organization:un security council

Geneva Document Key To End Syria Stalemate
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/geneva-agreement-syria-solution.html

Most players on either side of the battlements fear such an outcome for their own reasons. But too close or literal a reading of the Geneva understandings is unnecessary if a diplomatic outcome is favored. Assad, in his January 2013 speech and former opposition president Moaz al-Khatib, as well as Tehran, have noted interest in a political dialogue. Geneva, as Kerry himself implied in his Brussels remarks, offers the only hope of a diplomatic path that leaves the country intact. Bitter and esoteric disputes about its details in this context are all but irrelevant, and even counterproductive. Argument over the precise meaning of the text not only misses this important point but also risks discrediting the creation of an effective, joint US-Russian plan and distracting attention into fruitless debates about the real intentions of Geneva’s authors. As Kerry himself acknowledged, “you have Assad and you have the opposition, and until they come to some kind of an assessment of what they’re willing to do here, this remains a very, very difficult diplomatic initiative to achieve.”

It is enough to say that a diplomatic solution entails Washington “walking back” its pre-emptive demand for Assad’s departure and Moscow’s support for the regime’s pre-eminence. Geneva is the first way station along this road, a hesitant step in a long journey that has only just begun.

Qatar and the Five-Minute Summit – une traduction du Safir au sujet du sommet de la Ligue arabe.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/04/qatar-arab-league-summit-hegemony-syria-crisis.html

In comparison to the Libyan situation, this decision reflects a total lack of legal reasoning. When it was decided that the National Transitional Council should be granted Libya’s seat, this organization had already been recognized by the UN Security Council. The Libyan regime had already lost control of the capital city of Tripoli, as well as several other regions, all of which had been taken over by the armed opposition. Thus, all the elements of sovereign rule were in place.

The situation in Syria, however, is totally different. The regime is still present in Damascus, and many countries still recognize its legitimacy. Moreover, this regime remains the Syrian representative at the UN, and this is precisely what causes the glaring contradiction between the Arab League and the UN. Despite the fact that Qatar and its allies will act to expel the Syrian regime from the UN, there are nevertheless a number of countries which will stand in opposition to this move, for fear that the same thing could very well happen to them in the future.

Adoption du premier traité sur le commerce international des armes conventionnelles.

L’Assemblée générale de l’ONU vient d’adopter aujourd’hui le premier traité sur le commerce international des armes conventionnelles. La résolution – et donc le Traité – a recueilli 154 voix. 3 pays ont voté contre : Syrie, Corée du Nord et Iran. Plus grave, 23 pays ont choisi l’abstention dont de gros exportateurs d’armes comme la Russie et la Chine et d’importants acquéreurs comme l’Egypte, l’Inde, l’Indonésie ou le Pakistan. Chaque membre de l’ONU a la liberté désormais de signer le traité et de le ratifier. La Russie a déjà indiqué qu’elle ne le ferait pas.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013
We have an Arms Trade Treaty! But the hard work starts now...
http://armstradetreaty.blogspot.fr

On Tuesday, 2 April 2013, States gathered at the United Nations General Assembly for the adoption of the UN Arms Trade Treaty. As French President General de Gaulle famously said prior to referenda he put to the French people, “Je veux un ’oui’ massif !” And this is what was achieved today. The resolution—and thus the treaty—was adopted by an overwhelming margin: 154 votes to three with 23 abstentions.

With the benefit of “20-20 hindsight”, we should therefore heartily thank the United States for having blocked agreement at the diplomatic conference in July 2012, as the treaty text that has ultimately been adopted is much better and stronger than the draft proposed by the then-Conference President, Ambassador Moritan.
Here in the General Assembly, the treaty was considered directly in plenary meeting under Agenda Item 94 (General and Complete Disarmament). In the words of the General Assembly President, “The historic dimension of this day” is that a global arms trade treaty is “for the first time the subject of action in this Chamber.” He noted that the Conference on Disarmament had not produced significant results for more than a decade.

