Stephen Edetanlen Foundation (SEF)

Foolish wisdom

2011-07-13T02:04:00.001+01:00

Leviticus 18:22-28 NKJV, Isaiah 55:8-9 NKJV and Ezekiel 18:20-23 NKJV

It is a fool who will do what he knows another was punished for, and expect he would get blessed for doing that same thing.

God said, because these people defiled themselves, I will cast them away. Now, nations say they are wise & civilised, and have gone beyond just doing the same evil, to legalising it and making it part of the national laws. Then, they wonder why things are getting worse and bad things happening?

When will we learn that man's ways are not necessarily God's ways? What part of the above scriptures is not clear enough? Yes, God is love & merciful, but He has given a commandment and said I "hate" the acts!

Listen folks, you can argue all you want about love, freedom, discrimination, modernity & "political correctness", it will not change God.

Plainly, God Hayes sodomy, homosexuality, lesbians & gays. Desist or you will go to where all sinners will go. Justify yourself all you want, but God cannot be mocked! Please save yourself, and repent now.

Death Hit Nollywood, Stars Run To Pastor Adeboye For Prayers

2011-06-12T04:29:00.000+01:00

God is merciful. No one can curse who God has not cursed. There are evil forces in the world, like it or not. The wise person will run under the shadow of the Almighty God -and nothing can touch such. I thank God for Pastor Adeboye, and I commit the lives of all who have come to God for His unfailing protection and covering. It is well.

Link to the story
Or, see comment here

Fw:

2011-06-12T03:47:00.002+01:00

-----sent using my BlackBerry------

WORK HIS WORKS

Text: John 9:4 "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."

Body: Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."

Ecclesiastes 11:4 "He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap." Yesterday morning, it looked like it would rain and spoil evangelism. When Christ asked some to follow Him, their excuse was they had other things to do, e.g. "new wife". Point is: If you want 1 excuse not to do work, you will find many.

Our day is our life. At death –night, no man can do work.

What do we do with it –day? How much work –of Christ –do we do in it? Some believe all they need to do is just be good. If you think you are right, then check out this other "good man" in Acts 10:1 – 4; 21 – 22.

Acts 11:14 Cornelius was a good man, yet he was heading for hell if not for God's intervention for his salvation.

You can be good and still go to hell. But, God does not want that for you. So, He saved you. But, as long as you are saved and remain on earth, He expects you to do His works! –bear fruits!

As a believer, you need to step up to the next level and become a disciple. John 8:31 "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;"

Many are called, but a few are chosen.

Mark 3:14 He chose some to be with Him –(WHY?) that He may send them out to preach (share the good news and show many the way!)

John 15:27 "And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning."

We need to do Christ' work –otherwise we may be just like Cornelius before he knew Christ

It will inconvenience us, no doubt.

We will sacrifice self, often

But, it's God's will –as we now live Christ's life, not ours. He has bought us with a very hefty price.

Finally: Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Why do we still have own agenda that has no place for the work of God? What shall it profit us (if we gain all the material things we seek, but miss eternal life)?

James 1:22 "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says." And, you shall be more blessed, as you take this step and do more. Amen.

Fw: Please worship with us at The...

2011-06-11T11:19:00.002+01:00

------ SMS ------
Sent: 11 Jun 2011 11:14 AM
Subject: Please worship with us at The...
Please worship with us at The Redeemed Christian Church of God: Place of His Presence. @ Mottingham Methodist Church Hall, 62 Mottingham Road, Mottingham, SE9 4QR. Wednesdays @ 7:30 - 8:30PM. Sundays @ 8 - 9:45AM. GOD BLESS YOU AS YOU WORSHIP WITH US. AMEN! http://www.placeofhispresence.org/. Buses 124 & 126. Get off at Court Rd/Mottingham Rd Stop: ML.
-----sent using my BlackBerry------

"Foe to friend"

2011-06-08T08:25:00.000+01:00

"Foe to friend" -- Steve

http://bible.us/n/6C10
------------------

Exodus 34:20

2011-06-08T07:52:00.001+01:00

But the firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb. And if you will not redeem him, then you shall break his neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.
"And none shall appear before Me empty-handed.

http://bible.us/Exod34.20.NKJV
------------------

Share a note

2011-05-24T09:07:00.001+01:00

"Uncommon sense" -- Steve04

http://bible.us/n/5kME
------------------

"What Do We Do Now?" -- LacrosseBoss

2011-05-19T04:16:00.001+01:00

"What Do We Do Now?" -- LacrosseBoss

http://bible.us/n/4mtP
------------------

What do you do with the truth?

