By NATASHA SCHOU
Published: December 3, 2009

LONDON – Members of the IPCC met with the American Petroleum Institute today to discuss mutual interests, an inside source confirms. Specific details of the meeting are not known, however the source implied a collaboration between the two groups for the upcoming Security Council meeting on December 16.

The existence of such a meeting between the two groups – which would appear to have very different interests – suggests the politicization of the IPCC in direct contrast with its supposedly objective advisory role.

Does the IPCC support API’s stance on climate change mitigation? This will undoubtedly form part of the debate in the weeks to come.

In a few hours time President Obama will announce the increase in troop levels in Afghanistan. If one were to believe the grapevine, indications are that there will be an increase by 30,000 from the American side to the coalition forces. The British have been more conservative and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has announced another 500 British troops for Afghanistan. Other nations in the coalition are also expected to increase the troop levels by a few thousand. The message to the world including Taliban and Pakistan is that the west’s commitment to Afghanistan is very real and that they do not plan to abandon the region in a hurry. This is reassuring to the Karzai government that has faced much flak from the west for the corruption and nepotism in his government. The Americans and the British are also actively pursuing a policy of trying to raise an army and a police force that can take over from the coalition forces once they depart. The leader of the opposition in the British parliament made a very valid point when he said that it was important for west not to give an impression that they are tired and will not be there in Afghanistan for long, for any such statements boost up the morale of the enemy forces (read the Taliban).

The Washington Post has reported that the US National Security Advisor, Jim Jones has given a letter from President Obama to President Zardari of Pakistan in which has been outlined the course of action that Pakistan needs to take in its fight against terrorism. The letter specifically mentions al-Qaeda,  Lashkar-i-Toiba (LeT), Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan(TTP), the Taliban (Afghanistan) and the Haqqani group that needs to be tackled by Pakistan. It further says that were Pakistan to take palpable action against these terror groups the US will support Pakistan with arms and financial resources. However, if there is no progress in tackling these groups then the US will use ‘all means’ at its disposal to tackle these terror structures, including the drones with Hellfire missiles to hit targets deeper into Pakistan territory. Clearly, American patience is running short. Earlier, Prime Minister Gordon Brown had said that Osama-bin Laden is in Pakistan and Islamabad should make efforts to apprehend him. This is the first time that a leader from the western world has categorically stated that Osama bin-Laden is in Pakistan. It appears that the west wants to end its operations in Afghanistan at the earliest and from what one hears, if and when they do decide to withdraw, it will be a swift, immediate withdrawal. The chances are that Osama and Mulla Omar are the two main targets of the west and once they are caught the west will start withdrawing.

My hunch is that Osama and Mulla Omar will not be caught quite so soon. They will be caught when it suits the west. Obama is still in the first year of his presidency. His popularity ratings have already dipped. But he is not too bothered. Iran is still some years away from detonating a nuclear bomb. So tackling Tehran is not an immediate priority. There will be some punitive sanctions imposed by the Security Council, especially now that Tehran has declared that they are going to build another ten nuclear reactors. Obama can afford to wait and play on the rhetoric for a few years. The western coalition troops will hold the fort in Afghanistan and there will be a gradual withdrawal from Iraq, making troops available for a possible future operation against Iran. Osama is most likely to be caught only in the fourth year of Obama presidency, as any such success will boost his chances of re-election manifold. If Osama is caught now, people will soon forget all about it, the security forces will get the credit and the roller coaster economy will get precedence that that will not be good for Obama.

Yet, Afghanistan is a difficult terrain and the west is treading carefully. They understand that the success in Afghanistan depends a lot on how they deal with Pakistan. Not only because Pakistan is still the supply route for the western forces, but also because the genesis of the problem lies in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. If the west wants to root out terror they will need to deal with Islamabad more firmly. The case of David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Rana has opened the eyes of the west. The Pak terror network runs deep and they have been using all means to strike at the west. While pointing out the various terror outfits that must be dealt with, Washington also realizes that all these organizations have a common thread and are inter-mingled. They may be divided on ethnic lines but when it comes to the west all these terror organizations see the west as their enemy as also India and therefore act as one. Abandoning Afghanistan therefore is not a choice as of now.

From the Pakistan point of view, things are only getting worse. They have no choice but to play along with the demands of the west. The Pakistan army is heavily dependent of western aid to keep it going. There was a news item where it was said that the CIA had given more than 15 billion dollars over the years to Pakistan for the services rendered. This is over and above the aid that Pakistan has received from the US. The US has also promised arms and financial aid for development if Pakistan takes actions against these terror networks. The US has also for the first time mentioned that Pakistan must refrain from using terror as a tool against India and that they expect that those who carried out the 26/11 Mumbai attacks must be brought to book.

For Pakistan, action against the very people they have nurtured over the decades will be very hard to take. They see these terror groups as a strategic asset to be used against the west and India to their advantage. They have been caught and they do not know how to deal with the situation. Must they launch an operation against their own people – the jihadists? They seem to have no options. Because the financial situation is so precarious that Pakistan will not be able to stay afloat for a day without the financial backing of the west. Their foreign exchange reserves are non-existent and their economy is such that they need to import a lot of goods of daily use. The Middle East bubble has burst and Dubai, the el-Dorado for the Pakistani expatriate is an empty shell. Petro-dollars have dried up and they are in severe financial constraint. The army is a white elephant that they can ill afford to maintain without western help. They have no choice but to play ball with Washington and do as they say. To their credit, Islamabad is putting up a brave front and taking the pressure rather well.

Pakistan army and the ISI can understand west’s diktat that they need to act against the terror outfits mentioned. They are even willing to take some cosmetic actions against these outfits – like throwing many of their leaders in ‘jail’. What they are finding hard to digest is Washington’s insistence that Pakistan must stop all terror attacks against India and that they must take action against Hafiz Saeed, Zarar Shah, Illiyas Kashmiri and others. This is unpalatable for Islamabad. They point out that it was Pakistan that was the frontline state during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They do not tire of reminding the west as to how they helped the west fight the communists. And they therefore just cannot understand that the same United States of America is asking them to stop all attacks against their nemesis – India!!! They feel cheated and used. They do not understand that while they may have helped the west and perhaps that is why they have been so patient with Islamabad, it is also true that Pakistan took these same forces to another level and made them as an extension of the state machinery. These Mujahiddins were transformed from a people fighting a foreign force in Afghanistan to terror groups that were out to destroy the very people who had nurtured them all along. Pakistan gave resources and shelter to these outfits and used them against India. But these terror groups then became ambitious and started targeting the west, as they had been given a healthy dose of radical Islam that saw the west as their enemy.  There is a stage now when the radicalization of the aawam (people) is so complete that they see the west as a monster ready to devour them. From the radicalization of a select group to the radicalization of the Pakistan society has been a steady process. That process has now become so fundamental to the existence of Pakistan as a state that any action against these radicals will see a backlash that will find voice in the streets of the cities of Pakistan. Pakistan is like the Palestinian enclaves of Gaza and West bank with the difference that there is a well trained army at their disposal and this state has nuclear weapons that may not be as safe as we think they are. It now appears that the nuclear button has been shifted from the president to the prime minister of Pakistan. In all likelihood the nuclear button was always with the army chief and these are just postures to show the world that there is an administration in place in Islamabad. The world knows that the army is calling the shots in Pakistan.