Conference President Peter Woolacott then took the floor. He noted that he had ruled that there was not a consensus in the Conference itself due to the objections of Iran, DPR Korea, and Syria. The final text is a compromise text but would make a difference to the broadest range of stakeholders. At this point, Costa Rica introduced the draft resolution that would adopt the treaty. The Costa Rican Ambassador stated that the treaty was a robust and balanced document.

In explanations before vote (…) Syria stated that they “were not against the treaty” but said that “we were in need of a good treaty that we will not regret later”. It had wanted a reference in the text to the right to self-determination of peoples living under foreign occupation, and specifically cited Israel in this regard. It also wanted a categorical reference to non-supply to unauthorised non-state terrorists. It did not refer to aggression. The criteria for denying exports were selective, and also represented interference in the work of the UN Security Council.

(...) Russia stated that the draft had a number of shortcomings, notably the lack of a specific prohibition on transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. It was particularly concerned about Article 6(3). Knowledge meant “full knowledge”—in Russian it would be translated as “possesses knowledge”. It would abstain in the vote.
Sudan noted the lack of a specific prohibition on transfers to unauthorised non-state actors. It regretted the lack of definitions. It would abstain in the vote.

(...) Egypt regretted the lack of consensus in the two diplomatic conferences and that a disarmament treaty was adopted by a vote. The provision of prohibitions should have included a reference to aggression. It also referred to resolutions of the Human Rights Council as being relevant for determinations of whether serious violations of human rights had occurred.

(...) China stated that it had abstained and that the process of adoption of the ATT would not constitute a precedent for future arms negotiations.

(...) The UAE welcomed the adoption of the treaty and had voted in favour of the resolution. It associated itself with the concerns to be expressed subsequently by Lebanon. It regretted the lack of a reference to the rights of people under foreign occupation.
Lebanon regretted the lack of a reference to the rights of people under foreign occupation.

(...) Iran stated that it had voted against the resolution. It had many objections (more than a dozen) to the text of the treaty, including the reference to the UN Security Council.

Statement after the vote:
The European Union stated its appreciation of the adoption of the treaty.

Lebanon speaking on behalf of the Arab Group said that they had hoped to join support for the treaty but they found that the text was not balanced.

Sommet des Brics : création d’un Sud alternatif et échec de l’Occident

http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/international/20130327trib000756303/sommet-des-brics-creation-d-un-sud-alternatif-et-echec-de-l-occident.html

A Durban, les Brics misent désormais sur l’Afrique. Leur objectif : créer une alternative, à la fois politique et économique au modèle occidental. Le continent africain, conscient de son rôle clé dans la mise en place de ce nouvel ensemble pourrait bien en être le grand gagnant.

#BRICS

Iraqi parliamentarian calls for UN to review border-defining resolution

http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/5598-iraqi-parliamentarian-calls-for-un-to-review-border-defining

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

The Korean Peninsula: Flirting with Conflict - International Crisis Group

http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/alerts/2013/north-korea-the-korean-peninsula-flirting-with-conflict.aspx

The Korean Peninsula: Flirting with Conflict
Seoul/Brussels | 13 Mar 2013

North Korea has taken a number of recent steps that raise the risks of miscalculation, inadvertent escalation and deadly conflict on the Korean peninsula. On 12 December, it launched a small satellite into orbit in defiance of UN Security Council Resolutions 1695, 1718 and 1874. The Council condemned this in Resolution 2087 (22 January). Three weeks later, Pyongyang conducted its third underground nuclear explosion. In response, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2094 (7 March) condemning the test and expanding economic sanctions. This was preceded by multiple vitriolic threats from the North. While none of this is unprecedented, the danger of unintended consequences has increased considerably. All sides need to issue more reassuring statements, exercise caution during planned military exercises and, especially, the North must avoid further blatant disregard of its international obligations.

#corée-du-sud #corée-du-nord

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.

Tensions rise on Korean peninsula - World Socialist Web Site

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/03/12/kore-m12.html

Tensions rise on Korean peninsula

By Peter Symonds
12 March 2013

Amid threats from both sides, North Korea yesterday cut the phone “hotline” between the two Koreas and abrogated the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. The move came as American and South Korean troops began joint military exercises and Washington announced new sanctions against Pyongyang.