2011-05-19T04:10:00.001+01:00

"What do you do with the truth?" -- Steve

http://bible.us/n/5Yce
------------------

YOU WILL REACH YOUR GOAL

2011-05-17T23:00:00.000+01:00

Genesis 11:31 “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.”

Introduction: It is all very good and well to have desires, goals, and plans. Generally, everyone of us has somewhere we plan or desire to get to. We often set out to get to a stage, level, point or destination. Unfortunately, that’s not enough; it is not just sufficient to have such desires or plans –no matter how pious, lofty or noble they may be. There is no point starting and not finishing; beginning and not concluding; starting up and not completing or journeying and not getting to your destination.

You have to finish what you have started. When you get up in the morning to go to work, you have to get to work, don’t you? In the same vein, when you begin a process, you have to finish that process. Every journey has a destination. So, when you begin a journey, it is expected that you will arrive at your destination, ultimately. That is what is called success –obtaining the set out goal!

Body: In our passage, a man –Terah –sets out on a journey with certain members of his family. He called them together and told them to get ready that they were heading to a place called Canaan. They set out and went on their way to this land of Canaan. On the way to this Canaan land they stopped by at a place called Haran. Because they set out for a particular place and had a destination, we expected they would continue on their way, after re-stocking and resting at Haran. But, no, Terah did not take his family beyond Haran. The record shows that he dwelt –that is, settled in this place that was not in the plan!

What happened?! Did this man not have a plan or destination before setting off? Surely, he did. He even mentioned the name –Canaan. He had a goal, but it was not met. He had a target, but failed. He had a desire, it was not fulfilled!

The problem was not that he did not have a desire or goal, nor that he did not set out to accomplish it. He had them. As we pointed out from the start, they are relevant and important, they are just not sufficient in themselves to get you to your destination or get the job done.

I will show you four reasons why people do not reach their goals or achieve what they set out to achieve.

Why goals fail:

(1) Lack of purpose –did you notice that Terah did not have a purpose to his desire or aim? The Bible says desires that have wrong purposes will not be granted (James 4:3). What do you think of desires with no purpose at all? Without a purpose, where will your drive to go on and succeed come from? You have to have a purpose to motivate you and get you doing when tiredness, obstacles and negative feedbacks arise.

Matthew 26:39 “And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.”

When Christ came to a point when He would rather give up His mission, His love for us and the need to reunite us with God, sustained Him and saw Him through a challenging time. That was the purpose why He came down to earth.

(2) No leader –Terah was his own boss and did whatever pleases him. He woke up one day and decided he was going to take this journey. He felt no need to consult anyone, he was the patriarch. Being a man makes him flawed and susceptible to errors and wrong judgements. There is a leader who is not subject to such errors of judgement. In fact, before you even contemplate your journey, this Leader knows what is at the destination and He can say to you “go” or “do not go”. His followers trust Him to lead them.

John 10:27 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:”

(3) Becoming comfortable –what do you think Terah saw in Haran that kept him there? Could it be that the house prices there were much better than in Ur, or the job offer was simply irresistible? Whatever, it was, Haran was not the aim. If you keep abandoning goals or aims because you became comfortable with what came your way, you will not get anything completed. When you look behind, you will find a trail of abandoned projects behind you –abandoned marriages, abandoned buildings, abandoned education, etc. One man that never became too comfortable to move on was Apostle Paul. He had a prize set before him to attain, and he kept on pressing regardless of whatever he had achieved or attained. “I press” said Apostle Paul, he did not say “pressed” and now have to rest.

Philippians 3:13-14 “¹³Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

¹⁴I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”

Whatever comes, your way, do not lose sight of your target.

(4) No conviction/faith –it does not appear that Terah really believed he was going to get to Canaan. He was probably wandering with the aim of settling in the first place that is convenient for him and where people who knew his late son, would not find him and remind him of the loss. When you come across certain people with conviction or faith in what they are doing, you can tell where they are headed or what they will become. This is because their conviction exudes from within. Some will begin learning the language of the place of their intended destination; those preparing for examinations will become more studious; some will change their clothes; potential spouses may begin marriage courses and like the five wise virgins prepared for eventualities.

Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.”

If you have not faith in what you are doing, it will be very difficult for you to achieve it. You will be easily distracted and follow any way that opens rather than the way that will certainly lead you to your target.

