United Nations Security Council on The Huffington Post

Palestinians Seek EU Support For Independent State

2009-11-16T16:18:18Z

RAMALLAH, West Bank — The Palestinians asked the European Union on Monday to back their plan to have the U.N. Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.

The idea of seeking U.N. intervention has been gaining steam in the Arab world as the impasse in peacemaking drags on. The Palestinians seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in 1967.

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: "Qum" Buy Ya

2009-11-13T16:20:59Z

On October 25th, inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were granted access to the secret and recently outed nuclear facility under construction in a secluded mountain inside an Iranian Revolutionary Guard base near the holy city of Qum.

We now have definitive confirmation from IAEA and European diplomats that the nuclear installation was too small for peaceful nuclear enrichment, but large enough to hold enough centrifuges to convert low grade enriched uranium into enough weapons-grade uranium needed to make nuclear warheads.

In other words, the Qum nuclear facility appears to be the smoking gun in Iran's secret nuclear weapons construction program. If the neutral IAEA has come to that conclusion, I can't wait to hear from those who would love to spin it as nothing more than an innocent doughnut factory.

So much for the value of the once vaunted November 2007 U.S. intelligence agencies' National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that proffered Iran was not engaged in any weapons-oriented uranium enrichment enterprise. Even before his inspectors finished their inspection of Qum, IAEA chief Mohamad ElBaradei directly accused Iran of violating its international legal obligations by failing to disclose the Qum facility to the IAEA.

Now what?

While the technical revelations regarding the Qum nuclear enrichment facility filter out as the IAEA prepares its final report to the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. is at a crossroads regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Cautious optimism that an Obama administration-orchestrated Geneva proposal whereby Iran would agree to ship 1200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to a third country for further enrichment under international supervision has evaporated. Living up to everyone's worst expectations of Iranian negotiating duplicity, the deal is now so bogged down with Iranian preconditions and qualifications to make further Western concessions to revive the tentative deal pointless, unless of course, Iran reverses course.

To make matters worse, Obama's engagement entreaties to Iran keep getting a "return to sender" response. And just yesterday Iran's state prosecutor signaled his intent to bring espionage charges against three detained American hikers -- making them pawns in this high stakes showdown. Moreover, Ayatollah Khamenei has gone out of his way in recent days to make pointed accusations against President Obama.

Even in the face of these Iranian retorts engagement efforts remain justified. But Iran's continued rejection of the Geneva plan, coupled with the IAEA's revelations regarding the illicit Qum nuclear facility are severely narrowing the Obama Administration's engagement policy options. All this coming at the worst possible moment for an administration trying to cope with other major foreign policy challenges. The president has stated he would give Iran until December to abide by its international obligations. Then, there will an effort to increase economic sanctions on Iran.

The atomic ayatollahs appear indifferent to any carrot or stick. Let's hope that is another Iranian negotiating ploy. Perhaps with its hands caught red-handed in the nuclear cookie jar the Iranians may reconsider and seek a face-saving way to avoid a showdown with the West and Israel. Unfortunately, there is nothing on the horizon to suggest Iran's leaders wish to meet Obama's outstretched hand half way.

George Soros: Why We Need Another Bretton Woods To Reinvent The Global Financial System

2009-11-09T14:07:24Z

NEW YORK -- Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism, the world is facing another stark choice between two fundamentally different forms of organization: international capitalism and state capitalism. The former, represented by the United States, has broken down, and the latter, represented by China, is on the rise. Following the path of least resistance will lead to the gradual disintegration of the international financial system. A new multilateral system based on sounder principles must be invented.

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: Russia "Nyet!" and China "Bu Shi!" to Tougher Iran Sanctions

2009-10-16T15:16:22Z

Iran's anti-democratic and repressive regime is a member of a fraternal club of other like-minded anti-democratic and repressive regimes which include Russia and China. They do stick together. And friends they are indeed!

In one bad week for us good guys, both Russia and China brushed aside diplomatic entreaties from the Obama administration and in a one-two punch rejected calls for tougher economic sanctions to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Despite noble efforts to downplay Russia's "nyet", Secretary of State Clinton left Moscow empty-handed after her meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in her quest for a more united front against Iran's nuclear ambitions. And just to make sure Washington got the message Premier Putin (just coincidentally in Beijing for a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Council) made sure Mrs. Clinton was sent a reminder who really pushes the "reset" button. Putin took the ol' proverbial Russian boot off his foot and pounded it for good measure... "It's premature" to threaten sanctions against Tehran," Putin stated flatly.

And Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao followed Putin with a "Bu Shi" ("nyet" in Mandarin) when he extolled China's growing energy and trade ties to Iran to a visiting Iranian Vice President. More "Middle Kingdom" diplomatic subtelty for sure, but the message was just the same -- don't expect China to turn the economic screws on Ahmadinejad's nuclear aspirations.

Frankly, I am puzzled by Russia's and China's calculations.

At a time when both Russia and China are trying to readjust their diplomatic bearings with Washington (Obama is about to make his first visit to Beijing), why not join the West for a while in toughening sanctions against Tehran to forestall a possible military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? There is a chance (maybe not a great chance, but a chance nonetheless) that Iran's leaders are more likely to seek a diplomatic solution knowing that they face international approbation against their illicit nuclear program and that they must now deal with a united Security Council lined up against them even if universal economic sanctions have a Swiss cheese quality to them.

Given the stakes and sense of urgency, one may conclude the Russians and Chinese foolishly prefer a military showdown between the West and Iran than a diplomatic solution.

And to what purpose? Surely a nuclear-armed Iran will destabilize the entire Middle East.

Yes, tougher economic sanctions would inflict more misery on Iran's population. But that may put more pressure on a regime already deemed illegitimate by millions of Iranians.

It's not that tougher economic sanctions themselves will humble the mullahs. Iran has mastered the art of evading U.S. sanctions through sophisticated third country smuggling and the like. However, eventually stricter sanctions will take their toll on Iran's ruling elite -- making it more difficult for the Revolutionary Guards to maintain their income and raising the cost of doing business even on the black market of sanctions busters. And there is nothing that will anger Iran's population more than being further isolated internationally because of the destructive policies of its rulers.

And what are we really talking about here? A year or two of reducing trade with Iran until the full effects of universal sanctions have a possible intended effect? If China is so concerned about losing its access to Iran's crude oil supplies, surely something can be done to assuage Beijing that it will not run out of oil. And as for Russia, the Kremlin will have a helluva time trading with Iran for many months to come if Iran's transportation and military infrastructure are taken down in an attack. And Russia's two way trade with Iran is a pittance (less than $3 billion) when compared to China's two way trade with Iran ($21 billion).

In fact, the dirty little secret about Iran's trade ties is that while China is Iran's largest trading partner, in rank order, the next largest trading partners are Japan, Turkey, South Korea, Italy and Germany -- hmmmm -- all allies of the U.S. Russia is not even in the top 5! What is Washington, Paris and London going to do about these offenders of a potential diplomatic solution?

Although Iran has strained to show more flexibility when cornered by irrefutable evidence of cheating when its secret Qum nuclear facility was uncovered, there is no evidence that it has completely ceased its uranium enrichment program. And nothing that it offered in Geneva a few weeks ago suggests otherwise.

The United States, Great Britain and France have decreed a December deadline to Iran or it will face a new set of economic sanctions. But without Russia and China helping to close the economic noose around it, Iran probably will calculate that the price for defying the West is worth the cost -- unless a credible military option is on the table.

But even the possibility of a military confrontation may not dissuade Tehran given the regime's view that an attack on Iran may have the unintended effect of uniting the Iranian people behind their discredited rulers even if it means losing its nuclear facilities (albeit temporarily). I can just hear those demonstrators back on the streets of Tehran yelling "Death to the Great Satan!" instead of "Down with the Dictator!" A conundum indeed!

Queen Noor of Jordan: The Beginning of the End of Nuclear Weapons

2009-09-26T13:38:31Z

It was my privilege to witness the United Nations Security Council Summit yesterday unanimously adopt a resolution calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons. It was the first Security Council Summit ever dedicated to nuclear proliferation and disarmament and the first chaired by a U.S. President.

In addressing the Security Council members, President Obama declared: "The historic resolution we just adopted enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons."

Building on the extraordinary leadership of Presidents Obama and Medvedev, who in April committed to work together to eliminate all nuclear weapons, this resolution is a significant step toward an international consensus on this goal and a stirring moment for so many who have worked on this issue for so long. World leaders are recognizing that whatever stability nuclear arsenals may have provided during the Cold War is now outweighed by the growing risks of proliferation and nuclear terrorism, and the only way to eliminate the nuclear threat is to eliminate all nuclear weapons. They have resolved to work together in the interests of our common security to achieve this goal.

As a leader of Global Zero -- an international movement for the elimination of nuclear weapons, as a citizen of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, and as a deeply concerned parent, I believe that yesterday's action by the Security Council comes at a critical moment as the world approaches a nuclear tipping point when nuclear weapons spread beyond the capacity of any effort to rein them in. This resolution helps to set the course toward the only responsible path -- the path to global zero.

