Assad friend flees, U.S. wants Russia to "pay price"

Vehicles destroyed during clashes between Syrian rebel fighters and government forces are seen in Al Qusour neighborhood in Homs July 6, 2012.

Πηγή: Reuters
By Nicholas Vinocur and Patrick Vignal
July 6 2012

As a Syrian general who was a personal friend of Bashar al-Assad fled for France, Hillary Clinton urged Assad's enemies meeting in Paris on Friday to make Russia and China "pay a price" for helping keep him power in Damascus.

The Secretary of State's remark, among Washington's toughest yet in 16 months of revolt, highlighted the gulf between Western and Arab countries, who met opposition groups in Paris to try to engineer Assad's departure, and his two supporters on the other side of the old Cold War divide, who stayed away from the talks.

"I will tell you very frankly," Clinton told the Friends of the Syrian People conference, "I don't think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all - nothing at all - for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime. The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price because they are holding up progress - blockading it.

"That is no longer tolerable."

The foreign ministers and senior diplomats from 50 Western, Arab and other countries - including Assad's former ally and neighbor turned bitter foe Turkey - urged stronger U.N. Security Council action and "broader and tougher" sanctions.

They also agreed to "massively increase" aid to Syria's rebels and to provide them with communications equipment, according to a final statement. Western powers are reluctant to offer much greater firepower to rebels whose ranks include anti-Western Islamists. Divisions among Assad's foes, visible notably in a fistfight at an opposition meeting in Cairo this week, have also limited the coordination of efforts to remove him by force.

As Clinton spoke, Manaf Tlas, a brigadier in the Republican Guard who attended military college with Assad and whose father was Assad's father's confidant and defense minister for 30 years, was on his way to Paris, the French government said.

There was no immediate sign that Tlas, who friends said had fled Damascus for Turkey this week, would throw in his lot with the rebels. He did not attend Friday's meeting.

But his defection was the clearest signal yet that some in Assad's inner circle think his days in power are numbered, as an uprising that began in March 2011 with a groundswell of peaceful protest turns into a civil war with strong sectarian overtones.

Tlas's father Mustapha now lives in Paris, as does Tlas's sister. The family has been a rare representative of Syria's Sunni Muslim majority in an elite dominated by Assad's fellow Alawites. Sunnis have been in the forefront of the uprising.

DESERTION "MEANS NOTHING"

Assad's enemies among Syrians and in the West were quick to hail Tlas's flight as a breakthrough, while Damascus played it down. A Syrian news website quoted a Syrian official on Thursday as saying: "His desertion means nothing ... If Syrian intelligence had wanted to arrest him it would have."

Opposition sources have spoken of senior figures who are under suspicion of being potential defectors being held under virtual house arrest. Assad's opponents have been trying to encourage as many of his entourage as possible to abandon him.

While the lightly armed rebels are no match for Syria's large and well-equipped army, their hope lies in eroding loyalty and conviction within Assad's establishment to the point where it loses its hold on power.

Syria's army took control of the rebel stronghold of Khan Sheikhoun in northern Idlib province on Friday after an assault on the town backed by helicopters, rebels said.

"The Free (Syrian) Army withdrew from the town last night after it ran out of ammunition. Assad's army is in control," said Abu Hamam, a rebel spokesman who fled to a nearby village.

"They are burning the houses. They have burned my own house. I see the smoke covering the sky from where I am now."

Army shelling and assaults also killed three people in the southern province of Deraa, where the nationwide revolt began.

Opposition activists say more than 15,000 people have been killed in the uprising, while the government says several thousand members of the security forces have died.

The host of the Paris meeting, French President Francois Hollande, said Assad's departure was "in the interest of Syria, of its neighbors and everybody who wants peace in the region".

Clinton repeated a U.S. and French call for a U.N. Security Council resolution under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the Council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention:

"We should go back and ask for a resolution in the Security Council that imposes real and immediate consequences for noncompliance, including sanctions under Chapter 7," she said.

Western governments have shown no appetite for military intervention like the NATO bombing that helped oust Libya's Muammar Gaddafi last year, and U.S. officials have repeatedly said in the case of Syria they are talking only about sanctions.

Russia and China have in the past vetoed U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to pressure Assad, and say they are committed to a peace plan drafted by international envoy Kofi Annan that proposes dialogue without calling for Assad to go.

PLAN STILLBORN
That plan has been stillborn because the ceasefire that was supposed to precede it in April never took hold. Peace monitors effectively gave up on their mission last month after just weeks in Syria as it became clear there was no peace to monitor.

With heavy fighting now on the outskirts of the capital, events on the ground are outrunning diplomatic initiatives.

A senior French diplomat said recent rebel territorial gains had led to signs that even Moscow was now envisaging a post-Assad Syria, something Russian officials strongly deny.

"The situation on the ground has changed fast over the past three weeks, with security forces having no access to some areas," the French diplomat said. "We are now hearing things from within political and military circles in Russia that are surprising us and that we were not hearing before."

Tlas's defection may indicate a growing alienation among the Sunni business elite, which had been slow to embrace the revolt which began among poorer parts of the majority community.

Opposition activists said Tlas would announce that he had abandoned Assad because of anger at civilian deaths. A witness in Damascus said by phone that Tlas's house in Damascus had been ransacked by security agents after reports that he had fled.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the defection meant that Assad's inner circle "is beginning to understand that the regime is unsustainable".

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu of Turkey, Syria's NATO-member neighbor, agreed: "Every day, generals, colonels, officers are coming, and we have, I think, around 20 generals and maybe 100 high-ranking officers, colonels," he told France 24 television.

Turkey has moved artillery and troops towards its border with Syria in the two weeks since Syria shot down a Turkish warplane at the frontier. Turkey now says it will treat Syrian units that approach the border as hostile.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar want to fund and arm the rebels, but Western powers have misgivings about sending more weapons into what could become a wider sectarian conflict.

Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani called in Paris for the Security Council, where Russia and China have the power to veto any action, to be sidestepped.

"Are we able to do something outside the Security Council?" he asked. "Yes. Have we done things outside the Security Council in the past? Yes, and there are many examples.

"We are ready to take part in any effort of any kind to free the Syrian people of this tragedy they are in."

While Syria's rebels enjoy wide popular sympathy among fellow Arabs, the support of the Sunni-ruled, pro-Western Gulf monarchies also reflects their strategic goal of thwarting the regional ambitions of Assad's sponsors in Shi'ite-ruled Iran.

UN extends its political mission in Libya with a mandate to promote democracy

Πηγή: yahoonews
By AP
March 12 2012

The U.N. Security Council has voted unanimously to extend its political mission in Libya with a mandate to support the government in promoting democracy, restoring public security, and eliminating the flood of weapons in the country especially shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

A resolution extending the U.N. mission for a year was adopted Monday morning at the start of a ministerial meeting on challenges from last year's Arab Spring.

The council welcomed recent positive developments in Libya but expressed concern at continuing reports of human rights violations.

UN, AL considering joint observer mission for Syria

Πηγή: The Nation
Feb 10 2012

UNITED NATIONS- Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned that the new attacks against civilians in the Syrian city of Homs were “a grim harbinger of worse to come.”

