Showing posts with label tonga. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tonga. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Into South Sudan, Arms Flow Through Nimule Cross, Sources Tell Inner City Press, Cover Up Alleged


By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive series
UNITED NATIONS, September 2 -- Since the South Sudan peace agreement was signed by President Salva Kiir, saying that he had reservations, fighting and re-supply has continued through the closed-down Juba airport and barges then headed to Malakal.  
  On both August 31, after an exclusive report below, and on September 1, Inner City Press asked the UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric to confirm the continued fighting but he declined, including answering who runs Juba airport, as least as to the UN.
  Now Inner City Press is informed by sources in South Sudan of bombing of I/O positions in Tonga, Owashi and Werjwok (West of Malakal) and of movement of ammunition into the country through the Nimule crossing. 
The sources, citing internal UNMISS sit-reps like the one published below which Dujarric refused to confirm or deny, are questioning more insistently why UN Peacekeeping is "covering up what it knows about CPA II violations." They note that UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous has engaged in previous cover up, in South Sudan, DR Congo and elsewhere, including the Central African Republic even for the French Sangaris force.
 Whistleblowing sources exclusively provided Inner City Press with this "Restricted" UN document:
“RESTRICTED Ref: 045/SB/28/08/2015

Dear All, Information received from Host Government security organs indicate that effective today SPLA Air force will conduct night exercises at the Juba airport, starting from 2000 hrs. This exercise is to continue for the next few days (unspecified). UN/INGO Personnel are therefore advised to avoid the airport general area during the stated period. End”
  These sources emphasize to Inner City Press the role at the Juba airport of ENHAS, Entebbe Handling Services and its links to the outgoing President of the US General Assembly Sam Kutesa, relative of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and still, as Inner City Press confirmed, Uganda's Foreign Minister while UNPGA.
  Among with the reported skirmishes at Malakal, and according to the SPLM/A I/O in Bukieny, Ditang, Obuwa and Lelo and shelling from the government barges as they proceed along the Nile, sources tell Inner City Press of fighting at the ports of Adok and Tayar. "Some ceasefire," said one. But how long will the silence at the UN continue?
  On August 28, after some push back, the Security Council adopted a Presidential Statement welcoming Kiir's signing but not referring to any credible and effective mechanism to seek accountability. On the way in, only the Permanent Representative of Venezuela spoke - to confirm that his country's issues with Colombia are bilateral and may involved at the end UNASUR, not the UN. Afterward, no one else spoke.
  After publishing Kiir's 12 pages of reservations, Inner City Press on August 27 in front of the Security Council asked the Permanent Representatives of Angola and of the United Kingdom about Kiir's reservations.
  Angola's Ismael Abraao Gaspar Martins told Inner City Press, when asked one on one outside the Security Council, "I have seen them. These are very serious reservations, I think. This calls for the Council to monitor what is there, how it's going to be implemented and what actions we need to continue to do, to make sure they move forward, so the violence stops. If it has been adopted, it has to be applied."
 Earlier, on his way into the Syria meeting, Inner City Press asked UK Permanent Representative Matthew Rycroft about Kiir's reservations, specifically the "deletion" of provisions to disarm the SPLM-N, and groups in Darfur (on which the UK holds the Council's pen). Periscope video here.
  The 12-page reservation document says to delete the provision about disarming Darfur based armed groups including JEM, SLA-Minnawi, SLA-Abdulwahid, as well as the SPLM-North.
  It resists calling the Army the NDFSS and referring to the "Armed Opposition" instead of the SPLM/A-IO. It says the National Army will remain inside its headquarters, and would delete Juba from the list of cantonment areas. It says there is a need to reconstitute the Monitoring and Verification Mechanism.
  It says to limit the JMEC and delete the word "oversee" throughout.
 The article on reparation and compensation is to be removed.
 Who would be vice president(s) would be up to Kiir: no reward for rebellion, or "gambling" on who ministers will be. The rebels should not be governors in Unity, Jonglei and Upper Nile State. Power sharing should be 70-20, not 46-40.  Funds should be with the Minister of Finance. As always, follow the money -- Inner City Press would add, to Kenya Commercial Bank and beyond. We'll have more on this.
  Before Kiir signed, Uganda's Yoweri Museveni advised him to get the UN out of the country, saying having the UN is is a sign of weakness and that the UN preserves terrorism.
 Past 5 pm New York time on August 26, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered praise for Kiir signing, saying nothing of the reservation or of the UN being openly trashed by Museveni.
  It is to Museveni that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been deferring on Burundi, still not having named a UN envoy as the UN Security Council called "imminent" two weeks ago. (Ban was in France on August 26, praising the country's ambassadorial corps without a single mention of French troops' alleged rape of children in the Central African Republic, covered up by Ban's (French) head of UN Peacekeeping, Herve Ladsous.)
  In fairness to Museveni, his reference may have been in part to Ladsous' MONUSCO failing to act on armed groups in Eastern Congo -- including the FDLR, which also impinges on Burundi. We'll have more on this. Here was Ban's August 26 statement:
"The Secretary-General welcomes the signature today by President Salva Kiir of the Agreement on the resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan. This is a critical and necessary step towards ending the 20 month-long conflict that has devastated South Sudan and subjected its people to unspeakable suffering." full statement here.
  In front of the Security Council on August 26, there was loose talk about Kiir signing; an African diplomat told Inner City Press, "He signed! He was obliged!" with no mention of the reservations. The UN had no noon briefing  -- it said it woul only have one if something important happened, this was apparently not important - here are answers from August 24 and August 25, Inner City Press' South Sudan questions have been not been answered.
  On August 25, Ellen Loj, the head of the UN Mission in the country UNMISS told the UN Security Council that Kiir is expected to sign the agreement on August 26. Inner City Press asked, how might that impact the pending draft resolution on sanctions and an arms embargo?
  After consultations on August 25, Security Council President for August Joy Ogwu of Nigeria emerged with Elements to the Press including:
“The Council members expressed concern on the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation. They condemned the continuing fighting by the parties and underlined the need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
  “They expressed optimism that President Salva Kiir would follow through on his commitment to sign the IGAD Plus Peace Agreement without reservation.
  “They stressed the importance of full implementation of the Agreement. Council members underscored the need to remain engaged on the situation in South Sudan. In this regard they expressed their readiness to act immediately if President Kiir does not sign the agreement tomorrow as he has undertaken."
  Inner City Press asked Ambassador Ogwu about sending the draft resolution's annexes to the African Union and IGAD, as an African delegation told Inner City Press about. Ogwu answered that speed is important, but also that it be concerted, a consensus, like an orchestra, it doesn't matter who writes the notes, but...  Here's fast transcript of Q&A from InnerCityPro, which also has analysis:
Inner City Press: Some members talked about sending the annexes to the AU or IGAD. Was there discussion of that? When you say immediately, does it include that? 
Amb Ogwu: We all understand the need for urgency, because the situation is urgent. But also there is the need for concerted action, for consensus. It is a stage and all the players must act as an orchestra, play the symphony, it doesn’t matter who writes the notes but it’s important to act in unison, act with one voice.
  In her national capacity, Nigeria's Ambassador Ogwu emphasized the need for an arms embargo, and to check where the weapons in the country are.
 Loj spoke of discouraging some from entering the UN's "protection of civilian" camps, without addressing the blocking of civilians fleeing fighting from the UN's Yambio camp, which Inner City Press has repeatedly asked about. Nor did she address if UNMISS' radio station, Radio Miraya, kept right on broadcasting amid a strike by media in the country to protect the assassination of journalist Peter Julius Moi.
  On August 18, Inner City Press asked UN Associate Spokesperson Maestracci, "do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that 'if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time'?" 
  By August 21, after South Sudanese journalist Peter Julius Moi was assassinated in Juba, Inner City Press asked the next UN Associate Spokesperson Eri Kaneko this question, video here:
Inner City Press: In South Sudan,  virtually all media there, the Union of Journalists in South Sudan and the Association for Media Development in South Sudan, have agreed to a media blackout in mourning and as a protest of the murder of the journalist Peter Julius Moi.  They’re saying that UNMISS’ Radio Miraya is going to keep broadcasting.  Is that the case?  Is Miraya part of sort of the media of South, what’s the position of the UN on this?

Associate Spokesperson:  I’m not aware, but I will look into that.
  Eight hours later and counting, there has been no answer. Video here.

