The Nether-World

New Cold War - Part 2

2007-08-20T04:27:00.000+01:00

Back in June I wrote about the prospect of a new Cold War after the revelation that Russia was threatening to target European cities because of America's insistence of its placing components to its missile defence shield in the Czech Republic and Poland which would include installations of radar and missile batteries which Russia sees as a threat to its security. Relations with Russia have continued to deteriorate with the on-going saga of the polonium 210 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and Putin's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi who the British Government suspect is responsible for the murder.

Recently things have gotten worse. Not to the point where we are in a new Cold War but certainly much closer. Even the BBC Russian Service has been taken off air. An already tense situation between Georgia and Russia has become even more tense with reports that Russian fighter jets attacked a village near Tbilisi earlier this month. Luckily no one was hurt. Was this meant as a message to the other eastern European states as Mr Merabishvili, the Georgian interior minister suggested? Possibly but if so, Russia has also been flexing its muscles in other ways, both diplomatically and militarily. A couple of days ago we heard that Russia was to resume long-range strategic bomber flights on a "permanent" basis, for the first time in 15 years. There were hints of something like this happening back in July when Russian bombers forced the RAF to scramble two Tornado fighters when they came dangerously close to British airspace. Russian Bombers also buzzed a US military base in Guam this month.

America's imperial dream of Full Spectrum Dominance has suffered another blow with news that Russia and China are taking part in military exercises together. It's not the first time they have done participated in such joint exercises, so that alone wouldn't worry Washington too much. Much more worrisome for the neocons is the strength of this alliance and its rapid growth. China's opposition to America's missile defence shield is well known.

The six-member Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO) has already been dubbed by pro-Kremlin newspapers as an "anti-Nato" alliance and a "Warsaw Pact 2". This is where it gets interesting. The SCO comprises of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. That's a lot of energy-producing states and a good chunk of central Asia. As well as these member states, are a number of candidate states including: Pakistan, India, Mongolia and, more interestingly, Iran. Obviously Iran's membership is something Washington is desperately trying to prevent but American influence in the region is waning with its antagonism of Russia and the debacle in Iraq. Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, recently attended the summit as guest of honour. If the SCO is to evolve into a counter-balance to NATO then an attack on one member would be seen as an attack on all.

Iran is not yet a full member of the SCO and China may well try to delay Iran's membership because of its economic relationship with the West. But there are obvious advantages to granting Iran membership too. With NATO's constant eastward expansion (contrary to its promises to Russia at the end of the last Cold War), it was only a matter of time before an organisation formed to halt this advance. Russia seems to be taking full advantage of this situation and this time it's in a much stronger position than it was in the last days of the USSR.

Tags: New Cold War, Russia, Missile Shield, US Politics, SCO, Central Asia, NATO

The Iranian Crisis

2007-03-24T22:08:00.000Z

In previous reporting about the crisis with Iran, I mentioned that with all the naval power being used to by the West to pressure the regime, there was an increased possibility of an incident taking place that could escalate into something more serious. Sooner or later, the provocations and intimidations being used both rhetorically and physically were going to bear fruit. It looks like this is what is happening with the reports we are hearing of 15 British sailors being captured by Iran.

A degree of caution is needed in talking about this latest incident as we do not have all the facts yet. But already there are more than one way of looking at this story. We could just accept the majority of media reports that stress that the British sailors were *not* in Iranian waters and were captured as part of a planned effort by the Iranians in order to use them as bargaining chips in the nuclear issue negotiated at the UN Security Council (more on that shortly). Or we could be open to the possibility at least that the sailors either did accidentally 'stray' into Iranian waters and were legitimately arrested for it. There is also the possibility that the intentions of the sailors were more sinister. At the moment there is no way of knowing the truth and so it's probably wise to reserve judgement for the moment and restrict ourselves to speculation.

On thing I think we can take for granted is that any 'confessions' made by the sailors while in Iranian custody can be taken with a pinch of salt. Both Britain and Iran are claiming they have evidence that proves the sailors were where each side says they were (either in Iraqi or Iranian waters respectively). Until this evidence is examined and made public no real determination as to who is right can be made. The last time this happened, back in 2004, it seems that the British personnel were indeed in Iranian waters and though this story is being repeated in the media, the point that British military were not where they were supposed to be on that occasion is not being stressed.

There is another fact that we can take for granted. With British personnel in Iranian custody, it will be much easier to turn public opinion against Iran and justify any future attack on that country. In this respect this incident is a propaganda coup for those who want a conflict with Iran. And if Iran thought that capturing British sailors would help them in this respect then it may well have shot itself in the foot. So far the Iranians have been fairly competent in their diplomacy and military actions, so it seems a little strange that they would resort to such a clumsy tactic now unless they thought they were genuinely defending their territory. However, the provocations on the Iranian regime have escalated sharply over the last three years with the American neo-cons, and, of course, Israel salivating at the prospect of another war.