Speaking to reporters, he said the United Nations and the League of Arab States are considering sending a joint observer mission to Syria to try to end the crisis engulfing the Middle East country.

“For too many months, we have watched this crisis deepen,” Ban said at UN Headquarters following the closed-door Council briefing. “We have seen escalating violence, brutal crackdowns and tremendous suffering by the Syrian people.”

The secretary-general briefed the Security Council Wednesday afternoon on the latest developments in Syria, where well over 5,000 people have been killed as a result of a Government crackdown since a pro-democracy uprising began in March last year.

“I briefed the Security Council. Many members expressed their views about the proposal. In the coming days, we will further consult the Council before fleshing out details. We stand ready to assist in any way that will contribute towards improvement on the ground and to the overall situation.” he said.

Ban said the Council’s failure to agree on collective action regarding Syria – last Saturday, Russia and China vetoed a draft resolution supported by the Council’s 13 other members – was deeply regrettable. The draft text had endorsed an Arab League plan to resolve the crisis.

“The failure to do so is disastrous for the people of Syria. It has encouraged the Syrian Government to step up its war on its own people. Thousands have been killed in cold blood… I fear that the appalling brutality we are witnessing in Homs, with heavy weapons firing into civilian neighbourhoods, is a grim harbinger of worse to come.”

The Secretary-General asked: “How many deaths will it take to halt this dangerous slide toward civil war and sectarian strife?”

According to AFP more than 70 people died in violence across Syria on Thursday, activists said, with the majority killed in a fierce assault by regime forces on the flashpoint central town of Homs.

Rami Abdel Rahman of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 61 people were killed in shelling and other violence in Homs province.

He said 36 died in the Baba Amr neighbourhood of Homs city and 11 were killed when a shell slammed into their house in the protest hub’s Inshaat district.

Abdel Rahman added that six people died in the city’s Khaldiyeh and Karm el-Zeytoun neighbourhoods.

Elsewhere, an army colonel and seven security forces members were killed when rebels ambushed two buses near the southern town of Daraa, cradle of the revolt against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

Four other civilians were killed including a young woman in northwest Idlib province and a man died of wounds he suffered the day before in Daraa.

Libya outcome ‘vitiates’ UN Security Council

Πηγή: RT
Feb 1 2012

The way some UN Security Council members used the body’s resolutions on Libya to justify their backing for rebel forces in the country has created an obstacle to dealing with the civil conflict in Syria, India’s Ambassador to the UN has told RT.

Hardeep Singh Puri says the world’s top security body was hit hard by the Libyan experience, when nations sitting at the table ignored sections of the resolutions they were charged with implementing.

“One of the difficulties we are having so far as the situation in Syria is concerned is that the Security Council’s experience in respect of Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on Libya is now vitiating the atmosphere in terms of the approach towards how to deal with the situation in Syria,” he explained, referring to the fact that despite all efforts, the UN Security Council has been failing to adopt any new document on the developing crisis in Syria for six months.

The Indian diplomat says while the Security Council did authorize the use of force in Libya, the stated goal was to stop violence, and nothing more.

“Yes, the UN was to get involved. It would have to take action in order to enforce a no-fly zone. The Resolution 1973 also speaks of ceasefire. And when we tried to invoke the ceasefire provision, some other countries, which were involved in the military operation, said that they did not want to consider the possibility of a ceasefire until the regime had been dislodged. I’m not saying it was done for a regime change, but that’s what it amounts to in the end,” he said.

The creative interpretation of the UN SC’s collective will is not the worst problem with the Libya scenario, however.

“There is a more serious issue. Resolution 1973 specifically refers to an arms embargo. But that resolution was interpreted, as some people said, as, ‘Well it means you can carry out a military operation against Gaddafi, but arms embargo does not prevent you from arming the rebels’. I find that situation unacceptable,” he stressed.

“I have very often taken the lead in the Council to say that words have meanings. And therefore when we agree to a form or a set of words, we should be clear among ourselves as to what it is that we are agreeing to. The imposition of the will of those who have military clout – it appears that in the context of the moment, of the immediate crisis, this approach is an approach that can be adopted. But in the long run, these things don’t work,” he concluded.

Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine

Πηγή: Foreign Policy
By Colum Lynch

Nov 9 2011

For more than a month, the U.N. Security Council has deliberated on the question of whether the Palestinians meet the basic requirements to become a U.N. member. The exercise, which involves countless hours of debate and legal analysis by U.N. member-state lawyers, was largely pointless. Everyone knew going into the discussions what the outcome would be: a split, paralyzed, Security Council incapable of rendering a judgment.

So, what did the Security Council do next? It instructed the U.N. Secretariat to provide a written summary of the council's internal deliberations, outlining the differences -- but in classic council fashion concealing the identity of countries that weighed in on the matter.

At the end of the day, what matters is whether the Palestinians proceed, as they insist they will, to press for a Security Council vote on Palestinian membership.

A vote carries risks for the Palestinians. Nine votes are required for passage of a resolution in the Security Council. The Palestinians have secured only eight. Bosnia, a Muslim nation that already recognizes the Palestinians as a state, could give the Palestinians the ninth vote they need. But Bosnia's government is divided over the issue and is expected to abstain.

Even if the Palestinians get the nine votes, they will confront a certain U.S. veto. France and Britain have sought to persuade the Palestinians to back down, saying they will achieve nothing in the council, and that their campaign could fuel violence in the region.

France has promised to help the Palestinians try to muster broad European support for a General Assembly resolution that would upgrade the Palestinians status to an non-member observer state, on par with the Vatican.

In the meantime, Turtle Bay, decided to post a copy of the latest report on the Security Council's deliberations on Palestinian statehood. The report, which will be officially issued tomorrow, was first reported by Al Hurra.

See if you can figure out which position each of the council's 15 member states took.

A hint: Britain, Colombia, and France revealed they would abstain on the resolution. The United States, meanwhile, argued that Palestine could not be considered a "peace-loving" state so long as Palestinian militants were firing rockets across the border at Israeli communities.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF PALESTINE FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

1. At its 6624th meeting on 28 September 2011, the Security Council had before it the application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations(S/2011/592). In accordance with rule 59 of the provisional rules of procedure and in the absence of a proposal to the contrary, the President of the Council (Lebanon) referred the application to the Committee for examination and report.

2. At the 109th and 110th meetings of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members, held on 30 September and 3 November 2011, respectively, the Committee considered the application.

3. Following the 109th meeting of the Committee, the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of October (Nigeria) convened five informal meetings of the Committee, four of which took place at the expert level, to carefully consider whether Palestine met the specific criteria for admission to membership contained in Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. Experts considered whether Palestine met the criteria for statehood, was a peace-loving State, and was willing and able to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter.

4. In the course of the meetings of the Committee on the Admission of New Members, differing views were expressed. The view was expressed that the applicant fulfils all the criteria set out in the Charter. Questions were raised as to whether the applicant meets all of the Charter membership requirements. The view was also expressed that deliberations should take into account the broader political context of the matter at hand.

