United Nations Security Council

President Obama condemns North Korean nuclear test

President Barack Obama on Friday denounced North Korea’s latest test of a nuclear weapon, condemning the move “in the strongest possible terms as a grave threat to regional security and to international peace and stability.

The test, North Korea’s fifth, threatens to raise security tensions in Asia just as Obama returns from summit meetings in China and Laos. And it promises to give Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump another cudgel with which to hit Obama and his former secretary of state, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

News of the test broke overnight in Washington, when the U.S. Geological Survey reported that a 5.3-magnitude seismic event had occurred at 9 a.m. local time in North Korea on Friday near a nuclear test site. North Korea’s state news agency, KCNA, claimed the test had demonstrated the ability to place a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile — capability that would allow the reclusive North Korean regime to threaten its neighbors in the region and possibly beyond.

Read more here

Saudi Arabia rejects UN Security Council seat

Saudi Arabia on Friday rejected its freshly acquired seat on the U.N. Security Council, saying the 15-member body was incapable of resolving world conflicts such as the Syrian civil war.

The move came just hours after the kingdom was elected as one of the Security Council’s 10 nonpermanent members. Lithuania, Nigeria, Chile and Chad were also elected on Thursday. 

In a statement carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, the Foreign Ministry said the council has failed in its duties toward Syria, saying that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has been able to “kill its people” without facing reprisal from the international community.

Read more

Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

China’s top newspaper on Monday defended Beijing’s rejection of a U.N. resolution pressing Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad to abandon power, saying Western campaigns in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the error of forced regime change.

The commentary in the People’s Daily, the top newspaper of China’s ruling Communist Party, was Beijing’s clearest defense of its decision to join Moscow at the weekend in vetoing a draft United Nations resolution that would have backed an Arab plan urging Assad to quit after months of bloodshed.

The commentary suggested that Chinese distrust of Western intervention lay behind the veto, which was described by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a “travesty”.

Read more: China’s top paper defense veto of Syria resolution

Baby Steps on the Long Road to Justice for Atrocities in Syria

The negotiations set to recommence in Geneva on April 11, 2016 and the recent reduction of hostilities in Syria may represent important steps towards a peaceful solution to more than five years of turmoil. Few would not welcome the guns falling silent once and for all and for an end to the suffering of civilians.


Chinese and Russian officials are warning of a potential humanitarian crisis in the restive American province of Missouri, where ancient communal tensions have boiled over into full-blown violence.

“We must use all means at our disposal to end the violence and restore calm to the region,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in comments to an emergency United Nations Security Council session on the America crisis.

The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.

America has been roiled by political instability and protests in recent years, which analysts warn can create fertile ground for extremists.

Missouri, far-removed from the glistening capital city of Washington, is ostensibly ruled by a charismatic but troubled official named Jay Nixon, who has appeared unable to successfully intervene and has resisted efforts at mediation from central government officials. Complicating matters, President Obama is himself a member of the minority sect protesting in Ferguson, which is ruled overwhelmingly by members of America’s majority “white people” sect.

Analysts who study the opaque American political system, in which all provinces are granted semi-autonomous self-rule, warned that Nixon may seize the opportunity to move against weakened municipal rulers in Ferguson. Missouri’s provincial legislature, a traditional “shura council,” is dominated by the opposition faction. Though fears of a military coup remain low, it is still unknown how Nixon’s allies within the capital will respond should the crisis continue.

Now, international leaders say they fear the crisis could spread.

Vox covers Ferguson as they would if it were in another country.

The UN Security Council once again took on the issue of the situation in Ukraine on Saturday.

Owing to the negative vote of one of its permanent members, the Russian Federation, a draft resolution which urged countries not to recognize the results of this weekend’s referendum in Crimea was not adopted. China abstained from the vote.

Vote details and an overview of statements made are here.

The ancient Hittite-Egyptian peace treaty is one of the earliest surviving peace accords on record. After two hundred years of fighting each other, and both facing outside threats, in 1259 B.C. Ramses II and the Hittite King Hattusili III negotiated a famous peace treaty. This agreement ended the conflict and decreed that the two kingdoms would aid each other in the event of an invasion by a third party. There is a copy of the agreement by the United Nations Security Council Chamber.

