Pierre Genevier

813 E. 4th Place

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1882

Email: p_genevier@yahoo.com


Dr. Ismael Gaspar Martins, Angola

Mr. Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria

Mr. Martin Belinga-Eboutou, Cameroon

Mr. Juan Gabriel Valdes, Chile

Mr. Wang Yingfan, China

Mr. Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, France

Dr. Gunter Pleuger, Germany

Mr. Mamady Traore, Guinea

Mr. Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico

Mr. Munir Akram, Pakistan

Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Russian Federation

Mr. Inocencio F. Arias, Spain

Mr. Mikhail Wehbe, Syrian Arab Republic

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, United Kingdom

Mr. John Negroponte, USA

Mr. Jan Kavan, President of the General Assembly

Copy: Mrs. Catherine Bertini, UN Secretariat


                                                                                                Los Angeles, April 7, 2003


Object: Proposals made to Country Leaders and International Organizations (I.O.) Chiefs, Letter sent to US Personalities and 3 I.O. Managers, Response from the UN Secretariat, and War with Iraq.


Dear MM. Ambassadors,


I take the liberty of writing you to present two proposals I made to the UN Secretariat (and other I.O.s) and to country Leaders.  One of these two proposals could have lead to a peaceful solution of the Iraqi crisis.  I also would like to forward you several letters and documents related to the proposals and my legal case, to discuss the recent response I received from the UN Secretariat, and to make few more remarks on theses subjects and the actuality. 


The two proposals and their impact on 'your' effort to maintain peace and to fight poverty.


The first proposal (att. 5) is a computer project proposal whose objective is to develop a computer system and a codification of statistics that would improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level.  In September 1997, I submitted the proposal to a European cooperation program, and later presented it to more than 150 countries.  Many experts around the world (from both I.O.s and countries) wrote to express their interest or to give their support and comments.  In att. 5, the summary description of the initial proposal presents some of its technical benefits and in att. 4, I have explained briefly why the proposal would have a significant impact on the fight against poverty.  You will also easily see that it would strengthen the cooperation and coordination among the different UN agencies (and more generally among all I.O.s)!

The second proposal is more a management (or governance) proposal since its objective is to establish an age limit of 65 for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs.   I first explained the importance of paying careful attention to the time factor and of 'respecting' the 65 years limit for ‘leaders’ in a letter addressed to G8 Leaders (except France) and I.O. Chiefs on April 2000 (att. 6).  Later I gave more arguments (scientific, good sense, ethical, ) to justify the proposal, and explained why it would have a significant impact on our effort to maintain peace and to fight poverty around the world. Last year on May 29th 2002 (att. 3, page 2), long before anyone had started talking about a possible conflict with Iraq, I had mentioned the possibility of a war and the fact that this proposal could prevent it. 


In att. 2, you will find a summary of the arguments I had presented in my previous letters and in att. 3, I made few other remarks on these subjects.  I would like now to add a new argument that take a special dimension in the present international context (I had assumed it was obvious).  Some leaders use (d) their position (and ‘power’) to cover their ‘dishonesty’ or to avoid prosecution for the frauds they organized or the crimes they committed.  This is true for Mr. Saddam Hussein, of course, but it is also true for some Leaders of democracy like Mr. Chirac who uses the immunity associated with his position to avoid talking to the justice or simply to avoid any prosecution.  By staying in ‘power’ as close as possible to their death, some leaders simply give themselves lifetime impunity!


Moreover, since in our information (and ‘more democratic’) society the public opinion plays a increasingly important role, the efforts made to cover the ‘dishonesty’ of high level politicians or high level civil servants take often outrageous proportions and lead to ‘crimes’ that can be even more serious than the one they are intended to cover (I will give examples of this below)!   The establishment of an age limit of 65 for Leaders is then more than pertinent, because it would, independently from the other benefits already given, encourage Leaders to pay a more careful attention to what they do, or otherwise they would be at risk to be prosecuted during their ‘retirement’ years, and it would also limit the damage made by the efforts to cover sometimes lifetimes of dishonesty, crimes or frauds. 


There is no doubt that the two proposals concern directly (or fall within the competence of) the UN Secretariat, particularly its management, Mr. Annan (65), Mrs. Frechette, …  Making these proposals is not at all easy, not 'free' and not without risk. They represent many years of professional experience gained in different work environments and countries, and many years of research work made under difficult condition.  Because of their international import and some of their benefits (not welcome by 'some'), they created me many serious difficulties in the different countries where I lived in and are therefore part of my legal case.  The UN Secretariat (Mr. Annan, the UN Chief Statistician, …) had/has no excuse for not answering my letters and ignoring my proposals and work, the recent answer does not correct the problem.


The UN Secretariat’s response and the ‘Role of the UN Secretary-General’.


Indeed, the response from the UN Secretariat to my letter of January 14 2003 (att. 1.2, 1.1) is not at all ‘appropriate’, but clearly consistent with the previous answer or more precisely previous absence of answer.  First it says ‘thank you for sharing your thoughts’.  The proposal to improve the transfer of statistics was supported in writing by international organizations experts (from the EC, CIS, ILO, UNESCO, UNIDO, …), by countries experts (National Institute of Statistics directors from England, Norway, Romania, … ) and by politicians (at least 2 G8 Leaders had sent their encouragements), therefore it should be considered as more than ‘my thoughts’, even if I had the idea and it was judged to be an ‘innovative idea’! (att. 5 contains only some of the letters received)

Concerning the proposal to establish an age limit of 65 for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, the recent decision of Dr. Brundtland not to seek another term mainly because of her age is a clear ‘indirect’ support to the proposal.  And several other personalities had also 'stressed' (or at least mentioned) the importance of paying a careful attention to this 65 years limit.  The Secretary-General (who is also the Chairman of the CEB committee) ignored the letters of UN agencies experts, country experts and country Leaders, and the position taken by Dr. Brundtland.  And he ignored the link between these proposals and the fight against poverty and the effort to maintain peace in the World, although I had clearly 'pictured' these links and the many benefits they would bring to everyone.