As well as the British and American naval build-up in the Persian Gulf, there is also the 'surge' of American troops in the region and the deployment of Patriot missile batteries. And, of course, the extreme provocation of Iran with the recent kidnap of Iranian diplomats or consular staff by the Americans. This alone may be seen by the Iranians as a justification for its actions.

We cannot detach this incident from the activities at the UN Security Council which has just unanimously passed a new resolution against Iran over its alleged (but unproven) nuclear weapons program. This resolution means a tougher sanctions regime on Iran and strangely, expresses the hope that it will lead to further negotiations. I'd argue that this resolution will have the opposite effect and negotiations will be more difficult to achieve, particularly when America is so reluctant to negotiate (or do anything which doesn't meet with Israel's approval). Some of the ambassadors at the UN tried to argue for a nuclear free Middle East but were unable to get their message articulated in concrete terms. It seems that the main powers do not want a nuclear free Middle East but instead one where there is a single nuclear armed power which can impose its will over its neighbours. For this reason the new resolution is unfair and one should question just what pressures were put on the countries that had reservations about this misuse of international law by the powerful. Iran was predictably unimpressed by the new sanctions but shows no inclination to bend to the will of ~~America, Britain and Israel~~ the UN. Before long Iran will feel compelled to use its biggest asset as a weapon - oil. If Iran decides that the world needs a reminder of how dependent it is on oil and cuts the flow of it through the Strait of Hormuz then prices will soar and war will be inevitable. Just to show how sensitive the oil market is, look what happened to oil prices when 15 British sailors were captured.

On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, no one should need reminding of the the dangers of pre-emptively attacking an unpleasant regime.

Tags: Iran, UK Politics, UN Security Council, Captured Sailors

Israeli Jets Nearly Shot Down by French Troops

2006-11-10T13:57:00.000Z

French peacekeepers in southern Lebanon as part of the UNIFIL force came close to shooting down Israeli F-15 fighters which nose-dived repeatedly over their positions. The incident took place on October 31 but has only now come to light.

The French government has demanded that Israel stop mock raids over Lebanon after French peacekeepers came within seconds of shooting down Israeli warplanes.
Israeli officials said the flights were needed to monitor Lebanese compliance with UN demands, but the French Defence Minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, said the attitude of the Israeli planes was "absolutely inadmissible" after Israeli F-15 fighters nose-dived repeatedly over French peacekeepers' positions in southern Lebanon on 31 October.
"Our troops barely avoided a catastrophe," Alliot-Marie told the French parliament. "Our troops find themselves in a position where they have to fire in legitimate self defence."
Source

France has now summoned the Israeli ambassador over the incident and launched a complaint. The Israeli military has so far denied any knowledge of the incident. This is not the first time France has warned Israel about violations of Lebanese airspace in defiance of Security Council Resolution 1701, but this seems to be the closest the French have come to being forced to defend themselves. Israeli jets were also involved in an incident with German warships patrolling off the Lebanese coast last month. Two F-16s allegedly fired shots and anti missile flares as they buzzed the vessel.

Israel seems determined to provoke some sort of retaliation from the UNIFIL peacekeepers. If these provokations are happening with the tacit agreement of the USA (I have no idea if this is the case or not), then there is a potential conflict of interest looming because America is spending $40 million to train and equip the Lebanese army in order for it to better defend Lebanese territory so Hizbollah can withdraw.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, France, UNIFIL

The “unseemly” horse trading at the UN: Jobs for the boys or a prelude to war?

2006-10-05T06:10:00.000+01:00

I have to admit I was a bit surprised to hear about the extraordinary unanimity in the choice of Ban Ki Moon as the likely successor to Kofi Annan as Secretary General of the UN when he stands down at the end of this year. I needn't have been that surprised. Behind the scenes there was, it seems, an awful lot of argument about the selection of Ban Ki Moon, mostly from the five permanent members of the security council, particularly Britain, and what the horse trading was about was getting top jobs for British officials.

BRITAIN has demanded a key United Nations policy job as the price of supporting the man likely to become the new UN Secretary-General.
Before throwing its weight behind Ban Ki Moon, the South Korean in the leading position to succeed Kofi Annan, the Government set out conditions that included the promise of top jobs for British officials.
The “unseemly” horse trading also involved other countries, according to diplomatic sources. It took place behind closed doors before Mr Ban cleared the latest hurdle — an informal straw poll of the 15-strong Security Council — earlier this week.
“It was like the European states carving up Africa in the 19th century,” one diplomat at the UN said. “The very same countries that lecture the UN on the need to reform and to make appointments based on merit were the ones pressing for their candidates to be given top jobs.
[...]
In particular, the British want to reclaim the job of under-secretary-general for the Department of Political Affairs, responsible for all the main international crises, including the Middle East, Iran, North Korea and other flashpoints.
“The British made it clear to Ban Ki Moon that this was a condition for their support,” said another source, who added that the same negotiations took place when Mr Annan became Secretary-General.
Source