5. It was stated that the criteria set out in Article 4 of the Charter were the only factors that could be taken into consideration in the Committee's deliberations. In support of this position, reference was made to the Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on the Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter).

6. It was also asserted that the Committee's work, whatever its outcome, should be mindful of the broader political context. The view was expressed that a negotiated solution remained the only option for a long-term sustainable peace and that final status issues had to be resolved through negotiations. Support was expressed for a two-State solution based on pre-1967 borders, resulting from political negotiations, leading to an independent State of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital. It was stressed that the granting of Palestine's right to self-determination and recognition must not be seen as contrary to Israel's inalienable right to exist.

7. It was stated that the Committee's work should not harm the prospects of the resumption of peace talks, particularly in light of the Quartet statement on 23 September 2011 that had set out a clear timetable for the resumption of negotiations. Similarly, it was also stated that the prospect of negotiations should not delay the Security Council's consideration of Palestine's application. In addition, It was stated that Palestine's application was neither detrimental to the political process nor an alternative to negotiations. Concerns were raised in relation to Israel's continued settlement activities, which were considered illegal under international law and were an obstacle to a comprehensive peace.

8. In relation to the application of Palestine (S/2011/592), attention was drawn to the letter received by the Secretary-General from the President of Palestine on 23 September 2011, which contained a declaration - made in a formal instrument - stating that the State of Palestine was a peace-loving nation; that it accepted the obligations contained in the Charter of the United Nations; and that it solemnly undertook to fulfil them.

9. On the criterion of statehood, reference was made to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which declares that a State as a person of international law should possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other States.

10. With regard to the requirements of a permanent population and a defined territory, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled these criteria. It was stressed that the lack of precisely settled borders was not an obstacle to statehood.

11. Questions were raised, however, regarding Palestine's control over its territory, in light of the fact that Hamas was the de facto authority in the Gaza Strip. It was affirmed that the Israeli occupation was a factor preventing the Palestinian government from exercising full control over its territory. However, the view was expressed that occupation by a foreign power did not imply that the sovereignty of an occupied territory was to be transferred to the occupying power.

12. With regard to the requirement of a government, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled this criterion. However, it was stated that Hamas was in control of 40 percent of the population of Palestine; therefore the Palestinian Authority (PA) could not be considered an effective government. However, it was stressed that the PLO, and not Hamas, was the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.

13. Reference was made to reports of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for the Coordination of the International Assistance to Palestinians, which had concluded that Palestine's governmental functions were now sufficient for the functioning of a State.

14. With regard to the requirement that a State have the capacity to enter into relations with other States, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled this criterion. It was recalled that Palestine had been accepted into membership in the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, the Group of 77 and UNESCO. In addition, over 130 States had recognized Palestine as an independent sovereign State. Questions were raised, however, regarding the authority of the PA to engage in relations with other States, since under the Oslo Accords the PA could not engage in foreign relations.

15. With regard to the requirement that an applicant be "peace-loving", the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled this criterion in light of its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was further stated that Palestine's fulfilment of this criterion was also evident in its commitment to resuming negotiations on all final status issues on the basis of the internationally endorsed terms of reference, relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid principles, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet road map.

16. Questions were raised as to whether Palestine was indeed a peace-loving state, since Hamas refused to renounce terrorism and violence, and had the stated aim of destroying Israel. Reference was made, on the other hand, to the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on Namibia of 1971, which stated that the only acts that could be attributable to a State were those of the State's recognized authority.

17. With regard to the requirement that an applicant accept the obligations contained in the Charter and be able and willing to carry out these obligations, the view was expressed that Palestine fulfilled these criteria, as was evident, inter alia, from the solemn declaration to this effect contained in its application. It was recalled that in 1946, when considering the application of Israel for membership, it had been argued that Israel's solemn pledge to carry out its obligations under the Charter was sufficient to meet this criterion.

18. The view was also expressed that the Charter required more than a verbal commitment by an applicant to carry out its Charter obligations; an applicant had to show a commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to refrain from the threat or the use of force in the conduct of its international relations. In this connection, it was stressed that Hamas had not accepted these obligations.

19. The view was expressed that the Committee should recommend to the Council that Palestine be admitted to membership in the United Nations. A different view was expressed that the membership application could not be supported at this time and an abstention was envisaged in the event of a vote. Yet another view expressed was that the applicant did not meet the requirements for membership and a favourable recommendation to the General Assembly would not be supported.

20. Further, it was suggested that, as an intermediate step, the General Assembly should adopt a resolution by which Palestine would be made an Observer State.

21. In summing up the debate at the 110th meeting of the Committee on the Admission of New members, the Chairman stated that the Committee was unable to make a unanimous recommendation to the Security Council.

22. The Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members concluded its consideration of the application of Palestine for admission to membership in the United Nations.

23. At its 111th meeting, the Committee approved the present report on its consideration of the application of Palestine for membership in the United Nations.

Russia to stop UN from toppling regimes

Πηγή: Top.rbc.ru

Oct 6 2011


Russia, which has the rights to veto UN Security Council resolutions, intends to prevent the UN from imposing unilateral sanctions aimed at overthrowing regimes in various countries, President Dmitry Medvedev said during a meeting with the members of Russia’s Security Council today, Rossiya 24 television channel reported.

“Russia is committed to opposing the legitimization through the UN Security Council of unilateral sanctions to oust various regimes. This is not the purpose for which the UN was established,” Medvedev said.

The Western military campaign in Libya has triggered an adverse reaction in Moscow. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin compared it to Crusades. Medvedev criticized Putin for this comparison, claiming that such statements could lead to a clash of civilizations. In the wake of this criticism, Putin revised his language by saying that the goals of the Western coalition were noble, but the means elicited concerns.

Russia has taken a cautious position on the military operation in Libya repeatedly calling for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, but voting for the UN resolution on Libya.

The civilian conflict that broke out in Syria laid bare deep contradictions between the West and Russia. Russia and China vetoed on October 5 a European-sponsored draft UN resolution on Syria, which outraged the U.S. The draft document condemns Syrian authorities and envisages sanctions against the country.

Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Vitaly Churkin commented that Russia was not an advocate of the Syrian regime, but the situation in Syria should not be divorced from the experience in Libya.

He went on to say that NATO’s operations in Libya ran counter to the UN mandate. Specifically, the ceasefire demand was turned into a civil war with its consequences spreading outside of Libya, the provision on a no-fly zone resulted in bombardments, and an arms embargo led to the Libyan coast being closed even to humanitarian aid supplies.

Paying a Price at the Security Council

Πηγή: The National Interest
By PAUL PILLAR

Oct 4 2011

Western governments are in one sense entitled to be “outraged” (the word that U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice used) over the vetoes Tuesday by China and Russia at the United Nations Security Council of a resolution condemning the Syrian regime's abuses against its own population. Although long negotiations already had watered down the resolution more than the United States wanted, Russia and China objected to the hint that was still in the resolution of possible future sanctions if Syrian behavior didn't change. Whether or not (as Rice charged, and as Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin vigorously denied) the Russians and Chinese are most interested in selling arms to Damascus, the vetoes can hardly be described as noble. The last two times that Moscow and Beijing cast Security Council vetoes in tandem—and neither one has exercised the veto very often in recent years—were to kill resolutions criticizing the military junta in Burma in 2007 and the regime of RobertMugabe in Zimbabwe in 2008. How's that for attractive company, President Assad? Probably the Russian and Chinese motivations were a mixture of concern for their own relations with the Assad regime (possibly with an arms trade) and avoiding the sort of multilateral condemnation that could in the future be directed against some of their own activities (and that gets into anything China construes as “internal” affairs).