With the combination of these factors, failure is inevitable. Little wonder then that Terah failed to reach his goal. People in the above circumstances, like Terah, will most likely:

· Settle for less or anything –whatever glitters is gold to them and leads them to change direction

· Be easily discouraged –even for flimsy reasons and make excuses why they should not do something; excuses such as “my name was not mentioned”, or “am I the only available person”?

· Compromise –concluding that God will understand their situation; or make comments like “missing one service does not make me a sinner –we had team training”, “I had to lie or I would have lost my job. Even, David sinned and was forgiven”

· Become complacent –examples “I’ve been preaching for over 35 years; I don’t need to pray & prepare for a service” and “I achieved all those, that should suffice. I need to relax more now”.

· Doubt –any time things do not go as they expected, they start looking around for way out and thinking if they made a mistake by embarking on the project. Luke 9:62 “And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Finally: Between your start point and the end (goal), a lot of things will crop up –some expected and some not. Through the process or journey, the only thing that is important is your goal. You must remain focused. Anything that is not geared toward your success can be classed as distractions.

Distractions may come as cogent reasons as in Luke 9:59 – 61 “⁵⁹And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. ⁶⁰Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. ⁶¹And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.” But, you must be steadfast in order to reach your goal. You will reach your goal, in Christ’s name.

Philippians 4:13 “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” When your motive or purpose is right and Christ is your Lord or Leader, there is nothing that is beyond your reach. You will accomplish much and there is no o limits –be all you can.

Visit our website

Fw:

2011-04-04T19:50:00.001+01:00

30 winsford Rd se6 4ls. 3 bed 2 reception semi-detatched house,kitchen diner,drive for 2 cars, garage,garden,2 wcs and bathroom. Rent £1400pcm. Dss accepted.urgent.
-----sent using my BlackBerry------

Stephen Edetanlen Foundation (SEF): Become A Child

2010-11-30T00:17:00.000Z

Stephen Edetanlen Foundation (SEF): Become A Child

Become A Child

2010-11-30T00:14:00.002Z

Matthew 18: 1 - 4

Question:

Jesus’ disciples asked Him this question: Lord, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

You may wonder why they asked this question. Could it be jealousy or is it that they were scheming to get preferential position in the kingdom they thought Jesus was going to set up. You are entitled to think what you will.

But, notice that Jesus did not ask them the motive for seeking to know. But He directed His response to the question. This is because, if they get that right, it will automatically cancel out their motive for asking –as their will not be a place for whatever the reason was in the process of really becoming the greatest.

Response:

Jesus’ reply to the question was in two folds. Firstly, He made them aware that to become the greatest in the kingdom of heaven; you would first need to make it to the kingdom. In order for that to happen, you must change from your old way of the flesh or sight, and become a person led by the spirit or of faith. You must be born again, as He told Nicodemus in John 3. We must be converted because it is impossible to serve Him in our old way of life –flesh (Romans 8:6 – 8 says: 6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God)

And, when that change happens, you will begin to manifest some character associated with children. That was why He brought the child as a living example. These characteristics that are found in a normal child and which we need to possess to enable us make it to the kingdom of heaven include:

i. Ability to obey our Lord (John 10:27)

ii. Trusting our Lord, easily (Ephesians 3:20)

iii. Possession of a pure heart and clean hands (James 4:8)

iv. Not regarding offences –children do not record offences, so the issue of forgiveness does not even arise!

v. Separation from evil from evil (James 4: 7 – 8)

vi. Readiness to serve others (Mark 9:33- 35)

The second part of Jesus’ answer was this: Having enlightened His disciples, Jesus went on to tell them that the one who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the one who has the characteristics of a child and is humble. This is because pride destroys. Though we know this; many of us do not work to destroy pride in us before it destroys us, like it did to Lucifer. James 4: 6 & 10 tells us that God resists the proud.

Finally:

If you want to see the manifestation of God’s glory, you need to first, change –no matter what you think of yourself now.

Then, you need to come down from your high horse to the level where God can work with you.

"Inconvenience" of Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone

2010-08-10T14:01:00.000+01:00

The media is agog with the "inconvenience" comment by Naomi Campbell. Apart from her being quoted out of context, this illustrates what Jesus Christ was addressing in Matthew 7. We quickly judge others, forgetting that we may actually be worse if we look at ourselves.

How many of us will really take time out of our schedules (even when we are less busy or less in demand as she is) just to testify in a court sitting in another country? Or, contribute to humanity like she does? Judge yourself first! How many of us has contributed some of our personal fortune (inherited, worked for or even criminally-acquired) to humanity; not taking into account the fund raising and other benefits?

