The United States, Italy, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were among the member-states who voted against the report. Great Britain and France were among the member-states who abstained.
Read more at Al Jazeera and the Jerusalem Post.
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2009
UN General Assembly Votes to Back the Goldstone Report
In a 114 to 18 vote, with 44 member-states abstaining, the UN General Assembly voted today to endorse the Goldstone report. The report, which details possible war crimes committed by Hamas and Israel during fighting in Gaza last December. The report calls on both governments to investigate the allegations or for the UN to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
UN Condemns Cuba embargo
The UN General Assembly voted to condemn the US embargo of Cuba on Wednesday. The resolution passed 187-3, with only Israel, Palau, and the United States opposing it. This marks the 18th year in a row that the UN has passed a resolution criticizing the American embargo of Cuba. Read more at CNN.com.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
UN Inspectors Make Their First Visit to Iran's Second Nuclear Enrichment Facility
UN inspectors made their first visit to recently disclosed second nuclear enrichment facility near the town of Qom. According to the Jerusalem Post, the facility is named Fordo, after the village that had the largest percentage of fighters killed in the Iran-Iraq war. Inspectors are expected to complete a report on the site after they leave Iran later this week. This inspection comes the week after a meeting in Zurich where Iran announced that rather than exporting 75% of its low enriched uranium for reprocessing, it would rather buy highly enriched uranium on the open market.
Watch a short Al Jazeera story at Youtube.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
UN Report Concludes that Worldwide Anti-Narcotics Efforts are Flawed
A report released by the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reports that about 900 tons of opium and 375 tons flow out of Afghanistan through Central Asia to the rest of the world. UNODC estimated that when the Taliban was in power in the 1990's, they were earning between $75-100 million a year, but in 2005 they earned about $90-160 million.
The report also spoke of how little of the opium is seized: between 4-5% in Central Asian and Russia and less than 2% in south-eastern Europe, both regions where most of opium leaves Afghanistan. Inside of Afghanistan, where interdiction would be most effective, less than 2% of the opium and heroin is seized, as compared 36% of cocaine in Colombia.
Read more at RFE/RL.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Interpol and UN promote cooperation with a “Global Police Doctrine”
Interpol and the UN hope to work together to create a “global police doctrine” in which the resources of Interpol and the UN would be shared in order to better equip their police peacekeepers. The aim is to enhance the resources with which to combat a variety of issues ranging from organized crime like drug and human trafficking to illegal arms dealing. Interpol’s justice ministers are meeting today and hope to have an agreement created which would allow for action to be taken within the next year. To read more, click here NYTimes.com.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The Iranian Opposition Movement: A Green Opportunity
With the recent public discovery of an Iranian nuclear facility in Qom, the Obama administration has taken a stance of pushing sanctions with international support. If the Obama administration can garner the support it needs from Russia, China, and most of Western Europe, any eventual sanctions may actually have some teeth. The Iranians, however, have been masterful at maneuvering around sanctions. Even if the sanctions are imposed, not all sanctions are so called “smart sanctions” which would target the power players in the regime and not the average person on the street who is just trying to live their life and feed their family. Smart sanctions are meant to target the regime in power with as little effect on the general population as possible. (The definitive work on “smart sanctions” to date was written by David Cortright and George Lopez in Smart Sanctions: Targeting Economic Statecraft.)
If “smart sanctions” are not imposed and an ineffective policy is adopted by the International Community, it will allow the Iranian regime to once again externalize conflict and distract attention from their severe domestic crisis. With this summer’s domestic unrest, the Iranian regime has lost legitimacy at home and abroad. The people continue protests daily at Tehran University regardless of the massive arrests, human rights violations, and mass show trials implemented by the regime.
The greatest example of the sophistication of the conflict and continued resistance of the Iranian opposition to their own regime was captured on video on September 18th, shortly before Ahmadinejad’s trip to the UN, where the government run demonstrations were held and Iranian agents tried to lead the crowd with chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” The people in the crowd would not repeat those chants and instead chanted “Death to Russia” and “Death to China” in response to those chants, respectively (video available here). The Iranian people are well aware of the supporters of the regime vs. the supporters of the popular will. They refused to demonize the U.S. and Israel and showed their opposition to Russia and China whom greatly support the regime. The Russians and Chinese have been unwilling to put sanctions on the Iranian regime and Russia was one of the first states to recognize Ahmadenijad as President after the contested elections of this summer.
