Yemen Genocide: 14 Million ’On Brink of Famine’

Local Editor

Thirty-five Yemeni and international NGOs called Wednesday for an “immediate cessation of hostilities” in Yemen, where they warned 14 million people were now “on the brink of famine”.

The joint appeal was signed by the International Federation for Human Rights [FIDH], Action Against Hunger, CARE International, Oxfam, Doctors of the World, and Yemeni organizations, according to a statement.

“With 14 million men, women and children on the brink of famine – half the country’s population – there has never been a more urgent time to act,” the statement warned.

It called on governments to “secure an immediate cessation of hostilities” and “suspend the supply of arms at risk of being used in Yemen”.

Yemen has been under a brutal Saudi-led military campaign since 2015.

“The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is manmade and a direct consequence of the warring parties’ severe restrictions on access to food, fuel, medical imports and humanitarian aid,” the statement added.

“The collapse of the Yemeni rial and the non-payment of public sector workers is adding to the catastrophe.”

“We call on governments to redouble their efforts to guarantee unimpeded access to essential items … including through the lifeline port of al-Hudaydah, where civilians have been caught in renewed fighting over the past few days.”

Nearly 10,000 Yemenis have lost their lives in the conflict since 2015, according to the World Health Organization.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Local Editor

Adam closed his eyes forever…

Adam was one of 400,000 children who may still, in not dead yet, be suffering from severe acute malnutrition in a country on the brink of famine.

The 10-year-old boy who weighed only 10kg died of hunger in Yemen.

UNICEF confirmed the young child called Adam had died less than 24 hours after Sky News published an article about his plight.

He had been too weak to get out of his hospital bed by himself when aid workers came to his bedside last week.

They reported that he was crying and found it difficult to breathe, with his tiny chest heaving with the effort.

Lying in hospital in the city of al-Hudaydah before his death, he should have been able to focus on his recovery.

But as fighting in the Yemeni port city continues – with almost 100 airstrikes falling on it this weekend alone – the conflict moves closer and closer to Al Thawra hospital.

UNICEF executive director Henrietta Fore said the fighting is now “dangerously close” and is “putting the lives of 59 children, including 25 in the intensive care unit, at imminent risk of death”.

Heavy bombing and gunfire could be heard from Adam’s hospital bed.

Juliette Touma, chief of communications for UNICEF’s Middle East and North Africa region, travelled to Yemen between 29 October and 3 November.

She has spent 16 years working in the region but said meeting Adam would never leave her.

“Adam was not able to utter a word,” she told Sky News.

“All he did was to cry in pain without tears but making the sound of pain.”

Geert Cappelaere, regional director of UNICEF Middle East and North Africa office, also met Adam before the child’s death on Saturday.

Paying tribute to the youngster, he said: “Rest in peace Adam.”

“Adam was very sick and he also had severe malnutrition. Al Thawra hospital… where Adam died is now in the line of fire.”

“Adam is one of 400,000 severely malnourished children in Yemen. They – like Adam – might also die, any minute. May his soul rest in peace.”

Half of Yemeni children under the age of five are chronically malnourished. Some 30,000 Yemeni children die every year with malnutrition as one of the most important underlying causes.

Locals worry constantly about money and being unable to buy food, Ms. Touma said.

“Poverty is very visible, people are just exhausted,” she said.

Civil servants, including doctors and teachers, have not been paid for more than two years and the devaluation of the currency means that despite food being on sale in markets most families cannot afford to buy it.

Adam, who also had a brain condition and shared his ward with other severely malnourished children, was unable to access health care until his family were able to save up to afford the transport to take him there.

News of Adam’s death comes as a group of 14 international non-governmental organizations, including Save the Children, Care and Action Against Hungry, signed a joint statement saying “as an urgent priority, civilians and children in particular in and around al-Hudaydah must be protected from the direct and indirect impact of the fighting.”

Yemen has become the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with more than 22.2 million people in need of assistance.

Source:News Agencies, Edited by website team

Related Articles

 

Advertisements

Did the Fledgling United Nations Have a Legitimate Mandate in 1947 to Partition Palestine?

Source

By Hans Stehling,

It is a fact that is hardly credible, but a fact nevertheless, that the vast majority of people, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, have now little or no idea of the political machinations that brought about the establishment of an Israeli state in Palestine – a region that was predominately Muslim Arab for well over a thousand years. A period over which there had only ever been a minority Jewish presence. That fact is verified as follows – the documented proof being in the public domain, available to anyone at the touch of a key.