To help turn this vision into a practical goal, Global Zero has developed a step-by-step four-phased plan for the elimination of nuclear weapons over 20 years. Since the Cold War ended 20 years ago, the total number of nuclear weapons worldwide has been reduced by nearly 40,000 -- from approximately 60,000 to the 23,000 in existence today. Could we not aim over the next 20 years to eliminate the remaining 23,000 warheads and leave to our children and grandchildren a world without nuclear weapons?

What happened yesterday at the Security Council was an historic step -- but we still have a long way to go. Governments must take action, beginning with deep bilateral reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals -- following the current negotiations on the START replacement accord -- as well as serious multilateral discussions about the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, the establishment of a comprehensive verification and enforcement system, and strengthened safeguards on the civilian nuclear fuel cycle.

And the message to every country must be clear: the international community is resolved to join together in the interests of our common security to eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide, and all nations must join in this pursuit with no exception.

Eliminating all nuclear weapons will require people from around the world to get involved. In fact, last night college students launched "Global Zero" chapters on dozens of campuses- a trend I hope we will see develop in every nuclear state. To join me and the citizens from every country around the world who are already part of this movement, go to globalzero.org and sign the declaration.

If yesterday's resolution is not followed up by action in the months and years ahead, it will fade into the history books as words on a piece of paper and nothing more. If, on the other hand, leaders and citizens seize this historic moment and act with determination and resolve, perhaps our children and grandchildren will look back on yesterday as the beginning of the end of nuclear weapons.

Michael D. Brown: Sarkozy the Realist; Obama the Dreamer

2009-09-25T18:14:37Z

In George Bernard Shaw's Back to Methusela, the Serpent says "I hear you say 'why?' Always "Why?' You see things; and you say 'Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?'" While Shaw may have thought the answer to the world's problems is to live forever, and Eve may have expressed disdain for the here-and-now, looking hopefully to the future, we must live in the present.

If we genuinely want to ask "why not" as G.B. Shaw, Robert Kennedy and now Barack Obama have asked, we must first realize the "why not" cannot be attained unless and until we deal with the "as is."

Nicolas Sarkozy, President of the French Republic, in a speech largely ignored in the American media, took President Obama to task for not dealing with the "as is" of world affairs. I would very much like to have a world without nuclear weapons. I do not, however, believe that it is practical or even possible to have such a world.

President Obama talked at the U.N. Security Council about the "fundamental threat" nuclear weapons pose:

Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city -- be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people and would badly destabilize our security, our economies and our very way of life.

President Obama even singles out North Korea and Iran, the two most significant threats to the entire world, saying that there must be "full compliance" by those two countries. But in typical Obama fashion, he then tries to skirt the direct approach to those rogue nations:

While the resolution passed 15-0, China and Russia balked at a French proposal to cite Iran and North Korea by name. In a diplomatic fudge, the text therefore refers only to Security Council resolutions concerning the countries. Obama mentioned the two countries by name in his speech, saying he was not trying to single out any country but that "international law is not an empty promise."

President Sarkozy, in what appears to me as a direct retort to President Obama, delivered the following speech:

France fully supports your initiative to organize this meeting and the efforts you undertook with Russia to reduce nuclear arsenals. But let us speak frankly - we are here to guarantee peace.

We are right to speak of the future, but before the future there is the present, and at present we have two nuclear crises.

The people of the entire world are listening to what we're saying, to our promises, our commitments and our speeches, but we live in a real world, not a virtual world.

If that isn't a direct rebuke of President Obama's world vision, I don't know what is. You can only guarantee peace when you take away the threat. You can talk, negotiate, cajole and even impose sanctions, but until concrete steps are taken to alleviate the threat, you cannot guarantee peace. North Korea, and in particular, Iran, are willing to use nuclear weapons against the United States, Israel, Europe and others. That is the real world, not the virtual world.

President Sarkozy continues:

We say: reductions must be made. And President Obama has even said, "I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons]." Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council resolutions. Since 2005, Secretary-General, the international community has called on Iran to engage in dialogue. An offer of dialogue was made in 2005, an offer of dialogue was made in 2006, an offer of dialogue was made in 2007, an offer of dialogue was made in 2008, and another one was made in 2009. President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing. More enriched uranium, more centrifuges, and on top of that, a statement by Iranian leaders proposing to wipe a UN member State off the map.

Amen. Even now, we are learning of Iran's expanded development of nuclear weapons. He continues:

What are we doing? What conclusions are we drawing? There comes a time when facts are stubborn and decisions must be made.

If we want in the end to have a world without nuclear weapons, let us not accept the violation of international rules.

I understand perfectly well the various positions of the different parties, but all of us may one day be threatened by a neighbour who has obtained a nuclear weapon.

This is the language of a realist -- someone who understands his country is threatened physically and philosophically by a rogue nation building weapons of mass destruction capable of eliminating Paris. We need that same kind of perspective in the White House.

You can read the rest of President Sarkozy's speech here.

Lorelei Kelly: Dr. Strangelove vs. the President

2009-09-22T11:15:46Z

If the United Nations were in Vegas, and policy geeks were gamblers, this would be a match made for the MGM Grand. In one corner we'd have a bright young voice in the ring, fighting for a renewed American dream--where nuclear weapons are seen as obsolete liabilities in the face of today's biggest threats. In the other corner is the unhinged general, passionately obsessed with the atomic bomb, clutching it to the bitter end.

On Thursday, the president is going to chair a U.N. Security Council meeting to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and prevent their spread. For the first time in years, nuclear weapons are back in the headlines.

Yes, that's right. Despite some admirable efforts, they didn't go away when the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991. Like a lot of other Cold War relics, they sat around and cost taxpayers billions of dollars a year to maintain. Some countries aren't even sure where all their weapons materials are anymore.

We've kept legions of brilliant scientific minds drawing the coordinates of mega death instead of diverting their knowledge to combat climate change. Thousands of nuclear weapons still exist. It's time to deal with this problem so we can move on.

But Dr. Strangelove's obsession persists. He's like some creepy adviser in the attic of U.S. government bureaucracy--unable to let go of his core identity--despite the fact that the world has gone on to struggle against other dangers. Despite the fact that we desperately need to stop looking backward for threats when the future has plenty in store for us. And despite the fact that having so many of these weapons makes us less safe.

The subject of nukes will be present a lot over the next year. The Strangelove echo chamber is preparing to scare us back to the 1960s. We got a taste of it last week when the president made a sensible adjustment to European Missile Defense. Beware the Armageddon lobby. Some wear suits and might represent you. Lots are employed by Fox television. Many believe they have enlisted Jesus to their cause.

The president showing up in New York this week is significant for many reasons. It is saying to the world that we're back in the game. We're going to stop being the rule breaker and start being the deal maker. We're going to take responsibility for reducing the risk posed by the most destructive weapon ever devised, capable of destroying most life on this planet. It is hugely important that President Obama himself goes to the UN--because the step by step process that lessens this serious danger needs his leadership and it must include everyone.

Two major treaties will be up for ratification or review in the next 12 months--one that outlaws the explosions that lead to more weapons and one that updates the international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons. America's negotiators will be helping build a pathway toward these important goals. Right now, this pathway is the most important thing. "Banning Nukes" will take awhile. It's the "Eyes on the Prize" part. It's why we are inspired, but not the starting point.

Though Obama has put an amazing team together to deal with nuclear threats, he's making up for a lost decade. We used to have considerably more capacity within government to track and reduce nuclear risk. But the same conservative hunting party that turned Congress into a mantel trophy also bagged the important government institutions that dealt with this threat.

The Office of Technology Assessment--one of Newt Gingrich's first victims--drew up comprehensive conversion plans for our nuclear labs in 1994. Their plans had our scientists working on renewable energy and environmental technology. It was gone by 1995. The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency disappeared three years later. CTR, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (a bipartisan success story), started in 1993, has been the bright light on the landscape for years. It actually dismantled weapons in the former Soviet states and safeguarded dangerous materials--but struggled to gain traction because so many elected leaders remained mired in the past. CTR's day may have finally come.

During the last decade, national security transitioned from a world that was linear, predictable and technological to one that is chaotic, random and very human. Security really isn't about rocket science anymore. Security is about people. Case in point, Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sold his expertise to some very scary countries--the world's first entrepreneur of annihilation.

From counterinsurgency to climate change, Americans increasingly sense that we must behave differently in order to reach desired goals--our own safety being one of them. Coercion doesn't work well for most problems. Climate change has no military solution. Nor do international pandemics or contagious ideologies. In today's world, nuclear weapons create risk rather than reduce it: thousands of them means a lot of opportunity for them to fall into the hands of crazy types.

These days, security is about people. So perceptions of fair treatment and expectations of reciprocity have strategic implications. We Americans are the ones who built this ideal. We're the ones who asked others to be like us. At long last, we need to do what we tell everyone else to do. If we don't want other countries to have these deadly things, we need to get rid of our own and stop building more. The world is waiting for us to walk our talk.

