Present world order is doomed to fail because of its inherent inhuman and unjust characteristics, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, addressing the 12th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in the Chinese capital, IRNA reported.
The two-day meeting opened on June 6. President Ahmadinejad called on the world nations to try to remove the existing global problems.
Ahmadinejad pointed to the rich civilization of the East which focuses on the establishment of peace and security over the globe and said all world nations wanted to build a better world.
He added, the inefficient and discriminatory system now ruling the world has pushed the world to a critical and irreversible point which imposes unwanted problems for all countries.
He then referred to the economic crisis that has embraced the world and hurt all nations and said the problems are now transforming into social and economic crises.
Iranian president described the former colonial powers' acute desire to revive the old, when they enjoyed looting of nations especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America, under the deceiving claims of defending freedom and democracy as the main cause of clashes, wars and crises worldwide.
Saying that today Asian states are rapidly moving towards success and progress which ultimately puts the region at the top of world economy, President Ahmadinejad underlined that the present world is in dire need of an order which respects the rights of all nations on the basis of peace, justice and friendship.
The President then presented his proposals for achieving that goal which also included strengthening of convergence among those international and regional countries which pursue justice, fostering economic cooperation and planning for new financial system, establishment of international bodies free from the hegemonic domination, and promoting political and cultural cooperation in order to deepen friendship.
The Iranian President at the end wished success, peace and tranquility for the global nations.
Trend
Washington is running out of patience with Pakistan over alleged safe havens for Taliban militants, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has warned.
On an unannounced trip to Kabul, he said Islamabad must act against the Haqqani militant network, which attacks Nato troops based in Afghanistan.
Mr Panetta's visit comes amid a recent rise in insurgent attacks in the war against the Taliban, including one on Wednesday in which 22 people died.
Pakistan denies providing safe havens.
Pakistani officials have previously pointed to army operations against militant organisations in tribal areas, adding that many hundreds of Pakistani civilians and troops have died at the hands of such groups.
Washington has for many years urged Islamabad to deal with the militants based in its tribal regions.Increasingly strained
I think it's important to make sure we are aware of the kind of attacks [the Taliban] are going to engage in... as we go through the rest of the summer”Leon PanettaUS defence secretary
"We are reaching the limits of our patience here," Mr Panetta said after talks with Afghanistan's defence minister.
He singled out the Haqqani militant network, which is widely believed to be based in Pakistan's volatile north-western tribal areas, and has been blamed for some of the most audacious attacks on Afghan soil in recent years.
On Wednesday, suicide attackers killed at least 22 people, almost all of them civilians, in an attack near a Nato base in Kandahar. Afghan officials say that 18 civilians were killed by a Nato air strike in Logar province.
"It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan," Mr Panetta said.
"It is very important for Pakistan to take steps. It is an increasing concern, the issue of safe haven," he said.
Relations between Washington and Islamabad have become increasingly strained following the unilateral US raid into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
Tensions are also high over continuing US drone strikes in Pakistan and Islamabad's refusal to re-open a Nato supply route to Afghanistan which it closed down in November after 24 of its soldiers were killed on the border in a Nato air strike.
Analysts say that Pakistan's co-operation is crucial as Nato tries to stabilise Afghanistan before most foreign combat troops leave the country at the end of 2014.Porous border
But last September outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm Mike Mullen said that the Haqqani network "acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency".
Mr Panetta said he was concerned about recent insurgent attacks in Afghanistan
The following month, Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani warned the US that it should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region.
Officials say efforts to combat militancy also have been hindered by the fact that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan has control over parts of the porous border area.
But analysts believe that Pakistan is reluctant to open a new front in its fight against militancy by attacking the Haqqani network, believed to be in the tribal region of North Waziristan.
As he arrived in Kabul, Mr Panetta told reporters that he wanted to hear an assessment from commanders about a recent rise in insurgent attacks and plans for troop withdrawals.
He said that while insurgent attacks appeared better organised, the overall level of violence had reduced compared with previous years.
Speaking to troops gathered at the airport in Kabul, Mr Panetta said that "we have every responsibility to defend ourselves and... we've got to put pressure on Pakistan to take them on as well".
His visit comes at the end of his week-long trip to Asia to explain a new US military strategy, announced in January, that calls for a shift in strategic focus to the Asia-Pacific region.
BBC
Suva, June 7 (Xinhua-ANI): A 5.9-magnitude earthquake jolted Fiji at 090152 GMT on Thursday, the U.S. Geological Survey said.
The epicenter, with a depth of 271.50 km, was initially determined to be at 20.1250 degrees south latitude and 176.3017 degrees west longitude. (Xinhua-ANI)
News Track India
A ruling from Judge Tim L. Garcia in the New Mexico Court of Appeals says states can require Christians to violate their faith in order to do business, affirming a penalty of nearly $7,000 for a photographer who refused to take pictures at a lesbian “commitment” ceremony in the state where same-sex “marriage” was illegal.
Judges Cynthia Fry and James Wechsler joined in the ruling by Garcia, which involved Elane Photography, whose owners, Elaine and Jonathan Huegeunin, are Christians and declined to do photography for lesbians Vanessa Willock and another woman.
The women complained under the state’s anti-discrimination requirements and a state commission, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, imposed the penalty, which now has been affirmed by the appeals court judges. The judges explained in the 45-page ruling that the photography company is a “public accommodation” and those cannot discriminate under state law based on “sexual orientation.”
“The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests,” the judges wrote.
Officials with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been representing Elane, said there would be an appeal.
“Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.”
It started in 2006 when Willock asked Elaine Huguenin to take pictures at her “commitment” ceremony. It was in 2009 when the ADF appealed a trial judge’s ruling in favor of the lesbians.
In reaching their decision the judges aligned photography with those that are “an essential service” under state law.
“Services, facilities and accommodations are available to the general public through a variety of resources. Elane Photography takes advantage of these available resources to market to the public at large and invite them to solicit services offered by its photography business,” the judges explained.
They cited the idea of a KKK rally asking an black photographer to supply his work, and the photographer refusing. Could then the KKK cite racial discrimination?
“The Ku Klux Klan is not a protected class,” opined the judges. “Sexual orientation, however, is protected.”
The judges continued, “The act of photographing a same-sex ceremony does not express any opinions regarding same-sex commitments, or disseminate a personal message about such ceremonies.”
They called the state requirement “a neutral regulation of commercial conduct” and said that it does not “infringe upon freedom of speech or compel unwanted expression.”
The judges wrote that the photography company’s claim of protection under the state constitution’s requirement that “no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion” was not applicable.
The judges suggested the interesting scenario of the photographer accepting the job, and vocally condemning the women while taking pictures.
“The owners are free to express their religious beliefs and tell Willock or anyone else what they think about same-sex relationships and same-sex ceremonies,” they said.
The district court decision had come from Alan M. Malott.
Malott’s ruling said the Christian owners were compelled to photograph the ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misty Pascottini because of the state’s interest in preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation.
“Once one offers a service publicly, they must do so without impermissible exception,” the judge wrote. “Therefore, plaintiff could refuse to photograph animals or even small children, just as an architect could design only commercial buildings and not private residences. Neither animals, nor small children, nor private residences are protected classes,” he wrote.
When the district judge’s decision arrived, it seemed to substantiate the concerns of opponents of a federal “hate crimes” bill signed into law by President Obama during his first year in office that gives homosexuals special rights. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted in a congressional hearing that under the measure an attack on a homosexual would be dealt with differently than one on another citizen.
Benjamin Bull, chief counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, noted at that time, “Homosexuals got exactly what they wanted. In the marketplace of ideas, one side has now been censored. This [situation] is exactly what homosexual activists have in mind.”
Interestingly, a subsequent poll revealed that almost half of Americans believe that Christians in the United States are being persecuted by homosexual “marriage” advocates who take legal action against them over their religious beliefs, and almost one in three Democrats believes such persecution is “necessary,” according to the alarming results of a new poll
The results are from a WND/WENZEL Poll conducted for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
It found that 49.2 percent of all respondents consider the legal activism against Christians and their beliefs regarding homosexuality to be “persecution.”
The question was, “There is a trend developing in which gay activists are filing lawsuits against people who refuse to do business with them on moral/religious grounds – such as when a New Mexico photographer was sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to photograph their wedding. Knowing this, which of the following statements most closely represents what you think about this?”
More than two of three Republicans called it “persecution of Christians,” along with 45 percent of independents. Even 33.1 percent of Democrats had he same answer.
But 31 percent of Democrats, as well as 12 percent of Republicans and 24 percent of independents, said, “Such tactics are necessary.”
WND
