Almost unnoticed, the #UN is about to fight its first #war - a worthy gamble that deserves wide support since all previous efforts to end the bloodshed in #Congo have failed.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579462-almost-unnoticed-un-about-fight-its-first-war-gamble-worth-takin #Zaire #Africa
U.N. condemns Assad forces, but unease grows about rebels | Reuters
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/05/15/syria-crisis-un-vote-idINDEE94E0EO20130515
The U.N. General Assembly condemned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and praised the opposition on Wednesday, but a decline in support for the resolution suggested growing unease about extremism among Syria’s fractious rebels.
While the non-binding text has no legal force, resolutions of the 193-nation assembly can carry significant moral and political weight. There were 107 votes in favor, 12 against and 59 abstentions - a drop in support compared with a resolution condemning the Syrian government that passed in August with 133 votes in favor, 12 against and 31 abstentions.
U.N. diplomats cited concerns that Syria could be headed for “regime change” engineered by foreign governments and fears about a strengthening Islamist extremist element among the rebels as reasons for the decline in support for the resolution.
IPS – U.N. Accused of Playing Down Nuke Disarmament Conference | Inter Press Service
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/05/u-n-accused-of-playing-down-nuke-disarmament-conference
... the Group of 77, the largest single coalition of 132 developing countries, implicitly accuses the United Nations of falling short in its efforts to publicise a meeting on nuclear disarmament scheduled to take place Sep. 26.
Ambassador Peter Thomson of Fiji, the G77 chair, last week described the upcoming talks as “the first-ever high level meeting of the General Assembly on nuclear disarmament.”
He said the meeting is of importance to developing nations, and therefore, all efforts should be made to give it timely and wide publicity.
A G77 delegate told IPS the conference is not getting the advance publicity it should, probably because three of the big powers, the United States, UK and France, are not supportive of the meeting.
“We have not seen anything on the high level meeting so far,” he added.
The lack of coverage stands in contrast to the strong public stand taken by the secretary-general, who has consistently called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Asked about the significance of the upcoming meeting, Dr. John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told IPS the meeting is a chance for world leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama and others, to give direction to the nuclear disarmament enterprise, “which is now drifting aimlessly despite much rhetoric over the past five years.”
Iraqi parliamentarian calls for UN to review border-defining resolution
signalé par Olivier Pironet
An Iraqi parliamentarian has called for the permanent members of the UN Security Council to support Iraq against what she calls “Kuwaiti land expansion” at the expense of Iraq’s territory.
In a statement, Alya Nasif of the Free Iraq List Coalition called on the Security Council, especially Russia, to stand beside Iraq to stop Kuwaiti violations as it demarcates the border between the two countries. According to Nasif, Kuwait’s actions are based on the “notorious” UN Security Council resolution 833 issued during the time of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. She said that when resolution 833 was agreed Saddam was only acting to extend his grip on the country, not in the best interests of Iraq and Iraqis. The people of Iraq, she added, should not be made to pay the price with their land for the actions of the former dictator.
#irak #koweit #frontières #onu
Halabja and America’s Support for Using Chemical Weapons Against Iran
http://goingtotehran.com/halabja-and-americas-support-for-using-chemical-weapons-against-iran
Halabja marked something of a turning point in the United States’ scandalous support for Saddam Husayn’s war of aggression against the Islamic Republic—including his use of chemical weapons against civilian as well as military targets. Ever since the Iraqi military had started using chemical weapons in 1982 and Iran had started complaining about it to the United Nations Security Council, the United States had blocked any Security Council action on the matter. As we recount in Going to Tehran, UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, acting on his own (because the Security Council wouldn’t support him), sent six fact-finding teams to investigate Iraq’s use of chemical weapons between 1984 and 1988. Their reports consistently confirmed Iran’s charges—and just as consistently, the United States refused to let the Council act. As then Secretary of State George Shultz later explained, Washington blocked international pressure on Iraq to stop using chemical weapons because “you don’t want Iran to win the war.”
It was only after the Iraqi military was caught red-handed in a chemical weapons attack on Halabja—again, not located in Iran, but in Iraqi Kurdistan—that even the United States felt compelled to let the Council take formal notice. But when it finally adopted Resolution 612 in May 1988, the Council (at U.S. insistence) merely condemned “the continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,” without specifying who had been using them, and exhorted “both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons,” though no credible charges that Iran used chemical weapons have ever been advanced.”