At this point, the Obama administration and similarly-minded allies are presented with a great opportunity for preventing Iranian nuclear weapons capability. The argument made by the Iranian regime is that every nation has the "right" to nuclear energy. A regime has to be stable and legitimate before it can or should have the "right" to nuclear power. The steps in between enriching uranium for nuclear power to that which is needed for medicinal or bomb uses is not very far from one another. Producing one de facto gives you nuclear weapons capability. Even if it is the simple nuclear waste from a nuclear energy facility, that nuclear waste can be put into a so called "dirty bomb." Allowing this to be put in the hands of an illigitmate regime is irresponsible and reckless.
With President Obama's award of the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday, he has been given a responsibility to preserve the integrity of that prize. The policy of appeasement reflected poorly on the governments and leaders who appeased Hitler's regime and the same will be the case for any leaders that allow the slaughter of innocent people in Iran. According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." In light of the New York protests against Ahmadinejad carried out by more than 15 thousand members of the Iranian-American diaspora (video available here), any failure for the Obama Administration to act could measure up to a lost opportunity.
If “smart sanctions” are not imposed and an ineffective policy is adopted by the International Community, it will allow the Iranian regime to once again externalize conflict and distract attention from their severe domestic crisis. With this summer’s domestic unrest, the Iranian regime has lost legitimacy at home and abroad. The people continue protests daily at Tehran University regardless of the massive arrests, human rights violations, and mass show trials implemented by the regime.
The greatest example of the sophistication of the conflict and continued resistance of the Iranian opposition to their own regime was captured on video on September 18th, shortly before Ahmadinejad’s trip to the UN, where the government run demonstrations were held and Iranian agents tried to lead the crowd with chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.” The people in the crowd would not repeat those chants and instead chanted “Death to Russia” and “Death to China” in response to those chants, respectively (video available here). The Iranian people are well aware of the supporters of the regime vs. the supporters of the popular will. They refused to demonize the U.S. and Israel and showed their opposition to Russia and China whom greatly support the regime. The Russians and Chinese have been unwilling to put sanctions on the Iranian regime and Russia was one of the first states to recognize Ahmadenijad as President after the contested elections of this summer.
At this point, the Obama administration and similarly-minded allies are presented with a great opportunity for preventing Iranian nuclear weapons capability. The argument made by the Iranian regime is that every nation has the "right" to nuclear energy. A regime has to be stable and legitimate before it can or should have the "right" to nuclear power. The steps in between enriching uranium for nuclear power to that which is needed for medicinal or bomb uses is not very far from one another. Producing one de facto gives you nuclear weapons capability. Even if it is the simple nuclear waste from a nuclear energy facility, that nuclear waste can be put into a so called "dirty bomb." Allowing this to be put in the hands of an illigitmate regime is irresponsible and reckless.
With President Obama's award of the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday, he has been given a responsibility to preserve the integrity of that prize. The policy of appeasement reflected poorly on the governments and leaders who appeased Hitler's regime and the same will be the case for any leaders that allow the slaughter of innocent people in Iran. According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the crime of Genocide, genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part." In light of the New York protests against Ahmadinejad carried out by more than 15 thousand members of the Iranian-American diaspora (video available here), any failure for the Obama Administration to act could measure up to a lost opportunity.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
US, the International Community, and Iran Sanctions
While it's trite to say that international legal norms and institutions are only as strong as major international players allow, Iran's nuclear program is a painfully clear example of this principle at work. For Iran sanctions to carry the United Nations' imprimatur and its concomitant influence, the United States must deal with the practical reality of winning Russian and Chinese support.
Winning the support of these two major players is not an easy task, and it involves factors that go beyond the immediate scope of Iran sanctions. The Obama Administration's decision to reverse the Bush policy of missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic comes with the hope that Russia will respond in kind. On one hand, this gesture (at least ostensibly) reduces any physical threat to Russia, meeting the expressed concern of its government. On the other hand, some analysts suggest that Russia's concern is more for outward appearances, and a means of gaining as much American concession as possible. (In the following link, CFR scholar James M. Lindsay describes the Bush approach as more of a “useful whipping boy for Moscow rather than a genuine strategic threat”: http://www.cfr.org/publication/20224/obamas_missile_shield_revision.html)
As major players deal with these and other practical concerns behind implementing sanctions, concerns over the pace of Iranian nuclear development have been further spurred by new information about a nuclear facility outside of Qom. News of the Qom site has fueled calls from American political leaders for quick implementation of sanctions, the possibility of military strikes, and in some cases, regime change. (Youtube clip of Sen. McCain clarifying his position on regime change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cu74ak5g38)
The Iranian regime claims that this site, though too small for civilian purposes, has violated no provision of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. More specifically, Iran has asserted that its eventual disclosure of the Qom site was in compliance with an NPT provision requiring notification of such a site within 180 days of its establishment. Although it’s possible that Iran has complied with this provision, neither this nor the 2003 cessation of its nuclear weapons program (according to the November 2007 US NIE) change the fact that Iran has continued to develop the capability for the production of fissile material. This existing capability and the difficulties of treaty enforcement suggest weaknesses in the NPT. (For the full text of the NPT, see the following link: http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html)
What happens if the United States is successful in leading the UN Security Council to implement sanctions? This first step is a heavy task, and may only continue the incomplete effects of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. If recent history is any indicator, political change is not a fait accompli under economic sanctions. On that note, my colleague Mora Namdar will provide some commentary on the human dimension of this issue, and how popular will in the US and in Iran may lend toward international action. Also, early next week, we’ll add a more in-depth post on the provisions of the NPT and how they relate to the Iranian nuclear issue.
Winning the support of these two major players is not an easy task, and it involves factors that go beyond the immediate scope of Iran sanctions. The Obama Administration's decision to reverse the Bush policy of missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic comes with the hope that Russia will respond in kind. On one hand, this gesture (at least ostensibly) reduces any physical threat to Russia, meeting the expressed concern of its government. On the other hand, some analysts suggest that Russia's concern is more for outward appearances, and a means of gaining as much American concession as possible. (In the following link, CFR scholar James M. Lindsay describes the Bush approach as more of a “useful whipping boy for Moscow rather than a genuine strategic threat”: http://www.cfr.org/publication/20224/obamas_missile_shield_revision.html)
As major players deal with these and other practical concerns behind implementing sanctions, concerns over the pace of Iranian nuclear development have been further spurred by new information about a nuclear facility outside of Qom. News of the Qom site has fueled calls from American political leaders for quick implementation of sanctions, the possibility of military strikes, and in some cases, regime change. (Youtube clip of Sen. McCain clarifying his position on regime change: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cu74ak5g38)
The Iranian regime claims that this site, though too small for civilian purposes, has violated no provision of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. More specifically, Iran has asserted that its eventual disclosure of the Qom site was in compliance with an NPT provision requiring notification of such a site within 180 days of its establishment. Although it’s possible that Iran has complied with this provision, neither this nor the 2003 cessation of its nuclear weapons program (according to the November 2007 US NIE) change the fact that Iran has continued to develop the capability for the production of fissile material. This existing capability and the difficulties of treaty enforcement suggest weaknesses in the NPT. (For the full text of the NPT, see the following link: http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html)
What happens if the United States is successful in leading the UN Security Council to implement sanctions? This first step is a heavy task, and may only continue the incomplete effects of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. If recent history is any indicator, political change is not a fait accompli under economic sanctions. On that note, my colleague Mora Namdar will provide some commentary on the human dimension of this issue, and how popular will in the US and in Iran may lend toward international action. Also, early next week, we’ll add a more in-depth post on the provisions of the NPT and how they relate to the Iranian nuclear issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)