Maria Burnett: UN Envoy's Term Ends, but Rebels Go On and On

2009-07-14T11:00:07Z

The former Mozambican President Joaquim Chissano will give his final briefing to the United Nations Security Council on July 15 in his role as the secretary-general's special envoy for the areas of east and central Africa that are affected by the Lord's Resistance Army and their two-decade campaign of violence. Although Chissano's mandate was suspended as of June 30, abuses by the LRA -- ruthless rebels whose actions have had a devastating effect on civilians in four countries -- continue.

With Chissano's departure, the Security Council needs to focus on how to ensure protection of civilians from further LRA attacks and how to apprehend LRA leaders who are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. These are tough issues without easy solutions, but inaction should not be an option.

Kofi Annan, then the secretary-general, appointed Chissano in 2006 because Annan saw the need for a "comprehensive and sustained approach" to address the LRA war. For two years, Chissano and other leaders in the region attended and supported talks between the Ugandan government and the LRA in Juba, southern Sudan. Those talks achieved some progress: the parties agreed to a cessation of hostilities and mechanisms to prosecute those implicated in serious crimes, and the abuses subsided for a time.

But the commitment of the LRA leader, Joseph Kony, to the negotiations was never clear. He was expected to sign the final peace agreements on several occasions in 2008, but never did, and ended the year with his forces conducting a rampage of killings in northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Human Rights Watch documented these atrocities, which followed a poorly executed Ugandan military offensive to force Kony from his Congolese hideouts.

In the last eight months, the LRA has killed nearly 1,200 civilians across northeastern Congo and southern Sudan. Abductions of children and adults have also increased, indicating that the LRA -- infamous for using children as soldiers -- may be seeking to replenish its ranks. In two attacks in early June near the Congolese town of Dakwa, local sources reported the LRA abducted 135 adults and children. Only a few days ago, another 80 people were abducted in the village of Bayule. The UN estimates that more than 250,000 people have been displaced by the recent violence.

Since March, when the Ugandan-led operation officially ended, the protection of civilians has been left to the poorly equipped Congolese army and the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo. Both are overstretched and are not able to stop LRA attacks.

Several US congressmen and senators are supporting a bill that would oblige the Obama administration to develop a comprehensive strategy within six months of the law's enactment to help protect civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA. But, more immediate action is required in the meantime. While the bill is debated in committee, vulnerable civilians are being abducted and killed.

The Security Council has met the increased attacks on civilians by the LRA with concern, but minimal action. In suspending Chissano's mandate, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that the onus is on Kony, the LRA leader, to sign the peace agreements. But the international community -- and the Security Council especially -- should not remain hostage to Kony's whims while abuses continue.

Experience has shown that none of the countries of the region have the capability themselves to protect civilians from the LRA or to apprehend the LRA leaders wanted by the ICC. The Security Council has an important role to play in developing a strategy and moving it forward urgently. The alternative is to turn its back on the people of northeastern Congo, northern Uganda, southern Sudan, and Central African Republic who have suffered for far too long.

Maria Burnett is Human Rights Watch's Uganda researcher. Elise Keppler is senior counsel with Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program.

Russia Ends UN's Georgia Mission With Security Council Veto

2009-06-16T09:31:22Z

UNITED NATIONS — Russia has brought to an end the nearly 16-year-old U.N. observer mission that monitored a cease-fire between Georgia and its breakaway Abkhazia region.

Russia exercised its veto power in the U.N. Security Council _ toppling a Western plan to extend the life of the U.N. mission for another year, or even two more weeks, to work out a compromise. The vote late Monday was 10-1 with four abstentions _ China, Vietnam, Libya and Uganda.

Evelyn Leopold: North Korea U.N. Resolution: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

2009-06-12T07:23:20Z

UPDATE

UNITED NATIONS - The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution that would appreciably tighten weapons and financial sanctions against North Korea. Some analysts dismiss anything that passes through the United Nations as useless while others say sanctions won't work and only intense diplomacy has a chance.

Yet the U.S.-drafted measure is tougher than most against any one country, and has the approval of China and Russia. Without China, the main ally and trading partner of North Korea, no pressure on Pyongyang is possible, regardless of what the West does. But enforcement is key and diplomats are not certain how much punitive action Beijing will undertake.

"There is no guarantee, obviously, but it is important for the international community to speak with one voice. It is important for there to be consequences, and this sanctions regime...will bite and bite in a meaningful way," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said earlier.

Zhang Yesui. China's U.N. Ambassador told the 15-member Security Council that the council's action demonstrated the world's "firm opposition" to North Korea's nuclear ambitions. "We strongly urge the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), stop any moves that may further worsen the situation and return to the six-party talks." Those stalled negotiations include the United States, China, Russia, Japan and North and South Korea.

But Zhang cautioned that "under no circumstances should there be use or threat of the use of force." and then told reporters: "We are firmly opposed to the nuclear test."

North Korea is expected to respond, first verbally and possibly by detonating its third underground nuclear test in defiance of the resolution, according to some Russian media reports. It did not exercise its right to speak in the Security Council.

Russia, itself, considers North Korea a threat. "Having sanctions and things like that is not our choice but a certain political message must be sent and some measures must be taken because we are facing a very real situation of proliferation risks." Russia's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, told reporters earlier in the week.

China, too, is none too eager to see his neighbor armed with nuclear weapons. (Beijing delivers fuel and food to North Korea and an estimated 80 percent of its consumer goods are made in China.) At the same time it does not want to see the regime collapse, American troops on its border and a flood of refugees, now forcibly repatriated.

Agreement on the text (see below) was first reached by the five veto-bearing Security Council members of the 15 nation body -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France. Japan and South Korea were part of the negotiations. While the text is not as tough as the United States and Japan wanted, it was an American feat to get Beijing and Moscow to sign on in the first place.

The preamble of the resolution makes clear that key international players want North Korea to end weeks of nuclear and ballistic missile tests, resume political talks with six nations It deplores Pyongyang's withdrawal from the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (the main world agreement to regulate atomic arms). And it expresses its "gravest" concern that nuclear and missile activities, particularly the May 25 underground atomic test, were constituted "a clear threat to international peace and security."

The heart of the resolution includes expanded sanctions on all weapons, except for the import of small arms (at the insistence of China which sells them to North Korea) along with a series of financial bans. But some of the provisions use the words "calls upon" which designates a political commitment compared to "decides" or "demands" which requires mandatory compliance by all 192 member states.

The resolution "calls" on states to inspect suspicious sea, air and land cargo that may contain any weapons of mass destruction materials. If North Korea or another flagship nation refuses, the measure then "decides" that countries should deny them fuel and other supplies and direct them to a port and inspect the cargo there. If the country in question still refuses, the Security Council would meet on the issue.

Cargo inspections were authorized by the council after North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006. But the new resolution spells out the stop and search methods in detail.

On financial sanctions, the resolution urges and "calls upon" all states and financial institutions to "not to enter into new commitments for grants, financial assistance, or concessional loans" except for humanitarian purposes. On this issue the United States and its allies can pressure nations and institutions into compliance. And it again bans all trade in materials related to weapons of mass destruction. The document also promises to add to the list of three blacklisted North Korean companies that deal with unconventional weapons.

Enforcement a problem

Enforcement was a problem of resolution 1718, adopted in October 2006 in response to the first underground nuclear test by North Korea. Many of the provisions were dropped after Pyongyang temporarily rejoined the six-party talks. After the Security Council moved towards enforcement, North Korea responded with its second nuclear test.

When the North first took provocative actions by firing a missile, most analysts believed it was trying to get the attention of the Obama administration, with an underground nuclear test timed for the May 25 Memorial Day holiday. The harsh sentencing of two American journalists who were doing research on refugees on the Korean-Chinese border fits into that theory.

But now no one is certain. The escalation came as North Korea's ailing leader Kim Jong Il was making plans to transfer power to his youngest son, Jong Un, and apparently does not want to broadcast any weakness. Instead he appears to be making a dramatic pitch at joining the nuclear weapons club. Some believe the Obama administration should send a high-level delegation -- not to offer incentives -- but to find out what is going on while other administration officials say nothing would be gained and real negotiations are dead.
--------------------------

Following is the final text of Friday's resolution, no. 1874.. Voting in favor were Austria, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Japan, Libya, Mexico, Turkey, Uganda, Vietnam and the five permanent members: United States, China, Russia, Britain and France.

Download file

North Korea: Security Council Draft Resolution Leaked

2009-05-28T14:32:05Z

Five days after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test, a draft resolution emerged behind closed doors at the UN Security Council. The three-page draft, a copy of which Inner City Press has exclusively obtained and puts online here, has 14 operative paragraphs, one of which, Paragraph 8, is still subject to discussion.