Bush-Aznar Transcript : The War Crime of the Century
Comment Bush a refusé une proposition d’exil de Saddam Hussein et a préféré la guerre
http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/bush-aznar-transcript-war-crime-of.html
The second claim that I made was that Bush was aware of, and rejected, an offer by Saddam Hussein to flee Iraq, probably for Saudi Arabia, presuming he could take out with him a billion dollars and some documents on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Both provisions were intended by Saddam to protect him from later retaliation. The money would buy him protection from extradition, and the documents presumably showed that the Reagan and Bush senior administrations had secretly authorized his chemical and biological weapons programs. With these documents in his possession, it was unlikely that Bush would come after him, since he could ruin the reputation of the Bush family if he did. The destruction of these documents was presumably Bush’s goal when he had Rumsfeld order US military personnel not to interfere with the looting and burning of government offices after the fall of Saddam. The looting, which set off the guerrilla war, also functioned as a vast shredding party, destroying incriminating evidence about the complicity of the Bushes and Rumsfeld in Iraq’s war crimes.
Russia-US spat dooms UN statement on Damascus bomb | The Times of Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-us-spat-dooms-un-statement-on-damascus-bomb
La Russie, les Etats-Unis et le peuple syrien.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Russia and the United States are blaming each other for the failure of the Security Council to issue a statement condemning the car bomb attack in Damascus that killed at least 53 people.
The attack Wednesday on Syria’s ruling party headquarters and two other bombs that struck intelligence offices left at least 75 dead.
Russia accuses the US of blocking a council statement condemning the rebel attacks. The US says it supported the statement but wanted to add language condemning the Assad regime’s recent attacks.
The sniping between Moscow and Washington over Syria, while not new, hardly augurs well for a Feb. 26 meeting in Berlin of Russia Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry, the new US secretary of state.
The meeting will focus on Syria, among other matters.
On plante, ils arrachent (au bulldozer), on replante
We Grow, They Bulldoze, We Re-Plant
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/israel-palestine-and-the-occupied-territories/land-and-settlement-issues/52264-we-grow-they-bulldoze-we-re-plant.html?itemid=id#38340
We Grow, They Bulldoze, We Re-Plant
( Security Council and Israel/Palestine )
Palestinians are calling for a boycott of Israeli goods. The boycott action follows a growing number of initiatives from the Gaza Strip that asks Palestinian supporters to replace aid donations with boycott action. The boycott action is two-fold. It calls for the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 242, which requests the withdrawal of occupation forces from the Gaza Strip. It simultaneously raises awareness of how Israeli settlements benefit from the oppression of Palestinian farmers. Israeli authorities prohibit Palestinians from accessing the 300 metres flanking the Gaza-Israel border. In reality, the Israeli army regularly attacks Palestinians up to two kilometres from the border in some areas, rendering more than 35 percent of Gaza’s farmland off-limits. As part of this campaign, Palestinians are planting trees in these border regions, despite knowing that sooner or later, they will be destroyed by Israeli forces.
Via As’ad AbouKhalil http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2013/01/chivers-at-ny-times-leaves-out-meat.html
D’après l’AFP http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i5gi0DGCrI8PgEz-_lkZaPIWG1kA?docId=CNG.1b97d97c19ef1173f82b9ae0a3321f2 qui s’appuie sur des déclarations d’opposants au régime syrien, la Turquie utiliserait « les jihadistes [classés terroristes par le gouvernement US, allié de la Turquie] de Syrie pour mener sa propre bataille contre sa propre minorité kurde. »
Palestinians to Israel: Stop E-1 plan or we’ll go to The Hague - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki says his government will have no choice but to take international action if settlement construction continues.
The UN in Congo: Watching from above | The Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2013/01/un-congo?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/Watchingfromabove
The UN in Congo
Watching from above
Jan 15th 2013, 12:48 by D.H. | NAIROBI
SHOULD the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban ki-Moon, get his way, a newcomer will appear in the skies over eastern Congo. He has asked the Security Council to approve unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, for use in the troubled region.