The unfavorable turn in the Security Council proceedings, however, can partly be blamed on the Western governments' own missteps. The resolution did not get the backing of any of the BRICS, which besides China and Russia also include Brazil, India, and South Africa. The BRICS pointed out that the earlier Western-proposed Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya was supposedly about protecting endangered civilians but turned into a prolonged NATO intervention aimed at overthrowing the Libyan regime. The BRICS say they do not want something similar to happen with Syria. The BRICS have a point. Even if a NATO military intervention in Syria is unlikely, a similar bait-and-switch seems in the making with sanctions. The vetoed resolution hints at sanctions if the Syrian regime does not change its behavior, but Western leaders (including President Obama, after much hullaballoo on this subject in Washington) are talking about changing the regime, not just changing behavior. So the failure this week at the Security Council is partly a price Western governments are paying for two mistakes. One is a disingenuous resolution (and equally disingenuous rhetoric) about their intentions in Libya, and another is confusion about the purpose of sanctions (a topic I have addressed previously, with reference not only to Syria but to other target countries such as Iran).

It is hard enough to get the Russians and Chinese to cooperate on worthwhile multilateral actions. It is too bad when Western governments give them rationales and reasons to cooperate even less.

Russia/China Veto Draft Security Council Resolution on Syria

Πηγή: Scoop
By UN Press Release
Oct 5 2011


Russia and China Veto Draft Security Council Resolution on Syria

New York, Oct 4 2011 - China and Russia today vetoed a draft resolution in the Security Council that had strongly condemned Syrian authorities for their violent crackdown against pro-democracy protesters this year and called for an immediate end to human rights abuses.

Nine of the Council’s 15 members voted in favour of the draft text, there were two vetoes, and four countries abstained. A veto by any one of the Council’s five permanent members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – means a resolution cannot be adopted.

The draft resolution had voiced deep concern over the recent violence in Syria and strongly condemned “the continued grave and systematic human rights violations and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities.”

 Urging “all sides to reject violence and extremism,” the text called for “an inclusive Syrian-led political process conducted in an environment free from violence, fear, intimidation and extremism, and aimed at effectively addressing the legitimate aspirations and concerns of Syria’s population.”

An estimated 2,700 people have been killed in Syria since mid-March when the protest movement began, part of a wider uprising across North Africa and the Middle East this year. Senior UN officials, including Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, have repeatedly voiced concern about the situation.

Speaking after today’s vote, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said his country did not support the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but the draft resolution would not promote a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

He said the issue was not a question of wording, but “a conflict of political approaches” on how to end the crisis.

 Mr. Churkin said the majority of Syrians wanted gradual political change, rather than quick regime change, and the text also did not adequately take into account the behaviour of extremist groups in opposition to Syrian authorities.

China’s Ambassador Li Baodong said that while his country was highly concerned about the violence in Syria, the text as it stood would only complicate existing tensions.

 He said the draft was overly focused on exerting pressure on Syria, and included the threat of sanctions, which would not resolve the situation.

Ambassador Gérard Araud of France expressed deep disappointment that the draft resolution had not been adopted, and said his country and other co-sponsors had made repeated attempts in recent days to alter the text to meet the concerns of other Council members.

Mr. Araud said the opponents of the text were going against the spirit of the Arab Spring movement.

US Ambassador Susan Rice voiced outrage that the Council had not adopted the text and said those countries which had not supported it would have to answer to the Syrian people.

She said it was a “ruse” to suggest that the resolution would lead to military intervention in Syria.

 Also addressing the Council today, Ambassador Bashar Ja’afari of Syria said the draft resolution reflected the biased attempts of some Western countries to undermine his country’s authorities.

He said the legitimate needs and aspirations of the Syrian people had been misused by some domestic groups, with the support of foreign elements, to provoke external intervention.

The countries voting in favour of the resolution were Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, France, Gabon, Germany, Nigeria, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the US. The countries abstaining were Brazil, India, Lebanon and South Africa. The draft resolution had been co-sponsored by France, Germany, Portugal and the UK.

U.N. Mission in Libya. An attempt to legitimize NATO agression

Πηγή: CounterPsyOps
By thomasmantell

Sep 29 2011

On September 16, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2009 establishing a “peacekeeping” Support Mission in Libya to be headed by British citizen Ian Martin. The Mission is tasked with helping Libya rebuild its national security, assisting the country in drafting a new constitution, expanding the zone under the control of the civilian administration, advocating human rights, supporting justice, rebuilding the Libyan economy, and coordinating the support for future interactions with other subjects. At the moment, it makes sense to get a glimpse of what all of the above may mean in practice.

The very formulation of the fist objective indicates that the rebels who seized power in Libya are unable to exercise control over the country and permanently depend on foreign military forces being deployed in it. As in most previous cases, people from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan – the 70% majority among the UN peacekeeping missions’ personnel – will be offered to sacrifice their lives to the European cause. In the meantime, the NATO part of the job is going to be to stay in charge. Whereas up to date foreign troops have been dispatched to Libya secretly and illegitimately, from now on they will operate across the country openly and ostensibly in accord with the international law.

The assistance in writing a constitution and organizing elections is a curious point, likely meaning that the text of the constitution, written outside of Libya, is already in place. The storyline is not exactly new, but the openness in the case of Libya and the incorporation of the plan into a UN mission’s agenda are a surprise. As for the elections, those are meant to be the key step towards legitimizing Libya’s National Transitional Council, but holding them is clearly impossible unless the coalition forces are present and keep a lid on everything. In this regard, no questions arise as to what the Mission is up to.

Expanding the civilian administration’s zone of control is the most sinister part of the agenda. Considering that the civilian administration is supposed to be the National Transitional Council and nothing else, the UN Mission is evidently charged with breaking the nation’s resistance to the Council’s mutiny and the international aggression. Supporting the unnamed subjects whose names should not be hard to guess is also a noteworthy line.

References to the international law in connection with the revamped format of the military campaign against Libya should not go unnoticed. Churning out peacekeeping missions became a UN routine to such an extent that the theme of their legitimacy almost automatically receded from public discourse. The aggression against Libya, however, is too outrageous to let it fly below the radars. The legal grounds for establishing the new mission seem to be listed in the opening part of the Resolution, but the justifications for the UN intervention and the legal aspects of the decision to have the Mission set up are deliberately given in the form of an incoherent mix, with references to previous UN Security Council Resolutions and condemnations of violence against civilians thrown in. None of the Resolutions mentioned actually authorizes the establishment of the new Mission. The only somewhat convincing argument could be the statement that the Mission comes into being under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but upon scrutiny the article does not authorize the UN to put together any such missions. What Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter says is: “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations”. Not a word about missions, obviously. The reference to the Chapter is also fraudulent – its other articles similarly say nothing about the missions. On top of everything, what we witness here is a violation of the general principle excluding rulings based on undefined norms.

Interestingly, the UN did not invoke Article 42 of the Charter which appears to enable the Security Council “to take action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security”. The explanation behind the absence of a reference to Article 42 is that it mentions demonstrations and blockades, but of course no overland invasions in the form of “missions”.

Resolution 2009 promises a series of measures apart from the establishment of a UN Mission in Libya. It lifts the embargo on weapons supplies to the country (13(a)), the condition that the arms are “intended solely for security and disarmament assistance” meaning little in the Libyan context. In contrast, it says volumes that the change applies to “arms and related materiel of all types”. The Resolution also ended the assets freeze formerly imposed on the Libyan National Oil Corporation (LNOC) and Zueitina, but left the no-fly regime over Libya in effect. Some of the Security Council members – Russia and South Africa, in particular – wanted the Resolution to put an end to the no-fly zone, but met with no success. As a justification of Moscow’s subscribing to the Resolution, Russian UN envoy V. Churkin said it was good at least that it reflected the UN readiness to look into the abolition of the no-fly zone in the nearest future. It is unclear which part of the text warranted such optimism. The Resolution “underlines the readiness, as appropriate and when circumstances permit” to lift the no-fly zone, but says nothing about the nearest future, plus the evasive formulations leave no doubts concerning the real plans of their authors.

Russia and South Africa also failed to insert into the Resolution a passage on urgently stopping the genocide of black Africans in Libya. What the two countries came up with officially sounds rather uncertain: they merely expressed concern over the situation African migrants are facing in Libya. What they are actually facing, though, is genocide, considering that criminals kill their victims – not only African migrants but also black Libyans, as Russia’s envoy stressed on September 16 – based entirely on race. The truth is that at the moment, in strict legal terms, Libya is the scene of racially based genocide. That, by the way, shows with utmost clarity who the people in Libya’s new, internationally recognized administration really are.

Essentially, the new Mission is issued a mandate for converting the ongoing NATO military campaign aimed at occupying Libya into a UN-flagged operation. Even a brief legal review proves that bringing in a UN flag is no way of legitimizing an overland offensive in Libya. Rather, what the UN is doing at the moment is as illegitimate as the NATO campaign.

Security Council mulls resolution on potential UN mission for Libya

Πηγή: UN

9 September 2011

The Security Council has begun discussions on Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s proposal to set up a United Nations mission to provide support to the new authorities in Libya as they seek to rebuild the North African nation following this year’s conflict.

Opposition forces rose up against the regime of Colonel Muammar al-Qadhafi in February as part of a wider pro-democracy movement across North Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Ban has repeatedly stressed the need to respond rapidly to requests from the Libyan transitional authorities for assistance after the regime is ousted and the conflict comes to an end.

In a letter sent to the Council earlier this week, Mr. Ban proposes the establishment of an integrated UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) for an initial period of three months, to be headed by a Special Representative.

“The three-month initial deployment intended to allow for in-country engagement in further defining the needs and wishes of Libya for United Nations support, while delivering urgent advice and assistance,” he writes.

The mission’s mandate would include assisting national efforts to, among other things, restore public security and order and promote the rule of law; undertake inclusive political dialogue, promote national reconciliation, and embark on the constitution-making and electoral processes; extend State authority; and protect human rights and support transitional justice.

The Secretary-General’s Special Adviser for Post-conflict Planning in Libya, Ian Martin, said he hoped the resolution will be adopted “as soon as possible” so the UN can begin delivering in some of the priority areas of assistance requested by the National Transitional Council (NTC).

“The proposals of the Secretary-General are for a support mission that would be initially mandated for a three-month period that would give us the opportunity both to bring in personnel, to provide some initial advice and assistance in the areas that the Libyans have identified, but at the same time, continue a discussion with them to plan longer-term UN support,” he told reporters in New York after briefing the Council in a closed-door session.

Mr. Martin, who conducted a five-day visit to Libya last week, reported that he saw very little damage to infrastructure in the capital, Tripoli.

The most serious humanitarian challenge – that of restoring the water supply – had been achieved, he said, adding that supplies of fuel and electricity were “improving,” and there was no general breakdown of public order. In addition, schools had just re-opened.

“That should not lead to any underestimation of both the short-term and the longer-term challenges the new authorities are going to face in Libya,” said Mr. Martin.

He noted that the NTC has not yet established full control over the national territory, cited the need to establish an effective police force; and highlighted the major concern, especially of Libya’s neighbours, of the proliferation of weapons.

“And despite the consistent messages of NTC leaders appealing against revenge, there have been very serious violations of human rights, especially of sub-Saharan Africans accused often, I think quite wrongly, of having fought for the Qadhafi regime,” he stated.

“On the human rights front, of course, terrible evidence continues to come to light of deliberate human rights abuses and crimes of the Qadhafi regime, both those that took place over many years and during the fall of Tripoli, when many of their prisoners were massacred,” he continued.

“More mass graves are being discovered, many families have no knowledge of loved ones who disappeared, in some cases many years ago, and in some cases, just during the recent conflict.

“This is going to be a very heavy burden for Libya’s new leaders as they seek to show that there will be accountability within the law for the worst violations, but at the same time promote national reconciliation.”

In a related development, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo, is requesting INTERPOL to issue a Red Notice to arrest Mr. Qadhafi, as well as his son, Saif Al-Islam Qadhafi, and the head of the Libya’s intelligence forces, Abdullah Al Sanousi.

In June the ICC, based in the The Hague, issued arrest warrants for the three men for crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the conflict.

An INTERPOL Red Notice seeks the provisional arrest of a wanted person with a view to extradition or surrender to an international court based on an arrest warrant or court decision.

US threatens to veto Palestine UN bid

The administration of US President Barack Obama's administration has threatened to veto the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN Security Council.

Πηγή: Press TV
Sun Sep 4, 2011


The United States has once again threatened that it will veto the Palestinian Authority (PA)'s bid at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) seeking the recognition of statehood for Palestine.

US President Barack Obama's administration said that it offers an initiative for the resumption of talks between Israeli and Palestinian officials, the New York Times reported.

The latest proposal for renewed talks is aimed at hindering the UN vote on Palestinian statehood and persuading acting PA Chief Mahmoud Abbas to drop the bid.

Washington has repeatedly threatened to veto the bid by the PA to seek statehood for Palestine at the UNSC.

The United States cannot block the UN General Assembly vote for the change of Palestine's status in the world body from entity to state, but it can veto it later at the Security Council.

Earlier last month, the US State Department urged more than 70 countries to oppose any unilateral moves by the Palestinians at the United Nations, arguing that the votes would destabilize the region.

In an exclusive interview with Press TV, analyst Stephen Sneigoski said the pressure on US [lawmakers] by Israeli lobbies is discouraging “real” politicians from coming forward in support of Palestine's efforts to gain statehood.

