This is default featured slide 1 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is default featured slide 2 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is default featured slide 3 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is default featured slide 4 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
This is default featured slide 5 title
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.This theme is Bloggerized by Lasantha Bandara - Premiumbloggertemplates.com.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
International Law and "The Responsibility to Protect"
Sunday, November 11, 2012
UK forcing Palestinians to drop UN bid
“Until this moment, there is no international pressure on the PA concerning the UN bid (from Europe), except from Britain,” Nabil Sha’ath told Palestinian independent news agency Ma’an.
Sha’ath, who is a member of the Fatah Central Committee, said London has been trying to force the Palestinian Authority to drop its bid apparently for the US to get more time to kill regarding the bid for the recognition of a Palestinian state.
However, he pledged that the PA is determined to push with the bid despite London’s pressure and threats by the US to cut off its funding for the Palestinian Authority.
“The PA will not postpone the UN bid as it is a strategic decision,” Shaath said, adding that the bid would be submitted by the end of November.
Acting Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas has decided to table a resolution at the UN General Assembly for a Palestinian state.
In a recent interview with the Voice of Palestine Radio, Sha’ath stated that the PA expects several European countries to back the resolution.
“European countries are talking with us about the timing of the vote, the formula of the draft resolution to the UN.”
The US and the UK want Palestinians to return to the negotiating table over a deal with the Zionist regime of Israel.
The Palestinian-Israeli talks, observers consider no more than delaying tactics to buy time for Tel Aviv, hit a deadlock after the Israeli regime resumed building of illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories in October 2010.
The Fatah bid centers on recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but Abbas has said he will only return to talks with Israeli officials when they recognize a Palestinian state at pre-1967 borders.
Abbas is not widely supported in Palestine partly due to his position on the return of Palestinian refugees forced out of their lands by Israeli forces in May 1948.
Many Palestinians believe he has given up on the right to return, especially after his interview with Israel’s Channel 2 earlier this month where he said he ‘does not have the right’ to live in the city that his family was expelled from in 1948.
His remarks were also condemned by the resistance movement Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), and the Islamic Jihad Movement.
Friday, November 2, 2012
UN Human Rights Committee censures Turkey’s human rights record
A panel of 18 independent experts at the UN Human Rights Committee reviewed Turkey’s human rights record for the first time, saying on Thursday that some of the provisions within the country’s counterterrorism law do not match with international law and that the law is limiting the right to due process.
Michael O’Flaherty, the chairman of the UN committee, stressed that the world body was worried about “the vagueness of the definition of the terrorist act in the 1991 law and the very far-reaching, unacceptable restrictions on the right of due process for accused people and the high number of cases in which human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and even children are charged under the anti-terrorism law.”
“Not for terrorism, but for the free expression of their opinions and ideas, in particular in the context of non-violent discussion of the Kurdish issue,” O’Flaherty said.
More than 100 journalists are serving in Turkish prisons, together with thousands of activists, military officers, politicians, and lawyers. Most of the prisoners are accused of supporting Kurdish militants and plotting against the government.
The panel expressed concerns about the fact that the prisoners do not have access to a lawyer for the first 24 hours, when they believed the risk of torture was very high.
"Detainees do not have access to an effective mechanism to challenge the lawfulness of their pre-trial detention and do not always in practice have prompt access to a lawyer,” the experts also said.
Friday, October 26, 2012
'Boycott them!' UN rapporteur slams companies aiding Israeli settlements
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Israeli regime calls on UN to act against Gaza-bound ship
“I call on the Secretary General, the Security Council, and all responsible members of the international community to take immediate action to end this provocation,” Israeli envoy to the UN Ron Prosor said in a recent letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and the security council’s president for October, Guatemalan envoy Gert Rosenthal.
The Swedish vessel Estelle is transporting 17 activists and a cargo of humanitarian aid for the Palestinians. The ship left the Italian port city of Naples on October 6 and is expected to arrive near Gaza in about a week.
On May 31, 2010, Israeli forces attacked the Gaza-bound humanitarian Freedom Flotilla in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea, killing nine Turkish nationals aboard Turkey’s Mavi Marmara and injuring about 50 other activists who were part of the six-ship convoy.
Also in November 2011, a Canadian and an Irish yacht were prevented by Israeli forces in international waters to transport pro-Palestinian activists and medical supplies to Gaza.
The Tel Aviv regime denies about 1.7 million people in Gaza their basic rights, such as freedom of movement, jobs that pay proper wages, and adequate healthcare and education.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Pressure Builds for Full-Scale War on Syria
Rhetoric hides intent. Turkey wants safe zones, and perhaps a no-fly zone. Britain and France both said no options are ruled out, including a no-fly zone. Ahead of US November elections, Washington is more low key, but not entirely.
Obama stresses he’s open to all options. On September 27, Hillary Clinton met openly with Assad opponents at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel. She did also privately with so-called Friends of Syria.
She announced millions of dollars more aid. She claimed it’s mostly for humanitarian purposes. America does nothing that way. Everything it does has ulterior motives.