Supporters of their use, including the UN’s head of peacekeeping operations, Hervé Ladsous, face a diplomatic battle to get their hands on any drones. China and Russia are reluctant to back their deployment. Rwanda, which has one of the rotating seats on the Security Council, and is accused of meddling in Congo, has also opposed their use. However, America, France and more quietly Britain all support the use of unarmed, intelligence-gathering drones.
UN Wants to Use #Drones for Peacekeeping Missions
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/181-congo/52169-un-wants-to-use-drones-for-peacekeeping-missions.html
The UN peacekeeping department has asked the Security Council to allow the deployment of drones in the DRC to monitor the movement of armed groups. The proposed use of drones is for surveillance purposes only, but the sensitive move has sparked controversy. Concerned states and observers believe that a Council decision on this issue could allow for the drones to be armed, and may authorize the use of force if necessary to protect civilians from potential violence. The US, Britain, France and other Western States argue in favor of their use, saying it is time for the UNDPKO to modernize its peacekeeping methods. Russia, China and many developing states disagree, listing drones as a tool of Western imperialism and private intelligence. In the case of Libya, the Council’s language of “all necessary means” resulted in a resolution broad enough to authorize a NATO air campaign.
Mali: West Africa’s Gate to Chaos, Intervention
France is currently pushing for a Security Council resolution that would call for a “stabilizing” military force to be rapidly sent to Northern Mali. In this article, Ramzy Baroud provides a systemic perspective by shedding light on the history of Tuareg refugees, the large consignments of weapons made available after NATO’s intervention in Libya, and France’s destabilizing influence in Mali since its colonization in 1898. He argues that “former colonial powers rarely abandon their ambitions [and] remain deeply entrenched by meddling in various ways that destabilize the former colonies.” Recently, the US also has shown increasing interest in the prospects created by the “ungovernability” of the Sahel by creating the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008 and promoting an all-inclusive Al-Qaeda narrative to justify interventions. Ultimately, Baroud believes that “the growing chaos will likely benefit interventionist states [and that the] new war on terror, will justify further intervention in West Africa and more meddling in the affairs of ECOWAS countries.”
Ramzy Baroud
Arab News
December 18, 2012
The Humanitarian Fallout of a Military Intervention in Mali
An international military intervention in Northern Mali “could further destabilize an already extremely fragile humanitarian situation” and “very well inflict more harm to the population.” Jérémie Labbé from IPI rightly argues that intense fighting would directly affect the civilian population, increase the number of refugees and internally displaced persons, and compromise the relatively stable situation of the last few months. Moreover, a military deployment would inevitably constrain an already difficult humanitarian access. Ultimately, “the risk is real that a military intervention will be perceived as promoting a Western agenda,” which might endangers the neutrality and safety of humanitarian actors operating in the region. In order not to repeat the mistakes of the relief operations in Somalia, Labbé stresses that a potential intervention should proactively and strictly comply with the UN human rights due diligence policy and that humanitarian actors should engage with non-traditional actors such as Islamic charities and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
Jérémie Labbé
International Peace Institute
December 14, 2012
Rice: French Plan for Mali Intervention is ’Crap’
Following the unexpected ouster of Mali’s transitional Prime Minister, members of the Security Council are determined to launch a military intervention in North Mali. Yet, the shape of such military action remains unclear as France and the United States are divided on the right strategy to adopt. France, South Africa, India, and other Council members favors the adoption of a single Security Council resolution authorizing a foreign intervention force by the end of 2012. France promotes a “two track” approach - promoting a democratic political transition while training Malian security forces to conduct offensive military operations. Skeptical of the capacity of the 3,300 Western African troops to oust the rebels from North Mali, the US promotes a longer-term “multifaceted strategy” to intervene in Mali, including political, humanitarian, environmental, and military pieces, as well as a greater role for its counterterrorism regional allies, mainly Algeria.