More than 100 countries have so far officially recognized Palestine as a state based on the 1967 borders, the boundaries that existed before Israel captured and annexed East al-Quds (Jerusalem), the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian officials have been campaigning to achieve UN recognition for an independent state based on the pre-1967 borders at the UN General Assembly meeting in September.

Kosovo border violence on UN Security Council agenda

Peacekeepers had to be deployed to secure the border area in July

Πηγή: BBC
30 August 2011

Recent deadly violence in Kosovo is set to be on the agenda as the UN Security Council meets in New York, but there are also new hopes for peace.
Fighting flared in July when Kosovo's authorities sent police into the north, the territory's biggest Serb area.

Serbia, which refuses to accept an independent Kosovo, wants the Security Council to condemn the action.

Elsewhere, Serbia's president said his country recognised the EU's law and justice mission (Eulex) in Kosovo.

Boris Tadic said the issue had arisen at talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel when she visited Belgrade last week.

"In our talks in Belgrade, Angela Merkel's view was that Serbia should secure functioning of the Eulex in all Kosovo and that Belgrade should return to talks with Pristina," he told reporters on Monday after meeting Czech President Vaclav Klaus in Prague.

"Both demands are totally acceptable for Serbia. We want dialogue as we have initiated it and we have insisted on it, and we did our best to bring Eulex to Kosovo and help it perform its mission in a way that would be neutral in relation with its [Kosovo's] status."

Officials in Serbia, a prospective member of the EU, have in the past stressed the role of the UN in administering Kosovo until the question of its status is resolved.Expectations high

The Security Council is meeting on Tuesday to hear a quarterly update on the situation in Kosovo from the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon.

But this session is the most eagerly awaited for some time as it comes during a period of heightened ethnic tension in the territory, BBC Balkans correspondent Mark Lowen reports from Belgrade.

When the Kosovan government sent police into the north to take control of border posts with Serbia that had not previously been under its authority, the Serb population in the north rebelled, leading to clashes in which a policeman died.

The Nato force in Kosovo intervened, mediating between the two sides.

Now Russia, a staunch ally of Serbia, has prepared a draft document to be presented to the Security Council condemning what it calls the use of force by the Kosovan government and calling for international institutions in Kosovo, such as Nato, to remain impartial.

Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic, who will attend the UN session, says he hopes the majority of countries will support the document.

Kosovo's Western backers, including the US, France and Britain, are likely to put up a stiff response but all sides will call for calm, says our correspondent.

Three and a half years since Kosovo declared independence, it is an issue that still polarises opinion, he adds.

Less than half of UN members have recognised the split and with ethnic tension remaining, it is far from being resolved, our correspondents says.

After Libya, the question: To protect or depose?

Πηγή: Latimes

By Philippe Bolopion
August 25, 2011

NATO has gone beyond the United Nations mandate to protect the Libyan people, and now some U.N. member states are reluctant to act on Syria.

NATO's military intervention in Libya was initiated under the principle of the "responsibility to protect," a concept born from the ashes of the Rwandan genocide: that the world should not stand by while mass atrocities go on within a sovereign state.

Though morally self-evident, this concept was slow to gain acceptance in the international community, particularly among developing countries, many of which saw it as a ploy by Western powers to meddle in the internal affairs of weaker countries.
After much lobbying, the principle was finally enshrined by the 2005 World Summit and successfully used to resolve dangerous crises in Kenya and Guinea. But never, until Libya, had its most controversial aspect — the use of force as a last resort — been put to the test.

In the eyes of many countries, NATO has failed that test.

In March, as Moammar Kadafi prepared to crush the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the U.N. Security Council authorized military action in Libya. But it made clear that the point of the action was to protect the Libyan people.

Many countries that opposed the Security Council's action, and even at least one that supported it, now believe the Western operation has gone far beyond merely protecting Libyans, and it is now widely seen as an action intended from the start to get rid of the Libyan ruler.

However unpopular Kadafi might be, the idea that NATO's warplanes were trying to kill him has struck a nerve among countries allergic to regime change and already suspicious of the responsibility-to-protect concept, known in diplomatic circles as R2P.

"Libya has given R2P a bad name," India's U.N. ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri, said recently. Diplomats from South Africa, which unlike India supported U.N. Resolution 1973, have expressed similar concerns, saying they feel used and are indignant that the West ignored calls by the African Union for a cease-fire.

One could argue that when a leader is bent on committing mass atrocities against his population, the only effective way to protect civilians is to bring down the tyrant. Yet no NATO state has made this case openly; instead its members have gone to great lengths to assert their neutrality.

The Libya operation has strengthened the case of those questioning the concept that the world has a responsibility to protect citizens from their rulers, and the backlash is already contributing to tragic consequences.

In Syria, where security forces have killed more than 2,000 protesters and arbitrarily arrested and tortured thousands, including children, people are clearly in need of protection. If the Security Council were to take its responsibility to protect seriously, it would have long ago used the many nonmilitary tools at its disposal to put pressure on Bashar Assad's regime. It could have passed a resolution demanding an end to the violence, the creation of a commission of inquiry, an arms embargo or an array of sanctions targeting the leadership of the government or the oil sector.

There are many reasons for this disturbing failure to act: the opposition of veto-wielding Russia and China, the silence of the Arab League, the presence in the Security Council of Lebanon, which is a virtual hostage of Syria. But a crucial factor against action has been that key votes in the council — India, South Africa and Brazil — are missing. Behind closed doors, their diplomats have explained that they are reluctant to go down the Libya road again. Of course, nothing in a draft resolution initially offered by the Europeans even hinted at military action or regime change. But for India, South Africa and Brazil, it's payback time. The Syrian people are paying the price for what some countries see as NATO's overreaching in Libya.

So here we are, once again, with the Security Council standing virtually idle while mass atrocities are being committed, the very situation the responsibility-to-protect concept was designed to avoid.

We will never know how many civilian lives would have been lost had NATO not intervened in Libya. What we do know is what happens when the international community takes a back seat in the face of mass atrocities. Up to 40,000 civilians, for example, were killed during the final months of war in Sri Lanka, while the best the Security Council could muster was holding an informal hand-wringing session in a U.N. basement, because of Russian and Chinese obstructionism, with too little protest from Western powers.

Countries that waged war in Libya under the banner of the responsibility to protect have a duty to explain themselves and accept a sober and critical look at their actions. They should not be seen as brandishing responsibility-to-protect when it's politically expedient and ignoring it when it's not. They should address the complaints of countries that genuinely supported action to protect civilians but felt alienated by the way military operations were conducted. It's the only way to ensure that Libya's legacy brings us closer to a world that does not tolerate mass atrocities ever again.

(Philippe Bolopion is U.N. director at Human Rights Watch)

NATO: "Mental Tests" and Civilian's Casualties

On a recent Unified Protector Press Conference Carmen Romero (NATO Deputy Spokesperson) along with Colonel Roland Lavoie (Spokesperson for the Operation Unified Protector) faced with a difficult and rather unexpected situation whith AP's journalist Slobodan LeKic posed.Slobo in a rather hesitant tone asked them:

"There's been recently criticism of NATO, especially at the United Nations and the UN Security Council members, that NATO has overstepped its mandate because of the fact that in this current situation where the pro-Qadhafi forces are obviously on the defensive, NATO is still striking... mounting air strikes against them, although they're only aiming their fire at the attacking forces, at the attacking rebel forces. They're not endangering or threatening civilians. And that's why several countries have expressed unease with this continuing attack, which they say is biased in the sense that it's helping the rebels and working against the forces which are on the defense. Can you comment on that?"

Colonel Roland Lavoie had just stated in his answer to the previews question that NATO as an organization has no mandate, apart from the mandate given by Resolutions 1970 and 73, "so basically we do the arms embargo, we enforce a No-Fly Zone. We do not... and we facilitate, of course, the arrival of the humanitarian aid. We do not train as NATO any of the belligerents".

Carmen Romero taking the lead stated that the mandate was approved "by all members..." and hastily refrased "by the United Nations Security Council". The fact is that the SC represent only the 7,77% of the 193 member states of the UN while the members that voted for it only the 5,12%. Furthermore she added that the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised NATO for its achievements in Libya. But if the role of NATO was to protect civilian's lives how was that Ban Ki-moon has recently voiced alarm over reports of civilians killed in Libya's civil war and called on all sides to do as much as possible to avoid killing innocent people? If that is the key point NATO must admit failure.

Lavoie went on stating that "...when we strike at a tank it's because we have an understanding that this does represent a threat to the local population...". "Every time we engage a target this is the mental test that is in our mind, like is it a target that presents a threat to the civilian population, and if the answer is yes we will engage this threat" he said. This of course neither explain the results of the recent bombing of Majer where 85 people, including 33 children, 32 women and 20 men were killed, nor the reactions of the head of the U.N. cultural and scientific agency UNESCO, Irina Bokova, who issued an unusually sharp rebuke of the alliance for its July 30 air strikes against Libyan state television, which she said killed several “media workers.”
Perhaps NATO failed the mental test once more...

If there are still any doubts you can have a look at some of the results of the above mentioned "mental test" here.

UN sends mixed signals on civilian deaths in Libya

Πηγή: Reuters
Aug 15, 2011, 11:31 EDT


The United Nations has been sending mixed signals lately about NATO’s record with civilian casualties in the alliance’s sixth month of air strikes against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s troops and military sites. U.N. officials and diplomats said it was hardly surprising that different senior officials at the world body are finding it hard to keep a consistent line on the conflict, which, back in March, most of them had hoped would be over in a few weeks.

But it has dragged on. Now Gaddafi’s government is complaining about what it says are mounting civilian casualties caused by NATO bombs, many of them children. Diplomats from alliance members acknowledge that there have been some civilian casualties, which they regret. But they question some of the figures that have been coming out of Tripoli. Libya’s state television, which was targeted by NATO late last month, regularly broadcasts gory images of blood-soaked bodies it says are civilians being pulled from rubble after NATO bomb attacks.

Last week the head of the U.N. cultural and scientific agency UNESCO, Irina Bokova, issued an unusually sharp rebuke of the alliance for its July 30 air strikes against Libyan state television, which she said killed several “media workers.”

“I deplore the NATO strike on Al-Jamahiriya and its installations,” Bokova said in a statement. “Media outlets should not be targeted in military actions.”

Several U.N. diplomats from NATO member states privately expressed surprise at the statement from Bokova, herself a citizen of NATO member Bulgaria. Asked about her criticism, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s deputy spokesman Farhan Haq suggested that Ban was not overly concerned with the performance of NATO in Libya.

“In terms of that, we would need further details about what the operations were that were conducted. But certainly, the Secretary-General believes that resolution 1973 has been used properly in order to protect civilians in Libya and he has continually emphasized the need, as this proceeds, to make sure that civilians in Libya will be protected.”

NATO defended the attack on Libyan television and said it had no evidence that anyone was killed during the strikes.

With Ban’s backing, NATO began launching air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces in March on the basis of Security Council resolution 1973. That resolution authorized U.N. member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians short of occupying the country.

Russia, China, Brazil, South Africa and India — the so-called BRICS developing countries — seized on Bokova’s statement and brought it up during a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council this week. One senior council diplomat said it was clearly a coordinated and pre-planned effort on the part of the BRICS to launch a surprise assault on Britain, France, the United States and other members of the NATO alliance that have been attacking forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi since March.

Two days after expressing Ban’s satisfaction with the protection of civilians in Libya, the U.N. press office issued a statement with a very different tone: “The Secretary-General is deeply concerned by reports of the unacceptably large number of civilian casualties as a result of the conflict in Libya.”

Although it did not explicitly blame NATO, diplomats and U.N. officials said the statement was clearly referring to the alliance. Diplomats said that Ban’s team of close advisers received several phone calls from Western diplomats who took offense at Ban’s statement. One envoy said of it: “It’s what the Russians would call a balanced statement.” They said it was certain to win praise from the disgruntled BRICS nations, four of which abstained from the March 17 vote on resolution 1973, allowing it to pass while making clear they had reservations about it. (South Africa, whose delegation in New York is now one of the most vocal critics of NATO operations in Libya, was the only BRICS nation to vote for 1973.)

The following day Haq issued a clarification of Ban’s statement, saying that Ban “of course recognizes and appreciates NATO efforts to avoid civilian casualties.”

Rape Reporting During War: Why the Numbers Don't Mean What You Think They Do

Πηγή: Foreign Affairs

By Amber Peterman, Dara Kay Cohen, Tia Palermo, and Amelia Hoover Green

August 1, 2011

Reports of sexual violence during the ongoing unrest in Libya have captured headlines across the world. Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi's forces, some have alleged, were given Viagra to facilitate their rape of hundreds, if not thousands, of victims. Recently, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both expressed outrage at what was apparently a purposeful campaign. Yet recent reports by the U.N. and by advocacy groups shed doubt on these claims. Amnesty International, for example, has been unable to locate a single rape victim, or even anyone who knows a victim.

As the veracity of stories about sexual violence in Libya came into question, the American Journal of Public Health published a study estimating that the prevalence of rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was far worse than previously documented. The article estimated that between 2006 and 2007 more than 400,000 women between the ages of 15 and 49 were raped during the war there -- 26 times the U.N.'s official count.

So what are we to make of these two cases -- a possible exaggeration of rape in Libya and a gross underestimation of it in the DRC? Wartime sexual violence has rightly been called a hidden epidemic; in truth, we know very little about its actual magnitude and impact. Reports of rape are increasingly common in countries wracked by conflict, such as Colombia, the DRC, East Timor, Côte d'Ivoire, Libya, and Sudan, but no one knows what the relationship is between increased reports and increased rape. Even in peacetime, sexual violence is severely and unevenly underreported. Beyond prevalence, patterns of where, when, and by whom rape is committed -- not to mention why it is committed -- are even less clear. War exponentially worsens these problems. As a result, estimates of rape in prominent conflicts are often unreliable.

