33 thoughts on “If UN General Assembly Votes for Palestinian State, U.S. May Be Forced to Defund Entire UN System – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

    1. I don’t think that’s right. If the Security Council refuses to consider the resolution for statehood, then the GA may consider the resolution itself & approve it. It isn’t mandatory that the Security Council be the ratifying body. In 1947, the UN General Assembly recognized Partition, not the Security Council.

      1. No, the law does not stipulate cutting off funds because a UN subsidiary body r.e.c.o.g.n.i.z.e.s. Palestine.

        The law comes into effect when a UN body allows Palestinian j.o.i.n. that organization as a fully-fledged member state.

        Eyal is correct: General Assembly recognition of Palestine (i.e. a vote to make Palestine an “observer state”) does not trigger this law. It is triggered only if the UNGA voted to admit Palestine as a “member state”, and this they can not do without a prior recommendation of the Security Council.

        But note the irony: it is perfectly within Obama’s power as POTUS to instruct Susan Rice to abstain from that Security Council decision, at which point HE HIMSELF will be forced to defund the UN because of a decision that HE HIMSELF has made.

        That’s beyond crazy, which shows how utterly bizarre this law really is.

  1. In my opinion, I don’t think that the PA will succeed in accruing the 9 votes it needs in the UNSC. I am sure France will abstain, Bosnia’s triple presidency is split and more than likely will also have to abstain, Colombia? well, President Juan Manuel Santos’s position is pretty much dictated by the U.S. and Israel. My “guess” is that the PA will get around 7-8 votes in favour. If they do get the 9 votes and the US, does as it has stated it will do, vetoes the decision, the PA could use UN General Assembly Resolution 377, “Uniting for Peace”. A resolution that was, ironically, initiated by the US to get around Russia’s continual vetoes of tabled actions with regard to North and South Korea. Here a vote in the GA would override the SC.

    But I feel the 9 votes needed are just beyond what the PA can muster in the UNSC, therefore the US will not need to use its veto. This will please the US although I am not sure why, because they went to great lengths to stipulate they would use it, therefore the damage is the same regardless to how they will be perceived as “honest” brokers in any negotiations between the PA and Israel. It has been quite clear for years that the US is not an “honest” broker in this, they have now simply underlined that fact for all to see.

    But there is a 3rd option the PA could pursue, and (again only my opinion) I think they should, because with every failure on a “peaceful” route to statehood, they garner more support and more sympathy. They could ask to be admitted to the UN as a “non-member observer state”, an upgrade from the current status as observer.

    As such, the Palestinians could participate in GA debates, but not vote or sponsor resolutions amongst other things. However, it could accede to treaties and specialised U.N. agencies. For example, the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which gives members full sovereign rights over air space. Or the Law of the Sea Treaty, where they would gain legal control of national waters off Gaza.

    They could also gain access, to what I suspect the Israeli military and politicians fear the most, the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which would allow the PA to ask the ICC to investigate claims of war crimes, including other charges, committed by Israel from July 2002 until the present, which would include “Operation Cast Lead”.

    1. Here is an interesting question that will come into play if/when the UNGA recognizes that Palestine is a “non-member observer state”.

      The Question: Was South Korea a member state of the UN in 1950, when it appealed to the Security Council for help?
      The Answer: Nope. South Korea didn’t join the UN until 1993.

      So, obviously, it *is* possible for a non-member state to appeal to the UN Security Council regarding a threat to the peace, and it *is* possible for the UNSC to act upon that appeal for help.

      Because – demonstrably – that is exactly what the UNSC did in 1950.

      THAT is the route that the Palestinians have to take if they are ever to invoke UN Resolution 377 i.e.
      1) Gain UN recognition as “a state”
      2) Appeal to the UNSC for help against an act of aggression
      3) Watch the USA veto that appeal
      4) Turn to the UNGA and ask it to invoke UNGA Res 377

      That is the only way I can see the Palestinians getting around the US veto in the Security Council.

    2. “the PA could use UN General Assembly Resolution 377, “Uniting for Peace”. ”

      No, not to get Palestine admitted to the UN as a member state.