#corée-du-nord

Wilson and Plame: The whistleblowers who waited too long to blow the whistle — War in Context
http://warincontext.org/2013/02/27/wilson-and-plame-the-whistleblowers-who-waited-too-long-to-blow-the-wh

Ten years after Colin Powell lied to the UN Security Council to help start the war on Iraq, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame recount some of the events that led to war, but the final line of their commentary is perhaps all they needed to say:

We did not do nearly enough to prevent this tragedy perpetrated on Iraq, on the world, and on ourselves.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Joe Wilson knew at that time that Bush was lying, but he waited until July 6, 2003 before speaking out.

When Valerie Plame heard Powell lying to the UNSC she kept quiet. She didn’t want to lose her job at the CIA.

How many other careerists around Washington are there, who when their consciences told them to speak out, decided to put their material and professional interests first and remain silent — even when as a consequence, hundreds of thousands of people ended up losing their lives?

Sinai remains security challenge : Eritrea complains to UNSC on killings

Eritrea has sent a complaint to the UN Security Council complaining about Egyptian security’s shoot-to-kill policy of Eritrean refugees attempting to cross illegally Egyptian borders into Israel, diplomatic sources in New York tell Ahram Online.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/65376/Egypt/Politics-/Sinai-remains-security-challenge;-Eritrea-complain.aspx

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.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-to-israel-stop-e-1-plan-or-we-ll-go-to-the-hague-1.496036

A Disaster 50 Years in The Making « Dekhnstan
http://dekhnstan.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/a-disaster-50-years-in-the-making

The notion that an ECOWAS force with the backing of the African Union, and the necessary paperwork from the UN Security Council is a recipe for disaster. Rotten and corrupt militaries, commanded by equally corrupt leaders cannot be a credible partner once the shooting starts. This line of thinking owes a lot more to post-colonial discourses than it does to the practical matter of drying out the northern Malian jihadi swamp.

The other principle complicating the matter is Africa’s biggest taboo. Today, no one is willing to recognize that Mali, like many most of Africa, is an artificial construct. Just like the Middle East’s levant, countries were created without much thought of whether they made sense for those destined to live in them. Ethnic groups, competing cultures are condemned to live in them. Maybe they will end up making sense, but just in Mali, that will cost a lot of blood and treasure.

Although the logical next step in Azawad’s history is independence, in practical policy terms, it is impossible to advocate for an Azawadi state now. A step in that direction is unlikely to gain much traction in African Union meetings is autonomy.

This is the compromise that any serious attempt to defeat Jihadism must include. after all, as the French learned a century earlier, the only tried and tested strategy to control that area is divide and conquer. Giving Azawadis incentives to repudiate Jihadism is the only way to go.

#Mali #Azawad #Touaregs

ALERT | Israel To Displace 1000 Palestinians Next Wednesday | Occupied Palestine | فلسطين
http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/alert-israel-to-displace-1000-palestinians-next-wednesd

ALERT | Israel To Displace 1000 Palestinians Next Wednesday

December 31, 2012 by occupiedpalestine 0 Comments

“Settling” constitutes a warcime according to international law and ICC statute. Even under US’ own military legislations’
Law resources below this article

Monday December 31, 2012 10:05 by Saed Bannoura – IMEMC & Agencies

Head of the Wadi Al-Maleh area, in the northern plains of the occupied West Bank, Aref Daraghma, stated that the Israeli army intends to displace around 10000 Palestinian Bedouins in the area in order to conduct military training.

bedouins_tent[1]
Image By PNN

Daraghma said that the Israeli army handed written military orders to the residents stating that they should leave as the soldiers will be using live ammunition in military drills in the area, the Palestine News Network (PNN) reported.

He added that the grazing area, inhabited by the shepherds, includes Wadi Al-Maleh, Ein Al-Hilwa, Al-Faw Valley, Al-Meeta, Al-Borj, and other villages.

The army informed the residents that they have until the morning of this coming Wednesday before the army conducts its trainings in the northern plains.

Israel performed similar military drills in the areas last summer forcing dozens of families to leave their homes seeking shelter in other areas until all drills were concluded.

