Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

15 nations have made their position on the WHO sovereignty grab public before the WHA meeting commences

How many other countries are entirely fed up with the World Stealth Organization’s misleading spin about “equity”?

BY MERYL NASS | MAY 12, 2024

The negotiations have been controlled by globalists, not nations, from day one.

Eleven nations informed the UN General Assembly they were not going along with the UN’s support for the WHO Pandemic Preparedness Agenda last September. In alphabetical order:

  1. Belarus
  2. Bolivia
  3. Cuba
  4. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
  5. Eritrea
  6. Islamic Republic of Iran
  7. Nicaragua
  8. Russian Federation
  9. Syrian Arab Republic
  10. Venezuela
  11. Zimbabwe

The Netherlands’ government has been instructed to delay the WHO votes or vote No by the lower house of Parliament.

Slovakia said it will not sign current drafts of both documents.

Croatia’s new majority party is against the WHO’s pandemic preparedness plan

Italy’s Senator Borghi said Italy will vote No on the treaty and furthermore that there are 10 more months in which to reject the IHR Amendments.

It is very unusual to have this level of disagreement made public even before the start of the World Health Assembly meeting. And with “hybrid negotiations” aka backroom horse-trading, leading right up to the meeting, nobody will have time to consider the treaties before they are due to be voted on. It has been a corrupt process from start to finish. It could only succeed with stealth (no one knowing what is really in the treaties) and bribes.

Now that the US has announced that 100 countries are being paid off to develop their pandemic preparedness agenda, will the bribes be enough to get these treaties across the finish line? Will the unbribed be miffed? How much will it cost the US taxpayer for the world’s nations to agree to dictatorial control of pandemics and health information going forward?

May 12, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 2 Comments

UNGA backs membership for Palestine

RT | May 10, 2024

The UN General Assembly passed a resolution accepting Palestine as the 194th member of the world body on Friday. The US has previously vetoed Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, however.

Palestine has been a non-voting observer in the global body since 2012. The new resolution would grant it “new rights and privileges,” as well as full membership if approved by the Security Council. It was adopted with 143 votes in favor, nine against, and 25 abstentions.

US Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood said his government was opposed to the resolution, indicating that Washington would veto Palestinian membership at the council again – as it did last month.

Friday’s resolution included an expression of “deep regret and concern” by the General Assembly that the US had vetoed the admission of Palestine on April 18, and urged the council to “reconsider the matter favorably” in line with the UN Charter and decisions by the International Court of Justice.

The General Assembly voiced its “unwavering support for the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders.”

Though Israel has nominally accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood in the abstract, the government in West Jerusalem has rejected its implementation in practice. During last month’s Security Council debate, Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan described the Palestinian Authority, which governs the West Bank, as “a terror-supporting entity that does not deserve any status in the UN.”

Israel has also vowed to completely destroy Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, after last year’s October 7 attacks.

After exercising his veto last month, Ambassador Wood said that the US action “does not reflect opposition to Palestinian statehood, but instead is an acknowledgement that it will only come from direct negotiations between the parties,” adding that Palestine can’t join the UN so long as Hamas is in control of Gaza.

Russia’s permanent representative to the UN Vassily Nebenzia has accused the US of holding the Security Council “hostage” over events in the Middle East. He also argued that Palestinian statehood and UN membership would “equalize the starting negotiating positions of the parties.”

An estimated 1,200 Israelis died in the October 7 attacks by Hamas. More than 34,000 Palestinians have been killed in the subsequent Israeli offensive, which is presently targeting the city of Rafah in the south of Gaza. Israel has pressed the attack despite the reservations of the US, made known at official levels.

May 10, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | 1 Comment

UN Official Condemns Health “Misinformation,” Advocates for “Digital Integrity Code”

By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 30, 2024

The United Nations continues with an attempt to advance the agenda to get what the organization calls its Code of Conduct for Information Integrity on Digital Platforms implemented.

This code is based on a previous policy brief that recommends censorship of whatever is deemed to be “disinformation, misinformation, hate” but that is only the big picture of the policy UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming is staunchly promoting.

In early April, Fleming gave a talk at Boston University, and here the focus was on AI, whose usefulness in various censorship ventures makes it seen as a tool that advances “resilience in global communication.”

A piece on the Boston University Center on Emerging Infectious Diseases site first asserts that AI had a “major role” in helping spread misinformation and conspiracy theories “in the post-pandemic era,” while the UN is described as one of the institutions that have been undermined by all this, while “working to dispel these narratives.”