So Britain wants to have a key role in the political affairs of the Middle East, Iran and North Korea. Well, that's not so surprising. It is interesting however in the light of this:

We bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East.
The article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment and its relationship to the Battle for Oil.
The structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of these war preparations.
The naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Both Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US sponsored military road-map.
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
The naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022
These war plans must be taken very seriously.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, a long war, which threatens the future of humanity.
In the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around the world act consistently to confront their respective governments and reverse and dismantle this military agenda
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called Homeland Security agenda which has already defined the contours of a police State.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
Source

The above quote is the editor's note at the head of a long, detailed and well-sourced article by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya of Global Research entitled The March to War: Naval Build-Up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean (via Truthout which has put in other links to the relevant articles). The article and the long list of links at the end point to a very disturbing pattern which makes a bigger Middle Eastern war look all but inevitable. It's worth reading the whole piece. There has been plenty of speculation in recent months about the possibility of an attack on Iran and/or Syria, so much so that I decided to comment further on it only when there was evidence of the necessary troop build-up. This looks like evidence of a such a build-up, much more secretive than the blatent military massing prior to the Iraq war. It might explain why Britain is so eager to muscle in on top UN positions.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, UN, Britain

The UN agrees on something

2006-08-12T05:39:00.000+01:00

After a month of slaughter in Lebanon, the UN Security Council has finally agreed to the text of a draft resolution which has now been passed unanimously. Resolution 1701 is marginally better than the previous draft of last week which gave Israel everything it demanded. It does not call for an immediate ceasefire but does call for "a full cessation of hostilities". It also calls for Israeli troops to withdraw as they are replaced by a 15,000 strong international force which will back up the Lebanese army, and for Hezbollah to pull back and later disarm. It is still balanced heavily in favour of Israel as was noted by the foreign minister of Qatar, the only Arab on the Security Council. But we all know that the USA would have vetoed anything less. Kofi Annan expressed his disappointment that an agreement hadn’t been reached sooner. The full text of his statement is here. It is interesting that some progress was made once Blair was told to take a back seat and left for his holiday.

One of the weaknesses of the resolution is that it still allows Israel to murder Lebanese civilians provided it calls such atrocities ‘defensive measures’, while Hezbollah must cease all attacks whether they are defensive or not. Another weakness is that Israel has been given permission to stay in Lebanon until a security force appears which could take months. I doubt Hezbollah will tolerate the IDF occupation of a square inch of Lebanon for any length of time. This highlights the main problem; the UN can decide what it likes but it’s events on the ground which matter. Lebanon, despite accepting the resolution has already expressed doubts about it stopping the war.

Lebanese acting Foreign Minister Tarek Mitri was scathing in his criticism of Israel during an address to the Security Council shortly after the body unanimously adopted the long-awaited resolution.

"A ceasefire that is incomplete is not a true ceasefire. A ceasefire that retains for one side the right not to cease firing is not a ceasefire," Mitri said.

"The Lebanese are not confident in Israeli distinction between 'defensive' and 'offensive'," he added. "The end to military operations should be unqualified."

"For a month now, as the world continues to watch and the international community continues to watch, Israel has besieged and ravaged Lebanon, creating a humanitarian and environmental disaster," he said.

Mitri characterized the weeks of Israeli artillery and aerial bombardments against his country as a "strategy of terror" and an "obscenely disproportionate and unjustifiable" retaliation for Hezbollah rocket attacks on northern Israel.
Source

Ehud Olmert has also said he accepts the resolution and will urge his cabinet to agree to it on Sunday. However even as he spoke, Israel was rapidly escalating the war.

Ehud Olmert's office said late Friday that the expanded incursion into Lebanon would continue "for the time being," despite agreeing to a cease-fire resolution drafted by the United Nations Security Council.

Israel will press ahead with its military offfensive in south Lebanon until Israel's Cabinet approves an emerging Mideast cease-fire deal, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said early Saturday.

"The logic would be that even in the framework of this successful outcome, if you hand over to the Lebanese army a cleaner south Lebanon, a south Lebanon where you have Hezbollah removed from the territory, that makes their [the Lebanese] troubles a lot easier," Regev said.
Source

As if to prove the point, Israeli aircraft attacked a convoy of 500 vehicles full of civilians who were fleeing the fighting killing seven people and wounding 36. Israel called the attack a ‘mistake’. The attack took place near the town of Chtaura in the Bekaa Valley about 50km north of the Litani River. Israel had earlier warned that it would attack any vehicle below the Litani River. Since the resolution was passed, Israel has been significantly "broadening" its campaign with the cities of Tyre and Sidon being targeted. To get an idea of the pessimism felt about the UN resolution, take a look at this Sky News poll screenshot which I grabbed. "Will the UN agreement end the Middle East crisis?" The pessimism is increasing, originally it was 25% "Yes" and 75% "No", and has since plummeted to 7% "Yes" and 93% "No".