  On both August 18 and 19 when Inner City Press asked, UN spokesperson Maestracci declined to confirm or deny any of the fighting in the country -- a pattern for UNMISS under UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous. On August 19, Maestracci told Inner City Press, "As soon as I have [information], I will give it to you." None came: also a pattern.
  But Inner City Press sources tell it of ongoing clashes in Upper Nile, in Pageri, East Equatoria, still ongoing. The Juba – Nimule road, the only "proper tarmac road" in the country, remains closed; limited communications within the fragmented phone networks confirm that civilians are being targeted.
   West Equatorial Governor Joseph Bakasoro is still detained.
  Also, here is UNMISS sit-rep for insiders, not meant for the public, apparently:
“Following attacks in Pageri on 18 Aug 2015 host country security forces have advised that there is still military operation in the vicinity of Pageri town (30 kms North of Nimule).

UN Security advises that:

·        UN/INGO travels on the Juba - Nimule road are currently restricted.

·        UN Security will re-assess the situation in the next 24 hours and will advise accordingly.

·        In the interim all missions should be cleared with UN Security until further notice.

·        Additionally, UN/INGO missions into Pageri are to be suspended until a clearer picture is established as there are reports of heavy host country security forces deployed in Pageri.” 
  ... This is how things are at UN Headquarters and elsewhere in the system, especially in UN Peacekeeping under Ladsous. The Free UN Coalition for Access is challenging this.

  On August 19 after UN Deputy Secretary General Jan Eliasson briefed the Council behind closed doors - he stopped and told Inner City Press is was not a short consultation, only a scheduling misunderstanding - he stopped on the way out and spoke again.
 
  Inner City Press asked Eliasson the question the UN Spokesperson has for two days declined to answer: "Have the two sides started fighting again?"
  Eliasson to his credit answered: "There are reports, they are very worrying. And this is also why, it is important if there is this progress towards signing of an agreement, that it is accompanied by the need for a ceasefire. A diplomatic solution cannot be found if there is not a de escalation."
  Moments later New Zealand's Ambassador Gerard van Boheman stopped and spoke about the US submitted draft resolution that the US' Susan Rice had alluded to the day before, that that it "does deal with an arms embargo also posits additional sanctions, if the agreement is not signed. I think there’s general recognition that the situation in South Sudan is not good, there’s a recognition that the IGAD and that the IGAD plus countries have been doing all they can. We want to be able to support their efforts.”
 
  Ambassador van Boheman said that “it’s quite a technical resolution. So I think it will take quite a bit of work to get everyone on the same page.”  Could that timing be related to the 15 days from August 17 deadline for Salva Kiir to sign?
  Inner City Press also asked van Bohemen about Yemen, but that's another story.
 On South Sudan, from the UN's August 18 transcript:
on South Sudan, can the Mission there, or do you have anything on reported, an attack by the Government on the opposition in a place called Imatong?  And do you have any comment on, or does the mission have any comment on, Salva Kiir having said at the airport on his way to Addis that "if anybody among journalists does not know that this country has killed people, we will demonstrate it one day, one time"?  It's a comment that CPJ has criticized, and I wonder if the mission has seen it and what they think of it.

Associate Spokesperson:  So on Imatong — is that what it's called?

Correspondent:  Yeah.

Associate Spokesperson:  I actually do not have a statement.  On South Sudan and the comments on the media that were made by Salva Kiir, yes, the Mission told us they were very concerned about, over the curbing of the press freedom in South Sudan, including recent closure of media houses and threats to journalists.  And they've also reiterated the importance of independent, free and pluralistic press.

Question:  Is the Deputy… I just wanted to ask one thing.  I saw that the Deputy Secretary-General's schedule says appointments are internal.  Did he come back from Addis?  Is there some way…

Associate Spokesperson:  He is on his way back.
  On August 19, Inner City Press asked Maestracci again - still no information on Imatong, nor Upper Nile, Pageri or other attacks since. From the August 19 UN transcript:
Inner City Press: I wanted to ask about South Sudan.  I’d asked you yesterday about whether UNMISS could confirm reports of fighting and now there’s increased reports of fighting and counter charges by the Government and the opposition of fighting in Upper Nile State, also near the Ugandan border.  So I’m wondering if UNMISS, given its presence in the country, it seems important to know is this taking place and if so which side is instigating it?

Associate Spokesperson Vannina Maestracci:  We’re checking and we’re waiting for an answer.  As soon as I have one, I will give it to you.
  Nothing was given, but see above.
 Inner City Press asked DSG Eliasson of reports of fighting in South Sudan, he acknowledged the reports, Periscope video here. We'll have more on this.

 
  

Saturday, December 20, 2014

On Israel Paying For Oil Slick Off Lebanon, New Zealand Votes Yes, Australia No, PNG, Tonga and Cameroon Abstain


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, December 18 -- Fully 170 UN member states in the General Assembly voted on December 19 for Israel to compensate Lebanon for the oil slick off its shores caused in 2006. 
  A predictable six voted "no" -- United States, Israel, Canada, Australia, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
 But as with the Palestine self-determination vote on December 18, the abstentions were noteworthy: Cameroon, Tonga and Papua New Guinea. (Cameroon abstained on Palestine self-determination too).
  Also noteworthy: Australia, which is leaving the Security Council in 11 days, voted "No" on compensation by Israel, while New Zealand, which is coming onto the Council in its place voted "yes." Along with Malaysia replacing South Korea, does this portent another vote-gain for the Palestinian UNSC resolution?
 Amid reports that if the Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it.Video here.
 On December 18 in the UN General Assembly, a resolution on the "Right of the Palestinian People to Self Determination" was adopted with 180 votes in favor, seven against and four abstentions.
  The seven against were predictable: Israel, the US, Canada and four islands: Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. 
 The four abstentions, however, were more surprising, including the country most recently accepted by the UN as a new member state, South Sudan. 
 Also abstaining were Cameroon, Tonga and Paraguay.  
  On December 17, after an afternoon meeting of the Arab Group in the UN, Mansour spoke again. He announced that a modified draft resolution would be "put in blue" - that is, prepared for a vote in as little as 24 hours. But he did not say when a vote would be called: in 2015, or in January when the composition of the Security Council changes in Palestine's favor, for example with Malaysia replacing South Korea.
   The text of the draft put "in blue" is below:
Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)
Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,
Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,
Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,
Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,
Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties, Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),
Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,
Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement, 
Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,
1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;
2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:
- borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
- security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.
- A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III); 
- Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;
- an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;
3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;
4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;
5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;
6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement andprovocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;
7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;
8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;
9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations; 
10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;
11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties; 
12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;
13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  On December 16, a Senior State Department official said:
"Today, Secretary Kerry met in London separately with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and with Arab League Secretary General Nabil El Araby and members of the Arab League Special Committee. In both meetings, the Secretary exchanged thoughts about the situation in the region, ongoing deliberations related to possible UN Security Council action, and the United States' interest in finding a path forward to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation on the ground. All the parties agreed to continue their consultations going forward."
  So what does this mean, on the resolution(s)? Inner City Press on December 11 asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour if the US was engaged in any negotiations on the resolutions proffered by Jordan or France. He said no, then added "you are a smart journalist," asking if France would do this work without coordination with or against the interests of the US. Afterward another journalist joked this meant, "French puppet." So what's up?
  Back on December 11, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the International Criminal Court.
  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.
  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
  Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.
  Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.
  At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.
  Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."
  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. But that's it.
  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at the UNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographed by the Free UN Coalition for Accesshere. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?
   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.

 
  

Thursday, December 18, 2014

On Palestine Self-Determination at UN , 7 No Votes (Including US, Israel, Canada & Islands), 4 Abstain - Including South Sudan