Thousands of Palestinians have been displaced and repeatedly removed from the area since Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967. Israel also demolished dozens of entire villages inhabited by Bedouins and shepherds.

LAW

“States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy.”

Summary

State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts.
International armed conflicts

The prohibition on deporting or transferring parts of a State’s own civilian population into the territory it occupies is set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention.[1]

It is a grave breach of Additional Protocol I.[2]

Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “the transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.[3]

Many military manuals prohibit the deportation or transfer by a party to the conflict of parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.[4]

This rule is included in the legislation of numerous States.[5]

Official statements and reported practice also support the prohibition on transferring one’s own civilian population into occupied territory.[6]

Attempts to alter the demographic composition of an occupied territory have been condemned by the UN Security Council.[7]

In 1992, it called for the cessation of attempts to change the ethnic composition of the population, anywhere in the former Yugoslavia.[8]

Similarly, the UN General Assembly and UN Commission on Human Rights have condemned settlement practices.[9]

According to the final report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements, “the implantation of settlers” is unlawful and engages State responsibility and the criminal responsibility of individuals.[10]

In 1981, the 24th International Conference of the Red Cross reaffirmed that “settlements in occupied territory are incompatible with article 27 and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.[11]

In the Case of the Major War Criminals in 1946, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg found two of the accused guilty of attempting the “Germanization” of occupied territories.[12]

References

[1] Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, sixth paragraph (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 38, § 334).

[2] Additional Protocol I, Article 85(4)(a) (adopted by consensus) (ibid., § 335).

[3] ICC Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(viii) (ibid., § 336).

[4] See, e.g., the military manuals of Argentina (ibid., §§ 346–347), Australia (ibid., § 348), Canada (ibid., § 349), Croatia (ibid., § 350), Hungary (ibid., § 351), Italy (ibid., § 352), Netherlands (ibid., § 353), New Zealand (ibid., § 354), Spain (ibid., § 355), Sweden (ibid., § 357), Switzerland (ibid., § 357), United Kingdom (ibid., § 358) and United States (ibid., § 359).

[5] See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 361), Australia (ibid., §§ 362–363), Azerbaijan (ibid., §§ 364–365), Bangladesh (ibid., § 366), Belarus (ibid., § 367), Belgium (ibid., § 368), Bosnia and Herzegovina (ibid., § 369), Canada (ibid., §§ 371–372), Congo (ibid., § 373), Cook Islands (ibid., § 374), Croatia (ibid., § 375), Cyprus (ibid., § 376), Czech Republic (ibid., § 377), Germany (ibid., § 379), Georgia (ibid., § 380), Ireland (ibid., § 381), Mali (ibid., § 384), Republic of Moldova (ibid., § 385), Netherlands (ibid., § 386), New Zealand (ibid., §§ 387–388), Niger (ibid., § 390), Norway (ibid., § 391), Slovakia (ibid., § 392), Slovenia (ibid., § 393), Spain (ibid., § 394), Tajikistan (ibid., § 395), United Kingdom (ibid., §§ 397–398), Yugoslavia (ibid., § 399) and Zimbabwe (ibid., § 400); see also the draft legislation of Argentina (ibid., § 360), Burundi (ibid., § 370), Jordan (ibid., § 382), Lebanon (ibid., § 383) and Trinidad and Tobago (ibid., § 396).

[6] See, e.g., the statements of Kuwait (ibid., § 405) and United States (ibid., §§ 406–407) and the reported practice of Egypt (ibid., § 402) and France (ibid., § 403).

[7] See, e.g., UN Security Council, Res. 446 , 452 and 476 (ibid., § 408), Res. 465 (ibid., § 409) and Res. 677 (ibid., § 410).

[8] UN Security Council, Res. 752 (ibid., § 411).

[9] See, e.g., UN General Assembly, Res. 36/147 C, 37/88 C, 38/79 D, 39/95 D and 40/161 D (ibid., § 412) and Res. 54/78 (ibid., § 405); UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2001/7 (ibid., § 413).

[10] UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Final report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements (ibid., § 415).

[11] 24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Res. III (ibid., § 419).