Moreover, my letter of January 14 (att. 1.1) raised some legal issues that the UN cannot ignore since one of its agencies, the WIPO, encourages the protection of intellectual property, another one, UNOHCHR, defends human rights, and a third, HCR, helps the refugees around the world.  The idea behind the project proposal was said to be ‘innovative’, the UN Secretariat cannot let France rob me everything I have and lower me down in front of the international community and possible employers, to steal me more easily the intellectual work realized to present this ‘innovative’ idea, not on such an important proposal.  Or let the different countries refuse me the asylum to make it impossible for me to obtain justice.


It was clearly explained in my documents that the 'political' evaluation of the proposals and work is necessary to determine the violation of article 3 (the 'degrading treatment') by France.  Moreover, this evaluation, the international import of the proposals and the well-founded of my remarks on the legal issues raised by my case or on the exaggerated corruption in France help to understand my difficulties (persecutions, ) and to appreciate the 'credibility' of my asylum demand.  No one better than those who have the responsibility to decide on these matters can give a just point of view on these issues and understand my difficult situation.  The UN Secretariat should have (have had) a point of view on the 'technical' proposal (to improve the statistical information system), management proposal (65 limit for leaders) and legal issues (legal help system,).    


The letter of the public inquiries unit also state ‘I must advise you that in order for any proposal to be considered by the members of the United Nations, an item must be first presented by an official representative of the member state,…’.  This is not true since according to the UN charter, the Secretary General has the responsibility to ‘bring to the attention of the Security council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security’.  My letter and its attached documents explained that my proposals and remarks were one of the reasons why I was persecuted in France and was asking for asylum in the US.  When you know that Mr. Chirac is 70 and Mr. Jospin was 65 last years and that they were both candidate at the Presidential election, it is clear that they would not present the proposal on the age limit before the UN!


The UN Secretary-General should have understood why France did not want to talk about or present my proposals to the International Community.  It was obvious that, if both Mr. Chirac and Mr. Jospin had talked about the age limit proposal (or the other proposal), they could not have run for President.  And I had explained in my letters the other 'national' political and legal issues of my case  (exaggerated corruption in France, 'implication' of Mr. Chirac in several frauds, unfair legal aid systems,).  Mr. Annan had the resources to ask for an additional evaluation, if necessary (the UN don't hesitate to pay high-level experts for this kind of work).  He had the possibility to discuss the proposals with the CEB committee for coordination.  And he had the responsibility to bring the issues raised to the attention of the Security Council since it was obvious that it was related to 'the maintenance of international peace and security' (the situation in Iraq, Israel,, confirms this). 


To ask me to contact the US Mission is not appropriate either, because I had mentioned that I was having difficulties related to my refugee status with the INS and the social services!  Moreover, since my letter of January 14 was addressed to the US President, and other high level US officials, it would not be surprising to hear that the US mission at the UN was also informed. And finally, everyone agreed that the military pressure imposed by the US was useful to obtain the Iraqi cooperation, therefore you cannot expect those who must push for war to give also the solution to make peace!  You also can note that the response (att. 1.2) is made on behalf of Mr. Annan although my letter was send to Mrs. Frechette!  And it does not say who has transferred it to the Public Inquiries Unit, and who has ‘read and noted’ it, therefore no one, but the acting chief, is really responsible for this answer and given his position, he has probably no expertise in these matters!


In my letter of January 14 (att. 1), I had mentioned the 'unethical' behavior of Mr. Annan, and I would like now to look at his work.  The UN Internet page called ‘The Role of the Secretary-General’ says: ‘The Secretary-General is a symbol of the United Nations ideals and a spokesman for the interests of the world’s peoples, in particular the poor and vulnerable among them’.   Mr. Flemming Larsen's words are very clear when he says: 'It is also true that never before has the gap between the rich and the poor been as wide as it is today.  And the gap is continuing to widen' (see att. 1).  Mr. Annan who cannot ignore this fact, should have paid a much more careful attention to proposals that are obviously in the interest of the poor and very poor (especially when they are supported by many experts).  He could have also paid attention to my personal situation that is extremely difficult for many years now although I have made the effort to defend a project (beneficial for I.O.) that received many letters of support! 


The internet page also says: ‘The secretary General would fail if he did not take careful account of the concerns of Member states, but he must speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same member states’.  Mr. Annan did not act for peace, since he indirectly promoted the impunity of leaders responsible of serious crimes by admitting the part of responsibility of the UN Secretariat, particularly the Peace Keeping Operation Dept. he headed, in the Rwanda massacre without assuming any consequence for himself, and simply saying 'I am sorry'.  He shows no respect for the new generation and the poor by not respecting the age limit of 65.  Introducing the idea of ‘conscience of the world’ and establishing the International Criminal Court or a special tribunal for Rwanda is of relative importance, if the Secretary-General, himself, shows very little 'conscience', as Mr. Wolfensohn wrote 'what use law books if the judges are corrupt'!


The Secretary-General is also Chairman of the administrative Committee on coordination (ACC), which brings together the Executive Heads of all UN funds, programmes and specialized agencies twice a year in order to further coordination and cooperation in the entire range of substantive and management issues facing the United Nations Systems’.   As we have seen above, Mr. Annan has failed to obtain the official position of the CEB committee members on the two important proposals, although at least one member, Dr. Brundtland, had found that an age limit of 65 for I.O. Chiefs was more than justified, and although a unique system to collect the statistics and a unique codification of statistics would strengthen the cooperation and the coordination between UN agencies.  He has also totally ignored the point of view of the UN agencies experts who had given in writing their support for the project to improve the transfer and integration of statistics.