The U.N. Human Rights Council was also busy on Friday, condemning Israel for "massive bombardment of Lebanese civilian populations" and other "systematic" human rights violations. It has decided to send a commission to investigate.

The Geneva resolution expressed "outrage" at what it called "senseless killings by Israel, with impunity, of children, women, the elderly" and to "immediately stop military operations against (the) civilian population."
Source

There is a petition calling for Israel to be prosecuted for its numerous war crimes. Please sign it.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, UN resolution

Kofi Annan prompted Jack Straw’s revolt

2006-08-01T06:09:00.000+01:00

Jack Straw’s comments about Israel’s attacks on Lebanese civilians being “disproportionate” may have been made after a call from the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan who is exasperated with Tony Blair’s refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire even after the massacre at Qana which killed 60 civilians, 37 of them children.

Last week Jack Straw told Muslim community leaders in his Blackburn constituency:

“Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation.”

“One of many serious concerns I have is that the continuation of such tactics by the Israelis could further destabilise the already fragile Lebanese nation. If you want to go for Hezbollah, go for Hezbollah, not the whole Lebanese nation,”
Source

His statement added to a growing chorus of discontent in Blair’s cabinet over the Prime Minister’s refusal to criticise Israeli atrocities, his reluctance to call for an immediate ceasefire, and his overly close relationship with the neo conservative President of the United States. The news that Jack Straw’s outburst may have been influenced by Kofi Annan further increases Blair’s isolation as it means the Secretary General of the UN went over the heads of the Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary and appealed directly to the Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary.

Tony Blair's isolation over the Middle East crisis deepened last night after it emerged that Kofi Annan privately told Jack Straw of his anger at Britain's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire.

The UN secretary general's office denied last night that he had urged Mr Straw to put pressure on Mr Blair to abandon his close alliance with President George W Bush over not condemning Israeli military action.

But two days later, Mr Straw, who was foreign secretary until May, issued a statement condemning some Israeli strikes as "disproportionate". His criticism led to a major Cabinet split over Middle East policy.

According to well-placed sources, Mr Annan rang Mr Straw, now Leader of the Commons, last Wednesday - just hours after four UN peacekeepers were killed by Israeli action in southern Lebanon.

Claims that the UN chief was effectively fomenting revolt in Mr Blair's Cabinet against his decision to stick closely to Mr Bush and refuse to call for an immediate ceasefire will infuriate the Prime Minister.

Mr Annan's office insisted last night that he talked directly to Mr Blair, not behind his back.

However, Mr Annan's decision to talk privately to Mr Straw will undermine confidence in Margaret Beckett, who replaced him as Foreign Secretary. In a series of bad-tempered media performances, she has shown signs of mounting tension with Mr Blair over his approach to the crisis.
Source

Margaret Beckett has already shown herself to be way out of her depth in this crisis and has been unable to influence the Prime Minister despite her private reservations and warnings to Mr Blair about a potential tragedy. She has stuck to Blair’s line publicly but has performed badly on television and radio interviews and not made many friends amongst her foreign counter-parts. Beckett’s lacklustre performance as Foreign Secretary weakens Blair even more at a crucial time and further illustrates the mistakes he made in his last cabinet reshuffle.

Last night a former minister told The Times that Mrs Beckett’s failure to make her mark illustrated that Tony Blair made a mistake by appointing her to the post. “She hasn’t had a very good war, has she?” the former minister said. “It is an incredibly hard position, incredibly hard.

A Foreign Secretary in that situation has to be very quick-witted in finding metaphors and using a turn of phrase. Margaret has had 25 years in politics. Can you think in all those years of one memorable phrase she has used? Was she the right person for the job in the reshuffle? I think the answer is no.”
Source

Meanwhile in the Middle East things are getting worse. After the false optimism of a potential agreement heralded by Condoleezza Rice, Israel humiliated her by announcing an expansion of its ground offensive with Ehud Olmert ruling out any prospect of a ceasefire as soon as Condi left for Washington. This should have been expected as Israel cannot continue its aerial attacks on civilians without further criticism and another Qana would cause even American support to dry up. Israel seems to have been given another week to continue its slaughter rather than the 14 days it asked for. The problem for Israel is that in recent decades it has not had to face an opponent that can actually shoot back. Nearly all of its attacks have been on civilians or militants armed with little more than stones, Kalashnikovs or the odd RPG hence its preference for flattening villages full of cowering women and children from the air. Israel ignored its own declaration of a suspension of aerial attacks in Southern Lebanon and has continued to bomb the region as its troops struggle to take the smallest of villages.