Here I am heading up a meeting of my security council. The amazing part, though, is that I am controlling all eleven of these goddamn puppets with both of my hands clearly on the table!

Open letter to the UN Security Council on Mali

Brussels  |   3 Jun 2014


The recent clashes between the army and rebels in the Kidal region show that Mali’s crisis is unresolved. The violence is directly linked to the lack of progress in talks between northern groups and the government that have stalled mostly because the main actors have been reluctant to engage in meaningful dialogue, despite their pledge in last June’s Ouagadougou agreement. Multiple and confusing diplomatic initiatives have not helped. The UN mission (MINUSMA) has struggled to reconcile its mandate to facilitate talks with that of helping to restore state authority; some perceive it as pro-government and compromised. I urge the Security Council, with the support of its main partners in Mali, to establish a UN-led international mediation mechanism.

The negotiations that started a year ago with signing of the Ouagadougou agreement are in jeopardy. Crisis Group’s January report, Mali: Reform or Relapse, warned that deadlock would have major security consequences. The provisional ceasefire reached in May under auspices of the African Union’s president, with the aid of the UN Secretary-General’s special representative, is fragile. Unless talks are revived promptly, new clashes will occur, undermining the substantial international efforts since MINUSMA’s deployment last July.

The Malian authorities and the northern-based movements have mostly used the dialogue to voice grievances, not resolve differences. President Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta’s government considers the “northern question” a matter of national pride and has stalled to avoid serious concessions. The three main rebel groups – MNLA, HCUA and the Mouvement arabe de l’Azawad – are fragmented, unable to offer realistic or coherent claims.

Regional and other international actors share responsibility. They have been unable to reconcile diverse, often competing interests to promote a common vision of a solution. Initiatives have often been uncoordinated. Mediation needs new impetus to re-launch talks.

For months, MINUSMA has played a vital role in calming tensions between the army and the northern movements, but without political progress, this can only delay new violence. The mission has struggled to facilitate implementation of the Ouagadougou agreement, in part due to perceptions about its neutrality. Resolution 2100 (25 April 2013) calls for it to both “restore the authority and the sovereignty of the Malian State throughout its national territory” and “to facilitate progress towards an inclusive national dialogue”, which by its nature involves bringing in the very armed groups that challenge the state’s authority in the north.

Building the capacity of Malian institutions is of course important. But the mandate’s tension raises competing expectations from the parties. Some members of the northern movements believe the mission backs the government, citing inter alia its provision of armoured vehicles to the defence ministry and that talks have been held almost solely in Bamako. They requested MINUSMA support for talks to be more balanced. The government believes the mission should focus primarily on helping the state recover its full sovereignty, as requested by the prime minister in his 29 April speech to the National Assembly.

The 30 May, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) summit asked the Burkina Faso and Nigeria presidents to renew mediation efforts, but these have been dormant for months and are unlikely to revive the talks. Mali accuses Burkina Faso of harbouring the MNLA’s political wing; ECOWAS is a key regional institution but does not include countries with influence in the north, such as Mauritania and Algeria. It is thus crucial to establish an international mediation mechanism that is coherent, backed by the region and other major powers and empowered to broker compromises. This new initiative should be UN-led.

The Security Council could consider two options. Neither will be easy, given politics in the region and beyond, but existing arrangements are proving insufficient.

The first would be to strengthen MINUSMA’s political mandate and have it mediate, not just facilitate. The Secretary-General’s special representative would become a full-time mediator. This would allow the UN to use its good offices and, together with Mali’s partners, press parties to resolve deadlocks. To achieve this, the Council must resolve the tension in the mandate by shifting it away from state building. An emphasis on state building might be necessary again in the future – and the gap would need to be filled by others now – but for the moment talks must be the priority.

The second would be to appoint an envoy of the Secretary-General, with African Union and ECOWAS agreement, independent of MINUSMA. The parties could express preferences from a list of names with high-level West Africa experience. The envoy would be an official mediator to whose team MINUSMA would give logistical help while continuing its state building role. This would require greater effort to build consensus, internally and regionally, but might be more likely to break the deadlock.

Whatever the preferred option, the mediator will need the support of Mali’s main partners. They should form a contact group whose membership should be relatively restricted, to ease coordination. It must include France and Algeria, who, working together, have enough influence to bring all the parties to the negotiating table. Algeria’s pivotal role in the region should be recognised, but it must exercise its influence within a multilateral framework.

The mediator, consulting with the main parties and the contact group, should quickly revive the Ouagadougou agreement’s negotiation framework. The current stalemate is not the result of flaws in that agreement but of parties’ refusal to implement it and insufficient pressure on them from Mali’s regional and other partners. The monitoring and evaluation committee established by the agreement has not met since October. It should be resuscitated and, chaired by the mediator, convene monthly to allow international actors to coordinate their efforts. The parties should urgently agree on and commit to a detailed schedule of such sessions.

As the Council prepares to renew MINUSMA’s mandate, it should draw the right conclusions from the challenges the mission faces. In appointing a new UN-led mediation mechanism, whether within the mission or external to it, it has another opportunity to help Malians reach a sustainable solution; it should not assume such an opportunity will come again soon.


Louise Arbour 

President and CEO, International Crisis Group

okay can we get a couple of things straight?

  • Russia has not technically invaded Ukraine. Crimea asked for Russian aid, and so Russia was invited into the country. Crimea is pro-Russian and is actually happy that Russia is there. If Russia moves out of Crimea into the Ukraine proper however, is a different story.

    edit: because i just realized that people probably don’t know about Crimea.

    This is Crimea. Crimea is an autonomous republic. It’s a peinsula that is home to Russia’s Black Sea fleet and was part of the Soviet Union until 1954. 58% of the population identify as ethnic Russians according to Wikipedia.

  • Russia has not declared war on Ukraine or vice versa. Ukraine’s PM will declare war if Russia militarily intervenes, but so far that has not happened. Ukraine’s armed troops are on combat alert however.
  • RE: The Budapest Memorandium from my earlier post: “Ukraine has signed the Budapest Memorandum with US, UK, & Russia whereupon by giving up their nuclear weapons they will “respect Ukraine sovereignty, not threaten or use force again Ukraine, and “Seek United Nations Security Council action” among other things. Russian dropped the ball with this obviously, and this is why people are looking to see how US and UK respond. Technically all they have to provide is “security council action”. US and UK are not obligated to defend Ukraine. Fun fact: Russia has veto power in the UN.
  • WWIII is not happening, so calm down. Putin isn’t stupid enough to start a WW when he knows he will lose against the forces of, well, the rest of the world. As of right now, the best case scenerio to this situation is that everyone talks and comes to some sort of resolution. War hasn’t even been declared yet. Until the situation changes, calm down.

As of right now this is just a military intervention, not invasion and not war. There isn’t a cause for war right now.

Nigeria Takes New UN Security Council Seat

By SaharaReporters, New York

Nigeria on New Year’s Day returned to the United Nations Security Council, just two years after she last served as a member.

She is one of Africa’s two new members, the other being Chad. They will complete their current term on December 31, 2015. The third African member is Rwanda, which will complete her term at the end of this year.


ludwig beginning a presentation at a world meeting like

“before we begin, i would like to remind everyone that the united nations security council has banned haribo sugarless gummy bears from our meeting spaces so they are never again to be surreptitiously put in our snack bowls in place of regular gummy bears……………………. alfred

Four Ways the U.N. Has Messed Over Israel

Declaring Zionism to be racism and other exciting exploits over the years

From peacekeeping missions to food aid, the United Nations does many good things in the world. Its treatment of Israel, however, is not one of those things. In the words of Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee responsible for the Middle East, Israel is “the perennial punching bag at the United Nations.” It is subject to “a barrage of obsessive, unbalanced, and relentless criticism,” says Susan Rice, who served as President Obama’s ambassador to the U.N. for five years. It faces “an overwhelming sense of hostility,” adds Richard Grenell, who served as the spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N. for eight years under George W. Bush.

But maybe this is all hyperbole meant to placate pro-Israel audiences back home? Might U.N. criticism of Israel be in proportion to the problems arising from its policies? Surely other countries are treated similarly when their actions run afoul of the U.N.’s high moral standards. Well, not quite. As American University’s Kenneth Anderson, who served as anexpert on the 2004 congressional task force on U.N. reform, put it to me, “zealotry and bigotry and direction against Israel … bears no rational basis to what might be legitimate arguments over policy.” Here are four examples that prove his point:

Read More: Tablet Magazine