PROTESTING THE LAW

LOCAL LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION

On the 22nd March 1956 Martin Luther King was found guilty of a misdemeanour in the Circuit Court of Montgomery Alabama, Judge Eugene W. Carter presiding. He was sentenced the same day with a fine of $500 plus court costs of $500.

On 21 February 1956 King was indicted by the Montgomery County Grand Jury for his boycott of the Montgomery City Lines, Inc. According to the State of Alabama, King and 89 others violated a 1921 statute that outlawed boycotts against businesses. During the four-day trial, which began on 19 March 1956, eight lawyers, led by local attorney Fred Gray, defended King by presenting the evils of bus segregation and the abuse that Montgomery blacks had suffered for years from Montgomery bus drivers. Thirty-one witnesses testified to the harassment they had suffered while riding the city buses. Stella Brooks revealed that she stopped riding the buses in 1950, after her husband was killed by Montgomery police. According to Brooks, her husband was shot after demanding a fare refund following a confrontation with the bus driver.

Rather than pay the fine, King chose to appeal the verdict, and the sentence was converted to 386 days of jail time. Responding to the verdict, King said: ‘‘I was optimistic enough to hope for the best but realistic enough to prepare for the worst. This will not mar or diminish in any way my interest in the protest. We will continue to protest in the same spirit of nonviolence and passive resistance, using the weapon of love’’ (Phillips, ‘‘Negro Minister Convicted’’). Outside the courthouse, King was greeted by a crowd of 300 cheering supporters. The Court of Appeals rejected King’s appeal on 30 April 1957, maintaining that his lawyers missed the 60-day deadline. King paid the fine in December 1957.

The bus boycott was started as a result of the arrest of Ms Rosa Parks who was found guilty of taking the wrong seat on a bus, in that she did "violate Chapter 1, section 8 of the code of the City of Montgomery Alabama 1952, in that in violation of the General Acts of Alabama of 1947, page 40,  approved July 18, 1947, she did wilfully refuse or fail to comply with the assignment or reassignment by the officer or agent in charge of a motor vehicle  transporting passengers for hire for hire, of a passenger to a division, section or seat on such vehicle designated by such officer or agent for the race to which such passenger belonged". In other words she refused to sit where the bus driver told her to sit.

That same Judge Eugene W. Carter heard Ms Parks appeal against conviction. He appeal claimed that the Alabama Codes were (1) unconstitutional in that they violated Article 1. Section one of the constitution of the State of Alabama, (2) they violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States (3) that they violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the US as the applied to Ms. Parks (4) that they are unconstitutional in that they violate section 1981 of the United States Code.

The appeal was dismissed in classic Southern fashion 

So Southern State laws had supremacy over Federal Law in the 1950's,  despite a Civil War having been fought over the issue. So how does one protest discriminatory laws? How does one protest without getting arrested? How does one protest without getting beaten? How does one use the rule of law to deal with bad law? King was killed for it. Rosa Parks managed to survive and got a congressional medal for it. 

After Martin Luther King's trial on 22nd March 1956 Sol Diamond, vice president and treasurer of Diamond Brothers in Trenton, New Jersey, sent a telegram to Judge Eugene W. Carter, cancelling plans to build a furniture manufacturing plant in Alabama. Sone things matter to some people.

CODES AND THE RULE OF LAW

Nicholas Sarkozy………...………Napoleon Bonaparte

On the 21st March 1804 the Code Napoléon came into force. Originally titled the French Civil Code, i

t was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on

21st March 1804 when Bonaparte was still First Consul of France. On the 9th November 1799 (18 Brumaire) he seized power, overthrew the government, replaced the Directory with the Consulate with himself as First Consul. He did not declare himself Emperor until December 1804.

The code forbade privileges based on birth, allowed freedom of religion, and specified that government jobs go to the most qualified. It was the first modern legal code to be adopted with a pan-European scope and it strongly influenced the law of many of the countries formed during and after the Napoleonic Wars. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws.