Far from weakening Hezbollah, the Israeli attacks have given the party widespread support in Lebanon and the wider Arab world while Israel, Britain and America are now completely isolated in the international community. Iran and Syria on the other hand have raised their profiles and are now entering into the diplomatic arena which is precisely what America and Britain were trying to prevent.

In other news, Gordon Brown, who as usual is nowhere to be found when there is a crisis, is said to be “fuming” that Blair and Beckett have not forged a close relationship with Ehud Olmert.

Last year Brown met Ehud Olmert, then finance minister of Israel, now prime minister, and urged senior government figures to pay attention to him. Brown is angry that Blair and Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, are said to have little or no relationship with Olmert.

“Gordon is fuming that no one operating at a senior level is dealing with the Israelis,” said a source close to the chancellor. “He has been warning people for months that this guy (Olmert) was likely to be the next prime minister once Ariel Sharon became ill.”
Source

Gordon Brown has a close relationship with the Israeli leader and presumably supports the current rampage he is on. In the current climate this is not going to help Britain’s international standing should he become the next Prime Minister. So far the only MP to offer an alternative direction for Labour is John McDonnell. Although he seems unlikely at the moment to win the leadership of the party, his ideas are much more in tune with traditional Labour values. You can read his opinions on the Middle East crisis and Britain’s complicity in the slaughter in his blog.

Tags: Lebanon, Israel, Blair, Bush, UK Politics

Selective use of UN Resolutions

2006-07-18T17:18:00.000+01:00

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has been meeting with the UN and the press to discuss the current ~~massacre~~ conflict in Lebanon. In the talks she called for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which calls for the disarmament of Hizbullah.

(IsraelNN.com) Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met Tuesday with a delegation from the United Nations concerning the conflict between Israel and Hizbullah. Livni demanded the return of the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers before a ceasefire could be implemented. She also called for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which calls for the disarmament of Hizbullah.Livni called on the Lebanese army to deploy in southern Lebanon but also seemed to be willing to accept a temporary international force in the area until the Lebanese army is able to take control of the area.
Source

So Israel wants the Lebanese army to deploy in southern Lebanon. This is the army that Israel has been targeting despite it largely staying out of the conflict between Hizbullah and Israel.

However, it is gratifying to learn that Israel has a new-found enthusiasm for UN Security Council Resolutions. Perhaps this might mean that Israel is now ready to implement some of the numerous outstanding UN Security Council Resolutions against that state.

Resolution 106: "... 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid"
Resolution 111: "...'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people"
Resolution 127: "...'recommends' Israel suspend its 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem"
Resolution 162: "...'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions"
Resolution 171: "...determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria"
Resolution 228: "...'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control"
Resolution 237: "...'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees"
Resolution 242: "..."affirms" need for Israel to withdraw from illegally occupied territory
Resolution 248: "... 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan"
Resolution 250: "... 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem"
Resolution 251: "... 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250"
Resolution 252: "...'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital"
Resolution 256: "... 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation""
Resolution 259: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation"
Resolution 262: "...'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport"
Resolution 265: "... 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan"
Resolution 267: "...'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 270: "...'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon"
Resolution 271: "...'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem"
Resolution 279: "...'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 280: "....'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 285: "...'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon"
Resolution 298: "...'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem"
Resolution 313: "...'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 316: "...'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 317: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon"
Resolution 332: "...'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon"
Resolution 337: "...'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty"
Resolution 347: "...'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon"
Resolution 425: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 427: "...'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon'
Resolution 444: "...'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces"
Resolution 446: "...'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 450: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon"
Resolution 452: "...'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories"
Resolution 465: "...'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program"
Resolution 467: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon"
Resolution 468: "...'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return"
Resolution 469: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians"
Resolution 471: "... 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention"
Resolution 476: "... 'reiterates' that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'"
Resolution 478: "...'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'"
Resolution 484: "...'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors"
Resolution 487: "...'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility"
Resolution 497: "...'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescind its decision forthwith"
Resolution 498: "...'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon"
Resolution 501: "...'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops"
Resolution 509: "...'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon"
Resolution 515: "...'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in"
Resolution 517: "...'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon"
Resolution 518: "...'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon"
Resolution 520: "...'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut"
Resolution 573: "...'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters
Resolution 587: "...'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw"
Resolution 592: "...'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops"
Resolution 605: "...'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians
Resolution 607: "...'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
Resolution 608: "...'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians"
Resolution 636: "...'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians
Resolution 641: "...'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 672: "...'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount
Resolution 673: "...'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations
Resolution 681: "...'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 694: "...'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return
Resolution 726: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians
Resolution 799: "...'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return.
Source

Some of these, of course, are no longer in force, but many still are. Notice how the situations are similar to the current crisis. We can be sure that we will be hearing much more about UN Security Council Resolution 1559 in the coming days. What do you think the chances are that we will hear anything about the outstanding resolutions in this list?