One of the most vital roles played by the Secretary General is the use of this ‘good offices’ – steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon his independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.  Since becoming Secretary- General, Mr. Annan has made use of his good offices in range of situation including Cyprus, East Timor, Lybia, Iraq,..  Obviously, his ‘good-offices’ for Iraq did not work at all and he failed to discuss the age limit issue publicly, instead of preventing an international dispute, he has created a dispute even bigger than the Iraq conflict itself, since the Iraq crisis has divided the United Nations Security Council (and the world), and has lead to an 'unauthorized' and ‘not fully justified’ war!  He has shown no 'independence', because he covered the French politicians bad behavior, no 'impartiality' because he wanted to hold his position after 65, and no 'integrity', because he indirectly try to steal my research work and innovative ideas.


‘Reform. ...Shortly after taking office, the secretary general presented a sweeping reform package aimed at helping the United Nations to change with the times …A new post of Deputy Secretary General was created to assist the secretary-general in the array of responsibility assigned to his office’.  Obviously, the Deputy Secretary-General has no word to say since the letter that is addressed to her is responded on behalf of the Secretary-General (unless Mrs. Frechette was embarrassed by the fact that Mr. Chrestien is 69 and Mr. Johnston is 68).  Moreover, during the past 5 years ½ I informed several concerned high-level UN secretariat managers including Mr. Annan of my proposals and had kept them informed on the letters of support I had received, but they never responded. Countries Leaders (Italy, England,...), country ‘chief statisticians’ (Romania, England, Norway,...) and I.O high level managers (OECD, Eurostat,...) responded to my letters, but not the Secretary-General or the UN Chief statistician!  It seems that no one feels he has any responsibility at the UN. 'To change with the time' do not mean to change 10 years after the 'time'!


Africa. The Secretary-General has sought to maintain a focus on Africa and to mobilize international support for Africa’s efforts to chart a path to peace and higher levels of development….and to address such key questions of development as debt, governance and the spread of diseases such as AIDS’.   Obviously he has also failed to maintain the focus on Africa since for the past three years the focus has clearly changed, first to the middle east problem with the intifada, then to the war on terror after 9-11 2001, and now to Iraq!  How can Mr. Annan let 3 old leaders and a group of ‘disturbed’ criminals change the direction and the 'focus' given by the Leaders of more than 170 countries! Although an effort was made on the Debt problem, Mr. Annan has failed to address governance issues (the leader's responsibilities, the leader's immunity or impunity, …) by giving guidelines like the preparation of the new generations, the long term planning, the 'respect' of the global objectives, and the establishment of an age limit for country leaders. He has also failed to avoid the spread of the AIDS disease that destroys Africa as already mentioned!   


Millenium report. …The report is the most comprehensive presentation of the UN’s mission in its 55-year history, and call on member states to commit themselves to an action plan for ending poverty and inequality, improving education, reducing HIV/AIDS, safeguarding the environment and protecting peoples from deadly conflict and violence.  The secretary general also strongly embraces new information technology and sees a major role for IT in fighting poverty, promoting human development and improving United Nations operations.’  The commitment of member states to an action plan for ending poverty and inequality seems to be forgotten as well as protecting people from deadly conflict.  Mr. Annan, pro-war countries, and anti-war countries forgot to talk about 'our' global objectives, I will come back on this point in another paragraph below.  If Mr. Annan sees a major role for IT, why is he waiting so long to discuss an IT proposal that is supported by so many experts, and to use IT to improve UN operations!


Deception, cheating, delay, dishonesty, lies…  strategy and a personal experience.


We understand that the US and some other countries were very disappointed with (the word ‘fed up of ‘ was used, I believe) the behavior of Mr. Saddam Hussein, and, of course, ‘they’ certainly seemed to have good reasons for that according to the information given in the press and media.  But they should not have been surprised by his behavior or by this deception, cheating, delay, dishonesty, lies,…, strategy, because this is a ‘treatment’ often imposed by governments and administrations (particularly to the poor!).  I will now relate to you a personal experience that is unfortunately linked to some of the subjects I am discussing here.


In 1993, I was illegally fired by a local administration near Paris (the Department of Essonne), and I was also threatened to have serious problems for the rest of my life, if I did not accept to be fired without any compensation!   This could seem a very simple (and unfortunately usual) story, if I had not work at the time on a computer system to improve the management and the control of travel expenses, if the wife of the President of the administration had not started to get paid for no work exactly at the same time I was fired, if the Senator President had not been sentenced for a fraud on his travel expenses and for paying his wife for no work, if Mr. Chirac and several of his close colleagues had not been accused of very similar frauds (paying employees for no work, cheating on the travel expenses,…), and if I had not worked on the proposals I am presenting you. 


After the Senator President was sentenced for his frauds in 05/98, I explained to my first judges that I was fired to facilitate the frauds and mentioned the threat I had received.  The administration did not deny the accusations, and the judges gave me reason (in 11/98) and asked the Department of Essonne (DE) to pay me a significant compensation (about 70 000 $).  But, then everything was done to protect the Senator, to rob me my judgment and everything else I had, to keep me from getting a job, and to make sure that the press and media would not talk about my difficulties, proposals and work!  The appeal judgment (in 05/00), full of lies, cancelled the first judgment I had obtained although I had brought more proof of the dishonesty of the people and administration who had fired me.  The Supreme Court confirmed the appeal judgment with a short decision full of lies and unfair also (02/01)! 