By Colum Lynch
Foreign Policy
December 11, 2012
DRAFT RESOLUTION [26 November 2012]
67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Agenda Item 37: Question of Palestine
Status of Palestine in the United Nations
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and stressing in this regard the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970 [Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970)], affirming, inter alia, the duty of every State to promote through joint and separate action realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights,
Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the Charter principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Reaffirming relevant Security Council resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, including, inter alia, with regard to the matter of prisoners,
Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, and all relevant resolutions, including resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011, reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to their independent State of Palestine,
Reaffirming its resolution 43/176 of 15 December 1988, resolution 66/17 of 30 November 2011, and all relevant resolutions regarding the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine”, which, inter alia, stress the need for (a) the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem; (b) the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State; (c) a just resolution of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December 1948; and (d) the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Reaffirming also its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004,
Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation, and that in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory,
Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted observer status,
Recalling its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, and decided that the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system,
Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine [A/43/928 of 9 December 1988],
Recalling its resolution 52/250 of 7 July 1998, by which additional rights and privileges were accorded to Palestine in its capacity as observer,
Recalling the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the League of Arab States,
Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,
Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Commending the Palestinian National Authority’s 2009 plan for constructing the institutions of an independent Palestinian State within a two-year period, and welcoming the positive assessments in this regard about readiness for Statehood by the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund and as reflected in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee Chair Conclusions of April 2011 and subsequent Chair Conclusions, which determined that the Palestinian Authority is above the threshold for a functioning State in key sectors studied,
Recognizing that full membership is enjoyed by Palestine in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, and the Group of Asian States and is also a full member as in the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Group of 77 and China,
Recognizing that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to the State of Palestine;
Taking note of the 11 November 2011 report of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of New Members,
Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it is satisfactorily resolved in all its aspects,
Reaffirming the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967;
2. Decides to accord to Palestine Non-member Observer State status in the United Nations, without prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization in the United Nations as the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and practice;
3. Expresses that the Security Council will consider favorably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations;
4. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States, an independent, sovereign, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security with Israel, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
5. Expresses the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap, for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues, namely the Palestine refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security and water;
6. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination, independence and freedom;
7. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to implement the present resolution and to report to the Assembly within three months on progress made in this regard.
Source: The Rights Forum
Inner City Press: Investigative Reporting from the United Nations
http://www.innercitypress.com/syria146fighters112112.html
On Wednesday alongside statements on Gaza and ceasefires, the Syrian Mission to the UN filed another letter with the Council, this time naming 143 “Foreign and Arab individuals who were killed in Syria while carrying out terrorist activities.”
Inner City Press has previously obtained and published Syria letters, for example of 108 who’d been killed.
But Syria’s November 21 list contains more nationalities, including “Qatari, Saudi, Tunisian, Egyptians, Sudanese, Libyans, Afghani, Jordanians, Turks, Yememis, Iraqi, Azerbaijani, Chechnya, Kuwaitis, Palestinians, Lebanese, Algerians, Chadian and Pakistani.”
Chechnya, of course, is not a country. Among the names on Syria’s list are Nihat Sagdic, M. Ollaz Kuvdish and Kalbind Dovca.
FULL TEXT OF DRAFT RESOLUTION PALESTINE PLANS SO SUBMIT TO UNGA | Occupied Palestine | فلسطين
http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/full-text-of-draft-resolution-palestine-plans-so-submit
FULL TEXT OF DRAFT RESOLUTION PALESTINE PLANS SO SUBMIT TO UNGA
November 10, 2012 by occupiedpalestine 0 Comments
Mitchell Plitnick Blog | Nov 10, 2012
Pasted below is the full text, as it currently stands, of the resolution the Palestinian Authority is planning to bring to the UN General Assembly, apparently on November 29.
The resolution is extremely mild, calling for the State of Palestine to be accorded the same status in the GA as the Vatican has. It also calls for a two-state solution, the resumption of talks based on the relevant resolutions and past negotiations, and for the Security Council to consider “favorably” the application for full membership submitted last year.
None of this can be considered radical or extremist, and most of it is obviously necessary if there is to be any progress toward any resolution. While it can be argued that the two-state solution has already passed the point where it can be reasonably implemented, this remains the stated goal of the US, EU, Palestinian Authority, Arab League and even Israel. It’s pretty hard to see any reasonable argument against this resolution, and even harder to see why this would send the US and Israel into the tizzy it has.
