<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with un and resolution</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/un+resolution</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'un' and 'resolution' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:54:26 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:54:26 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>Keep Internet out of UN control, says US</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/46008/Keep%2DInternet%2Dout%2Dof%2DUN%2Dcontrol%2Dsays%2DUS</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39231613,00.htm"&gt;The Bush administration is backing a US Senate resolution to stop the UN in its plans to try and move some control of the Internet away from the US&lt;/a&gt; -- A new resolution introduced in the U.S. Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet.
	
Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that&apos;s scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.46008</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Oct 2005 07:54:26 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>coleman</category>
		<category>control</category>
		<category>icann</category>
		<category>internet</category>
		<category>nations</category>
		<category>norm</category>
		<category>resolution</category>
		<category>un</category>
		<category>united</category>
		<category>usa</category>
		<dc:creator>zouhair</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>the UN</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/24284/the%2DUN</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf"&gt;UN resolution 377,&lt;/a&gt; This makes for fascinating reading as this arcane resolution provides for collective action by the general assembly &apos;if the security council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security&apos;.  Hardly applicable.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.24284</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:01:45 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>GeneralAssembly</category>
		<category>PDF</category>
		<category>resolution</category>
		<category>SecurityCouncil</category>
		<category>UN</category>
		<category>UnitedNations</category>
		<dc:creator>johnnyboy</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/21480/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/index.html"&gt;U.N. passes Iraq resolution on weapons inspections&lt;/a&gt; &lt;i&gt;&quot;The resolution passed unanimously, after Secretary-General Kofi Annan joined the assembled delegates in the Security Council chamber.&quot; &lt;/i&gt;I really hope Iraq takes a new approach, and actually genuinely &lt;i&gt;disarms&lt;/i&gt;. Next year will be so much more pleasant.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.21480</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:47:08 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Annan</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>KofiAnnan</category>
		<category>Politics</category>
		<category>Resolution</category>
		<category>SecretaryGeneral</category>
		<category>SecurityCouncil</category>
		<category>UN</category>
		<category>WeaponsInspection</category>
		<category>WMD</category>
		<dc:creator>MidasMulligan</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20682/</link>
		<description> Before we go to war based on whether or not Saddam (or the UN Security Council...) agrees to the Bush administration&apos;s proposed UN resolution, would anyone care to discuss what their proposed resolution actually says?&lt;br&gt;

Apparently, &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=339342&quot;&gt;the text of the resolution isn&apos;t in the public domain&lt;/a&gt;... but things leak. According to &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=339341&quot;&gt;this article&lt;/a&gt;, the resolution allows the UN or its members (including the US) to station armed guards in Iraq, establish no-fly and no-drive zones, and create exclusive ground and air transit corridors. Robert Fisk, one of England&apos;s most respected reporters, &lt;a href=&quot;http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=339343&quot;&gt;believes the resolution is a poison pill&lt;/a&gt;, designed to lead to &quot;regime change&quot;, whether he accepts it or not. So, what else do we know about the proposed resolution, and &lt;i&gt;why isn&apos;t anyone talking about it?&lt;/i&gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20682</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:43:13 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>Iraq</category>
		<category>iraqwar</category>
		<category>RegimeChange</category>
		<category>resolution</category>
		<category>SaddamHussein</category>
		<category>UN</category>
		<category>UnitedNations</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<dc:creator>insomnia_lj</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