In April 98 I had informed Mr. Chirac of my project proposal and described in which context I had worked on it (illegal dismissal, threat, ...).  At first, 'he' sent me his strong encouragement (and forwarded my documents to the government), but after 'he' refused to intervene for the compliance with my judgment although it was an obvious political matter and the mistakes were done to protect his dishonest party colleague.  The wife of Paris mayor had also been paid for no work by the dishonest Senator and sentenced for this fraud, and this scandal lead to the loss of the Paris City Hall for Mr. Chirac's party!  The Finance Minister, Mr. Strauss Kahn, who studied the proposal and refused to support it, was forced to resign from his post soon after, because he was suspected of serious frauds too.  Similarly, the French European Commissionaire for Research, Mrs. Cresson (who also was accused of paying a collaborator for no real work) refused to support the project proposal (or to give me a job)!  She also was forced to resign (and the EC with her) as you know!


Both of these politicians never clearly explained why they refused to support the proposal, instead they sent very stupid answers.  They, like Mr. Chirac and Jospin, simply refused to address the problem and ignored the fact that the project proposal would improve the life of more than 6 billions people to cover one aspect of the scandal I was victim of and to minimize their own dishonesty!  After it was clear that both Mr. Chirac and the government would not support my project proposal, and would not even ask the administration (and justice) to comply fully with my judgment (3 payments were made all wrong), I wrote to G8 Leaders (except France) and to I.O. Chiefs to present my work and to explain the difficulties I encountered despite the many letters of support I had received, the evaluation of the European experts, and the many proofs of the well-founded of my legal request. 


My letter did not stop the French administration and government from giving me a hard time, au contraire, my difficulties increased significantly.  There has been so many frauds in France for the past 15 to 20 years (Elf, Credit Lyonnais, Paris region and Paris City hall frauds, Department of Essonne where I worked, Sale of arms to Angola, affairs Mery, Lagerfeld, …) that only few politicians were not involved in a serious fraud (some frauds mentioned had a grave international impact as you know).  My case -related to one of these important scandals- shows the indirect consequences of these frauds like the high unemployment level or the 'dishonesty' made to cover the frauds.  It also shows the lack of respect of some French politicians for work, for the poor, and for the International Community. 


I eventually sent a request at the ECHR in Strasbourg to denounce the human rights violation I was victim of (article 6 'right to a fair trial', article 3 'interdiction of torture' -degrading treatment-, ...), but soon after my request was registered and the Senator who had fired me was finally sent to jail in June 2001, I was sent in the street by a new mistake of the social services (I wrote to Mr. Chirac and Jospin to ask them to reconsider my case again, but received no response)!  So to avoid more continual persecutions, I went to ask for political asylum in Switzerland and then Belgium.  The European Court of Human Right rendered a non motivated decision rejecting my request, the Swiss administration refused to study my case in detail because I could not pay the 600 CHF for the procedure, and Belgium rendered an illegal decision that was full of lies!  You can read about the difficulties I encounter here in att. 8 and 9.


Deception, cheating, delay, lies, …,  is the strategy used by the different administrations in France, Switzerland, …, to rob me everything I had and to avoid giving me justice.  And unfortunately, the I.O. (UN Secretariat, UNOHHCR, ECHR, …) whose responsibility is to remind the countries of their responsibilities, made no effort to prevent these difficulties to take place.  'They' refused to give a 'political' evaluation of my proposals and to give me a job despite the encouraging technical evaluation the computer project had received, the many letters of support sent by UN agencies experts, and my obvious difficult situation (unemployed,).  They also refused to study properly my legal case despite the many proof of the dishonesty of the French politicians I had brought and despite the critical issues it raises for the community (issues related to the fight against poverty, att. 3)!   They also took my research work and ‘innovative idea’ without giving any form of compensation or recognition despite the many letters of support from experts. 


Deception, cheating, delay, dishonesty, lies, ..., this is what 'power' is all about.  We have acquired so much knowledge, developed so advanced technologies and systems of laws, and 'agreed' on such high principles (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regional human rights conventions,...) that the only 'power' 'we' have is the 'power' to be stupid or dishonest (and indirectly to make people's life miserable).  All the knowledge 'we' have acquired, the technologies and systems of laws 'we' have developed, and high principles 'we' agreed on gives 'us' responsibilities, but no 'power', in fact it would be wise to simply stop using this word 'power' when it is in reference to government, administrations or leaders 'attribution'.  At every level of the hierarchy, individuals try to show their 'power' (to be stupid or dishonest), instead of assuming their responsibility, and this creates many of the problems we are facing today and handicap 'us' in the fight against poverty.


There is (intellectually) no differences between Mr. Saddam Hussein who refused to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions and the French administration that refused to comply with the judgment I had obtained.  Both showed their 'power' (to be stupid and dishonest) and used for one, the 'weaknesses' of the United Nations (difficulties to obtain a consensus within the UN, lack of legal tools to deal with this problem,), and for the other, the weakness of a poor (and unfairness of the legal systems for the poor,) to avoid complying with the decisions of the judges (you, UN Security Council members, and three administrative judges and the president of the court).  If your resolutions don't mean anything for the Leaders and if administration can refuse to comply with justice's decisions, and then have them changed because they are embarrassing, there is no real justice.     