The submission of a resolution which, absent the fanaticism of the Israel Lobby, with its unshakable dedication to obstructing a better future for Israelis as well as Palestinians, and their toadies in Congress, would give President Obama a great opportunity to try to rescue the two-state solution should be cause for celebration. Yes, the passage of the resolution would potentially allow the PA access to the international legal system, but the US and Europe could probably prevent that and Israel would defy the court anyway.
There just isn’t that much to fear here, and the adoption of this resolution would give some life to a moribund peace process, and at least in a small way begin to address the imbalance in negotiating power between Israel and the Palestinians. The US should allow its adoption, though I see little chance that Obama will want to start his second term that way.
In any case, here is the resolution:
DRAFT [8 November 2012]
67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly
Agenda Item 37: Question of Palestine
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and stressing in this regard the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
Recalling its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 19701, affirming, inter alia, the duty of every
State to promote through joint and separate action realization of the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples,
Stressing the importance of maintaining and strengthening international peace founded upon
freedom, equality, justice and respect for fundamental human rights,
Recalling its resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the Charter principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force,
Reaffirming relevant Security Council resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967), 338
(1973), 446 (1979), 478 (1980), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons
in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Reaffirming its resolution 3236 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974, and all relevant resolutions, including
resolution 66/146 of 19 December 2011, reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to selfdetermination,
including the right to their independent State of Palestine,
Reaffirming its resolution 43/176 of 15 December 1988, resolution 66/17 of 30 November 2011, and
all relevant resolutions regarding the “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine”, which, inter
alia, stress the need for (a) the withdrawal of Israel from the Palestinian territory occupied since
1967, including East Jerusalem; (b) the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,
primarily the right to self-determination and the right to their independent State; (c) a just resolution
of the problem of the Palestine refugees in conformity with resolution 194 (III) of 11 December
1948; and (d) the complete cessation of all Israeli settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, including East Jerusalem,
Reaffirming also its resolution 66/18 of 30 November 2011 and all relevant resolutions regarding the
status of Jerusalem, bearing in mind that the annexation of East Jerusalem is not recognized by the
international community, and emphasizing the need for a way to be found through negotiations to
resolve the status of Jerusalem as the capital of two States,
1 Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (24 October 1970)
2
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 9 July 2004,
Reaffirming its resolution 58/292 of 6 May 2004, affirming, inter alia, that the status of the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military
occupation, and that in accordance with international law and relevant United Nations resolutions,
the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination and to sovereignty over their territory,
Recalling its resolutions 3210 (XXIX) of 14 October 1974 and 3237 (XXIX) of 22 November 1974,
by which, respectively, the Palestine Liberation Organization was invited to participate in the
deliberations of the General Assembly as the representative of the Palestinian people and was granted
observer status,
Recalling also its resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988, by which it, inter alia, acknowledged the
proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council on 15 November 1988, and
decided that the designation “Palestine” should be used in place of the designation “Palestine
Liberation Organization” in the United Nations system, without prejudice to the observer status and
functions of the Palestine Liberation Organization within the United Nations system,
Taking into consideration that the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in
accordance with a decision by the Palestine National Council, is entrusted with the powers and
responsibilities of the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine2,
Recalling its resolution 52/250 of 7 July 1998, by which additional rights and privileges were
accorded to Palestine in its capacity as observer,
Recalling the Arab Peace Initiative adopted in March 2002 by the League of Arab States,
Reaffirming its commitment, in accordance with international law, to the two-State solution of an
independent, sovereign, democratic, viable and contiguous State of Palestine living side by side with
Israel in peace and security on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
Bearing in mind the mutual recognition of 9 September 1993 between the Government of the State of
Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, the representative of the Palestinian people,
Affirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally
recognized borders,
Commending the Palestinian National Authority’s 2009 plan for constructing the institutions of an
independent Palestinian State within a two-year period, and welcoming the positive assessments in
this regard about readiness for Statehood by the World Bank, the United Nations and the