Stuart Whatley: Why North Korea's Antics Are Good For Obama

2009-05-28T14:24:50Z

Obama has more foreign policy luck. The first was a dramatic hostage situation on the high seas that ended with a Rainbow Six-style sniping of three Somali pirates. Now comes the reliably pugnacious Kim Jong-Il, using his signature saber-rattling (though admittedly somewhat heightened rhetoric, even for his standards) to shift the international focus from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka back onto the Hermit Kingdom. However, following its initial hullabaloo, the current standoff may be a foreign policy windfall for the Obama administration by uniting typically disparate regional players. The developing situation appears increasingly like an Axis and Allies scenario, but with an Axis of only one who may have finally overstepped.

As I wrote earlier this week: "Although many news sources are emphasizing North Korea's recent nuclear test as a "3:00 A.M." moment for President Obama, it is just as much the case for China as it grows into its nascent international role." And indeed, as the standoff continues, pressure on global players other than the US has increased even further, especially in Beijing and Moscow. This is because the US response is more or less preordained, leaving the ball in China and Russia's court. There is an established US protocol for responding to North Korean aggression that includes, but is not limited to: calling for stricter UN Security Council sanctions; freezing North Korean assets and blocking its access to foreign financial markets; and enlisting the cooperation of the problem state's closest allies. In the current situation, it is this final protocol that matters most.

The London G-20 Summit in April this year was a diplomatic chumfest that at times reached the level of farce. However it was also a momentous occasion to introduce Obama to a star-struck international community. Before the end of day one, the new administration had already met and hashed out optimistic agreements with both Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev, marking a promising departure from strained relations in years past.

Obama and Hu's first meeting ended with an agreement to create a US-China Strategic Economic Dialogue to address China's disproportionately small pull in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and to plan for the possibility of joint financial bailouts. Likewise, Obama and Medvedev's meeting ended with pledges to pursue joint initiatives later this year meant to improve ties, and, more specifically, to reduce nuclear stockpiles (an issue with direct propinquity to the North Korea problem).

Both China and Russia have in the past been complacent towards North Korean aggression. Though Kim's missile launches and nuclear tests are surely a diplomatic annoyance, it is never enough for Beijing or Moscow to issue more than a verbal wrist-slap to their vestigial Soviet-era ally. But this time is different, and the advantage is all Obama's. Indeed, neither country actually wants a nuclear armed North Korea to join the geopolitical chess match. The global financial meltdown squeezing GDP growth worldwide, and both countries now following up on G-20 pledges for better ties, all bodes well for a concerted, harsh response that finally goes beyond just words. Indeed, the current crisis allows for unprecedented cooperation between global players that could lead to good faith dealings with other prickly issues, such as global security, the economy and climate change.

With the mandate that a unified front will provide, harsh sanctions specifically targeting Kim's military will finally be feasible, as will a full-court press on North Korean vessels under the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) with South Korea onboard after years of reticence. Most essential of all, however, is the possibility that China will finally close off trade and aid channels that have for years propped up the North's regime. Admittedly, such additional provocations could lead the DPRK to back up its shrill rhetoric with violence. But multiple experts, speaking to the Washington Post Wednesday, for their part, agreed that a large-scale clash is extremely unlikely.

All things considered, much good could come out of the current crisis. Sure, Obama didn't ask for any of this. But if the pieces continue to fall into place against the Hermit King, this week's mess could be next week's fortuitous moment.

Evelyn Leopold: North Korea -- Waiting for China in the U.N. Security Council

2009-05-28T00:50:01Z

United Nations -- Another nuclear test, missiles and threats from North Korea and the world is waiting for the Obama administration's reaction. But unless China takes firm steps, action from Washington can fall flat.

The first stop, before any bilateral action, is the U.N. Security Council, which reflects the national positions of its key members (the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France). Japan has a seat on the council this year and South Korea is involved in talks.

But diplomats said no action was expected this week and doubted a draft resolution would even be circulated. China, which is said to have agreed in principle to sanctions, has no instructions yet and is sending various proposals back to Beijing. The suggested list includes tightening sanctions imposed in October 2006 (resolution 1718) but never really enforced. Three Pyongyang firms (Korea Mining Development Trading Corp., Korea Ryonbong General Corp. and Tanchon Commercial Bank) are on a U.N. blacklist and more may be added. Some nations also want embargoes on Pyongyang's banking ties as well as flight restrictions and travel bans on designated officials.

North Korea is seemingly eager to attract US attention on national holidays. The 2006 test of its long-range Taepodong-2 missile came on July 4 and a second -- and this time successful -- underground nuclear test was on Monday, Memorial Day. But not everything happens on a holiday. On April 5, the North Koreans fired a three stage rocket from the Musudan-ri launch site in the northeast that they said was a communication satellite while the United States says the launch was a practice session for launching a nuclear warhead.

Since Memorial Day, the threats have mounted -- from restarting a closed nuclear reactor to warning South Korea of a military response if any of its vessels were searched. The United States has created the Proliferation Security Initiative, aimed at stopping ships that carry nuclear materials or other weapons of mass destruction. South Korea on Tuesday said it would join the PSI, which is permitted under the 2006 Security Council resolution. China is said to be reluctant to engage in such searches but its cooperation is needed, at minimum, to stop some of the weapons-related supplies from reaching or leaving its Korean neighbor.

China delivers fuel and food to North Korea and an estimated 80 percent of its consumer goods are made in China. While experts believe Beijing does not want its neighbor to have nuclear weapons, it also fears a collapse of the regime if there is too much pressure, driving more refugees over the border.

As John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told Fox News last month. "The problem for China is they're afraid if they apply to much pressure to North Korea, they'll collapse the regime entirely. There'll be reunification of the Korean peninsula, and they'll see American forces on the Yalu River. They didn't like that movie in 1950. They don't like it any better today."

Russia, which usually backs China on North Korea, appeared tougher than Beijing. Its U.N. ambassador, Vitali Churkin, this month's Security Council president, called the North's action "very serious" and in need of "a strong response." Officials in Moscow, talking to national news agencies, say Russia was talking precautionary security measures, fearing tensions could escalate to war.

Any U.N. Security Council resolution is bound to insist that North Korea rejoin the stalled six-power talks. But at this point the dialogue among China, the United States, Russia, Japan and North and South Korea has not impressed Pyongyang.

In Beijing, Xu Guangyu, a nuclear expert on the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, told Reuters: "North Korea's strategic objective has not changed. That objective is to win the attention of the Obama administration, to push the North Korea issue up the agenda."

"And China's goal is to ensure that the six-party talks process does not fall apart," Xu said.

The Obama administration's strategy is not clear on specifics. Nor has the president or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted with bombast as allies are being contacted on the next steps. Unclear also is whether there is a leadership battle in North Korea that may have prompted the latest provocations.

The Bush administration at first called North Korea part of an "axis of evil" and allowed a deal to lapse that closed nuclear reactors. It then offered concessions and entered six-party talks. But Pyongyang broke them off, saying parts of the deal had not been fulfilled.

Joel Wit, a former career foreign service officer now at Johns Hopkins University, says North Korea has hardened its position, especially since Monday's nuclear test was the first successful one.

"At the end of the Clinton Administration, North Korea was seriously interested in becoming a partner of the United States. It's hard for most people to understand, but that was the case," Wit told PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer.

"Today, North Korea is not interested in that anymore, and that makes it sound even harder to deal with them. And it will be. But we have no alternative, because if we sit back and let them stew in their juices, six months from now, the situation is going to be a lot worse than it is today," Wit said. "We need a combination of steps at the United Nations, bilateral sanctions against North Korea, but we also need to get back to the negotiating table and talk to North Korea and probe for possible ways that we can get ourselves out of this mess."

But none of this can succeed without China.

Obama Asks Tamil Tigers To Surrender, Sri Lanka To Mind Civilians

2009-05-13T16:14:09Z

President Obama, speaking this afternoon, made a direct statement to both the Tamil Tigers as well as the Sri Lankan government regarding the enduring civil war and widespread civilian devastation in that country. Obama asked that the Tigers lay down their arms and surrender to the Sri Lankan government, and he asked that the Sri Lankans cease "the indiscriminate shelling" with heavy artillery that has been decimating civilians. The growing humanitarian crisis has captured international attention for weeks now.

Obama's statements Wednesday came shortly after Amnesty International (AI) -- one of many humanitarian groups who has been vocal about the growing humanitarian crisis -- issued an official plea, saying: "While U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice have voiced concern, President Obama himself must speak out publicly and forcefully over the wanton disregard for human rights in Sri Lanka."

Amnesty International also reached out the the United Nations Security Council, writing in their statement: "The Council must convene without any further delay to discuss the latest disturbing developments and immediately require that attacks on civilians by the Sri Lankan army or the LTTE be stopped; that the LTTE allow all civilians to leave the conflict area; and that the Sri Lankan government provide immediate access to international monitors and humanitarian agencies."

Earlier today, Sri Lankan shells rained down on the last remaining hospital in the northern region, killing at least 50. According to the Associated Press:

The military has denied firing any heavy weapons in recent weeks, but Human Rights Watch says both sides are using the estimated 50,000 civilians packed into the last rebel-held territory as "cannon fodder." The Red Cross said one of its workers was killed in shelling Wednesday.