*CLARIFICATION*
As I mentioned, many of these resolutions are no longer in force. Some are indeed very old. However, there is a reason why there are no new resolutions against Israel and obviously its not because that state has changed it's behaviour in any way. The reason is simple; America will veto any resolution that criticises Israel in any way, even if the criticism is mild (Britain usually abstains but is increasingly following the American position). Here is an example from an earlier post on this new conflict:

Qatar, the only Arab nation on the council, received widespread support during closed council consultations for a press statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, restraint in the use of force, and the protection of civilians caught in the conflict, council diplomats said.

But Cesar Mayoral, Argentina's UN ambassador, said the United States objected to any statement and Britain opposed calling for a ceasefire.

[...]

"We have many reasons to expect much more from the Security Council," said Mahmoud, an ambassador who was sent from Beirut.

And from the United States?

"They were always supportive in the last one-and-a-half years, but when it comes to Israel it seems things change," he said.
Source

If UN Security Council Resolutions were passed on a fair voting system without the 5 permanent members being able to use a veto, there would be many more resolutions against Israel and they would be quite recent.

Tags: Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, UN

Oops! Another Gaffe at the G8

2006-07-18T06:12:00.000+01:00

The G8 summit in St Petersburg hasn’t been the greatest success for Bush and Blair. The main Issue to be discussed was energy and we’ve heard precious little about that. The whole summit was overshadowed by the unfolding catastrophe in the Middle East, and what has emerged is the appearance of the world’s most powerful leaders not having a clue what to do, or just not having a clue.

The fun started at early at the summit with Russia’s Vladimir Putin succeeding in humiliating both Bush and Blair on their Democratic credentials. First Bush and his stunning democratic success in Iraq: (I’ve mentioned it before but I can’t resist repeating it after the gaffe that followed yesterday)

Bush said that, during two hours of discussions, 'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion. I told [Putin] a lot of people in our country ... would hope that Russia would do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian style of democracy.'

Putin replied, smiling: 'I'll be honest with you: we, of course, would not want to have a democracy like in Iraq.' Bush interrupted to say 'Just wait' - a reference to Iraq's democracy being in its infancy - before Putin continued: 'Nobody knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation. But we know for sure that we cannot strengthen our nation without developing democratic institutions. And this is the path that we'll certainly take; but certainly we will do this by ourselves.'
Source

Then Blair, engulfed as he is in a sleaze scandal at home and his Middle East envoy arrested:

Quizzed by a British journalist at a late-night press conference about Russia's governance record, Mr Putin noted there were "other questions, such as the fight against corruption".

"It would be interesting to hear your experience, including how it relates to Lord Levy," he added, referring to the British Labour party fundraiser embroiled in an investigation into whether peerages were given in return for cash.

Officials say Mr Putin's relations with Tony Blair – the first western leader to meet the new Russian president six years ago –- are now the coolest of those with any G8 leader.
Source

But the pièce de résistance happened appropriately at a meal for all the G8 leaders where the two buffoons in chief left a microphone on while having a private chat. We were treated to a subservient Blair acting to all intents and purposes as a dedicated butler while Bush stuffed his face. You can read the full transcript here and here,. Actually, I think it’s worth preserving the Independent version because it’s so good:

