Obama’s First UN Veto: US to Stop Security Council Calling Israeli Settlements ‘Illegal’
Jason Ditz,
February 16, 2011
Antiwar Forum
The Obama Administration is threatening to use its first ever UN Security Council veto this week when the Palestinian Authority moves forward with a non-binding resolution referring to the settlement construction in the Occupied Territories as “illegal.”
The case for the illegality of conquering territory, depopulating it, and building government subsidized, religiously exclusive cities over the ruins does not appear to be in serious doubt over much of the world, but of course it is a topic of debate in Israel, and like any good topic of debate in Israel the most ignorant and hawkish position has become law of the land in the US, to the point that suggestions to the contrary are considered outrageous.
Which has left the administration offering to support a watered-down draft calling the settlements “not legitimate” instead, but skirting the question of legality.
Of course neither resolution means much of anything in the long run, settlements will still be built and the US will still throw money at Israel as fast as the Federal Reserve can print it. The fact that the Obama Administration is willing to throw its “first veto” at something as frivolous as a dispute of the Geneva Conventions’ ban on settlements, however, seems troubling.
___________________________________________________
Obama Warned Palestinians Of Repercussions if Abbas Goes to UN
By AFP
February 18, 2011 "AFP" -- RAMALLAH, Palestinian Territories --- US President Barack Obama warned the Palestinians of "repercussions" if they pushed for a UN Security Council vote against Jewish settlements, an official said on Friday.
"President Obama threatened on Thursday night to take measures against the Palestinian Authority if it insists on going to the Security Council to condemn Israeli settlement activity, and demand that it be stopped," a senior Palestinian official told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Obama's remarks came during an hour-long telephone conversation between the two late on Thursday, in which the US leader tried to dissuade Abbas from supporting a UN Security Council vote due to take place later on Friday.
During the call, Obama told Abbas: "There will be repercussions for Palestinian-American relations if you continue your attempts to go to the Security Council and ignore our requests in this matter, especially as we suggested other alternatives."
He was referring to a package of incentives laid out earlier this week aimed at enticing the Palestinians to withdraw their support for the draft resolution on settlements which is being put before the Security Council.
After the Palestinians had rejected the initial offer, Obama rang Abbas late on Thursday to suggest that the Security Council issue a non-binding statement calling on Israel to implement a settlement freeze.
During the conversation, Abbas had rejected the offer, saying: "Stopping settlement activity is a Palestinian demand that will not be taken back because it was the reason the peace process fell apart," the official quoted him as saying.
"It was a decision taken by the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people are sticking to this demand."
It was not immediately clear at what stage in the phone call Obama had warned Abbas against rejecting the US overtures.
US-brokered peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians stalled in late 2010 after the expiry of a temporary freeze on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank.
Efforts by Washington to coax Israel into reimposing a freeze collapsed in December, and the Palestinians are refusing to continue negotiating while Israel builds on land they want for their promised state.
The United States, which regularly uses its Security Council veto power to stop anti-Israeli initiatives, is very keen to avoid the vote because it does not want to be forced to cast a veto.
Should it do so, it would be the first time the United States has used its veto power since Obama took office in January 2009.
__________________________________________________
U.S. veto thwarts UN resolution condemning settlements
Palestinian Authority leadership brought draft resolution against Israeli settlements to the UN security council, despite pressure from the U.S. to withdraw it.
By Shlomo Shamir, Natasha Mozgovaya, Barak Ravid
Haaretz
Latest update 23:19 18.02.11
The United States on Friday voted against a United Nations Security Council draft resolution that would have condemned Israeli settlements as illegal. The veto by the U.S., a permanent council member, prevented the resolution from being adopted. (Editor: Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and are patently immoral. It is outrageous that the United States stands alone in supporting Israel's crimes, a testiment to the power of the Zionist Lobby in America)
The other 14 Security Council members voted in favor of the draft resolution. But the U.S., as one of five permanent council members with the power to block any action by the Security Council, struck it down.
The resolution had nearly 120 co-sponsors, exclusively Arab and other non-aligned nations.
The Obama administration's veto is certain to anger Arab countries and Palestinian supporters around the world.
The U.S. opposes new Israeli settlements but says taking the issue to the UN will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.
Palestinians say continued settlement building flouts the internationally-backed peace plan that will permit them to create a viable, contiguous state on the land after a treaty with Israel to end its occupation and 62 years of conflict.
Israel says this is an excuse for avoiding peace talks and a precondition never demanded before during 17 years of negotiation, which has so far produced no agreement.
Hundreds of Palestinian protesters rallied in support of the UN vote on Friday near Ramallah displaying banners demanding: "Veto settlements. Vote justice".