In calling for the violence to end, Obama this week joins the ranks of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who said he is "appalled at the killing"; and British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who described civilians in Sri Lanka as, "victims of what at the moment is a war without witness,"according to Bloomberg. Additionally, the US State Department has issued its own statement, describing the death toll in Sri Lanka as "unacceptably high."

It is estimated that 50,000 civilians remain trapped in the Tamil Tiger-controlled, besieged northern area.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Louis Belanger: Oxfam : New UN-backed Military Operation in the DRC Likely to Cause Widespread Suffering

2009-05-13T10:26:03Z

As the UN Security Council is set to tour Africa this week and next, Oxfam is warning that an offensive in Eastern Congo - backed by the UN member states - will likely cause immense suffering for the Congolese population.

The Congo government's UN-backed military plans against rebels in South Kivu are likely to lead to civilian deaths and widespread suffering, international agency Oxfam said today. The warning comes as MONUC - the UN-led peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of Congo - prepares to support the Congolese army (FARDC) in a new offensive against the FDLR militia.

While the agency recognizes that a solution is needed to halt appalling levels of human rights abuses committed by armed rebels, the answer cannot be action that knowingly increases levels of human suffering.

Marcel Stoessel, head of Oxfam in DRC, said:

Four months ago an offensive against the FDLR set in train a spiral of violence against civilians which has forced 250,000 to flee their homes and caused untold death and suffering that continues to this day. By any yardstick it has been a humanitarian disaster, and one the world has ignored. The UN force's top priority in Congo must be to protect the lives of innocent civilians. The UN needs to be aware of the full implications of continuing to support military action in the present circumstances.

Oxfam said any military action should ensure that risks to civilians are kept to an absolute minimum and, in accordance with international humanitarian law. The agency also called for appropriate sanctions for any violations of international humanitarian law. For too long, human rights abuses, including by government soldiers, have gone largely unpunished.

The aid agency urged the UN to set out and stand by clear preconditions, based on rigorous observance of international humanitarian law, for MONUC support to any military action by the FARDC. It also called for greater emphasis on non-military efforts to disarm rebel groups, which present less risk to civilians but so far have not been given sufficient priority.

The previous joint offensive against the FDLR in North Kivu, launched in January 2009, has already created immense suffering for thousands of civilians. An estimated 250,000 people are still unable to return to their homes. Villagers have reported that thousands of homes have been burned to the ground in reprisal attacks mainly by the FDLR. Rape and looting by all sides, including government forces, has also been reported. According to recent reports, 100,000 people have already fled their homes in South Kivu, even before the new offensive has started. Aid agencies are planning for the possible displacement of a further 400,000 people in South Kivu.

Oxfam had to expand its programmes in North Kivu after the first offensive, bringing life-saving assistance to at least a further 85,000 people, in addition to those that it was helping already. Oxfam has also opened a new rapid response office in Bukavu, South Kivu, to be prepared for possible humanitarian fallout there. The international agency urged all major donor countries to give sufficient attention to the humanitarian crisis, which has been raging since January.

Oxfam is helping to support more than 500,000 people affected by the conflict.

Eric Ehrmann: Brazil Passionate to Host 2016 Olympics

2009-05-03T12:45:26Z

Rio de Janeiro

The International Olympic Selection Committee just completed a week long visit here and if the buzz at the Copacabana Palace Hotel is any indication, prospects seem good that the Olympics will come to South America for the first time.

Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid are competing with Rio. But the economic crisis has stretched infrastructure and sports marketing budgets in the Northern Hemisphere and Brazil, one of the emerging G20 economies, already has the knack of doing more with less. The Rio city government has put up a big countdown pylon on Copacabana beach tracking the days until October 2nd, when the IOC will announce the winner.

Rio's Olympic slogan is "Feel Your Passion." But critics say Rio, a city of 6 million, lacks an American-style freeway system, has a big time tourist crime problem and not enough first class hotels for the sky box crowd. Some of these raps are valid beyond glittering generalities. But the crime problem, often magnified by US State Department propaganda, is no different than an American tourist ducking down the wrong alley in the French Quarter of New Orleans, or a person who gets mugged by a transvestite after making the wrong call along the Sunset Strip in LA. Sir Rudy Giuliani would agree that educating people to be alert and avoid distraction is key but a tough call in a tourist town.

On the infrastructure side, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has dough ready to go; the equivalent of $15 billion dollars to improve transportation infrastructure, fight crime, build stadiums and hotels and other tourist amenities should the IOC give Rio the green light. Independent of that, new units of multi-lingual tourist police and plain clothes details are already putting putting the collar on tourist crime and community policing tactics are starting to pay off in some bairros and favelas.

Brazil hosted the Pan American Games in 2007 and is now gearing up to host the FIFA 2014 World Cup, which rivals the Olympics as the planet's biggest sports marketing prize. These international sports events present big global security challenges and Brazil, which has been elected to the United Nations Security Council nine times, has the infrastructure and event management know-how to meet them. When Security Council reforms are finalized, Brazil will likely be voted a permanent member of the Council.

Rio ranks #32 among the world's top urban tourist locations. Madrid is #25 and Tokyo comes in at #37. Chicago is not among the top fifty, nor is Vegas in spite of its high noise to volume ratio. London, which will host the 2012 Olympics, is the world's #1 tourist location.

But site selection for the Olympics has more to do with power politics in the Machiavellian sense than with popularity.

Madrid, the final stop for the IOC before it makes its decision, has been a candidate before and has an outstanding plan for the games. Powerful sports marketing interests in Britain, France and Germany have voiced tacit support for the Madrid bid. But the economics of sports marketing in a new tight money global economy may raise concerns that back-to-back Olympics in Europe will not play well elsewhere in the world.

For its part, Madrid has a "mother country" problem in the New World, being part of the Old World that, along with Italy and the Vatican, did not see fit to give South America, now with the world's largest Roman Catholic population, a cardinal until 1905. Then too, security issues loom; although Spain recently captured leaders of the Basque separatist organization ETA, their terrorist cells are teflon and like the Islamist groups on the Iberian peninsula, they don't need Twitter to show up in a New York minute. Madrid will likely keep bidding and eventually host the games, when the geopolitical compass of the sports world next points to Europe.

Tokyo's bid has won praise in the mainstream media as the bid with the most funding and infrastructure. But 2008 host China, which manufactures all things sports and still holds a grudge over Japan's unpleasant pre-World War II occupation of Manchuria, may not be comfortable seeing Tokyo get the big prize.

One would expect Chicago to get strong back up from the White House. But US president Barack Obama seems to put more public emphasis on doing photo ops practicing his jump shot than with drumming up public support for the Windy City's bid to host the 2016 games. As Mike Ditka might say, the Chicago bid needs more mo-mentum as the race nears the wire.

The bottom line for business is that companies engaged in the trillion dollar sports marketing channel can get tremendous value in emerging Southern Hemisphere markets in South America, Southern Africa, India and South Asia and in 2016 Rio will offer them the best multicultural platform to reach out from.

At Crescenta Valley High in California and Fort Worth Dunbar in Texas, kids with Olympic dreams are lacing their track shoes, wondering where they're going to go for the gold in 2016. The Southern Cross is at the center of Brazil's flag and if the stars line up, those kids could be running the race of their lives in Rio.

North Korea Threatens Nuclear, Missile Tests Unless UN Apologizes

2009-04-29T08:16:09Z

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea warned Wednesday it will fire an intercontinental ballistic missile _ or even carry out another nuclear test _ unless the U.N. apologizes for condemning the regime's April 5 rocket launch.

By flaunting its rogue nuclear and missile programs, Pyongyang has raised the stakes in the escalating diplomatic tit for tat with the outside world. North Korea also said it would start generating nuclear fuel _ an indication the regime will begin enriching uranium, another material used to make an atomic bomb.

US May Accept Iran's Uranium Pursuit

2009-04-06T11:15:51Z

US officials are considering whether to accept Iran's pursuit of uranium enrichment, which has been outlawed by the United Nations and remains at the heart of fears that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability.

Evelyn Leopold: North Korea: What's Next? Ask China

2009-04-05T21:42:12Z

By Evelyn Leopold, at the United Nations

Until China agrees to tougher sanctions or other ways to discourage North Korea's military ambitions, the United States and its allies will have an uphill battle other than putting pressure on Beijing itself. After three hours of consultation in the UN Security Council on Sunday, the 15 members were deadlocked on North Korea's firing of a three-stage rocket, and agreed to consult further on "appropriate action...given the urgency of the matter," said Mexico's Ambassador Claude Heller, this month's council president. Members even spent 40 minutes discussing whether they should "express concern" at the launch, diplomats reported.

The United States is seeking support from Japan, France, Britain and others on a resolution it is drafting that would have the council extend and enforce a 2006 Security Council sanctions resolution that orders Pyongyang to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program." For one, diplomats said Washington is considering expanding a list of North Korean companies and individuals on a UN black list and adding to a list of banned luxury items. At the moment enforcement is up to individual nations to bar exchanges or sales of dangerous weaponry with Pyongyang.