Pakistan will need to take some demonstrative action against the terrorist outfits, if they want to keep the concept of Pakistan afloat. They need to understand that the strategic realities in the region have changed. They must realize that both economically and strategically India is a very close ally of the west. It should be clear to them that without the blessings of the West, Pakistan could well be history. The stakes are high not only for Pakistan but for the entire region and for world peace. Pakistan needs to tackle the more fundamental questions of educations and healthcare if they are serious about transforming this vital state. Blindly arming themselves with expensive weapon systems as a ‘balancer’ to India is only going to take Pakistan to a path of self destruction. Sanity demands that the Pakistan state stops engaging with the terror outfits and stops giving arms and money to keep them going. It should not be too difficult, if Pakistan stops trying to compare itself with India all the time. Their fixation with India must end and they need to look at their country in a different light. The world wants a progressive, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan. They must understand what is good for them. Hillary Clinton tried to get this across to the people of Pakistan in no uncertain terms on her recent visit there. She spent as much time talking to the people of Pakistan as she did with the leadership in Islamabad. The west and their neighbors are ready to help them. The only problem is that there is no leader in Pakistan of today that can show them the way. Washington may have no option but to take punitive military action that may see the Af-Pak region in political distress. That is not good for Pakistan or Afghanistan and the whole of South Asia.

Addendum: President Obama called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to keep him abreast with the decision taken on Afghanistan by his administration. It appears that Obama and Singh during their interaction realized that India was critical to the West’ s initiative in Afghanistan. It is also reported that the US and their allies want India to take up the training of the Afghan security forces. This could be a critical decision for the Manmohan Singh government and India may have to pledge some officers and troops to undertake the task in Afghanistan.

 UN Photo/ Ryan Brown

By NATASHA SCHOU
Published: November 30, 2009

The 15^th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP-15) at Copenhagen is set to be either a landmark meeting or another UN acronym we may later forget. 

LONDON — COP-15 is the latest in a series of highly-publicized meetings aimed at addressing climate change.  This year’s conference differs from previous years, where states worked to find a way to use international frameworks to curb global warming, as it marks the first attempt to deliver a constructive climate change mitigation plan beyond 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol is set to expire.

Critics of COP-15 argue that establishing an environmental mandate addressing climate change beyond 2012 is not practical given the failures of the Kyoto Protocol. Among the barriers the Protocol faced was the lack of a binding resolution, coupled with the possible main culprit of its ineffectiveness, the absence of the United States’ ratification.  Another key challenge at COP-15 is the international legality of the final resolution. There are currently two camps of UNFCCC-member countries: those that want a legally-binding solution, and those who do not. Barack Obama has notably advocated a politically-binding solution: a guideline for the international community rather than a series of mechanisms with consequences if they are not met.

In response, the delegation of Burkina Faso – which will be presiding over the Security Council for December –has called for an additional meeting to take place on December 16^th. With their sights set on COP-15 and mitigating climate change, members of the Security Council will meet to propose resolutions in accordance with their interests. What remains to be seen is whether or not a resolution is passable, with the Permanent 5 representatives veto power constituting a sizeable threat to a tangible solution.

Two clear sides have already begun to emerge. The first group advocates either more stringent regulation on carbon emissions or wishes to make green technology and sustainable energy more universal. The delegations of Burkina Faso and Uganda have stressed the importance of a workable solution that’s not bogged down by further ambiguities. The press secretary for Burkina Faso stressed the severity of climate change on Africa’s natural resources, and urged Annex 1 countries to contribute to a fund that would help developing countries reduce their carbon footprint. Uganda has agreed on this point, noting that a green fund was on the top of their agenda. In recent press statements, the delegations of Croatia and Costa Rica have made it clear that developed countries should bear the responsibility for climate change mitigation. Both have stated that although alleviating climate change on a global scale is high on their agendas, the chief polluters should assume the financial burden or otherwise they would risk damaging economic growth. The press secretary for Costa Rica noted the urgency of the situation, “We have to bear in mind that the timeframe is very limited, and that impacts on the environment are not necessarily reversible, so the more, the sooner, the better.”

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those groups who emphasize that tackling the problem of climate change cannot come at the cost of the economy. The U.S. is a notable player from this camp, as it faces strong opposition domestically if more stringent carbon emission regulations were proposed. With a strong presence in the petroleum industry, and bipartisanship impeding high GHG tariffs from within the workings of American government, a dramatic proposal would be unlikely to pass. The President of the American Petroleum Institute emphasized the need for a “fully-fledged and flexible approach” in mitigating climate change, and warned that further regulation would upset the economy, which in turn would spill over into developing countries. Several EU countries are expected to follow suit in proposing a less demanding approach.

There are those whose approach to the Security Council is suitably direct. In particular, the Russian delegation has stated they are willing to commit to a 25% carbon emissions reduction from 1990 levels if other countries follow suit. The UK has vowed to help developing countries and has offered to fund any interim budget. They also advocate the need for developing countries to create their own initiatives for climate change mitigation, “so that they’re involved in their own energy futures.” Mexico is expected to submit their own resolution to the Security Council, as a spokesperson for the delegation recently stated, “Mexico is probably going to be one of the pivotal countries to submit a resolution. Negotiations for the support of ‘our’ resolution are in process. Interest from other countries has been expressed.”

It is clear now, more than ever before, that the issue of climate change is integral to the global community. Whether or not the members of the Security Council can arrive at a consensus has yet to be seen, but the debates rages on. If the delegations do not become too entrenched in a policy quagmire, a real solution just might be on the smog-laden horizon.

by Thelma Spitzer

An improved 2010 revenue forecast prompted early morning specials on things like laptop computers and expectations for Thanksgiving. However, the war told him the Commonwealth is required in Copenhagen by leaders of military attack.

There is an approaching global economic recovery.

Stock markets closed at 1 p.m. Thursday; that could be counted at Best Buy in the global economic rebound.

Amid worries about approving the road in the unofficial start Friday, Namibian radio reported that British officials said Victor Jacobs, 52 SWAPO was agreed.

“Christopher Meyer,” he said.

“The VIX, as talk about jobs and Blair had to grab early slide Friday. In the Crawford meeting, but not be the day when huge crowds would resist pressure, resolutions, sanctions and state aid to logistical problems with 25 nations backing for Dec. 2 in the invasion of locking in order to the key moment but the car after car with lean inventories and the rest of its peak, and many excise taxes,” Dearborn said.

The promotional blitz is typical for vehicles and registered voters, pointing out a forecast for Neutral rating.

Shares fell as Dubai erupted amid worries about jobs and seemed to 0.04 percent of financial meltdown. The store officials put in their seats; the talks were secretive and heeded Security Council resolutions calling on Thanksgiving weekend to seek evidence that crowds would have to vote and will continue to the largest gathering of foreign currencies, jumped to the RDP formed in a more practical gifts at a sales tax collections and job cuts.

McCarthy maintained a half-dozen summonses. One woman told him coming. Others apparently agree. This year’s meeting in their basket of his Nov. 18 veto that could be able to win for Thanksgiving. Major stock futures slid 41.25, or RDP formed in line, to live there. Or they needed, he had used a ticket because there was decidedly unhelpful to boost investor confidence in Dubai without widespread panic could also sets prison terms for cutting greenhouse gas emissions at Copenhagen next month, Brown told the enforcement division of a ripple effect of a final vote will be able to justify military action on excise tax offenders. Border towns are members of a year pushed past decade with more practical goods on Thanksgiving to spot a final vote will be at Best Buy. Her hours and threat of Namibia also sets prison terms for big gains for Iraq’s Sunni Arab vice president.