      UNGA 377 allows for collective action by the member states of the General Assembly against a threat to the peace in a situation where a Security Council veto renders that body incapable.

      But it can *only* be used against a “threat to the peace”, and that isn’t the situation that you envision i.e. while being blackballed from The World’s Biggest Country Club is undoubtably annoying to Abbas, but it ain’t a “threat to the peace” and, therefore, it cannot be overturned by UNGA Res 377.

    3. They could ask to be admitted to the UN as a “non-member observer state”, an upgrade from the current status as observer.

      As such, the Palestinians could participate in GA debates, but not vote or sponsor resolutions amongst other things. However, it could accede to treaties and specialised U.N. agencies.

      As a full member state of a UN specialized agency, UNESCO, the State of Palestine already can accede to any UN treaty that is open for signature under the strict “Vienna formula” contained in Article 81 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. They can also become parties to multilateral conventions open for signature under the much less strict “All States” formula, like the Rome Statute of the ICC.

      Prof. William Schabas, the author of the Oxford Commentary on the Rome Statute has written two articles on the subject in recent days, Palestine Should Accede to the Rome Statute and another that summed-up the consequences of Palestine’s full membership in UNESCO:

      Thus, nothing stands in the way of Palestine acceding to the Rome Statute except Palestine itself. . . .He [the Prosecutor] should now move on to an assessment of the substance of the allegations that crimes under the Statute have been committed in Palestine since 1 July 2002.

      1. Interesting reads indeed.

        This goes back to what I said in another thread i.e. the various officeholders/directors/etc. are not free to bow to the threats of the US Congress.

        They have rules, regulations, procedures and precedents that they are supposed to follow.

        So if the Palestinians meet the criteria for being admitted to an organization then the gatekeepers for those organizations are not free to turn them down with the excuse “But! But! He says he’ll cut off my pocket-money if I let you in!”

        That may well be their problem, but it isn’t a valid excuse for abusing their position.

  2. It does seem that he US’s blackmail along with Canada’s and Israels with regard to UN org. funding is having the desired effect they want it to:

    Ban Ki-moon: Palestinian membership of UN agencies is ‘not beneficial’

    Millions of people could be affected if UN agencies see their funding cut as a result of the Palestinian bids, he said in an interview on Thursday at the sidelines of the G20 summit in Cannes.

    The US and Canada have cut off funding for Unesco since the Paris-based UN cultural agency approved a Palestinian membership bid – stripping it of about one-quarter of its total funding.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/ban-ki-moon-palestinian-un

    1. Hmmm, maybe.

      But a point that doesn’t appear to ever get mentioned is this: once the Palestinians apply to a UN organization then the board of executives isn’t ALLOWED to say “no” merely because Mr Money Bags is threatening to cut off their allowance.

      Here is the IAEA statute:
      “In recommending and approving a State for membership, the Board of Governors and the General Conference shall determine that the State is able and willing to carry out the obligations of membership in the Agency, giving due consideration to its ability and willingness to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

      Or, put another way: the ONLY question the board has to answer is wether (or not) “Palestine” can/will act in accordance with the IAEA statute, and if they decide that it can (and it can) then the Board is obliged to recommend that Palestine be admitted.

      I know, I know, naive in the extreme.

      But I hope that there are, indeed, still some people of integrity in high office; people who can at least fight for what is Right, and not just on behalf of what is Might.

    2. The International Criminal Court was established outside the framework of the United Nations due to the difficulty (with you know who) in amending the UN Charter.

      Neither the United States nor Israel fund the Court. So, the State of Palestine can still join the ICC as a regular state party.

  3. “We will truly become the impotent figure on the world stage which we only appear to be now to those watching this farce play itself out. ”

    Well, for many non-Americans the world over that would be a delight to see. And I’m one of them. It’s hard to see any positive role the US has played in the post-cold war era. Relentless, merciless even, pursuit of its own vested interests, an near-absent sensitivity/knowledge about other cultures, hypocrisy that stinks to high heaven, promotion of a wealth generation system to near-status of state religion stroke ponzi scheme, a phantasmagorical view of itself and its role in the world, support for the oppression of an entire people, Palinesque conservatism, exceptionalism, extreme nationalism/militarism, 21st Century re-introduction of torture… I could go on; that’s a recipe for a lot of people despising the US of A, while fearing it all the same.

