Wednesday, May 4, 2016

On Arafat- Elias Choufani, his daughter and her poetic license



Arafat addresses the UN General Assembly, Geneva 1988

Arafat with his men in 1982

Arafat at the UN in  1974

Arafat under siege in his compound in Ramallah






PLO leader Yasser ‪#‎Arafat‬ was a leader of a revolution who received in 1974 a standing ovation at the General Assembly. He led his men, on the ground, in 1982 under extraordinary circumstances with the PLO and allies vastly out-manned and outgunned. In 1988, because the US denied Arafat a visa, the UN General Assembly took the extraordinary measure of moving its meeting from NYC to Geneva so that he could address it.

‪#‎EliasChoufani‬, whose daughter made a "poetic piece" where he attacks Arafat, is a mere paper pusher- with strong 'tude. A chickenhawk who never saw any military action.
Of course the enemies of the Palestinian people will focus on the paper pusher, his daughter and her poetic work- and will use his "poetic words" to attack Arafat's legacy.
Choufani's poetic license deserves a less than poetic response.

AHRC Annual Banquet "Spirits of Humanity Gala" to be held on May 12, 2016 at Greenfield Manor in Dearborn


Imad Hamad, AHRC Executive Director

Dr. Rima Khalaf, Under-Secretary and Executive of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), in Beirut, Lebanon



The Michigan- based American Human Rights Council (AHRC) is holding its annual gala on May 12, 2016 at Greenfield Manor in Dearborn, MI. This year's gala has an impressive keynote speaker and honorees. Below is the information on the gala provided by the AHRC:



AHRC is pleased to host High Official of the United Nations for its 2016 "Spirit of Humanity" Gala.

The American Human Rights Council (AHRC-USA) is pleased to host at this year's annual gala
Dr. Rima Khalaf, Under-Secretary and Executive of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA), in Beirut, Lebanon. Dr. Khalaf previously served as the Regional Bureau for Arab States with the United Nations Development Program where she initiated projects to promote good governance, human rights, and human development in Arab countries. In addition, Dr. Khalaf was the principal architect behind the pioneering ESCWA Arab Human Development Report "Arab Integration: A 21st Century Development Imperative Report."
Dr. Khalaf has served in senior development positions in Jordan, and has participated in various international commissions, including the High Level Commission of the Modernization of the World Bank Group Governance.
Dr. Khalaf is a citizen of Jordan and holds a BA in Economics from the American University of Beirut, a Master's in Economics and a Ph.D in System Science from Portland State University.
"It is great to have Dr. Khalaf as our keynote speaker for our "Spirit of Humanity" Gala this year.  AHRC and the entire metro Detroit community in honored to host her and listen to her insights on advancing and protecting human rights." said Dr. Opada Alzohaili, President of the Board of Directors of AHRC-USA.
"AHRC is very honored to receive and host such an esteemed and highly regarded United Nations official, “said Imad Hamad, AHRC Executive Director."Dr. Khalaf's work promoting and advancing human rights, good governance, economic growth, and social development in Arab countries is tremendous and we are pleased that she will be in Dearborn, Michigan at our "Spirit of Humanity" Gala, joining us in honoring human rights and human dignity worldwide," added Mr. Hamad.


For more information about Dr. Khalaf's work with the United Nations ESCWA, please visit https://www.unescwa.org/


Source: http://www.ahrcusa.org/

Saturday, April 9, 2016

AHRC Executive director Imad Hamad: Changing the Culture to Combat Terrorism

The American Human Rights Council Executive Director, Imad Hamad, published an excellent column in the Detroit News on the issue of terrorism and cultural change. It reads:


Terrorism is a global problem. Recently, there have been attacks in Turkey, Iraq, Mali, Belgium and Pakistan. It seems that almost no place on Earth is immune from the threat of terrorism. Granted, terrorism is a complex phenomenon and usually has many causes. Today, the world perceives terrorism committed by those of Arab nationality and/or those of Muslim faith as one of the most pressing threats to global security.
In countering terrorism, all decent, peace-loving people are in the same camp and are all required to be part of the solution instead of being spectators to unfolding tragedies.
Our duty and responsibility as peace-loving people is to help create a culture that values human rights of all people, and therefore helps immunize our youths against the virus of hate that focuses on the demographic background of the target and on political objectives rather than on people’s basic humanity.
In addition to laudable law enforcement efforts to disrupt and prevent terror, there are other efforts that can help counter terrorism. Many people wonder after every terror attack, why would anyone attack human beings indiscriminately, people whom the perpetrators do not know? One of the key factors that lead to these indiscriminate attacks is the world outlook of the attackers. The work for us in the human rights community is to change that.
As to the Muslim and Arab worlds, historically there were two major ideological projects — pan-Islamism and pan-Arabism. Both outlooks divided the world into us and them. Pan- Islamism called for the brotherhood and unity of all Muslims regardless of their national or ethnic background. Pan-Arabism called for the unity of the Arabs. Pan Arabism won the war of ideas until 1967.
However, the defeat of Egypt’s President Gamal Abdel Nasser was deemed a defeat of Arab nationalism as a viable ideology and pan-Islamism presented itself as the savior ideology.
We in the human rights community take no issue with political ideology. It is a freedom of expression issue. However, when a society in this day and age defines itself along the lines of Muslim or non-Muslim, without being enmeshed in a larger milieu of an emphasis on human rights and human brotherhood, this creates a fertile ground where misguided youths or youths with criminal backgrounds would not hesitate to attack the other.
In creating a cultural emphasis of respect for the human rights of all, and in the belief in the brotherhood of all humanity, we help prepare a society that has belief in human rights and humanity in its DNA.
Imad Hamad is executive director of the American Human Rights Council in Dearborn.

Source: the Detroit News, 4/8/2016

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/04/08/letter-hamad-culture-american-human-rights-council-dearborn/82826246/

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

The Federal Southern District Court of New York: Iran shares responsibility for the 9/11 attacks




Southern District Court of New York





The Federal Southern District Court of New York: Iran shares responsibility for the 9/11 attacks
Court holds Iran and Hizbullah provided material support to al Qaeda
Case based on expert testimony, Iran does not participate*

The Arab media reported that an American court held Iran responsible, along with al Qaeda, for the 9/11 attacks.  There is a large number of civil cases filed by American citizens against Iran seeking damages for acts of terrorism around the world. Iran, for example, was held liable for the kidnapping and killing of American citizens in Beirut in the 1980s and ordered it to pay millions of dollars to the families of the victims and to the former prisoners. One of these victims is the former AP reporter Terry Anderson who, according to the Court, was held by a Hizbullah front group, Islamic Jihad, for 7 years in the 1980s. Anderson was paid about 6 million dollars from Iranian assets as compensation for this imprisonment. He wrote a book, Den of Lions: A Startling Memoir of Survival and Triumph about his experience. Another of the hostages, Reverend Terry Waite also wrote a memoir, Taken on Trust, about his years of captivity and also accused Hizbullah, Iran and the late Hizbullah top operational man, Imad Moghnieh, of being behind his ordeal.

Countries or states as they are referred to in international law, have sovereign immunity.  How is anyone able to sue a sovereign country? What did the Court find Iran liable for? What is the evidence? A case from the Southern District of New York, Havlish v. Bin Laden, et al. answered these questions.  Iran did not participate in the proceedings.  The judge decided the case mainly on expert testimony.

 Below are excerpts from the case. The questions are mine and the answer is an excerpt from the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

*How does an American court have jurisdiction over Iran, a sovereign country?
Pg. 3, #1: The court’s jurisdiction over Iran and the agency instrumentality Defendants is grounded in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. 1602, et seq. Section 1605A of the FSIA also serves as the basis for liability claims asserted by plaintiffs who are United States nationals.

*We see much Sunni-Shiite tensions in the world today.  Why and how did the Court find that Iran was working with Sunni terrorists who are known as anti- Shiite?
Pg. 16, #2: In the early 1990s, casting aside the historic bitterness between the Sunni and Shi’a sects of Islam, Sudanese religious-political leader Hassan al Turabi and Iran’s political leaderships and intelligence connections, beginning a united Sunni-Shiite front against the United States and the West. Ex. 6, Lopwz-Tefft Affid. 132-33; Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 48.

*The controversial Sunni Islamist leader Hassan al Turabi, who passed away recently, was fingered by the Court. What role did he play in bringing Iran and Sunni terrorists together?
Pg. 16, #2: While Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were headquartered in Sudan in the early 1990s, Hassan al Turabi fostered the creation of a foundation and alliance for combined Sunni and Shi’a opposition to the United States and the West, an effort that was agreed to and joined by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri, leaders of al Qaeda , and by the leadership of Iran.  9/11 REPORT, pp. 60-61; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft Affid. 132; Ex. 3, Byman Affid. 23; see also 18-22, 24-28.

*The Court claimed that Iran provided much material support for al Qaeda, support without which the Court held it would have been harder for al Qaeda to attack the US on 9/11 and kill three thousand Americans. What is an example of that material support?
Pg. 20, #3: U.S., Saudi, and Egyptian political pressure on the Sudanese eventually forced them to expel Osama bin Laden in May 1996. Radical Afghan Sunni warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a strong Iranian ally, invited bin Laden to join him in Afghanistan. Hekmatyar and bin Laden had known each other during the 1980’s Afghan mujaheddin-Soviet war. Osama bin Laden then relocated to Afghanistan with the assistance of the Iranian intelligence services. Ex. 15, U.S. embassy (Islamabad) Cable, November 12, 1996; Ex. 7, Bergman Affid. 64; Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 99; see also 9/11 REPORT at pg. 65.

*The Saudis blame al Qaeda for the Khobar Tower attack that killed Americans. How was Iran involved in that attack?
Pg. 20, #4: The 9/11 Commission examined classified CIA documents establishing that IRGC-Qods Force commander Ahmad Vahidi planned the Khobar Towers attack with Ahmad al Mugassil, a Saudi-born al Qaeda operative. 9/11 REPORT, p. 60, n. 48. See Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 85-86.
A U.S. district court held that Iran was factually and legally responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing. Heiser v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 466 F. Supp. 2d 229 (D.D.C. 2006).

*Did Iran provide logistical support to al Qaeda, as to travel? Was Hizbullah part of that support? How?
Pg. 24, #5: The second way in which Iran furnished material and direct support for the 9/11 attacks was that a terrorist agent of Iran and Hizballah helped coordinate travel by future Saudi hijackers. As ­­­found by the 9/11 Commission, “[i]n October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved.” 9/11 REPORT at pg. 240.

*The Court connected the Lebanese Shiite Hizbullah to al-Qaeda. What role did Hizbullah play in the al Qaeda 9/11 attacks? What are the connections between the two groups that America calls terrorist organizations?

Pg. 25, #6: The actions of the “senior Hizballah operative,”Imad Mughniyah, and his “associate” and a “top commander” of Hizballah, in escorting 9/11 hijackers on flights to and from Iran, and coordinating passport and visa acquisition activities in Saudi Arabia also constituted direct and material support for the 9/11 conspiracy. 9/11 REPORT, pp. 240-41; Ex. 4, Kephart Affid. passin and specifically 3-5, 66, 70, 78; Ex. 6, Lopez-Tefft Affid. 104-07, 112-20, 264, 277; Ex. 3, Byman Affid. 32; 46-47, 49-50; Ex. 2, Timmerman 2nd Affid. 118-24; Ex. 7, Bergman Affid. 17; Ex. 8, Clawson Affid. 48-49, 59.