No one (not even the Security Council) had asked Mr. Saddam Hussein to give 1 billion dollars to the United Nations to help the poor in Zimbabwe, China or South America, although he could have easily done that, according to some specialized magazines his fortune was estimated at 2 billions dollars!   He was just asked to 'cooperate with the UN inspectors' to get rid of his weapons of mass destructions, and instead, he 'kicks them out', and he shoots at coalition airplanes!   In my case the decision of my first judge was not at all outrageous (about 70 000 $ was granted, the prejudice in lost salaries only was more than 120 000$) when you know the difficulties I encountered and when you know about all the frauds that took place in the administration (particularly the fact that several employees were paid for no work) or about the Lagerfeld scandal for example, a French industrial who obtained from Mr. Chirac's minister, a tax deduction greater than what he had asked for (for more than 500 000 $, never seen before at the French 'IRS')!  


To prevent future conflicts and to defeat poverty 'you' absolutely must bring more justice in the world, and promote a society of 'responsibility', instead of a society of 'power'.  'We' must remind everyone of his responsibility, starting first with 'our' Leaders that are often taken as example.  The Saudi foreign minister suggested that Mr. Saddam Hussein should step down to avoid the loss of innocent lives, and I believe he is right.  Mr. Saddam Hussein is very good at asking his people to go fight against an enemy that is obviously much stronger than Iraq, but would not do the simple effort of going into exile to save the lives of his people!  He is over 65 and he has a cancer (according to his French doctor), the word 'life' does not have the same meaning for him than for a 15 years old girl or boy!   Every one of you can understand that, and 'you' can make sure that this situation will never happen again. 


Issues of the War with Iraq and ‘our’ Global objectives.


The disarmament of Iraq was the official 'advertised' issue behind the Iraq crisis, but it was not (and can not be) the only problem. The position taken by the US, England, …, that wanted to start an arm conflict as quickly as possible, and the position taken by France, …, that wanted to give more time to the UN inspectors to finish their work, cannot be explained by their perception of the importance of Iraq’s disarmament since it seems everyone really wanted to achieve it!  Moreover, this issue of disarmament is consistent with ‘our’ global objectives, with the effort made by the US and Russia to diminish their nuclear armament, and with the effort made by countries in general to ban the use of chemical and biological weapons, so 'we' must look at some other issues to understand better the different positions of the Security Council members and of other 'actors' of the crisis. 


The control of the Iraqi oil fields was an underlying issue that has been widely ‘discussed’ by the press, the media and even Mr. Saddam Hussein.  This issue was said by many to explain certain countries’ position, it is obvious that if the US win the war rapidly they will be in better situation to control the oil of Iraq than they were before the war.  Similarly if there had been no war, the Russian and the French would have been in a better position to negotiate oil contract with the Iraqi government.  But we should not forget the effort made by rich countries (including the US) to help poor countries, and the additional effort that should be made.  It does not make sense to give billions of dollars to help poor countries and at the same time to start a war just to rob a poor country (even if it is obvious that some people and US companies will benefit financially from the war)!


The Israeli and Palestinian conflict that was presented as an issue of the Iraqi crisis cannot explain either the different positions when 'we' known that the quartet US-UN-Europe-Russia has agreed on the ‘road map’ for a peace process between Israel and the Palestinian.  It appears then that these three (often discussed) issues alone do not explain the great difference in the point of view defended by the different 'actors' of the Iraqi crisis, but they did (hyper) simplify the debate for the people of the world who followed the discussion on TV or through the newspapers.  The main argument used to justify the war was that the weapons of mass destruction of Iraq represents a serious threat to the United States, England and more generally to the world.   And the September 11 2001 tragedy was also often used to ‘picture’ the kind of damage that weapons of mass destruction could create, if they were to be used by terrorist as determined as Al Qaeda members. 


This was/is, of course, a serious argument, but disarming Iraq only would not have ensured that in 2, 3 or more years Iraq would not have tried again to acquire this kind of weapons, particularly if Mr. Saddam Hussein were to stay the President of the Country.  If the 12 years of embargo have not changed Mr. Saddam Hussein’s mind on the subject, there were very little doubt that he would not have changed it after he had accumulated more anger, humiliation, and hate toward the US and international Community that forced him to destroy his weapons.  And the possibility to leave inspectors for an indefinite period of time in Iraq and to continue an embargo that would help to control that no new weapons are either manufactured or imported, was not very realistic since it would have hurt the Iraqi people and not been assured of success since the UN inspectors were already kicked out of the country one time.


The contradiction between a ‘long lasting embargo’ and ‘our’ global objectives, fight against poverty,…, was an important underlying issue that certainly could have explained the position of the countries that wanted to go to war quickly.  We cannot on one hand gives money, new technologies, and new knowledge to poor countries to defeat poverty and speed up development, and at the same time continue indefinitely an embargo (on one country) that do basically exactly the opposite since it creates poverty by forbidding trade and exchanges, and by slowing down technical progress!  Although this was an important problem (of the crisis), it was not clearly explained by the 'pro-war countries', probably because a clear explanation would have forced them to talk about ‘our’ global objectives, particularly the fight against poverty that a war slows down tremendously!


The contradiction between war and ‘our’ global objectives was also an important underlying issue of the crisis that may have explained the position of 'those' who opposed war, but if it was so, why did not they explain it more clearly?  Perhaps because some of those who were in favor of peace did not want to put 'our' global objectives as the main issue of the crisis or did not want the public to focus on the terrible situation of the world and to notice the little effort that are made to change this situation or to tackle 'our' global problems.  It is clear that not enough efforts are made (apart from the debt relief initiative, and some individual initiatives) to defeat poverty by both rich and poor countries.  In a recent speech in Greece, Mr. Kohler mentioned that despite the 'UN target 0,7 % of GNP for official development assistance, the average level of development assistance is only 0.22 % of GNP in OECD countries'!


It was obvious that a war would destroy Iraq and would cost the US and the other country involved billions of dollars.  Some experts estimated the cost of war for the US at 100 billions dollars.  When you know that rich countries have together committed about that amount, 100 billions dollars, in debt relief to help more than 50 poor countries, the 'economic reality' of the war is disproportionate, and it stresses that very little efforts are really made to solve the other problems like poverty, environment!  Poor countries did not complain about this fact either, perhaps because they also could have done more efforts in the direction of good governance and ethical leadership (few days ago a 'coup' changed the government in Bangui)!   Mr. Saddam Hussein also preferred to explain to the Iraqi people that the US wanted the Iraqi oil than explaining that the war would slow us down in 'our' fight against poverty or in the realization of 'our' global objectives!


The impunity (or immunity) for country Leaders was another important underlying issue of the Iraqi crisis that was not clearly discussed.  It is obvious that Mr. Saddam Hussein who has made wars to his neighbors, committed crimes against his own people, violated several UN resolutions, showed very little interest for the International Community concerns and objectives (which should be in itself a sufficient reason for asking him to step down), and showed very little respect for the new generations and the poor by holding on to his position after 65, should be judged and punished or at least accounted responsible in some way for his crimes. But, there is no international legal tool 'to explain this' to the people of the world (and Iraq) or to force him to step down.


The countries who opposed war like France were ready to give Mr. Saddam Hussein a total impunity (and the possibility to do again what he had done in the past!) although they knew that he had behaved (s) in total contradiction with 'our' global objectives and had refused to comply with the UN resolutions several times (and if they did not want to give him the impunity (or immunity), they certainly did not address the issue publicly to try to resolve this problem!).  This sensible issue explains well, at least partly, the strong positions of certain defendants of peace like the position of France.  The French President who is strongly suspected to have 'participated' in several of the many corruption scandals that took place in France during the past years, has always managed not to talk to the justice and succeeded in avoiding any prosecution (even after a petition was signed by 30 'deputes' to have him judged by a high court). 


Mr. Chirac and some other politicians have strongly defended the immunity of the French President.  In fact, the immunity given to the President is seen by many as the reason why he decided to run for president again although he was 70.  By staying President as long as possible, he also diminishes the possibility to be prosecuted on certain frauds because of the 10 years prescription for certain offences (Mr. Mitterand had done the same, France is now judging the Elf Scandal, 7 years after Mr. Mitterand's death although he was one of the main 'instigators' of the frauds, see att. 10).  In his effort to cover his dishonesty Mr. Chirac has, I believe, committed 'crimes' much more serious than the frauds he is accused of, since he has shown no respect toward the new generations and the poor, he has shown a bad 'governance' example to poor countries, and he has hurt many people around the world by not supporting (or at least presenting) the  proposals I made although many experts (and himself) had expressed their interest or send their encouragements in writing!


  The Pope (82) who has also strongly spoken in favor of peace, supports also indirectly the impunity for Leaders by holding on to his position of Pope at 82 and by refusing to assume any responsibility for the rapes of children by Catholic priests, although he is himself showing absolutely no respect toward the new generations, and although he is very sick, he barely can walk or ‘talk’.  The Catholic Church, that has made many efforts to cover the scandalous behavior of some of its priests, shows also little respect for the 'justice of the people' in general.  It promotes Charity that is exactly the opposite of justice, and it talks more often about the justice of God (which has become a more than obscure concept in a time of insider trading frauds, intellectual property frauds or other corporate frauds) than about human rights or children rights. (Please understand that I am not against religions, but the behavior of religious groups has been more than questionable    'lately'!).   


Finally, Mr. Annan who has often mentioned that war should be used as the last resorts and that a war would be 'illegal', if it was not supported by the UN Security Council, has also, as we have seen above, promoted the impunity for Leaders when he admitted publicly the responsibility of the UN in the Rwanda Massacre, and particularly of the Peace Keeping Operation Department he headed at the time, and just said 'I am sorry', instead of resigning from his post.  He has talked about the idea of 'conscience of the world', but has shown himself very little 'conscience', and shows now very little respect for the new generations and the poor by holding on to his position after 65!  What means 'illegal', if it is 'legal' to have a part of responsibility in the massacre of 800 000 people, and to continue on with your work as usual!


On the other hand, the US has demonstrated that its justice, Press and Media can be very hard on its President with the advertised public trial of Mr. Clinton.  The US constitution also prevents its President to stay more than 8 years in office, which is indirectly a form of age limit much stricter than the 65 years age limit I am proposing since Mr. Clinton who is in his mid 50 cannot be President anymore, and Mr. Bush, if he is reelected, will not even be able to stay President until 65!   So, this 'impunity' issue explains partly the position of the US that often mentioned that one its goals was to get rid of Mr. Saddam Hussein.  If force (power) is all that matter for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he cannot complain about the fact some one stronger than him is using force to oust him.  Justice and reason are supposed to prevent this use of force, but they should be applied to 'everything' and everyone! 


The 65 years age limit for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs was also another important underlying issue of the crisis, but it was certainly not discussed although I had addressed my proposal to all Leaders in December 2001, and I made the effort to write to the UN Secretariat recently as you have seen, (I also forwarded a copy of my letter to the UN Ambassador for Germany and to the press).  In my letter of December 2001 (att. 3, page 5), I had explained that 'Every time there is a conflict somewhere in the world, the International Community, particularly International Organizations, helps both sides to solve their dispute. To do that, they use logical and good sense arguments, and scientific studies exactly as I have done to justify the respect of this rule.  So why should any Leader or country part in a conflict listen to your arguments or good sense, if, yourself, you don’t even accept the most basic arguments justifying a very simple rule that would improve the situation of the world.'   We now have a clear example of my explanation.

Neither Mr. Chirac, Pope Jean Paul II, nor Mr. Annan who spoke strongly in favor of peace, and used logical, good sense, and other arguments to encourage the US and Britain to avoid going to war, were ready to listen to reason when it comes to their resignation due to the fact that they have passed (or were close to for Mr. Annan) this 65 years limit!  Despite their old age and poor record as Leaders, they would not have given up one day as President, Pope, or Secretary General to avoid a War in Iraq.  They have spoken for peace, but they did not act for peace, therefore no one should be surprised that their effort has had very little success, and that the US,…, has found them not credible and sincere.  In England one minister resigned because his country could not obtain the UN support for the war, but none of these three men (that I have contacted) would have even explained to the public that someone had 'argued' (and others 'agreed') that limiting the age for leaders could help to maintain peace, to fight poverty, and to avoid a war with Iraq!


 The dangers of the war and the unacceptable results of the war.


The ‘departure’ of Mr. Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a new government in Iraq are a form of justice for certain, and it was certainly presented as such by the ones in favor of the war (for some arresting or killing Mr. Saddam Hussein for having weapons of mass destruction is perhaps comparable to arresting Al Capone on tax fraud). But 'they'/'you' should be careful not to achieve exactly the opposite.  Punishing one well-known leader for his grave crimes should not be used to overlook the dishonesty of others whose frauds (sometimes initially not as 'serious') may have an even greater impact on the humanity's problems.  Moreover, conflicts usually take all the attention of the public opinions, and affect the effort made in other areas (like human rights, …).


By stressing the crimes of the Iraqi Regime and Leader, the US, England, …, diminishes

(indirectly) the seriousness of the different corruption scandals or frauds in rich countries like Elf, sale of arms to Angola, Enron,…, that have a disastrous impact on poverty (we now know that 'corruption is a core poverty issue').  The French scandals are significant of a grave general corruption problem in France that has both national and international consequences.  The Elf case for example (att. 10) that is now judged by French judges had serious consequences in some African countries that, we know, are in difficult situation already (AIDS, poverty,..).   Anyone can easily see that the politicians and executives involved in this scandal will not be punished for the prejudice they created to the poor in Africa although there is no doubt that the outrageous corruption process did hurt the African people.  ('You' can, by giving me -a poor- justice, indirectly 'point out' this reality.)       


In 1998, the war in Kosovo that started just after the corruption scandal leading to the resignation of the European Commission, immediately took the attention of the public and little was said (and for some done) about the dishonesty of the 'European officials' (Mrs. Cresson is now only prosecuted for one of the frauds).  The timing of the war was even questioned because the problem in Yugoslavia had existed for a long time!  Here, similarly the 'public discussion' or 'televised' debate to justify or prevent the war with Iraq, and then the military reports or briefings, take all the attention of the public in rich countries, and minimizes the debate on the lack of integrity of some political leaders and of some corporate executives, and therefore lowers the financial resources invested to solve the problem. 


            Mr. Fleming Larsen wrote in his 12/02 speech that '…A few years ago, the member countries of the OECD -the rich club- agreed on an international anti-bribery convention.  But there has been little follow-up partly because of a lack (fairly modest) financial resources needed for the OECD to put in place a peer review process without which it is just too tempting for individual countries to continue to ignore problem.' !  When you see how 'easy' it was for the US to engage a 100 billions dollars spending or more to do a war with Iraq (to destroy one country or to liberate the Iraqi people), it makes no doubt that absolutely no effort was/is made to find the money to set up an effective anti-corruption system in rich countries (that would help billions).  The very 'little interest' shown for my computer project proposal by some politicians, particularly in France, demonstrates also that some would 'rather break their leg' than supporting a project proposal that would help to fight corruption.  


The war should not be used either to forget about the two proposals I am presenting you.  The project proposal to improve the transfer and integration of statistical data at the worldwide level has only benefits, this is why so many experts responded to an ‘individual’ to express their interest.  Not realizing this project (was and) would be a crime against humanity.  And the proposal to establish an age limit of 65 for Leaders is an important proposal that takes on an even greater signification when we look at the Iraqi Crisis and problems in Israel and Palestine.  G8 Leaders and I.O. Chiefs, particularly France and the UN secretariat, should have paid a more careful attention to these proposals because they perfectly understood their many benefits for the people of the world.  They also perfectly understood the remarks made in my April 2000 letter (att. 6), but some preferred to look at their own interest rather than the people's interest.


            Soon after I presented my first remarks on the age limit in April 2000 (att. 6), Mr. Chrestien (69) who had just passed this 65 years limit, called for an anticipated election (that eventually lead to his reelection).  I am sure that Mr. Chrestien had very good reasons for that, but I also have the strong feeling that he thought that by calling for an anticipated election, he was limiting the chance that the press and media talk about this subject before the election and therefore that this age issue be used against him.  Mr. Chirac (70) also called for an anticipated election when he turned 65 in 1997, for him unfortunately this election lead to a change of majority and government (he did not resign!).  This shows that these two men were/are very aware that it is ethically wrong to continue at the highest position of a country after this age limit, and that they tried to get an early (unfair) public approval to avoid a possible public debate and to 'feel better'.      


            In my letter of January 14th (att. 1.1), I mentioned that 'in our information society and given the situation of the world (billions of poor, deadly diseases,) information is also a weapon of mass destruction that kill everyday (much more than Mr. Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction); not talking about the establishment of an age limit for leaders is good example of this fact’.  Today I would like to add a new example to this fact.  Weather your are for the war with Iraq or against the war, I believe that everyone of you agree that some of the war reports made by the Iraqi Leaders, Saddam Hussein or his minister of information, are lies.  By giving wrong information to the Iraqi people and soldiers about the military situation, they try to avoid that the soldiers change side or decide to stop fighting against an enemy that drops thousands and thousands of bombs on them.  By doing so, they simply send thousands of soldiers to a sure death; information is without any doubt a terrible weapon of mass destruction!  (Perhaps the UN Security Council should be authorized to give official and ‘independent’ military report to the people of a country at war.)  