[12] International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Case of the Major War Criminals, Judgement (ibid., § 421).

Dedefensa.org : Paroles de Lavrov et réalités syriennes (et chimiques)
http://www.dedefensa.org/article-paroles_de_lavrov_et_r_alit_s_syriennes_et_chimiques_25_12_2012.h

(...)
Lavrov leur dit que les Occidentaux (notre “bloc BAO”) prient pour que les Russes et les Chinois continuent à bloquer toute résolution de l’ONU autorisant l’emploi de la force en Syrie, simplement parce que personne, malgré les discours interventionnistes-humanitaristes, n’a vraiment envie d’y tremper son doigt de pied et que tous les gouvernements du bloc BAO savent que si une telle résolution, qu’ils auraient introduite sur la pression de forces indistinctes auxquelles ils ne cessent de céder, était votée, ils se trouveraient dans l’obligation d’intervenir, toujours sous la pression de ces mêmes forces relayées par des groupes de pression bien plus irresponsables et chaotiques qu’ils ne sont en général décrits… (Sur Russia Today, le 23 décembre 2012.)

(...)
Sur ce dernier point (le blocage de la guerre), de plus en plus d’avis rejoignent celui des Russes, et particulièrement celui d’officiels israéliens de la défense. D’une façon générale, Israël tend de plus en plus à épouser les appréciations des Russes, aussi bien sur la position et les intentions d’Assad, que sur l’évolution de la situation en Syrie si Assad s’en allait, que sur la “sécurisation” des armements chimiques, contrairement à ce que l’analyse générale du bloc BAO laissait entendre il y a deux et trois semaines.

(...)
L’armement chimique syrien, autre vaste sujet qui a beaucoup été agité ces dernières semaines, et à propos duquel les Russes ont été ridiculisés parce que, seuls parmi tous, ils ont refusé de partager les alarmes du bloc BAO sur l’imminent usage de cet armement par le régime Assad (“contre sa propre population” précisaient évidemment, avec horreur, les chroniqueurs parisiens). Désormais, au contraire, ce sont, comme en tant d’autres aspects de la situation syrienne, les Russes qui ont la côte. Tout le monde en vient à partager leurs analyses selon lesquelles Assad contrôle parfaitement son arsenal et n’a absolument pas l’intention de l’utiliser contre qui que ce soit.
(...)

North Korea Still Has Long Way to Go to Produce Viable Weapon, Say Experts

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202-sanctions/52148-north-korea-still-has-long-way-to-go-to-produce-viable-weapon-sa

The Pyongyang leadership has completed a successful rocket launch, which placed a satellite into orbit. According to the North Korean government, the satellite serves for weather and crop monitoring. As the launch technology is very similar to that required for ballistic missiles, the UN Security Council has condemned the move as a violation of resolutions 1718 and 1874, which prohibit North Korea from launching ballistic missiles. Experts on the North Korean nuclear program assert that Pyongyang is yet to develop reasonable target accuracy and to acquire a nuclear weapon that is small enough to fit on a missile. Nevertheless, this recent development intensifies concerns over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

By Tania Branigan
Guardian
December 12, 2012

No Victory for Palestine: Abbas’ Farewell Speech at the UN | As‘ad AbuKhalil
http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/angry-corner/no-victory-palestine-abbas%E2%80%99-farewell-speech-un

Despite US influence over EU’s foreign policy, the international public opinion in favor of Palestine was revealed to the world. The US has always wanted to cover up the reality of international popular public support for Palestine. The US was isolated with eight other countries in voting “no”. It was only Israel, the US, Canada, Panama, Czech Republic, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau that voted against the Palestinian membership.

The Arab world will get to see yet again that the US is what stands in the way of Palestinian liberation. Arab countries and the PA will work hard to portray what happened as a great victory. It is not. This is largely a symbolic measure that only helps to illustrate the global sympathy for the Palestinian struggle for liberation.

The real struggle for liberation will continue and it won’t be taking place on the territory of New York City.

Erdoğan Says All Countries Should Be Permanent Members of UNSC

http://www.globalpolicy.org/home/226-initiatives/52069-erdoan-says-all-countries-should-be-permanent-members-of-unsc.ht

Most initiatives to reform the UN Security Council have focused on increasing the number of permanent members in order to better represent today’s geopolitical balance of power. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan now proposes to go beyond the division between “permanent” and “non-permanent” members by arguing that “if there should be permanent members, then all members of the UN should be permanent members, because the UN Charter says, big or small, all member countries are equal.” For this reason, he considers that “permanent” membership should rotate among countries on an annual basis.

Today’s Zaman

November 9, 2012

From Here to Timbuktu - The Story of Mali’s Descent Into Disaster

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/190-issues/51977-from-here-to-timbuktu-the-story-of-malis-descent-into-disaster.h

By Evelyn Leopold
Huffington Post
October 9, 2012

This Huffington Post article heatedly discusses the situation in Mali and the UN’s response to the crisis in the Sahel. According to the article, the situation in northern Mali is currently in the hands of “brutal and radical” Islamic groups, with ties to al Qaeda, who are destroying monuments and torturing civilians. ECOWAS is putting together a military force to help “liberate” the north of the country and has asked the UN Security Council for support. However, the crisis in Mali should not be seen as a product of Al Qaeda’s “atrocities” but as an outcome of the country’s rampant poverty and deeply rooted political and local inequalities, as well as the spillover from other conflicts in the region.

#mali #sahel

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.

Très intéressant : comment le plan Annan a été sabordé dès le début. Why Kofi Annan had enough over Syria. L’épisode du Communiqué de Genève est très parlant.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/why-kofi-annan-enough-over-syria

In short, the communique appeared to move the US, Britain and France, as well as Turkey and Qatar, which also attended the Geneva meeting, to an even-handed stance at last. It marked Kofi Annan’s finest hour as the UN and Arab League’s special envoy.

A few days later, Russia circulated a draft resolution at the UN in New York to endorse the new approach. It urged member-states to work in the co-operative spirit of the Geneva text, extend the UN monitors’ team in Syria and press for a ceasefire. Then came the spanner. Britain, France and the US proposed a rival resolution with the one-sided elements that provoked earlier Russian and Chinese vetoes – punishment of Assad if he did not comply, threats of new sanctions, no word of pressure on the opposition and veiled hints of eventual military force by referring to chapter seven of the UN charter.

Pour mémoire, le Communiqué de Genève du 30 juin 2012 :
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo/syrie/la-france-et-la-syrie/evenements-4439/article/reunion-du-groupe-d-action-pour-la

EU-Israel: One hand whitewashes the other - Ben White
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201287194144393945.html

While those on the hard right portray the EU as representing a continent of anti-Semitic Israel-bashers on the path to “Eurabia”, the reality is that the EU is one of Israel’s most important allies - whose policies are playing a crucial role in frustrating the Palestinian struggle for justice.

The problem in a nutshell - a gaping disparity between rhetoric and deeds - was exemplified recently by the contrast between a European Parliament resolution on the one hand, and plans to enhance economic ties on the other.

Annan quits UN Syria role
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/annan-quits-un-syria-role

Kofi Annan has quit as UN-Arab League peace envoy for Syria, citing ongoing “finger pointing and name calling” at the UN Security Council between world powers, which has only accentuated the crisis.

Humanitarian Military Intervention in #Syria? Who is Behind the Atrocities?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20120730&articleId=32117

In the wake of the UN Security Council face-off with Russia and China, a new dangerous phase of the war on Syria is unfolding. The Obama administration, in liaison with London, Paris, Tel Aviv and NATO headquarters in Brussels, is mulling over various military “intervention options”, including the conduct of both naval and air operations in support of “opposition” rebel forces on the ground.

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 1 (Russia) (english version)
http://www.matthewvandyke.com/blog/russian-chinese-arms-sales-authoritarian-regimes-russia

Arabic version
http://freesyriantranslators.net/2012/05/23/%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D8%A3%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%A9-%D8%B1%D9%8

#News Russia pushes for big Syria meeting, not sanctions - Firstpost http://bit.ly/MrWQPf #Syria #Damascus