Showing posts with label UN Security Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN Security Council. Show all posts
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Turkey holds Israel to account
By Irfan Husain
Dawn.com, more HERE...
Wednesday, 02 Jun, 2010
Protesters hold Palestinian and Turkish flags during a rally to denouncing Israel’s attack on an aid ship bound for Gaza. – AP Photo
For Israel, the tectonic plates shifted on Monday when its ham-fisted attempt to prevent the Freedom Flotilla from reaching Gaza blew up in its face. The fallout from its lethal commando raid on the Mavi Marmara is still spreading around the world as it scrambles to escape the consequences of a public relations disaster of the first magnitude. Judging from the enormous negative coverage the incident is receiving here in the UK and around the world, being an Israeli diplomat posted in a foreign capital would be a singularly thankless job these days.
However, reading the UN Security Council resolution that emerged after hours of tough negotiations makes it clear that Israel still has powerful friends in Washington. The watered down text reflects American anxiety to shield its ally from the much harsher language of the original draft presented by Turkey. Nevertheless, the fact that the US did not use its veto indicates a more calibrated approach towards Israel than we have witnessed in the recent past.
Liberal public opinion – albeit a small minority in Israel – recognises the insanity of the action as well as of the blockade of Gaza. Ha’aretz today contained a number of articles condemning the raid on a ship carrying unarmed peace activists, and deploring the myopic policy that caused it. The Jerusalem Post, however, lived up to its image of the mouthpiece of jingoistic Zionists by justifying the siege of Gaza, and Israel’s right to board the ship on the high seas. In an article titled Sinking Turkey-Israeli Relations, Anat Ladipat-Firilla argues that Turkey is positioning itself as a regional power, and as a leader of Sunni Muslim countries. According to the writer, this shift in Turkish foreign policy brings it into conformity with the ideology of the ruling AK Party. He also suggests that by de-legitimising Israel, Turkey would enhance its standing in the Muslim world.
It is certainly true that ever since the Israeli assault on Gaza early last year that resulted in 1,400 Palestinian deaths, Turkey has been downgrading its close ties with Israel. The deterioration in relations has been marked by a cancellation of joint military exercises; now, an energy deal is under threat. However, a $180 million order to import a number of Israeli Heron drones is still in place. For Israel, this deterioration in ties would be a disaster as close military links with Turkey have been crucial to its strategic interests. Turkey has been an active mediator between Israel and Syria, and provides an important market for Israeli arms. Israeli air force pilots have trained regularly in Turkish airspace, and the armed forces of the two countries have long conducted exercises together.
The reason for current Turkish fury is that the Israelis ignored the fact that the Mavi Marmara is a Turkish vessel, carrying a large number of Turks. It had been inspected at a Turkish port to make sure there were only relief goods on board, and the sponsor of the relief expedition was a well-known Turkish organisation, the IHH. Thus, the flotilla had sailed with Ankara’s blessings and encouragement. For the Israelis to behave in such a barbaric way towards a friendly country’s citizens was an own goal the Nethanyahu government must be secretly ruing.
Although the perception around the world is that Israel gets away with its oppression of Palestinians because of its highly effective lobby in the United States, the reality is somewhat more nuanced. It is true that after President Obama tried to pressure Tel Aviv to halt its colonisation policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem, a number of congressmen – including those from his own party – approached him to persuade him to back off, citing the congressional elections due in November. It seems these tactics have worked, at least for now. But significantly, a top American general said in testimony before a congressional committee that unquestioning support for Israel was putting the lives of US soldiers at risk. So although Washington is still strongly committed to its ally, there are important voices urging a more critical approach. Once the November elections are behind him, Obama might live up to his promise of applying pressure on Nethanyahu. According to reports, he is angry and frustrated over the appalling conditions the Gazans are living in due to the Israeli siege.
Ultimately, there are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations, only permanent interests. Thus far, Israel has thrived by playing on Western guilt and sympathy over the Holocaust, as well as the fact that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Of course, the ingenuity and hard work of its people have played a large part in making it the success story it undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, the world is growing increasingly tired of the endless crises that erupt periodically as Israel maintains its tight grip over occupied land despite the obdurate resistance posed by the Palestinians.