Washington will also supply more communication equipment. It “includ(es) satellite-linked computers, telephones, and cameras, as well as training for” opposition elements and supporters, she said.
She expressed frustration about lack of more aggressive Security Council action. She suggested Washington may bypass the body, saying:
“It is no secret that our attempts to move forward at the UN Security Council have been blocked repeatedly, but the United States is not waiting.” She said it before. She left little doubt what she means. Obama’s UN address was also belligerent against Iran and Syria.
Expect military intervention ahead against both countries. It’s longstanding policy. Post-November 6 elections, it’s coming. All independent governments are vulnerable.
Syria and Iran top Washington’s target list. NATO countries and regional allies are pressured to go along. Some need no prodding. Israel urges it. Britain willingly partnered with America’s imperial agenda for decades.
It’s always ready to go to war if asked. It has a belligerent reputation to uphold. David Owen once served as foreign secretary. On September 27, he headlined a London Telegraphop-ed “Only a no-fly zone brokered with Russia can bring peace.”
Establishing a no-fly zone or safe havens in Syrian territory assures war. Washington’s war on Libya proved what Owen and other observers understand well.
Effectively he advocated belligerent intervention. He quoted Prime Minister David Cameron in New York saying: “The blood of these young (Syrian) children is a terrible stain on the reputation of the United Nations.”
He avoided explaining US and UK involvement. Their bloodstained hands are too obvious to ignore. He was silent on Western aggression on Syria. His government is directly responsible for lost lives.
He pointed fingers the wrong way. He blamed Security Council members with veto power. He wants Russia and China to yield to US/UK/French rage for war on Syria.
He wrongfully called conflict there civil. There’s nothing civil about it. Syria was invaded. Mercenary death squads were recruited from regional countries. They’re given safe havens in bordering countries.
Washington, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and perhaps other imperial allies have been arming, funding, training, and directing them. They’re responsible for thousands of deaths. Assad’s doing his best to restore peace. He faces stiff headwinds.
Owen said he “was one of the first to argue for a no-fly zone over Libya.” He knew full well what would follow. He wants it repeated for Syria. “NATO is the only organization” able to enforce no-fly zone protection, he added.
He wants Russia pressured to go along. His notion of restoring peace is first wage war. Hasn’t he paid attention to what’s happening in Libya? At age 74, perhaps he’s prematurely senile.
More likely, he wants another country ravaged and dominated by Western powers. He’s comfortable perhaps with tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths to make it possible.
In 2011, The New York Times promoted war on Libya. It backs intervention now against Assad. It practically mocked the cold-blooded murder o Press TV correspondent Maya Naser.
A Western-recruited death squad sniper assassinated him. He was doing his job. He was alone and live on air at the time. He was vulnerable from where he reported.
The Times claimed he was embedded with Syrian forces. None were close by when he died. Press TV’s Damascus Bureau Chief Hosein Mortada was attacked and injured at the same time.
Both were covering twin Damascus blasts and ensuing fighting. Heroically, they put their lives on the line daily doing it.
Press TV News Room Director Hamid Reza Emadi said:
“We hold Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who provide militants weapons to kill civilians, military personnel and journalists, responsible for killing Maya.
“Press TV will pursue the matter of the murder of Maya and would not let those who killed the correspondent feel like they can kill the media people and get away with it.”
Last February, The Times claimed its Syrian correspondent, Anthony Shadid, died from asthma complications. It seemed far-fetched at the time. Death by drowning is more likely. perhaps cover-up was Times policy.
Shadid’s cousin Ed Shadid said he told his wife: “If anything happens to me, I want the world to know that The New York Times killed me.” By that he meant he didn’t want to go and got little support while there.
That aside, Times executive editor, Jill Abramson, praised him, saying:
“Anthony died as he lived – determined to bear witness to the transformation sweeping the Middle East and to testify to the suffering of people caught between government oppression and opposition forces.”
On the one hand, Abramson lied both about Shadid and what’s ongoing regionally. On the other, Shadid was praised in contrast to how Maya Naser was mocked.
Most important is what’s been ongoing in Syria since March 2011, where it’s likely heading, and how consistently The Times misreports.
Russia’s been out in front trying to restore calm and peace. On September 28, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov addressed the UN General Assembly. He reiterated comments he made earlier. The way to end conflict is to adhere to last June’s Geneva Agreement, he said.
“We proposed to adopt a resolution in the UN Security Council that would endorse the Geneva communique as the basis for negotiations at the beginning of the transitional period, but this proposal had been blocked.”
“Those who oppose the implementation of the Geneva communique in fact push Syria even deeper into the abyss of bloody sectarian strife.”
“Extremist organizations including al-Qaeda have become more active in Syria – they perpetrate terrorist attacks against innocent civilians and civil infrastructure.”
He also condemned any unilateral sanctions “imposed by a state or a group of states sidestepping the United Nations to advance their political goals.”
Without naming names, he left little doubt he blamed Washington and key NATO allies for ongoing Syrian conflict.