International Monetary Fund and as reflected in the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee Chair Conclusions of
April 2011 and subsequent Chair Conclusions, which determined that the Palestinian Authority is
above the threshold for a functioning State in key sectors studied,
Recognizing that full membership is enjoyed by Palestine in the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, and
2 A/43/928 of 9 December 1988
3
the Group of Asian States and is also a full member as in the League of Arab States, the Non-Aligned
Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Group of 77 and China,
Taking note of the 11 November 2011 report of the Security Council Committee on the Admission of
New Members,
Stressing the permanent responsibility of the United Nations towards the question of Palestine until it
is satisfactorily resolved in all its aspects,
Reaffirming the principle of universality of membership of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their
State of Palestine on the basis of the pre-1967 borders;
2. Recognizes that, to date, 132 States Members of the United Nations have accorded recognition to
the State of Palestine;
3. Decides to accord to Palestine Observer State status in the United Nations system, without
prejudice to the acquired rights, privileges and role of the Palestine Liberation Organization as
the representative of the Palestinian people, in accordance with the relevant resolutions and
practice;
4. Expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favorably the application submitted on
23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United
Nations;
5. Affirms its determination to contribute to the achievement of the inalienable rights of the
Palestinian people and the attainment of a peaceful settlement in the Middle East that ends the
occupation that began in 1967 and fulfills the vision of two States, an independent, sovereign,
democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine, living side by side in peace and security
with Israel and its other neighbors, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, with delineation of
borders to be determined in final status negotiations;
6. Expresses the urgent need for the resumption and acceleration of negotiations within the Middle
East peace process, based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of
reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet
Roadmap, for the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement between the
Palestinian and Israeli sides that resolves all outstanding core issues, namely the Palestine
refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, borders, security, water and prisoners;
7. Urges all States and the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system to
continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to selfdetermination,
independence and freedom;
8. Requests the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to implement the present
resolution and to report to the Assembly within three months on progress made in this regard.
Aujourd’hui, on débat au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies de la situation au Moyen-Orient y compris la question palestinienne
UN Live United Nations Webcast - Live Now - Security Council : The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question
http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/security-council:-the-situation-in-the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question/1686152121001
L’ONU s’inquiète de la direction « à éviter à tout prix » que prend le conflit israélo-palestinien
http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=29196&Cr=palestine&Cr1=
PO : le dialogue palestino-israélien irremplaçable (Moscou)
http://fr.rian.ru/world/20121015/196323202.html
La déclaration de la France vers 2:35:14
http://webtv.un.org/watch/part-1-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-security-council-6847th-meeting/1902408249001
“““““““““““““““““““““““““
Dans ce contexte, nous saluons la retenue des pays voisins de la Syrie, comme leur générosité à accueillir leurs frères syriens. La France exprime sa solidarité envers son allié turc. Elle se félicite également de l’attitude responsable des autorités et des forces armées libanaises, comme de l’ensemble de la classe politique, qui ont démontré leur volonté de préserver la stabilité du Liban. Nous ne tolérerons pas une reprise des assassinats politiques qui viendrait mettre en cause cette stabilité. Nous encourageons tous les acteurs politiques libanais à continuer de s’investir dans le processus de dialogue national relancé par le Président Sleimane.
(...)
Un an après que le Quartet a rappelé les fondements d’un processus qui devait aboutir, avant la fin 2012, à un accord final et à la création d’un Etat palestinien aux côtés d’Israël, nous en sommes plus loin que jamais :
A deux mois de l’échéance fixée, c’est la solution des deux Etats elle-même qui se trouve menacée. La poursuite de la politique de colonisation par Israël, en violation du droit international, fragilise chaque jour davantage la viabilité physique d’un futur Etat palestinien contigu. Elle menace aussi sa viabilité politique, chaque nouvelle colonie rendant plus difficile l’instauration d’un climat de confiance nécessaire pour rétablir le dialogue. Enfin, elle menace sa viabilité économique, car les contraintes structurelles qui pèsent sur le développement économique palestinien, notamment en zone C, sont la conséquence de la politique de colonisation.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““ http://www.plateforme-palestine.org/spip.php?rubrique648
Non à l’ACAA entre l’UE et Israël !
Le 23 octobre le Parlement européen doit se prononcer sur l’accord dit « ACAA ». Cet accord constituera une forme d’intégration d’Israël au sein du marché unique européen sans exigence du respect des droits de l’Homme par Israël et sans tenir compte de la politique israélienne de colonisation dans le territoire palestinien occupé.
