<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; security council</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/security-council/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:51:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Will the UN Security Council Impose a Palestinian State?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2014 05:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Puder]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinian state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Only a potential U.S. veto stands in the way.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fnazis.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244238" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Fnazis.jpg" alt="Fnazis" width="297" height="198" /></a>January, 2015 does not bode well for Israel at the United Nations (UN). The UN Security Council (UNSC) will officially induct five newly elected non-permanent member-states replacing outgoing Rwanda, S. Korea, Australia, Argentina and Luxembourg, representing all the global regions. Unfortunately for Israel, the incoming states, particularly Venezuela and Malaysia, are hostile to the Jewish state. The other three, Angola, New Zealand, and Spain are pondering their position on recognizing Palestine as a full member-state of the UN.</p>
<p>It is apparent that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will seize the opportunity and try to win an almost guaranteed majority on the UNSC, to grant Palestine full UN membership. In Abbas’ calculations, receiving UNSC recognition will enable him to demand that the UNSC set a deadline for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 line. At the same time, he’ll avoid having to negotiate peace with Israel, or make any concessions to the Jewish state.</p>
<p>The Palestinians need nine votes at the UNSC to win acceptance. They previously received seven. This time it appears that they may achieve their goal. Among the five permanent members, China and Russia are likely to support recognition of a Palestinian State. Britain and France are yet undecided, and the U.S will likely object.</p>
<p>Among the ten non-permanent states on the UNSC, Chad will support a Palestinian state, Chile is leaning towards acceptance, Lithuania is likely to object, and Nigeria is still undecided. Malaysia and Venezuela will definitely support the Palestinian quest. If we are to anticipate the votes of the undecided members based on their November 29, 2012 <a href="http://www.un.org/press/en/2012/ga11317.doc.htm">votes</a> at the General Assembly, to accord Palestine “non-member Observer State status,” it is more than likely that Angola, Nigeria, and Spain will also vote for acceptance. This would give the Palestinians 10 votes and full membership in the UN.</p>
<p>The only thing that can prevent the acceptance of Palestine as a member-state of the UN is a U.S. veto. In lieu of the tense relationship between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government, Israel can no longer count on a US veto as a given. According to <em>YnetNews.com </em>(October 19, 2014) “Diplomatic officials said Israel is taking into bracing for a bad scenario in which the Democrats <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4581556,00.html">lose</a> their Senate majority in the midterm elections, and will then be free of obligations, which might lead them to get back at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for all the public clashes with the Democratic administration at the White House.”</p>
<p>PM Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) on Monday (October 27, 2014): “I don’t see pressure on the Palestinians. I see only pressure on Israel to make more and more concessions…The Palestinians are demanding of us to establish a Palestinian state – without peace and without security. They demand withdrawal to the 1967 lines, admitting refugees and dividing Jerusalem – and after all these exaggerated demands they are not prepared to agree to the <a href="http://www.israeltoday.co.il/Newsheadlineslist.aspx">basic condition</a> for peace between two peoples – mutual recognition!”</p>
<p>The U.S. has been reluctant to use its veto power at the UNSC, especially the Obama administration. Yet, the Obama administration in February, 2011 cast its first-ever veto at the UNSC, blocking a Palestinian-backed draft resolution that denounced <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/israel.html?nav=el">Israel&#8217;s</a> settlement policy as an illegal obstacle to peace efforts in the Middle East. In the case of a vote on Palestinian statehood, the U.S. is likely to pressure other UNSC member-states not to support the Palestinian move by offering alternatives such as the revival of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel. But, the fact that President Obama this time is not seeking reelection, and is unlikely to be deterred by Republican criticism, America’s veto must be considered uncertain at best.</p>
<p>The Europeans are seeking to position themselves somewhere between the U.S. and the Palestinian position. While they may abstain in the vote on Palestinian statehood, they will demand a set of parameters for a permanent agreement that will eventually lead to a Palestinian state. These parameters might include Israel’s withdrawal to the June, 1967 line with land swaps and East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.</p>
<p>According to the <em>European Jewish Congress</em> press, “France will <a href="http://www.eurojewcong.org/News%20and%20Views/7091-france-to-abstain-at-un-security-council-vote-on-palestinian-un-bid-britain-will-have-the-same-position.html">abstain</a> at the UNSC vote on Palestinian UN bid, and Britain will do the same.” The French Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that “While the region is experiencing upheaval, the legitimacy of the Palestinian aspiration for statehood is indisputable. However, the Palestinian request has no chance of success in the UNSC due, in particular, to the opposition expressed by the U.S.” In other words, the Europeans wish to exculpate themselves in appeasing the Arab-Muslim world and their own Muslim constituents, while putting the onus on the U.S.</p>
<p>The Europeans, the State Department, and New York Times to name a few, are unwilling to fully consider the consequences of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, under unrelenting pressure from the above institutions, brought it numerous wars and unending terror. Israel removed 9,000 Jewish residents by force, destroyed their homes, but left their green-houses to the Palestinians. Hamas terrorists in Gaza have used the areas vacated by the Jewish residents as a base to lob over 10,000 rockets on communities throughout Israel.</p>
<p>A Palestinian state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza is unlikely to be demilitarized, and Hamas can be counted on to take over within a short time. Iran would immediately rush in heavy arms, and as a sovereign state, these arms shipments would arrive unhindered by air or sea. This would mean that even short range rockets from east of Jerusalem will target and hit Israel’s main population centers, including its international Ben Gurion airport. Israel would be paralyzed, and its economy and security in shambles. Any Israeli government will be compelled to react with force, and that would bring about international condemnation by the UN, and possibly sanctions. In addition, one can anticipate a regional war that might involve Iran’s nuclear weapons, and tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel.</p>
<p>At a press conference on July 11, 2014, Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu stated, “There cannot be a situation, under any agreement, in which we <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/benjamin-netanyahu-palest_n_5598997.html">relinquish security</a> control of the territory west of the Jordan River.”</p>
<p>British PM David Cameron opined that, “We support Palestine having its own state next to a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8781566/David-Cameron-Britain-wants-to-see-a-Palestinian-state.html">secure Israel</a>…In the end we have to recognize we will get a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state by the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down and talking to each other.”</p>
<p>US Department of State Spokeswoman Jen Psaki stated at a press briefing Friday (October 3, 2014), “We believe <a href="http://en.ria.ru/politics/20141004/193633372/Palestine-Not-Ready-for-Statehood-US-Department-of-State.html">international recognition</a> of a Palestinian state is premature. We certainly support Palestinian statehood but it can only come through a negotiated outcome, a resolution of final status issues and mutual recognition by both parties. I don’t think that we’ve seen evidence that they’re willing and able to either at this point in time.”</p>
<p>Mahmoud Abbas has been greatly encouraged by the Swedish and British parliaments votes to recognize a Palestinian state. Moreover, the new makeup of the UN Security Council as of January, 2015 will give him a tailwind to push for statehood. Only a U.S. veto at the UNSC can stop this madness, and compel Abbas to negotiate with Israel in earnest. Perhaps, in the interim, the Palestinians can evolve into a civil society with the rule of law, discard terror and incitement against Israel, and build a viable economy.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-puder/will-the-un-security-council-impose-a-palestinian-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Russia Steamrolls Over the United Nations</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 04:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crimea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[veto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=221162</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The reemergence of an old era. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-221178" alt="03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/03ED2C87-A736-4FAF-95EA-FA842A4B8D43_w640_r1_s.jpg" width="256" height="188" /></a>In the phony Crimean referendum held on Sunday March 16th, 95.5% of voters in Crimea have supported joining Russia, Russian officials say. The vote was boycotted by many Crimeans loyal to the Ukraine central government in Kiev, including Tartars who make up about 12% of the Crimean population. Sergei Aksyonov, Crimea&#8217;s leader installed last month after the Russians effectively occupied Crimea, announced that his government will formally apply on Monday to join the Russian Federation. Shortly after the polls closed, the Obama administration issued a statement rejecting the referendum.</span></p>
<p>The United Nations Security Council voted Saturday March 15th on a draft resolution addressing the Ukrainian crisis, which was supposed to send a signal to Russia to back off from moving ahead to absorb Crimea into Russia. It doesn’t seem to have had any effect. Russia has said that it will respect the results of the referendum.</p>
<p>Thirteen members voted in favor of the draft Security Council resolution. China abstained. Only Russia, not surprisingly, voted no, which killed the resolution because of Russia’s veto power. In the best line of all the statements made by members of the Security Council following the vote, France’s UN Ambassador, Gerard Araud, exclaimed that “Russia vetoed the UN Charter.”</p>
<p>The vetoed draft resolution began with a reference to Article II of the UN Charter, which calls for member states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It cited bilateral and multilateral agreements that Russia had signed guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. It stressed the importance of maintaining an inclusive political dialogue in Ukraine that “includes representation from all parts of Ukraine,” and reaffirmed the Security Council’s “commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.” Finally, in keeping with these principles, the draft resolution criticized the Crimean referendum to endorse the secession of Crimea and absorption into the Russian Federation. It declared that “this referendum can have no validity, and cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of Crimea,” and called upon all member states and international organizations “not to recognize any alteration of the status of Crimea on the basis of this referendum.”</p>
<p>In the midst of the discussions following the Security Council vote, Ukrainian UN Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev made the dramatic announcement that he had just been informed of the movement of Russian troops from Crimea into the Ukraine mainland, signifying a dangerous expansion of Russia’s aggressive moves into Ukrainian sovereign territory. “Stop the aggressor,” he pleaded to the Security Council. His plea came two days after Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk turned toward the Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, and bluntly asked whether &#8220;Russians want war.&#8221; Ambassador Churkin responded that neither the Russian government nor the Russian people wanted war.</p>
<p>Perhaps the Russian people themselves don’t want war, but Russian President Vladimir Putin takes no stock of what the Russian people may think or want if he has a different opinion. He has turned the Soviet Union Communist dictatorship into a pre-Soviet style Russian imperial oligarchy under one-man political rule. Now, as the New York Times described the situation in Crimea,</p>
<blockquote><p>“[W]ith a mix of targeted intimidation, an expansive military occupation by unmistakably elite Russian units and many of the trappings of the election-season carnivals that have long accompanied rigged ballots across the old Soviet world, Crimea has been swept almost instantaneously into the Kremlin’s fold.”</p></blockquote>
<p>The provocative actions of Russian forces inside Crimea, and now possibly within the Ukrainian mainland, speak louder than Ambassador Churkin’s assurances of Russia’s peaceful intentions.</p>
<p>Russia’s persistent attempt to justify the Crimean referendum as an exercise in self-determination is, as Ambassador Power said last Thursday in response to my question regarding this Russian assertion, nothing more than an attempt to define self-determination as “Russia-determination.”</p>
<p>In deference to the principle of territorial integrity, international law is loath to recognize a unilateral right of secession for all peoples. Russia acknowledges in principle that secession is justified in only exceptional circumstances, but claims that what it calls a coup d’état in Ukraine by “radicals” justifies the right of the Crimean people to secede from Ukraine if they wish. The problem with this argument is that it is not up to Russia to determine the legality of the change of government in Kiev and, on that basis, inject its own military presence in Crimea in support of the referendum.</p>
<p>Russia is free to accept as citizens in its own country Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine who no longer feel safe living in Ukraine under present circumstances. But the Tartar minority now living freely in Crimea, who have suffered deportation and killings at the hands of the Soviets when they controlled Ukraine, have nowhere else to go and remain safe. Crimea is their homeland. Russia of all countries, given its past brutal treatment of the indigenous Tartar population in Crimea, has no business forcing its will to favor one ethnic group over another in an independent country on the other side of internationally recognized borders with Russia.</p>
<p>In any case, Russia’s oft-stated rationale for providing military support to the Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine &#8212; that these citizens’ rights are being violated by ultra-nationalist “radicals” entering Crimea from other parts of Ukraine &#8211; is bogus. According to international monitors who have tried to gather evidence of human rights violations in Crimea and elsewhere in Ukraine, no evidence to date has been found to back up the Russian claim. And Russia and its allies in Crimea are not providing any support for such international monitors to enter Crimea safely, suggesting that it is they who have something to hide.</p>
<p>As for Russia’s superficial comparison of the Crimea referendum to Kosovo’s declaration of independence in 2008, United Kingdom’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant summed up the response best in his remarks to reporters after Saturday’s UN Security Council meeting:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is no comparison between the two cases. The Kosovo vote for independence, declaration of independence, came after a brutal war in which, as you say, there were massive human rights abuses; hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and the Security Council Resolution 1244 itself accepted that the status of Kosovo was disputed. None of those conditions apply in Crimea.</p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In his remarks on Saturday explaining Russia’s veto, Ambassador Churkin lashed out at both the proposed resolution and its supporters. He accused Ukraine of having blood on its hands as a result of the violent protests last month that led to the ousting of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. And he challenged Washington “to tell the truth” about its own role in the events leading up to the crisis.</span></p>
<p>Speaking about truth, U.S Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said during her condemnation of Russia’s veto that, while Russia has the power to veto a Security Council resolution, “it does not have the power to veto the truth.&#8221; She placed the blamed for the crisis squarely on Russia’s shoulders:</p>
<blockquote><p>The crisis came with a label &#8211; made in Moscow.  It was Moscow that ordered its armed forces to seize control of key facilities in Crimea, to bully local officials, and to threaten the country&#8217;s eastern border.  It was Moscow that tried to fool the world with a false narrative about extremism and the protection of human rights &#8211; about refugees fleeing, and about attacks on synagogues. The reality is that the part of Ukraine where minorities are threatened is Crimea, where Russian forces have confronted Ukrainians, and spread fear within the Tatar community - which has endured Russian purges and ethnic cleansing in the past and fears now that this bitter past will serve as prologue.</p></blockquote>
<p>Ambassador Power accused Russia of double standards when it came to the issue of territorial integrity, a principle which Russia has supported in the past. As for the Crimean referendum, the “whole world knows,” Ambassador Power said, that it “was hatched in the Kremlin and midwifed by the Russian military. It is inconsistent with Ukraine&#8217;s constitution and international law. It is illegitimate and it will have no legal effect.”</p>
<p>Russia had not a single supporter on the Security Council. No other member spoke out in favor of the Russian position. Most of the members forcefully condemned Russia’s actions and rationales. Some noted the cardinal UN Charter principles at stake, as well as Russia’s violation of its own bilateral and multilateral agreements with Ukraine in which it promised to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine.</p>
<p>China, while abstaining and raising concerns about the timing of the resolution, emphasized its consistent support of the principle of territorial integrity and the need for political dialogue. Its Ambassador Liu Jieyi was the voice of moderation and reconciliation, suggesting the establishment of an international coordinating mechanism to discuss the crisis, restraint by all parties to the conflict and increased financial assistance to Ukraine through international institutions.</p>
<p>The price Russia will pay for its naked aggression against Ukraine will, at minimum, be international isolation and sanctions. Secretary of State John Kerry has warned of serious consequences for Russia as early as Monday if Russia does not back off.  The European Foreign Ministers will be meeting on Monday. The United Kingdom’s UN Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant told reporters after the Security Council session adjourned that “[I]f the referendum goes ahead on Sunday, then I think we can see a reaction from the European leaders on Monday.”</p>
<p>Sanctions and asset freezes may be too little too late. Moreover, Putin can retaliate, causing severe disruptions to American and European businesses operating in Russia and cutting off fuel supplies to Europe. Moreover, Asian countries are far from likely to participate in any sanctions.</p>
<p>There is only one language that Putin understands – military pressure. That means, at minimum, an announcement by the Obama administration that it will install missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic after all. And, for good measure, the Obama administration should make clear that it will plan for installation of such systems and other highly sophisticated military equipment in the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and in western Ukraine if Russia does not immediately withdraw its troops back to where they belong.</p>
<p>Today Russia stands exposed as an outlaw state operating in the same manner that led to two World Wars. As French UN Ambassador Araud noted, “We are going back to 1914, and we are in 2014.”</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Daniel Greenfield </strong>on <strong>The</strong> <strong>Glazov Gang </strong>discussing <em>Obama&#8217;s Helplessness Over the Ukraine</em>:</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6Se7vaS-INo" height="315" width="460" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><b>Make sure to </b><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/russia-steamrolls-over-the-united-nations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.N. Laments Saudis&#8217; Rejection of Security Council Seat</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/u-n-laments-saudis-rejection-of-security-council-seat/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=u-n-laments-saudis-rejection-of-security-council-seat</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/u-n-laments-saudis-rejection-of-security-council-seat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Oct 2013 04:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saudi Arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vote]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=207982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The moral indignation of a human rights abusing nation. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/saudi-arabia-hrw-555x388.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-207983" alt="saudi-arabia-hrw-555x388" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/saudi-arabia-hrw-555x388-450x314.jpg" width="270" height="188" /></a>In declining to accept a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council that it had actively sought for two years, Saudi Arabia pouted that it could not abide by the Security Council’s “double-standards.” Saudi Arabia had just won the seat last Thursday at a UN General Assembly election, along with Chad, Chile, Lithuania and Nigeria. The Saudis do not like the direction that the Security Council has taken recently in finally coming together to mandate the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and to formally support the international community’s efforts to hold a peace conference in Geneva that includes representatives of the Assad regime. The Saudis also complained that the Security Council has failed to deal adequately with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.</span></b></p>
<p>&#8220;Work mechanisms and double-standards on the Security Council prevent it from carrying out its duties and assuming its responsibilities in keeping world peace,&#8221; the Saudi Foreign Ministry said in a statement. &#8220;Therefore, Saudi Arabia&#8230; has no other option but to turn down Security Council membership until it is reformed and given the means to accomplish its duties and assume its responsibilities in preserving the world&#8217;s peace and security,&#8221; it added.</p>
<p>The Russian foreign ministry described the Saudis’ decision as “strange.” The French, however, were more understanding. &#8220;We think that Saudi Arabia would have brought a very positive contribution to the Security Council, but we do also understand the frustration of Saudi Arabia,&#8221; France&#8217;s UN ambassador Gerard Araud told reporters.</p>
<p>UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that as of Friday he had not yet received official notification of Saudi Arabia’s decision, but added in remarks to reporters:</p>
<blockquote><p>“We also are looking forward to working very closely in addressing many important challenges with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, particularly to bring an end to the war in Syria, to help Palestinian people to achieve a viable State, and to help the current transition in Yemen, and also to extend humanitarian assistance to all the people in need, and to combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation<b>.”</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, said that “I understand different countries will have different responses, but we&#8217;ll continue to work with them on issues that we share of mutual concern.”</p>
<p>Indeed, while the Obama administration has decided to seriously curtail the ongoing provision of military support to the interim government in Egypt, which is fighting terrorists in Sinai and elsewhere who are threatening regional stability, the administration has just recently announced to Congress “a possible Foreign Military Sale to Saudi Arabia of various munitions and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $6.8 billion.” This transaction will include various kinds of missiles, on top of a separate deal entered into late last year under which the Saudis are to purchase 84 new and 70 refurbished F-15SA multi-role fighter aircraft and associated weapons.</p>
<p>That’s a lot of armament going to a country that sponsors jihadist attacks outside of its own borders, including, most notably, in Syria where it is enabling the flow of arms to jihadists.</p>
<p>Moreover, for years, Saudi Arabia’s wealthy donors have funded terrorist organizations. Indeed, as a December 2009 diplomatic cable noted, which was signed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and later disclosed by WikiLeaks, “donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.” The cable added that there was an “ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.”</p>
<p>Ironically, on the very same day as Saudi Arabia announced its decision to reject a seat on the Security Council, that body was conducting an open debate on the theme “”Women and Peace and Security.” U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power spoke on the importance of women&#8217;s rights and equal participation to advance peace and security worldwide. One day earlier Ambassador Power issued the obligatory statement congratulating Saudi Arabia and the other four member states on their election to the Security Council. One wonders whether she is relieved at not having to sit next to a representative from the racist, misogynistic society, infused with the supremacist Wahhabi Islamic ideology, which defines Saudi Arabia.</p>
<p>As Hillel Neuer, executive director of the non-governmental human rights group UN Watch put it:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;While the Saudi statement invoked UN &#8216;double standards&#8217; as their grounds for refusal, the truth is that Saudi Arabia&#8217;s entire system is a double standard. Under Saudi law and practice, there is one standard for men, and another for women, who cannot vote, drive a car, or travel without a male guardian; one for Muslims, and another for Christians, 53 of whom who were arrested this year by religious police for praying in a private home; one for heterosexuals, and another for gays, where homosexuality is punishable by death, and where gays have been publicly beheaded.</p>
<p>Women are subjugated in Saudi Arabia. They suffer gross and systematic inequality, and discrimination in law and practice.”</p></blockquote>
<p>In sum, as long as an even worse country such as Iran does not replace Saudi Arabia on the Security Council, Saudi Arabia’s decision to give up its seat is a very positive development for those who care about human rights and are concerned about the spreading jihadist threat funded by the Saudis.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/u-n-laments-saudis-rejection-of-security-council-seat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama Forces U.N. Silence on Syrian Slaughter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-administration-forces-latest-u-n-impasse-in-syria/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-administration-forces-latest-u-n-impasse-in-syria</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-administration-forces-latest-u-n-impasse-in-syria/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 04:20:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[car bomb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damascus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=178822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[International community passes on opportunity to condemn heinous act of terror. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-administration-forces-latest-u-n-impasse-in-syria/cars-burn-in-damascus-after-explosion/" rel="attachment wp-att-178829"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-178829" title="Cars burn in Damascus after explosion" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Cars-burn-in-Damascus-aft-016-450x337.jpg" alt="" width="270" height="202" /></a>In the latest episode of rampant violence resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians in Syria, a car bomb killed more than fifty  people and wounded two hundred in Damascus on February 21st.  The tally included students at a nearby secondary school. The bombing took place close to the Russian Embassy compound, where significant damage was reported, and to the ruling Baath Party offices in the central Mazraa district of the Syrian capital. It is highly likely that the al Qaeda-linked rebel group Jabhat al-Nusrah, which has taken credit for other bombings in the Damascus area this month, was involved in the Mazraa car bombing, although it did not immediately claim responsibility for this attack. Two other car bombings also occurred in Damascus on the same day, causing additional deaths and injuries.</p>
<p>The main umbrella opposition group seeking to overthrow Syrian President Assad tried to distance itself from the car bombings, but its leader Sheik Ahmad Moaz al-Khatib has rejected the idea that there are terrorist elements that are part of the armed opposition. “The logic under which we consider one of the parts that fights against the Assad regime is a terrorist organization is a logic one must reconsider,” he said in criticizing the Obama administration&#8217;s decision to designate al-Nusrah as an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist organization. Moreover, at least twenty-nine different Syrian rebel groups, including fighting “brigades” and civilian committees, have reportedly pledged their allegiance to al-Nusrah.</p>
<p>Syria&#8217;s official news agency said that the Foreign Ministry sent letters to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council, urging the Security Council to “adopt a firm stance which proves its commitment to combating terrorism regardless of its timing or place.”</p>
<p>Ban Ki-moon condemned the attacks, without attributing blame specifically to either the Syrian government or the opposition. When the members of the Security Council tried to reach a consensus on a statement of their own, however, they failed.</p>
<p>The Russian delegation &#8211; whose embassy was damaged as a result of the Mazraa car bombing &#8211; proposed a draft statement that would have condemned &#8220;this heinous act of terrorism&#8221; and extended &#8220;condolences to the relatives of the victims.&#8221; It was similar to the press statement that the  Security Council had issued with regard to the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya last September 11th.</p>
<p>Here is the non-controversial text that the Russians proposed, which was published on line by Inner City Press:</p>
<blockquote><p>The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack that occurred in downtown Damascus, Syria on 21 February, 2013, in close proximity to diplomatic missions, causing scores of deaths and injuries. They expressed their deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the victims of these heinous acts and to their families, and to the people of Syria.</p>
<p>The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security, and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.</p>
<p>The members of the Security Council reiterated their determination to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations.</p>
<p>The members of the Security Council reminded States that they must ensure that measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.</p></blockquote>
<p>According to the UN ambassadors from two members of the Security Council whom I spoke with, the effort to reach a consensus is &#8220;dead&#8221; because of an &#8220;impasse&#8221; between the United States and Russia.  While they would not provide any details on the reasons for the impasse, it appears that the Obama administration&#8217;s insistence on adding a paragraph specifically condemning the Syrian government was the main sticking point.</p>
<p>Russia went public with its own press release criticizing the U.S. position:</p>
<blockquote><p>Unfortunately, such an indispensable reaction by the Security Council to this terrorist attack has been once again blocked by the US delegation linking it with other questions.</p>
<p>We consider unacceptable this search for justifications for terrorist actions. It is obvious that by doing so the US delegation encourages those who have been repeatedly targeting American interests, including US diplomatic missions.</p></blockquote>
<p>Russia&#8217;s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was even more blunt. &#8220;We &#8230; see in it a very dangerous tendency by our American colleagues to depart from the fundamental principle of unconditional condemnation of any terrorist act, a principle which secures the unity of the international community in the fight against terrorism,&#8221; Lavrov said. &#8220;Russia sees in the American position an application of double standards and a dangerous approach in terms of the Americans moving away from the main principle of condemning terrorism in all its forms.&#8221;</p>
<p>U.S. Mission spokesperson Erin Pelton countered that while the United States agreed with the Russian draft statement as far as it went, it needed to also address the Syrian government&#8217;s attacks against the Syrian people in order for the U.S. to go along. &#8220;Unfortunately, Russia refused to engage on a credible text,&#8221; Pelton said.</p>
<p>The Obama administration has handled this matter clumsily, to say the least. It shortsightedly torpedoed an opportunity for the Security Council to declare with a unified voice that acts of terrorism indiscriminately killing innocent civilians threaten international peace and security, no matter what the motivation or source may be, and that they have no justification under any circumstances.</p>
<p>The Mazraa car bombing had all the markings of an al Qaeda-style attack. The Islamist jihadist attack on our consulate in Libya was also a terrorist act by an al Qaeda-affiliated organization.  In that case, Russia signed on to a Security Council press statement condemning the September 11th Libyan attack as a &#8220;heinous&#8221; act, which contained the following language:</p>
<blockquote><p>The members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the attack on the United States of America’s diplomatic mission and personnel in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September, which resulted in the deaths of four American diplomatic personnel, including the Ambassador, and injuries to diplomatic personnel and civilians. They expressed their deep sympathy and sincere condolences to the victims of this heinous act and to their families&#8230; The members of the Security Council reaffirmed that such acts are unjustifiable regardless of their motivations, whenever and by whomsoever committed.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Russians wanted a similarly focused Security Council statement condemning the Damascus car bombings, which resulted in the deaths of civilians and damage to Russia&#8217;s diplomatic facilities. On its face, the language proposed by Russia did not take sides in the Syrian civil war. It said that &#8220;any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.&#8221; It referred to &#8220;all forms of terrorism,&#8221; which could be read as applying to state as well as non-state forms of terrorism. It also reminded states that they must comply with international law in combating terrorism. The Russians objected to additional verbiage proposed by the Obama administration condemning the Assad regime&#8217;s use of heavy weapons, which the Russians believed could be exploited to justify whatever means the anti-Assad forces used to depose him.</p>
<p>The Obama administration should have backed off in this case. Allowing the original Russian text, modeled on the Security Council press statement that had condemned the Benghazi attack, to go forward would have at least placed something on the record by the Security Council, which is better than nothing at all.</p>
<p>Last month, the UN-Arab League special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, warned the Security Council that Syria &#8220;is breaking up before everyone&#8217;s eyes. Only the international community can help and first (and) foremost the Security Council.&#8221;</p>
<p>After the latest impasse, this time courtesy of the Obama administration, the Security Council has once again demonstrated its inability to do anything to help.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/joseph-klein/obama-administration-forces-latest-u-n-impasse-in-syria/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Matthias Küntzel: The West goes wobbly on Iran, The Weekly Standard</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/matthias-kuntzel-the-west-goes-wobbly-on-iran-the-weekly-standard/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=matthias-kuntzel-the-west-goes-wobbly-on-iran-the-weekly-standard</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/matthias-kuntzel-the-west-goes-wobbly-on-iran-the-weekly-standard/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:04:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jacob Laksin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[astonishment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brakes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brussels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discussion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[door]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[europeans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geneva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Great Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranian regime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iranians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maneuvering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manifestation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manouchehr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manouchehr mottaki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mottaki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[November]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[package]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peace in our time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[percent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[processing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proposal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions against iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seriousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[struggle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uranium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vienna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 18, Iran&#8217;s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected a proposal that his country should export some 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad. On November 20, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Brussels and urged Iran to reconsider. &#8220;I continue to hold out the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On November 18, Iran&#8217;s foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki rejected a proposal that his country should export some 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium for further processing abroad. On November 20, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany met in Brussels and urged Iran to reconsider. &#8220;I continue to hold out the prospect that they may decide to walk through this door,&#8221; explained Barack Obama, though he noted at the same time, &#8220;Over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps .  .  . that would indicate our seriousness to Iran.&#8221; Russia&#8217;s foreign ministry, as usual, contradicted him: &#8220;There is currently no discussion on working out additional sanctions against Iran.&#8221;</p>
<p>So was this merely the latest manifestation of the same fruitless maneuvering that has gone on every year since the struggle over Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons began in 2003? Not at all. It was not the ploys of the Iranians that provoked astonishment at the most recent negotiations in Geneva and Vienna, but rather the attitude of the United States.</p>
<p>Whereas in the past Washington sought to increase pressure on Iran, and Europe stepped on the brakes, today it is Obama who is stepping on the brakes while France and Great Britain push for sanctions. Whereas George W. Bush denounced the Islamism of the Iranian regime, his successor attempts to ingratiate himself by offering compliments and apologies. Whereas before it was the Europeans who packaged their failures as successful &#8220;dialogue,&#8221; now it is Washington that does so.</p>
<p>via <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/275yteer.asp">Obama&#8217;s Search for Peace in Our Time</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jlaksin/matthias-kuntzel-the-west-goes-wobbly-on-iran-the-weekly-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 671/705 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 02:35:06 by W3 Total Cache -->