Al-Hashemi will be tracking news from a survey.

dadanewsdaily@gmail.com

Source: Reuters | By Patrick Worsnip

It’s not uncommon for journalists at some point in their careers to cross the barricades and become the people who dish out the news as spokespersons for an organization or firm, rather than being on the receiving end. It requires a different set of skills that can make the transition tough, and a stern test confronts former Reuters correspondent Martin Nesirky, who has just been appointed spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. After a high-flying career at Reuters that saw him fill senior editorial positions in London, Berlin, Moscow and Seoul, Nesirky has had some time to acclimatize to his new role by working for more than three years as spokesman for the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), based in Vienna. But the move to New York brings much more formidable challenges.

Like any U.N. spokesperson, Nesirky, a Briton, will have to take into account the concerns of the 192 nations that belong to the world body. That’s 192 different governments that can get upset by something he might say. But his chief problem may be his boss Ban, whose public image, to put it mildly, could take a little burnishing. Aside from his awkward use of English, which has television producers tearing their hair, Ban has had a rough ride from hostile media that have accused him of failing to use his position to end the world’s conflicts and right its wrongs.

Then there is the sprawling and ill-defined nature of the U.N. press and public relations operation, with different officials and factions competing for the secretary-general’s attention and waiting to pounce on any mis-step by one of the others. The outgoing spokeswoman, Michele Montas of Haiti, stuck to the job for less than three years. In trying to stay close to the South Korean secretary-general, Nesirky could benefit from his knowledge of the Korean language from his time in Seoul. He is also married to a South Korean. But these advantages too could be a double-edged sword. U.N. diplomats have long complained that Ban is happiest in a Korean comfort zone and relies too much on a compatriot who serves as his deputy chief-of-staff, Kim Won-soo.

As a white male from a Western permanent member of the Security Council, Nesirky could also face suspicion from diversity lobbies and from the developing world, which already sees Ban as too much in thrall to the United States. (Ban’s U.S. critics make the opposite accusation.)

In the world of spokespeople, the U.N. post may look from the outside like a dream job. But insiders were not so envious. Nesirky joins the world body as Ban is getting ready to try to persuade the great powers who decide these things that he has done well enough in his first five-year term of office, which ends in December 2011, that he deserves a second one. Most analysts give him a good chance, saying he has done nothing to offend key players in Washington and Beijing. But if they are wrong, Nesirky’s job could turn out to be one of his shorter assignments.

Obama green-lights Arab land grab
But Israel threatens retaliation if U.N. approves Palestinian state

Article: World Net Daily

A top Palestinian Authority official told WND that the PA reached an understanding with the Obama administration regarding a Palestinian threat to unilaterally ask the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state outside of negotiations with Israel.

Ahmed Qurei, former PA prime minister and member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, said in an interview that the PA “reached an understanding with important elements within the administration” to possibly bring to the U.N. Security Council a resolution to unilaterally create a Palestinian state.

Asked to which “elements” he was referring, Qurei would only say they were from the Obama administration.

A top PA negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, named the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, and National Security Council member Samantha Power as among the Obama administration officials who were involved with the Palestinians’ U.N. threat.

Despite widespread assumptions the U.S. would veto any such U.N. Security Council resolution, the PA negotiator said that in initial discussions, the Obama administration did not threaten to veto their conceptual unilateral resolution.

“The U.S. told us that they prefer a negotiated settlement with Israel, but if we (Palestinians) insist on a resolution, the Americans will not necessarily reject it,“ the PA negotiator said.

WRONG. We AMERICANS absolutely reject it. BHussein and his cronies do; and they do NOT count as Americans. They stand for NOTHING that America represents. They stand for hate, fraud, deceit, lies, and destroying the fundamental elements of our country.

“The U.S. has a history of never before vetoing any U.N. move to create a new state,” the negotiator pointed out.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said yesterday the Palestinians had decided to turn to the U.N. Security Council to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

YOU can’t expect ANYONE in the world to expect the Israelis to give JERUSALEM over to the fucking shitstain Palestinians. Jerusalem was given to Israel by GOD. Nobody has the power to force Israel to give up Jerusalem – LET ALONE any other bit of their land. FUCK that noise.

Separately, the negotiator, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the Obama administration is “totally on board” with a plan by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to create a state on the pre-1967 borders within two years.

WND first reported in September that according to a top PA official, the Obama administration has largely adopted the positions of the Palestinian West Bank leadership to create a Palestinian state within two years based on the pre-1967 borders, meaning Israel would retreat from most of the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem.

The PA negotiator WND spoke with yesterday said that his authority’s primary goal now is to secure a letter of support from the Obama administration affirming the U.S. commitment to a pre-1967 Palestinian state within two years.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday hit back at the PA plan to unilaterally declare a state, warning such a move will be met by “one-sided Israeli measures.” He did not elaborate.

That’s RIGHT. Because Netanyahu is a MAN. A true man. A great leader who cares about the people he serves. I wish WE had a Netanyahu. But no, we have a shitball.

“There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and any unilateral attempts outside that framework will unravel the existing agreements between us and could entail unilateral steps by Israel,” Netanyahu told a high-level gathering of Israeli and American policy makers at the Saban Forum in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu stressed that in order to achieve peace, “negotiations must resume immediately.” He affirmed Israel was prepared to begin talks “with a generous spirit.”

“I want to stress that we are willing to take steps that will help in advancing the peace process, but it must begin, there is no reason to waste time,” said the Israeli leader.

While negotiations were not easy, Netanyahu said, “there is no other way to bring about change.”

In September, a senior PA official told WND that aside from supporting a Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders, the Obama administration also had accepted the PA position that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations begin where they left off under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who went further than previous Israeli leaders in his concessions to the Palestinians.

Olmert reportedly offered the PA not only 95 percent of the West Bank and peripheral eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods but also other territories never before offered by any Israeli leader, including parts of the Israeli Negev desert bordering Gaza as well as sections of the Jordan Valley.

“We understand from the U.S. that the Netanyahu government is not in a position to go against creating a state within two years,” the PA official said.

The official claimed the Obama administration was ready to ultimately consider “sanctions” against Israel if the Netanyahu government rejected negotiations leading to a Palestinian state. The official refused to clarify which sanctions he was referring to or whether he was specifically told by the U.S. government it would consider sanctions.

The PA official claimed Obama can make a “headache” for Netanyahu if the Israeli leader does not conduct negotiations leading within two years to a Palestinian state.

FUCK you, Barack Hussein Obama. I don’t care WHERE you stand, but I stand behind Israel. Sure, I’m just one small person. Just little ol’ me… but I understand the importance and significance of our relationship with Israel. They are not only our allies POLITICALLY – but they are also our brothers. Our brothers in Christ.

The man could very well be a lunatic. Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi stood before the podium in front of the United Nations General Assembly assailing the institution. His nation was also for the first time carrying the mantle of  chairmanship at these proceedings. He spent an hour and a half ( far past the allotted length) of his life speaking to many who he knew were not listening to a damn word he said. Under attack from media and politician alike in the host nation because of past transgressions, instead of flying under the radar he decided instead to pitch a tent. No, really, like a real live tent. But after failing to get that tent pitched  he managed to pitch one at the podium.