By the way, who even bothered to check/watch what she actually said was not twisted? Let's not be hypocrites! There is some much flaws, filth, unrighteousness in us. Let us take as much time and effort we put into condemning others to examine ourselves; and make ourselves better. If we do, we will be surprised how good it would do our society, families and ourselves.

Where A Man Sows?

2010-08-02T14:29:00.000+01:00

Where A Man Sows?

HOPING AGAINST HOPE

2010-01-15T15:50:00.001Z

Romans 4:18

Introduction

What has God said concerning you?

What did you testify to people concerning God’s promises for you?

Have these promises come to pass?

Is your present circumstance contrary to those promises and you now doubt if they will ever come to pass?

Body

Against reality and against hope, a 100-year-old Abraham still had hope he would bear a child. Why? Simply because God said it!

From verse 19 – 21 of Romans 4, we can see why the promise to Abraham came to pass. The result you obtain is tied to the amount of your belief! Even in this day of advanced scientific breakthroughs, if you were told at the age of a 100 years that you will give birth naturally to your own seed, what will your response be? Will it be like Abraham's, even with the benefit of hindsight? See how Abraham approached the situation that seemed impossible:

1) He kept his faith in God

Despite his old age of 100 and the "dead" womb of Sarah his wife, Abraham still believed he would bear fruits –because it was God who promised him! Simply because it was a word of God. You too can experience such miracles in whatever circumstance you are in. You only need to believe the word of God, and they shall surely come to pass.

Against hope, Abraham hoped for the promises made concerning him to come to pass. Focus on no other but the One who promised you. It is not the world, but God. Numbers 23:19 says He is not a man, and He does not lie. Do not be afraid to hold on to the word of God concerning you. John 14: 1 & 27 says you should not let your heart be troubled, just trust God;

2) He was giving God glory for what had not yet materialised!

2 Cor. 4:15 says all things are for your sake, that God may be glorified. God has a portion in your success. It is His will for you to have peace and enjoy a good life. Even before you receive what you are believing Him for, begin to thank Him and give Him glory for it, knowing that He has never failed and will not fail. In Jeremiah 32:27, God declares: “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?” According to 1 Peter 5: 6 – 7, humble yourself and cast your worries upon God, in trust. In due time, He, Himself, will lift you up if you stay your faith upon Him; and

3) He did not doubt God’s ability

Has God promised you anything? If He has, then be glad because, He WILL do it! Hebrews10:23.

In Isaiah 46: 4 – 11, we see that there is no other like our God. He will do what He has purposed to do, even till our old age, He will carry you through and bring you into the fulfilment of the promise. Never doubt His ability, not even in your widest imagination. There is none you can compare Him to. He is unique -He is God. The One before Whom absolutely nothing at all is too hard to do. There is no impossibility with Him. And He is there to help you. Your help comes from Him. Put all your focus and faith in Him Psalm 121: 1 – 2.

In conclusion

You only need to come to God, for expectations to become manifestations, promises to be fulfilled, captives to be liberated, hopeless situations to become jubilant situations. He has pleasant and great surprises for those who can wait for His promises to come to pass. Isaiah 64:4

No matter how messy your situation may be, or how hard you may think it is, remember God is not a man -though you are. What is impossible, helpless or dead for you is not necessarily so with God. Even the captive still has hope where God is involved! By Psalm 126 we see that the Lord shall turn again our captivity and give us songs of joy. Amen. I encourage you to hope in the Lord, stand upon His promises and remain faithful to His ways; He will bring His word concerning you to pass. Amen.

You can pray to God right now, for your unpleasant situation(s) to be reversed. You may wish to first read Psalm 34: 4 – 10

Triple-E Post: NIGERIA IS NOT A TERRORIST COUNTRY

2010-01-15T14:03:00.000Z

Triple-E Post: NIGERIA IS NOT A TERRORIST COUNTRY

HOPING AGAINST HOPE

2009-07-12T21:15:00.004+01:00

HOPING AGAINST HOPE
Romans 4:18

Introduction
>What has God said concerning you?
>Did you testify to the people concerning God’s promises for you?
>Have these promises come to pass?
>Is your present circumstances contrary to those promises and you now doubt if they will come to pass?
Against reality and against hope, a 100-year-old Abraham still had hope he would bear a child. Why? Simply because God said it!

Body
From verse 19 – 21 of Romans 4, we can see why the promise to Abraham came to pass.
1) He kept his faith in God
Despite his old age of 100 and the dead womb of Sarah, Abraham still believed he would bear fruits –because it was God who promised him!
They shall surely come to pass, only if you believe.
Against hope, Abraham hoped for the promises made concerning him to come to pass.
Do not forget who promised you. It is not the world, but God. Numbers 23:19 He is not a man, and lies not. John 14: 1 & 27 says you should not let your heart be troubled, just trust God.