The lack of clarity about wartime sexual violence is hardly surprising. Wartime rape is violent and brutal. Few of us want to think about it, talk about it, or read about it. Even when it does make headlines, it is the sensational details, not meaningful analysis of patterns and causes, that are often reported. And researchers are as apt as anyone to look away. The study of wartime rape has been marginalized as a "feminist" or "gender" issue. For many years, research on sexual violence was considered too unseemly a topic for top academic publications. Social scientists and statisticians rarely collect systematic data on wartime rape; instead, they frequently rely on victim narratives recorded by human rights advocates, aid workers, and journalists; as well as law enforcement reports; and hospital records.
A 2002 BBC article stated that "a girl born in South Africa will have a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read." It is almost certainly not true that the rape rate there surpasses 97.5 percent, the U.N. estimate for literacy among South African females aged 15 to 24.

The No - Fly Zone Resolution in numbers

After accepting the US demand (27/2) as a perquisite for action to be taken (in an attempt to prevent a precedent that could see Americans prosecuted by the ICC for alleged crimes in other conflicts), that no one from an outside country that is not a member of the ICC (aka the mercenaries) can be prosecuted for their actions in Libya , finally on the March 17, the Security Council adopted the Resolution 1973. Demanding an immediate ceasefire in Libya, including an end to the current attacks against civilians, which it said might constitute “crimes against humanity”, imposed a ban on all flights in the country’s airspace and an arms embargo tightening sanctions on the Qaddafi regime and its supporters. Addmitetly, protecting civilians was the main goal of the resolution.

Mr. Edward C. Luck, IPI's Vice President for Research and Programs and a Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General in an interview to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung headlined "We Don’t Want to Wait Until the Dead Bodies Pile Up," praised the Council's Action on Libya as a ''Historic'' Implementation of the "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P). As for the goal of the intervention he emphasized the role of protecting the population rejecting any regime change attempt. The R2P was accepted from the UN in 2005 authorizing a military intervention whenever the one of the following 4 reasons occur: danger of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity. In case of Libya Mr. Luck stated that "there seemed to be crimes against humanity, that is, widespread and systematic attacks on the population with the knowledge of the authorities. The air attacks on peaceful protesters were outrageous (our emphasis). Nevertheless, the Security Council tried sanctions first - but the Qaddafi regime kept advancing. Finally, there was good reason to believe that a bloodbath in Benghazi was imminent. Answering if the UN had verified reports of widespread air attacks on peaceful protesters he said: "There are videos that suggest that such attacks have taken place. But the concept of RtoP rests on prevention: We don’t want to wait until dead bodies pile up and we can clinically prove exactly what happened, instead we seek to intervene soon enough to prevent mass violence. Colonel Qaddafi called the protesters “cockroaches.” That is what the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda called the Tutsis before they massacred them".

Interestingly, the ICC's related report "PUBLIC REDACTED Version Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar GADDAFI, Saif Al‐Islam GADDAFI and Abdullah AL‐SENUSSI" doesn't contain a single reference of the alleged air attacks. Since about the ICC and the R2P we have written elsewhere in the following we are going to give a picture of how widely the Resolution 1973 was supported worldwide.

There are currently 193 member states in the UN, including every internationally recognised sovereign state in the world but the Vatican City.

The Security Council (SC) is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent members China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and 10 non-permanent members holding the seat for two years term, currently Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa. The five permanent members are the only to hold veto power over substantive resolutions like the one of military intervention. It is known that the UN adopted the resolution 1973 by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation).

In the follow tables you can see the percentage of the countries that voted in favour in three different ways: as a percentage of the total voting states of the SC, of the world population and of the number of the Total of the UN Member States (TUNMS).

Permanent Members holding veto power percentage of world population (WP) 

China 19.32%
France 0,95%
UK 0,9%
Russia 2,06%
US 4,5%

Total 22,37% of the WP or 2,59% of the total UN state members (193)


Current Non Permanent Members percentage of WP

Herzegovina 0,055%
Brazil 2,75%
Colombia 0,66%
Gabon 0,022%
Germany 1,18%
India 17,45%
Lebanon 0,061%
Nigeria 2,28%
Portugal 0,15%
South Africa 0,73%

Total 25.358% of the WP or 5,18% of the total UN (193) state members.

So the Grand Total of the present Security Council's (SC) 15 members represent the 47,728% of the World's population or the 7,77% of the TUNMS.

Subtracting the population and the number of the 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation) we finally come to that the states voted in favour representing the 66,6% of the SC states (ten out of fifteen) at the same time represent the 4,968% of the WP and the 5,18% of the Total UN state members.

While so far France did violate the UN embargo providing arms to the rebels, NATO is currently killing civilians and tried to kill Qaddafi obviously in a regime change attempt, this operation presented as having a wide support and celebrated as a historic implementation of the R2P in fact was accepted by votes representing only the 4,968% of the World population or the 5,18% of the total number of the UN member states. With ether percentage a political party would barely manage to find a couple of seats into a National Parliament. So widely supported...

The Role of the UN Security Council in Unleashing an Illegal War against Libya

Πηγή: Global Research

by Ronda Hauben
July 24, 2011


Journalists Question Security Council Support for Rebel Group

At the April 4 press conference marking the beginning of the Colombian Presidency of the Security Council for April, Nestor Osorio, the Colombian Ambassador to the United Nations was asked what on the surface would seem an unusual question by one of the journalists. The journalist said (1):

“In the wake of Security Council Resolution 1973 [authorizing military action against Libya–ed] are we to expect a more aggressive and proactive posture on the part of the Security Council in supporting rebel groups?”

The journalist gave several examples of such rebel groups as the IRA in the UK, ETA in Spain and perhaps the Corsican rebels in France. Another journalist added the example of the FARC in Colombia.

The question referred to the fact that with SC Resolution 1973, the UN Security Council had taken on to support an armed insurgency fighting against the government of a member nation of the UN.

The Colombian Ambassador responded that SC Resolution 1973 had not been adopted to support the rebels in Libya, but a rebel group which started out as civilians who had now become the core of the armed rebellion. The reason the Security Council had taken up the issue of Libya, he said, was because a member of the Security Council, Lebanon, had brought the issue to the Security Council. Ambassador Osorio added that the Arab League had asked for concrete action from the Security Council on Libya.

Is it, as Ambassador Osorio proposed, that the issue of Libya was taken up by the Security Council because Lebanon, a member of the Security Council, brought the issue to the attention of the other members? Is it that the Security Council was just deferring to the expertise of the Arab League, which the Colombian Ambassador presented as the relevant regional organization with respect to Libya?

The Colombian Ambassador’s remarks raise the question of how the Security Council made the decision to approve SC Resolution 1970 against Libya, the first of two resolutions on the issue. Was it as the Colombian Ambassador claimed because of a recommendation from the appropriate regional group, or was there a more complex process at work? Also, significantly in this situation, there were actually two conflicting recommendations to the Security Council from two groups, one from the Arab League, which is not a geographical regional group but is organized on some other basis, and the other from the geographic regional group that Libya is part of, from the African Union.

What were the factors that influenced the Security Council decisions first, to pass Security Council Resolution 1970 authorizing stringent sanctions, including a referral of Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and then, subsequently, to pass SC Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone and other military action? Ultimately these decisions set the basis for the NATO military alliance to join with the armed insurgency fighting against the government of Libya.