The present United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 50 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. It replaced the ineffective pre-war League of Nations, after WW2.

On 25 April 1945, the United Nations Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco. Fifty nations were represented who signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations on 24 October 1945, and the UN was officially formed.  [Those 50 signatories, however, have to be seen in the context of the 193 UN Member states that in 2018 now represent the entire global population i.e. fifty is just over 25% of the present total].

On 29 November 1947, the resolution to recommend to all current Members of the then fledgling United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, was put to a vote in the UN General Assembly.  The result was 33 to 13 in favour of the resolution, with 10 abstentions. That is 33 out of a current total of 193 UN member States i.e. 17%.   (Britain, of course, abstained).

Barely six months later, on May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel, and U.S. President Harry S. Truman unexpectedly recognized the new nation on the same day. However, that does not tell the full story. President Truman was not at all in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine and was heavily leaned upon by B’nai Brith International, a powerful Jewish service organisation in America.

In the event, Truman was persuaded to change his opinion. And that decision was of vital importance because a handful of U.N. Member States would inevitably follow America’s lead as a result of intense Zionist lobbying. Consequently, it was in fact only a tiny minority of the global population that actually voted to impose a Jewish state in the midst of the Muslim Middle East.

If the same resolution were to be put to the vote today before a UN that now genuinely represents the entire global population, the result would be vastly different from that in 1947/8. And Gaza would now be a thriving sea-port on the eastern Mediterranean with an international airport, a strong fishing industry and operating as a popular tourist destination as the gateway to the Middle East and its hinterland.

Instead, we have nearly two million civilians under an inhuman siege from an occupying army that is armed and funded by both the US and the UK; that has blockaded essential supplies including electricity for over eleven years in a bid to starve an entire civilian population into submission and effect a regime change.

It’s a story of raw colonial power, political greed and personal ambition through the subjugation of an entire people by an internationally armed and funded, military occupation and illegal settlement, in open violation of the international Geneva Conventions on Human Rights.

In 2018, supported by a US Republican Congress (and a compliant UK Conservative Government), it continues as the spark that will eventually cause a devastating war – unless there is a paradigm shift in policy.  That seems most unlikely under the current Trump White House that is already intent on waging an American war against Iran by deliberately bankrupting the Iranian oil industry against the unanimous will of Europe, China, India and most of the international community.  It’s a very dangerous game by a dangerous man.

*

 

Hans Stehling (pen name) is a political analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis

Via The Saker

The Non-Existent Sea of Azov Crisis

November 02, 2018

By Rostislav Ishchenko
Translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard

cross posted with http://www.stalkerzone.org/rostislav-ishchenko-the-non-existent-sea-of-azov-crisis/
source: https://ukraina.ru/opinion/20181101/1021618870.html

After the resolution of the European parliament that, contrary to international law and common sense, condemned the actions of Russia in the Sea of Azov, Ukraine cheered up and achieved the bringing of the question concerning elections in the DPR/LPR to the consideration of the UN Security Council.

Russia couldn’t block the introduction of this issue into the agenda both for moral and long-term political reasons.

The fact is that Moscow in 2015 also tried to obtain, and actually did obtain, the approval of the Minsk Agreements via the decision of the UN Security Council. This allowed to put Ukraine on the hook of international legitimacy. Kiev, which desired to jump away from the topic, couldn’t state any more that it doesn’t consider itself to be bound to any agreement with “terrorist-separatists” and that it isn’t obligated to them at all. The decision of the Security Council also enshrined that Russia isn’t a party to the conflict. Kiev after this shouted a lot, caused a fuss, sabotaged the implementation of all without exception points of the Minsk Agreements, but didn’t at all dare to officially withdraw from them.

But every coin has two sides, it is possible to find something bad in any good situation, and in any bad situation – something good. The same thing applies here: cementing its position via the decision of the Security Council, Russia couldn’t, without suffering serious reputation losses, deny the Security Council its right to consider the implementation of the decisions approved by its resolution.