Sudan and South Sudan: a Civilised Divorce
By Ahmed Badawi
African Arguments
October 3, 2012
Sudan and South Sudan: a Civilised Divorce
( Security Council Issues )
A landmark cooperation agreement has been signed between the governments of Sudan and South Sudan last week. After years of civil war and the shutdown of South Sudan’s oil production in January, the agreement includes the restart of oil exports and a demilitarized border zone. Despite these achievements, Washington has pointed out that both countries still need to decide on an agreement on the border areas of the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile state. However, the US economic sanctions on Sudan and its inclusion of Sudan on the US terrorism list clearly mark the US’ own national and economic interests in the region.
Divorce with kids involved is often a painful affair. But once the recriminations have been cast and the tears have dried, the two protagonists, it’s hoped, will work together for a common good: providing their children – and themselves – with a stable environment to move on and thrive. And that’s exactly what the slew of landmark cooperation agreements (see them here) just signed between the governments of the ‘Two Sudans’ represents for their respective populations, a year or so on from the birth of South Sudan.
The Hariri Tribunal on Trial | Al Akhbar English
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/hariri-tribunal-trial
The STL is the first and only international tribunal that permits trials in absentia.
A Step Towards the Dock | George Monbiot (The Guardian)
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/09/03/a-step-towards-the-dock
When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to the Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it. The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg Principles as the “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression”. This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter. Source: The Guardian
The Forgotten Palestinians
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/189-israel-palestine/51844-the-forgotten-palestinians.html
The Forgotten Palestinians
( Security Council and Israel/Palestine )
2-15-6eca7palestine
Picture Credit: ramallahonline.com
On May 15, the New York Times published an article by Aaron David Miller entitled “Preserving Israel’s Uncertain Status Quo.” Miller’s picture of Israel as a struggling democratic state facing external threats presents the usual bland confection. Miller fails to address the genuine threats that are affecting hopes for peace and promoting extremist ideas within the country: Israeli police attacks on J14 demonstrators in Tel Aviv; trends towards greater economic inequality, the expansion of the separation wall, the continued siege of the Gaza Strip; and Israel’s categorical backing of violent West Bank settlers.
By Patrick O. Strickland
Counterpunch
August 20, 2012
On May 15, the New York Times ran an editorial authored by Aaron David Miller under the title of “Preserving Israel’s Uncertain Status Quo.” Miller argues that the Israeli government’s attempts to achieve a “more peaceful and prosperous future” must “count for something.”
In his discursive analysis of the contemporary political climate, Miller unfolds an unabridged list of threats to Israel: the Israeli social justice movement, the Syrian uprising, the Egyptian ousting of Hosni Mubarak, Iran, the security vacuum in the Sinai, ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israelis, and ‘Arab Israelis’ (which is, of course, a crass euphemism intended to disavow the collective identity of Palestinian citizens of Israel).
Cataloging this exhaustive account of dangers, he resorts to a number of boorish clichés and Western media assumptions. Indeed, despite Israel’s malicious enemies, he argues, “the Israelis will prosper and keep their state, but the Arabs and the Iranians will never let them fully enjoy it.”
Brahimi confirmed as new UN Syria envoy
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/brahimi-confirmed-new-un-syria-envoy
The United Nations on Friday confirmed that veteran Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi will replace former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the international mediator on Syria as the 17-month-old conflict slides deeper into civil war.
Top Israel official : Iran nuclear threat bigger than one Israel faced before Six-Day War - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-israel-official-iran-nuclear-threat-bigger-than-one-israel-faced-before
Ainsi donc, la menace iranienne serait plus importante que celle qu’a connue Israël en juin 1967. Le seul problème avec cette formulation, c’et qu’elle occulte ce que l’on sait désormais sur la guerre de 1967 : il n’y a jamais eu de menace sur la sécurité d’Israël, l’armée israélienne le savait, mais elle voulait en découdre et casser l’Egypte de Nasser. Au point qu’elle a failli faire un coup d’Etat pour imposer cette ligne aux civils réticents, qui se sont finalement ralliés à eux. On trouvera des détails sur cette histoire dans bon nombre de livres, dont celui à paraître en novembre, du journaliste du Monde à l’époque Eric Rouleau.