After this latest example of self-defeating brutality, even Israel’s friends in Europe have condemned the violence, and have called for an independent enquiry. But after a time, things will quieten down again until the next explosion. Meanwhile, it is Turkey whose moral outrage will propel this anti-Israel narrative. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the commando raid as state terrorism, and the Turkish foreign minister said at the UN that the Israeli action ‘blurred the line between the state and terrorism’. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout)
As I write this, two more relief ships have set sail for Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post, they will be met with the same kind of reception that greeted the Freedom Flotilla on Monday. Unfortunately, the Israeli leadership have not learned any lessons from their own history: in July 1947, a ship called the Exodus set sail from France with Jewish concentration camp survivors intent on breaking the British blockade of Palestine. The Exodus was intercepted in international waters and its passengers taken to Germany to be interned until they could be screened for Zionist terrorists. Many of the passengers resisted being carried ashore, and fought British soldiers with sticks and whatever came to hand. While Lt-Colonel Gregson praised the fortitude of his men in resisting the temptation to use guns despite some of them getting badly beaten, he went to write:
“It should be borne in mind that the guiding factor in the actions of the Jews is to gain the sympathy of the world press.”
Israel has painted itself into a corner, but lacks the capacity to say ‘sorry’ and attempt to minimise the damage it has caused itself so unnecessarily.
Dawn.com, more HERE...
Wednesday, 02 Jun, 2010
Protesters hold Palestinian and Turkish flags during a rally to denouncing Israel’s attack on an aid ship bound for Gaza. – AP PhotoFor Israel, the tectonic plates shifted on Monday when its ham-fisted attempt to prevent the Freedom Flotilla from reaching Gaza blew up in its face. The fallout from its lethal commando raid on the Mavi Marmara is still spreading around the world as it scrambles to escape the consequences of a public relations disaster of the first magnitude. Judging from the enormous negative coverage the incident is receiving here in the UK and around the world, being an Israeli diplomat posted in a foreign capital would be a singularly thankless job these days.
However, reading the UN Security Council resolution that emerged after hours of tough negotiations makes it clear that Israel still has powerful friends in Washington. The watered down text reflects American anxiety to shield its ally from the much harsher language of the original draft presented by Turkey. Nevertheless, the fact that the US did not use its veto indicates a more calibrated approach towards Israel than we have witnessed in the recent past.
Liberal public opinion – albeit a small minority in Israel – recognises the insanity of the action as well as of the blockade of Gaza. Ha’aretz today contained a number of articles condemning the raid on a ship carrying unarmed peace activists, and deploring the myopic policy that caused it. The Jerusalem Post, however, lived up to its image of the mouthpiece of jingoistic Zionists by justifying the siege of Gaza, and Israel’s right to board the ship on the high seas. In an article titled Sinking Turkey-Israeli Relations, Anat Ladipat-Firilla argues that Turkey is positioning itself as a regional power, and as a leader of Sunni Muslim countries. According to the writer, this shift in Turkish foreign policy brings it into conformity with the ideology of the ruling AK Party. He also suggests that by de-legitimising Israel, Turkey would enhance its standing in the Muslim world.
It is certainly true that ever since the Israeli assault on Gaza early last year that resulted in 1,400 Palestinian deaths, Turkey has been downgrading its close ties with Israel. The deterioration in relations has been marked by a cancellation of joint military exercises; now, an energy deal is under threat. However, a $180 million order to import a number of Israeli Heron drones is still in place. For Israel, this deterioration in ties would be a disaster as close military links with Turkey have been crucial to its strategic interests. Turkey has been an active mediator between Israel and Syria, and provides an important market for Israeli arms. Israeli air force pilots have trained regularly in Turkish airspace, and the armed forces of the two countries have long conducted exercises together.
The reason for current Turkish fury is that the Israelis ignored the fact that the Mavi Marmara is a Turkish vessel, carrying a large number of Turks. It had been inspected at a Turkish port to make sure there were only relief goods on board, and the sponsor of the relief expedition was a well-known Turkish organisation, the IHH. Thus, the flotilla had sailed with Ankara’s blessings and encouragement. For the Israelis to behave in such a barbaric way towards a friendly country’s citizens was an own goal the Nethanyahu government must be secretly ruing.
Although the perception around the world is that Israel gets away with its oppression of Palestinians because of its highly effective lobby in the United States, the reality is somewhat more nuanced. It is true that after President Obama tried to pressure Tel Aviv to halt its colonisation policies in the West Bank and Jerusalem, a number of congressmen – including those from his own party – approached him to persuade him to back off, citing the congressional elections due in November. It seems these tactics have worked, at least for now. But significantly, a top American general said in testimony before a congressional committee that unquestioning support for Israel was putting the lives of US soldiers at risk. So although Washington is still strongly committed to its ally, there are important voices urging a more critical approach. Once the November elections are behind him, Obama might live up to his promise of applying pressure on Nethanyahu. According to reports, he is angry and frustrated over the appalling conditions the Gazans are living in due to the Israeli siege.