2) He was giving God glory
2 Cor. 4:15 all things are for your sake, that God may be glorified
In Jeremiah 32:27, God says “Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?”
1 Peter 5: 6 – 7 humble yourself and cast your worries upon God, in trust. In due time, He, Himself, will lift you up

3) He did not doubt God’s ability
Has He promised and will He not do? Numbers 23:19
Isaiah 46: 4 – 11 there is no other like our God. He will do what He has purposed to do, even till our old age, He will carry us.
Psalm 121: 1 – 2 our help comes from God

Finally
Prayers… Psalm 34: 4 – 10
He has pleasant and great surprises for those who can wait for His promises to come to pass. Isaiah 64:4
By the word of Psalm 126, the Lord shall turn again our captivity and give us songs of joy. Amen. I encourage you to hope in the Lord, stand upon His promises and remain faithful to His ways; He will bring His word concerning you to pass. Amen.

EXTRADITION -WHO ART THOU?

2008-04-12T22:14:00.002+01:00

The radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko which led to his horrifying death in London raised international furore with Britain and Russia as the principal actors. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the foundation laid by British detectives that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by toxic polonium 210 which the law enforcement officers traced to Andrei Logovoy in Russia. From this connection, Britain demanded that Andrei Logovoy be extradited by Russia for trial in Britain for murder of Alexander Litvinenko. As would be expected, given the recent relationship between the two countries, Russia flatly declined this demand. Instead, Russia requested whatever information or evidence the British authorities have should be handed to them and they would trial Andrei Logovoy under Russian law, within Russian jurisdiction.

The brief narrative of the root of the dispute in this respect between Britain and Russia may appear as a simple conflict of interests on the part of both countries. But it is a bit more intricate. Apparently, politics is a factor in this fallout by these countries. Though both countries maintain their different positions are founded on legal principles and moral justification, these principles are subtly moulded on political interests.

True, Britain can require the extradition of Andrei Logovoy from Russia. If Britain’s demand cannot be based on domestic laws of Britain, it most certainly can be based on European law which allows extradition between the two countries –and which both Britain and Russia have accented to. Under the canopy of this law, both countries could arrange extradition of offenders between themselves. Inspite of this European law, Russia has never extradited its citizens to Britain –neither has Britain extradited its own citizens to Russia for trial. And, Russia has maintained that it will not extradite Andrei Logovoy to Britain –or any other country for that matter. Britain and Russia, therefore, find themselves in a diplomatic imbroglio.

A puzzling thought that comes to mind is: why would Britain insist on such extradition when historical records show that such demand has close to no likelihood of success? Especially with the frayed relationship which currently exists between both countries? With the accusations, and counter-accusations, by government representatives on either side? To the extent that diplomats were expelled on both sides? This is a food for thought. However, one reason may be with the aim of isolating Russia. But this would serve no good to anyone. Particularly when one brings into consideration the fact that Russia’s request to the British government for the extradition of Boris Berezovsky was rebuffed by Britain. If Britain harbours and protects a person sought by the Russian government for serious crimes against his government, what moral grounds does Britain have to expect that Russian would accede to the extradition of someone Britain claims to be a criminal agent of the Russian government? Does Britain consider that the rules applicable to Russia are not applicable to it? Another reason Russia would not even consider any productive cooperation with Britain is the former’s current global posturing, which is quite diametrical opposed to that of Britain and certain other western countries. The question remains: why did Britain embark on such a journey that was doomed to fail from the onset? Does Britain imagine it has some kind of clout or weight over Russia?

Protection of the Marine Environment under UNCLOS 1982

2007-07-04T21:11:00.000+01:00

-Stephen Edetanlen

Thor Heyerdahl, sailing the Atlantic in his papyrus raft, Ra, found globs of oil, tar and plastics stretching from the coast of Africa to South America. Parts of the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea are already so polluted that marine life is severely threatened. And waste dumped in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has washed up on the shores of Antarctica.

In the United States, long stretches of beaches are often closed because of medical and other waste washing up on shore. And every time an oil tanker is involved in an accident, the world's pulse quickens a bit in fear of a major catastrophe. In fact, every time a tanker cleans its tanks at sea, every time a factory channels toxic residues to coastal waters or a city conveniently releases raw sewage into the sea, every time a service station changes the oil of a car and pours the waste oil into the sewers, the oceans become a little more polluted. Eventually, scientists fear, the oceans' regenerative capacity will be overwhelmed by the amount of incoming, man-made pollution. Signs of such catastrophe are clearly observed in many seas—particularly along the heavily populated coasts and enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

There are six main sources of ocean pollution addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): land-based and coastal activities; continental-shelf drilling; potential seabed mining; ocean dumping; vessel-source pollution; and pollution from or through the atmosphere.

First of all, the Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all states to protect and preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Coastal states are empowered to enforce their national standards and anti-pollution measures within their territorial sea. Every coastal state is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the marine environment of its exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Such jurisdiction allows coastal states to control, prevent and reduce marine pollution from dumping, land-based sources or seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, or from or through the atmosphere. With regard to marine pollution from foreign vessels, coastal states can exercise jurisdiction only for the enforcement of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or for "generally accepted international rules and standards". Such rules and standards, many of which are already in place, are adopted through a competent international organization, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
On the other hand, it is the duty of the "flag state", the state where a ship is registered and whose flag it flies, to enforce the rules adopted for the control of marine pollution from vessels, irrespective of where a violation occurs. This serves as a safeguard for the enforcement of international rules, particularly in waters beyond the national jurisdiction of the coastal state, i.e., on the high seas.

Furthermore, the UNCLOS gives enforcement powers to the "port state", or the state where a ship is destined. In doing so it has incorporated a method developed in other conventions for the enforcement of treaty obligations dealing with shipping standards, marine safety and pollution prevention. The port state can enforce any type of international rule or national regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or applicable international rules as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their offshore terminals. This has already become a significant factor in the strengthening of international standards.
Finally, as far as the international seabed area is concerned, the International Seabed Authority, through its Council, is given broad discretionary powers to assess the potential environmental impact of a deep seabed mining operation, recommend changes, formulate rules and regulations, establish a monitoring programme and recommend issuance of emergency orders by the council to prevent serious environmental damage. States are to be held liable for any damage caused by either their own enterprise or contractors under their jurisdiction.

With the passage of time, United Nations’ involvement with the law of the sea has expanded as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but global problems as a whole are interrelated. Already, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, placed a great deal of emphasis on the protection and preservation of the oceans’ environment in harmony with the rational use and development of their living resources, thus establishing the concept of "sustainable development" embodied in Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted at the Conference.
A recurring topic in implementing the programme of action adopted in Rio De Janeiro is the necessity to combat the degradation and depletion of fish stocks, both in the zones under national jurisdiction and in the high seas. A second recurring topic is addressing fish stock depletion causes, such as overfishing and excess fishing capacity, by-catch and discards.

In this respect, among the most important outputs of the conference was the convening of an intergovernmental conference under United Nations auspices. The intergovernmental conference was convened with a view to resolving the old conflict between coastal states and distant-water fishing states over straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the areas adjacent to the 200 nautical-mile EEZs.

This conference adopted the 1995 Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The agreement introduces a number of innovative measures, particularly in the area of environmental and resource protection obliging states to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries exploitation and giving expanded powers to port states to enforce proper management of fisheries resources.

SECURITY COUNCIL’S HARIRI RESOLUTION –a review

2007-06-23T18:30:00.000+01:00

-by Barr. Stephen Edetanlen.

The Security Council, on 30th May 2007, adopted Resolution 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to come into force on 10th June, 2007। Essentially, the Tribunal is to “try” those found to be responsible for the February 14th 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri। Earlier, in its investigations, the UN had indicted officers in both the Syrian and Lebanese administrations of some level of culpability.
Summarily, according to the Security Council, the pivot of this Resolution is founded upon two premises: a request by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora to the Secretary-General of the UN in December 2005 (S/2005/783) and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The request was expressed in a letter of December 13th, 2005 “requesting inter alia the establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for this terrorist crime”. Afterwards, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing such a Tribunal based on the highest international standards of criminal justice. There is no doubt that this request is a valid invitation to the UN to act. The question I find hard put to reconcile is whether the Council, whereas there is a competent judicial body (the International Court of Justice) established by the Charter to exercise judicial functions, ought to constitute a separate body, particularly bearing in mind the basic principle of nemo dat non quod habet? Therefore, the question that arises is, albeit the request may be justified, is the Council’s Tribunal? Secondly, although, in its characteristic form in its resolutions, the Security Council does not specify the specific Charter provisions it relies on, for all intents and purposes, the relevant provision under Chapter VII would be Article 39 which states: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. No stretch of interpretation of the above provision would ground the kind of descent by the Security Council into the internal affairs of a sovereign state, particularly when read vis-à-vis Articles 41, 42 and 2(7) of the Charter. Had Lebanon investigated and came out with allegations that the terrorist act was sponsored by another state, then as in the Nicaragua case, the UN would be called in –more appropriately, the matter referred to the ICJ. In my humble submission, it is only and after this fails that Chapter VII may come into play. For the avoidance of doubt, I firmly agree that Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination was horrific and gravely condemned. But the point I am making is these are criminal or terrorist acts which fall under the purview of the affected state’s internal affairs, though it may involve third states, occasionally. However, as long as it can be processed with the state or states, and does not degenerate into a situation that threatens regional or international peace, there is no place for the UN there. And, should it become a matter coming under the ambit of the UN, it should be properly directed to the appropriate body constituted to deal with the arisen matter. Not forgetting that even the Prime Minister’s request for intervention will be invalidated if the proper constitutional procedure has been followed which would make the request an effectual one. In the circumstances, it was not necessary for me to look into the merits of the request, being that the Security Council’s action was already flawed, even if the request resulted from due observance of constitutional processes.

Blogger

2007-05-26T00:08:00.001+01:00

Fidel's dead??!!!

2007-04-21T00:01:00.001+01:00

Dazed and weak is the only way I can describe how I felt when I received the heart-wrenching news. Dead, Fidel? My Fidel?

After having a little drink (mine was orange juice) and shooting some pool with some colleagues form work at a nearby pub, after work on Thursday night, I was a little bit light in my spirit on my way home. I was at London Bridge trying to find out from the display what time and which train to take, when my mobile phone start to ring. As usual, I was happy to receive a call. I looked at the number. It was a foreign number, from Nigeria, but not listed on my phone. Naturally, I answered the it, and the person on the other side said "it's me Omo". "Which Omo?" I asked. "Fidel wife", was the response. Then it registered. So I went on to ask how things were faring. I thought she was playing around and trying to be ironic when she said things were not fine. But that thought was short-lived by the next sentence: Fidel was dead. What?! Suddenly, I felt numb and speechless. My whole body, immediately felt weak. My interest in my surroundings was lost and my mind started racing. What does this all mean? I will never see Fidel on earth again? What about Omo, who he married less than two years before? And, the baby who is about 14 months old? Do I take the baby as my responsibility? Or, bring the mother overseas? Do I go back home? A thousand thoughts flooded my mind, as I became oblivious of my immediate environment.

God help us. I am so sad, even now. I did manage to ask her how he died. My one-syllable question was "how". To which she answered "stray bullet". It happened the Sunday before, on Fidel's way to work. That was on 15 April, 2007. All the way home, I was feeling very weak and listless. I got off the bus behind my house, walking home, I could not hold back any longer and I started to cry. I wiped my eyes of tears several times, but it kept coming. No single person saw me. I got home and my brother was in the kitchen cooking, I did not open the kitchen door and continued to my room upstairs. Still crying, I knelt down to pray, I could not. I sent an SMS to my other brother that I can not come to his house later that evening, as I have to sleep because I lost a "dear friend". I sent simple SMS to my fiance in Nigeria "Fidel is dead". They both called me, briefly. I wept, I prayed and I tried reading the Bible. I begged God to let Fidel wake up, because of Christ, me and God's mercy. Normally, I am starving when I get home from work. But I slept without eating that night. Fidel was gone.

Without doubt, I can say Fidel was my best and most reliable friend on earth. He was almost a brother. I told God this was my personal loss. Fidel was part of me. He would do anything for me, when I ask. He never tells me "no". A gentle and honest man, my Fidel. Oh God, what I loss for me. I thought if I had been in Benin (Nigeria), he would have still been alive! That was because I thought the stray bullet had resulted from the elections on that day. And, if I had told Fidel not to go out, he would not go out; or maybe he would come to visit me. But when I called his wife, for the first time since the sad news, she told me it was by a soldier's bullet. And now, also, I realize Nigeria does not conduct elections on Sunday. Now, Fidel is gone: dead. Typically, thee will be no enquiry and no disciplinary action will be taken against the gun-man (soldier). Why would a bullet be "straying?" I asked myself and later, by brother. What has Nigeria turned into? If there was professionalism and discipline, why would a serviceman's bullet stray? They handle their guns any way they see fit. They shoot indiscriminately. That is why.

Due to some irresponsible serviceman's callousness, I have lost a dependable and true friend. A young bride has been made a widow in her twenties. A little child will not grow up with the father; made fatherless. Oh God, please. Please, God, have mercy; raise Fidel up, I beseech You.

SECURITY COUNCIL DECISION MAKING: for them or us?

2007-04-19T01:44:00.001+01:00

BY: EDETANLEN STEPHEN (ESQ.)

With the establishment of the United Nations in the last century, the world had hoped to have an organized global forum and pseudo-executive system within which the nations of the world would find some common grounds, creating a sort of fellowship and sense of oneness which when harnessed would prove a strong enough platform for meeting of the minds, trashing out militating differences in national policies of members and moulding a paradigm for enduring global peace and security. The paramount basis for this arrangement was the fostering of global peace and security, together with the enabling structural and logistical prerequisites. To be effective in its purpose, five principal organs constitute the UN –though the continued relevance of one is uncertain. These organs are the General Assembly, Security Council, the Secretariat, International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council and Economic and Social Council.

The objectives of this multilateral global organization, the UN, were very desirable and quite laudable, to say the least. For the successful realization of these laudable objectives, however, it is pertinent for the organization to enjoy the trust of, at least, its members. The organizational machinery has to be dependable, effective and efficient. It should be capable of being relied upon. Due to the national and regional dynamics of the membership of the UN, a minimal level of trust will guarantee the functionality of this world organization. With a multi-national organization of this nature as the UN, with its large membership each of which has some “national interest” to protect, maintaining trust amongst them requires a high level of transparency and accountability.

Of the primary organs of this gigantic organization, without doubt, the two most important are the General Assembly and Security Council. Necessarily, therefore, it is in these two organs that transparency and accountability, which are foundational for the requisite trust, are most imperative. A review of the works and actions of these two organs discloses gross deficiency of trust, which is more pronounced in the Security Council! A simple and generally recognized means of attaining and manifesting trust is the adoption of open and democratic processes in decision-making. By and large, democracy is synonymous with transparency and accountability. Due to the sensitive responsibilities and significance of the Security Council, it is very important that it be seen as truly focused on the peace and security concerns of the global community and responsive to the interests of all its members. The General Assembly, on the other hand, could pass for a democratic plenary body. The representatives, apparently reach decisions based on consensus of the majority. The same cannot be said of the Security Council. Unfortunately, the Assembly cannot make decisions that are mandatory or binding on the members, whereas the Security Council can. The poser is: can the Security Council afford to be democratic? This would mean acceding to the views of the majority, irrespective of the reasonableness, sensitiveness or otherwise of the question for determination.

Understandably, the founders of the UN did not think it wise to trust the maintenance of international peace and security in the hands of every member of the organization, nor subject the matter to the democratic deliberations of the whole body. Besides the necessity of efficient running and prompt decision-making, it was easier to trust global peace and security in the hands of a few allied powers that prevailed against the axis powers in 1945—nations which had proved their military might and share similar political ideologies. That may have been the case then. But the world has moved on since then. The leaders of the axis powers then, Germany, Japan and Italy, are now major players in recent peace and security initiatives. Indeed, Japan and Germany are second only to the United States, with regards to financial contributions to the UN. This goes to show that the dispensation of 1945 is much different from what obtains now. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that the founders of the UN intended for the decisions by the Security Council be reached for purposes other than the genuine maintenance of peace and security in the world. Sadly, this is often the case today. Instead of taking decisions based, primarily, on maintaining global peace and security, “national interests” of members of the Security Council are the principal considerations, with lots of lobbying, arm-twisting and manipulation being employed to attain selfish national goals. Tens of thousands of people could be perishing in a region or country and the Council will not lift a real finger, because the “national interest” of its powerful members is not threatened or affected. This is so even where the disturbing development has been extensively deliberated by the General Assembly.

It is not in dispute that the circumstances of this day are not the same as those prevailing during the formation of the UN. What is not agreed upon is whether this changed circumstances sufficiently necessitates altering the decision-making process of the Security Council. Naturally, leading the pack of the proponents of maintaining the status quo are the current permanent members of the Council. Whatever position may be found agreeable to individual or group intellectual or political leanings, a factor that cannot be disregarded is that the current procedure and process of arriving at decisions in the Council cannot continue. The reason for this is the gross misplacement of priority in Council deliberations by its members. The system must be reformed so as to be transparent. The UN was not founded, ex facie, to protect the “national interests” of certain nations merely, but for the peace and security of every nation of the world. The overly politicization of the decision-making apparatus of the Security Council is unacceptable. It must be open, transparent and made accountable.