Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.S. Calls for Vote on Lebanon Tribunal

2007-05-30

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States Tuesday called for a vote this week to set up an international tribunal to prosecute suspects in the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, despite opposition from Russia, China and other Security Council members. The draft resolution would unilaterally create a tribunal outside Lebanon under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which deals with threats to international peace and can be militarily enforced. The Russians, Chinese and South Africans have publicly called for the Chapter 7 reference to be dropped, saying it's unnecessary. But the three main sponsors - the U.S., France and Britain - have refused, and France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said Tuesday ``I'm very hopeful that this resolution could pass now in the council'' despite the opposition. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the current Security Council president, told reporters Tuesday after a closed council discussion of a revised text of the resolution that ``our decision of the sponsors ... is to go for a vote tomorrow.'' ``There are still some differences of view but I believe there are now sufficient votes in the council to move forward,'' he said. In order to be adopted, the resolution needs at least nine ``yes'' votes in the 15-member council and no veto by a permanent member - the U.S., Russia, China, Britain and France. Council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said they don't expect a veto, but they do expect at least five abstentions - Russia, China, Qatar, Indonesia and South Africa. I bet Russia vetoes. A beer of your choice at the O-Club. Any takers?

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US, France agree on draft UN Security Council resolution

2006-08-05

Slight trimming The U.S. and France agreed Saturday on a draft Security Council resolution that seeks an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon, breaking a three-week impasse caused partly by Washington's refusal to press Israel to end its offensive against Hezbollah. The resolution would chart a path toward a temporary hudna while Hez'Beelzebub rearmslasting peace with a cease-fire monitored by international troops like the ones currently aiding the terrorists. If passed, it would be the most significant international response to the crisis and raise hopes of ending combat that has killed at least 600 and left Lebanon in tatters. The resolution must now go before the full 15-nation Security Council and gain Israeli and Lebanese acceptance - and initial comments indicated that would not be easy. Hezbollah warned it won't abide by the resolution unless Israel withdraws from Lebanon entirely, while one Israeli official called the draft an "important development" but vowed to press on with the offensive for now. The text also ignored three Lebanese demands: setting a timetable for an Israeli withdrawal from the south, lifting Israel's full blockade of Lebanon and putting the disputed Chebaa Farms area under U.N. control. President Bush is "happy with the progress being made" at the United Nations, but knows cementing a cease-fire will not be easy, White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "I don't think he has any delusions about what lies ahead," said Snow, who was with the president on his vacation at his private ranch in Crawford, Texas. British Prime Minister Tony Blair praised the resolution as "an important first step in bringing this tragic crisis to an end." "The priority now is to get the resolution adopted as soon as possible, and then to work for a permanent cease-fire and achieve the conditions in Lebanon and Israel which will prevent a recurrence," Blair said. The Security Council convened later Saturday to discuss the draft. Diplomats said the document was likely to be adopted early next week at a meeting attended by the foreign ministers of the 15 council members. The resolution's central demand was for "a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." The document then charted a detailed path for the two sides to follow to achieve a lasting peace. It envisioned a second resolution in a week or two that would authorize an international military force for the Israel-Lebanon frontier. Among those steps would be the creation of a large buffer zone in southern Lebanon free of both Israeli troops and Hezbollah militants, monitored by the Lebanese army and international peacekeepers. Of course, Hezbeelzebub will not be required ot keep any of the conditions, while Israel will be pressured to keep them all and go beyond. The draft also called for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for Lebanon's borders to be solidified, especially in the disputed Chebaa Farms area, occupied by Israel since 1967. Another element was an arms embargo that would block any entity in Lebanon except the national government from obtaining weapons from abroad. That was aimed at blocking the sale or supply of arms to Hezbollah from Iran and Syria, which are believed to be the militia's main backers. The resolution would put significant pressure on Lebanon's government, which ceded control of the south to Hezbollah. "This is not a resolution that provides the comprehensive solution," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "I'm sure there are aspects of it that are displeasing to almost everyone but the point is this is a way to get started and that's what we hope to do." You have a lot fans here, Mr. Ambassador. Please don't go wobbly on us. The draft's chief goal is to ensure that southern Lebanon does not slip back into the same state it was in before Israel's offensive, which began after Hezbollah guerrillas raided northern Israel on July 12 in fighting that left eight soldiers dead and two captured. "Who could imagine that such a drama could happen again?" French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said. "It would be irresponsible." But this is the UN and you are France. "Irresponsible" is SOP. The U.S. and France had to compromise to get the draft adopted. Washington backed off its demand for a package of immediate steps, including the deployment of the international force in conjunction with a cease-fire. France gave up its desire for a blanket halt to violence, agreeing for the resolution to give Israel the right to conduct defensive operations - a term that the Israeli military could interpret broadly in response to any Hezbollah attack. The draft made no direct demand for the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers. It only emphasized the need to address the causes "that have given rise to the current crisis," including freeing the abductees. The Security Council has made the same demands previously - most recently with resolution 1559 in September 2004 - but Hezbollah has refused to obey. "What we're trying to do is lay in the foundation so that you can finally enact the provisions of U.N. Security Council resolution 1559," Snow told reporters in Texas. It asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to play a key role in setting up catering arrangements securing Israeli and Lebanese agreement to the principles for peace, giving him one month to work with the parties to come up with new proposals to implement the demands spelled out in resolution 1559 and elsewhere. Hezbollah has said it would refuse to abide by any cease-fire until Israel withdraws from Lebanon, and Israel says it won't pull its troops out of the south until a significant international military force deploys in the region. "We will abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it," said Mohammed Fneish, one of two Hezbollah Cabinet ministers in the Lebanese government. In Israel, Tourism Minister Isaac Herzog told Israel TV's Channel One that the agreement was an "important development," but said Israel would not halt its assault on Hezbollah for the time being. Still, he appeared to acknowledge the draft meant Israel's offensive would have to wind down soon. "We still have the coming days for many military missions, but we have to know that the timetable is becoming increasingly shorter," he said.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.N. issues nuke deadline for Iran

2006-07-31

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The U.N. Security Council passed a weakened resolution Monday giving Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of economic and diplomatic sanctions. Iran immediately rejected the council action, saying the resolution would only make negotiations more difficult over a package of incentives offered in June for it to suspend enrichment. "All along it has been the persistence of some to draw arbitrary red lines and deadlines that has closed the door to any compromise," Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, said. "This tendency has singlehandedly blocked success and in most cases killed proposals in their infancy." "This approach will not lead to any productive outcome and in fact it can only exacerbate the situation," he said. Because of Russian and Chinese demands, the text was watered down from earlier drafts, which would have made the threat of sanctions immediate. It now essentially requires the council to hold more discussions before it considers sanctions. And then more discussions, and more resolutions. Remember Iraq: 17 resolutions, and not one enforced until GWB can along. The resolution passed by a vote of 14-1. Qatar, which represents Arab states on the council and lives next door to the big bad wolf, cast the lone dissenting vote. Drafted by Britain, France and Germany with U.S. backing, the resolution follows a July 12 agreement -- by the foreign ministers of those four countries, plus Russia and China -- to refer Tehran to the Security Council for not responding to the incentives package. The ministers asked that council members adopt a resolution making Iran's suspension of enrichment activities mandatory. The resolution includes that demand and calls on all states "to exercise vigilance" in preventing the transfer of all goods that could be used for Iran's enrichment and ballistic missile programs. "If you remember the reason for that resolution is to make the suspension of enrichment and related activities mandatory and then to give Iran a deadline by which it should accept the now mandatory requirement that it suspend its enrichment activities," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters on a flight from Jerusalem. In a lengthy speech after the resolution was adopted, Zarif told the council it had no legal legitimacy to demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing. He repeated Iran's claim that it has every right to pursue nuclear technology and does not want to develop nuclear weapons. Zarif faulted the United States and Britain for supporting a 1953 coup in Iran, and blasted the council for being slow to address Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 and its use of chemical weapons against Iranians. You sorta poisoned that well when you took American embassy personnel hostage, remember? Tehran said last week it would reply to the Western incentive package on Aug. 22, but the council decided to go ahead with a resolution and not wait for Iran's response. The resolution calls on the U.N nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back by Aug. 31 on Iran's compliance with the resolution's demands. If Iran does not comply, the council would move to adopt political and economic sanctions, the resolution said. Diplomats said the threats spelled out in the resolution would be revoked if Iran agrees to the package of incentives. "It does not mean an end to the negotiations and we reaffirm the proposals," France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said. "We appeal to Iran to positively respond to the substantive proposals that we made last month." Explaining his "no" vote, Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser said that while the demands of the six nations were legitimate, the resolution will only exacerbate tensions in the region and Iran should be given more time to respond because his country doesn't want to get clobbered. "We do not agree with the tabling of this resolution at a time when our region is in flames," Al-Nasser said. "We see no harm in waiting for a few days to exhaust all possible means and in order to identify the real intentions of Iran."

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Lebanon: U.S. Blocking Call for Cease-Fire

2006-07-16

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Lebanon accused the United States on Saturday of blocking a U.N. Security Council statement calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, saying the impotence of the United Nations' most powerful body sent the wrong signal to small countries and the Arab world. "It's unacceptable because people are still under shelling, bombardment and destruction is going on ... and people are dying," said Lebanese special envoy Nouhad Mahmoud. Qatar, the only Arab nation on the council, received widespread support during closed council consultations late Saturday for a press statement calling for an immediate cease-fire, restraint in the use of force, and the protection of civilians caught in the conflict, council diplomats said. But Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Cesar Mayoral said the United States objected to any statement and Britain opposed calling for a cease-fire. The U.S. and Britain want to wait for the outcome of this weekend's Group of Eight meeting in Russia, an Arab League foreign ministers meeting, and a mission sent to the Middle East by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Mayoral and other diplomats said. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the current council president, confirmed "there was no agreement on a text tonight, but we will meet on Monday." "Many delegations would have liked to have a very prompt reaction," he said. "Others think the spotlight should be elsewhere, not here in the council. " But Lebanon's Mahmoud protested, saying while innocent civilians are killed, "here we are impotent." "It sends very wrong signals not only to the Lebanese people but to the Arab people, to all small nations that we are left to the might of Israel and nobody is doing anything," he said. "We have many reasons to expect much more from the Security Council," said Mahmoud. And from the United States? "They were always supportive in the last 1 1/2 years, but when it comes to Israel it seems things change," he said. Yup. Get used to it. We stand with Israel. We'll stand with you unless you stand against Israel. It's not hard to figure out.

Link

China-Japan-Koreas

U.N. Vote on N. Korea Resolution Delayed

2006-07-11

The U.N. Security Council's five permanent members and Japan agreed Monday to postpone a vote on possible sanctions against North Korea in response to a missile test that rattled the region last week. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the current council president, said there would be no vote Monday. China's U.N. ambassador said that council members have agreed to continue discussions on the Tokyo-sponsored resolution. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters after a meeting with envoys from Russia, the United States, Britain, France and Japan that the resolution would have to be altered for the council to approve it. "If they wish to have a resolution, they should have a modified one, not this one," he said. China's consideration of any resolution was considered significant, since Wang had been pressing for a weaker Security Council statement, which would not be legally binding. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Washington would look at any Chinese suggestions for changes, and the council would reevaluate "on a daily basis" whether to proceed with a vote.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Iran: U.N. Intervention Illegal

2006-05-07

Iranians Say Suspension Of Enrichment Not On Agenda Iran said on Sunday any U.N. action over its nuclear program would be illegal and lead to confrontation. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also declared yet again there was nothing the international community could do to prompt Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. Briefing reporters, he also said Iran's antagonists over its nuclear program were driven by "political motivations." "Countries sponsoring the draft resolution (Britain, France and the United States) have political motivations," Asefi said. "It's clear that any action by the U.N. Security Council will leave a negative impact on our cooperation with the IAEA." He was referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, which Iran has barred from making snap inspections as the dispute over the program has escalated. "Intervention by the U.N. Security Council would change the path of cooperation to confrontation. We recommend they do not do this," Asefi said. The U.S., Britain and France have expressed concern Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons under cover of its enrichment program and are trying to craft a U.N. resolution that would involve some measure of punishment should Iran fail to cease processing uranium. Russia and China, the other two veto-holding council members, have refused to agree to a draft resolution, calling for further diplomacy. Iran insists the program is designed only to make fuel for reactors to generate electricity, and the IAEA says there is no evidence Iran has a nuclear weapons program. "The U.N. Security Council should not take any action that it cannot later undo. We won't give up our rights and the issue of suspension (of enrichment) is not on our agenda," Asefi said at his weekly briefing. The United States said Saturday it was prepared to bring a U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear program to a vote — with or without Russia and China's support — but was still seeking to bridge differences and win unanimous Security Council approval. "The optimism expressed Friday at the U.N. appeared to dissipate Saturday when Security Council members could not find common ground on a draft resolution designed to pressure Iran," said CBS News Foreign Affairs Analyst Pamela Falk. "With the foreign ministers from the world powers expected to meet in New York early next week, the pressure is building to find a unified position but threats to call a vote before an agreement is reached, combined with Vice President Dick Cheney's public rebuke of Russia are making the chance of a compromise position less likely." "Either the U.K., France, and the U.S. have to move away from language of the resolution that allows for sanctions and the use of force in the future, or Russia and China as well as Qatar -- which does not have veto power -- will have to fundamentally change their position on that issue," Falk said, "or they walk away from the U.N., diminishing the pressure on Iran. After an informal meeting at Britain's U.N. Mission, council members said they made progress in a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion of the draft resolution. Britain's U.N. Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry acknowledged, however, that the most contentious issues were not discussed in detail. "We are still working to achieve unanimity ... but we're prepared to go to a vote without it," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said. "We're not prepared to extend these negotiations endlessly ... I think it's realistic to consider this for a vote next week." The resolution, co-sponsored by Britain and France and backed by the U.S., would make mandatory the previous Security Council demands that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, and construction of a heavy-water nuclear reactor. The draft states that the "proliferation risk" posed by Iran constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and the resolution would be adopted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can be enforced by sanctions — or if necessary — military action. Russia and China, which both have veto power, and some nonpermanent members contend that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons — as the U.S. and its allies believe — and they object to the call for possible "further measures" to ensure Tehran's compliance. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed "the search for a diplomatic solution of the Iranian nuclear problem" with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement Saturday. "It is too early to say which changes should be made to the draft resolution to satisfy Russia," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said in Moscow on Saturday, according to the RIA Novosti, ITAR-Tass and Interfax news agencies. Bolton said he had told the Russians and Chinese four days ago to come up with some creative way to make the resolution mandatory without Chapter 7, and was still waiting for their proposals. "There's no dispute about the basic course of conduct that we want Iran to pursue," he said. But Jones Parry said he did not envision a resolution without Chapter 7. Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser said after Saturday's meeting that "the text language for some delegations is very unacceptable" and he is waiting for a revised text. Tanzania's U.N. Ambassador Augustine Mahiga said the resolution should strengthen the role of the IAEA, remove the threat of further action, and "incorporate some inducements for Iranians to cooperate." Jones Parry said he and France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere would now reflect on the suggestions made by council members. "We have no intention of producing a new text at this stage," Jones Parry said, adding that the co-sponsors were still open to consider possible amendments. Neither Jones Parry nor Bolton would predict when a revised text would be introduced. De La Sabliere said the council would meet again on Monday, ahead of a meeting Monday evening of foreign ministers of the six key players on the Iran nuclear issue — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. Supporters of the resolution had hoped it would be adopted before that gathering. "We are moving in the right direction," de La Sabliere said. "I think we have made some progress, but there is still a lot of work to do." Bolton said he expects the ministers to talk about "the longer term policy that we need to pursue to stop Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability, and I think they could have that discussion on the assumption that this resolution will be adopted next week." In Saudi Arabia, six of Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors urged Tehran on Saturday to be frank with them about its nuclear program. The gathering discussed developments in Iran, Iraq and combatting terrorism, United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Sheik Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan told journalists. "Iran should be transparent in dealing with the region," regarding its nuclear program, Al Nahyan said.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

U.N. Security Council Passes Statement on Iran

2006-03-29

The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body has directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons. Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it was committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction. "Pressure and threats do not work with Iran. Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation," Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif said. He later added that "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right." The 15-nation council unanimously approved a statement that will ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium. Russia and China insisted on watering this down from 14 days. Diplomats portrayed the statement, which is not legally binding, as a first, modest step toward compelling Iran to make clear that its program is for peaceful purposes. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures. "The council is expressing its clear concern and is saying to Iran that it should comply with the wishes of the governing board," France's U.N Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said. The document was adopted by consensus and without a vote after a flurry of negotiations among the five veto-wielding council members. In the end, Britain, France and the United States made several concessions to China and Russia, Iran's allies, who wanted as mild a statement as possible. Still, the Western countries said the statement expresses the international community's shared conviction that Iran must comply with the governing board of the IAEA and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Enrichment is a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead. Members of the council wanted to reach a deal before Thursday, when foreign ministers from the five veto-wielding council members and Germany meet in Berlin to discuss strategy on Iran. Diplomats would not say exactly what will happen if Iran does not comply with the statement within 30 days, but suggested that would be discussed by the foreign ministers in Berlin. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an "important diplomatic step" that showed the international community's concern about Iran. "Iran is more isolated now than ever," she said in a statement. "The Security Council's Presidential Statement sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to conceal its nuclear program and evade its international obligations are unacceptable." The council has struggled for three weeks to come up with a written rebuke that would urge Iran to comply with several demands from the board of the IAEA to clear up suspicions about its intentions. Tehran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The West believes council action will help isolate Iran and put new pressure on it to clear up suspicions about its intentions. They have proposed an incremental approach, refusing to rule out sanctions. U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table. Russia and China, both allies of Iran, oppose sanctions. They wanted any council statement to make explicit that the IAEA, not the Security Council, must take the lead in confronting Iran. and now why would that be???? The draft circulated to the council calls upon Iran to "resolve outstanding questions, and underlines ... the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities." Still, it removed language that China and Russia opposed. The text removes language saying that proliferation is a threat to international peace and security. Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats. Russia and China had opposed that language from the start because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days. "For the time being we have suspicions," Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. "So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap."

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

UNSC close to agreement on Iran statement

2006-03-19

UNITED NATIONS: The Security Council is inching toward agreeing a revised Franco-British draft urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, diplomats said on Friday as China suggested that Tehran be given up to six weeks to do so. The 15-member council met for over one hour Friday to review the revised text, which incorporated comments made by members after a series of informal sessions earlier this week. Members agreed to meet again Tuesday after getting reactions from their capitals. "The response we got from our colleagues today suggests that we are pretty close to where they wanted us to be," Britain's UN envoy Emyr Jones Parry told reporters. "Our wish remains that the council should act expeditiously on this text and send the clearest possible signal (to Tehran) to reinforce the activities of the (International Atomic Energy Agency) Agency," he added. French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere also said he was "encouraged by the reaction" to the revised text, which he noted was "getting a lot of support". "We are not very far now from the end of the discussion," the French envoy said, adding that the co-sponsors were awaiting reactions from other members' capitals to the text. "I hope the reactions will be positive."

Link

Africa Subsaharan

UN mulls Ivory Coast sanctions

2006-01-27

The Security Council has edged closer to sanctioning individuals blamed for last week's anti-UN violence in Ivory Coast. The movement came on Thursday as the UN mission in the Ivory Coast began a temporary evacuation of some civilian staff. "No decision has been taken today but I think we are very close to a decision (on sanctions)," Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, France's UN envoy, said after the council was briefed on the situation by the UN special representative for Ivory Coast, Pierre Schori. "All members who took the floor today very strongly condemned the attacks against UN forces," de La Sabliere said. "It is not acceptable that the UN forces be attacked by those who do not want to implement the roadmap" [due to lead to free and fair elections by 31 October]. The French envoy, whose country is Ivory Coast's former colonial ruler, said the 15-member council favoured targeted and "balanced" sanctions against Ivorian pro-government and rebel personalities responsible for violence. He said a decision was likely to be made in the coming days.

Link

Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US, France push for Syria resolution

2005-10-25

The US and France have said they are trying to mobilise support for a UN resolution demanding Syria's full cooperation with the investigation into the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. "We will certainly insist on Syrian cooperation," US Ambassador John Bolton said on Monday. "This is true confessions time now for the government of Syria. No more obstruction. No more half measures. We want substantive cooperation and we want it immediately." French Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said the council must use "its weight" to discover "the whole truth" after last week's report by UN investigator Detlev Mehlis that found evidence of Syrian involvement in al-Hariri's assassination and a lack of cooperation from Damascus. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he planned to raise the issue of cooperation wth Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, who he said had asked to meet him on Tuesday and was flying to New York. But shortly afterwards, UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric announced that Syria's UN Mission had informed the UN al-Sharaa would not be coming. Al-Sharaa was accused in the Mehlis report of lying in a letter to the investigating commission. Mehlis is to brief the UN Security Council on the report at an open meeting on Tuesday.

Link

Africa: Subsaharan

Ivory Coast Crisis Getting Worse U.N. Says

2005-06-24

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. Security Council members agreed on a plan Thursday to send more peacekeepers and police to Ivory Coast in a bid to get the country's peace process back on track. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, the current council president, said a council resolution authorizing 850 more troops and 375 police would be put to a vote on Friday. It was virtually certain to be approved. France had wanted more troops to complement the 6,200-strong mission but faced opposition, including from the United States on the swelling costs of peacekeeping. No doubt the French offered to pick up the tab ... ``It was the best compromise we (could) get, you know this is life in the council,'' de La Sabliere said. ``We have accepted, because we think there was a kind of urgency.'' Council members also agreed they could transfer troops from another U.N. mission in Sierra Leone if necessary. De La Sabliere said that could be some 1,200 troops for now. Rebels aided and abetted by the French at times have controlled the northern half of Ivory Coast since a failed coup attempt in September 2002 sparked a civil war in the world's top cocoa producer. A French-brokered peace deal in January 2003 has failed to hold. In a peace accord signed April 6, warring parties agreed to end hostilities and disarm. Two months after Ivory Coast's rebels and government signed the deal, the crisis in Ivory Coast has only gotten worse with rising tension and new violence. The two sides have agreed to meet in Pretoria, South Africa next week to try to jump-start the process. I'd get worried if the UN types start talking about a 'roadmap'. The draft resolution circulated Thursday backed those efforts and urged the two sides to get back to the peace process. That's going well, doncha think?

Link

Africa: Horn

UN Council Under Pressure to Adopt New Sudan Motion

2005-03-20

After weeks of negotiations, the UN Security Council remains deadlocked on the next steps in Sudan where a 21-year civil war has just ended and a two-year conflict that has killed an estimated 180,000 people is still raging. The council is under mounting international pressure to act quickly but members are still divided over sanctions against the government and punishment for the perpetrators of atrocities. At the request of the United States, the council voted Thursday for a second weeklong extension of the UN political mission in Sudan. But many members including France, Algeria and Britain made clear they are fed up with the delays and want a vote next week on a new resolution. "The time has come now to adopt the resolution," said France's UN Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere, stressing that the conflict in the western Darfur region is "very bad." The US-drafted resolution would establish a broader UN mission and authorize a 10,000-strong UN peacekeeping force to monitor a peace accord ending the civil war between the government and southern rebels. It would also bolster efforts by the 2,200-strong African Union force in Darfur to promote peace. Council members agree on these provisions though diplomats are concerned that the large UN peacekeeping force will be deployed in generally quiet areas monitoring the north-south peace deal while the much smaller African force is struggling on its own in Darfur to help end a conflict that has forced over 2 million people to flee their homes. But it is primarily on the issues of sanctions and punishment for atrocities in Darfur that council members disagree. Conflict has engulfed Darfur since February 2003, when two non-Arab rebel groups took up arms against the Arab-dominated government to win more political and economic rights for the region's African tribes.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/rantburg/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More