Ultimately, there are no permanent friends or enemies in international relations, only permanent interests. Thus far, Israel has thrived by playing on Western guilt and sympathy over the Holocaust, as well as the fact that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. Of course, the ingenuity and hard work of its people have played a large part in making it the success story it undoubtedly is. Nevertheless, the world is growing increasingly tired of the endless crises that erupt periodically as Israel maintains its tight grip over occupied land despite the obdurate resistance posed by the Palestinians.
After this latest example of self-defeating brutality, even Israel’s friends in Europe have condemned the violence, and have called for an independent enquiry. But after a time, things will quieten down again until the next explosion. Meanwhile, it is Turkey whose moral outrage will propel this anti-Israel narrative. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has denounced the commando raid as state terrorism, and the Turkish foreign minister said at the UN that the Israeli action ‘blurred the line between the state and terrorism’. (Editor's bold emphasis throughout)
As I write this, two more relief ships have set sail for Gaza. According to the Jerusalem Post, they will be met with the same kind of reception that greeted the Freedom Flotilla on Monday. Unfortunately, the Israeli leadership have not learned any lessons from their own history: in July 1947, a ship called the Exodus set sail from France with Jewish concentration camp survivors intent on breaking the British blockade of Palestine. The Exodus was intercepted in international waters and its passengers taken to Germany to be interned until they could be screened for Zionist terrorists. Many of the passengers resisted being carried ashore, and fought British soldiers with sticks and whatever came to hand. While Lt-Colonel Gregson praised the fortitude of his men in resisting the temptation to use guns despite some of them getting badly beaten, he went to write:
“It should be borne in mind that the guiding factor in the actions of the Jews is to gain the sympathy of the world press.”
Israel has painted itself into a corner, but lacks the capacity to say ‘sorry’ and attempt to minimise the damage it has caused itself so unnecessarily.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
UN decries Israeli flotilla raid
Al Jazeera
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
15:02 Mecca time, 12:02 GMT
The UN Security Council has condemned acts leading to the deaths of civilians during Monday's Israeli attack on a humanitarian aid convoy that was headed to the Gaza Strip.
In a formal statement adopted after more than 10 hours of closed-door negotiations, the council requested the immediate release of ships and civilians held by Israel and called for an impartial investigation.
Prior to the emergency session, almost all the 15 members of the council deplored the attack that left at least 10 activists on board the Freedom Flotilla dead and dozens injured.
"It is clearer than ever that Israel's restrictions on access to Gaza must be lifted in line with Security Council Resolution 1860," Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador, said on Tuesday.
"The current closure is unacceptable and counterproductive," Grant said.
France, Russia and China also called for the blockade to be lifted and for an independent inquiry.
The United States, Israel's traditional ally, did not request specifically that Israel end its blockade on the Gaza Strip. But it hinted that the measure at least should be eased.
Alejandro Wolff, US deputy permanent representative, said that Washington was "deeply disturbed by recent violence and regrets tragic loss of life and injuries".
Meanwhile, Egypt opened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip letting Palestinians cross until further notice.
Palestinian TV said that Mahmood Abbas, the president, phoned Hosni Mubarak, his Egyptian counter-part, to thank him for "responding to the massacre" by opening the post.
The statements reflected the international community's strong disapproval of Monday's events in the high seas, when Israeli soldiers stormed the six ships in international waters about 65km off the Gaza coast.
The ships with about 700 pro-Palestinian activists were carrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid for Gaza, the coastal territory under a crippling Israeli siege.
Israel insisted that its troops had acted in self-defence after being attacked by those onboard.
But Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, onboard the lead ship Mavi Marmara, said troops opened fire even after passengers had raised a white flag.
Israeli troops have taken the ships to the port of Ashdod after seizing them.
Activists who were injured are being treated in hospitals while 480 others are been detained and subjected to interrogations. Another 48 activists have been deported to their respective countries.
Al Jazeera's Elshayyal is reportedly being held at a detention facility at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, together with two of his colleagues.
Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Ashdod, said: "We are still trying to get information in terms of the condition of the passengers..."
"An identification and interrogation process has gotten under way, to identify the individuals and then provide them with the option of being deported immediately or sent to prison here," he said.
Global outrage
Thousands marched in the streets of Istanbul, London and Amman in Jordan among other cities on Monday, denouncing the deadly raid on the ships that sought to deliver much-needed supplies to Gazans.
But Israel has remained defiant with Mark Regev, its government spokesman, insisting that "Israel was totally within its rights under international law to intercept the ship and to take it to the port of Ashdod".
He said the people on board the flotilla were not peaceful activists.
"They are part of the IHH, which is a radical Turkish Islamist organisation which has been investigated by Western governments and by the Turkish government itself in the past for their links with terrorist organisations."
Reporting from Jerusalem, Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland said Israel's reaction has largely been of defiance.
"Many [Israeli citizens] have flocked to the port of Ashdod to basically express their rejection of what they see as the foreign media's negative spin on events."
"...Israeli spin masters have been going into overdrive, doing their best possible to spin this event as though the Israeli commandos were not the ones attacking but rather the attack was perpetrated by people on board," she said.
Israeli 'cover-up'
But Israeli efforts notwithstanding, the country has come in for strong censure.
Murat Mercan, the head of Turkey's foreign relations committee, said that activists on board had links to terrorist organisations was Israel's way of covering up its mistake.
"Any allegation that the members of this ship is attached to al-Qaeda is a big lie because there are Israeli civilians, Israeli authorities, Israeli parliamentarians on board the ship," he told Al Jazeera.
"Does he [Regev] think that those are also attached to al-Qaeda?"
Mark Taylor, an international legal expert, told Al Jazeera that every state, including Israel, has the right to self-defence.
"In this case, we're looking at a humanitarian aid convoy, with prominent people and activists, clearly not a military target in any way whatsoever."
Israeli media reported that many of the dead were Turkish nationals.
Hamas, the Palestinian group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the assault was a "massacre" and called on the international community to intervene.
The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, urged Arabs and Muslims to show their anger by staging protests outside Israeli embassies across the globe.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
15:02 Mecca time, 12:02 GMT
The UN Security Council has condemned acts leading to the deaths of civilians during Monday's Israeli attack on a humanitarian aid convoy that was headed to the Gaza Strip.
In a formal statement adopted after more than 10 hours of closed-door negotiations, the council requested the immediate release of ships and civilians held by Israel and called for an impartial investigation.
Prior to the emergency session, almost all the 15 members of the council deplored the attack that left at least 10 activists on board the Freedom Flotilla dead and dozens injured.
"It is clearer than ever that Israel's restrictions on access to Gaza must be lifted in line with Security Council Resolution 1860," Mark Lyall Grant, the British ambassador, said on Tuesday.
"The current closure is unacceptable and counterproductive," Grant said.
France, Russia and China also called for the blockade to be lifted and for an independent inquiry.
The United States, Israel's traditional ally, did not request specifically that Israel end its blockade on the Gaza Strip. But it hinted that the measure at least should be eased.
Alejandro Wolff, US deputy permanent representative, said that Washington was "deeply disturbed by recent violence and regrets tragic loss of life and injuries".
Meanwhile, Egypt opened its Rafah border crossing with the Gaza Strip letting Palestinians cross until further notice.
Palestinian TV said that Mahmood Abbas, the president, phoned Hosni Mubarak, his Egyptian counter-part, to thank him for "responding to the massacre" by opening the post.
The statements reflected the international community's strong disapproval of Monday's events in the high seas, when Israeli soldiers stormed the six ships in international waters about 65km off the Gaza coast.
The ships with about 700 pro-Palestinian activists were carrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid for Gaza, the coastal territory under a crippling Israeli siege.
Israel insisted that its troops had acted in self-defence after being attacked by those onboard.
But Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, onboard the lead ship Mavi Marmara, said troops opened fire even after passengers had raised a white flag.
Israeli troops have taken the ships to the port of Ashdod after seizing them.
Activists who were injured are being treated in hospitals while 480 others are been detained and subjected to interrogations. Another 48 activists have been deported to their respective countries.
Al Jazeera's Elshayyal is reportedly being held at a detention facility at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, together with two of his colleagues.
Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Ashdod, said: "We are still trying to get information in terms of the condition of the passengers..."
"An identification and interrogation process has gotten under way, to identify the individuals and then provide them with the option of being deported immediately or sent to prison here," he said.
Global outrage
Thousands marched in the streets of Istanbul, London and Amman in Jordan among other cities on Monday, denouncing the deadly raid on the ships that sought to deliver much-needed supplies to Gazans.
But Israel has remained defiant with Mark Regev, its government spokesman, insisting that "Israel was totally within its rights under international law to intercept the ship and to take it to the port of Ashdod".
He said the people on board the flotilla were not peaceful activists.
"They are part of the IHH, which is a radical Turkish Islamist organisation which has been investigated by Western governments and by the Turkish government itself in the past for their links with terrorist organisations."
Reporting from Jerusalem, Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland said Israel's reaction has largely been of defiance.
"Many [Israeli citizens] have flocked to the port of Ashdod to basically express their rejection of what they see as the foreign media's negative spin on events."
"...Israeli spin masters have been going into overdrive, doing their best possible to spin this event as though the Israeli commandos were not the ones attacking but rather the attack was perpetrated by people on board," she said.
Israeli 'cover-up'
But Israeli efforts notwithstanding, the country has come in for strong censure.
Murat Mercan, the head of Turkey's foreign relations committee, said that activists on board had links to terrorist organisations was Israel's way of covering up its mistake.
"Any allegation that the members of this ship is attached to al-Qaeda is a big lie because there are Israeli civilians, Israeli authorities, Israeli parliamentarians on board the ship," he told Al Jazeera.
"Does he [Regev] think that those are also attached to al-Qaeda?"
Mark Taylor, an international legal expert, told Al Jazeera that every state, including Israel, has the right to self-defence.
"In this case, we're looking at a humanitarian aid convoy, with prominent people and activists, clearly not a military target in any way whatsoever."
Israeli media reported that many of the dead were Turkish nationals.
Hamas, the Palestinian group which governs the Gaza Strip, said the assault was a "massacre" and called on the international community to intervene.
The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, urged Arabs and Muslims to show their anger by staging protests outside Israeli embassies across the globe.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The United States Takes the Matter of Three-headed Babies Very Seriously.
By William Blum
April 06, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- - When did it begin, all this "We take your [call/problem/question] very seriously"? With answering-machine hell? As you wait endlessly, the company or government agency assures you that they take seriously whatever reason you're calling. What a kind and thoughtful world we live in.
The BBC reported last month that doctors in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are reporting a high level of birth defects, with some blaming weapons used by the United States during its fierce onslaughts of 2004 and subsequently, which left much of the city in ruins. "It was like an earthquake," a local engineer who was running for a national assembly seat told the Washington Post in 2005. "After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was Fallujah." Now, the level of heart defects among newborn babies is said to be 13 times higher than in Europe.
The BBC correspondent also saw children in the city who were suffering from paralysis or brain damage, and a photograph of one baby who was born with three heads. He added that he heard many times that officials in Fallujah had warned women that they should not have children. One doctor in the city had compared data about birth defects from before 2003 — when she saw about one case every two months — with the situation now, when she saw cases every day. "I've seen footage of babies born with an eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead," she said.
A spokesman for the US military, Michael Kilpatrick, said it always took public health concerns "very seriously", but that "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues." 1
One could fill many large volumes with the details of the environmental and human horrors the United States has brought to Fallujah and other parts of Iraq during seven years of using white phosphorous shells, depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs, neutron bombs, laser weapons, weapons using directed energy, weapons using high-powered microwave technology, and other marvelous inventions in the Pentagon's science-fiction arsenal ... the list of abominations and grotesque ways of dying is long, the wanton cruelty of American policy shocking. In November 2004, the US military targeted a Fallujah hospital "because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties." 2 That's on a par with the classic line from the equally glorious American war in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the city to save it."
How can the world deal with such inhumane behavior? (And the above of course scarcely scratches the surface of the US international record.) For this the International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded in Rome in 1998 (entering into force July 1, 2002) under the aegis of the United Nations. The Court was established in The Hague, Netherlands to investigate and indict individuals, not states, for "The crime of genocide; Crimes against humanity; War crimes; or The crime of aggression." (Article 5 of the Rome Statute) From the very beginning, the United States was opposed to joining the ICC, and has never ratified it, because of the alleged danger of the Court using its powers to "frivolously" indict Americans.
So concerned about indictments were the American powers-that-be that the US went around the world using threats and bribes against countries to induce them to sign agreements pledging not to transfer to the Court US nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad. Just over 100 governments so far have succumbed to the pressure and signed an agreement. In 2002, Congress, under the Bush administration, passed the "American Service Members Protection Act", which called for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by ... the International Criminal Court." In the Netherlands it's widely and derisively known as the "Invasion of The Hague Act". 3 The law is still on the books.
Though American officials have often spoken of "frivolous" indictments — politically motivated prosecutions against US soldiers, civilian military contractors, and former officials — it's safe to say that what really worries them are "serious" indictments based on actual events. But they needn't worry. The mystique of "America the Virtuous" is apparently alive and well at the International Criminal Court, as it is, still, in most international organizations; indeed, amongst most people of the world. The ICC, in its first few years, under Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, dismissed many hundreds of petitions accusing the United States of war crimes, including 240 concerning the war in Iraq. The cases were turned down for lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or because of the United States' ability to conduct its own investigations and trials. The fact that the US never actually used this ability was apparently not particularly significant to the Court. "Lack of jurisdiction" refers to the fact that the United States has not ratified the accord. On the face of it, this does seem rather odd. Can nations commit war crimes with impunity as long as they don't become part of a treaty banning war crimes? Hmmm. The possibilities are endless. A congressional study released in August, 2006 concluded that the ICC's chief prosecutor demonstrated "a reluctance to launch an investigation against the United States" based on allegations regarding its conduct in Iraq. 4 Sic transit gloria International Criminal Court.
As to the crime of aggression, the Court's statute specifies that the Court "shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted ... defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime." In short, the crime of aggression is exempted from the Court's jurisdiction until "aggression" is defined. Writer Diana Johnstone has observed: "This is a specious argument since aggression has been quite clearly defined by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 in 1974, which declared that: 'Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State', and listed seven specific examples," including:
The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; and
Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.
The UN resolution also stated that: "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression."
The real reason that aggression remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC is that the United States, which played a strong role in elaborating the Statute before refusing to ratify it, was adamantly opposed to its inclusion. It is not hard to see why. It may be noted that instances of "aggression", which are clearly factual, are much easier to identify than instances of "genocide", whose definition relies on assumptions of intention. 5
There will be a conference of the ICC in May, in Kampala, Uganda, in which the question of specifically defining "aggression" will be discussed. The United States is concerned about this discussion. Here is Stephen J. Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, speaking to the ICC member nations (111 have ratified thus far) in The Hague last November 19:
I would be remiss not to share with you my country's concerns about an issue pending before this body to which we attach particular importance: the definition of the crime of aggression, which is to be addressed at the Review Conference in Kampala next year. The United States has well-known views on the crime of aggression, which reflect the specific role and responsibilities entrusted to the Security Council by the UN Charter in responding to aggression or its threat, as well as concerns about the way the draft definition itself has been framed. Our view has been and remains that, should the Rome Statute be amended to include a defined crime of aggression, jurisdiction should follow a Security Council determination that aggression has occurred.
Do you all understand what Mr. Rapp is saying? That the United Nations Security Council should be the body that determines whether aggression has occurred. The same body in which the United States has the power of veto. To prevent the adoption of a definition of aggression that might stigmatize American foreign policy is likely the key reason the US will be attending the upcoming conference.
Nonetheless, the fact that the United States will be attending the conference may well be pointed out by some as another example of how the Obama administration foreign policy is an improvement over that of the Bush administration. But as with almost all such examples, it's a propaganda illusion. Like the cover of Newsweek magazine of March 8, written in very large type: "Victory at last: The emergence of a democratic Iraq". Even before the current Iraqi electoral farce — with winning candidates arrested or fleeing 6— this headline should have made one think of the interminable jokes Americans made during the Cold War about Pravda and Izvestia.
Notes
1. BBC, March 4, 2010; Washington Post, December 3, 2005 ↩
2. New York Times, November 8, 2004 ↩
3. Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2009 ↩
4. Washington Post, November 7, 2006 ↩
5. Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch, January 27/28, 2007 ↩
6. Washington Post, April 2, 2010 ↩
April 06, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- - When did it begin, all this "We take your [call/problem/question] very seriously"? With answering-machine hell? As you wait endlessly, the company or government agency assures you that they take seriously whatever reason you're calling. What a kind and thoughtful world we live in.
The BBC reported last month that doctors in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are reporting a high level of birth defects, with some blaming weapons used by the United States during its fierce onslaughts of 2004 and subsequently, which left much of the city in ruins. "It was like an earthquake," a local engineer who was running for a national assembly seat told the Washington Post in 2005. "After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was Fallujah." Now, the level of heart defects among newborn babies is said to be 13 times higher than in Europe.
The BBC correspondent also saw children in the city who were suffering from paralysis or brain damage, and a photograph of one baby who was born with three heads. He added that he heard many times that officials in Fallujah had warned women that they should not have children. One doctor in the city had compared data about birth defects from before 2003 — when she saw about one case every two months — with the situation now, when she saw cases every day. "I've seen footage of babies born with an eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead," she said.
A spokesman for the US military, Michael Kilpatrick, said it always took public health concerns "very seriously", but that "No studies to date have indicated environmental issues resulting in specific health issues." 1
One could fill many large volumes with the details of the environmental and human horrors the United States has brought to Fallujah and other parts of Iraq during seven years of using white phosphorous shells, depleted uranium, napalm, cluster bombs, neutron bombs, laser weapons, weapons using directed energy, weapons using high-powered microwave technology, and other marvelous inventions in the Pentagon's science-fiction arsenal ... the list of abominations and grotesque ways of dying is long, the wanton cruelty of American policy shocking. In November 2004, the US military targeted a Fallujah hospital "because the American military believed that it was the source of rumors about heavy casualties." 2 That's on a par with the classic line from the equally glorious American war in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the city to save it."
How can the world deal with such inhumane behavior? (And the above of course scarcely scratches the surface of the US international record.) For this the International Criminal Court (ICC) was founded in Rome in 1998 (entering into force July 1, 2002) under the aegis of the United Nations. The Court was established in The Hague, Netherlands to investigate and indict individuals, not states, for "The crime of genocide; Crimes against humanity; War crimes; or The crime of aggression." (Article 5 of the Rome Statute) From the very beginning, the United States was opposed to joining the ICC, and has never ratified it, because of the alleged danger of the Court using its powers to "frivolously" indict Americans.
So concerned about indictments were the American powers-that-be that the US went around the world using threats and bribes against countries to induce them to sign agreements pledging not to transfer to the Court US nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad. Just over 100 governments so far have succumbed to the pressure and signed an agreement. In 2002, Congress, under the Bush administration, passed the "American Service Members Protection Act", which called for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by ... the International Criminal Court." In the Netherlands it's widely and derisively known as the "Invasion of The Hague Act". 3 The law is still on the books.
Though American officials have often spoken of "frivolous" indictments — politically motivated prosecutions against US soldiers, civilian military contractors, and former officials — it's safe to say that what really worries them are "serious" indictments based on actual events. But they needn't worry. The mystique of "America the Virtuous" is apparently alive and well at the International Criminal Court, as it is, still, in most international organizations; indeed, amongst most people of the world. The ICC, in its first few years, under Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine, dismissed many hundreds of petitions accusing the United States of war crimes, including 240 concerning the war in Iraq. The cases were turned down for lack of evidence, lack of jurisdiction, or because of the United States' ability to conduct its own investigations and trials. The fact that the US never actually used this ability was apparently not particularly significant to the Court. "Lack of jurisdiction" refers to the fact that the United States has not ratified the accord. On the face of it, this does seem rather odd. Can nations commit war crimes with impunity as long as they don't become part of a treaty banning war crimes? Hmmm. The possibilities are endless. A congressional study released in August, 2006 concluded that the ICC's chief prosecutor demonstrated "a reluctance to launch an investigation against the United States" based on allegations regarding its conduct in Iraq. 4 Sic transit gloria International Criminal Court.
As to the crime of aggression, the Court's statute specifies that the Court "shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted ... defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime." In short, the crime of aggression is exempted from the Court's jurisdiction until "aggression" is defined. Writer Diana Johnstone has observed: "This is a specious argument since aggression has been quite clearly defined by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 3314 in 1974, which declared that: 'Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State', and listed seven specific examples," including:
The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; and
Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State.
The UN resolution also stated that: "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression."
The real reason that aggression remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC is that the United States, which played a strong role in elaborating the Statute before refusing to ratify it, was adamantly opposed to its inclusion. It is not hard to see why. It may be noted that instances of "aggression", which are clearly factual, are much easier to identify than instances of "genocide", whose definition relies on assumptions of intention. 5
There will be a conference of the ICC in May, in Kampala, Uganda, in which the question of specifically defining "aggression" will be discussed. The United States is concerned about this discussion. Here is Stephen J. Rapp, US Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, speaking to the ICC member nations (111 have ratified thus far) in The Hague last November 19:
I would be remiss not to share with you my country's concerns about an issue pending before this body to which we attach particular importance: the definition of the crime of aggression, which is to be addressed at the Review Conference in Kampala next year. The United States has well-known views on the crime of aggression, which reflect the specific role and responsibilities entrusted to the Security Council by the UN Charter in responding to aggression or its threat, as well as concerns about the way the draft definition itself has been framed. Our view has been and remains that, should the Rome Statute be amended to include a defined crime of aggression, jurisdiction should follow a Security Council determination that aggression has occurred.
Do you all understand what Mr. Rapp is saying? That the United Nations Security Council should be the body that determines whether aggression has occurred. The same body in which the United States has the power of veto. To prevent the adoption of a definition of aggression that might stigmatize American foreign policy is likely the key reason the US will be attending the upcoming conference.
Nonetheless, the fact that the United States will be attending the conference may well be pointed out by some as another example of how the Obama administration foreign policy is an improvement over that of the Bush administration. But as with almost all such examples, it's a propaganda illusion. Like the cover of Newsweek magazine of March 8, written in very large type: "Victory at last: The emergence of a democratic Iraq". Even before the current Iraqi electoral farce — with winning candidates arrested or fleeing 6— this headline should have made one think of the interminable jokes Americans made during the Cold War about Pravda and Izvestia.
Notes
1. BBC, March 4, 2010; Washington Post, December 3, 2005 ↩
2. New York Times, November 8, 2004 ↩
3. Christian Science Monitor, February 13, 2009 ↩
4. Washington Post, November 7, 2006 ↩
5. Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch, January 27/28, 2007 ↩
6. Washington Post, April 2, 2010 ↩
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)