Bush: Yo, Blair. How are you doing? (Does he regard Mr Blair as an equal? What about 'Yo, Tony'?)
Blair: I'm just...
Bush: You're leaving?
Blair: No, no, no not yet. On this trade thingy.... (inaudible) (Mr Blair is getting anxious that the World Trade Organisation is falling apart because some nations, including the US, are putting domestic interests before a worldwide free trade agreement)
Bush: Yeah, I told that to the man.
Blair: Are you planning to say that here or not?
Bush: If you want me to.
Blair: Well, it's just that if the discussion arises...
Bush: I just want some movement.
Blair: Yeah.
Bush: Yesterday we didn't see much movement.
Blair: No, no, it may be that it's not, it may be that it's impossible.
Bush: I am prepared to say it.
Blair: But it's just I think what we need to be an opposition...
Bush: Who is introducing the trade?
Blair: Angela (The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, will lead the trade discussion. That is good for Mr Blair. She is on his side.)
Bush: Tell her to call 'em.
Blair: Yes.
Bush: Tell her to put him on, them on the spot. Thanks for the sweater it's awfully thoughtful of you.
Blair: It's a pleasure.
Bush: I know you picked it out yourself.
Blair: Oh, absolutely, in fact (inaudible)
Bush: What about Kofi? (inaudible) His attitude to ceasefire and everything else ... happens. (Change of subject. Now they are on to Lebanon and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan)
Blair: Yeah, no I think the (inaudible) is really difficult. We can't stop this unless you get this international business agreed.
Bush: Yeah. (Mr Blair is trying to push the idea of a UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. That 'yeah' does not sound like a wholehearted agreement)
Blair: I don't know what you guys have talked about, but as I say I am perfectly happy to try and see what the lie of the land is, but you need that done quickly because otherwise it will spiral. (Meaning: 'Please, George, let me go to the Middle East and be a world statesman')
Bush: I think Condi is going to go pretty soon. (Meaning: 'No')
Blair: But that's, that's, that's all that matters. But if you... you see it will take some time to get that together. (Meaning: 'Oh well, all right, if you don't want me to. Just a thought')
Bush: Yeah, yeah.
Blair: But at least it gives people...
Bush: It's a process, I agree. I told her your offer to... (Meaning: 'Drop it. You're not going.')
Blair: Well... it's only if I mean... you know. If she's got a..., or if she needs the ground prepared as it were... Because obviously if she goes out, she's got to succeed, if it were, whereas I can go out and just talk.
Bush: You see, the ... thing is what they need to do is to get Syria, to get Hizbollah to stop doing this shit and it's over. (Mr Bush is expressing his belief that Syria is pulling Hizbollah's strings, while Mr Blair is hinting the Syrians might be up to no good as well)
Blair: (inaudible)
Bush: (inaudible)
Blair: Syria.
Bush: Why?
Blair: Because I think this is all part of the same thing.
Bush: Yeah.
Blair: What does he think? He thinks if Lebanon turns out fine, if we get a solution in Israel and Palestine, Iraq goes in the right way... (Here they might be talking about Kofi Annan, or they may mean the Syrian President, Bashir Assad)
Bush: Yeah, yeah, he is sweet. (Mr Bush is probably being sarcastic)
Blair: He is honey. And that's what the whole thing is about. It's the same with Iraq.
Bush: I felt like telling Kofi to call, to get on the phone to Assad and make something happen.
Blair: Yeah.
Bush: (inaudible)
Blair: (inaudible)
Bush: We are not blaming the Lebanese government.
Blair: Is this...? (at this point Blair taps the microphone in front of him and the sound is cut.)
Source

So what do we learn from this exchange? Well, not only does Blair act like a servant, Bush treats him as one (so that confirms the nature of the ‘special relationship’). Not only that but Bush seems to think UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is also part of his staff. Both Bush and Blair plan to blame Syria for the conflict in the Middle East and intent to apply more pressure on President Assad. They both seem to think that Iraq is going 'in the right way'. Blair has to ask his master’s permission to strut the word stage and is sometimes refused. Blair wants to send in a multinational force (without committing British troops) but Bush doesn’t want to spoil Israel’s fun. Blair picks out Bush’s sweaters, and Bush talks with his mouth full. Not the cleverest way to end a summit.

Informed Comment tells it like it is.

Oh, and Cherie has put her foot in it with her Russian hosts by going off to visit human rights groups. What a diplomat!

Tags: G8, Bush, Blair, Middle East

Papering over the cracks at the G8

2006-07-16T21:48:00.000+01:00

The G8 leaders have just produced a statement on the Middle East crisis at their summit in St Petersburg. You can read the full text here.

The statement - issued after hours of difficult negotiations - calls for the release of three captured Israeli soldiers - one in the Gaza Strip.

It also urges militants to stop shelling of Israeli territory.

Leaders also urged Israel to withdraw its forces from Gaza and to release arrested Palestinian politicians.
Source

What the statement does not call for is an immediate cease fire from the Israeli forces, effectively giving them a green light to continue their bombing campaigns on Gaza and Lebanon’s cities; all they managed to do was ask Israel to ‘exercise utmost restraint’. The blame for the escalating violence has been placed firmly on Hezbollah who certainly do bear some of the responsibility. But there has been no criticism of Israel at all for its disproportionate response.

At the same time, however, the G8 statement did not blame Syria and Iran as Tony Blair and George Bush were so quick to do. France and Russia would not sign up to that fearing that such rhetoric would further inflame the situation so a compromise had to be reached in order to maintain an illusion of unity. This highlights a split in the G8 between Russia and some European countries and the USA/UK axis. Last Friday the EU issued a much stronger warning to Israel.

“Actions, which are contrary to international humanitarian law, can only aggravate the vicious circle of violence and retribution, and cannot serve anyone's legitimate security interests,” said a statement.

“The imposition of an air and sea blockades on Lebanon cannot be justified.”
Source

At the press conference Blair echoed Bush in his condemnation of Syria and Iran.

"The fact is there are people in that region -- notably Iran and Syria -- who do not want this process of democratisation and peace and negotiation to succeed," he said.
Source

Presumably the democratically elected Hamas in the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah members of the elected government of Lebanon are not part of Bush/Blair democracy drive. It was interesting that before the summit started Russian President, Vladimir Putin managed to humiliate both Bush and Blair on their democratic records. With Bush, Putin reposted to a coded attack on his authoritarian government.