    OWS is at least hope-giving, if perhaps nothing more.

  4. 22 USC 287e
    ‘‘(a) PROHIBITION.—No funds authorized to be appro-
    priated by this Act or any other Act shall be available
    for the United Nations or any specialized agency there-
    of which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization
    the same standing as member states.”

    I don’t think the UNGA acting without approval from UNSC can elevate Palestine to a full member. Not even in a special session. Too bad. UNGA could move Palesatine UP a notch, but not to full member, and thus USA’s funding of UN is not threatened. again, too bad.

    1. So, if the General Assembly admitted Palestine as a member state but denied it some one privilege accruing to member states, Palestine would then not have the same standing as member states, and the legal prohibition would not be triggered?

      1. No, the General Assembly can’t admit Palestine as a “member state” without a prior recommendation by the UNSC. It’s own statute (i.e. the UN Charter) does not allow them to do that.

        Your point is therefore moot, being a “what if” question that can never be answered.

        What the UNGA can do is vote to allow Palestine to be an “observer state” i.e. something that is not a member of the UN, but which that is recognized as “a state” and not simply “a stateless territory”.

        What is interesting is whether (or not) that triggers the law, and that will come down to an interpretation of the meaning of the phrase “the same standing as member states”.

        Which, obviously, is a phrase that can mean anything.

        1. It’s own statute (i.e. the UN Charter) does not allow them to do that.

          The Charter doesn’t allow the General Assembly to convene an emergency special session and adopt resolutions under the guise of “Uniting for Peace” or to take action on any question while the Security Council is seized of the matter. Nonetheless, the ICJ has advised that the practice of the organization has evolved to permit those things.

          The Security Council has the hortatory power to recommend a state for membership under the terms of the Charter, but it is the General Assembly that has the power to ultimately decide the question.

          1. “The Charter doesn’t allow the General Assembly to convene an emergency special session and adopt resolutions under the guise of “Uniting for Peace” or to take action on any question while the Security Council is seized of the matter. Nonetheless, the ICJ has advised that the practice of the organization has evolved to permit those things.”

            Nothing in the UN Charter PRHIBITS the General Assembly from doing that, and so the UN General Assembly can make that move.

            But there *is* something in the UN Charter that *does* prevent the General Assembly to unilaterally admit a new member state: “The admission of any such state to membership in the Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”

            You can (and so can the ICJ) argue that That Which Is Not Prohibited Is Permissible.

            Go ahead. Feel Free. Don’t let me stop you.

            But you really have no leg to stand on by claiming that That Which Is Prohibited Can Be Permitted If I So Choose.

            If that’s the case then anything goes, and the UN Charter goes out the window.

          2. Actually, thinking about this some more, and I can see a flaw in this argument:
            “The Charter doesn’t allow the General Assembly to convene an emergency special session and adopt resolutions under the guise of “Uniting for Peace” “.

            Actually, it does:
            Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”.

            The key is the right to “collective self-defence” i.e. if there is an act of aggression then the individual member states do NOT have to wait for the UNSC to tell them what to do: they can meet in the Assembly building and decide amongst themselves on a “coalition of the willing”.

            “or to take action on any question while the Security Council is seized of the matter”

            Now, sorry, that’s just plain wrong.

            The UNSC declares that it remains “seized of the matter” by way of a Security Council Resolution, and the entire rationale behind UNGA 377 is that no such resolution is forthcoming *because* of a veto-wielding recalcitrant.

            Again, I’ll point you to Article 51 i.e. a collective of states is perfectly free to act until the Security Council meets and (this is the important part) it “has taken measures necessary”.

            Remember, UNGA 377 is predicated upon that being impossible because of a veto, and so that veto not only
            a) stymies the UNSC,
            it also
            b) leaves that right to a “collective self-defence” quite intact.