(The article also – helpfully, in terms of understanding where its authors are coming from – cites the World Economic Forum (WEF) as the “authority” which has proclaimed that “the threat from misinformation and disinformation as the most severe short-term threat facing the world today”).

You will hardly hear Fleming disagreeing with any of this, but the UN’s approach is to “harness” that power to serve its own agendas. The UN official’s talk was about how AI can be used to feed the public the desired narratives around issues like vaccines, climate change, and the “well-being” of women and girls.

However, she also went long into all the aspects of AI that she perceives as negative, throwing pretty much every talking point already well established among the “AI fear-mongering genre” in there:

“One of our biggest worries is the ease with which new technologies can help spread misinformation easier and cheaper, and that this content can be produced at scale and far more easily personalized and targeted,” she said.

Flemming said that with the pandemic, this “skyrocketed” around the issue of vaccines. But she didn’t address why that may be – other than, apparently, being simply a furious sudden proliferation of “misinformation” for its own sake.

Flemming then mentions a number of UN activities, basically along the lines of “fact-checking” and “pre-bunking” (like “Verified,” and #TakeCareBeforeYouShare”).

Some might refer to Flemming as one of the “merchants of outrage” but she has this slur reserved for others, such as “climate (change) deniers.”

And it wasn’t long before X and Elon Musk cropped up.

“Since Elon Musk took over X, all of the climate deniers are back, and (the platform) has become a space for all kinds of climate disinformation. Here is a connection that people in the anti-vaccine sphere are now shifting to the climate change denial sphere,” Flemming lamented.

But, the UN official reassured everyone that “she and her team are working to build coalitions and initiatives that leverage AI to promote exciting, positive, fact-driven global public health communications.”

April 30, 2024 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

The sanctions regime against the DPRK under threat

By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 24.04.2024 

On March 28, 2024, Russia vetoed the extension of the mandate of the UN panel of experts to monitor the sanctions against the DPRK until April 30, 2025. This is important, because according to the established procedure, the decision to extend the term of office of the so-called 1718 Sanctions Committee must be made by April 30, otherwise it will be unable to continue with its activities.

What is the 1718 Sanctions Committee?

Resolution 1718 was adopted in October 2006 in response to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Resolution prohibited the supply, sale or transfer to the DPRK of any military equipment and weapons, and also of materials, equipment, goods and technology that could be used in North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Since then, the UN Security Council has adopted a number of other resolutions tightening the sanctions on North Korea.

The eight-member Panel of Experts supporting the UN Sanctions Committee on North Korea was established in 2009 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1874, which was adopted in response to the DPRK’s second nuclear test, to monitor compliance with the sanctions imposed on the DPRK by the UN member states. A panel of eight UN Secretary General-approved experts from the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, as well as South Korea, Japan and Singapore (theoretically) – collects, studies, analyzes data on the implementation of sanctions against the DPRK, submits a twice-annual report on sanctions violations to the United Nations Security Council based on information from UN member states and other open source materials, and makes recommendations on the sanctions issue.

Since its founding the group has reportedly uncovered a number of sanctions violations, including those related to the DPRK’s nuclear and missile programs and other prohibited activities such as the import of luxury goods and ship-to-ship transfers of sanctioned items.

The UN Security Council votes annually to extend the Panel’s mandate, and in 2023 Russia voted in favor of the extension.

Two days before the vote, NK News, citing “informed sources at the UN,” reported that Russia and China had proposed adding “sunset” clauses to the sanctions regime against the DPRK as a precondition for extending the Panel’s mandate. They proposed adding an expiration date to the de facto open-ended sanctions regime, and requiring a new consensus of the UN Security Council member states in order to renew the sanctions for a further term. Russia also proposed reducing the frequency of the group’s reports submission from twice to once a year.

The NK News article noted that the US, UK and France refuse to accept these proposals, which means that Moscow will be likely to veto the extension of the Panel’s mandate.

The Russian proposals were rejected and Russia blocked a draft resolution submitted by the United States, although 13 of the 15 UN Security Council members voted in favor of it. The representative of China, who abstained from voting, expressed support for Russia’s position, saying that the proposal to set an expiration date for sanctions on North Korea was “highly practical and quite feasible.”

Russia’s arguments

Explaining the reason for Russia’s exercise of its veto right Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, said that the authors of the document did not take into account Moscow’s proposal to set a time limit for the sanctions against North Korea, which remain indefinite.

As Vasily Nebenzya stated before the vote, it was “long overdue” for the Council to update the sanctions regime against the DPRK in light of the realities of the situation.

However, all attempts by Russia and China to link the level of sanctions pressure with the current behavior of the DPRK “have always been met with the absolute unwillingness of Western countries to depart from their destructive and punitive logic towards the DPRK.”

The 1718 Committee’s Panel of Experts, tasked with monitoring the sanctions policy, “failed to perform its direct duties” and was unable to “develop sober assessments of the state of the sanctions regime,” and as a result “its work was reduced to playing along with the West’s policies, repeating biased information, and analyzing newspaper headlines and low-quality pictures.”

Unfortunately, the present author has to agree with this statement, because the Panel’s reports included almost exclusively “investigations” made by sensationalist media outlets, with no critical analysis and an overreliance on the phrase “highly likely.”

According to the Russian representative, the West, led by the United States, is trying to “strangle” the DPRK through unilateral restrictions, propaganda and threats against the country’s leadership.

Given the above background, Russia proposed that the Council embark on an open and honest review of its sanctions measures against the DPRK, but “the US and its allies did not want to hear us and did not include our proposals in the draft resolution which was put to a vote today. Under these conditions, we do not see any ‘added value’ in the work of the Committee’s Panel of Experts and cannot support the American draft.”

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has twice commented on the problem, emphasizing that “the Council can no longer act according to its established patterns with regard to the Korean Peninsula issue.” The security situation in the region has not improved over the long years of sanctions (the DPRK’s missile and nuclear capabilities have only grown, the present author would add), and the devastating humanitarian consequences of the sanctions on the DPRK’s civilian population are evident. Moreover, it is not the DPRK that is aggravating the current situation, but rather the increasingly aggressive military activity of the United States and its allies that is leading to a new round of escalation in the region.

Many experts agree with this assessment. For example, Andrei Lankov, a prominent Russian-speaking researcher on the DPRK, told NK News that the increasing politicization of the Panel of Experts’ work has rendered it unable to reliably monitor the extent of the DPRK’s sanctions evasion. In his view, the differences of opinion within the DPRK Panel of Experts “reflect the main problem with the UN in its current form: it can only work if there is a consensus of the major powers.”

What was the reaction of the “international community”?

As Russian military expert Vladimir Khrustalev notes, the suspension of the Panel of Experts’ mandate significantly undermines the viability and certain legal aspects of the sanctions regime in its previous form.

But, of course, the reaction of US and South Korean officials and experts has been to condemn Russia. Western analysts say the absence of the 1718 Committee, whose main task is to monitor sanctions violations, would make it easier for Russia to engage in arms deals with the DPRK – long accepted in the West as an established fact.

US Department of State spokesman Matthew Miller expressed disappointment over Russia’s veto of the resolution and China’s abstention, calling the Committee the “gold standard” for providing fact-based, independent analysis and recommendations.

South Korea’s Foreign Ministry expressed “deep regret” over the veto: “The Panel of Experts has fulfilled its role in monitoring the DPRK, which… continues to violate sanctions through various illegal actions such as nuclear and missile provocations, arms exports, sending workers abroad, cyberattacks and military cooperation with the Russian Federation, and is building up its nuclear and missile potential.”

Yang Moo-jin, president of the University of North Korean Studies, said that the key factor behind the lifting of the UN’s sanctions monitoring of North Korea was not only by the rapprochement between Pyongyang and Moscow, but also by growing hostility between the United States and Russia, which “pushed the latter to establish closer ties with North Korea. Their strategic relationships are inherently interconnected. In addition, there is growing criticism in the UN Security Council that the sanctions are useless.”

Maria Zakharova’s second statement was a response to such rhetoric. In addition, Russia pointed out the inadmissibility of such criticisms on the part of the United States, which for the past five months has been blocking UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in the Gaza Strip, thereby covering up the mass deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by Israeli actions.

In turn, the DPRK expressed its gratitude to Russia. As the DPRK’s permanent representative to the UN, Kim Song, said, “we highly appreciate the decision of the Russian Federation to veto the Security Council’s draft resolution on the 1718 Committee.” Kim recalled that Pyongyang has never recognized either the sanctions imposed by the Security Council or the work of the sanctions committee.

Does all this mean the end of the sanctions regime?

Unfortunately not. Of course, the West is stoking fears that “the end of the Expert Panel will encourage North Korea to continue to engage in prohibited acts with impunity and frustrate international efforts to deter growing nuclear and missile threats.” However, Seoul, Washington and other like-minded countries will step up their coordination by imposing individual or multilateral sanctions in order to keep “turning the screws” on Pyongyang. As Kim Eun-hye stated in a briefing, “Despite the suspension of the Panel, we will continue to honor the sanctions against North Korea and make every effort to create an environment in which North Korea has no choice but to refuse to move in the wrong direction.”

Most likely, the panel of experts will simply be replaced. Victor Cha already proposes to fill the vacuum with an “alternative mechanism” involving countries with similar positions on the issue, such as the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia, etc., who will cooperate by sharing information.

Eric Penton-Voak also suggests that as an alternative to the Expert Panel the activities of think tanks and media specializing in the area be stepped up, which could make the enforcement of the sanctions more effective.

The first steps in this direction have already begun. On April 5, 2024, the US State Department stated that “amid the growing need for tighter international cooperation to address North Korean threats following Russia’s recent veto of a resolution on the annual renewal of a UN panel monitoring the enforcement of sanctions against the North” US Senior Official for North Korea Jung Pak will visit Romania, Poland, and Sweden. She will negotiate on challenges from North Korea’s “unlawful nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, malicious cyber activity, and deepening military and political partnership with Russia.”

Some experts, however, are more pessimistic. Frank Aum, a senior expert at the US Institute of Peace, notes that “the termination of the panel further erodes the multilateral sanctions regime against North Korea and forces the United States and other countries to pursue more unilateral, bilateral or monolateral efforts to crack down on North Korea.” In his view, “this scenario represents not just a crisis for advocates of pressure and sanctions against North Korea, but also the broader functioning of the UNSC and the post World War II international order.”

The present author rather agrees with these views. Yes, the UN structure will be replaced by a private shop whose verdicts will be even more biased, but less binding. The US is unlikely to lift the sanctions, considering any movement in this direction ideologically unacceptable. But another deep crack has appeared in the façade of the UN as an independent arbitration institution.

Konstantin Asmolov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

April 24, 2024 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering | , , , | Leave a comment

Human Rights Experts and Activists: UNHRC Is Lending Support to US Regime Change Plans for Nicaragua

Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition | Alliance for Global Justice | April 18, 2024

Masaya, Nicaragua – Human rights experts and activists are expressing concern over a flawed and seriously unbalanced report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua (GHREN), released by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on February 24, 2024.

The UNHRC, says the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, is lending itself to the U.S. regime-change strategy against Nicaragua by highlighting only evidence supplied by opponents of Nicaragua’s government, while omitting highly pertinent information submitted to the GHREN by a number of individuals and groups.

An open letter has been sent to the President of the UNHRC, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General, pointing this out. Former UN Independent Expert on International Order, Alfred de Zayas, described the GHREN as set up for the purpose of “naming and shaming” the Nicaraguan government, not for objective investigation. Signed by leading human rights experts, 49 organizations and more than 300 individuals, the letter says that the GHREN’s report should never have been published.

Coordinator of the Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition, Barbara Larcom, said:

“The work of the UN’s so-called group of experts is a disservice to the Nicaraguan people. It has deliberately ignored considerable evidence sent to it which contests its findings. This unprofessional report should immediately be withdrawn by the UN Human Rights Council and the group disbanded.”

The Coalition, which represents individuals and organizations across Nicaragua, other Latin American countries, the US and Europe, notes that April 18, 2024, marks the sixth anniversary of an attempted coup in Nicaragua. According to considerable evidence, this was financed by US agencies intent on regime change. Since the failed coup, the US has continued to apply pressure via other methods, including the GHREN report, using these to justify sanctions against Nicaragua’s economy and society.

Link to open letter, online version (Spanish): https://bit.ly/NicaCartaONU2024
Link to open letter, online version (English): https://bit.ly/NicaLetterUN2024
See full list of signatories: https://bit.ly/NicaUN2024Signers

The Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition is an international coalition of organizations and individuals in solidarity with Nicaragua, supporting its sovereignty and affirming its achievements. We are not affiliated with any governmental entity of any nation. We provide accurate, verifiable information and other resources about Nicaragua, and we work to counter misinformation about the country disseminated by the media, public events, and other sources.

Email: johnperry4321@gmail.com

NicaSolidarity.net

NicaraguaSolidarityCoalition@gmail.com

April 22, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

US Shows True Attitude to Palestinians by Casting Veto on State’s Membership in UN – Russian Envoy

Sputnik – 18.04.2024

UNITED NATIONS – The United States has shown its true attitude towards the Palestinians by blocking the recommendation to admit the country to the UN. For Washington, the Palestinian people have no right to their own state, Russian Permanent Representative Vasily Nebenzia said at a meeting of the United Nations Security Council.

“In essence it was a simple question: whether the Palestinians deserve to be part of the world family, to fully participate in all decisions of international life,” Nebenzia said.

“By using the veto for the fifth time since the beginning of the escalation in Gaza, they have again demonstrated their true attitude towards the Palestinians. For Washington, they do not deserve to have a state of their own. They are only an obstacle on the way to the realization of Israel’s interests,” the representative added.

The United States veto cast against the proposed resolution on Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations is a hopeless attempt to change the course of history, the envoy stressed.

“Today’s use of the veto by the US delegation is a hopeless attempt to stop the inevitable course of history. The results of the vote, where Washington was practically in complete isolation, speak for themselves,” Nebenzia emphasized.

However, history will not forgive the United States for its actions, the diplomat added.

Earlier on Thursday, the UN Security Council convened and discussed the proposed resolution on Palestine’s full membership in the United Nations. The United States, which is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, cast a veto against adopting the proposed resolution.

April 18, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

The collapse of the concept of a rules-based international order

By  Veniamin Popov – New Eastern Outlook – 18.04.2024

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States believed that a unipolar world would last forever: year after year, day after day, it became increasingly blatant in its disregard for the interests of others and the opinions of the rest of the world.

Then the concept of an international “rules-based order” was born: a group of American scholars, former and future officials, presented a paper at Princeton in 2006 entitled “A World of Freedom Under Law”. They framed this as a response to the weaknesses of international law, suggesting that when international institutions fail to produce the outcomes preferred by the “world of freedom”, there is “an alternative forum for liberal democracies to authorise collective action”. In practice, this forum has most often been the White House.

During the Libyan crisis of 2011, the United States and its allies used Security Council authorisation for a no-fly zone to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

American troops have now been operating in eastern Syria for more than eight years – yet there is no justification in international law for their presence.

Even American political scientists describe this concept as a kind of asterisk placed over international law. The “rules-based order” absolves the US and its allies of responsibility and fundamentally undermines the concept of international law. US policymakers use this theory to entrench US advantages as a global power. When the prerogatives and rules of international law coincide with the canons they establish, Washington calls them synonymous. Thus, on the eve of February 2022, i.e. the start of a special military operation in Ukraine, Secretary Blinken warned of a moment of danger for “the foundations of the United Nations Charter and the rules-based international order that preserves stability around the world”, but when US prerogatives diverge from international law, the concept of a “rules-based order” comes into play, which “should ultimately benefit global stability”.

A prime example is the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which the George W. Bush administration cynically justified as a means of enforcing UN disarmament mandates. Iraq was declared an invader, it survived the military occupation, the death toll of Iraqis is approaching 1 million, and the country is still reeling from America’s brazen attack.

Washington’s military and economic might at the time ensured that America would face few consequences for invading without UN authorisation.

The very concept of a “rules-based order” set America at odds with the rest of the world, which recognised that international relations were becoming multipolar. Many leaders of developing countries, especially Russia, China, India and Brazil, talked about the same thing. Even American allies tried to show the flaws in the concept. Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder warned of the “undeniable danger of US unilateralism”, and former French Minister Hubert Védrine once said that “France’s entire foreign policy … is aimed at making tomorrow’s world consist of several poles, not just one”.

According to Harvard University professor Stephen Walt, the US was carried away by a show of force, disregarding the opinions of even its allies and international organisations, and then went off on its own to gain the advantage.

The Gaza war drew a final line under the concept of the “rules-based order”: on 25 March, 14 members of the UN Security Council adopted a resolution demanding an immediate end to the war in Gaza, with the US abstaining. The resolution became a legally enforceable document, but Israel, unwilling to accept UN mandates, continued to bomb the southern town of Rafah and besiege Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Shortly after the vote, a spokesman for the Biden administration called Resolution No. 2728 “non-binding”, in a clear attempt to deny its status as international law. At a State Department press briefing, the spokesman said the measure would not lead to an immediate ceasefire or affect the complex hostage negotiations.

International law is clearly against what Israel is doing in Gaza. 2 months before Resolution No. 2728 was adopted, the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s ongoing campaign could plausibly be considered genocide and called on Israel to take measures to prevent genocide.

On the eve of the passage of Bill 2728, the Canadian Parliament passed a motion to halt new arms transfers to Israel. On the day the Security Council adopted the resolution, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, recommended that member states “immediately” impose an arms embargo on Israel for failing to comply with mandatory measures ordered by the International Court of Justice.

After the above resolution was passed, White House national security spokesman John Kirby clarified that American arms shipments and sales to Israel would not be affected, while the State Department stated, and the White House later confirmed, that “there are no incidents where the Israelis have violated international humanitarian law.

All of this comes after Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, most of them women and children, and displaced and permanently starved two million people in Gaza. In addition, the Israeli military bombed a convoy of aid workers from the World Central Kitchen.

The crux of the matter is that Washington is arming a country that has been ordered by the Security Council to cease hostilities. Washington’s actions are at odds with reality: the massacre in Gaza has made many foreign figures and organisations reluctant to listen to American officials on other issues. According to US press reports, Annelle Sheline, a State Department human rights official who recently resigned, said that some activist groups in North Africa have simply stopped meeting with her and her colleagues: “Trying to defend human rights has simply become impossible as long as the US is helping Israel,” she said.

Two years ago, US diplomats seeking support for Ukraine faced “a very clear negative reaction to America’s penchant for defining the global order and forcing countries to take sides”. In this regard, the New York Times concluded on 10 April this year that “Resolution No. 2728, which passed without result, may well be remembered as a watershed moment in the decline of the ‘rules-based international order’ – that is, the world the United States seeks to build and preserve… Gaza is a chilling reminder that in a world of exceptions to international law, it is the least powerful who suffer the most.

All these developments were accurately characterised by China’s Permanent Representative to the UN, who described the US statements and actions as incompatible with the status of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and said that Washington was undermining the authority of the Security Council.

April 18, 2024 Posted by | War Crimes, Wars for Israel | , , , , | 1 Comment

US responds to Palestine’s UN membership bid

US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield © Getty Images / Michael M. Santiago
RT | April 17, 2024

A resolution recommending that the Palestinian Authority (PA) become a full member of the UN would not result in a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel, US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield has said.

She made the comments at a news conference in Seoul on Wednesday, after being asked whether the US was open to recognizing the PA’s request.

Earlier this month, the regional authority asked to be admitted as a full-fledged member of the UN. The State of Palestine has held observer status since 2012, but full membership would amount to recognition of Palestinian statehood, which Israel opposes.

“We do not see that doing a resolution in the Security Council will necessarily get us to a place where we can find… a two-state solution moving forward,” Thomas-Greenfield said, as quoted by Reuters.

The UN Security Council committee reportedly stated this week that it “was unable to make a unanimous recommendation” on whether the PA’s application for full membership met the criteria.

Applications for UN membership must be approved by the secretary-general before being presented to the 15-member UN Security Council for a vote. The PA applied for membership in 2011, but the application was never put to the Security Council. At the time, the US – as one of the council’s five permanent members – said it would exercise its veto power in the event of a vote.

The following year, the UN upgraded the State of Palestine’s status from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state” – a status held only by the world body itself and Vatican City.

According to Thomas-Greenfield, US President Joe Biden has categorically said Washington supports a two-state solution and Washington is working to get that in place as soon as possible.

The PA is expected to push the Security Council to vote on a draft resolution as early as Thursday, diplomats told Reuters. Security Council member Algeria reportedly circulated a draft text late on Tuesday.

According to the Palestinian side, 137 of the 193 UN member states already recognize a Palestinian state.

Under the governance of the PA, the State of Palestine claims sovereignty over territory considered Palestinian before the outbreak of the 1967 Six-Day War. This includes Gaza, the entire West Bank, and East Jerusalem.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood, and vowed to impose “full Israeli security control over the entire area west of Jordan,” which includes all of these regions.

Parts of the West Bank are already under full Israeli military and civilian control, while Gaza is governed by Hamas, which views the PA as illegitimate for recognizing and negotiating with Israel.

April 17, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Russia Slams UNSC for Ignoring Attack on Iranian Consulate, Calls for End to Bloodshed

Sputnik – 14.04.2024

UNITED NATIONS – Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzia criticized the UN Security Council for failing to act on the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria as he urged an end to bloodshed in the Middle East during an emergency UNSC meeting on Sunday.

“It is regrettable that unlike the meeting today, you did not propose to bring it to brief the Council on the 2nd of April,” he said, adding that Russia called an emergency briefing to discuss the Israeli strike against the consular premises in Damascus.

Nebenzia criticized Israel for not complying with the UN Security Council resolutions, which he said was “an obvious disrespect shown to the Council, to all of you who are here in the members seats, and a complete disregard to the decisions made by the Security Council.”

“This high level confrontation and bloodshed must be stopped We think it’s urgent for the entire international community to undertake all the efforts necessary to de-escalate the situation,” Nebenzia said.

Iran’s attack on Israel did not happen in a vacuum – it was a response to the shameful inaction of the UN Security Council, the Russian ambassador stressed.

“What happened on the night of April 14 did not happen ‘in a vacuum.’ Iran’s steps were a response to the shameful inaction of the United Nations Security Council [and] a response to Israel’s blatant attack on Damascus… by no means the first. Syria is constantly being bombed by Israel,” Nebenzia said.

On April 3, the US and UK refused to discuss Russia’s proposed draft UN Security Council statement on the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus. London and Washington then cited the fact that there was no unity in the meeting’s assessment of what happened. On Sunday, an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council is taking place in connection with the retaliatory strike that Iran carried out on the territory of Israel. Meanwhile, shortly before that, Iran’s mission to the UN said that if the Security Council had condemned the Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate and brought the perpetrators to justice, the need for Iran to punish the Israeli side “could have been eliminated.”

Russia calls for restraint on all sides involved in the incident with Iran’s attack on Israel, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN highlighted.

Russia calls on Israel to follow the example of Iran, which has said it does not want further escalation, Nebenzia said.

“We note Tehran’s signal of unwillingness to further escalate hostilities with Israel. We urge West Jerusalem to follow its example and abandon the practice of provocative forceful actions in the Middle East, fraught with extremely dangerous risks and consequences on the scale of the entire region, already destabilized as a result of the escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation,” Nebenzia emphasized.

April 14, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UNSC Ceasefire Resolution 2728 is in Place – Where is its Implementation?

By Hamzah Rifaat | Al Mayadeen | April 4, 2024

Despite the passage of UNSC Resolution 2728 calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, “Israel’s” fascist war machinery continues to wreak havoc on Palestinians through the weaponization of starvation, bombardment of hospitals, killing of aid workers, and arresting worshippers in the holy month of Ramadan at the Al Aqsa Mosque. The far-right, irredentist Netanyahu regime is adamant that ethnic cleansing of Palestinians should continue unabated which explains “Israel” brazenly ignoring the resolution and its central tenets. The question then, arises – how impactful would Resolution 2728 be in terms of yielding tangible results? Can such measures hold a genocidal regime to account?

There is reason for pessimism. Whether it is the International Court of Justice ruling or international pressure on Netanyahu to rescind his regime’s senseless killing spree, “Israel” has conveniently rebuffed any prospect of an end to hostilities that is solely perpetrated by its occupation forces against a battered population. It is hence, worthwhile to examine whether the implications of resolution 2728 would be any different and whether its violation could result in action. The resolution makes three demands – One, an immediate ceasefire in the month of Ramadan respected by all parties leading to a lasting, sustainable ceasefire. Two- the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages; Three- urgently expanding the flow of humanitarian assistance to reinforce the protection of the civilians in the Gaza strip. Tabled by ten non-permanent members of the UNSC and passed unanimously by 14-0 with the United States abstaining, its impact so far has been limited.

None of the three conditions have been met by “Israel”. Bombardments and massacres continue in the holy month of Ramadan, while aid workers are targeted and a hostage deal remains elusive due to hubris from the Netanyahu regime. While it is true that the resolution was passed due to the United States abstaining, and it is considered binding despite American claims to the contrary, it has not resulted in “Israel” mitigating violence or creating the necessary conditions for a ceasefire to take place. For example, Netanyahu has been categorical in stating that the calls for a ceasefire are not contingent on the release of hostages, despite the resolution stating the contrary. Further rebuttals came from US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller, who referred to it as ‘non-binding’ and clarified that it does not impose obligatory sanctions and actual requirements on people.

The American and Israeli claims lack credibility but also point at how the resolution may not alleviate the suffering of the Palestinians. According to the President of the Center for International Policy in the United States, Nancy Okail, the resolution is more symbolic rather than substantial in its ability to end the war. Okail’s claims come despite the fact that the UNSC resolutions are considered binding as previously emphasized by Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun, and Deputy UN Spokesperson Farhan Haq. Such academic and scholarly skepticism of the resolution’s potential impact however exists despite the fact that Israeli violations can result in a follow-up resolution from the council which addresses the breach and calls for punitive action in the form of sanctions and the authorization of international intervention.

Here lies the catch, however. A punitive resolution imposing sanctions on “Israel” will not be supported by the Biden administration, rendering the prospect of accountability for genocide elusive. Realpolitik sets in, despite institutions seeking to abide by norms, customs and values enshrined in international law. Such realpolitik allows “Israel” to continue with the status quo given American support which has remained unwavering and ironclad despite recently abstaining from the UNSC vote. “Israel” has also previously gotten away with flouting UN resolutions in the past which includes the UNSC calling Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands illegal, (which was passed with 14 votes and the United States abstaining) and in 2023, when the UNGA passed a non-binding resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire which “Israel” also ignored.

What UN resolutions need to address is the genesis of the issue which is the nature of the Israeli state and its expansionist agenda. There is no letup in settlements on occupied land for example with new plans afoot in the West Bank. There are also calls and actions aimed at eliminationism by far-right demagogues ranging from Bezalel Smotrich to Itamar Ben Gvir. There is also no let up in arms supplies from the United States to “Israel” which is providing ammunition to the genocidal regime amid resisting calls of international accountability. All this comes with a failure to address forced displacement, sexual assault, apartheid and evictions that Palestinians face on a daily basis.

While the UNSC resolution 2728 is a promising development, its implementation will be stymied by Israeli adamancy in maintaining the status quo, unwavering American support, and the genocidal nature of the Netanyahu regime.

April 4, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

US, UK Did Not Discuss Russian UNSC Statement on Attack on Iranian Consulate – Envoy

Sputnik – 03.04.2024

UNITED NATIONS – The United States and the United Kingdom refused to discuss a draft statement of the UN Security Council proposed by Russia on Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Russian Deputy Ambassador to the UN Dmitry Polyansky said on Wednesday.

“Following the results of the Security Council meeting on April 2 on the Israeli attack on the consular department of the Iranian Embassy in Damascus, Russia prepared a draft Security Council Statement for the press with a standard text for such cases. However, the United States and Great Britain did not even want to discuss it, citing the fact that during the meeting there was no unity in assessments of what happened,” Polyansky wrote on his Telegram page.

He recalled that at that time only these two delegations, together with the French, did not condemn this obvious violation of international law, “but engaged in a verbal balancing act, from which it could be concluded that Iran itself is to blame for everything.”

“This is the best illustration of the double standards of the Western “troika” and it’s real, and not declarative, attitude towards law and order in the international context,” the diplomat emphasized.

April 4, 2024 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

US vows to block new attempt by Palestine for full UN membership

Press TV – April 3, 2024

The United States has vowed to block a new attempt by the Palestinians for full membership in the United Nations.

Supporters of the Palestinian move asked the UN Security Council on Tuesday to revive an application for admission submitted in 2011.

But Robert Wood, the US deputy ambassador to the UN, was again almost certain to block the request. “Our position has not changed,” Wood told several reporters.

Wood said the issue of a full Palestinian membership is one of the final status issues to be decided in bilateral talks between the Palestinians and Israel.

At least 140 countries have recognized a Palestinian state. They include members of the 22-nation Arab Group at the United Nations, the 57-nation Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the 120-member Nonaligned Movement.

Malta’s UN Ambassador Vanessa Frazier, who is the current president of the Security Council, said the Council’s standing committee for new members, which includes all the 15 members, is expected to meet behind closed doors to consider the application.

The monthly Security Council meeting on April 18 will also consider the issue of Palestine’s full membership.

After the initial bid for full UN membership was rejected in 2011, the Palestinians went to the 193-member UN General Assembly, where there are no vetoes. They succeeded by more than a two-thirds majority in having their status raised from a UN observer to a non-member observer state in November 2012.

That change opened the door for the Palestinian territories to join the UN and other international organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Riyad Mansour, the permanent observer of Palestine to the United Nations, has repeatedly said in recent months that in the face of Israel’s brutal campaign of death and destruction in the besieged Gaza Strip, UN membership is a priority for the Palestinians.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long ruled out Palestinian statehood.

April 3, 2024 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries