (February 15, 2006).
• Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11: JAMES FETZER by Victoria Ashley (August 5, 2007).

Ban Ki-moon 반기문 潘基文
Secretary-General of the United Nations
Incumbent
Assumed office January 1, 2007
Deputy	Asha-Rose Migiro Jan Eliasson (designate)
Preceded by	Kofi Annan
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade
In office January 17, 2004 – November 10, 2007
President	Roh Moo-hyun
Prime Minister	Goh Kun Lee Hae Chan Han Duck-soo Han Myeong-sook
Preceded by	Yoon Young Kwan
Succeeded by	Song Min-soon
Personal details
Born	(1944-06-13) 13 June 1944 (age 68)[1] Injō, Chūsei-hokudō, Korea, Empire of Japan (present-day Eumseong County, Chungcheongbuk-do, South Korea)
Nationality	South Korean
Spouse(s)	Yoo Soon-taek
Alma mater	Seoul National University (B.A.) Harvard University (M.P.A.)
Religion	No public affiliation[2][3]
Signature

This article contains Korean text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of Hangul or Hanja.

Ban Ki-moon (Hangul: 반기문; Hanja: 潘基文; born 13 June 1944) is the eighth and current Secretary-General of the United Nations, after succeeding Kofi Annan in 2007. Before going on to be Secretary-General, Ban was a career diplomat in South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the United Nations. He entered diplomatic service the year he graduated from university, accepting his first post in New Delhi, India. In the foreign ministry he established a reputation for modesty and competence .

Ban was the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea from January 2004 to November 2006. In February 2006, he began to campaign for the office of Secretary-General. Ban was initially considered to be a long shot for the office. As foreign minister of South Korea, however, he was able to travel to all of the countries that were members of the United Nations Security Council, a maneuver that turned him into the front runner.

On 11 October 2006, he was elected to be the eighth Secretary-General by the United Nations General Assembly and officially succeeded Annan on 1 January 2007. Ban has led several major reforms regarding peacekeeping and UN employment practices. Diplomatically, Ban has taken particularly strong views on Darfur, where he helped persuade Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to allow peacekeeping troops to enter Sudan; and on global warming, pressing the issue repeatedly with former U.S. President George W. Bush. Ban has received strong criticism from OIOS, the UN internal audit unit, stating that the secretariat, under Ban's leadership, is "drifting into irrelevance".^[4]

In 2011, Ban ran unopposed for a second term as Secretary-General. On 21 June 2011, he was unanimously re-elected by the General Assembly and therefore will continue to serve until 31 December 2016.^[5][6]

Biography[link]

Ban was born in Eumseong in a small farming village in North Chungcheong, in 1944 at the end of the Japanese rule of Korea. His family moved to the nearby town of Chungju, where he was raised.^[7] During Ban's childhood, his father had a warehouse business, but the warehouse went bankrupt and the family lost its middle-class standard of living. When Ban was six, his family fled to a remote mountainside for the duration of the Korean War.^[1] After the war ended, his family returned to Chungju. Ban has mentioned meeting U.S. military troops at this time.^[8]

In secondary school (Chungju High School), Ban became a star pupil, particularly in his studies of English. In 1952, he was selected by his class to address a message to then UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, but it is unknown if the message was ever sent. In 1962, Ban won an essay contest sponsored by the Red Cross and earned a trip to the United States where he lived in San Francisco with a host family for several months.^[9] As part of the trip, Ban met U.S. President John F. Kennedy.^[1] When a journalist at the meeting asked Ban what he wanted to be when he grew up, he said, "I want to become a diplomat."^[8]

He received a [[bachelor's degree] in International Relations from Seoul National University in 1970, and earned a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 1985.^[8] At Harvard, he studied under Joseph Nye who remarked that Ban had "a rare combination of analytic clarity, humility and perseverance."^[9] Ban was awarded the degree of Doctor of Laws (Honoris Causa) by the University of Malta on 22 April 2009.^[10] He further received an honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from the University of Washington in October 2009.^[11]

In addition to his native Korean, Ban speaks English, French, and Japanese. There have been questions, however, regarding the extent of his knowledge of French, one of the two working languages of the United Nations Secretariat.^[12]

Family[link]

Ban Ki-moon met Yoo Soon-taek in 1962 when they were both high school students. Ban was 18 years old, and Yoo Soon-taek was his secondary school's student council president. Ban Ki-moon married Yoo Soon-taek in 1971. They have three adult children: two daughters and a son. His elder daughter, Seon-yong, was born in 1972 and now works for the Korea Foundation in Seoul. She is married to an Indian.^[13][14] His son, Woo-hyun was born in 1974 in India.^[13] He received an MBA from Anderson School of Management at University of California, Los Angeles, and works for an investment firm in New York.^[15] His younger daughter, Hyun-hee (born 1976), is a field officer for UNICEF in Nairobi.^[1] After his election as Secretary-General, Ban became an icon in his hometown, where his extended family still resides. Over 50,000 gathered in a soccer stadium in Chungju for celebration of the result. In the months following his election, thousands of practitioners of geomancy went to his village to determine how it produced such an important person.^[7] Ban himself is not a member of any church or religious group^[2] and has declined to expound his beliefs: "Now, as Secretary-General, it will not be appropriate at this time to talk about my own belief in any particular religion or God. So maybe we will have some other time to talk about personal matters."^[3] His mother is a Buddhist.^[7]

Personality[link]

In the Korean Foreign Ministry his nickname was riya, meaning "the Bureaucrat" or "the administrative clerk." The name was used as both positive and negative: complimenting Ban's attention to detail and administrative skill while deriding what was seen as a lack of charisma and subservience to his superiors.^[16] The Korean press corps calls him "the slippery eel" for his ability to dodge questions.^[8] His peers praise his understated "Confucian approach."^[17] and he is regarded by many as a "stand-up guy"^[9] and is known for his "easy smile".^[1]

Diplomatic career[link]

Ban Ki-moon with former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

After graduating from university, Ban received the top score on Korea's foreign service exam. He joined the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in May 1970, and worked his way up the career ladder during the years of the Yusin Constitution.^[9]

His first overseas posting was to New Delhi, where he served as vice consul and impressed many of his superiors in the foreign ministry with his competence. Ban reportedly accepted a posting to India rather than the more prestigious United States, because in India he would be able to save more money, and send more money home to his family.^[18][19] In 1974 he received his first posting to the United Nations, as First Secretary of the South Permanent Observer Mission (South Korea became a full UN member-state on 17 September 1991).^[20] After Park Chung-hee's 1979 assassination, Ban assumed the post of Director of the United Nations Division.

In 1980 Ban became director of the United Nations' International Organizations and Treaties Bureau, headquartered in Seoul.^[19] He has been posted twice to the Republic of Korea embassy in Washington, D.C. Between these two assignments he served as Director-General for American Affairs in 1990–1992. In 1992, he became Vice Chairman of the South-North Joint Nuclear Control Commission, following the adoption by South and North Korea of the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.^[18] From 1993–1994 Ban was Korea's deputy ambassador to the United States. He was promoted to the position of Deputy Minister for Policy Planning and International Organizations in 1995 and then appointed National Security Advisor to the President in 1996.^[19] Ban's lengthy career overseas has been credited with helping him avoid South Korea's unforgiving political environment.^[17]

Ban was appointed Ambassador to Austria and Slovenia in 1998, and a year later he was also elected as Chairman of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO PrepCom). During the negotiations, in what Ban considers the biggest blunder of his career, he included in a public letter a positive statement about the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001, not long after the United States had decided to abandon the treaty. To avoid anger from the United States, Ban was fired by President Kim Dae-jung, who also issued a public apology for Ban's statement.^[1]

Ban was unemployed for the only time in his career and was expecting to receive an assignment to work in a remote and unimportant embassy.^[1] In 2001, during the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Republic of Korea held the rotating presidency, and to Ban's surprise, he was selected to be the chief of staff to general assembly president Han Seung-soo.^[21] In 2003, incoming president Roh Moo-hyun selected Ban as one of his foreign policy advisors.^[19]

Foreign Minister of South Korea[link]

In 2004, Ban replaced Yoon Young Kwan as foreign minister of South Korea under president Roh Moo-hyun.^[8] At the beginning of his term, Ban was faced with two major crises: in June 2004 Kim Sun-il, a Korean translator, was kidnapped and killed in Iraq by Islamic extremists; and in December 2004 dozens of Koreans died in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Ban survived scrutiny from lawmakers and saw an upturn in his popularity when talks began with North Korea.^[19] Ban became actively involved in issues relating to inter-Korean relationships.^[18] In September 2005, as Foreign Minister, he played a leading role in the diplomatic efforts to adopt the Joint Statement on resolving the North Korean nuclear issue at the Fourth Round of the Six-party talks held in Beijing.^[22][23]

As foreign minister, Ban oversaw the trade and aid policies of South Korea. This work put Ban in the position of signing trade deals and delivering foreign assistance to diplomats who would later be influential in his candidacy for Secretary-General. For example, Ban became the first senior South Korean minister to travel to the Republic of the Congo since its independence in 1960.^[24]

Campaign for Secretary-General: 2007[link]

2007 Secretary-General candidates[25]
	Name	Position
	Ban Ki-moon	South Korean foreign minister
	Shashi Tharoor	Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations for public information; from India
	Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga	President of Latvia
	Ashraf Ghani	Chancellor of Kabul University, Afghanistan
	Surakiart Sathirathai	Deputy prime minister of Thailand
	Prince Zeid bin Ra'ad	Jordan's ambassador to the United Nations
	Jayantha Dhanapala	Former Under-Secretary-General for disarmament; from Sri Lanka

In February 2006, Ban declared his candidacy to replace Kofi Annan as UN Secretary-General at the end of 2006, becoming the first South Korean to run for the office.^[26] Though Ban was the first to announce a candidacy, he was not originally considered a serious contender.^[9]

Over the next eight months, Ban made ministerial visits to each of the 15 countries with a seat on the Security Council.^[8] Of the seven candidates, he topped each of the four straw polls conducted by the United Nations Security Council: on 24 July,^[27] 14 September,^[28] 28 September,^[29] and 2 October.^[30]

During the period in which these polls took place, Ban made major speeches to the Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.^[31][32] To be confirmed, Ban needed not only to win the support of the diplomatic community, but also to be able to avoid a veto from any of the five permanent members of the council: People's Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Ban was popular in Washington for having pushed to send South Korean troops to Iraq, and had the support of the Bush administration as he pursued the position.^[33] But Ban also opposed several U.S. positions: he expressed his support for the International Criminal Court and favoured an entirely non-confrontational approach to dealing with North Korea.^[8] Ban said during his campaign that he would like to visit North Korea in person to meet with Kim Jong-il directly.^[23] Ban was viewed as a stark contrast from Kofi Annan, who was considered charismatic, but perceived as a weak manager because of problems surrounding the UN's oil-for-food program in Iraq.^[16]

Ban struggled to win the approval of France. His official biography states that he speaks both English and French, the two working languages of the UN Secretariat. He has repeatedly struggled to answer questions in French from journalists.^[12] Ban has repeatedly acknowledged his limitations at French, but assured French diplomats that he was devoted to continuing his study. At a press conference on 11 January 2007, Ban remarked, "My French perhaps could be improved, and I am continuing to work. I have taken French lessons over the last few months. I think that, even if my French isn't perfect, I will continue to study it."^[34]

As the Secretary-General election drew closer, there was rising criticism of the South Korean campaign on Ban's behalf. Specifically, his alleged practice of systematically visiting all member states of the Security Council in his role as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to secure votes in his support by signing trade deals with European countries and pledging aid to developing countries were the focus of many news articles.^[35] According to The Washington Post, "rivals have privately grumbled that Republic of Korea, which has the world's 11th-largest economy, has wielded its economic might to generate support for his candidacy." Ban reportedly said that these insinuations were "groundless." In an interview on 17 September 2006 he stated: "As front-runner, I know that I can become a target of this very scrutinizing process," and "I am a man of integrity."^[36]

In the final informal poll on 2 October, Ban received fourteen favorable votes and one abstention ("no opinion") from the fifteen members of the Security Council. The one abstention came from the Japanese delegation, who vehemently opposed the idea of a Korean taking the role of Secretary-General. Due to the overwhelming support of Ban by the rest of the Security Council, Japan later voted in favor of Ban to avoid controversy. More importantly, Ban was the only one to escape a veto; each of the other candidates received at least one "no" vote from among the five permanent members. After the vote, Shashi Tharoor, who finished second, withdrew his candidacy^[37] and China's Permanent Representative to the UN told reporters that "it is quite clear from today's straw poll that Minister Ban Ki-moon is the candidate that the Security Council will recommend to the General Assembly."^[38]

Wikinews has related news: General Assembly elects Ban Ki-moon as next UN chief

On 9 October, the Security Council formally chose Ban as its nominee. In the public vote, he was supported by all 15 members of the council.^[39] On 13 October, the 192-member General Assembly acclaimed Ban as Secretary-General.^[21]

First Term as Secretary-General[link]

Ban Ki-moon with the President of Russia Vladimir Putin in Moscow on 9 April 2008.

When Ban became Secretary-General, The Economist listed the major challenges facing him in 2007: "rising nuclear demons in Iran and North Korea, a haemorrhaging wound in Darfur, unending violence in the Middle East, looming environmental disaster, escalating international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the spread of HIV/AIDS. And then the more parochial concerns, such as the largely unfinished business of the most sweeping attempt at reform in the UN's history."^[40] Before starting, Kofi Annan shared the story that when the first Secretary-General Trygve Lie left office, he told his successor, Dag Hammarskjöld, "You are about to take over the most impossible job on earth."^[21]

On 23 January 2007 Ban took office as the eighth Secretary-General of the United Nations. Ban's term as Secretary-General opened with a flap. At his first encounter with the press as Secretary-General on 2 January 2007, he refused to condemn the death penalty imposed on Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi High Tribunal, remarking that "The issue of capital punishment is for each and every member State to decide".^[41] Ban's statements contradicted long-standing United Nations opposition to the death penalty as a human-rights concern.^[42] He quickly clarified his stance in the case of Barzan al-Tikriti and Awad al-Bandar, two top officials who were convicted of the deaths of 148 Shia Muslims in the Iraqi village of Dujail in the 1980s. In a statement through his spokesperson on 6 January, he "strongly urged the Government of Iraq to grant a stay of execution to those whose death sentences may be carried out in the near future."^[43][44] On the broader issue, he told a Washington, D.C., audience on 16 January 2007 that he recognized and encouraged the "growing trend in international society, international law and domestic policies and practices to phase out eventually the death penalty."^[45]

On the tenth anniversary of Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot's death, 15 April 2008, Ban Ki-moon appealed for the senior leaders of the regime to be brought to justice. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia-tribunal, which was established by both the United Nations and Cambodia and which became operational in 2006, is expected to continue until at least 2010.^[46]

Cabinet[link]

In early January, Ban appointed the key members of his cabinet. As his Deputy Secretary-General, he selected Tanzanian foreign minister and professor Asha-Rose Migiro – a move that pleased African diplomats who had concerns of losing power without Annan in office.^[47]

The top position devoted exclusively to management, Under-Secretary-General for Management, was filled by Alicia Bárcena Ibarra of Mexico. Bárcena was considered a UN insider, having previously served as Annan's chief of staff. Her appointment was seen by critics as an indication that Ban would not make dramatic changes to UN bureaucracy.^[48] Ban appointed Sir John Holmes, the British Ambassador to France, as Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs and coordinator of emergency relief.^[48]

Ban initially said that he would delay making other appointments until his first round of reforms were approved, but he later abandoned this idea after receiving criticism.^[43][49] In February he continued with appointments, selecting B. Lynn Pascoe, the U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, to become Under-Secretary-General for political affairs. Jean-Marie Guéhenno, a French diplomat, who had served as Under-Secretary-General for peacekeeping operations under Annan, remained in office. Ban selected Vijay K. Nambiar as his chief of staff.^[50]

The appointment of many women to top jobs was seen as fulfilling a campaign promise Ban had made to increase the role of women in the United Nations. During Ban's first year as Secretary-General, more top jobs were being handled by women than ever before. Though not appointed by Ban, the president of the General Assembly, Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa, is only the third woman to hold this position in UN history.^[51]

Reform agenda[link]

During his first month in office, Ban proposed two major restructurings: to split the UN peacekeeping operation into two departments and to combine the political affairs and disarmament department. His proposals were met with stiff resistance from members of the UN General Assembly who bristled under Ban's request for rapid approval. The proposed merger of the disarmament and political affairs offices was criticized by many in the developing world, partially because of rumours that Ban hoped to place American B. Lynn Pascoe in charge of the new office. Alejandro D. Wolff, then acting American ambassador, said the United States backed his proposals.^[43][49]

After the early bout of reproach, Ban began extensive consultation with UN ambassadors, agreeing to have his peacekeeping proposal extensively vetted. After the consultations, Ban dropped his proposal to combine political affairs and disarmament.^[52] Ban nevertheless pressed ahead with reforms on job requirements at the UN requiring that all positions be considered five-year appointments, all receive strict annual performance reviews, and all financial disclosures be made public. Though unpopular in the New York office, the move was popular in other UN offices around the world and lauded by UN observers.^[53] Ban's proposal to split the peacekeeping operation into one group handling operations and another handling arms was finally adopted in mid-March 2007.^[54]

Key issues[link]

The Secretary-General of the United Nations has the ability to influence debate on nearly any global issue. Although unsuccessful in some areas, Ban's predecessor Annan had been successful in increasing the UN peacekeeping presence and in popularizing the Millennium Development Goals. UN observers were eager to see on which issues Ban intends to focus, in addition to reform of the United Nations bureaucracy.^[40]

On several prominent issues, such as proliferation in Iran and North Korea, Ban has deferred to the Security Council.^[54] In 2007, the Republic of Nauru raised the issue of allowing the Republic of China (Taiwan) to sign the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Ban referenced the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758, and refused the motion. On 19 July 2007, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian wrote to request admission into the UN by the name Taiwan. Ban rejected the request.^[55]

Global warming[link]

Former U.S. President George W. Bush talks with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea. In their early meetings, Ban stressed the importance of confronting global warming.

Ban early on identified global warming as one of the key issues of his administration. In a White House meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush in January, Ban urged Bush to take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions. On 1 March 2007 in a speech before the UN General Assembly, Ban emphasized his concerns about global warming. Ban stated, "For my generation, coming of age at the height of the Cold War, fear of nuclear winter seemed the leading existential threat on the horizon. But the danger posed by war to all humanity — and to our planet — is at least matched by climate change"^[56] (referring to Global Warming, see P:GW portal). On 3 September 2009 he further emphasized his concerns at the World Climate Conference in Geneva, when he stated, "Our foot is stuck on the accelerator and we are heading towards an abyss".^[57]

Middle East[link]

On Thursday, 22 March 2007, while Ban was taking part in the first stop of a tour of the Middle East, a mortar attack hit just 80 meters (260 ft) from where the Secretary-General was standing, interrupting a press conference in Baghdad's Green Zone, and visibly shaking Ban and others. No one was hurt in the incident.^[58] The United Nations had already limited its role in Iraq after its Baghdad headquarters was bombed in August 2003, killing 22 people. Ban said, however, that he still hoped to find a way for the United Nations to "do more for Iraqi social and political development."^[59]

On his trip, Ban visited Egypt, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, where Ban attended a conference with leaders of the Arab League and met for several hours with Omar Hassan al-Bashir, the Sudanese president who had resisted UN peacekeepers in Darfur.^[54] While Ban met with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, he declined to meet with Ismail Haniya of Hamas.^[60]

Ban Ki-moon criticized Israel on 10 March 2008 for planning to build housing units in a West Bank settlement, saying the decision conflicts with "Israel's obligation under the road map" for Middle East peace.^[61]

During a meeting of the UN Security Council on Wednesday, 7 January 2009, Ban called for an immediate end to fighting in the Gaza Strip. He criticized both sides, Israel for bombarding Gaza and Hamas for firing rockets into Israel.^[62]

Although the 2009 Iranian presidential election was widely disputed, Ban Ki-moon sent a traditional congratulation message ^[63] to the Iranian president upon his inauguration. He kept silent over the request of Shirin Ebadi to visit^[64] Iran after the crackdown on peaceful post-election protests by the Iranian police – an event that was perceived by some as a crime against humanity .^[65] More than 4000 people were arrested and nearly 70 were killed, some while being held in prison.^[66] In another incident, several prominent intellectuals including Akbar Ganji, Hamid Dabashi, Noam Chomsky went on a three-day hunger strike in front of the UN. The incident was followed by an official request^[67] by more than 200 intellectuals, human rights activists and reformist politicians in Iran for the UN reaction. Ban Ki-moon however did not take any action to stop the violence in Iran.

On 9 May 2012 Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon expressed his concern about the condition of the Palestinian hunger strikers in Israeli prisons.^[68]

Darfur[link]

Ban took the first foreign trip of his term to attend the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in January 2007 as part of an effort to reach out to the Group of 77.^[40] He repeatedly identified Darfur as the top humanitarian priority of his administration.^[54] Ban played a large role, with several face-to-face meetings with Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, in convincing Sudan to allow UN peacekeepers to enter the Darfur region. On 31 July 2007 the United Nations Security Council approved sending 26,000 UN peacekeepers into the region to join 7,000 troops from the African Union. The resolution was heralded as a major breakthrough in confronting the Darfur conflict (although the United States labeled the conflict a "genocide," the United Nations has declined to do so). The first phase of the peacekeeping mission began in October 2007.^[69]

Myanmar[link]

Ban Ki-moon flew to Myanmar on 25 May 2008 to guide a conference with international agencies aimed at boosting donations for the nation, which was struck by Cyclone Nargis on 2 May 2008. The conference was initiated after Ban had met with Than Shwe, the leading figure of Myanmar's government 23 May 2008. Ban toured the devastation—especially in the hard-hit Irrawaddy Delta—23 May 2008 and 24 May 2008. Myanmar officials agreed to allow the Yangon International Airport to be used as a logistical hub for aid distribution.^[70]

Campaign for second term as Secretary-General: 2011[link]

On 6 June 2011, Ban Ki-moon formally announced his candidacy for a second consecutive term^[5] as Secretary-General of the United Nations. He announced his candidacy at a press conference, following a meeting with the Asian group of countries at the United Nations. Ban Ki-moon's first mandate as the Secretary-General was set to end on 31 December 2011.^[71] The five permanent Security Council members supported his candidacy. There was no declared rival for the post.^[72]

On 17 June 2011, he received the recommendation of the Security Council by a unanimous vote,^[73] and, on 21 June, his nomination was confirmed by a unanimous^[6] acclamation vote at the United Nations General Assembly.^[74]

His new five-year term as Secretary-General commenced on 1 January 2012^[75] and will end on 31 December 2016.^[5]

Honors and awards[link]

• Ban Ki-moon was awarded the Order of Service Merit by the Government of the Republic of Korea on three occasions: in 1975, 1986 and 2006.^[22]
• For his accomplishments as an envoy, he received the Decoration for Services to the Republic of Austria in 2001.
• He was bestowed the Grand Cross of Rio Branco by the government of Brazil.
• He was bestowed the Gran Cruz del Sol by the government of Peru.
• He was bestowed a Doctor Honoris Causa by the National University of San Marcos, the main university in Peru and the oldest of the Americas (2011).
• He was bestowed a Doctor of Laws Degree Honoris Causa by the University of the Philippines College of Law, the national university of the country, in 2008.
• He was honored with James A. Van Fleet Award by the Korea Society in New York City for his contributions to friendship between the United States and the Republic of Korea.^[76]

Controversy[link]

According to The Washington Post, "some U.N. employees and delegates" expressed resentment at Ban's perceived favoritism in the appointment of South Korean nationals in key posts. Previous U.N. chiefs such as Kurt Waldheim (Austria), Javier Pérez de Cuéllar (Peru) and Boutros Boutros-Ghali (Egypt) brought small teams of trusted aides or clerical workers from their country's Foreign Ministry. But according to "some officials" in the Post story, Ban has gone further, boosting South Korea's presence in U.N. ranks by more than 20 percent during his first year in office. In response, Ban and his aides have claimed that allegations of favoritism are wrong, and that some of the harshest criticisms against him have undercurrents of racism.^[77] He said that the South Korean nationals he had appointed — including Choi Young-jin, who has served as a high-ranking official in the United Nations' peacekeeping department — are highly qualified for their positions. Others such as Donald P. Gregg, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea say the complaints are driven by envy, "I think being from South Korea, and people have growing respect for South Korea, that's a great enhancement for the secretary general. If he brings along talented people who (whom) he knows very well, I think that's also a plus." U.N. records show that South Korea, the organization's eleventh-largest financial contributor, had 54 South Korean nationals assigned to its mission six months before Ban took over the top U.N. post. ^[77]

Former U.N. Under Secretary Inga-Britt Ahlenius denounced Ban Ki Moon after resigning her post in 2010, calling him reprehensible.^[78]

Question of bias[link]

During the ROKS Cheonan sinking saga, he took the unusual step of demanding action against North Korea for the alleged sinking of a vessel from his country. This move was perceived^{[by whom?]} as unusual because it was rare for any Secretary-General—and particularly Ban Ki-moon—to comment on the Security Council taking action on a particular issue as his office had, in the past, tended to be extremely deferential to the Security Council.^[79]

References[link]