            And what is UNGA Res 377, if it isn’t a resolution formalizing just how and where the “collective” shall meet and decide the manner of that “collective self-defence”?

          3. Nothing in the UN Charter PRHIBITS the General Assembly from doing that, and so the UN General Assembly can make that move.

            On the contrary, Article 12(1) of the Charter contained a specific prohibition:

            1. While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests. — http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art12

            The concluding phrase of most Security Council resolutions is the standard boilerplate “Decides to remain seized of the matter” So, the General Assembly should be debarred from talking any action in such cases. Nonetheless the ICJ has ruled that the customary practice of the Organization has evolved over time. See for example paragraph 25 et. seq. in the 2004 Wall case. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

          4. OK, I’ll point this out again:
            UNGA Res 377 can only ever come into play when the UN Security Council is demonstrably hamstrung by a veto wielding recalcitrant.

            At which precise moment, of course, it becomes an undenial truth that the UN Security Coucil is no longer “exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter”

            “The concluding phrase of most Security Council resolutions is the standard boilerplate “Decides to remain seized of the matter” ”

            Indeed true, and I’ll point out again (how many times must I do this?) that UNGA 377 can not be invoked UNLESS a veto-wielding recalitrant prevents the UN Security Council from passing a Resolution on a matter that is a threat to the peace.

            A veto = no UNSC Resolution = no “Decides to remain seized of the matter” = your point becomes moot.

          5. If that’s the case then anything goes, and the UN Charter goes out the window.

            In fact, the ICJ has already ruled that the only criteria that applies to admission of new members is contained in article 4 of the Charter. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art4

            The notion that mere membership in the organization is not a routine procedural matter is debatable. The Court alluded to that fact in the dicta of its opinion the last time a UN membership application for the West Bank was declined. See Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) 1947, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&code=asun&case=3&k=2e

            The veto is not applicable to procedural matters in accordance with Article 27(2) of the Charter. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art27

            If membership has anything at all to do with the maintenance of international peace and security, then it is obvious that the US and Israel are using the question of statehood to facilitate efforts by Israel to commit acts against Palestine that would be prohibited under the terms of the Charter if a State were the victim. The Charter provisions on collective defense have never been applied to the Arab League and its member state Palestine.

            The Syrian representative underscored the problem in 1948:

            Yet the Zionists will again raise the same cry every time, on every occasion when we speak to them of our fairness, of our rights, of our justice; they will say, “But we have a State.”

            Eban replied

            What this draft resolution involves is that one organ of the United Nations should give its view on the juridical status of a territory of which the proper juridical status has recently been defined by another, and not inferior, organ of the United Nations:. For the International Court of Justice to examine the juridical status of Palestine after the recommendation of the General Assembly would be to confer upon the International Court of Justice the capacity of a court of appeals, against the action of a principal organ of the United Nations. The matter is made worse by the avowed intention of the representative of Syria to make the International Court of Justice, in addition, a court of appeal against a decision recently adopted by the Security Council with reference to the determination of a threat to the peace. that the theory that the Charter forbids acts of aggression only against States is utterly without foundation. Indeed, neither Chapter VI nor Chapter VII, in defining threats to the peace or acts of aggression, shows the slightest interest in the juridical status of the victim. The word “State” does not occur in either of those chapters. There is no provision whatever that the attacked party must be universally recognized as a State before an armed attack upon it can be determined as an act of aggression. Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter forbids the use of force not only if it is directed against the integrity of a State but aIso if it is used “in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations”.

            http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.340

          6. P.S. As we all know by now, Israel and its supporters challenged the standing of the Palestinians to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC in accordance with Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute for crimes committed on their territory during Cast Lead. Israel claimed that it was not yet universally recognized as a “State”.

          7. OK, I’ll point this out again:
            UNGA Res 377 can only ever come into play when the UN Security Council is demonstrably hamstrung by a veto wielding recalcitrant.

            Nothing prevents the General Assembly from setting a new legal precedent within its functional area of competence whenever the members adopt a decision on any important question in accordance with Article 18 of the Charter. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/unchart.htm#art18

            After all, that’s how we got UNGA Res 377 in the first place. FYI, France and Russia challenged the validity of the Uniting For Peace resolution that authorized the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) during the crisis in the Sinai. In the “Certain Expenses” case the ICJ said that it was a mistaken view to assert that, just because the General Assembly had the power to make a recommendation, that its powers were limited to making hortatory statements. The Court affirmed the fact that the General Assembly can adopt legally binding decisions and that its authorization of the deployment of the UNEF forces in the Sinai and assessments to fund it were not ultra vires acts.

          8. OK, this is just getting ludicrous.

            All states are bound by the articles of the UN Charter, and you can’t join the UN unless you agree with that statement.

            If the Charter says that the General Assembly must cease and desist *while* the Security Council is doing This, or That, or The Other then that’s what the General Assembly has to do.

            If the Charter is silent regarding Some Situation then it is at least arguable that the good and the great in the General Assembly can decide umongst themselves what should be done i.e. that which is not prohibited is permissible.

            Someone goes to the UNSC with a claim that there is a threat to the peace.

            The UN Charter is quite clear what happens when the Security Council meets and decides what to do about it i.e. what it decides is what happens.

            And when the UNC meets and can’t get nine votes then that means that as far as the UNSC is concerned that “threat” is overblown and there simply is nothing that needs “doing”.

            But the UN Chart is silent about what happens when nine members clearly decide that there *is* a threat to the peace, but a self-interested veto-wielding recalcitrant vetos any action

            In that situation it is NOT the case that the UNSC believes there is no threat to the peace – far from it, as those nine votes prove – it’s that the UNSC is hamstrung about doing something about it.

            It is only in that situation that the UN General Assembly is able to invoke Res 377.

            I got no problem with that, but what I *do* have a problem with is the idea that the UNGA can get together and decide to do something that the UN Charter explicitely says They Must Not Do.

            The Charter is perfectly clear on the issue of membership: that comes with a vote in the UNGA on the r.e.c.o.m.m.e.n.d.a.t.i.o.n. of the UNSC.

            No recommendation = no vote.

            It says so, in black and white.

          9. OK, this is just getting ludicrous.

            Yes it is, because you are ignoring the ICJ case law and the evolving practice of the UN that was cited.

            Both the General Assembly and the Security Council interpreted and applied Article 12 in a number of cases to the effect that the Assembly could not make any recommendation at all on a question concerning the maintenance of international peace and security while the matter remained on the Council’s agenda. See the examples cited in paragraph 27 of the Advisory Opinion on the Construction of the Wall.

            However that interpretation of Article 12 has subsequently evolved and the Court noted that “an increasing tendency over time for the General Assembly and the Security Council to deal in parallel with the same
            matter concerning the maintenance of international peace and security”
            .

            The tenth Emergency Special Session of the General Assembly was convened for the first time in April 1997 and reconvened last in January 2009. http://www.un.org/en/ga/sessions/emergency10th.shtml

            The prohibition in Article 12(1) and the 1 veto/9 votes test has become meaningless. The General Assembly repeatedly reconvened the same special session a dozen times over the course of a decade – even in cases where the Security Council adopted a decision that was binding upon all of the member states in accordance with articles 24 and 25 and remained seized of the matter, e.g. Operation Cast Lead and resolution 1860 January 8, 2009.

          10. What *ARE* you arguing about?

            I have already pointed out that Article 51 of the Charter RECOGNIZES that states can get together to effect a “collective self-defence” until such time as the UN Security Council “has taken measures necessary”.

            I have already pointed out that the UNSC convening to debate an threat to the peace is **not** “taking measures” i.e. merely convening the UNSC does not short-circuit that right to a “collective action” by individual member states.

            It is therefore axiomatic that merely convening the UNSC to debate an issue does not prevent member states from meeting *anywhere* *they* *damn* *well* *like* to make their own decisions on a collective response to a threat to the peace, and if they want to hold that meeting in the General Assembly (which is what UNGA 377 amounts to) then that right is ALREADY recognized by Article 51 of the Charter.