On September 28, China’s Xinhua New Agencyheadlined “Outside Meddling in Syria Threat to Whole World Order: Russian Official,” saying:
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:
“The attempts to look for ways out of the crisis in Syria outside the U.N. Security Council would have very destructive and dangerous consequences for Syria itself, for the Middle East region and, eventually, for the current world order as a whole.”
“Implementation of the Libyan model, supporting only one side in this confrontation is a way to nowhere.”
He also warned about worrisome regional “deep changes.” They’ll cause serious repercussions elsewhere for a long time, he added.
On September 28, Russia’s Foreign Ministry SpokeswomanMaria Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva called “inadmissible clauses” in the UN Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Syrian resolution unacceptable, saying:
“One can’t agree with the unilateral conclusions concerning the tragedy in El-Houleh as well as with the fact that these murders are similar to other such incidents in Syria.”
She added that other powers supported and encouraged Syrian violence. She left little doubt which ones she meant. It’s no secret.
It’s also well-known the HRC provided cover for Washington’s war on Syria since last year. Its reports are shameless and one-sided. They have no credibility whatever.
On September 28, it extended the mandates of the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Syria, saying:
On September 24, its resolution A/HRC/21/L.32 addressed human rights in Syria. It was adopted 41 – 3. Russia, China and Cuba voted no. India, Uganda, and the Philippines abstained.
Supportive countries will have to explain why they supported bald-faced lies. It’s not first time and won’t be the last.
HRC “condemn(ed) in the strongest terms the massacre of the village of Al-Houla near Homs, where the forces of the Government of Syria and members of the Shabbiha were found by the Commission of Inquiry to be the perpetrators of outrageous and heinous crimes….”
HRC and voting countries know Assad had nothing to do with it. Eyewitnesses blamed death squad killers. HRC lied saying otherwise. Doing so support imperial lawlessness.
It called on all parties to cease violence. Mercenaries are entirely responsible. Well-known facts are suppressed. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay defiled her mandate.
Instead of responsibly “strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights,” she spurned them in deference to Western interests.
HRC’s so-called COI is an imperial body established to lie. It suppresses truth and full disclosure. It consistently points fingers the wrong way. Its reports ignore credible eye-witness testimonies. Clear evidence is consistently left out.
Washington said it was proud to co-sponsor the resolution. No doubt it’s gratified by ravaging one country after another and the millions of deaths it caused.
HRC systematically avoids condemnation. Instead it welcomes a rogue state member in good standing. How many more millions of corpses will it tolerate?
America’s responsible for more global violence, deaths and destruction than the rest of the world combined. Perhaps HRC can explain why this goes entirely whiewashed and unnoticed.
Perhaps one day a real HRC will replace the sham one now in place. Perhaps truth and full disclosure will have a chance it’s been denied for so long.
Syria commented on HRC’s latest act of shame, saying:
“(S)peaking as the concerned country, (Syria) condemned the presentation of the draft resolution because it made libelous statements and because the Human Rights Council was based on fundamental principles of dialogue and cooperation, and those were the ways to promote human rights.”
“This draft resolution did not reflect the reality in Syria; on the contrary, it was based on accusations and fictitious reports, such as on the Al-Houla massacre, which the Government had condemned in the strongest terms.”
“The Commission of Inquiry had not visited Syria, had not arrived to definite conclusions concerning the massacres and had not taken into account the results of the Ad Hoc Committee established by Syria to investigate the crimes.”
“The seven co-sponsors had ignored aspects of the Commission of Inquiry’s report on the barbaric acts committed by armed groups in Syria.”
“Moreover, the Commission of Inquiry had highlighted the adverse impact of sanctions on Syria, and those were also not included in this draft resolution.”
“Some of the co-sponsors forgot that they did not have the right to give advice because they were directly involved in killing the Syrian people and could not call on others to respect human rights before they respected them at home.”
“Syria rejected the draft resolution and urged all countries that sincerely wished to help the Syrian people to vote against.”
Imperial countries, supportive bodies, and go-along media never say they’re sorry. Hegemons ravage humanity for wealth, privilege, and dominance. Supporters back what they should condemn.
Millions everywhere suffer horrifically. They’re on their own to survive and change things. Hopefully they’ll try before it’s too late.
------------------------
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net
His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”
http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
Western Powers Double Down on Syria’s Destruction
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Rebel support pushes Syria deeper into the abyss of bloody sectarianism – Lavrov
Friday, September 28, 2012
Netanyahu plays cartoonist, goes apocalyptic over ‘Iranian bomb’ at UN
Unable to win US support for a figurative ‘red line’ on Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu drew a literal one during a speech to the UN General Assembly, and offered an apocalyptic vision of a nuclear bombing of Israel.
Netanyahu used a large diagram of a cartoonish bomb to represent Tehran’s alleged ambition to create a nuclear weapon. The drawing was divided into three sections, with marks indicating 70 percent and 90 percent of the uranium enrichment required to build an atomic bomb.
“Iran is 70 percent of the way there, and are well into the second stage. By next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there it is only a few more weeks before they have enriched enough for a bomb,” he said.
The Israeli leader used a red marker to show the line at which he believes the world should intervene to halt the enrichment, claiming that this was the only way to peacefully resolve the issue.
“I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down – and it will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy,” he said, adding that the deadline may come as soon as next Spring.
The alternative, Netanyahu said, is a nuclear-armed Iran, which he likened to a nuclear-armed Al Qaeda. He called the Iranian leadership “apocalyptic,” and argued that they would use a nuclear weapon against Israel even if it meant the destruction of their own country.
The diagram implied that Iran is amassing enriched uranium with the intention of creating a nuclear device, and that at the 90 percent mark it would be very close to completion. Netanyahu did not offer any new evidence that Iran had overcome the numerous other scientific and technological hurdles necessary to create a nuclear weapon.
Tehran dismissed Netanyahu’s charges as “baseless and absurd.” Israel, “on a daily basis, threatens countries in the region, particularly my country with military attack,” Iran’s Deputy Ambassador to the UN Asman al-Habib Es'haq Al-e-Habib said. He warned that Iran would retaliate if Israel attempted to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Netanyahu is not the first politician to use props at the United Nations to call for international action against a sovereign country. In February 2003, then-US Secretary of State Collin Powell spoke before the UN Security Council holding a vial that he said could contain anthrax produced by Saddam Hussein. No anthrax or other alleged weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq after it was invaded and occupied by a US-led coalition
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, pauses after drawing a red line on a graphic of a bomb while discussing Iran during an address to the United Nations General Assembly.(AFP Photo / Mario Tama)
Netanyahu has been campaigning for a “clear red line” to curb Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions since the beginning of September. The hard pressure apparently cost him a meeting with US President Barack Obama. The American leader refused to sit down to talks with Netanyahu on the outlines of the 67th UN General Assembly after the Israeli PM lashed out at Washington’s unwillingness “to set deadlines” for Iran.
The address to global leaders may well be a final warning before Israel takes matters into its own hands. The country's leadership has been relentlessly issuing warnings that it may soon stage a unilateral attack on Iran, flouting even American wishes.
Israel considers Iran an "existential" peril, given the rhetoric coming from the Islamic Republic's leaders that Israel will be eliminited.
Nevertheless, Iran insists that its nuclear program seeks to meet energy supplies and medical needs.
The US, while trying to keep Israel away from attacking Iran, believes that Tehran is yet to make a final decision on whether to use its uranium stocks to build weapons. So far, in Washington's opinion, the Islamic Republic does not appear to possess the necessary infrascture to do so.
‘Nothing will happen until November’
Netanyahu does not need to convince the entire world of his fears, as one actor is sufficient, Shikha Dalmia, senior policy analyst at the think tank Reason Foundation told RT.
“He is trying to raise the alarm level in the world over the possibility of a nuclear Iran,” she said. “But the fact of the matter is that he does not have to convince the whole world of his case. He just has to convince one country and essentially one person, and that is President Obama. Without US support for some kind of military intervention, he can draw whatever maps and charts and other graphs that he wants. It’s not going to mean a lot.”
And no matter what the US administration opts to do, it will have to wait until November, says Dalmia.
“One can argue that Iran would not be a full-fledged war, it would be a surgical strike, but it is till quite a lot,” she said. “So whether Obama is going to be able to undertake an action like that is completely up in the air, but one thing is clear: he will not want it before November, before the elections.”
Turkish premier lashes out at Russia China over Syria stance
"The main source of disappointment is Russia. Let alone raising its voice against Syria, it stands by the massacre," Erdogan said in an interview broadcast live on Turkish television station NTV on Thursday.
The Turkish premier also lashed out at China, saying Beijing had let Ankara down by obstructing a Turkish proposal for a buffer zone on the border with Syria at the UN Security Council.
"China stands by Russia, and although (Chinese President) Hu Jintao had told me they wouldn't veto the plan (for a safe zone) for a third time, they did at the UN vote," Erdogan said.
The duo have so far vetoed a UN draft resolution in July that called for tough sanctions against the Syrian government under the seventh chapter of the UN Charter and would have thus paved the way for foreign military intervention.
On February 4, Russia and China vetoed a Western-backed draft resolution on Syria at the UN Security Council. The two countries rejected the draft as “unbalanced.” They also blocked a European-drafted UN Security Council resolution against Syria on October 5, 2011.
This is while Turkey, along with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, has spearheaded Western efforts to bring down the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by equipping the insurgents in the Middle Eastern country with financial and military resources, a bid that has only worsened the situation and dashed hopes of getting a diplomatic solution to the gridlock.
Erdogan’s bellicosity towards Turkey’s southern neighbor has, meanwhile, failed to garner domestic support. A recent poll conducted in Turkey shows only 18 percent of the population back the premier’s “flawed” policy regarding Syria.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Calls for Assad capitulation, not dialogue, encourages Syria terror - Lavrov
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov blamed the ongoing violence in Syria on “some states,” which encourage Syrian rebel terrorism and their refusal to negotiate. Lavrov made his remarks during a UN Security Council session.