By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, December 17 -- Amid reports that if a Palestine resolution fails this month in the UN Security Council, Palestine will immediately join the International Criminal Court, Inner City Press on December 11 asked the State of Palestine's Permanent Observer to the UN Riyad Mansour about it. Video here.
 On December 18 in the UN General Assembly, a resolution on the "Right of the Palestinian People to Self Determination" was adopted with 180 votes in favor, seven against and four abstentions.
  The seven against were predictable: Israel, the US, Canada and four islands: Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. 
 The four abstentions, however, were more surprising, including the country most recently accepted by the UN as a new member state, South Sudan. 
 Also abstaining were Cameroon, Tonga and Paraguay.  
  On December 17, after an afternoon meeting of the Arab Group in the UN, Mansour spoke again. He announced that a modified draft resolution would be "put in blue" - that is, prepared for a vote in as little as 24 hours. But he did not say when a vote would be called: in 2015, or in January when the composition of the Security Council changes in Palestine's favor, for example with Malaysia replacing South Korea.
   The text of the draft put "in blue" is below:
Draft Resolution (17 December 2014)
Reaffirming its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967); 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003), 1544 (2004), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009) and the Madrid Principles,
Reiterating its vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,
Reaffirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
Recalling General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947,
Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force and recalling its resolutions 446 (1979), 452 (1979) and 465 (1980), determining, inter alia, that the policies and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East,
Affirming the imperative of resolving the problem of the Palestine refugees on the basis of international law and relevant resolutions, including resolution 194 (III), as stipulated in the Arab Peace Initiative,
Underlining that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, and calling for a sustainable solution to the situation in the Gaza Strip, including the sustained and regular opening of its border crossings for normal flow of persons and goods, in accordance with international humanitarian law,
Welcoming the important progress in Palestinian state-building efforts recognised by the World Bank and the IMF in 2012 and reiterating its call to all States and international organizations to contribute to the Palestinian institution building programme in preparation for independence,
Reaffirming that a just, lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on an enduring commitment to mutual recognition, freedom from violence, incitement and terror, and the two-State solution, building on previous agreements and obligations and stressing that the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967, resolves all permanent status issues as previously defined by the parties, and fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties, Condemning all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and reminding all States of their obligations under resolution 1373 (2001),
Recalling the obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection in situations of armed conflict,
Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,
Noting with appreciation the efforts of the United States in 2013/14 to facilitate and advance negotiations between the parties aimed at achieving a final peace settlement, 
Aware of its responsibilities to help secure a long-term solution to the conflict,
1. Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfills the vision of two independent, democratic and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security within mutually and internationally recognized borders;
2. Decides that the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters:
- borders based on 4 June 1967 lines with mutually agreed, limited, equivalent land swaps;
- security arrangements, including through a third-party presence, that guarantee and respect the sovereignty of a State of Palestine, including through a full and phased withdrawal of Israeli security forces which will end the occupation that began in 1967 over an agreed transition period in a reasonable timeframe, not to exceed the end of 2017, and that ensure the security of both Israel and Palestine through effective border security and by preventing the resurgence of terrorism and effectively addressing security threats, including emerging and vital threats in the region.
- A just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United Nations resolutions, including resolution 194 (III); 
- Jerusalem as the shared capital of the two States which fulfills the legitimate aspirations of both parties and protects freedom of worship;
- an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water;
3. Recognizes that the final status agreement shall put an end to the occupation and an end to all claims and lead to immediate mutual recognition;
4. Affirms that the definition of a plan and schedule for implementing the security arrangements shall be placed at the center of the negotiations within the framework established by this resolution;
5. Looks forward to welcoming Palestine as a full Member State of the United Nations within the timeframe defined in the present resolution;
6. Urges both parties to engage seriously in the work of building trust and to act together in the pursuit of peace by negotiating in good faith and refraining from all acts of incitement andprovocative acts or statements, and also calls upon all States and international organizations to support the parties in confidence-building measures and to contribute to an atmosphere conducive to negotiations;
7. Calls upon all parties to abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;
8. Encourages concurrent efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, which would unlock the full potential of neighborly relations in the Middle East and reaffirms in this regard the importance of the full implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative;
9. Calls for a renewed negotiation framework that ensures the close involvement, alongside the parties, of major stakeholders to help the parties reach an agreement within the established timeframe and implement all aspects of the final status, including through the provision of political support as well as tangible support for post-conflict and peace-building arrangements, and welcomes the proposition to hold an international conference that would launch the negotiations; 
10. Calls upon both parties to abstain from any unilateral and illegal actions, including settlement activities, that could undermine the viability of a two-State solution on the basis of the parameters defined in this resolution;
11. Calls for immediate efforts to redress the unsustainable situation in the Gaza Strip, including through the provision of expanded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population via the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East and other United Nations agencies and through serious efforts to address the underlying issues of the crisis, including consolidation of the ceasefire between the parties; 
12. Requests the Secretary-General to report on the implementation of this resolution every three months;
13. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

  On December 16, a Senior State Department official said:
"Today, Secretary Kerry met in London separately with Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and with Arab League Secretary General Nabil El Araby and members of the Arab League Special Committee. In both meetings, the Secretary exchanged thoughts about the situation in the region, ongoing deliberations related to possible UN Security Council action, and the United States' interest in finding a path forward to reduce tensions and de-escalate the situation on the ground. All the parties agreed to continue their consultations going forward."
  So what does this mean, on the resolution(s)? Inner City Press on December 11 asked Palestine's Observer Riyad Mansour if the US was engaged in any negotiations on the resolutions proffered by Jordan or France. He said no, then added "you are a smart journalist," asking if France would do this work without coordination with or against the interests of the US. Afterward another journalist joked this meant, "French puppet." So what's up?
  Back on December 11, Inner City Press asked Mansour about the relation between the resolution(s) and Palestine joining the International Criminal Court.
  Mansour said the two are not conditional, and that Palestine wants to join the ICC, as is being urged at the current session of the ICC Assembly of State Parties at which Palestine is now a non-member state. Video here.
  Meanwhile the US Continuing Resolution / Omnibus on Capital Hill has this to say:
"None of the funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘Economic Support Fund’’ in this Act may be made available for assistance for the Palestinian Authority, if after the date of enactment of this Act—
"(I) the Palestinians obtain the same standing as member states or full membership as a state in the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof outside an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians; or
"(II) the Palestinians initiate an International Criminal Court judicially authorized investigation, or actively support such an investigation, that subjects Israeli nationals to an investigation for alleged crimes against Palestinians."
  Earlier this week, Palestine's Riyad Mansour was in UN Conference Room 1, with Palestine a non-member state, which no one opposed when proposed. Now this.
  Earlier this month Palestine and the Arab League said Jordan would be pushing in the UN Security Council for a vote in December on a draft resolution which would set a timeline to end Israel's occupation, now January is being mentioned.
  At first the commitment was to have a vote in November, when Australia was president of the Security Council. It didn't happen. On December 2, Inner City Press asked the Council president for December, Chadian Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif, why only a "Middle East debate" and not a vote on a Palestine resolution is on the Program of Work for December.
  Ambassador Cherif said he is not yet seized of any Palestine resolution. Amid talk of a French resolution -- French foreign ministry spokesman Romain Nadal said on December 2 there is "no rush" on a resolution -- now Jordan's Ambassador Dina Kawar says "We're going to try to make it before Christmas. If not, it will be in January."
  As Inner City Press exclusively reported, based on Security Council communications, Chad was pressured to not schedule any meetings after December 19. It pushed back, and scheduled one for December 22. But that's it.
  Already, the delay has been long. It was cold, for example, at the UNRWA event held just outside the UN on December 2, photographed by the Free UN Coalition for Accesshere. In one month's time, Venezuela and Spain join the Security Council, along with Angola, Malaysia and New Zealand. Wouldn't the draft get more "yes" votes in January 2015 than in December 2014?
   Rather than analyze this, Reuters for example again vaguely reports that "some diplomats have described the Palestinian-drafted text as 'unbalanced.'" For whom? Now Reuters adds, "some Western Council diplomats." So helpful.
 Back on October 21 as the Palestine debate of the UN Security Council went on in the Council chamber, Inner City Press conferred with a range of Council sources about the pending draft resolution to set a time frame to end Israel's occupation.
Negotiations were held on the draft last week but only at the “expert” level, not of Permanent Representatives of the Council's 15 members. Supporters of the current draft, according to Inner City Press' sources, include China and Russia, Argentina and Chile, Chad and it was assumed Nigeria, although sources say Nigeria in consultations said they didn't yet have instructions.
France was described as more excited by the draft than either the US or the UK, as not have a problem with a time frame to end the Occupation but wanting unstated changes to the draft. France did not put forth amendments, a source told Inner City Press, guessing that France didn't want to “embarrass” the US Administration before the November mid-term elections.
The UK was described as less enthusiastic, but as somehow “softened” by the recent vote in Parliament favoring recognizing Palestine as a state.
Talk turned to the new members of the Security Council coming in on January 1, with Malaysia instead of South Korea seen as a shift in favor of Palestine as a state. (This reporter's Security Council elections coverage is collected here.) Angola and Venezuela are seen as supportive and “even Spain,” as one source put it to Inner City Press. But what about New Zealand? We'll have more on this. Watch this site.