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Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn.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]

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),

Civitan International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Civitan)
This article is about the adult service organization. For the youth service organization, see Junior Civitan International.
Civitan International
Civitan International new logo.png
Founded 1917
Founder Courtney Shropshire
Focus Developmental Disabilities
Location
Area served Worldwide in 28 countries
Method Community service through service clubs, charitable grants
Members 40,000
Revenue US$ 2,200,000 (2007)
Slogan “Building Volunteer Leaders in Clubs Around the World”
Website http://www.civitan.org

Civitan International, based in Birmingham, Alabama, is an association of community service clubs founded in 1917. The organization aims “to build good citizenship by providing a volunteer organization of clubs dedicated to serving individual and community needs with an emphasis on helping people with developmental disabilities.” The organization includes 40,000 members (referred to as Civitans) in almost 1,000 clubs around the world.

History[edit]

In 1917, a group of Birmingham, Alabama, businessmen were members of the local Rotary club. Many of the men thought that the club focused too much on increasing the business of club members, so they surrendered their club’s charter. Led by Courtney Shropshire, a local doctor, they formed an independent service club named Civitan, derived from the Latin word for citizenship.[1] Since the creation of Esperanto in 1887 “civitan” has been the root—civitano in common usage—for the word “citizen”. Rotary’s first fellowship was its Esperanto-speaking fellowship.[2]

The United States entered World War I just one month after the club formed. With all attention focused on the war, Civitan remained a local organization. Some of the earliest projects the club undertook supported soldiers,[3] helped European war orphans, and encouraged voter participation through the payment of poll taxes.[4]

Herbert Hoover (bottom right) holding a reception for delegates to the 12th Civitan International Convention

Shropshire envisioned an international organization of Civitan clubs dedicated to serving humanity. The process to incorporate was begun, and the International Association of Civitan Clubs was founded in 1920. In the years immediately following World War I, the organization saw rapid growth. By June 1922 at the second international convention, delegates from 115 clubs attended; there were more than 3,300 Civitans throughout the United States. Service clubs like Civitan were extremely popular, since they promoted the spirit of optimism which characterized much of the Roaring Twenties.

The vast multiplication of voluntary organizations for altruistic purposes are themselves proof of the ferment of spirituality, service, and mutual responsibility. These associations for advancement of public welfare, improvement, morals, charity, public opinion, health, the clubs and societies for recreation and intellectual advancement, represent something moving at a far greater depth than “joining.” They represent the widespread aspiration for mutual advancement, self-expression, and neighborly helpfulness.
Herbert Hoover, 1922[5]

The club suffered sharp declines in membership and fundraising during the Great Depression. Some also questioned the necessity of service clubs after the New Deal‘s creation of relief programs. The organization persevered, in part due to cooperation with Rotary, Kiwanis, and Lions clubs. One of the few brightspots in the 1930s was the creation and rapid growth of the first Junior Civitan clubs.

B-25 named for the Shadyside Civitan Club

The organization experienced another noticeable drop in membership at the outbreak of World War II, since many of its civic-minded members were among the first to volunteer for military service. Civitans who remained at home organized scrap metal collections,war bond sales, and blood drives. One club in Birmingham, Alabama, held so many successful bond drives that the Army Air Forces named a B-25[6] and a P-47[7] in the club’s honor.

The period after World War II saw another surge in growth. There were 10,000 members by 1947,[8] with membership tripling in size between 1946 and 1956 as Civitan became the sixth largest service club in the United States.[9] By 1960, there were 34,000 active Civitans in 998 clubs.[10] One reason that Civitan expanded so quickly was the flexibility that it allowed to clubs in other countries. Compromises over issues such as the Civitan creed and membership dues allowed the ethnically diverse organization to maintain a strong sense of unity.[11]

By the 1950s, Civitan’s focus had shifted to helping the developmentally disabled. The Civitan International Foundation, established in 1960, provided financial support for many organizations and programs which benefited developmentally disabled individuals. By 2005, the Civitan International Foundation had provided $13,000,000 in grants to the UABCivitan International Research Center, the first institution in the United States to focus solely on researching developmental disabilities.[12]

Charitable work[edit]

Service projects[edit]

Each club is issued a banner when it is organized. Patches are added to the banner to recognize significant awards, achievements, and milestones.

On a local level, individual Civitan clubs undertake various service projects which benefit their local communities. Examples of club projects include maintaining a section of highway (the Tyler Civitan Club was the first to volunteer for the Adopt a Highway program),[13] promoting the creation of hospitals,[14] honoring community leaders,[15] supporting local reading programs,[16] sponsoring children in financial need,[17]purchasing playground equipment for developmentally disabled children,[18] and holding events for developmentally disabled individuals.[19]Clubs operate independently of the international organization or other clubs, leaving them free to participate in whatever service they deem appropriate.

Focus on developmental disabilities[edit]

While individual clubs are free to pursue their own projects, on an international level Civitan is focused on service to the developmentally disabled. This emphasis was adopted in 1956,[20] with Civitans becoming some of the first to provide special training for teachers of developmentally disabled children.[21]

Civitan continues to focus on assisting those with developmental disabilities. In 1990, the Civitan International Research Center was established on the campus of the University of Alabama at Birmingham with a $20,000,000 grant from the Civitan International Foundation.[22] The Civitan International Research Center was the first institution of its kind in the United States to be focused solely on the research of developmental disabilities. Medical professionals from all over the world also come to the center for training on developmental disabilities.

Clergy Appreciation Week[edit]

One of Civitan’s most significant international events is Clergy Appreciation Week, inspired by the story of the Four Chaplains. Begun in 1964, the interfaith event honors the sacrifice of the Four Chaplains by encouraging citizens to thank the clergy who serve their communities.[23][24]The week usually involves Civitan clubs presenting local clergy with an award or certificate of appreciation. Local mayors often sign a proclamation recognizing Clergy Appreciation Week and encouraging its observance.

Junior Civitan International[edit]

Junior Civitan International is one of Civitan’s oldest and most successful programs. Students between the ages of 13 and 18 can join a Junior Civitan club at their school or in their community. Each Junior Civitan club is sponsored by a senior Civitan club and promotes student leadership, character development, and community service.

YP Civitan[edit]

YP Civitan clubs are designed to provide community service and networking opportunities for young professionals aged 21 to 35. YP Civitan of Greensboro, North Carolina was chartered on June 25, 2013 as the first YP Civitan club.[25]

World Citizenship Award[edit]

Dwight Eisenhower receives the World Citizenship Award on June 9, 1966.

Civitan has awarded its World Citizenship Award to those “who have made significant contributions to mankind.”[10] Recipients of the award include Winston Churchill, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Wernher von Braun, Thor Heyerdahl, and Eunice Kennedy Shriver

Candy Box Project[edit]

The Civitan Candy Box Project, one of Civitan’s oldest and most successful fundraising programs, has raised $50,000,000 since its inception in 1976. Civitan volunteers place boxes of mints at businesses in their community, and patrons donate money to take a piece of candy. Volunteers collect the money, keeping some for club service projects and sending the rest to Civitan International for its charitable projects.[26]

Claxton fruitcake sales[edit]

Civitan’s other important fundraiser involves the sale of Claxton Bakery’s fruitcakes. This partnership began in 1951 when Tampa Civitan club (#0202) member Earl Carver enjoyed the cake so much that he suggested they be sold nationally as a fundraiser.[27] Each year during the holiday season, local Civitan clubs sell millions of pounds of fruitcake.[28] The proceeds from these sales benefit Civitan International’s work with developmentally disabled persons.

International activities[edit]

Civitan has clubs in 29 countries and maintains a strong international focus. Because of its long history of service in West Africa, Civitan was invited by the Special Court for Sierra Leone to monitor the war crimes trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, held at the International Criminal Court facilities in The Hague.[29] Civitan clubs are active in the following countries:[30]

Famous Civitans[edit]

Several well-known individuals have been Civitans, including:[31]

See also

Israeli security sources say that the deadly Ebola virus may be spreading among member of ISIS (Islamic State) in Syria.

 

The report states that dozens of ISIS terrorists have come down with symptoms identical to the killer virus which has claimed over 6,574 victims in five West African countries – Senegal and Nigeria are the other two – with 3,091 deaths reported.

The UN mission to combat Ebola opened its headquarters today in Ghana, where it will co-ordinate aid for the accelerating West African crisis.

The spread of Ebola has spiraled into the worst-ever outbreak, as the World Health Organization says it is has associated more than 3,000 deaths to the disease, although that is likely an underestimate of the real toll. Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea have been hit hardest. Senegal and Nigeria have also been affected, but have not reported a new case in weeks.

“We know that ISIS has training camps in Africa and it is highly possible that this is where contact with the disease was made,” said Avi, a global, anti-terrorism consultant. “This would add new meaning to the US stating that “no boots would be on the ground as both missiles and Ebola penetrates one of the worst evils the world has ever known.”

The success of Islamic State (ISIS) could shape the thinking of African Islamists, said Andrew Muzonzini, Zimbabwe’s head of external intelligence and a member of the African Union’s Committee of Intelligence and Security Services of Africa (CISSA).

“Given (Islamic State’s) brutality in pursuit of its cause, it would be prudent for us to brace ourselves for a new cadre-ship of extremist fanatics,” Muzonzini said at a CISSA conference in Nairobi.