Of course, the Security Council couldn’t adopt an anti-Russian or anti-Donbass resolution in connection with the existence of Russia’s veto. But the 5 member countries of the Security Council (France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Great Britain) made a statement of non-recognition of the elections being prepared in Donbass and urged Russia to cancel them. The statement was supported by Germany, Italy, and Belgium. It is strange that there was no America among the declarants. However, this allows to present the statement as the collective position of the European Union, while Washington receives the opportunity to later express itself in support of its allies, but in the meantime to make one more attempt to carry out behind-closed-doors bargaining with Moscow.

Both parties are formally right. Ukraine and its Euro-American intercessors specify that elections in Donbass, according to the Minsk Agreements, have to take place under Ukrainian laws, but Minsk will be violated if they take place now. The People’s Republics, whose position Russia supports, state that this may of course be true, but Ukraine long ago had to adopt a whole complex of acts and carry out other measures, including disengaging troops and ceasing shelling before the turn of the People’s Republics to observe the Ukrainian electoral laws comes.

Judging by separate passages of the speech of the Russian envoy in the UN Security Council, Moscow suggests to consider these elections as the simple legitimation of the heads of the republics, who, unlike their predecessors, weren’t elected by anybody. The West is proposed to look at these elections as the solution to a purely technical problem. Moscow has a trump card on its side  – the fact that the head of the DPR Zakharchenko was killed and charges of organising murder were brought to official Kiev structures.

Europe, however, didn’t want to accept the arguments of Russia, which is demonstrated by the statement of 8 EU states. This, of course, can be the usual diplomatic demarche without consequences — occupying an advantageous position for bargaining in the great global game. But there can also be more serious undertakings that as a result will lead to the realisation of Kiev’s dream of disavowing Minsk, but for reasons that are not at all joyful for Ukraine.

We remember that Germany and France weren’t at all afflicted when Russia froze meetings in the Normandy Format until Ukraine took a more constructive position. They sighed freely, because Kiev bothered them worse than a bitter radish, and sat down in the first row of the parterre to see how Volker will get out of the situation. But they remain guarantors of the Minsk Agreements. It is clear to all that Minsk will never be fulfilled. Kiev doesn’t hide from the West that it is afraid of a domino effect if Donbass is given special status. But Paris and Berlin can’t just say “we changed our mind, Minsk doesn’t work any more”. It is for this same reason that Russia can’t deny the UN Security Council its right to periodically consider the question of implementing the Minsk Agreements. France and Germany themselves insisted on these agreements, they participated in their development, they declared that this is their big victory. The political losses that both countries and their leaders will incur if they change their position will be too great.

France and Germany need to have a pretext to free themselves from the obligation of solving the Ukrainian crisis. If it is impossible to withdraw from the agreements at their own will, and if it is impossible to allow it to be disrupted by a Kiev supported by the West, then it is necessary to shift the blame onto Russia and the People’s Republics.

The West perfectly understands that the refusal under obvious pressure to hold elections in the People’s Republics will cause essential damage to Russia’s international authority. That’s why it acts maximally publicly, up to the level of collective statements following the results of the UN Security Council meeting, closing for Moscow the option of changing its mind and once again “postponing” elections. After the elections have taken place, the West can refuse to recognise Pushilin and Pasechnik as negotiators in connection with the non-recognition of the elections that they were elected in. Also the powers of other delegates signed by them during negotiations can also not be recognised. This is enough to bury the Minsk process under an absolutely plausible excuse.

But if indeed the West does this, then it won’t be done to start a new round of negotiations and reach compromises that are more acceptable for Kiev. If there was the desire to save Ukraine, then it would be enough for Germany to stop the construction of “Nord Stream-2” and not prevent Poland from paralysing the work of “Nord Stream-1”. The geopolitical situation surrounding Kiev would immediately significantly change, and the chances – albeit tiny – of lasting at least 5 years while Russia searches for new markets and delivery routes for its gas would sharply grow for the regime. But Germany initially didn’t plan to opt for such sacrifices, which indeed granted us [Russians – ed] the right to affirm that the destiny of Ukraine, in principle, has been decided, therefore it is better for the Kiev regime to immediately die because long agony only increases the torture.

The West in general, and Europe in particular, needs to jump away from the toxic topic, because it is already clear that Russia will soon raise the question of who will pay for the restoration of Ukraine, like how it already raised such a question concerning Syria. By the time that such a question will be asked by Moscow, it is necessary not to have any formal connections with the Ukrainian crisis. The destruction of the Minsk and Normandy Formats — formally not due to their own fault — allows France and Germany to distance themselves from the problem, while at the same time keeping their finger on the pulse. After all, Poland, Hungary, and Romania won’t be able to avoid border problems connected with their minorities in the West of Ukraine. This means that the EU will anyway be involved in a settlement. But Germany and France will be free from obligations and will be able to dictate to their younger partners in the EU the conditions of support for their position, threatening to leave them alone with their problem in the event of obstinacy.

The Azov crisis should be considered from the same point of view. The West didn’t notice this problem during a year, and then suddenly the European Parliament started to care about it, while even Ukraine recognises that although the economic losses from Russia’s actions in the Sea of Azov and big, Moscow acts in full accordance with international standards – no violations of protocols by Russian customs groups were documented.

There is nothing extraordinary about Russia’s actions. The US examined the vessels going to Cuba not only in the days of the Caribbean Crisis. Israel examined the vessels going to Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, which even caused a diplomatic incident and the cooling of earlier excellent relations with Turkey. It is possible to give a plethora of examples: a warship’s right to examine a trade vessel in the high sea is the ABC of international law.

Nevertheless, the European Parliament started talking about a possible aggravation in the Sea of Azov and began to threaten with sanctions.

Who will aggravate? Russia has no need to do this, Ukraine can’t, and there isn’t anyone else there. Sofa “experts” already started talking about the entrance of the “NATO fleet” in the Sea of Azov. Those who are cleverer speak about its entrance in the Black Sea, understanding that a warship can only pass in the Sea of Azov with the permission of Russia, and a breakthrough – moreover, by a whole “NATO fleet” – equals war. In addition, large ships anyway can’t breakthrough there, but small cutter boats and dinghies can be brought to the Sea of Azov by Ukraine via land routes without any NATO. But this won’t change anything since Russia can sink everything that floats on this sea. This water area is completely exposed to barrelled artillery fire from the coast, not to mention missile systems. If someone wants to launch a war against Russia, then they will find a more convenient place than the Sea of Azov.

NATO ships, for the purpose of flying the flag, entered, enter, and will continue to enter the Black Sea. The Sea Breeze exercises are staged there annually, but, having an unsinkable “aircraft carrier” named Crimea, Moscow reliably dominates in its water area so much so that a hypothetical attack of Russia using the forces of a really large squadron or shock aircraft carrier grouping is possible no closer than from the region of the Aegean Sea. In the Black Sea a fleet hostile to Russia becomes too vulnerable. Because of Crimea it has nowhere to manoeuvre, and it can’t quickly leave in case of danger – a large grouping of ships can’t overcome the Turkish straits overnight.

So all of this is a fairy tale in favour of idle chatter. The non-existent Azov crisis is invented, on the one hand, for the purpose of mobilising Russophobic voters in the EU for the European Parliament elections in May, 2019, and on the other hand — this noise masks the real actions of the West, and allows it to drift away from Ukraine, imitating its comprehensive support.

Otherwise it is difficult to explain why the West didn’t see the danger of the situation being aggravated during a whole year (when it really existed), but saw it precisely now when the problem was solved. The fishermen of “Nord” were exchanged for the Ukrainian poachers lassoed by Russia. It is only left to exchange captains, then vessels, and then the crisis will fizzle out. Especially if Kiev doesn’t forget to return “Mekhanik Pogodin” after “Nord”.

By the way, apparently Kiev started to suspect that something was amiss, because the comments of Ukrainian officials concerning the Azov crisis were wonderfully weighted, especially against the background of the West’s hysterics. The Kiev regime doesn’t even want to denounce the agreement on the status of the Sea of Azov, contrary to its habit of disrupting all agreements with Russia. However, the regime is now concentrated on destroying the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and creating a pocket “local church”. It is too busy for the Sea of Azov.

A pro-Palestine Malaysian NGO brings ICC lawsuit against israel (apartheid state) , the first ever filed

A pro-Palestine Malaysian NGO brings ICC lawsuit against Israel, the first ever filed

ISRAEL IDF UNITED NATIONS

THE NEW ARAB – More that 600,000 Israeli Jews live in illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

A Malaysian NGO has become the first organisation in the world to file a lawsuit against Israel at the International Criminal Court (ICC), claiming that the state has violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334.

The resolution, which was passed in 2016, reaffirmed that Israeli settlements on Palestinian land since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a violation of international law.

The Malaysia-based My Aqsa Foundation said Israel’s continued settlement activity in the occupied territories is an insult to the UN’s authority.

“This resolution requires Israel to immediately stop all illegal activities in the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem and the West Bank,” MyAqsa chief executive Noorazman Mohamed Samsuddin was quoted by Free Malaysia Today as saying. “MyAqsa is convinced that the violation of Resolution 2334 will cause chaos and security instability not only in West Asia but also throughout the world,” he added.

MyAqsa’s CEO said that the group formalised the claims against Israel on Wednesday. He added that studies by his NGO had shown that Israel has violated at least 28 Security Council resolutions.

The United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2334 in December 2016, however, it is only recommendatory in nature. The UNSC is unable to take punitive action against Israel to force it to abide by Resolution 2334.

Today, more than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, in constructions considered illegal under international law.

SOURCE

رحيل دي ميستورا نهاية الرهانات

ناصر قنديل

– ترافقت تسمية مبعوث أممي خاص مع بداية الحرب على سورية التي سميت بالأزمة السورية لتبرير شن الحرب بداعي دعم الثورة المزعومة، التي كانت تمثل الفيلق الداخلي للحرب، بتجميع الأخوان المسلمين وبعض الغوغاء وبعض السذاجة في اللحاق بركب ما يبثه الإعلام عن شعوب كانت تحفر قبورها وتصنع حروبها الأهلية، وتسميها قنوات النفط والغاز المسماة بقنوات الحرية، بالشعوب التي تصنع ثورتها. ومع كل مرحلة فاصلة من مراحل الحرب كان هناك عنوان للمهمة، وكان اختيار المبعوث الأممي يوضع لتلبية شروط هذه المهمة.

– في مراحل الحرب الأولى كان المطلوب تجميد مقدرات الدولة السورية ومنعها من تحجيم مناطق مقررة لسيطرة الفيلق الداخلي في الحرب المسمّى بالثورة، ورعاية تأسيس مناطق تخضع لسيطرة الفيلق الداخلي وتأمين دخول السلاح اللازم وإنشاء منظومة حماية وتدخل وإمداد بداعي توفير المؤن للمحاصرين، حتى يشتد عود الفيلق الداخلي ويصير قادراً على ملاقاة فيالق الخارج بالبدء بالهجوم الشامل لإسقاط سورية والإمساك بالجغرافيا السورية، وكان الرحّالة كوفي عنان هو المبعوث المناسب لهذه المهمة، تحت عنوان إنساني اعترف عنان بعد نهاية مهمته أنه كان ضحية خداع، وأنه استخدم للتمهيد لحرب كان هدفها إسقاط سورية، تولى خلالها تأمين الحماية لمناطق سيطرة الجماعات الإرهابية بدواع إنسانية.

– عندما توافرت أسباب كافية للإعلان عن الهجوم الشامل، واكتملت العدة السياسية الدولية والإقليمية بحشد ضمّ أكثر من مئة دولة، وتم إخراج سورية من الجامعة العربية، وكانت حشود تنظيمي القاعدة والأخوان من أنحاء العالم قد صارت بعشرات الآلاف، وتم تنظيمها وتسليحها بالأنواع المناسبة من السلاح النوعي بما فيه الكيميائي، من المخزون الليبي الذي استولت عليه قطر بصورة خاصة، وصارت تركيا جاهزة لملاقاة حلمها بالعثمانية الجديدة، وصارت السعودية حاضرة للعب دور البديل بالرعاية عندما تسقط الراية من يد الأخوان، جيء بالأخضر الإبراهيمي، لخوض الحرب النفسية على الرئيس السوري، وتوظيف الضغط العسكري والدبلوماسي لوضع وتنسيق وتسويق خطة التنحّي والرحيل.

– عندما بدأ التوازن العسكري يقول إن لا أمل بسقوط سورية ولا فرص لإسقاطها، وإن الرهان على تنحّي رئيسها ورحيله سراب، صار المطلوب تسويق صيغة للحل السياسي تقوم على تشريع تفتيت سورية وتسقط فيها الأمل بقيام دولة موحدة متماسكة، والسير على خطين متوازيين يحقق الهدف، حماية خصوصية تقسيمية في عدد المناطق، والسير بصيغة تعيد بناء مؤسسات الدولة على قاعدة التوزيع الطائفي والمذهبي للمناصب الدستورية، وتم تكليف ستيفان دي ميستورا للقيام بالمهمة، وهو الآتي من رحم الخراب الذي نشره المشروع الأميركي في العراق، ومهمته تسويق مناطق للحكم الذاتي كحلول مؤقتة تغطي هدناً عسكرية، من حلب إلى المناطق التي تسيطر عليها الجماعات الكردية المسلحة، وصولاً للغوطة وسائر المناطق التي سُمّيت بمناطق خفض التصعيد، ولم يبخل دي ميستورا بكشف مشروعه بالحديث عن الصيغة اللبنانية الملهمة لما وصفه بتعايش الطوائف.

