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

China Ridiculed for Lack of Action Against North Korea

China Ridiculed for Lack of Action Against North Korea

External image

Following a missile test reported by North Korea on Sunday, China is being ridiculed for not having taken a stronger stance toward Pyongyang.

The missile test was even ordered to be held a day in advance falling on one of China’s biggest holidays—the eve of Lunar New Year.

“It’s a bad result, it’s a humiliation,” said Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor of international relations at Renmin…

View On WordPress

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.


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

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

Japan orders SDF to shoot down North Korean missile | The Japan Times
Japan condemns Pyongyang’s plan to launch a space rocket, calling it a thinly disguised test of a long-range ballistic missile.

The government ordered Aegis ballistic missile defense warships of the Maritime Self-Defense Force and land-based Patriot PAC-3 rocket units to respond should projections show components falling in Japanese territory.

“This will effectively mean the firing of a ballistic missile. It would be a clear violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions and a grave, provocative act against the security of our country,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a Lower House session Wednesday.

“Japan, in cooperation with the United States and South Korea, will strongly urge North Korea to refrain from (conducting) the launch,” Abe said.

On Tuesday night, North Korea notified the International Maritime Organization that it plans to send a “satellite” into orbit between Feb. 8 and 25. It said the launch will take place on one of those days between 7:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Japan time.

Pyongyang conducted a fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6. The planned launch is widely seen as both a test and a demonstration of its advances in rocketry.

From testing out a hydrogen bomb in early January to this “satellite” that is flying over Japan, it is clear that North Korea doesn’t see any consequences to it acting out. Japan can quote the United Nations Security Council all it wants, but since the UN no longer care about human rights, they probably wouldn’t care if it turned out to be a ballistic missile hitting Japan. 

Watch on thefacetsofus.tumblr.com

BBC uses the Halo UNSC (United Nations Space Command) logo instead to the United Nations Security Council logo.

Iran Nuclear Deal - Preliminary framework

Iran Nuclear Deal – Preliminary framework

External image

The year 2015 was historical for Iran as they reached to a nuclear deal with the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. It was named as “preliminary framework Iran nuclear deal” agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China, also Germany and the European Union. The Iranians were taking…

View On WordPress

North Korea savaged at UN for human rights abuses

External image

North Korea came under stinging criticism at the UN Security Council on Thursday for the second consecutive year for the unparalleled horrors of human rights violations that deny millions basic freedoms. The meeting, which fell deliberately on international human rights day, was chaired by the United States, which had joined eight other members in calling for the talks on Pyongyang’s dismal rights record. Permanent members China and Russia opposed the meeting saying the council was not the appropriate forum, and denying that the human rights situation in North Korea posed a threat to international peace and security. http://dlvr.it/CzM1XK

United Nations Security Council

Der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen (United Nations Security Council, UNSC), oftmals auch als Weltsicherheitsrat bezeichnet, ist ein Organ der Vereinten Nationen. Er setzt sich aus fünf ständigen und zehn nichtständigen Mitgliedern bzw. Staaten zusammen. Die fünf ständigen Mitglieder haben bei der Verabschiedung von Resolutionen ein erweitertes Vetorecht und werden daher auch als Vetomächte bezeichnet.

Nach Artikel 24 I der Charta der Vereinten Nationen sollen ihm die Mitgliedstaaten „die Hauptverantwortung für die Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit“ übertragen. Während andere UN-Organe unmittelbar nur Empfehlungen abgeben können, kann der Sicherheitsrat nach den Bestimmungen des Kapitels VII der Charta Entscheidungen mit Bindungswirkung für die Mitgliedstaaten treffen – „Maßnahmen bei Bedrohung oder Bruch des Friedens und bei Angriffshandlungen“. Dabei besteht eine grundsätzliche Rechtsbindung an die Normen der UN-Charta. Neben der politischen Prärogative des Sicherheitsrates zur Auslegung der tatbestandlichen Voraussetzungen des Art. 39 in concreto kann seine Praxis zur Fortbildung bestehenden Rechts führen. Nach herrschender Meinung darf sich der Sicherheitsrat mangels eigener Rechtssetzungsbefugnis dabei jedoch nicht in dezidierten Widerspruch zu den anerkannten Rechtsquellen des Völkerrechts setzen (Auslegung contra legem). Die Entscheidungen des Sicherheitsrates unterliegen allerdings keiner wirksamen Rechtskontrolle.

Der Weltsicherheitsrat besteht aus fünf permanenten Mitgliedern:
China, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Russland und Vereinigte Staaten.

Zehn nicht-permanente Mitglieder werden jeweils für zwei Jahre von der UN-Generalversammlung gewählt:
Angola (bis 2016)
Chile (bis 2015)
Jordanien (bis 2015)
Litauen (bis 2015)
Malaysia (bis 2016)
Neuseeland (bis 2016)
Nigeria (bis 2015)
Spanien (bis 2016)
Tschad (bis 2015)
Venezuela (bis 2016)

Stand: 2015

Quelle: http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/