"The United States view is that the most appropriate response to an action of this gravity would be a Security Council resolution," said Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations.
But China, which like the United States, Russia, Britain and France, has veto power in the Security Council, is not so sure. "I think we are now in a sensitive moment," its UN ambassador, Zeng Yesui told reporters. He said that any action by Security Council had to be "cautious and proportionate."

China, which on North Korean questions is routinely backed by Russia, delivers fuel to North Korea and a good deal of its food and other supplies. While experts believe Beijing does not want its neighbor to have nuclear weapons (much less face a Japan that could insist on them also), it also fears a collapse of the regime if there is too much pressure. More refugees would stream over its border. And further down the road there could be reunification with the south and American troops on its frontier.

North Korea fired a three stage rocket from the Musudan-ri launch site in the northeast of the country and insists it only carried a communications satellite. But the United States, Japan, South Korea and other countries say the launch was a practice session to develop the capabilities of launching a nuclear warhead, and violates Security Council resolution 1718 of October 2006, adopted after North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test. But a is said to question whether the rocket violated the resolution if it carried a satellite, although the technology is similar, if not identical. Hence the South Korean defense minister, Lee Sang-hee, told his parliament that the rocket fell into the sea whereas the satellite would have remained aloft. The Pentagon gave a similar analysis.

"What was launched was not the issue," Rice told reporters. "The fact that there was a launch using ballistic missile technology is itself a clear violation of (the resolution) which prohibited missile related activity,"

But she acknowledged there was no consensus on that issue, saying "members expressed varying views." (Russia and China were supported by Uganda, Libya and Vietnam, participants said.)

So why did North Korea do it? The theories are manifold. Among them is grabbing the attention of the Obama administration and giving the new president his first major foreign policy challenge in an effort to garner direct talks and ties to Washington. And then there was South Korea, whose current government gave up on the "sunshine" policy of his predecessor. And Japan, in whose direction the rocket was aimed, is considered by Pyongyang to be more hostile than usual. Both South Korea and Japan are participants in the stalled six-party talks (along with North Korea, the United States, China and Russia) aimed at getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons program. Some speculate that North Korea, even before these talks resume, wants another bargaining chip - and "look at me" attention.

North Korea Warns That Sanctions Will End Stalled Talks For Good

2009-03-24T15:07:23Z

North Korea said Tuesday that if the United States pushed for United Nations sanctions against it after its planned rocket launching, that would spell a definitive end to the stalled six-nation talks on ending its nuclear weapons program.

Bush: Next On War Crimes List?

2009-03-05T12:57:47Z

George W. Bush could one day be the International Criminal Court's next target.

Lloyd Axworthy: Good News for Darfur

2009-03-04T16:42:40Z

Finally, some good news for Darfur: an arrest warrant for Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has been issued by the International Criminal Court. But Sudan and its allies are arguing that the United Nations Security Council must intercede to suspend the court's work. They contend that applying the rules of justice will make it more difficult to negotiate peace in Darfur.

My experience has shown that peace and justice can co-exist -- and that peace unleavened with justice is impossible to attain.

In May 1999 I was holed up in a drafty castle outside of Cologne with other G-8 foreign ministers. We were charged with the seemingly impossible task of bringing an end to the conflict in Kosovo. For weeks, President Milosevic had been playing us as part of a public relations game and showed little serious intent to commit to peace processes. Frustration was mounting.

Then one night at dinner I received a note from Louise Arbour, prosecutor for the Yugoslav Tribunal informing me that she planned to indict Milosevic and four of his cronies for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Kosovo. When I shared this information with the other ministers, the reaction I got was similar to the reaction of many to the prosecutor's request for a warrant against Bashir: moaning and groaning. They were certain that peace talks, which already lacked traction, would be completely derailed by the indictments.

Undoubtedly had there been a mechanism enabling the Security Council to block the prosecutor's action against Milosevic, some would have pushed for it. The argument for intervention would have been the same then as is being used now with Sudan: that justice will get in the way of peace.

Fortunately, deferral was not an option and the charges against Milosevic were allowed to stand free from political interference. The results surprised many. Within days of the prosecutor's announcement of the indictment, Milosevic was at the bargaining table. We had an agreement on terms in a matter of hours and a week the deal was sealed. I, and others, believe that rather than hinder negotiations, the indictment was a catalyst propelling negotiations forward.

In Uganda as well, the possibility of criminal prosecution affected the dynamics of peace negotiations in an unexpected way. When the International Criminal Court prosecutor announced he was investigating the crimes in northern Uganda, many there -- desperate for an end to the brutal and lengthy civil war -- feared that prosecutions would thwart any hope of peace. They believed that rebels would rather wage war than face trial and that local communities could be subject to retaliatory violence.

Instead, although an agreement was not ultimately signed, the arrest warrants played a role in bringing the rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army, to the table for the most serious peace negotiations up to that point. The court's involvement had the additional benefit of making it more difficult for third countries such as Sudan to continue to support the rebel group. Assumptions about the effect of justice on a conflict situation were proven wrong again.

The Security Council must now resist the temptation to interfere with court proceedings as it grapples with the situation in Darfur. Following the ICC Prosecutor's briefing in December, the UK rightly stated that it saw no justification for suspension of ICC prosecutions. There has been no indication that suspending justice will bring about peace in the region. Furthermore, the long-term consequences of a Security Council deferral could be devastating: it would undermine the efforts of the last two decades to curtail impunity for these crimes and send a message to those who commit massive human rights abuses that they can indeed escape justice.

The ICC was conceived of as an important mechanism for protecting civilians against atrocities. If people responsible for massive crimes are actually held to account, others may make different decisions when weighing the costs of their actions. If the Security Council allows itself to be blackmailed into suspending its first referral of a situation to the International Criminal Court, the value of justice as a tool to combat dictators and vicious rebel groups will be seriously diminished. In the interests of global peace and security, the United States must stand by its commitment to justice for victims in Darfur.

Eric Margolis: Bush's Final Gift: Gaza

2009-01-15T15:05:30Z

Just when we thought it was impossible for the calamitous George Bush and Svengali Dick Cheney to do any more damage to the world or to America's interests, they loosed one final Parthian shaft into the heart of the Mideast by giving Israel a green light to blitz Gaza and try to exterminate the Hamas movement.

The assault on Gaza, which has provoked worldwide outraged, was President Bush's parting gift to Israel.

According to Agence France Press, Bush even humiliated his useless secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, by ordering her to abstain at the United Nations on a ceasefire resolution she has helped draw up after Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert called the president and demanded the US not support the vote.

Bush's green light to Israel's assault on Gaza has unsavory precedents.

In 1982, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig gave Israel's Ariel Sharon a green light to invade Lebanon and crush the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israel's guns and bombs pounded large parts of besieged Beirut to rubble. The invasion was a disaster and led to the deaths of 18,000 to 20,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, and the massacres of 2,000 Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by Israel's neo-fascist Lebanese allies, and the death of 247 US servicemen.

Osama bin Laden noted a few years ago that the 9/11 attacks on New York were in direct retaliation for Israel's brutal bombardment and destruction of downtown Beirut. Not surprisingly, the US media ignored this story.

In 2006, the Bush administration worked out a plan with Israel to again invade Lebanon, crush Hezbollah, then go on to attack Syria and Iran. This plan, like other American-Israeli machinations, collapsed in ignominy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice struggled to prevent the UN and world powers from ending Israel's attack on Lebanon, which killed over 1,000 civilians and inflicted billions of damage on Lebanon. But Hezbollah's unexpected effective resistance turned the invasion into a humiliating US-Israeli defeat.

Rice was at it again in Gaza, attempting to thwart efforts by the UN, EU and other powers to end the three-week massacre there.

Once again, America has covered itself with shame and hypocrisy. Shame and hypocrisy only exceeded by America and Israel's leading co-conspirator in the Gaza siege, Egypt, which has barred the only escape root from the hell of besieged, starving Gaza.

President-elect Barack Obama, who is regarded by many around the globe as a savior, has only issued a few platitudes about the Gaza massacre. He did not hesitate to comment on the attack on Mumbai and other world issues, but his lack of response to the savaging of Gaza could be a dismaying portent of more of the bloody same in the Mideast.

So far, nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed, a third of them children, and close to 5,000 seriously wounded. Three Israeli civilians are dead from Hamas rockets. The psychic wounds inflicted on 1.5 million terrified Palestinian civilians subjected to 1,000 and 2,000 lb bombs, 155mm artillery shells, cluster munitions, heavy mortar fire, air to ground missiles, white phosphorus, and high-velocity tank shells cannot be described.

Gaza has very few basements. Its people cower in apartments and buildings, never knowing when a bomb will crash through the roof or a tank shell through the wall. According to the UN, before the latest crisis, 70% of Palestinian children in Gaza suffered from emotional disorders as well as malnutrition.

Israel's goal remains to eradicate Hamas and kill as many of its members before world outrage finally forces a cease-fire. Once Hamas is crushed, the lapdog Fatah organization, which is financed and run by the US and Israel, will be put in charge of Gaza and be the sole voice of Palestinians. By contrast, Hamas keeps refusing to recognize Israel until Israel recognizes the rights of millions of Palestinian refugees.

Fatah's yes-men will then agree to the US-Israeli plan for the West Bank, which recognizes Israel's retention of its useful parts, and leaves millions of Palestinians squeezed into Israeli-policed tribal enclaves, or Bantustans. In short, little versions of Gaza.

The strategy of Hamas is simply to survive and continue to defy Israel and its allies. The homemade rockets still being fired by Hamas are an act of foolhardy but determined defiance by desperate people with no hope and no future.

The US-Israeli-Egyptian-British plan to eradicate Hamas, which is the Arab world's only democratically elected government has another important objective. Hamas was founded in 1987 by a group of Islamic charities linked to Egypt's venerable Muslim Brotherhood movement. The new Hamas movement gained widespread popular support by promising to defend Palestinian rights to their lost lands and by providing a broad range of social welfare to destitute Palestinian refugees subsisting in squalid slums.

Hamas, in essence, is a democratic revolutionary movement that threatens all of the Mideast's US-backed dictatorships and monarchies. Its biggest threat is to Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood remains the unofficial opposition to the regime of President Husni Mubarak, who has ruled his nation with an iron fist for 28 years.

Mubarak's dictatorship over Egypt is the keystone of US domination of the Mideast. Egypt holds almost a third of the Arab world's total population.

Gen. Mubarak is now 81. Egypt faces regime change soon. The last thing Washington wants is for Hamas' revolutionary ideas and zeal to infect Egypt's quiescent, non-violent Muslim Brotherhood, the main opposition to Mubarak, and risk seeing the US-backed Cairo regime replaced by a nationalist or Islamist government.

So it was essential, in the US-Israeli-Egyptian view, to once and all crush the Hamas movement and keep Gaza's Palestinians - who were ethnically cleansed from their homes in what became Israel in 1948 - safely penned up in the Gaza prison. A high-ranking Vatican official just called Gaza a 'concentration camp'.

There is also another subtext to Egypt's cynical behavior. Cairo greatly fears that Israel will eventually dump control of Gaza's restive Palestinians into Egypt's lap. Jordan, similarly, fears Israel will demand it assume policing Palestinian enclaves on the West Bank. Worse, Jordan fears Israel will eventually ethnically cleanse parts of the West Bank and drive its Arab inhabitants into the Hashemite Kingdom, which is already 60% Palestinian.

Israel has been remarkably successful in barring the world's eyes from the carnage in Gaza and advancing its side of the story. In North America, the name 'Hamas' never appears without the label, 'terrorist.'

But when journalists and cameras finally do get in, there will be even more international outrage against Israel's repression. No matter. The world, including the ineffectual regimes running so many Arab states, has proven helpless in the face of Israeli actions and their staunch defense by the Bush administration.

As I said last week, Israel is handing a 'fait accompli' to President Barack Obama. Israel's squabbling politicians primarily launched this war to boost their chances in upcoming elections, but also to destroy Hamas while their protector, George Bush, was still in the White House. The crushing of Gaza was also intended by Israel's security establishment to end any hopes Obama may have had of creating a viable, independent Palestinian state on the West Bank.

A short-term success for Israel, perhaps. But these Israeli politicians will pay a heavy price in the long term for this slash and burn policy. The world will turn further against Israel and see it, as too many critics claim, as a brutal oppressor. Comparisons with the Warsaw ghetto uprising will inevitably be made. More important, any hope for a real peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors has been set back for years.

Equally, America will be blamed for the carnage in Gaza. In my latest book, 'American Raj: Liberation or Domination?'
I try to explain why there is so much anger and hatred directed against the United States. Gaza is now Exhibit `A.'

While our media mostly repeats Israel's side of the argument, people across the Muslim world hear nightly of Gaza's agony and horror - and will soon see television footage. Everyone knows the F-16's, helicopter gunships, and self-propelled heavy artillery raining death on Gaza comes from the US courtesy of American taxpayers. Everyone knows the White House has been blocking action to succor the Palestinians and ordering its Arab satrap regimes to stay quiet - or, as in the case of Egypt, keep the prison gates locked.

If 9/11 was payback for Beirut, 1982, then the next attack on the US or its citizens abroad will likely be labeled, 'Gaza'. We apparently learn nothing from our mistakes.

Jamal Dajani: No Happy New Year in Palestine

2009-01-01T07:07:52Z

East Jerusalem-- New Year's Day

I wake up with a news hangover. Israeli jets are pounding Gaza for the sixth continuous day, and the IDF continues to build up its forces along the border in preparation for a possible ground invasion. Olmert promises that more is on the way, yet Hamas remains defiant and has not lost its ability to launch rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities. Angry Arabs demonstrate in Arab capitals, while Arab League members only blow more hot air. Mahmoud Abbas addresses the Palestinian people...no one listens. Leader of Hezbollah, Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, says that the resistance (Hamas) is already triumphing and Israel is doomed to failure despite its massive offensive on the Gaza Strip "because of resistance and steadfastness, because of rejecting compromises or surrender." The number of dead in Gaza reaches 400.

The UN

Members of the UN Security Council have ended an emergency meeting searching for the proper wording of a draft resolution. I don't know if I should laugh or cry; when did UN resolutions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict make a difference- 181, 194, 242, 338 to name a few? Here in East Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem and other Palestinian towns and villages, there are plenty of words members of the UNSC may want to borrow for their useless resolution: death, horror, and destruction. My New Year's resolution is not to pay attention to UN resolutions.

A Tale of Two Cities

In West Jerusalem, Israelis celebrated New Year's Eve with abandon. The rain did not stop partygoers from crowding cafés, hotels, and nightclubs. Throngs of young Israelis danced to electronica, modern Israeli rock and American pop. In East Jerusalem, celebrations to ring in the New Year were largely canceled. Most people stayed at home glued in front of television screens watching news reports and lamenting the future. Israel might claim Jerusalem as its eternal capital, but it remains a divided city.

Mahmoud Abbas

Whether Israel accomplishes its objectives in Gaza or not, one thing is certain; the "all-out war on Gaza" will certainly finish Mahmoud Abbas. Since blaming rival faction Hamas for provoking the Israeli attacks, Abbas has been accused of colluding with Israel over the operations on Gaza. His message to Israel that he "would not hesitate to put negotiations to an end" is mocked in the Palestinian street. I have yet to meet someone who has something good to say about Abbas.

The War of Information

For those who have been following my ordeal with Beit Agron, the Israeli Government Press Office, I'm finally issued my "visiting journalist credentials" after additional security checks. I now do not have to practice underground journalism. Meanwhile, the Israeli government has launched a massive public relations campaign to justify its air offensive on Gaza. Israeli officials are well rehearsed in delivering their talking points to an attentive pool of foreign journalists.

"Israel's aim is to stop missile attacks from Gaza" and "Hamas broke the "hudna" (ceasefire)." An Israeli press spokesman quoted Obama when he visited Sderot and said "If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that."

Arab media has been giving wall to wall coverage of the events in Gaza. Viewers watch in despair and mutter and curse while they clench their teeth. Images of the dead, many of them children, destroyed mosques and women wailing play in a loop. Angry pundits and guests denounce inept Arab leaders. Mobs setting the Israeli flag on fire. A call for mass demonstrations after this Friday's prayers echoes on several satellite networks. The Israeli government dispatches riot police at the entrances of the Old City. Tomorrow will be another bloody day.

"Go back to America and tell your government what your weapons are doing to us" an old acquaintance tells me angrily.

Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV

Ahmed Shihab-Eldin: Israel's Blitzkrieg on Gaza Proves Politically Expedient, Disproportionate and Unstoppable

2008-12-28T14:17:15Z

The media's emphasis on the retaliatory nature of Israel's air strikes on Gaza distracts from the more consequential, newsworthy elements -- Israel's disproportionate use of violence and its upcoming Parliamentary elections.

That Israel attacked Gaza is no surprise. Since the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel ended on December 19, it was only a matter of time before Israel responded to the increasing number of rockets fired across the border.

Under the blockade, Hamas' options were limited as the Palestinian people that elected them to power in the first place were increasingly powerless themselves. But on many levels it is foolish of Hamas to fire rockets arbitrarily at Israel since Israel's response will inevitably overwhelm them, not to mention the unwavering support from the U.S. and Britain for Israel.

For over a year, Israel has cleverly conducted a campaign in the West Bank that has caused further divisions between Hamas and Fatah, hoping that it would eventually lead to a shift in public opinion within Palestine, around the Arab world, and consequently result in the removal of Hamas from power -- regardless of the means.

Ever since the President's Fatah forces lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas in 2007, the two groups have drifted further apart politically and have vowed to challenge each other.

In May 2007, Israel arrested 33 senior Hamas officials in the West Bank, and in the following months Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas began closing down organizations that Hamas claimed were charitable and cracking down on Hamas' influence in the West Bank.

Saturday's storming assault -- or as Israel put it, "surgical strikes" on military targets in Gaza -- that killed over 300 Palestinians, many of whom are civilians, marks the bloodiest single day of violence since 1967.

Israel had hoped to change the situation on the ground and eliminate Hamas from the political and public sphere, but just as Gaza was surprised with the severity and strength of Israel's attack, Israel may unintentionally galvanize Palestinians to rally for Hamas and strengthen Iran's standing in the Middle East too.

Hezbollah was viewed by large swaths of the Arab world as the only Arab resistance group able to fight Israel in Lebanon. Now, Hamas has a chance to achieve the same recognition in Gaza.

What a damning start to the new year (it is also the Muslim New Year, which starts on December 29).

Israel's inability to recognize the desperation of Palestinians -- alongside Israel's destructive policies towards them -- and Hamas' inability to recognize the opportunity it creates for its enemy to successfully justify extreme violence with its largely ineffective rocket launches, suggests this war will not be brief.

The mortars fired into Israel from Gaza grant Israel the perfect opportunity to justify their attempts to eliminate Hamas -- and with elections coming up in February, they seem as committed as ever. But equally committed are the countless number of impoverished, desperate Palestinians crammed in Gaza who have seen their livelihoods lost and family members killed indiscriminately. It is the cliched "vicious circle," though hardly "an eye for an eye" -- more like "an eye for a head."

The European Union called for an "immediate ceasefire." France criticized Israel for the use of "disproportionate force." But the U.S. and Britain (the two countries that led the War in Iraq) chose not to condemn Israel, instead the Bush administration expectantly pledged its allegiance with Israel. Condoleeza Rice said in a statement, "We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there."

But who will hold Israel responsible for the blockade of Gaza, which under the truce, was supposed to be lifted gradually?

Since Hamas gained total control of Gaza, Israel has imposed a systematic and terrorizing 18-month blockade on the strip, starving the 1.5 million Palestinians of fuel, electricity and medical supplies, which allowed for the death toll to climb higher as life-saving medical supplies remained unavailable to treat the wounded through a second day of fighting.

While the threat of rockets launched from Gaza can seem menacing, or even "terrorizing," it is incomparable to the terror that millions of Palestinians endure on a daily basis -- starving, living under an economic blockade, essentially imprisoned, desperate and demoralized.

Despite Israel's use of the threat of rocket fire as justification for its military attacks, the reality is that only one Israeli man has died from a Palestinian rocket attack since June -- and he died after Israel's bombardment of Gaza yesterday.

Death on either side of the border is disgraceful, but compare these two figures:

-- Since 2005, nine Israelis have been killed by rockets coming from Gaza.

-- Since yesterday morning, over 300 Palestinians have been killed by bombs and missiles coming from Israel.

Today, Israel acted on its announced plans to continue its "retaliation" against Hamas, proving yesterday's historic assault was "only the beginning." Israeli politicians hoping to demonstrate their ability to properly protect Israeli citizens have capitalized on a perfect opportunity.

As Israel's parliamentary elections draw near, politicians must be perceived as willing to do whatever it takes to protect Israel from the threat of rocket fire from Gaza. The aerial assault's main objective was to create a "shock and awe" effect, just as President Bush had done in his invasion of Iraq, that would produce a chaotic atmosphere facilitating a complete elimination of Hamas' military and security infrastructures and guarantee a sweeping and final victory.

Ehud Barak has been preparing Israelis for a full-on attack for some time now and stressed that he didn't intend to mislead them.

"It won't be easy and it won't be short," he said, offering an outlook that is more earnest and realistic than President Bush ever offered Americans in the run up to the Iraq War.

Israeli leaders who seem too keen on compromising with the Palestinians are likely to lose support from constituents. Aware of the fragile leadership in Israel following Prime Minister Olmert's corruption charges, Hamas leaders may have planned the increase in rocket attacks, despite warnings, to test both Israel and America's weakened image in the Middle East.

In a televised address, Olmert said it was his aim "to change the situation in the southern part of Israel." The campaign word of 2008 rolled off his tongue effortlessly. Change.

The change of leadership in America and the economic crisis are precisely what has so many in Israel worried.

America's reputation among many Arabs is damaged, as shown by this month's shoe-throwing spectacle. The general failure of the War in Iraq and the general perception of America's blind support for Israel are seen as one in the same, breeding new wells of anger and hatred that may be tapped to recruit new trainees for terrorism.

Any provocation coming from armed groups in the region -- for instance, Hamas' rockets -- may be an attempt to see how an unpopular, overstretched and economically bust America will come to Israel's rescue when its own economic and military viability is in question.

In the run-up to the general election, we were reminded that the next American president will be tested in the first 6 months of his presidency and that a 3 a.m. phone call was sure to come. But President-elect Obama is gonna need a switchboard and team of operators to field all the calls he'll be receiving.

Israel's ailing government has been preparing the Israeli people for a full-fledged effort to get rid of Hamas once and for all. In the days leading up to the attack, Israeli officials carefully and cunningly claimed they did not want the ceasefire to end, reminding the world it was Hamas that ended it in order to create the perception that Israel had not planned or hoped for an escalation of violence despite the reconnaissance missions they ran prior to the actual attacks. Hamas, on the other hand, argued that the economic blockade and strangulation of Gaza was what prompted them to end the truce.

Israel's insistence that their actions are defensive measures would work better if they had not prevented the international press from entering Gaza just a few weeks before they launched the assault.

As the attacks occurred, I was in Kuwait walking through The Avenues, one of Kuwait's newest mega-malls. With smooth, polished marble below me and dazzling chandeliers above me I was completely oblivious to the maelstrom raining above Gaza.

At home, flipping between channels, my family all gathered around the television and watched as Arab leaders and demonstrators from across the region blasted Israel and condemned the international community for its lack of leadership and fairness in ending Israel's escalating attacks.

Their statements were woven with startling images of bloodied bodies strewn across demolished buildings and rubble. Their comments often amounted to a blurred and blended stream of anger, frustration and curses of America and Israel and I wondered if any of this would ever reach an American audience.

Baghdad, Beirut, Amman, Cairo and Istanbul all saw large protests including both burning tires and candles. But in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, all of whom are geographically and emotionally much closer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it is there that the most roaring responses were heard.

In Amman, a city whose inhabitants are predominantly of Palestinian origin, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood called Arab rulers that have established terms with Israel criminals and demanded they cut ties.

In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands were in the streets to support the Palestinians in Gaza, and many demonstrated near the Egyptian embassy in Beirut.

Egypt, which brokered the six-month cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, has struggled to end the violence after President Hosni Mubarak met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and has also been unable to bring the clashing factions of Fatah and Hamas together.

"Today everybody has to stand by the Palestinian people's side and stop this blind military action," Ahmed Aboul Gheit, Egypt's foreign minister said. But he also blamed Hamas for ignoring warnings that Israel would attack if they continued to send rockets to Gaza.

Hamas will never heed any warnings from Israel and will continue to fire rockets indiscriminately because it is their only means of fighting. Accordingly, Israel will always "retaliate" and justify their actions by focusing only on a short period of time where they can appear to be defending themselves against Hamas' largely laughable rocket attacks. This way they can drive a narrative that overlooks the oppressive, brutal blockade that encourages the continuation of rockets.

While Arab countries have unanimously condemned the attacks on Gaza, some seem to want to wait to see whether Israel's gamble that their attacks will diminish Palestinian support for Hamas will materialize before getting too involved.

When Amr Moussa, the head of the Arab League, called for the UN Security Council to meet to discuss the situation in Gaza and called for an emergency meeting with foreign ministers of the Arab League, Arab ministers postponed it, citing preoccupations with other affairs.

Hisham Youssef, a spokesman for the Arab League, said that the responsibility does not lay with the Arab league and instead deferred to the UN, claiming they have not taken any responsibility for stopping the offensive on Gaza.

There are many obstacles facing any lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, but the elephant in the room -- or at least one of the bigger elephants-- is the lack of Arab unity on promoting the rights of Palestinians and trusting a unified Palestinian movement to secure a path towards peace.

Israel has shown no indication that it plans to change its course of action, despite the UN Security Council's call for an immediate halt to the violence, and they don't have to. So far, they have succeeded in diverting attention away from the crippling blockade and isolation imposed on Gaza and successfully framed their excessive use of violence as a defensive measure to protect Israelis from the fear of aimless rockets.

Once again the United Nations, with all its resolutions and supposed authority, is powerless when it comes to Israel's right to defend itself at all costs. Since the U.S. and Britain both hold veto power Israel will never have to take any decision taken by the UN seriously.

President-elect Obama and soon to be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have spent much time arguing in the past about who would be more ready to lead America on day one. But following Israel's ambitious attack on Gaza, they are both going to have to show up more prepared than their predecessors since it is likely that a renewed anger towards Israel and America will send many figurative shoes flying their way.