The war gives a victory to Mr. Bin Laden!  The September 11 2001 tragedy was often used to justify the high level of threat that posed Iraq's weapons of Mass destruction.  US and British officials often used the arguments that, if 20 terrorists armed with knifes could kill as many people and create as much damaged as they did in New York and Washington on 9-11, other (as determined) terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction could easily make an incredible amount of victims and greater damages.  The war with Iraq that started then partly because of this arguments, gives an indirect victory to Mr. Bin Laden who has succeeded with his horrible crime to threat and destabilize the US, England, …, to divide the international community, and to hinder the focus on 'our' global objectives. 


The International Community and 'you' should not let Mr. Bin Laden enjoy such a victory and keep 'us' from focusing on the terrible situation in which live billions of poor and on the different objectives that were set during the meeting of Head of State in September 2000 (these objectives were far to modest already, and we may not even reach them!).  Yes, the US and the other countries must find and punish Mr. Bin Laden and his 'associates' as soon as possible, but this should be, for a long time now, only a large-scale international criminal investigation.  If the International Community, the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, do not start again to focus as soon as possible on 'our' global objectives (fight against poverty, protection of the environment, education, fight against AIDS, …), the war with Iraq will have given a total victory to the terrorists around the world.  It is important to mobilize the public opinion on 'our' global objectives, just like 'you' have succeeded in mobilizing the people for or against this war in the past 8 months. 




To win the support of their public opinions, politicians tends sometimes to (hyper) simplify the problems they are trying to solve or to overlook certain issues that may cause them a 'personal prejudice'.  This fact created partly the Iraqi crisis, I believe.  Two groups of countries had a very different point of view on the solution of one problem, because they could not clearly identify the basic issues behind the problem they were trying to solve, and to discuss them in their debate.  Four important underlying issues of the crisis (the contradiction between a long lasting embargo and 'our' global objectives, the contradiction between the war and 'our' global objectives, the impunity or immunity for country Leaders, and the establishment of a 65 age limit for country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs) were overlooked although they explain well, at least partly, some of the different points of view expressed during the crisis. 


Since the International Community and the Security Council Members remain divided on the war, the two proposals I am presenting you become even more important.  The proposal to limit at 65 the age for Country Leaders and I.O. Chiefs (that addresses indirectly the 'impunity' issue) would be a small move that would ask very little from each country and International Organizations, but it would be of great significance for the world, and would have a serious impact on your effort to maintain peace and to fight poverty as we have seen.  It would be a first step toward making Leaders more responsible for what they do, and it would demonstrate 'their' will to show greater respect toward the new generations and the poor and to listen more to reason to solve the problems of the world. 


The computer project proposal would give a chance to international organizations and countries to work together on the development of one software and a classification of statistics that would speed up the transfer and facilitate the integration of statistical knowledge, which is so important in many areas of the society and economy.  It would have an impact on the fight against corruption by making the comparison between countries easier and by simplifying the search for statistics.  And would have a tremendous impact on development and on ‘our’ fight against poverty, because it would allow poor countries to access to the latest state of the art statistical information systems and show that we can develop systems for poor country at almost no cost for them (att. 4).

Of course, I wish that Mr. Annan, who was closely 'associated' with several tragedies (Rwanda, Srebrenica, and now Iraqi), would show the example and resign immediately to stress the importance of the age limit proposal for Leaders.  I wish that Mr. Chirac would admit that France has had in the past years an exaggerated number of corruption scandals (for the 'Country of Human Rights'), and that France was very unfair with me when it stole my judgment and refused to support my proposals.  I also wish that Mr. Chirac ordered the French government to pay the compensation I deserve for the grave prejudice I suffered. Finally, I wish that the Pope would also show the good example for the world, and remind everyone that many people don't even have a life expectancy at birth of 50 (or even 40 in some countries).  (But after the many efforts I already made, I doubt that they will do that, if 'you' do not encourage them to do so.)    


You have understood, I am sure, that the 'political' evaluation of my two proposals has an impact of some aspects of my legal case (violation of article 3 by France, credibility of my asylum demand,…).  I encountered many difficulties for the past ten years (and continue to have many undeserved difficulties) although I was (am) working in the interest of the international community (the letters of support I received prove that), so it would be very unfair for me and for the people of the world who would benefit from my two proposals and from the very special experience I gained while working on them, to deny me justice and recognition for my work.


 With my project proposal, I demonstrated that I could present 'you' a meaningful strategy to improve International Organizations (including UN agencies) operations in two important areas (IT and Statistics) and to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between I.O.s., and that I could give a new direction to tackle the problems of poverty and development (att. 4).  With my second proposal, I demonstrated that I was not afraid to address an important (even if unpopular for some) management issue that would have a significant impact on 'our' global objectives. 


According to att. 7, I was given the refugee status (even if some question this), so I have no country and cannot present my two proposals through an official representative of a member state, but you may allow me to submit them directly to 'you', accept to inscribe them on the UN agenda as soon as possible, and ask for a vote of the UN membership for the benefit of everyone on earth.  Given the nature of my work, only ‘you’ can really encourage France to give me justice and to pay me a compensation for the grave prejudice I suffered, and only you can recommend me for an appropriate position to continue my effort.  I remain


Yours sincerely,





Pierre Genevier



Enclosed are a list of attachments (1 page) and 10 attachments (77 pages).