In a high-level meeting of the Security Council on Middle East security, two world powers – Russia and the United States – clashed over interpretations of the ongoing violence in Syria, and how to end the bloodshed.
"The states that encourage the opponents of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to give up on the ceasefire and dialogue and to demand that the regime capitulate, bear responsibility for the continuing bloodshed," Lavrov said. "Such an approach is unrealistic and encourages terrorism, which is used by the opposition."
Lavrov reiterated Russia’s longstanding position that “stable settlement of the crisis can only be achieved through negotiation and compromise, taking into account the interests of all the faiths and ethnic groups of Syrian society." The Russian FM argued that the groundwork for a peaceful resolution should follow the Kofi Annan peace plan and the Geneva communique, and related Security Council resolutions.
"We see that the initiative put forth by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi has potential,” he said. In August, during a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation in Mecca, Morsi called for the creation of "a quartet" to resolve the Syrian crisis. The group would include Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran, the latter two being understood to have strong influence in the region.
Washington accused the UN's decision-making body of paralysis, and the Syrian leader of “murdering of his own people.”
“The atrocities mount while the Security Council remains paralyzed, and I would urge that we try once again to find a path forward,” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Council, referring to Russia and China’s previous vetoes of Western-backed resolutions. Clinton was not present for Lavrov's remarks to the Security Council, citing a previous engagement.
As permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China blocked three resolutions that would have imposed further sanctions on the Syrian government. Both countries argued that the only way to solve the crisis is through negotiations.
Other states of the 15-member council also called for action. “As the international community, we must be united to stop the violence and help initiate a process of political transition. We must find a common response. We owe it to the people,” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said.
UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said that “there is no military solution to this crisis” in Syria, and urged a political solution.
Punishing blasphemy
Another topic that dominated the Security Council's discussion was the Islamophobic, US-made amateurm film that sparked massive protests across the Muslim world.
Arab League representative Nabil Elaraby demanded that the Security Council criminalize acts that insult or cause offense to religions, arguing that unless blasphemy laws are enacted and enforced, similar violence could once again erupt.
"If the international community has criminalized bodily harm, it must just as well criminalize psychological and spiritual harm," Elaraby said.
The League of Arab States "calls for the development of an international legal framework which is binding … in order to confront insulting religions and ensure that religious faith and its symbols are respected."
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Morsi rejects foreign military intervention in Syria as 'big mistake'
"I am against foreign intervention by force in what happens in Syria," Morsi said in an interview with American television PBS on Monday.
"I do not condone this and I think that it is a big mistake if it happens," he added through an interpreter. "Egypt does not agree to this."
The Egyptian president noted that his proposed diplomatic quartet which includes Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey could find a diplomatic solution to the 18-month-old unrest.
"You cannot solve the problem without those countries which intervene in the problem. The stakeholders are the ones who sit down together to solve the problem," he said.
The Syrian government accuses the governments of Saudi Arabia and Turkey of arming insurgents in the country.
The Egyptian president said that he seeks to hold a meeting with the leaders of the three other states in the Syria group on the sidelines of UN General Assembly meeting in New York to discuss the Syria unrest.
Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Damascus says outlaws, saboteurs, and armed terrorists are the driving factor behind the deadly unrest while the opposition accuses the security forces of being behind the violence.
The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the armed militants are foreign nationals, mostly from Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Iranian president calls for immediate overhaul of UN Security Council
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) delivers a speech at the High-level Meeting of the 67th Session of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on September 24
“The discriminatory privilege, the influential and imposed role of the Security Council as well as [the right of] veto and some of its owners are unacceptable and illegitimate and for that reason the Security Council is incapable of administering justice and maintaining a stable order and security in the world,” Ahmadinejad said.
He called on all UN member states to reach an immediate agreement on a total overhaul of the UN Security Council in the interests of justice and the nations of the world.
“Today, we see that some veto holders remain silent over the atomic bombs of the fake Zionist regime [of Israel] or support [the regime], but at the same time they hinder the scientific achievements of other nations,” Ahmadinejad noted.
“By making false reference to the UN Charter and by misusing [the concept of] liberty, they remain silent over insults to the sanctities of humanity and the divine prophets or they lend support to offenders, infringe on the freedom of others, and allow insults against sanctities and people,” the Iranian president added.
He stated out that all governments must be treated equally and should be committed to international law.
The Iranian president also enumerated 10 proposals of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the better observance of law in international relations.
Following is the list of Iran's 10 proposals.
1. By immediate reform of the regulations, the General Assembly, as the main pillar of the UN, must regain its true position as the manifestation of public participation in global management.
2. The regulations governing the Security Council must be totally transformed and reformed in the interests of nations and justice, through the participation of all members of the General Assembly immediately.
3. The progressive principles of equality and justice must be observed in the enactment and implementation of the law.
4. The international community should hold occupiers accountable and should try to return occupied lands to their real owners, and the rights of nations should be upheld.
5. The principles of the prohibition of threats and the initiation of force in relations between states and the peaceful resolution of differences should be the basis of the rule of law at the international level.
6. The principle of sovereign equality of states should be observed. All the governments should have an equal opportunity in management cooperation, normalization, and decision making at the international level.
7. All governments should equally honor their international commitments according to international treaties and regulations.
8. No government should abide by the rules imposed by the hegemonistic countries.
9. Legitimate and legal rights of states and nations should be respected.
10. Respect for divine prophets and celestial religions, the common heritage of mankind, should be under legal protection in all societies so as to control the hostilities which result in hatred and war between human beings and atrocities and to strengthen peace and convergence of the people .
Friday, September 7, 2012
America’s Takeover of the United Nations
The calls at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in Tehran for reforming the United Nations and democratizing the Security Council were not exactly new. These calls for UN reform were embodied by the conference’s dictum of “lasting peace through joint global governance.” These demands have been made over and over again by various countries and groups throughout the years.
Nor was everyone present at the NAM gala in Tehran a friend of Iran or open to the Iranian proposals for reforming the United Nations. The visibly shaken Jeffrey Feltman, who was uncomfortably sitting with Iranian officials in Tehran alongside his new boss Ban Ki-moon, can testify to all this. Feltman is a clear symbol of how contaminated the United Nations has become by the imperialist interests of Washington.
The manipulation of the United Nations for imperialist interests, however, goes back a long way. From its inception, the United Nations was meant to facilitate the global influence of the US after the Second World War. The idea of the United Nations, which gets its name from the military coalition (called the United Nations) of the Allied countries that was formed against Germany and the Axis countries, was based on an agreement drafted by the US and the UK during the Second World War. This agreement, the Atlantic Charter, was written out while the US was officially neutral, but secretly supported the British war effort against Germany and its Axis allies by sending supplies to Britain through Canada. The US would later use the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii as a justification for entering the war and getting the other Allies to accept the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter during the war and then at the San Francisco Conference in 1945.
The United Nations Security Council
The membership of the UN grew from fifty-one to a hundred and fifty-nine members between 1945 and 1985, with most of the new member countries being former colonies. The UN was used as a tool to control most these former Western European and American colonies of the Third World. At first the US and its post-war allies maintained their domination over the newly formed UN and the former colonies through their numbers and then through a Western Bloc monopoly over the structures of the United Nations. Hereto this monopoly includes control over the agencies and permanent veto-wielding chairs of the fifteen-member Security Council of the United Nations.
The Security Council above all has been used by the US as a means of protecting its interests. The purpose of the Security Council veto is to reject any international resolutions and consensuses against the national interests (or more precisely the interests of the ruling elites) of the US and the other major post-World War II powers. Except for the rival Soviet Union, the US originally controlled or heavily influenced the other three permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council. Britain and the US were essentially confederated and had integrated in 1941 with one another through the Anglo-American Atlantic Charter. France, as a declining power like the UK, was heavily dependent on the United States. The Chinese seat was also originally held by the Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) which was a US client.
US General Albert C. Wedemeyer was the chief of staff to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of Kuomintang-ruled China before Kai-shek fled to Taiwan after the Communist Party of China took over the mainland. The US even envisioned a role for the Kuomintang in governing the former French colonies of Indo-China. Only in 1971 would Washington lose control over the Chinese seat at the UN Security Council when the People’s Republic of China was recognized as the legitimate representative of the Chinese people by the majority of the UN General Assembly and therefore handed over Taiwan’s permanent seat at the UN Security Council.
While the Soviet Union originally made the most vetoes at the UN Security Council, the situation began to change towards the second half of the Cold War and in the post-Cold War era when the US began to take the lead in making vetoes. Ironically, the US and its allies are saying that the international system is failing now due to the double vetoes of China and Russia preventing foreign intervention in Syria. No similar complaints have been made about the numerous vetoes cast by Washington in support of Israel.
Eventually the UN Security Council went beyond the function of protecting US interests after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It became a tool for projecting US interests globally as Washington began to push for unipolar post-Cold War hegemony. The Chinese and Russian double vetoes signal an end to both Pax Americana and the use of the UN Security Council to project US power.
The Secretariat of the United Nations
Besides the United Nations Security Council, the Secretariat of the United Nations has been predominately under the control of the US and its allies. At first this took place because the US and the Western Bloc had numerical superiority at the United Nations. Thus, the first two secretaries-general of the UN were from the Western European kingdoms of Norway, and Sweden. Prior to this Baron Hubert Gladwyn from the United Kingdom was the acting secretary-general of the UN. Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold would visibly serve US and Western Bloc interests to the point that the Soviets and others would demand he be removed from the UN Secretariat.
As the Western Bloc began to lose its numerical advantage, control over the Secretariat would be maintained through the Security Council. The UN Security Council does this by filtering all the candidates for the top UN post in the Secretariat. Secretaries-general of the UN are appointed by the UN General Assembly based on the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Thus, the US and other permanent members of the Security Council have vetoes that can eliminate any candidates that would be hostile to their interests.
Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnations about the Secretariat of the United Nations, which helped remove nationalist leaders from power across Africa and the Third World, have a resonating truth to them. After a long streak of secretaries-general that were predominately favorable to the Western Bloc, the Non-Aligned Movement would push a NAM candidate into the UN Secretariat. The NAM’s position is the basis for the elevation of Egyptian diplomat Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s to the post of UN secretary-general in 1992.
Bourtos-Ghali was the closest thing to the last independent secretary-general of the United Nations. The world, however, rapidly changed since the end of the Cold War and Washington expected a far greater degree of subservience from the Secretariat of the UN. After the Cold War UN secretaries-general were expected to act as loyal US stewards. This would start with the Ghanaian UN career bureaucrat Kofi Annan.
Kofi Annan: An Enabler of “Responsibility to Protect”
To his credit Annan is a shrewd diplomatic figure that knows how to sit on the fence, but he has cunningly served the US while appearing circumvent. Aside from the public reports about the involvement of Annan and his son Kojo in the UN’s Iraq oil-for-food scandal, the former secretary-general has a history of legitimizing US interventionism and the occupation of other UN members. Career US diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was one of the central figures involved in the balkanization of Yugoslavia, praised Annan as one of the most supportive figures for Washington’s foreign policy in the Balkans. This is why Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside from the secretary-generalship of the UN by Washington’s veto to make way for Annan.
Annan did Washington’s bidding in the French-speaking Caribbean island-republic of Haiti. He followed the script of George W. Bush Jr. and the neo-cons to a tee in Haiti and legitimized the US-led coup involving Canada and France that removed Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. He would criminally give Washington the cover of the United Nations in the occupation of Haiti.
Kofi Annan was also instrumental in helping to put together the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine with Canadian diplomats to justify foreign military intervention. Two years after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq he would give his rubber stamp to R2P in 2005, which would merely become a reinvented term replacing NATO’s “humanitarian intervention.” Before Annan was appointed as the joint peace envoy of the Arab League and United Nations to resolve the Syria crisis he participated as a panelist in a discussion about R2P and interventionism on November 4, 2011. The event is important, because it gives an idea of where Annan stands.
The panel (Responsibility to Protect – 10 Years On: Reflections on its Past, Present and Future) was undeniably supportive of R2P and NATO. Annan’s comments were no exception. The former secretary-general and soon-to-be peace envoy told the audience that he held a sympathetic position towards military intervention by the US and NATO. He specifically told the audience that he supported NATO’s military intervention in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and he tacitly gave his support to a similar scenario in Syria. Two of the figures involved in the event, Allan Rock (president of the University of Ottawa and former Canadian ambassador to the UN) and Lloyd Axworthy (president of the University of Winnipeg and the former Canadian foreign minister), co-authored an article about R2P praising the war in Libya as a victory for R2P a week earlier in preparation for Annan’s arrival to Ottawa.
Ban Ki-moon: An Executioner of “Responsibility to Protect”
The South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon is even more of an Atlanticist steward than Annan. His record has been very abysmal. One of the first things he did in 2007 was to join the US in criticizing the nations of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva for “singling out Israel” for its human rights violations.
In 2008, Ban Ki-moon would secretly negotiate and sign a cooperation agreement with NATO. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov would express shock and the Kremlin would be angered by Ban Ki-moon’s conniving. R2P would be central to the cooperation agreement between NATO and the UN Secretariat. NATO’s “humanitarian intervention” was shifted to a worldwide level through the cover of potential military intervention under the banner of the UN.
Moreover, this tool of intervention could only be harnessed and authorized by the undemocratic UN Security Council and its veto-wielding members. In parallel the under secretary-general posts for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief were handed over to British career diplomats, one of which is Valerie Amos who has sinisterly tried to bypass the Syrian government in establishing ties with Syrian non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
In 2011, Ban Ki-moon took steps to personally lobby and pressure all the countries of the Mediterranean Sea to support Israel and prevent any humanitarian aid from reaching the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by ship. Ban Ki-moon ignored Tel Aviv’s illegal military blockade of Gaza and its violation of international law. Instead in Orwellian terms he demanded for the enforcement of the illegal Israeli blockade, which he called the “legal channels of the Israeli government pertaining to the flow of goods and aid” to Gazans. In 2012, Ban Ki-moon also refused to meet the representatives of the families of Palestinian victims and captives inside Israel while he was visiting Gaza. Inversely, Ban Ki-moon made personal efforts to secure the release of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. As a result of Ban Ki-moon’s bias many Palestinians hurled shoes and stones at his UN convoy as it entered the Gaza Strip.
Every nuance in Ban Ki-moon’s voice and every line in his statements serve Washington’s interests. Before the secretary-general even left to Tehran for the NAM summit, his spokesman Farhan Haq told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) that his boss was going to Tehran as part of his responsibilities and that the visit “does not confer legitimacy” on his Iranian hosts. Giving political evaluations of this type about the legitimacy of any government is a breach of the mandate of a UN secretary-general, who is supposed to be a neutral figure and moderator representing all the members of the UN. Moreover, Ban Ki-moon would go out of his way to defend Israel at the NAM summit. His speech would also be coordinated with the politicized report of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was meant to tarnish Tehran’s image during the NAM summit.
In regards to both Libya and Syria, Ban Ki-moon has followed the US and NATO script for R2P and regime change. When a major propaganda effort was launched against Syria following the Houla Massacre, Ban Ki-moon and other UN officials quickly followed the US line and condemned Damascus at a special session of the UN General Assembly in New York City. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s June 8 condemnation was made even though it was widely documented that anti-government forces were responsible for the murders in Houla.
The top UN official would say that every passing day was bringing “new additions to the grim catalogue of atrocities: assaults against civilians, brutal human rights violations, mass arrests, torture, execution-style killings of whole families” in Syria. He would conclude that the Syrian government had “lost all legitimacy” and had to step aside. Again this was another violation of the neutral position that the secretary-general of the UN is mandated to espouse.
Jeffrey Feltman: The Real Secretary-General of the United Nations?
Ban Ki-moon’s appointment of the hollow and comical US career diplomat Jeffrey Feltman as the UN under secretary-general for political affairs is just one of his latest moves that serve US interests. Feltman, a shameless careerist who has done whatever he could to promote himself, has been exclusively in the service of justifying the unjustifiable and pretending to be an expert on the Middle East. As a top US diplomat in the Middle East, unlike his counterparts from other countries he failed to master any of the local languages in the region. Moreover, he was complicit in the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and a US attaché to two foreign occupations.
Like Robert Gates, Feltman is a carryover to the Obama Administration from the Bush Jr. Administration. He was a special assistant to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) heavyweight Martin Indyk in Israel and a representative in the US Consulate General in Jerusalem. Everything he knows about the Middle East is shaped and spoon-fed to him by the biased views of AIPAC. He was the representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and later a central force for promoting sectarian hate and division in Lebanon as the US ambassador in Beirut before he was promoted to the job of US assistant-secretary of state responsible for the Middle East. The UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), a political circus that Washington has tried to use to indict and isolate first Syria and then later Hezbollah, is widely known to be his pet project.
Before Feltman even arrived in Tehran, one of the first things he did was to declare that Iran was sending weapons to Syria. This was immediately picked up by his friends (contacts) in the Israeli media who have favored him over the years as one of Israel’s most ardent supporters. Among others, the Israeli media also slyly tried to mention Feltman’s name as less as possible and instead attribute his statement to the entire United Nations as a means of hiding the bias source of the statements and giving his account further weight.
Feltman’s appointment by Ban Ki-moon shows just how much control Washington has over the UN Secretariat. His appointment as the individual responsible for “political affairs” says a lot about the political perspective that the UN Secretariat either has or will adopt. If Hillary Clinton had ordered US officials to spy on Ban Ki-moon as was reported in 2010, there should also be no doubt that Jeffery Feltman was monitoring Ban Ki-moon in Tehran for the US Department of State and that Feltman will brief Washington about the NAM summit. In essence Feltman was the informal representative of the US at the NAM summit. It is also a very legitimate question to ask whether Feltman or Ban Ki-moon is in charge of the UN Secretariat.
Iran had announced that it intended to propose a peace plan, with the support of Russia and China, to end the Syrian crisis on the sidelines of the NAM conference. America’s emissaries were at the summit too. The invitation of the Turks to the NAM summit and the presence of Feltman and the officials of the Arab countries that are part of the siege against Damascus, such as Qatar’s Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, are all very likely to have ties to negotiations over Syria. Same goes for the presence of Egypt’s Morsi. The US and its clients have realized that their plans in Syria have not gone through and this could secretly have brought them to the table in Tehran or elsewhere in the future.
A New Alternative to the UN is Needed
The “real” international community slapped the Obama Administration in the face from Tehran. The US and all the UN structures and agencies, including the IAEA, under Washington’s control were retorted when all of the NAM’s one hundred and twenty members unanimously supported the Iranian nuclear energy program and declared their opposition to the unilateral sanctions against Iran in their final communiqué. There is still, however, more that is needed. As long as the United Nations is not reformed these very same countries will be walking in the shadows of the US and its allies from NATOistan in the hallways of the United Nations.
The problems go beyond the Security Council. The Secretariat is also a part of the problem. Washington will turn to the UN Secretariat more and more as the Russians and Chinese begin to challenge the US and its allies at the Security Council.
The UN has become even more contaminated by Atlanticist projects to use it to legitimize and launch imperialist military campaigns to enforce a declining system of privilege and unjust global governance that Washington heads. The motivations behind the drafting and institutionalizing of R2P at the UN are aimed at helping to prevent this decline. This is why that either reform or an alternative to the United Nations is needed now more than ever.