Bush said that, during two hours of discussions, 'I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world like Iraq where there's a free press and free religion. I told [Putin] a lot of people in our country ... would hope that Russia would do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian style of democracy.'

Putin replied, smiling: 'I'll be honest with you: we, of course, would not want to have a democracy like in Iraq.' Bush interrupted to say 'Just wait' - a reference to Iraq's democracy being in its infancy - before Putin continued: 'Nobody knows better than us how we can strengthen our own nation. But we know for sure that we cannot strengthen our nation without developing democratic institutions. And this is the path that we'll certainly take; but certainly we will do this by ourselves.'
Source

Putin also scored a point over Tony Blair when he was pressed on the same issue by a journalist, this time bringing up Tony’s little domestic scandal which saw his Middle East envoy arrested last week.

Quizzed by a British journalist at a late-night press conference about Russia's governance record, Mr Putin noted there were "other questions, such as the fight against corruption".

"It would be interesting to hear your experience, including how it relates to Lord Levy," he added, referring to the British Labour party fundraiser embroiled in an investigation into whether peerages were given in return for cash.

Officials say Mr Putin's relations with Tony Blair – the first western leader to meet the new Russian president six years ago –- are now the coolest of those with any G8 leader.
Source

The statement made by G8 members is not expected to achieve any positive changes on the ground. There was some talk of sending a UN observer mission to Lebanon (presumably to join the one that is already there to no noticeable effect). What this shows is that the most powerful countries in the world do not have any concrete ideas on how to solve this mess exacerbated by the disaster that is Iraq.

Many column inches are being used to question the reason for the existance of Hezbollah. It's no mystery, Hezbollah was formed the last time Israel invaded Lebanon. And it was Hezbollah who successfully threw Israel out six years ago. That humiliation was not going to be allowed to remain unpunished. The current wave of destruction was planned long ago and is part of a US/Israel strategy. Of course it couldn't happen while Syria was still in Lebanon. The American and Israeli pressure for the withdrawal of Syria can now be seen for what it really was. Hezbollah remained in Lebanon with the tacit agreement of the Lebanese government as it was recognised to be the only effective defence against an enemy that covets their land. While Hezbollah has certainly hit civilian targets, it's record is more in keeping with that of a more conventional army hitting mainly military targets, unlike the Israeli army that is openly breaking the Fourth Geneva Convention. No mention of that by the G8 though.

And no mention of it at the UN either where a resolution calling for a ceasefire was blocked by the USA and Britain.

Qatar, the only Arab nation on the council, received widespread support during closed council consultations for a press statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, restraint in the use of force, and the protection of civilians caught in the conflict, council diplomats said.

But Cesar Mayoral, Argentina's UN ambassador, said the United States objected to any statement and Britain opposed calling for a ceasefire.

[...]

"We have many reasons to expect much more from the Security Council," said Mahmoud, an ambassador who was sent from Beirut.

And from the United States?

"They were always supportive in the last one-and-a-half years, but when it comes to Israel it seems things change," he said.
Source

No Shit!

Tags: Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, G8, Bush, Bliar

New UN anti-torture protocol comes into force

2006-06-22T19:00:00.000+01:00

A new mechanism to bolster the United Nations treaty against torture has come into force. The protocol will allow independent international and national organisations to visit prisons and other detention centres.

“This is truly a milestone in efforts to fight torture and impunity,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Louise Arbour said of the new measure which is entering into force following its signature by 20 countries.

“I call on all other States to become party to the Convention against Torture and the Protocol. We have waited a long time for this treaty - let us now all work together to make it effective worldwide,” she added. “The monitoring mechanisms, both national and international, established in the Optional Protocol are critical new methods of ensuring the protection of detainees around the world against all forms of mistreatment.”
Source

The original treaty which was ratified in 1989 by about 130 countries, including the USA was largelly unenforced. The new optional protocol was oppoed by the United States but has been ratified by Albania, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Georgia, Honduras, Liberia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Paraguay, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and Uruguay. Switzerland which was a driving force behind the initiative has yet to ratify it because of procedural delays.

As well as unannounced visits to detention centres, it enpowers the Sub-Committee to work with the relevant authorities to make recommendations for improvements in the treatment and the conditions of prisoners. Of course it is yet to be seen if the United States will co-operate with this new measure so we cannot know if it will improve the conditions of prisoners in Guantanamo and other secret prisons or 'black sites'.

Tags: Torture, United Nations

Groundhog Day

2006-04-28T10:49:00.000+01:00

Compare and contrast these two statements:

“At the United Nations Security Council it is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a truth threat to world peace, and that is Saddam Hussein.”

George Bush September 19, 2002

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state,"

Condoleezza Rice April 27, 2006

Tags: America, Iran