* Forum and Link. 4/7/2016. www.forumandlink.com






          

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

United States v. Odeh: The 6th Circuit decision and its implications


Ms Rasmea Odeh is a Palestinian American leader and activist who worked for years helping immigrant women in the Chicago area. She has an excellent reputation as a true activist and a true leader dedicated to helping others. After living a normal and peaceful life in the US, she found herself in a legal nightmare.
          Ms Odeh’s nightmare began when the US department of Justice charged her with illegally obtaining her citizenship. The government charged that Odeh lied about having a criminal record. Many years ago, Israel had charged her and convicted her of terrorism. The jury found her guilty. She lost her citizenship, the judge imposed a prison sentence and ordered her deported after serving time in prison. Her defense team appealed to the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati.
          The Odeh case has mobilized a large number of people and organizations from all kinds of backgrounds. Ms Odeh is a well known and respected activist and leader. There was a sense that her case is a political case- that she is being targeted by the government for her activism. Many thought that a woman like Odeh should recognized and honored instead of imprisoned and deported.
          The defense team appealed her case, raising a number of important legal questions. The Circuit court decided on the appeal on February 25, a few days ago. This decision was seen as a partial victory for Ms Odeh. But what did this decision entail?
          There are three opinions in the Court’s decision. One is the opinion signed on by the three judges that heard the case, a separate opinion by Judge Karen Moore and another separate opinion by Judge Batchelder.  The court’s opinion is the opinion as to the appeal but the separate opinions are important and shed light into important aspects of the case. The three- judge panel wrote:
“On appeal, Odeh’s primary argument is that she was denied the right to present a complete defense because the district court precluded her witness, an expert in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), from testifying about why Odeh did not know that her statements were false. Odeh maintains that the expert would have testified that Odeh’s alleged torture in an Israeli prison gave her PTSD, which shaped the way that she viewed questions about her criminal history in the naturalization application. Because this type of testimony is not categorically inadmissible to negate a defendant’s knowledge of the falsity of a statement, the district court must consider the admissibility of the testimony.” At a minimum, Odeh will get an evidentiary hearing to determine if the PTSD testimony is to be allowed. The Court did not order that she be given a new trial but if the trial court deems the PTSD testimony admissible then naturally she will get a new trial. This is what they ordered:
“Our reversal is based on the categorical exclusion of PTSD-related evidence because § 1425 (a) was deemed to be a general-intent crime. We do not address other possible bases for excluding the evidence, under evidentiary standard such as those identified by the district court in its order discussion the use of PTSD testimony in federal and state courts. Nor do we prescribe whether a new trial would be required once the evidentiary determination has been made.
The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
          Of the three opinions, the most interesting is judge Batchelder’s. Judge Batchelder has serious concerns with the trial. She does not believe that Odeh had a fair trial and her observations echo the concerns of the friends and supporters of Odeh.  Judge Batchelder notes that, indirectly, Odeh was portrayed as a terrorist, which inflames the jury, but she was not allowed to raise the issue of her torture by the Israelis. Judge Batchelder stated:
‘But if this case is only about lying under oath, then I cannot see how allowing any of the objected-to portions of the Israeli indictment to go before the jury was not an abuse of discretion under Rule 403. As Judge Moore points out, the names of the victims and the prayer have almost no probative value and present a serious danger of unfair prejudice. Likewise, proving that Odeh lied under oath, and even that that lie was “material”, would not require evidence that she was charged with “plac[ing] explosives in the hall of the SuperSol in Jerusalem… with the intention of causing death or injury.” The risk of unfair prejudice from this evidence was enormous, especially since Odeh was not permitted to testify at trial about her claims of torture. The word “terrorist” may never have been uttered before the jury, but it was doubtless in the minds of everyone present.’ Batchelder notes that had the conviction been brought to the attention of immigration, they would have looked into the torture allegation. Judge Batchelder disapproved of the jury being asked to half play the role of the immigration authorities, that is to put themselves in the immigration authorities as to the lie but not as to hearing the explanation. She stated: ‘The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to foreign searches and seizures if the defendant can show that “the conduct of foreign police shocks the judicial conscience.” United States v. Valdivia, 680 F.3d 33, 51 (1st Cir. 2012). And “[it] is well settled that the Bill of Rights limits both the federal government’s treaty-making powers as well as actions taken by federal officials pursuant to the federal government’s treaties.” Sahagian v. United States, 864 F.2d 509, 513 (7th Cir. 1998). The evidentiary concerns may be different in the circumstance, however, because the jury was instructed to step into the shoes of the immigration authorities. If Odeh had told the truth, those officials would doubtless have looked at this evidence. By the same token, however, they would have also considered Odeh’s claims of torture.’
          Judge Batchelder does not believe that Odeh had a fair trial. If it were up to her, she would have ordered a new trial. She stated: ‘Whether a defendant’s naturalization application would have been denied if the immigration authorities had known the truth about her past is not an element of § 1425(a). In light of this, I would have held that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the objected-to portions of the Israeli indictment to go before the jury and that this error was not harmless. This case should be remanded for a new trial. From the majority’s decision to the contrary, I respectfully dissent.’

To help Ms Odeh, one of the things Odeh’s friends and supporters can do is focus on advocating for a new trial. The 6th Circuit court’s decision calls for a new trial in all but name.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

The Arab problem with Iran


      


Iran and the US reached an agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. President Obama presented the Iranian deal as the triumph of diplomacy.


       There is a misconception that Arab countries wanted the US to remain in conflict with Iran. Having traveled in the Arab Gulf area in the summer, the impression I have is that Arab Gulf governments and people want the region to be normal. They want Iran to be a normal country with whom they can have normal relations. The issue in the Arab Gulf media coverage of the Iranian-US negotiations was not whether a nuclear deal is good or bad, the issue was Iran’s behavior in the Middle East and whether Iran is going to use the billions of dollars to continue to stir the sectarian pot with US acquiescence or with the US turning a blind eye.

       An Arab Gulf country, Oman, a member of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), played a key role in providing a forum for the US and Iran to meet and start the process that led to the agreement. Arab newspaper commentators, in Oman and in the other Arab Gulf countries, almost unanimously wanted the American-Iranian talks to succeed but were worried that President Obama was not taking their interests into account.

       Arabs want Iran to stop its reckless business of the export of its revolution, a so- called revolution that has long fizzled in Iran itself but is surviving on brutal force. The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought into the region a zealous regime intent on spreading its ideology. That project was stalled by the 1980-1988 Arab-Iranian war spearheaded by Iraq from the Arab side. The first Gulf war was started by Iran against Iraq and Iraq, despite all odds, won the war with the Iranian regime. Iran accepted defeat. That war had a steep cost in lives and treasure. 

While the Iranian regime has an ideology that it wants to export, the Arab Gulf countries are status quo countries.  It is true that Saudi Arabia funds projects that advance its view what is orthodox Islam and counters what Salafi Muslims consider innovation in religion. However, such projects are a far cry from the ideology of the Welayat al Faqih that Iran wants to spread in a Muslim world that is 90% Sunni Muslim and finds core beliefs of the Twelver Shiites anathema to orthodox Islam as practiced by the overwhelming majority of Muslims in the world. Iran’s version of Twelver Shiism puts the leader of Iran, the Wali al Faqih, at the center with believers in that ideology owing complete and total allegiance to the infallible Iranian leader in all matters spiritual and secular. This business of exporting this ideology to Sunni- majority countries is understandably deeply troubling to leaders of Sunni- majority countries. Iran is in the business of exporting a highly politicized form of Twelver Shiism that demands complete and total loyalty of the convert to Iran.

In an opinion column entitled “Can Iran Change?” in The New York Times of January 19, 2016, the Saudi foreign minister Adel al Jubair presented a concise and precise summary of Iranian wrongs over the years. Mr. al Jubair wrote:
 “THE world is watching Iran for signs of change, hoping it will evolve from a rogue revolutionary state into a respectable member of the international community. But Iran, rather than confronting the isolation it has created for itself, opts to obscure its dangerous sectarian and expansionist policies, as well as its support for terrorism, by leveling unsubstantiated charges against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It is important to understand why Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are committed to resisting Iranian expansion and responding forcefully to Iran’s acts of aggression. The Iranian government’s behavior has been consistent since the 1979 revolution. The constitution that Iran adopted states the objective of exporting the revolution. As a consequence, Iran has supported violent extremist groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and sectarian militias in Iraq. Iran or its proxies have been blamed for terrorist attacks around the world, including the bombings of the United States Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, and the assassinations in the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin in 1992. And by some estimates Iranian-backed forces have killed over 1,100 American troops in Iraq since 2003.”
       

          It is not only Saudi Arabia that accuses Iran of stirring the sectarian pot. President Obama himself also accused Iran of a destructive role in the region that exacerbates sectarian tensions. However, Obama said that that reprehensible behavior should not be a factor in the nuclear negotiations. In effect, Obama held that if Iran is harming America’s Arab allies in the Arab Gulf it is ok as long as Iran’s nuclear program is neutered to make the Israelis feel safer. President Obama’s callous indifference to the interests of America’s Arab allies in the Arab Gulf is seen by Gulf Arabs as a betrayal of a decades’ old friendship.


Is Iran going to change? Unlikely. It has now billions more of dollars to spread its mischief in the Arab and Muslim world further exacerbating Sunni-Shiite tensions. The Economist of January 16, 2016 summarized this reality:

“Yet, just as critics of the deal are wrong to describe it as a disaster in which Iran got everything it wanted, its supporters (including this newspaper) need to be realistic about it, too. The smooth progress towards Implementation Day is largely because the president, Hassan Rohani, and Mr Zarif are desperate to get sanctions lifted. They want to see $100 billion of Iranian assets unfrozen before parliamentary elections next month, in which they hope their faction will oust some of the hardliners who oppose them. Although both back greater engagement with the West for economic reasons (and appear to have the conditional support of the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei), nothing else about Iran’s behaviour shows the slightest sign of change. It still hangs gay people, locks up dissidents and stokes sectarian conflict around the Middle East, most destructively in Syria.”
       


           The Economist’s reporting on Iran’s Yemeni proxy the Houthis' behavior brings to mind the Iran-Iraq war when Iranian children wore around their necks “keys to paradise”:

“Houthi fighters head to battle carrying charms, such as keys and visas to paradise. Their preachers on satellite television call for re-establishing Zaydi rule across the border, not just over the three border provinces the Al Sauds seized in 1934 but even over Mecca farther north.”

On Iran, there is no room for optimism.






Tuesday, January 19, 2016

AHRC's statement on the Flint and Detroit water crises


The Flint and Detroit water crises are a violation of Michigan citizens' human right to water:
Water is a basic necessity, not a market commodity or luxury

The American Human Council (AHRC-USA) joins the rest of the human rights community in expressing its deep concern over the city of Flint's water crisis and its impact on the citizens of Flint. The Flint water crisis is a serious public safety concern that merits serious and urgent attention. The root cause of the crisis should be identified and those responsible need to be held accountable.

The Flint water crisis is part of a bigger water crisis in Michigan. The ongoing Detroit water issue and the thousands of poor residents who could not afford to pay for the water services are left without water, a most basic human necessity.
Water is not just another market commodity, it is a public good and a public service of vital importance. This importance was recognized by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 641292 passed on 28 July 2010 designating water and sanitation as human rights. A human being cannot enjoy all the other human rights they have unless they have access to clean and affordable water. As identified by the UN, this water has to be "sufficient," "safe," "acceptable," "physically accessible" and "affordable." The crises in Flint and Detroit indicate that the State of Michigan is not paying enough attention to water as a human right to a significant number of Michigan citizens.
AHRC calls upon all Michigan elected officials to rise above partisanship and deal with this most basic of human right. There is also the hazardous waste disposal issue that should be handled fairly. AHRC calls upon the federal, state and local government to work together to bring these crises to a resolution.

"We are deeply troubled that the great State of Michigan is not providing all its citizens with access to safe and affordable water," stated Imad Hamad, AHRC Executive director. "Water is not a fungible good, it is a common good and a public service, whether one is rich or poor, they have the human right of access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water- all goals set by the UN and applicable to all the nations on earth," added Hamad.
For more on the UN and the human right to water and sanitation,  
please visit: http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/human_right_to_water.shtml