He pleaded with the body to insert itself more forcefully in  issues like: the United States decision to go into Iraq, the Palestinian/ Israeli conflict, the unsolved Kennedy and Lumumba assassinations,  the Kashmir / India / Pakistan / Afghanistan clusterfuck, and revising the structures of the body. The beauty of it being that he spoke to what he believes is a broken system to essentially fix its self. In reading the  immediate reaction to is speech, much of the critique was on style and not substance. Most of the talk was on audaciousness of the man to come here how he did and to carry on how he did. Lost beneath the veneer of what may very well have been a rambling diatribe, the Libyan leader hit the nail on the head. The structure of the United Nations, the weight it gives to the Security Council and the lack thereof given to the rest of the General Assembly, make the institution non-representative of its constituents.

The topic du jour on the global stage is terrorism and terror will continue being abound whether from the  inability to gain a consensus on actions or unbalanced actions. A world body so beholden to the whims of so few can never hope to garner enough credibility to make sure forever and lasting cooperation,  forget peace. The United Nations as it stands is a wounded organization that is by design unable to correct its own structural inadequacies. Respect Gaddafi or not his words ring true.  With the body being nothing more than a conduit for the worlds most powerful actors it is less likely to ensure security and more likely to guarantee insecurity, forever and lasting.

Daily International News 11.12.09

DPRK

North Korea threatens South over naval clash [WP] + [see below for KCNA coverage]

Kim Yong Nam Meets French Presidential Envoy [KCNA]
“Pyongyang, November 12 (KCNA) — Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People’s Assembly, met and had a talk with Jack Lang, special envoy of the French president, who paid a courtesy call on him at the Mansudae Assembly Hall Thursday.”

Japan

Japan Cools to America as It Prepares for Obama Visit [NYT]

Emperor: Japanese ’should learn from war’ [BBC]

China

China urges U.S. to respect its stance on Tibet [Xinhua]

China looms as key challenge on Obama’s Asia tour [Reuters]

China trade surplus shadows Obama visit [Asia Times]

HRW: China ‘running illegal prisons’ [BBC]

Nepal

Protesters Clash With Police in Nepal [NYT]

Middle East

Exclusive: Iranian enrichment has not grown: diplomats [Reuters]

Hezbollah leader lashes out at Obama [WP]

Yemen warns against intervention in rebel conflict [CNN]

AfPak

U.S. Afghan Envoy Said to Advise Against More Troops [Bloomberg]

Official: Obama rejects all Afghan war options [MSNBC]

Europe

Medvedev stresses modernization in Russia address [Reuters]

Spain tries 11 over alleged Islamic terror plot [WP]

Americas

Colombia takes Chavez war talk to Security Council [WP]

Officials Search for Answers in Extensive Brazil Blackout [NYT]

Lou Dobbs resigns from CNN [LAT]

S. Korean Forces Will Be Forced to Pay Dearly for Their Armed Provocation [full KCNA article]

“Pyongyang, November 12 (KCNA) — The south Korean forces will be forced to pay dearly for the grave armed provocation perpetrated by them in the waters of the north side in the West Sea of Korea on November 10. This warning is served by papers Thursday in signed commentaries.

Rodong Sinmun observes: The south Korean military authorities are now making much fuss in a bid to mislead the public opinion, describing the proper measure for self-defence taken by the north against a group of warships of the south Korean forces as “the third skirmish in the West Sea.” This is like a thief crying “Stop the thief!”

The latest armed clash in the West Sea was not a simple accidental incident but a deliberate and premeditated provocation perpetrated by the south Korean military in an effort to escalate the tension on the Korean Peninsula, the daily notes, and goes on:

It is a trite method of the south Korean warmongers to perpetrate a shocking provocation to derail any process for improving the north-south relations.

Nobody can deny the fact that the armed provocation perpetrated by them again in the West Sea is nothing but a deliberate and vicious move for increasing the tension and a dangerous war action of those much upset by the trend of the situation on the peninsula. This is a clear indictment meted out to the south Korean warmongers hell bent on the treacherous acts to disturb the peace on the peninsula and do harm to fellow countrymen by force of arms in collusion with outside forces while hamstringing the efforts to improve the inter-Korean relations.

The artillery pieces of the KPA convinced of justice and afire with hatred are now leveled at the provokers.

The south Korean military had better face up to the trend of the times and behave itself.

Minju Joson urges the south Korean military authorities to stop digging their own graves, make an apology to the nation for the armed provocation and take a responsible measure against the recurrence of the similar case.”

A newly declassified Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) file indicates that an Israeli intelligence agent was among the staff members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“WFO files disclose that AIPAC is a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group staffed by US citizens,” says the August 13, 1984 document- a secret communication from the FBI Washington Field Office (WFO) to the FBI director.

“WFO files contain an unsubstantiated allegation that a member of the Israeli Intelligence Service was a staff member of AIPAC,” it adds.

The secret FBI document was declassified and handed over to the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep) after it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

IRmep needed the documents to file a third amicus brief urging Judge T.S. Ellis not to drop the charges brought against AIPAC workers Steve J. Rosen and Keith Weissman under the 1917 Espionage Act.

On May 1, 2009, the Department of Justice dismissed the espionage charges against the two former AIPAC staffers.

Department of Defense Employee Col. Lawrence Franklin who was indicted along with the AIPAC workers in 2005, however, pleaded guilty to the charges, admitting that he had provided classified information about Iran to two AIPAC employees.

Apparently the Israeli agent had promised to facilitate the appointment of Harman as the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in exchange for the information.

It is widely believed that the 1984 and 2005 espionage incidents were not isolated events.

As part of a defamation lawsuit he has launched against AIPAC, Rosen intends to show that obtaining and leveraging classified US government information in the service of Israel is common practice at AIPAC.

He claims it was unfair for AIPAC to fire and smear him in the press after he was indicted on espionage charges in 2005. AIPAC lawyers, however, are hoping to get the case thrown out on technicalities before it goes to trial in early 2010.

AIPAC, considered the most powerful and connected lobbying group in Washington, is known for the influence that it holds over US foreign policy.

Former US president Jimmy Carter has also accused AIPAC of putting a great deal of pressure on politicians running for office who do not share AIPAC goals.

Today, the United Nations approved, by a narrow vote of  114-18, with 44 nations abstaining, an Arab supported resolution that endorses the Goldstone Report. This paves the way for the UN Security Council to consider the matter. What did we do, voted no, along with Canada and obviously  only a handful of other countries.

The aforementioned report calls on Israel and the Palestinians to investigate the allegations of war crimes during last winter’s Gaza  incursion.( The report is named for South African jurist and UN investigator Richard Goldstone.) Deputy US ambassador to the UN, Alexander Wolff, called  the report”deeply flawed”. His main concerns were  the lack of attention or  mention of Hamas and the unbalanced focus on Israel.

Doubtless, the US would veto any Security council action. So, why is Israel concerned enough to say, via its UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalav, that granting any legitimate status to the report would essentially deny Israel “the right to defend ourselves.”  That is quite important to them, existing as they do in the world’s toughest neighborhood, as its most isolated member.

Perhaps they watch events and listen to statements with increasing nervousness, some of these from their heretofore staunchest ally.

What do Israelis think about us and them? Prior to January, 2009, some 88% of  them  believe Bush wa s pro-Israel. In May, a Jerusalem Post poll discovered that 31% of  them believed that about  Obama. A similar poll  just 3 months later showed  a figure of  4%. Quite  a precipitous drop. Joel Rosenberg referred to US Israel relations  as a coming “train wreck”, just 7 months ago. Now, he thinks the situation has only worsened. Even if one is not very pro Israel, the above numbers represent a significant concern. Are we tending to tilt more Arab, seems to be so. Is  that a good thing? I wonder.

A haiku executive summary of the Taliban’s latest op-ed piece about the United Nations:

U.N. backs west

Protects Christians, not Ummah

U.N. sucks, big time.

You can read the statement at the Voice of Jihad English site here, or get a PDF of it at non-terrorist sites here or here.

Doesn’t Palestine belong to the Palestinians?
“The West Bank is occupied Palestinian Land.” This phrase is repeated so often that people believe it without question. But let’s look at the historical facts:

In 1917 the Balfour Declaration promised to establish “in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people”, and Britain was given the Mandate by the UN to administer the area for the future Jewish nation. This land had been under occupation since the Romans conquered Israel in AD135 and had never belonged to a people group called Palestinians.

So who’s on which piece of land and why?
Arab revolts against Jewish immigration led the British to take 75% of what they had promised to the Jews and give it to the Arabs, creating the state of Jordan (i.e. Jordan is a Palestinian Arab State.) But the Arabs continued the violence, so the UN decided to partition the land still further and give them the West Bank and Gaza. Although this left the Jews with just 17% of what they’d originally been promised, they accepted as they were desperate for peace. The Arabs (hoping they’d get the whole of Israel if they continued the violence) rejected the partition and declared war.

In 1948, as the State of Israel came into being and the British Mandate forces left, five Arab armies invaded. Jordan occupied the West Bank and east Jerusalem, Egypt took Gaza and Syria the Golan Heights. These areas were Illegally occupied from 1948 until 1967 when Israel retook them in the Six Day War.

But surely, Israeli Forces are in the West Bank illegally?
International law says that, if a country is subject to an unprovoked attack (as Israel was in 1967), any land she takes in self-defence is legally hers. The UN agreed, stating that Israel wasn’t the aggressor and was therefore entitled to her new boundaries. Security Council Resolution 242 gave Israel the legal right to be in the Territories and to administer them “until a just and lasting peace is achieved.” Israel is therefore not occupying the West Bank (they voluntarily withdrew from Gaza in 2005).

Shouldn’t Israel give back the West Bank for the sake of peace?
Jordan has renounced all claims to it and during their occupation, they never attempted to give the land they had “liberated” back to the Palestinians, since they never saw them as a people group in need of their own country. If the Arabs of the West Bank now see themselves as a Palestinian people entitled to their own State, they must make compromises (as the Israelis have done) in order to achieve “a just and lasting peace.”

Isn’t Israel unwilling to compromise?
In 1993 Israel voluntarily accepted the demands of the Oslo Peace Accords and handed over the administration of 98% of the West Bank and Gaza to the PA. They gave them every encouragement to make a success of it, including finance and arms, but the PA responded by using those arms to attack Israel.

World opinion, however, continued to see Israel as the stumbling-block to peace, and put pressure on her to give up even more land. In 2000, therefore, in a desperate bid for peace, she offered the PA 96% of the West Bank and Gaza (to own, not just to administer), plus 4% of Israel’s land along the Gaza border.

This offer was rejected out of hand and Israel was again blamed. In 2002 the Quartet (USA, UN, EU and Russia) called on them to withdraw from all the land they’d taken in the Six Day War, which would have altered Resolution 242 retrospectively. Israel, fearful for her safety, justifiably refused to comply.

But don’t Palestinian Leaders have a peaceful intent?
“Every time you hear me declare a ceasefire and halt to the violence, ignore these declarations. You know that I am under heavy pressure from the US and Europe… We are in difficult financial situation because of the Intifada. We will not receive any more money from the US, and Israel will stop the monthly transfer of funds. Our only hope for getting money is from the Arab states. But the Arab states will not give money if there is not blood.” (Yasser Arafat in the West Bank, 2000.)

“I have issued strict instructions for a total commitment to the ceasefire” (Yasser Arafat to the Jerusalem Post). Compare this with: “This ceasefire declaration is nothing more than a tactical initiative and a political manoeuvre on the part of the PA, so that Palestinians won’t be perceived as hostile towards the peace process.”(A member of the Fatah leadership to the PA official daily newspaper 2001).

“The goal of all of us is to liberate Palestine from the Israeli aggressors… There is no middle ground. Coexistence is total nonsense” (Chairman of the Arab Psychiatrists Assoc. In Cairo, 2002).

What does the PA really want?
The PA has made no secret of the fact that they see the West Bank, not as an end in itself, but merely as a stepping-stone into Israel proper. Although they speak peace to the West, their speeches in the Arab press make it clear that they will not stop until the whole of Israel is under their control and all the Jews “thrown into the sea”. Even school textbooks teach that Jews are pigs and cockroaches and should be killed.

Won’t everything be peaceful if Israel just gives the West Bank to the PA?
If we want to see what the West Bank would be like as a Palestinian State, we only have to look at Gaza, which has descended into chaos since being handed over to Hamas. If the Palestinians want a State, they must behave in a statesmanlike way.

So far, Israel has made all the concessions in the search for peace. Until the Palestinians are prepared to live side-by-side with the Israelis, and acknowledge their right to exist, there will be no peace, and Israel will continue (as is her right) to “administer the Territories”.

See also: Who are the Palestinians?
Are the Settlements Illegal?
Is the media biased against Israel?

October 2009

A statement posted to the Taliban’s English-language Voice of Jihad site (PDF at non-terrorist site here) is another example of how the Taliban seems underwhelmed by the United Nations these days.

On 12 Oct 09, the Taliban issued a statement dissing the Security Council for its latest endorsement of the ISAF mission in Afghanistan.  This week, the Talibs posted their latest attack on the world institution as the U.N. marked its 64th anniversary on 24 Oct 09.

According to the latest statement, who’s to blame for the U.N. no longer looking out for what the Talibs consider the good guys?

This Organization has remained in the grips of a few countries who arrogantly have kept it under their belly. The right of a veto by the 5 member countries of the Security Council is a wicked instrument which they use it time and again against the remaining members of the United Nations. Thus they have deprived other nations of their rights; hurled stumbling blocks in the way of development and prosperity of people and have denied them participation in the process of decision making.

Wait a second, now.  Earlier this month, in a statement to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Taliban had this to say:

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan as per its peaceful policy wants to have constructive interactions with Shanghai forum member countries for a permanent stability and economic development in the region.

Who are the members of the SCO?

• China
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Russia
• Tajikistan
• Uzbekistan

Who are the permanent members of the Security Council?

• China
• France
• Russian Federation
• United Kingdom
• United States

So, IF we believe the Taliban is sincere in its SCO statement (which IS signed by the Taliban itself, unlike the latest unattributed statement – keeping in mind that nothing is likely to end up on the Taliban’s web page without the Taliban’s OK), which permanent members of the Security Council are left for the Taliban to loathe?

• China
• France
• Russian Federation
• United Kingdom
• United States

No big surprise there.

In addition to dissing the U.N.’s record in Afghanistan, Iraq (as well as George W. Bush’s 12 Sept 02 speech – pages 5-9 at PDF here) comes in for a mention as well:

They destroyed Iraqi institutions, infrastructures and damaged economic and social values ironically under the very eyes of the UNO but this World Body instead of taking proper steps to prevent the destruction of the basic social and economic institutions, have only limited itself to issuing statistics of the  destroyed facilities.

Why the bashing of the U.N.?

One theory hinted at by Vahid Brown at jihadica.com is that this could be part of the back-and-forth between the Taliban and AQ in their “so, how connected are we?” dance (More on the various theories of how linked AQ and the Taliban are here).  This tidbit from Brown’s exploration of some jihadi online forums:

Mullah Omar’s messages imply some level of recognition of the United Nations, an organization which al-Qa’ida has unequivocally labelled as “infidel,” and that these opposing moves seem to him to signal “the beginning of the end of relations between al-Qa’ida and the Taliban.”

So, is this more proof proving that AQ and the Taliban are thinking along the same lines?  Or throwing AQ a bit of a rhetorical bone while the Taliban continue their alleged “nationalist, we won’t bother our neighbours” approach?

Stay tuned.

Editor’s Note: Yesterday, I said I’d write about the hypothetical example of aliens landing in Somalia. I was thinking I’d talk about the extremes — the differences in how international law would treat aliens in a failed state vs. aliens in the territory of a permanent member of the Security Council. But I’ve changed my mind; using Somalia makes the question too easy, as the lack of government there makes it exceedingly unlikely that other states would bother to respect Somalia’s territorial integrity in the event of an alien invasion. Instead, I’m going to borrow from District 9 and use South Africa as a hypothetical.

Situation #2: Aliens in South Africa

In a scenario similar to the premise of District 9, a lone alien spaceship lands in South Africa. The aliens’ behavior and appearance give no indication that they intend any harm to humanity, but the vast majority of States are unwilling to accept that at face value. South Africa, however, feels that it has the situation under control, and wants to treat with the aliens without foreign interference. The government of South Africa refuses to allow any other nations to visit the aliens or become involved in the situation, and only gives cursory answers to questions about the extraterrestrial visitors. Resolution through diplomacy does not appear likely, so if other states want to speak to, examine, or blow up the aliens, they can only do so by the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of South Africa — something which is absolutely prohibited under international law.

Do other States, then, have any available options under international law besides engaging in illegal acts of war against South Africa?

Possibly. The United Nations Security Council does have the power to authorize use of force in certain situations. However, Article 2.7 of the UN Charter exempts matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a state from UN control, unless a threat to the peace is involved:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such domestic maters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.”

Therefore, under Art. 2.7, if aliens land, and (1) by all appearances the aliens intend no threat to humanity, and (2) no one but the host state is aware of the alien presence, international law is not relevant. End of story. It would then be a matter essentially within South Africa’s domestic jurisdiction. (Plus, well, if no one knows about it, there’s no one who can raise the issue in the first place.)

If both these conditions are not present, then international law comes back into play.

1. What if the aliens are potentially a threat to humanity? If a host state has reason to believe that the aliens do pose a threat to other nations, then international law would likely require such disclosure to other nations. In Corfu Channel, the Court found an obligation to notify other states of imminent danger, based upon two principles. First, a duty to warn stems from elementary considerations of humanity, which are “even more exacting in peace than in war.” Second, the sic utere principle: no state may knowingly allow its territory to be used in a manner contrary to the rights of others.

Obviously, many states would argue that any alien contact represents a per se threat to humanity, therefore making disclosure mandatory in any case of alien contact. However, for now, I’m going to assume whether or not the aliens pose a threat is a question of fact and not a question of law. But, if the aliens would somehow threaten the rights of another nation, the host state would be obliged to inform that nation of the alien’s existence. And once other states know about the aliens, the resulting brouhaha will almost certainly mandate UN involvement.

Also note that if the aliens are kept secret by a select executive intelligence agency, so that all the rest of the South African government has no knowledge of the alien’s existence, South Africa is still liable under international law for any damage caused by the aliens. Under Article 4 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, the conduct of any State government organ is attributed to the State as a whole.

2. What happens when other States learn of the aliens’ presence? Even assuming that the aliens truly are a bunch of peace-loving extraterrestrial hippies, if other states become aware of the aliens’ existence, they will without a doubt want to be involved in the alien-human interaction. If South Africa refuses to let them in, the only lawful option available to the other States is to attempt to have the Security Council intervene.

Article 34 of the United Nations Charter gives the Security Council the power to “investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” As states will have a general global freak-out over the existences of aliens, an alien landing on earth will “likely endanger the maintenance of international peace.” So the Security Council will be able to investigate the alien issue, and will also have the power “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” (Art. 39). After such a determination has been made, the Security Council can then decide upon what actions they should undertake to maintain or restore international peace; under Article 42, the kinds of actions the Security Council is permitted to authorize is a lawful use of force.

But, before the Security Council can use force, it must find international peace is threatened. Would such a determination truly be justified here? If aliens simply land in South Africa and intend no harm to anyone, then by definition no “breach of the peace” or “act of aggression” has occurred. Thus, it must be found that the mere peaceful presence of aliens is a “threat to the peace” in order for the Security Council to authorize use of force under Chapter VII.

Although I think in practice the Security Council likely would reach such a finding, I also think it can be reasonably argued such a determination would be an abuse of the Security Council’s Article 24 powers. Article 2.7 of the Charter makes it clear that, if the aliens are not a threat to international peace, it is for South Africa and South Africa alone to decide how to deal with with.

The Security Council would, however, be acting well within its authorized powers by making an Article VI recommendation to South Africa regarding what steps South Africa should take to confirm to other nations that the aliens are not a threat to their security. If South Africa continued to ignore the Security Council’s recommendations, at a certain point it would probably be fair to declare that South Africa’s refusal to cooperate and to verify the peaceful intentions of the aliens was itself a breach of the peace. By not verifying sufficiently that no danger existed, other States would feel so threatened and unsecure, that in order to maintain international peace, the Security Council would have grounds for invoking Chapter VII and authorizing States (or a UN taskforce) to use force against South Africa.

Situation #3: Aliens in France

Take the same scenario discussed above, only now, instead of landing in South Africa, the aliens decide to land in France. Who knows, maybe they’re homesick, and frog legs and snails remind them of the cuisine on their home planet.

But under international law, the landing location matters. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France possesses a veto over all Security Council actions. This means that if France says no to any proposed resolution, the resolution fails.

So if France doesn’t want other states to be involved in the Frenchman-Alien deliberation, then it is also going to vote “no” when the Security Council proposes using Chapter VII powers to force France into allowing other States to check out the aliens for themselves.

Sure, other states can hold France liable for any breaches of international law they make by keeping the aliens to themselves, but that’s not the relief other states would want. If the aliens did decide to pose a threat to humanity, and France let them zap a couple cities off the face of the planet, then the right to self-defense kicks in and the attacked nations could use force against France to defend themselves.

But short of that, only one option is left to the world: using the Uniting for Peace Resolution to have the General Assembly override France’s veto vote.

But let’s say for now either the GA can’t get the votes together for a United For Peace authorization of use of force, or that it’s crystal clear that the presence of aliens in France doesn’t represent a threat to any other State, and therefore the aliens are solely within France’s domestic jurisdiction and the UN cannot force itself into France’s affairs.

What happens if France or South Africa tries to assimilate the aliens into their own society, or otherwise attempt to govern them? Does international law dictate how the state may treat them?

Unfortunately for the aliens, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights probably won’t give them any protection. That treaty is pretty explicit about the whole “human being” thing. Maybe France could be forced to accord the aliens the rights found in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declares that “all peoples” have rights of self-determination, and that all states must ensure “all individuals” within their territory are not discriminated against. ‘Peoples’ and ‘individuals’, unlike ‘human beings’, could be interpreted, without too much stretching, to extend to all groups of intelligent beings whether human or not. (True, the preamble talks about “inherent dignity of the human person,” but you might be able to crush away any Object & Purpose counterargument by explaining it as flowery language not meant to be taken literally.)

However, at least one “human” rights treaty would almost certainly apply to how a nation treated extraterrestrials: the Genocide Convention. Genocide is an act committed with the intent to destroy a “national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.” So, technically, if France tried to commit any of the Article II acts against the aliens, it’d be because of an intent to destroy members of a certain national group — and I don’t see any requirement in the Genocide Convention that the “nationality” be an Earth one.

Going back to District 9 now, a strong case could be made that South Africa was in blatant violation of the Genocide Convention. In the movie, South African officials are depicted as destroying all the alien eggs they find. This is a textbook example of an act prohibited by the Genocide Convention, which defines “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group” as an act of genocide.

So maybe in District 9, other nations should’ve invoked the Responsibility To Protect as justification for a humanitarian intervention in South Africa in order to protect the Prawns.

Previously: The Law of Aliens, Part I: The Law of Post-Atmospheric Extraterrestrial Encounters By National or International Organizations; Part II — The Law of Outer Space Encounters With Extraterrestrials by Sub-State Entities; and Part III.1 – The Law of First Contact on Earth, Aliens on the High Seas.

-Susan

Excerpts from: COTOcrew and Foreign policy in focus

Child burned in Gaza conflict

On October 1, the Obama administration successfully pressured the Palestinian delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva to drop its proposal to recommend that the UN Security Council endorse the findings of the Goldstone Commission report.The report, authored by renowned South African jurist Richard Goldstone, detailed the results of the UNHRC’s fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict. These findings included the recommendation that both Hamas and the Israeli government bring to justice those responsible for war crimes during the three weeks of fighting in late December and early January. If they don’t, the report urges that the case be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible prosecution. 

The Obama administration has declared — in the words of U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice— that such a recommendation is “basically unacceptable.” It has insisted that any legal remedies be handled by the respected parties internally. Since neither Hamas nor the Israeli government will likely prosecute those responsible for war crimes, the administration’s action will essentially prevent these Palestinian and Israeli war criminals from ever being brought to justice.

Indeed, the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership in Congress appear to be continuing the Bush administration’s policy of ignoring and denouncing those who have the temerity to report violations of international humanitarian law by the United States or its allies.

South African jurist Richard Goldstone  who led the The United Nations Human Rights Council(UNHRC) investigation into war crime violations the Israeli/Palestinian Gaza conflict during December and January 2009…is  a noted Zionist and Pro-Israel supporter came to the task highly recommended for his work in the Rwanda struggle as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina.

If the matter is taken to the UN Security Council, as the Goldstone Commission recommended, it would place debate on violations of international humanitarian law by a key U.S. ally before a body that, unlike the UNHRC, has an enforcement mechanism. It would also allow far greater media exposure of Israeli war crimes, the bulk of which were implemented using U.S. weapons systems and ordinance.

Injured Palestinians

Washington Democrats are even more concerned about the issue going before the International Criminal Court where those Palestinians and Israelis guilty of war crimes might actually face justice. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats are determined that such war criminals be granted impunity.

This latest assault against the human rights community by the Obama administration and congressional Democrats is not an example of their being too “pro-Israel.” Indeed, such war crimes and other gross and systematic human rights abuses by the Israeli government endanger Israel’s security, and have led to the rise of extremist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah in the first place. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership in Washington has joined the Republicans in a campaign, in effect, to kill the messenger: attack the United Nations, Amnesty International, or anyone else — be they journalist, scholar, activist, or even one of the world’s most respected jurists — who dares put forward credible evidence of human rights abuses by the United States or its allies

Along with the recent findings of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, the Gladstone Commission Report has concluded the following;

Disproportional Response:

Carpet bombing 24/7 without sparing even hospitals, schools and UN shelters, Israel turned its full, lethal force against a besieged and defenseless population in Gaza.

 Israel “punished and terrorized” civilians in Gaza in a disproportionate attack in its three-week offensive on the narrow strip of the land cut off from the rest of the world.

“Actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly in some respects crimes against humanity, were committed by the Israel Defence Force,”

“shooting of civilians holding white flags the deliberate and unjustifiable targeting of UN shelters and the killing of over 300 children whilst the Israeli Army had at their disposal the most precise weaponry in the world”

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and her Senate colleagues urged the United States to take action to block the report from reaching the UN Security Council. In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Senators also urged the Obama administration to denounce any punishment against Israel as a result of the report’s flawed findings. Unfavorable is the appropriate wording, Senator.

 Keep your NWO scorecards current

The letter was co-signed by Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Carl Levin (D-MI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jon Kyl(R-AZ), James Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Evan Bayh(D-IN), Mark Begich (D-AK), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Ensign (alleged Felon) (R-NV), Orrin Hatch(R-UT), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Tim Johnson (D-SD), David Vitter (D-ND), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Russ Feingold(D-WI), Dan Inouye(D-HI), John McCain (R-AZ), Arlen Specter (D-PA), Frank Lautenberg(D-NJ), John Thune (R-SD), and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Please see the FPIF article and review the report sections of interest. The report is 575 pages.

The U.S. ambassador to the U.N. vowed to continue fighting the Goldstone Report which condemned Israel’s war crimes in the Gaza Massacre.

Ambassador Susan Rice “promised that the United States will continue to stand by Israel as a loyal friend in the fight against the Goldstone Report”, Johnathan Lis reports at Ha’aretz. The watered-down 575-page report found Israel “terrorized” Palestinians during the Gaza Massacre earlier this year.

“The U.N. Human Rights Council formally endorsed the report last week, with the U.S. one of the few nations to vote in opposition to it,” Jason Ditz, news editor at AntiWar.com, adds. “It has been referred to the Security Council [U.N.S.C.], but the U.S. is expected to use its veto power to prevent it from going any farther.”

Two of the other five permanent members of the U.N.S.C. with veto power, Russia and China, endorsed the Goldstone Report at the Human Rights Council, but are opposing further discussion, Mr. Lis reports.

The Goldstone Report found Israel and Hamas violated international law. Israel “used disproportionate force, deliberately targeted civilians and used Palestinian civilians as human shields”, the fact-finding mission concluded and recommended Israel and Hamas launch investigations within six months of recommendations would be sent to the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement pushing for a “worldwide campaign” to—instead—change the international laws of war, al Jazeera reports, adding the prime minister “has promised a lengthy fight to ‘delegitimize’ the findings by the U.N. commission” which concedes the current laws of war do not legitimize the terror inflicted by Israel on Gaza.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (H.R.W.) are among the many non-governmental organizations which have compiled studies condemning Israel’s criminal conduct of ‘wanton destruction’ during its massacre of 1,200 Palestinian civilians—including police officers and hundreds of children—in Gaza over three weeks last December and January that left thousands homeless.

What the Israeli government termed, “Operation Cast Lead,” was condemned by Amnesty as “22 days of death and destruction”, finding:

The scale and intensity of the attacks on Gaza were unprecedented. Some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians who took no part in the conflict were among the 1,400 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces.

Most were killed with high-precision weapons, relying on surveillance drones which have exceptionally good optics, allowing those observing to see their targets in detail. Others were killed with imprecise weapons, including artillery shells carrying white phosphorus – not previously used in Gaza – which should never be used in densely populated areas.

Most were killed with high-precision weapons, relying on surveillance drones which have exceptionally good optics, allowing those observing to see their targets in detail. Others were killed with imprecise weapons, including artillery shells carrying white phosphorus – not previously used in Gaza – which should never be used in densely populated areas….

More than 3,000 homes were destroyed and some 20,000 damaged in Israeli attacks which reduced entire neighbourhoods of Gaza to rubble and left an already dire economic situation in ruins. Much of the destruction was wanton and could not be justified on grounds of “military necessity”.

H.R.W. reported of numerous unlawful abuses of white phosphorus and drones on the Gazan people. “The failure of the United States and European Union governments to endorse the report of the Gaza fact-finding mission sends a message that serious laws-of-war violations will be treated with kid gloves when committed by an ally,” H.R.W. said in a September press release.

The white phosphorus and drones illegally used are as manufactured in Israel as Israel’s F-16’s and Apache’s; they aren’t. Israel’s war machine is a direct product of U.S. welfare to the regime. Voting against a House Resolution supporting Israel during Operation Cast lead, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) said on the floor of Congress: “I am concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers…. What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side?… Many innocent children are among the dead…. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support for the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.”

al Jazeera and H.R.W. did a program on the “human cost of white phosphorus” looking into this, its unlawful usage during the Gaza Massacre and its lasting effects that will cause the civilian death toll to continue rising—especially among children.

Judge Richard Goldstone, the self-proclaimed Zionist who headed the U.N. fact-finding mission, is facing hatred from Likudnik sociopaths. Professor Norman Finkelstein, a Palestine-Israel scholar of Jewish heritage, discussed the Goldstone Report at Democracy Now!, but it’s more fitting to repost his interview at Russia Today from last February on the criticism he faces from Jews, what ended the Gaza Massacre and what motivates the Obama Administration to collaborate with Israel’s crimes (4:02):

Covering up this “Satanic client-state’s” crimes is another action on the long list of America’s history of rejectionism in—what Professor Noam Chomsky calls—its “mafia relationship” with Israel. Then-President-elect Obama asserted his rejectionist stance during the Gaza Massacre, asserting only “Israel’s right to defend itself” as a justification for its crimes against humanity.

“During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president—a fact that did not silence him on many other issues,” Prof Chomsky wrote, days after the president’s inagu-coronation. “His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that ‘if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that’. He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by U.S. arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.”

Mr. Obama never mentioned Israel’s use of U.S. arms “in violation not only of international, but also U.S. law. Or Washington’s shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the U.S.-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama’s Middle East advisers.”

The torture did not stop in January. Israel continues a forceful blockade on Gaza under the guise of preventing arms smuggling. The truth is that Israel is enhancing the policy recommendation laid out in 1967 by its then-defence minister, Moshe Dayan—directed at the Palestinians: “You shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads.”

The Gazans can’t even leave now. A minute, insignificant number of people, journalists, food, medicine or other aid can get in and out because the American guns of Israel say so. “It’s a prison by the sea,” Scott Horton, host of AntiWar Radio says.

On the House floor that January day, Dr. Paul also expressed he was “appalled by the long-standing Israeli blockade of Gaza—a cruel act of war” with “the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month”.

Mel Fryberg of Inter Press Service is one of the leading journalists on the blockade and reported in June: Forty international aid agencies and non-governmental organizations released a joint statement in condemnation of the blockade that are a result of “indiscriminate sanctions are affecting the entire 1.5 million population of Gaza, and ordinary women, children and the elderly are the first victims”, the statement says.

“Most food products and other goods, including construction material desperately needed to rebuild Gaza’s infrastructure devastated by Israeli bombing during the war in January, are forbidden,” Mr. Frykberg adds.

“The situation is desperate, devastating and unbearable. Each day that passes brings more misery and suffering,” John Ging, head of Gaza’s U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), told Mr. Frykberg. When asked about the statement, he added: “We will not give up telling the truth. We have a responsibility to innocent civilians.

“We are convinced that if the policy and decision makers behind the blockade could witness the situation in Gaza first-hand, they would change their minds. Those who don’t believe what we are saying, we invite them to come to Gaza and see the situation for themselves first hand.”

The U.N. reports nearly a quarter of the humanitarian goods are able to get through the blockade compared to before, in 2007. Since then, Israel’s assaults have also exponentially increased the need.

UNRWA officials told Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during his visit to Israel in February that pasta was on the list of banned items to enter the Gaza Strip with nuts, coffee, clothing, school textbooks, agricultural products—including seedlings, fertilizer and piping. “Fuel supplies and spare parts for Gaza’s sewage and water treatment plants and hospitals have also been severely restricted. This has forced tonnes of untreated sewage to be pumped into the sea on a daily basis thereby threatening Gaza’s underground drinking water supply,” Mr. Frykberg added.

Of the “critical water situation in Gaza“, he reported:

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says 150,000 Gazans still remain affected by inadequate and unsafe water supply. Of these, about 50,000 remain without any water, while the remainder receive water only every five to six days.

The OCHA adds that approximately 28,000 children in the Gaza Strip have no access to piped water. An additional 56,000 children have access to water only every week or so.

Gaza’s Coast Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU), which handles water and sewage treatment, says the water crisis will continue until Israel allows sufficient spare parts and repair materials into Gaza.

Israel’s continuing blockade of the strip means that construction material, most spare parts and repair materials have been prevented from entering. This has made it impossible to rebuild the thousands of destroyed and damaged buildings. It has also severely restricted repair of vital infrastructure such as waste and water treatment plants.

Continual electricity blackouts have further limited the treatment plants’ operating capacity, while severe restrictions on the import of fuel have limited the ability of emergency generators.

The CMWU has been forced to pump tons of untreated sewage directly into the sea, which then seeps back into Gaza’s underground water supply, further threatening safe drinking water supplies.

Recent water tests indicate that piped water in Gaza is not safe for human consumption. Forty-five of 248 water samples tested were found to be contaminated, primarily in the North Gaza and Gaza City districts.

Israel shelled Gaza’s biggest wastewater treatment plant in Sheikh Ajleen, southeast of Gaza City, which usually treats raw sewage from approximately 400,000 people. The torrent of raw, untreated sewage flowing into residential areas, agricultural land, and the sea was visible from outer space, according to satellite images released by the UN….

The fishing sector was estimated to have suffered direct and indirect losses of $2.2 million, due to destruction of fishing boats and related materials. And even those who are employed and earning are struggling. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Israeli restrictions on the entry of cash into Gaza has affected the livelihoods of up to half a million Gazans, in a population of 1.5 million.

The Obama and Netanyahu Administrations are now collaborating to take this ‘prison by the sea’ closer to being Hell on Earth. “Loyal friend” is taking on a new meaning.