– مع اقتراب سورية من إعلان نصرها، وسقوط الفرص أمام مشاريع التقسيم المقنع، وسقوط الرهان على جعل الدولة نسيجاً رخواً لفدرالية طائفية مفتوحة على الحروب الأهلية، عاجزة عن لعب دور إقليمي، فاقدة مفهوم الأمن القومي، صار لا بد من رحيل دي ميستورا والمجيء بمن يكرّس التغيير الذي فرضته سورية وحلفاؤها، ويمهد للانخراط الدولي والإقليمي في المصالحة مع الدولة السورية بغير الصورة التي تمناها الذين أشعلوا الحرب عليها.

– رحيل دي ميستورا علامة من علامات نهاية الحرب على سورية واقتراب نصرها، دولة علمانية مدنية موحدة برئيسها وجيشها وثوابتها، وفي طليعتها خيارها المقاوم.

Related Articles

 

 

Nikki Haley No More US Ambassador to UN

Local Editor

US President Trump accepted Nikki Haley’s resignation as UN ambassador. Haley had wanted some time off and discussed her resignation with Trump last week at the White House.

In announcing her resignation, Trump said on Tuesday that Haley first broached the subject six months ago, when she told the president that she wanted to take some time off at the end of the year. Trump said that he hopes Haley will one day return to his administration, and told her “you can have your pick” of positions within it.

Haley will depart at the end of the year, and Trump said that he “will be in constant touch” with her afterwards.

“I think that it’s just very important for government officials to understand when it’s time to step aside,” Haley said on Tuesday. “The truth is I want to make sure that this administration has the strongest person to fight.”

Haley had held her post since Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. Since then, she echoed Trump’s tough line towards the United Nations, and oversaw the US’ withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council, which she called the UN’s “greatest failure.”

After the publication of an anonymous op-ed in the New York Times in September, which described a concerted effort by officials to thwart the president’s plans, Haley denied involvement, and said that she openly disagrees with Trump when necessary.

“I don’t agree with the president on everything. When there is disagreement, there is a right way and a wrong way to address it. I pick up the phone and call him or meet with him in person,” she said. She later called rumors that officials were planning on trying to remove Trump from office for unfitness via the 25th Amendment “absurd.”

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

USA’s diplomatic isolation deepens

US Withdraws From Int’l Treaties, Slams UN Court

US seeks to avoid dispute resolution with Palestinians

Seeking to avoid complying with the consequences of previously-signed treaties, the US announced that they are outright withdrawing from multiple agreements today. This included the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, and the 1961 Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.

The 1955 Treaty of Amity was a little known treaty signed by the US and Iran after the 1953 CIA coup. The treaty was cited in an Iranian lawsuit aiming to prevent parts of US sanctions being enforced, and Iran won that lawsuit on Wednesday.

It is unclear if the 1955 treaty was really that big of a part of the court ruling, which merely said the US has to exempt humanitarian goods from the sanctions. The US decision to withdraw from the treaty will, however, likely be used to claim the ruling doesn’t apply anymore.

The Vienna Convention, by contrast, is a far-reaching diplomatic agreement, which the US was an early signatory of. The protocol the US withdrew from on Tuesday was one in which disputes between nations are to be resolved peacefully on the international stage.

US officials aren’t keen on that, because it might require them to settle disputes instead of just endlessly escalating them with new sanctions and other measures. The Palestinians are seeking redress of disputes with the US centering on the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Though the US was an early signatory to this provision, according to John Bolton their real objection is that the Palestinians were allowed to sign at all. The State of Palestine signed the protocol earlier this year, but the US doesn’t recognize them as a state, and considers them to have no rights to resolve such disputes in international courts.

Bolton argued further that Iran is politicizing the International Court of Justice, and that the US views the court as ineffective and is moving away from complying with ICJ rulings in general

%d bloggers like this: