United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UN General Assembly
Resolution ES‑10/L.22
United Nations General Assembly resolution A ES 10 L 22 vote.png

  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Abstained
  Not present
Date 21 December 2017
Meeting no. 10th Emergency Special Session (continuation)
Code A/RES/ES‑10/L.22 (Document)
Subject Status of Jerusalem
Voting summary
128 voted for
9 voted against
35 abstained
21 absent
Result Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES‑10/L.22 is a emergency session resolution declaring the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.”.[1] It was adopted by the 37th Plenary meeting of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[2] during the tenure of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017. The draft resolution was drafted by Yemen and Turkey.[3]Though strongly contested by the United States, it passed by 128 votes to nine against with 21 absentees and 35 abstentions.

Background[edit]

On 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump said that he would recognise the status of Jerusalem as being Israel’s sovereign capital[4] in a departure from previous UNGA resolutions as well prevailing international norms where no state either recognises Jerusalem as a national capital nor has an embassy there. The move prompted protests from states and communities in many parts of the world.[5]

Following the failure of an United Nations Security Council resolution three days earlier, after an U.S. veto, to rescind the recognition by any states of Jerusalem as a national capital, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn. He sought to invoke Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, to circumvent a veto. The resolution states that the General Assembly can call an Emergency Special Session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures” if the Security Council fails to act.[6]

Campaign[edit]

On 20 December, US President Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to countries voting against the US’ side.[7] The day before the vote, he said: “Let them vote against us…We don’t care…this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”[8]Ambassador Nikki Haley warned her country would remember and “take names” of every country that voted in favour of the resolution.[9][10][11][12] The governments of Turkey and Iran denounced USA’s threats as “anti-democratic” and “blackmail“.[13][14] She had sent to a letter to dozens of member states that warned Trump had asked her to “report back on those countries who voted against us.”[15] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Trump that “he cannot buy Turkey’s democratic will with petty dollars” and “that opposition of other countries will teach the United States a good lesson”.[16][17]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel rejects this vote before it passes and called the UN “house of lies”.[18]

Canada’s, which was seeking re-negotiations of the NAFTA, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland‘s spokesman confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote and that the resolution should not have come to the General Assembly.[19]

Content[edit]

The text of the resolution includes the following key statements:[20]

The General Assembly,

  • Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City, as foreseen in the relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
  • Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;
  • Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
  • Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

It concluded in reading that “any decisions and actions, which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”[21]

Motion[edit]

The motion was proposed by Yemen and Turkey.[22]

Debate[edit]

In introducing the resolution as Chair of the Arab Group, Yemen’s Amabassador said the US decision was a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as those of all Christians and Muslims.” He emphasized that it constituted a “dangerous breach of the Charter of the United Nations and a serious threat to international peace and security, while also undermining the chances for a two‑State solution and fuelling the fires of violence and extremism.”[23]

Turkey, who was the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, also spoke as current Chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC).[23] Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Trump’s decision was an outrageous assault to all universal values. “The Palestinians have the right to their own state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the main parameter and only hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. However, the recent decision of a UN Member State to recognise Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the capital of Israel, violates international law, including all relevant UN resolutions.”[22]

The General Assembly heard from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al‑Malki, who said that the meeting was “not because of any animosity to the United States of America” but instead the sessions was “called to make the voice of the vast majority of the international community — and that of people around the world — heard on the question of Jerusalem/Al‑Quds Al‑Sharif.” He called the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move its embassy there “an aggressive and dangerous move” which could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that “has no boundaries.” He added that though the decision would have no impact on the city’s status, it would nevertheless compromise the role of the United States in the Middle East peace process.[23] He urged member states to reject “blackmail and intimidation.”[5]

US Ambassador Nikki Haley then said that her country was “singled out for attack” because of its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. She added that: “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” Haley said. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”[15] She added that: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that…this vote will make a difference in how Americans view the UN.”[22]

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon then told the assembly that the vowed that “no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem.”[4]

Venezuela’s Ambassador, speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed “grave concern about Israel’s ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including attempts to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the City of Jerusalem. [It was] slso concerned about the decision to relocate the United States embassy [and] warned that such provocative actions would further heighten tensions, with potentially far‑reaching repercussions given the extremely volatile backdrop.[23]

Other speakers included, Pakistan, Indonesia, Maldives, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iran and China.[23]

Malaysia’s Ambassador Datuk Seri Mohammed Shahrul Ikram Yaakob said that, as a member of the OIC and NAM, “Malaysia joins the international community in expressing our deep concern and rejects the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is also an infringement of the Palestinian people’s rights and their right to self determination.” He called for a peaceful two-state solution and that Malaysia is concerned the situation will only feed into the agenda of extremists.”[2]

Other speakers included, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Africa. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See, Tomasz Grysa, emphasised that Jerusalem was most sacred to the Abrahamic faiths and a symbol for millions of believers around the world who considered it their “spiritual capital.” Its significance went “beyond the question of borders, a reality that should be considered a priority in every negotiation for a political solution.” The Holy See, he said, called for a “peaceful resolution that would ensure respect for the sacred nature of Jerusalem and its universal value…reiterating that only international guarantee could preserve its unique character and status and provide assurance of dialogue and reconciliation for peace in the region.”[23]

After the motion was passed, more speeches continued with Estonia, who also spoke on behalf of other states. Australia’s Ambassador then explained her country’s government did “not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process [and] it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.”[23]

Other speakers included, Paraguay, whose Ambassador said that the country would abstain because “the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[23] This was followed by El Salvador, Argentina and Romania.[23]

Canada’s Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard called the proposal “one-sided”[23] and said: “We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote.” He, however, added that Canada wanted to emphasise Jerusalem’s special significance to the Abrahamic religions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. “Denying the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths undermines the integrity of the site for all. We also reiterate the need to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s Holy sites.[19]

Nicaragua’s explained its support of the resolution, as it “rebuffed recent unilateral attempts to modify the character and status of Jerusalem. Such unilateral actions were in blatant violation of resolution 2234 (2016) and others…unilateral actions jeopardised peace and stability in the Middle East and drew the international community further away from a solution.”[23]

Mexico’s Ambassador then explained the abstention and emphasised that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. “The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress…the international community was further than ever from agreement.”[23]

The Czech Republic then said that while it supported the European Union position, it had abstained because it “did not believe the draft resolution would contribute to the peace process.”[23]

Armenia said that is position “remained unchanged. The situation should be resolved through negotiations paving the way for lasting peace and security.”[23]

Hungary echoed Armenia’s stance and said it would not comment on the foreign relations of the United States.[23]

Latvia then spoke, before Estonia re-took the floor to say it had also spoken on behalf of Albania, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[23]

Result[edit]

Vote[24] Quantity States
Approve 128 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Reject 9 Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States.
Abstain 35 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.
Absent 21 Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Zambia.

Reactions[edit]

States

Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the result shortly after it was announced in call it “preposterous,” while he also thanked the states that supported “the truth” by not participating in “the theatre of the absurd.” He added that: “Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be…But I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theatre of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to [US] President (Donald) Trump and Ambassador [Nikki] Haley, for their stalwart defence of Israel and their stalwart defence of the truth.” Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman, reminded Israelis of the longstanding Israeli disdain for such votes. “Let us just remember that this is the same UN about which our first ambassador to the organisation, Abba Eban, once said: ‘If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions’. There is nothing new in what just happened at the UN.” He also praised the US as “the moral beacon shining out of the darkness.” Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Security Gilad Erdan said: “The historic connection between Israel and Jerusalem is stronger than any vote by the ‘United Nations’ — nations who are united only by their fear and their refusal to recognise the simple truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.”

    • However, opposition Joint List Chairman and MK Ayman Odeh called the vote a wake-up call for Israel: “In the international arena, there still exists a large and definitive majority that believes that the Palestinian people, like all other nations, deserve a place in this world and the right to self-determination. This evening’s vote by the majority of the world’s nations against Trump’s announcement, in spite of the pressure and threats, flies in the face of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s diplomatic policy and is a clear statement by the international community in support of peace and the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, whose capital is East Jerusalem,”[8]
Media

Haaretz‘s Noa Landau, wrote, in citing unnamed diplomatic sourced, that Israel was particularly disappointed with countries like India that have enhanced bilateral relations with it recently. “The main disappointment in Israel was with the countries that have enhanced bilateral relations in recent years, especially those that share a particularly conservative worldview with the Netanyahu government. For example, India – whose Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Israel in July, a tour that was memorable mainly for the pastoral photographs of him and Netanyahu embracing and wading in the waves – voted for the resolution against Israel and the United States.”[8]

Others

At a “Solidarity to Save Jerusalem” rally organised by the Barisan National government in Malaysia, one of the attendees Association of NextGen Christians of Malaysia President Joshua Hong said at the Putra Mosque: “We are here because we feel that the decision made by President Trump on announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is merely a political decision. He added that the decision also hurts Christian and Arabic churches in Palestine and not just the Muslims. “To us as Christians, Jerusalem is a city of peace and after that announcement, we feel there is no more peace.I think it is not right and unjust. We believe we should continue pursuing the sustainable peace solution for Palestine and Israel, rather than just a single nation declaring it just like that.” He claimed that about 50 members of the group turned up in a show of support for the Palestinian people..[2]

Compulsory voting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compulsory voting, enforced.
Compulsory voting, not enforced.
Compulsory voting, enforced (only men).
Compulsory voting, not enforced (only men).
Historical: the country had compulsory voting in the past.

ContentsCompulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. If an eligible voter does not attend a polling place, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as fines or community service. As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having laws for compulsory voting and 11 of these 22 countries as enforcing these laws in practice.

History[edit]

Athenian democracy held that it was every citizen‘s duty to participate in decision making, but attendance at the assembly was voluntary. Sometimes there was some form of social opprobrium to those not participating. For example, Aristophanes‘s comedy Acharnians 17–22, in the 5th century BC, shows public slaves herding citizens from the agora into the assembly meeting place (pnyx) with a red-stained rope. Those with red on their clothes were fined.[2] This usually happened if fewer than 6,000 people were in attendance, and more were needed for the assembly to continue.

Arguments for[edit]

Supporters of compulsory voting generally look upon voter participation as a civic duty, similar to taxation, jury duty, compulsory education or military service; one of the ‘duties to community’ mentioned in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[3] They believe that by introducing an obligation to vote, it helps to overcome the occasional inconvenience that voting imposes on an individual in order to produce governments with more stability, legitimacy and a genuine mandate to govern, which in turn benefits that individual even if their preferred candidate or party isn’t elected into power.

Compulsory voting systems can confer a high degree of political legitimacybecause they result in high voter turnout.[4] The victorious candidate represents a majority of the population, not just the politically motivated individuals who would vote without compulsion.[5]

Compulsory voting also prevents disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compelling voters to the polls for an election reduces the impact that external factors may have on an individual’s capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. If everybody must vote, restrictions on voting are easily identified and steps are taken to remove them. Countries with compulsory voting generally hold elections on a Saturday or Sunday to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Postal and pre-poll voting is provided to people who cannot vote on polling day, and mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes, hospitals and remote communities to cater for immobilized citizens.

If voters do not want to support any given choice, they may cast spoilt votes or blank votes. According to compulsory voting supporters, this is preferred to not voting at all because it ensures there is no possibility that the person has been intimidated or prevented from voting should they wish. In certain jurisdictions, voters have the option to vote none of the above if they do not support any of the candidates to indicate clear dissatisfaction with the candidate list rather than simple apathy at the whole process.

Another perceived benefit of the large turnout produced by compulsory voting is that it becomes more difficult for extremist or special interest groups to get themselves into power or to influence mainstream candidates. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for lobby groups to motivate a small section of the people to the polls and influence the outcome of the political process. The outcome of an election where voting is compulsory reflects more of the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) rather than reflecting who was more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of broader interest politics, as a sort of civil education and political stimulation, which creates a better informed population. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or charismatic but sectionally focused demagogues.[5]

There is also a correlation between compulsory voting, when enforced strictly, and improved income distribution, as measured by the Gini coefficient and the bottom income quintiles of the population.[6]

Arguments against[edit]

Voting may be seen as a civic right rather than a civic duty. While citizens may exercise their civil rights (free speech, right to an attorney, etc.) they are not compelled to. Furthermore, compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example,Jehovah’s Witnesses and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events. Forcing them to vote ostensibly denies them their freedom of religious practice. In some countries with compulsory voting, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others may be excused on these grounds. If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

Similarly, compulsory voting may be seen as an infringement of Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of political opinion and thus the right of citizens to believe in a political system other than a democratic one, such as an absolute monarchy. However, it may also be argued that citizens may legitimately be required to vote since the right to believe in a different political system does not conflict with the obligation to conform with legal requirements of the system in place.

Another argument against compulsory voting, prevalent among legal scholars in the United States, is that it is essentially a compelled speech act, which violates freedom of speech because the freedom to speak necessarily includes the freedomnot to speak.[7]

Some do not support the idea of voters being compelled to vote for candidates they have no interest in or knowledge of. Others may be well-informed, but have no preference for any particular candidate, or may have no wish to give support to the incumbent political system. In compulsory voting areas, such people often vote at random simply to fulfill legal requirements: the so-called donkey vote may account for 1–2% of votes in these systems[citation needed], which may affect the electoral process. Similarly, citizens may vote with a complete absence of knowledge of any of the candidates or deliberately skew their ballot to slow the polling process or disrupt the election.

Low voter participation in a voluntary election may not be the result of political apathy. It may be simply an expression of the citizenry’s political will, indicating satisfaction with the political establishment in an electorate.[citation needed]

The Australian system of preferential voting means a person’s vote usually ends up favouring one of the two main political parties, even though the voter may not wish to advantage either. Former Australian opposition leader Mark Latham urged Australians to lodge blank votes for the 2010 election. He stated the government should not force citizens to vote or threaten them with a fine.[8] At the 2013 federal election, despite the threat of a non-voting fine of up to $170,[9] there was a turnout of only 92%,[10] of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers.[11] In the corresponding Senate election, contested by over 50 groups,[12] legitimate manipulation of the group voting tickets and single transferable vote routing resulted in the election of one senator, Ricky Muir of the Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party, who had initially received only 0.5% of first-preference support.[13] The system was accused of undermining the entitlement of voters “to be able to make real choices, not forced ones—and to know who they really are voting for.”[14]

By countries[edit]

Historical[edit]

  • Austria – introduced in 1924 and exercised during 1925 presidential elections
  • Chile – removed from the Constitution and replaced with voluntary voting in 2009; voluntary voting was regulated and put into practice in 2012; all eligible citizens over 17 are automatically enrolled (only those over 18 on election day may vote; although the act of voting itself is voluntary, polling officer duties are not if chosen by a commission for the job)[15]
  • Fiji – Abolished in 2014 [16]
  • Italy – Introduced in 1945, abolished in 1993.
  • Netherlands – introduced 1917 along with universal suffrage, abolished in 1967.
  • Spain – 1907–1923, but not enforced
  • US State of Georgia in 1777 (10 years before the adoption of the federal Constitution of 1787):

    Every person absenting himself from an election, and shall neglect to give in his or their ballot at such election, shall be subject to a penalty not exceeding five pounds; the mode of recovery and also the appropriation thereof, to be pointed out and directed by act of the legislature: Provided, nevertheless, That a reasonable excuse shall be admitted.

    Constitution of Georgia, 5 February 1777, Article XII [17]

This provision was omitted from the revised Georgia constitution of 1789.[citation needed]

Present day[edit]

As of August 2013, 22 countries were recorded as having compulsory voting.[1] Of these, only 10 countries (and one Swiss canton) enforce it. Of the 30 member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 10 had forms of compulsory voting.[19]

Enforced[edit]

These are the 11 countries that enforce compulsory voting:

  • Argentina – Introduced in 1912.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
  • Australia – Introduced in 1924.[20] Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The act does not explicitly state that a choice must be made, it only states that the ballot paper be ‘marked’. According to the act how a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.[21] At the 2010 Tasmanian state election, with a turnout of 335,353 voters, about 6,000 people were fined $26 for not voting, and about 2,000 paid the fine.[22]
  • Brazil[23] – Compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for Brazilian Youth age 16-17 or over 70 or illiterate citizens of any age. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
  • Cyprus – Introduced in 1960.[20]
  • Ecuador – Introduced in 1936.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
  • Liechtenstein
  • Luxembourg – Voluntary for those over 70.
  • Nauru – Introduced in 1965.[20]
  • Peru[24] – Introduced in 1933.[20] Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70.
  • Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old on 1 January of the year of election
  • Uruguay – Introduced in 1934, but not put into practice until 1970.[20]
  • Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland has compulsory voting – Introduced to Switzerland in 1904, but abolished in all other cantons by 1974.[20]

Not enforced[edit]

Countries that have compulsory voting on the law books but do not enforce it:

Measures to encourage voting[edit]

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australiaand Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (such as being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day are excused by requesting a doctor to prove their condition; those over 500 km (310 mi) away from their voting place are also excused by asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are. Belgianvoters can vote in an embassy if they are abroad or can empower another voter to cast the vote in their name; the voter must give a “permission to vote” and carry a copy of the eID card and their own on the actual elections.

States that sanction nonvoters with fines generally impose small or nominal penalties. However, penalties for failing to vote are not limited to fines and legal sanctions. Belgian voters who repeatedly fail to vote in elections may be subject todisenfranchisement. Singapore voters who fail to vote in a general election or presidential election will be subjected to disenfranchisement until a valid reason is given or a fine is paid. Goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote in Peru and Greece. In Brazil, people who fail to vote in an election are barred from obtaining a passport and subject to other restrictions until settling their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the person may be denied withdrawal of the salary from the bank for three months.[28][33]

NWO Website Exposes Official List of Companies Involved

The World Economic Forum

 http://www.weforum.org/world-economic-forum

  • is an International Institution committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation.
  • engages political, business, academic and other leaders of society in collaborative efforts to shape global, regional and industry agendas.  Together with other stakeholders, it works to define challenges, solutions and actions, always in the spirit of global citizenship.
  • serves and builds sustained communities through an integrated concept of high-level meetings, research networks, task forces and digital collaboration.
  • delivers unique value to its Partners, Members and Constituents through its Annual and Regional Meetings, its Centres dedicated to global, regional, and industry issues, its future-oriented communities of New Champions, its expert networks of Global Agenda Councils, its TopLink knowledge and interaction platform and the Forum Academy.
  • was established in 1971 as a not-for-profit Foundation and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests, working in close cooperation with all major international organisations.
  • strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance. Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does.
  • Read the Annual Report 2013 – 14 here.
Professor Klaus Schwab
Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman

From our Founder 

“We live in a fast-moving, highly interconnected world, and our existing systems, structures and formal institutions no longer suffice. Pressing global problems can arise quickly and without warning. At the same time, new and unprecedented opportunities for global growth and positive change are emerging and must be harnessed for the future of humanity.

Barriers between political, economic and social issues have dissolved. The new reality of our networked society is that global, regional and industry developments are completely intertwined. Technological revolutions are changing the context for decision-making and disrupting our conventional decision-making processes.

Today, to address these issues, the world needs a level of global cooperation that is increasingly difficult to attain, precisely due to the growing complexities and interdependencies in the world.

The Forum’s experience since its foundation in 1971 shows there are few issues that cannot be adequately progressed by convening the most relevant actors from all sectors – business, government and civil society – in a high-level, informal environment of trust. Among international institutions, the Forum is an impartial platform for transforming dialogue into insights, insights into agendas, and agendas into action. This provides the practical basis for our mission: to improve the state of the world by serving as a trusted partner of all the stakeholders of global society as they embark upon transformation processes in response to the profound economic, social and political changes sweeping our world.

I encourage you to download our Institutional brochure, which explains in greater depth how we are organized as a community of communities to generate interaction, insight and impact from our activities.”

Leadership and Governance

The World Economic Forum is governed by its Foundation Board. The Foundation Board is the guardian of our mission, values and brand. It is responsible for inspiring business and public confidence in the Forum through an exemplary standard of governance. Individuals with unique leadership experience – from business, politics, academia and civil society – participate for three years in the Board’s activities. The Board’s role includes: managing the statutes of the World Economic Forum and its institutions; appointing new members; reviewing fund applications; determining and monitoring the execution of the World Economic Forum’s strategies; and defining the roles of the Managing Board and committees, including the review of strategies and activities in light of the Forum’s mission.

Foundation Board Members

  • Patrick Aebischer photo
  • Mukesh D. Ambani photo
  • Peter Brabeck-Letmathe photo
  • Mark J. Carney photo
  • Victor L. L. Chu photo
  • Orit Gadiesh photo
  • Carlos Ghosn photo
  • Herman Gref photo
  • Angel Gurría photo
  • Jim Hagemann Snabe photo
  • Susan Hockfield photo
  • Donald Kaberuka photo
  • Klaus Kleinfeld photo
  • Christine Lagarde photo
  • Peter Maurer photo
  • Luis Alberto Moreno photo
  • Indra Nooyi photo
  • H.M. Queen Rania Al Abdullah of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan photo
  • Peter Sands photo
  • Joe Schoendorf photo
  • Klaus Schwab photo
  • Heizo Takenaka photo
  • George Yeo photo
  • Jack Ma Yun photo
  •  Min Zhu photo

 

The Forum’s activities are managed by its executive leadership. Led by Founder and Executive Chairman Professor Klaus Schwab, the leadership and staff of the Forum comprise exceptional individuals from all walks of life and over 60 nationalities. This global depth and experience ensures our ability to fully support our global membership and their engagement on global issues.

Chairman

Klaus Schwab photo

Klaus Schwab

Founder, Executive Chairman

Management Committee

David Aikman photoDavid Aikman Head of New Champions
Jennifer Blanke photoJennifer Blanke Chief Economist
Espen Barth Eide photoEspen Barth Eide Head of the Centre for Global Strategies, Member of the Managing Board
Paolo Gallo photoPaolo Gallo Chief Human Resources Officer
Julien Gattoni photoJulien Gattoni Chief Financial Officer
W. Lee Howell photoW. Lee Howell Head of Global Programming, Member of the Managing Board
Jeremy Jurgens photoJeremy Jurgens Chief Information and Interaction Officer
Helena Leurent photoHelena Leurent Head of Business Engagement
Adrian Monck photoAdrian Monck Head of Public Engagement
Gilbert J. B. Probst photoGilbert J. B. Probst Dean, Leadership Office and Academic Affairs
Philipp Rösler photoPhilipp Rösler Head of the Centre for Regional Strategies, Member of the Managing Board
Richard Samans photoRichard Samans Head of the Centre for the Global Agenda,
Member of the Managing Board
Jim Hagemann Snabe photoJim Hagemann Snabe Chairman, Centre for Global Industries
Murat Sonmez photoMurat Sonmez Chief Business Officer, Member of the Managing Board
Jean-Luc Vez photoJean-Luc Vez Head of Security Policy and Security Affairs
Dominic Kailash Nath Waughray photoDominic Kailash Nath Waughray Head of Public-Private Partnerships
Alois Zwinggi photoAlois Zwinggi Head of Operations and Resources, Member of the Managing Board

 

Strategic Partners

A

Y

Z

Industry Partner Groups

Z

Regional Partners

A

  • Abdul Latif Jameel Co.,
  • Aflac Japan,
  • African Development Bank Group,
  • African Rainbow Minerals,
  • AirAsia,
  • Al Dabbagh Group,
  • Al Dahra Holding,
  • Alghanim Industries,
  • Alshaya Group,
  • Apollo Tyres Ltd,
  • averda,
  • Axiata Group Berhad,

B

  • Bajaj Auto,
  • Bank Mandiri,
  • Barclays Africa Group Limited,
  • BNP Paribas,
  • Burgan Bank,

C

  • Capital Bank,
  • Comision Federal de Electricidad,
  • Crescent Enterprises,
  • Crescent Petroleum,

D

  • Dana Gas,
  • Development Bank of Southern Africa,

E

  • Ecobank Transnational,
  • Emirates NBD,
  • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
  • European Investment Bank,

F

  • First Bank of Nigeria,
  • FirstRand,
  • Flour Mills of Nigeria,

G

  • Gentera,
  • GMR Group,
  • Goldcorp Inc.,
  • Greenberg Traurig,
  • Grupa Azoty,
  • Grupo Lauman,

H

  • Habboush Group,
  • Habib Bank,
  • Hikma Pharmaceuticals,
  • Hindustan Powerprojects Pvt.,

I

  • Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa,
  • Intercorp,
  • Interprotección,
  • Investec,

K

  • KIO Networks,
  • Kirin Holdings,

L

  • Lippo Group,
  • Lulu Group International,

M

  • Majid Al Futtaim Holding,
  • Mitsubishi Heavy Industries,
  • Mizuho Financial Group,
  • MMI Holdings Limited,

N

  • Naspers,
  • Nigeria LNG Limited,

O

  • Oando,
  • OAO Tatneft,
  • OHL México, S.A.B. DE C.V.,
  • OJSC “Bank Otrkritie Financial Corporation,
  • OJSC Mining&Metallurgical Company “Norilsk Nickel,
  • The Olayan Group,
  • Omnilife-Angelíssima Group,
  • Ooredoo Group,
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe,
  • Overseas Infrastructure Alliance,

P

  • PAIPED,
  • Palestine Telecommunications Company,
  • PPF a.s.,

Q

  • Qalaa Holdings

R

  • Rajesh Wadhawan Group,
  • RDIF Management Company ,
  • RGE Pte Ltd,
  • RMZ Corp.,

S

  • Samruk-Kazyna,
  • San Miguel Corporation,
  • SapuraKencana Petroleum Berhad,
  • Sasol,
  • Saudi Telecom,
  • SBI Holdings,
  • Seplat Petroleum Development Company,
  • SICPA Holding,
  • Sinar Mas, Agribusiness & Food,
  • SM Investments Corporation,
  • SMFG,
  • The Standard Bank Group Limited,

T

  • Telkom,
  • Tokio Marine Holdings,
  • Transnet SOC Ltd,

U

  • United Phosphorus

V

  • Vision 3,
  • Visy Industries Pty ,
  • VPS Healthcare,

W

  • Wilmar International Limited

Y

  • YTL Corporation Berhard

List of Banks owned by the Rothschild Family

“Give me control over a nations currency, and I care not who makes its laws” – Baron M.A. Rothschild

rothcrest

ROTHSCHILD OWNED BANKS:
Afghanistan, Bank of Afghanistan,
Albania, Bank of Albania,
Algeria, Bank of Algeria,
Argentina, Central Bank of Argentina,
Armenia, Central Bank of Armenia,
Aruba, Central Bank of Aruba,
Australia, Reserve Bank of Australia,
Austria, Austrian National Bank,
Azerbaijan, Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic,
Bahamas, Central Bank of The Bahamas,
Bahrain, Central Bank of Bahrain,
Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bank,
Barbados, Central Bank of Barbados,
Belarus, National Bank of the Republic of Belarus,
Belgium, National Bank of Belgium,
Belize, Central Bank of Belize,
Benin, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Bermuda, Bermuda Monetary Authority,
Bhutan, Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan,
Bolivia, Central Bank of Bolivia,
Bosnia, Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Botswana, Bank of Botswana,
Brazil, Central Bank of Brazil,
Bulgaria, Bulgarian National Bank,
Burkina Faso, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Burundi, Bank of the Republic of Burundi,
Cambodia, National Bank of Cambodia,
Came Roon, Bank of Central African States,
Canada, Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada,
Cayman Islands, Cayman Islands Monetary Authority,
Central African Republic, Bank of Central African States,
Chad, Bank of Central African States,
Chile, Central Bank of Chile,

China, The People’s Bank of China,

Colombia, Bank of the Republic,
Comoros, Central Bank of Comoros,
Congo, Bank of Central African States,
Costa Rica, Central Bank of Costa Rica,
Côte d’Ivoire, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Croatia, Croatian National Bank,
Cuba, Central Bank of Cuba,
Cyprus, Central Bank of Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Czech National Bank,
Denmark, National Bank of Denmark,
Dominican Republic, Central Bank of the Dominican Republic,
East Caribbean area, Eastern Caribbean Central Bank,
Ecuador, Central Bank of Ecuador,
Egypt, Central Bank of Egypt ,
El Salvador, Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador,
Equatorial Guinea, Bank of Central African States,
Estonia, Bank of Estonia,
Ethiopia, National Bank of Ethiopia,
European Union, European Central Bank,

money-world-

Fiji, Reserve Bank of Fiji,
Finland, Bank of Finland,
France, Bank of France,
Gabon, Bank of Central African States,
The Gambia, Central Bank of The Gambia,
Georgia, National Bank of Georgia,
Germany, Deutsche Bundesbank,
Ghana, Bank of Ghana,
Greece, Bank of Greece,
Guatemala, Bank of Guatemala,

Guinea Bissau, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Guyana, Bank of Guyana,
Haiti, Central Bank of Haiti ,
Honduras, Central Bank of Honduras,
Hong Kong, Hong Kong Monetary Authority,
Hungary, Magyar Nemzeti Bank,
Iceland, Central Bank of Iceland,
India, Reserve Bank of India,
Indonesia, Bank Indonesia,
Iran, The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Iraq, Central Bank of Iraq,

Ireland, Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland,
Israel, Bank of Israel,
Italy, Bank of Italy,
Jamaica, Bank of Jamaica,
Japan, Bank of Japan,
Jordan, Central Bank of Jordan,
Kazakhstan, National Bank of Kazakhstan,
Kenya, Central Bank of Kenya,
Korea, Bank of Korea,
Kuwait, Central Bank of Kuwait,
Kyrgyzstan, National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic,
Latvia, Bank of Latvia,
Lebanon, Central Bank of Lebanon,
Lesotho, Central Bank of Lesotho,

Libya, Central Bank of Libya,

us-homeland-security-seal-plaque_m-747261

Uruguay, Central Bank of Uruguay,
Lithuania, Bank of Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Central Bank of Luxembourg,
Macao, Monetary Authority of Macao,
Macedonia, National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia,
Madagascar, Central Bank of Madagascar,
Malawi, Reserve Bank of Malawi,
Malaysia, Central Bank of Malaysia,
Mali, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Malta, Central Bank of Malta,
Mauritius, Bank of Mauritius,
Mexico, Bank of Mexico,
Moldova, National Bank of Moldova,
Mongolia, Bank of Mongolia,
Montenegro, Central Bank of Montenegro,
Morocco, Bank of Morocco,
Mozambique, Bank of Mozambique,
Namibia, Bank of Namibia,
Nepal, Central Bank of Nepal,
Netherlands, Netherlands Bank,
Netherlands Antilles, Bank of the Netherlands Antilles,
New Zealand, Reserve Bank of New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Central Bank of Nicaragua,
Niger, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Nigeria, Central Bank of Nigeria,
Norway, Central Bank of Norway,
Oman, Central Bank of Oman,
Pakistan, State Bank of Pakistan,
Papua New Guinea, Bank of Papua New Guinea,
Paraguay, Central Bank of Paraguay,
Peru, Central Reserve Bank of Peru,
Philip Pines, Bangko Sentralng Pilipinas,
Poland, National Bank of Poland,
Portugal, Bank of Portugal,
Qatar, Qatar Central Bank,
Romania, National Bank of Romania,
Russia, Central Bank of Russia,

Rwanda, National Bank of Rwanda,
San Marino, Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino,
Samoa, Central Bank of Samoa,
Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency,

Senegal, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Serbia, National Bank of Serbia,
Seychelles, Central Bank of Seychelles,
Sierra Leone, Bank of Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Monetary Authority of Singapore,
Slovakia, National Bank of Slovakia,
Slovenia, Bank of Slovenia,
Solomon Islands, Central Bank of Solomon Islands,
South Africa, South African Reserve Bank,
Spain, Bank of Spain,
Sri Lanka, Central Bank of Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Bank of Sudan,
Surinam, Central Bank of Suriname,
Swaziland, The Central Bank of Swaziland,
Sweden, Sveriges Riksbank,
Switzerland, Swiss National Bank,

Tajikistan, National Bank of Tajikistan,
Tanzania, Bank of Tanzania,
Thailand, Bank of Thailand,
Togo, Central Bank of West African States, (BCEAO),
Tonga, National Reserve Bank of Tonga,
Trinidad and Tobago, Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago,
Tunisia, Central Bank of Tunisia,
Turkey, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey,

Uganda, Bank of Uganda,
Ukraine, National Bank of Ukraine,
United Arab Emirates, Central Bank of United Arab Emirates,

United Kingdom, Bank of England,

United States, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York,

US-FederalReserveSystem-Seal_svg_

Vanuatu, Reserve Bank of Vanuatu,
Venezuela, Central Bank of Venezuela,

Vietnam, The State Bank of Vietnam,
Yemen, Central Bank of Yemen,
Zambia, Bank of Zambia,
Zimbabwe, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe,
Bank For International Settlements, (BIS),

One-fifth of incoming UN Security Council has no ties with Israel

 

By HERB KEINON

Israel is losing a good friend on the council with the exit of Australia.

The United Nations, in an annual exercise, voted in five countries last week to begin serving two-year stints on the Security Council, beginning on January 1. Although there was some good news for Israel in the results, most of it was bad.

The good news is that the Turkey of Israel-bashing President Recep Tayyip Erdogan failed in its bid for one of the five rotating, non-permanent seats, losing in balloting to Spain. The bad news is that of the five new members, two of them – Venezuela and Malaysia – do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.

What that means is that when the members of the new council take their seats in January for a year in which Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is likely to make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a major agenda item on the council’s schedule, fully 20 percent of the 15-member body are so hostile to Israel as to refuse to have diplomatic relations. (Venezuela and Malaysia will be joining Chad – which still has another year to serve on the council – in this dubious distinction.) In 2011, when the Palestinians tried unsuccessfully to secure the nine votes on the council needed to gain membership as a UN state, only one of the 15 countries – Lebanon – did not have ties with Israel.

Even if the Palestinians do get nine votes, the US can – and probably will – use its veto to quell the type of resolution that the Palestinians are now considering: calling for a strict timetable for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines if an agreement is not reached within a year. But not only does Washington not want to have to use this veto – which would seemingly pit it against the opinion of the world – but Israel does not want to put the US in the position of having to do so.

The Palestinians are likely to wait until the new Security Council to push through their measure, because the incoming class is considerably more favorably inclined to them than the outgoing one.

In addition to the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council – the US, China, Russia, France and Britain – the outgoing, 2014 council includes Lithuania, Chile, Jordan, Chad, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Korea, Argentina, Australia and Luxembourg.

The last five countries will be replaced in Jan uary, with Rwanda being replaced by Angola, South Korea by Malaysia, Argentina by Venezuela, Australia by New Zealand, and Luxembourg by Spain.

Israel is losing a good friend on the council with the exit of Australia.

Australia under Prime Minister Tony Abbott is outspokenly supportive of Israel; New Zealand is not. Still, if the US, Australia and the EU are opposed to a Palestinian resolution – and apply pressure on Wellington – it is difficult to imagine New Zealand bucking the pressure and voting with the non-aligned and Muslim blocs. But, as one source in Jerusalem said, if Israel could rely on Australia with its eyes closed, it can rely on New Zealand only with its eyes open.

Rwanda, one of Israel’s strongest friends in Africa, is being replaced by Angola, a country with which Israel has strong business ties – Israeli firms are active in developing Angola’s vast infrastructure – but not nearly as close as a relationship as it enjoys with Rwanda. In 2011, the refusal of Gabon to back the Palestinian move in the Security Council helped sink it, a role Angola could play in 2014 – but a role it is not guaranteed to want to play.

Spain is replacing Luxembourg as Europe’s non-permanent member of the council, and there is unlikely to be any change of voting patterns with this development. Both countries are considered to be tough toward Israel inside the EU, with Luxembourg even worse than Spain when looking at – and ranking – Israel’s friends and critics inside the EU.

Spain’s government has been more understanding toward Israel in the last couple of years, even though Spanish public opinion is overwhelmingly negative. In any event, Spain – like Luxembourg – is unlikely to vote independently on high-profile Israeli-Palestinian issues, but rather follow the EU’s position. Luxembourg, one source said, is a self-righteous, moralizing, lecturing little country. Spain, he said, is a self-righteous, moralizing, lecturing big country.

Another incoming member, Venezuela, is a stridently anti-Israeli and anti-US country that is aligned with Iran and Cuba. It will replace Argentina. Truth be told, Argentina could not be counted on to support Israel in Security Council votes, so it is unlikely this is a swing vote. But there is a difference: While Argentina might have gone along with a pro-Palestinian campaign in the council, Venezuela will likely lead it.

The biggest change in terms of losing one friendly country that would give Israel a fair hearing in exchange for a hostile country that will not, is the replacement of South Korea with Malaysia.

Whereas Israel could expect South Korea to abstain in significant votes on its issues in the Security Council – partly because it does not want to follow China’s lead, and partly because it keeps an eye on how Washington votes – Malaysia will surely vote against Israel, and, like Venezuela, likely lead the campaign in the council against it.

While the Security Council will in 2015 be more tilted toward the Palestinians, this does not mean that the game is over and the Palestinians have their nine votes to force a US veto in the bag. It does mean, however, that they are closer to that goal. And one of ramifications of this is that Israel will be more reliant next year for Washington to “save” it in the Security Council than it was in 2014.

Felines animals

Jaguar

Leopard

Lion

Tiger