The preliminary article of the Code established certain important provisions regarding the rule of law. Laws could be applied only if they had been duly promulgated, and only if they had been published officially (including provisions for publishing delays, given the means of communication available at the time); thus no secret laws were authorised. It prohibited ex post facto laws (i.e., laws that apply to events that occurred before them). The code also prohibited judges from refusing justice on grounds of insufficiency of the law—therefore encouraging them to interpret the law. On the other hand, it prohibited judges from passing general judgments of a legislative value.

With regard to family, the Code established the supremacy of the husband with respect to the wife and children; this was the general legal situation in Europe at the time. It did, however, allow divorce on liberal basis compared to other European countries, including divorce by mutual consent. In any event not a very feminist view of legislation, but it was what was prevalent in 1804.

What strikes me most is the prohibition of laws applying to events that occur before the law is put in place. The United Nations Security Council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorisation of military action. The Council therefore, produces resolutions to make its decisions legal and enforceable across the world, and in particular in those member countries, signatories to the United Nations Charter. The need for a UNSC resolution is, in theory, based on global events that have already occurred. I submit then that any legal sanction put in place after these events is ex post facto. The wording and intent of each resolution is based on the desires of certain influential nations. Those influential nations can push through a resolution in order to give whatever action they propose taking, or policy they seek to put in place, the force of law.

The western powers were chomping at the bit to move against Libya. Egypt was merely observed and commented upon. Other disturbances in the area similarly observed, but the minute Libya came into play 'no fly zones' were flying around the place. The UNSC was called into action and the law was put into place. Some would say they did not act quickly enough; however, it takes a little while to muster support and push through a resolution. The more people on side at the start, the easier it is. Also, there is the matter of the Veto power of the five permanent members. Those, not necessarily in agreement have to be persuaded to abstain rather than say no, so it can take a little time to get going; but, get going it did.

I find the business of resolutions necessary but at the same time there is something uncomfortable about the manner in which they are brought about. In my view, it does not sit well with the rules of natural justice; however, I am often wrong and out of touch. In any event Napoleon Sarkozy doesn't see any problem in terms of the

Code Napoléon 207 years old today. Happy Birthday Le Code.

WHAT PART OF CEASEFIRE DOES THE WEST NOT UNDERSTAND?

19 MARCH 2011 - The start of an avoidable war. News hacks are suggesting that the intervention is too late. A reporter on CNN has suggested that when the rebels, or rather opposition to Gaddafi forces, had control of the oil fields and refineries, was the time to move. Gaddafi's forces soon moved the opposition out of the oil fields and it is only now that the, so called, no fly zone is being implemented. Therefore, he suggests, this aerial strike was too late in coming. He then went on about the coalition forces' "humanitarian efforts to prevent Gaddafi from brutalising the opposition". What garbage.

So of course it's all about the oil. The idea that this is a humanitarian exercise is clearly not the case. It never has been in that area. Why oh why is the pretence, that western governments are so concerned about humanity, still such a smoke screen. Gaddafi has been in power for 42 years. The Saudi Royal family has ruled as a absolute Islamic monarchy for the last 79 years. Egypt now has a military Government, which we are told will very soon transfer power to civilian authority. We wait and see. One could go on about the various draconian authorities that have ruled in the middle east for the last 40 years; yet western governments have gone on arming them with the latest weapons and doing business. For half a century the west has repeatedly left so called third world humanity (those foreign tinted people) to cope for itself; save now and again, when it seems that some worm has turned and threatens some western economic/business interest, the fate of the people ruled by that worm is all of a sudden of importance to western leaders.

Foreign ministers keep going on about ethical foreign policies, yet it never seem to take root. Sarkozy couldn't wait to get his fighters in the air, despite the ceasefire. The ceasefire never had a chance, it was never going to get in the way. Everybody wants their Tony Blair moment. Cameron is now coming out with the shit phrase "I believe this is the right thing to do". He believes. Of course, what a fool I am, he believes it, so it must be right. Killing people is right, what could I have been thinking. Sorry, I should have said, killing people who get in the way of killing someone who is killing people. They're killing people to stop others from killing people. Of course that's the humanitarian thing to do. So civilised.

Am I alone in thinking this way? Am I out of touch? Is politics about diplomacy or just who has the most fun weapons to play with? Why

"We've spent so much money on them and would never get to use them otherwise"

Is it essential for a president or prime minister to show he's tough and can take the 'hard decision'? The hard decisions should have been taken 50 years ago and not by privileged public school boys playing out their fantasy. As to Sarkozy, he apparently completed his military service as a part-time Air Force cleaner. I guess he was keen to fly, but couldn't make it past the clean up stage. Now he can fly them by proxy. It must be great being president. Why does anybody vote for these people?

Most of the peoples in the Middle East and North Africa haven't had a chance to vote. If they did, would their decisions be any better that the ones made in the UK, France, USA etc…I know they should be at least given the chance to get it wrong, but why do so many have to die for that to happen? And why do our governments have to be the ones who kill them?

AND SO IT BEGINS

19th MARCH 2011

Leaders of the Arab League and their advisers above.

On the 19th March 2003, United States President George W. Bush ordered the start of the invasion of Iraq. It was called by him Operation Iraqi Freedom. A combined force of mainly U.S. and United Kingdom troops, together with contingents of Australian and Polish forces invaded Iraq. 148,000 US troops, 45,000 UK, 2000 Australian, 183 Poles. Included in the invading army were 620 Iraqi soldiers representing the Iraqi National Congress and 70,000 Peshmerga (Kurdish fighters - The Peshmerga forces of Kurdistan). That's 25,000 more troops than the UK. We have heard very little about them, or indeed the 620 INC troops.

The 19th March was the official start of the invasion; however, the Peshmerga linked up with the CIA's Special Activities Division (SAD) and the U.S. Military 10th Special Forces Group and prepared the battle space for conventional U.S. Military forces throughout Iraq. The first step was evicting the Ansar Al Islam from their enclave around the village of Biyara, this battle happened prior to the official invasion and was carried out with officers from SAD and the U.S. Army Special Forces Group. The Ansar Al Islam were a Kurdish Sunni Islamic group and most of them were killed during the initial operation.

As to the Iraqi National Congress (INC), this is or was an umbrella Iraqi opposition group formed with the aid and direction of the United States government following the initial Gulf War (1990/91), for the purpose of fomenting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Given this track record of United States interference in other sovereign countries' affairs, what is the CIA or SAD or the 10th Special Forces Group up to in Libya? What steps have been taken to foment the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi?

It is a simple question and one which we are unlikely to have an answer, until a few years down the line, or someone leaks the information sooner.

Today the Europeans meet to discuss sending planes into Libya. On what information are they basing their decisions.

In any event the 19th March 2011, eight years on from 2003 is hardly going to be a great day for peace or humanity. At present everything is being blamed on Gaddafi

REASON AND RESOLUTION

OUT OF TOUCH ?

READ UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973

Perhaps I am out of touch with what is going on, but I would ask you to bear in mind some of the past events in that region of the world now under scrutiny.

This is a map of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) members. It is almost identical to any current map indicating where civil unrest is on the rise. The area has a bit of history where oil is concerned:

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) consisted of twelve countries, including Iran, seven Arab countries, plus Indonesia, Nigeria, Ghana and Venezuela. OPEC had been formed on 14th September 1960 to protest pressure by major oil companies (mostly owned by U.S., British, and Dutch nationals) to reduce oil prices and payments to producers. At first it had operated as an informal bargaining unit for the sale of oil by third world nations. It confined its activities to gaining a larger share of the revenues produced by Western oil companies and greater control over the levels of production. However, in the early 1970s things began to change. Here is a brief chronology of events:

23 August 1973 - In preparation for the Yom Kippur War, Saudi King Faisal and Egyptian president Anwar Sadat meet in Riyadh and secretly negotiate an accord whereby the Arabs will use the "oil weapon" as part of the upcoming military conflict.

15 September 1973 -

OPEC declares a negotiating front, consisting of the 6 Persian Gulf States, to pressure for price increases and an end to support of Israel, based on the 1971 Tehran agreement.

6 October 1973 -Egypt

and Syria attack Israel on Yom Kippur, starting the fourth Arab-Israeli War.

8-10 October 1973 - OPEC negotiations with oil companies to revise the 1971 Tehran price agreement fail.

16 October 1973 -Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Qatar unilaterally raise posted prices by 17% to $3.65 per barrel and announce production cuts.

17 October 1973 -OPEC oil ministers agree to use oil as a weapon to punish the West for its support of Israel in the Arab-Israeli war. They recommend an embargo against unfriendly states and mandate a cut in exports

19 October 1973 -Saudi Arabia, Libya and other Arab states proclaim an embargo on oil exports to the United States.

23-28 October 1973 - The Arab oil embargo is extended to the Netherlands.

5 November 1973 - Arab producers announce a 25% output cut. A further 5% cut is threatened.

23 November 1973 - The Arab embargo is extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa.

27 November 1973 - U.S. President Nixon signs the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act authorizing price, production, allocation and marketing controls.

9 December 1973 - Arab oil ministers agree to another five percent cut for non-friendly countries for January 1974.

25 December 1973 - Arab oil ministers cancel the five percent output cut for January. Saudi oil minister Yamani promises a ten percent OPEC production rise.

7-9 January 1974 - OPEC decides to freeze prices until April 1.

11 February 1974 - U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger

unveils the Project Independence plan to make U.S. energy independent.

12-14 February 1974 -

Progress in Arab-Israeli disengagement brings discussion of oil strategy among the heads of state of Algeria, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

17 March 1974 - Arab oil ministers, with the exception of Libya, announce the end of the embargo against the United States.

And we now have UNSC Resolution 1973 issued on 17th March 2011. I do not know what inferences can be drawn from this coincidence, but it gives one pause for thought. Is this really about civil unrest and democracy or is it the same old story.

We should also look at the main points of the Resolution. It is not about loading up, going in and kicking ass, as some would like to believe. David Cameron please note.

The resolution expresses the UN's "grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties", condemns "the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions" and says the attacks against civilians "may amount to crimes against humanity" and pose a "threat to international peace and security".

• A no-fly zone is "an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya".

• It "demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians" and "that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law ... and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance".

This is the prime objective - Establish ceasefire within Libya. It may or may not happen, but give peace a chance.

• It authorises UN member states "to take all necessary measures [notwithstanding the previous arms embargo] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory''.

Again, a very important point - excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.

- It requests the co-operation of the Arab League member states in the previous measure.

• It decides to "establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians", exempting humanitarian flights, and authorises member states and Arab League nations "acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights".

• It calls on member states to intercept boats and aircraft it believes may be taking arms and other items banned under the previously passed UN embargo and includes "armed mercenary personnel'' in that category – telling members states to "comply strictly with their obligations ... to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya''.

• Member states should ensure domestic businesses "exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated" in Libya "if the states have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians".

• It requests that the UN secretary general creates "a group of up to eight experts" to oversee the implementation of the resolution.

I am not sure that news reporting of events is entirely accurate as to the meaning of UNSC Resolution 1973

WHOSE IN CHARGE ?

UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL

On the 17th March 1970, The United States cast its first veto in the United Nations Security Council during the Presidency of Richard Nixon, when Henry Kissinger was national security adviser. Quite a moment, since the Council started sitting in 1946 and the United States had not once used its power of veto, whilst the USSR had used it well over 100 times.

The use of that veto was in support of the United Kingdom, which was under considerable Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in Rhodesia. At least that's what it appeared to be a the time. On reflection I'm not convinced. There was clearly another agenda in respect of getting round sanctions and the United State's ability to import chrome, ferrochrome and nickel from Rhodesia. But that's another story.

What is significant about this matter is that it draws attention to the Council and its function. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), one of the principal organs of the UN, is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its powers, outlined in the UN Charter, include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorisation of military action. Its powers are exercised through UNSC Resolutions. The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Church House in London. Since its first meeting, the Council, which exists in continuous session, has travelled widely, holding meetings in many cities, and has its current permanent home in the UN Building in New York.

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding permanent members - China, France, Russia, the UK and the US - and 10 elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. Security Council members must always be present at UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time.

The 'power of veto' refers to the veto power wielded solely by the five permanent members, enabling them to prevent the adoption of any 'substantive' draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. The veto does not apply to procedural votes, which is significant in that the Security Council's permanent membership can vote against a 'procedural' draft resolution, without necessarily blocking its adoption by the Council. The veto is exercised when any permanent member — the so-called ''P5" — casts a "negative" vote on a 'substantive' draft resolution. Abstention, or absence from the vote by a permanent member does not prevent a draft resolution from being adopted.

The current additional ten members, who are at present entrusted with dealing, amongst other matters, with the world crisis in North Africa and the Middle East are: Bosnia/Herzegovina, Brazil, Columbia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa.

Despite the present rhetoric about no-fly zones and on the ground military activity, from the UK, France and now the US and certain opinionated pundits and back bench politicians, it is totally within the UNSC's remit to decide on and authorise peacekeeping operations, sanctionsand military action.

[Why the BBC should interview or seek opinion on these matters from the likes of David Davis MP (whose only real experience is selling sugar for Tate & Lyle - any experience under John Major was a short lived joke and as Chairman of Public Accounts he clearly failed, given the expenses scandal) is beyond me. For him to suggest that implementing a no-fly zone is a doddle and that there is no need to wait for UN resolutions is unbelievable(The World at One BBC 4 17/3/2011).]

So who are the people, the representatives that discuss and pronounce on these issues:

Ivan Barbalic - Bosnian and Herzegovinian diplomat serving as Permanent Representative to the UN. Born 1975 in Sarajevo, is 36 years old. He is the nephew of his country's Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. Married. Graduated from the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut and interdisciplinary postgraduate study on Human Right in Sarajevo. He has been active in the Non Governmental sector. Was also a song writer. He was President of the UNSC in January 2011.

Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti (born on March 27, 1954 in Belo Horizonte, Brazil) 57 year next week, is the Permanent Represnetative of Brazil. Viotti was the President of the UNSC for the month of Feb 2011. She is married to Eduardo Baumgratz Viotti and has a son. Viotti has a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Brasilia, which she received in 1979. She has a post-graduate degree in the same subject, which she completed in 1981, from the same university. She attended the Rio Branco Institute, the Brazilian diplomatic academy.

Néstor Osorio Londoño is the 27th Permanent Representative of Columbia. An administrative lawyer, he has also served as 1st Permanent Representative of Colombia to theWorld Trade Organisation in Geneva from 1995 to 1999, and as 4th Executive Director of the International Coffee Organisation from 2002 to 2010, where he had represented Colombia since 1978 when he was named Alternate Delegate and later becoming head of mission and Permanent Representative until 1994. After leaving WTO, he worked for the Colombian Government as High Advisor for Coffee Policy from September 2000 until his election as Executive Director of the ICO.

Franck Emmanuel Issoze-Ngondet (born 2 April 1961) 50 this year, is a Gabonese diplomat and political figure. He was Gabon's Permanent Representative to the UN from August 2008 to January 2009. Afterwards he served in the government of Gabon as Minister of Energy, Hydraulic Resources, and New Energies from January 2009 to June 2009 and then briefly as Minister of Relations with Parliament and the Constitutional Institutions in mid-2009. He was again appointed as Permanent Representative to the UN in November 2009. In March 2010, Issoze-Ngondet was the President of the UNSC. He is married with five children.[2] He wrote a French language novel, An Ascetic in theCourt (Un Ascète dans la cour), which was published in 2007. A career diplomat, he speaks English in addition to French.

Peter Wittig (11/8/1954 ) age 57, is a German diplomat and, since 2009 the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to the UN. After schooling, he completed a degree in history, political science and law at Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms University in Bonn, the Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, University of Canterbury and University of Oxford. After graduation and completion of doctoral 1979-1982 he was Assistant Professor at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg and author of articles on the subjects of intellectual history and foreign policy. In 1982 he entered the diplomatic. After various training posts he was appointed to his embassy in Lebanon and then in Cyprus. During this period he was also commissioner of the Federal Government for the Cyprus Conflict. In 2002 he was ambassador in Nicosia then and first Ambassador and Deputy Head of the United Nations and Global Issues. He then in 2006 was head of GF (Global Issues, United Nations, Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid) of the Foreign Office. In December 2009 he was appointed to its Permanent Representative at the United Nations in New York City

Hardeep Singh Puri is an Indian diplomat currently representing India to the UN. He is a 1974 batchIndian Foreign Service officer. Prior to that, he had done his graduation and post-graduation from Delhi University and worked as a Lecturer at St.Stephen's College, Delhi. He has held important diplomatic posts in Brazil, Japan, Sri Lanka and United Kingdom. Between 1988 and 1991, he was appointed the Coordinator of UNDP/UNCTAD Multilateral Trade Negotiations Project to help Developing Countries in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Currently Permanent Representative to the UN from 2009, a post he has held before. 2008-2009 Secretary (Economic Relations), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
. 2006-2008 Ambassador of India to Brazil
. 2002-05 Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations and other International Organisations in Geneva
. 1999-2002 Ambassador/Deputy High Commissioner of India tothe United Kingdom
. 1997-1999 Joint Secretary (Europe West), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
. 1994-97 Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi

Nawaf Salam (Arabic: نواف سلام, born December 15, 1953) age 58, is a Lebanese diplomat, academic, and jurist. He is currently serving as Lebanon's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN in New York. Son of Abdallah Salam and Reckat Beyhum, Nawaf was born into a prominent family from Beirut, Lebanon. His grandfather, Selim Salam, the leader of the “Beirut Reformist Movement,” was elected deputy of Beirut to the Ottoman parliament in 1912. His uncle, Saeb Salam, fought for Lebanon’s independence from the French Mandate of Lebanon and subsequently served four times as Prime Minister of Lebanon between 1952 and 1973. He is married to the journalist Sahar Baassiri and has two sons, Abdallah and Marwan. Salam received a doctorate in Political Science from the Institut d'Etudes Politique de Paris (1992), an L.L.M. from Harvard Law School (1991), and a doctorate in History fromSorbonne University, Paris(1979).

Joy Uche Angela Ogwu (born August 23, 1946) age 65, is a former Foreign Minister of Nigeria. She was the second woman to hold the post in the historyof Nigeria. Prior to her ministerial career, Dr. Joy Ogwu, who is from Delta State, served as Director–General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA). Ogwu has advised the UN on disarmament issues and has published books promoting more African ties to Latin America. She is the former Chair of the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research UNIDIR). She was appointed Foreign Minister on August 30, 2006. Joy Ogwu is currently the Nigerian Ambassador to the UN. Her appointment was announced in April 2008.Joy Ogwu was the President of the UNSC in July 2010. She is currently the President of the Executive Board of the UN Women Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. Ogwu obtained her BA and MA in Political Science from Rutgers University, United States. She later received her Ph.D. from the University of Lagos in Nigeria. While obtaining her Ph.D. in 1977, she joined the Institute of International Affairs at the University of Lagos.

José Filipe Mendes Moraes Cabral has been appointed Portugal's Permanent Representative to the United Nations on 30 October 2008 and has taken up his new position on 1 December 2008.

 Prior to his appointment to New York he was Ambassador to Spain (2004-2008). 

From 2001 to 2004 he was the Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic Jorge Sampaio with whom he has previously worked, as Diplomatic Adviser, from 1996 to 1999.

 From 1999 to 2001 he was Ambassador to Israel. 

Between 1994 and 1996 he headed the Office of the Director-General for Political Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Lisbon and was the Portuguese Representative in the Working Group for former Yugoslavia at the EU.

Between 1982 and 1991 he held diplomatic assignments in Ottawa, Rabat, Riyadh (as Chargé d’Affairs en pied) and Brussels (Permanent Mission to the EU).

José Filipe Moraes Cabral joined the Portuguese diplomatic service on 1979. 

Before he had assignments at the Presidency of the Republic (in the Office for Cooperation and in the Civil House during the tenure of President António Ramalho Eanes) and at the Office of the Secretary of State for External Cooperation.

José Filipe Moraes Cabral graduated in Political and Diplomatic Science at the University of Brussels.

Ambassador Moraes Cabral was born on 6 December 1950, in Lisbon. 

He is married to Lydia Reinhold and they have three grown-up children

Here is video containing and interview with Senor Cabral, charing the Libyan Sanctions Committee, from this month 9th March 2011;

Today is also the second anniversary of Mr Baso Sangqu's appointment as Permanent Representative for South Africa.

Baso Sangqu, age 43, Permanent Representative of South Africa to the United Nations since 17^th March 2009. At the time of his appointment, Mr. Sangqu was Deputy Permanent Representative from 2007, having previously been South Africa’s Ambassador to the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, between November 2002 and 2006.While working as Acting Chief Director for Economic Development, Multilateral Development and Cooperation in the Department of Foreign Affairs between October 2001 and 2002, Mr. Sangqu also served as Head of the Substance Unit for the ( Johannesburg) World Summit on Sustainable Development from February 2001 to 2002.From July to October 2001, he was Acting Chief Director for Marine, Environment, Science and Technology, Multilateral Development and Cooperation. He was appointed Director for Social and Economic Programmes, African Multilateral Development and Cooperation upon joining the Department of Foreign Affairs in October 2000.His previous Government service included appointments as a Policy Analyst and Research Consultant, in the Economic and Development Section of the Office of the President, from March to July 2000, and Chief Education Specialist in the National Department of Education from January 1996 to May 1998.Mr. Sangqu holds a Master’s degree in development economics from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and a Bachelor’s degree in commerce (economics and commercial law) from the University of Transkei. Born on 21 April 1968, in Idutywa, Eastern Cape Province, he is married and has three children.

These are the people who confer with the foreign ministers of the big five. No exactly a shabby bunch. All high achievers with an average age of about 52, so they are all firmly educated in the last half of the 20th Century. They would have mainly been to University between 1975 and 1985. They are not children of the 1960's, although they would have seen it unfold as children watching whatever television they could. It is their time to deal with protest. Let us hope they do it well. More should be heard from them. Why are not the BBC seeking them out, rather than ridiculous interviews with the likes of David Davis.

I was also today reminded by a friend that on the 17th March 1948, William Gibson was born in Conway South Carolina.

William Ford Gibson (born March 17, 1948) is an American-Canadian writer who has been called the "noir prophet" of the cyberpunk subgenre of science fiction. Gibson coined the term "cyberspace" in his short story "Burning Chrome" and later popularized the concept in his debut novel, Neuromancer (1984). In envisaging cyberspace, Gibson created an iconography for the information age before the ubiquity of the Internet in the 1990s. He is also credited with predicting the rise of reality television and with establishing the conceptual foundations for the rapid growth of virtual environments such as video games and the World Wide Web. Happy Birthday William!!