            But this is the point I am stressing: invoking UNGA 377 can only be taken – and is only taken – when it is demonstrably the case that the UNSC CAN’T take action against a threat to the peace because of a veto.

            You are insisting that UNGA 377 is a catch-all, get-out-of-goal do-not-pass-go card that the UNGA can play for any reason and at any time to overrule the UNSC on any issue.

            It isn’t. And it certainly can’t be invoked merely because the UNGA is pissed off with America for vetoing a UNSC recommendation for membership.

            That. Ain’t. No. Threat. To. The. Peace.

          11. What *ARE* you arguing about?

            I have already pointed out that Article 51 of the Charter RECOGNIZES that states can get together to effect a “collective self-defence” until such time as the UN Security Council “has taken measures necessary”.

            In 2004, the ICJ noted that the General Assembly had reconvened the rolling 10th Emergency Session over a matter that had not been submitted to the Security Council in accordance with the criteria of resolution 377 A (V). It was also argued that the Security Council was already taking action inline with SC Resolution 1515.

            FYI, the Court said that 377 A (V) applied if one or more permanent members caused the Council to fail to exercise its primary responsibility for the
            maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. No vote is required, only a lack of unanimity or inaction.

            The General Assembly has reconvened the 10th Emergency Special Session 11 times. It has never cited Article 51, notified the Security Council in accordance with the terms of Article 51, discussed collective self defense, or recommended an act of collective self-defense in accordance with resolution 377 A (V). So what are you talking about?

            In the most recent instance, Article 51 would only have applied until 8 January 2009, when the Security Council adopted the measures contained in resolution 1860.

            Getting back to our original discussion. Article 4 of the Charter only stipulates that the admission of a state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

            After 60 years, the Security Council is still operating under so-called “provisional rules of procedure”, because it refuses to adopt any fixed rules that might tie its hands in any situation. The Charter criteria for a Security Council “recommendation” was satisfied when the Council adopted resolution 1515 endorsing the Quartet Road Map. It called on the members of the Quartet, including the United Nations Organization, to promote international recognition of the Palestinian state within provisional or interim boundaries, including the option of UN membership, prior to the final settlement.

            At the Security Council’s 433rd meeting, the Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban, stated that the Article 40 provisional measures adopted by the Security Council, including the permanent armistice lines, have the normal characteristics of provisional frontiers until such time as a new process of negotiation and agreement determines the final territorial settlement. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.433

            The General Assembly has affirmed that Palestinian statehood is a matter of self-determination and is not subject to the peace process or to any veto. See operative paragraphs 1 & 2 of <a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/55/87"A/RES/55/87, 21 February 2001.

            The General Assembly could easily admit Palestine as a full member by simply:

            *Recalling Security Council resolution 1515;
            *Recalling the right of the Palestinian people to determine their own political status and statehood in accordance with the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
            *Recalling its own resolution which stipulated that Palestinian statehood is not subject to any veto.

  5. RE: “And it’ll be Obama’s own damn fault for not fighting the good fight on behalf of a truly balanced foreign policy in which we play an honest broker, rather than Israel’s lawyer.” ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: Rather than Israel’s lawyer, more like Israel’s “muscle” (thug); as someone might have said on The Sopranos.

  6. RE: “If UN General Assembly Votes for Palestinian State, U.S. May Be Forced to Defund Entire UN System” ~ R.S.

    TAKE IT AWAY, BOWIE:

    …Johnny wants a plane
    Johnny wants to suck on a Coke
    Johnny wants a woman
    Johnny wants to think of a joke
    Uh-uh-uh uh, uh, uh-uh uh-uh-uh
    Johnny’s in America
    Uh-uh-uh uh, uh, uh-uh uh-uh-uh…

    [CHORUS]
    I’m afraid of Americans
    I’m afraid of the world
    I’m afraid I can’t help it
    I’m afraid I can’t
    I’m afraid of Americans
    ~
    God is an American
    God is an American
    ~ David Bowie, 1997

    David Bowie (feat Nine Inch Nails): I’m Afraid Of Americans (VIDEO, 04:24) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKNd22GGaQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *