Instability in Syria: West Asia Crisis Continues

Russia won a promise from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on February 7 to bring an end to bloodshed in Syria, but Western and Arab nations acted to isolate Assad further after activists and rebels said his forces killed over 100 in the city of Homs. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, representing a rare ally on a trip to the Syrian capital – Damascus –other states are shunning, said Russia now wanted to resolve Syria's crisis in line with an Arab plan. Moscow and Beijing vetoed in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Russian mediation failed to slow a rush by countries that denounced the Russian-Chinese veto three days ago to corner Syria diplomatically and cripple Assad with sanctions in hopes of toppling him and encouraging reforms to avert chaos in a region straddling major fault lines of Middle East conflict.
Earlier on February 5, Russia and China joined forces in a double veto to knock down a Western-Arab UNSC Resolution backing an Arab League plan for President Al-Assad to step aside. The other 13 council members voted in favor of the resolution, which would have said that the council "fully supports" the Arab League plan aimed at ending 11 months of bloodshed as Syria has sought to crush an anti-Assad uprising.
Both Moscow and Beijing do not agree with the Arab League’s approach, which was supported by the US and its West European allies. The opponents of the resolution wanted a consensus to be arrived at before taking it to the Security Council which was not possible. The two Asian giants fear that once they approve of the UN intervention to resolve the crisis in Syria, a sovereign nation, tomorrow the method can be used against them also. But they are not justified in going against the will of the Syrian masses. As the world has seen, dictators like Al-Assad have no regard for people’s aspirations for democracy. They can kill any number of people to perpetuate their autocratic rule. What happened in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen is before all of us to see.
At present, Russia and China both believe they were deceived into abstaining rather than using their veto. Although Moscow has sought to distance itself from the brutalities of the Assad regime, which is now using heavy weapons against protesters, the February 4 veto is a shot in the arm for Damascus. But the US approach, which has included strident calls for President Assad to go, does not open a path for an urgent political solution to the violence either. One of the problems is that the opposition to the regime is severely fragmented.
In November 2011, the Arab League has suspended Syria until President Al-Assad implements an Arab deal to end violence against protesters, and called for sanctions and transition talks with the opposition. The League has long been seen by tens of millions of people throughout West Asia and North Africa as toothless and a puppet of the despots, dictators, and absolute monarchs who comprise the majority of its governments. This time 18 of the 22 members voted for the proposal at an emergency meeting in Cairo, with three — Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon — voting against and Iraq abstaining.
Killings of Innocent People
Syrian forces unleashed a barrage of mortars and artillery on the battered city of Homs, sending terrified residents fleeing into basements and killing more than 300 people in what appeared to be the bloodiest episode in the nearly 11-month-old uprising. However, the Syrian Government denied the assault. It said the reports were part of a “hysterical campaign” of incitement by armed groups against Syria.
There were signs that the bombardment in Homs, Syria's third largest city, was in response to moves by army defectors to solidify their control in several neighborhoods. There were reports that defectors set up new checkpoints in several areas, and two activists from Homs said defectors attacked a military checkpoint in the Khaldiyeh District and captured 17 soldiers. The activists spoke on condition of anonymity to protect themselves from retaliation.
Ongoing Protests
Undoubtedly, the worst news of all is that this probably means that Syria is heading down into the same kind of hell that Lebanon went through in its fifteen-year civil war (1975-90).
The Syrian protests began as a brave attempt to emulate the non-violent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. The Assad regime would kill people, of course, but if the protesters stood fast and refused to kill back, ultimately the regime’s support would just drain away. Non-violence was doubly important in the Syrian case, because if it were a violent revolution various minorities would feel gravely threatened.
However, the non-violent strategy has foundered on the rock of Syria’s sectarian and ethnic divisions. Sunni deserters from the Army started fighting back, and all the other communities took fright. Now it’s a civil war in which the regime has the heavy weapons but the Sunni Arabs have the numbers.
India’s Decision
By going along with the vetoed UNSC Resolution on Syria, India primarily expressed its disappointment with the continued prevarication by the Assad government in implementing the political package of reforms it promised late last year and over several incidents of armed assault on peaceful protesting congregations since discontent engulfed the country in 2011.
Hardeep Puri, India's permanent representative in the United Nations, read with his explanation of vote, showed that New Delhi was upset at the winding up of the Arab League's observer mission in Syria but it differed widely from the Arab League's prescriptions, reflected in the draft resolution. Unlike the Arab League and the draft resolution, India did not ask for multiparty elections in a time frame or the freedom of movement sought all over the country for a wide range of actors from AL observers to the international media and humanitarian organizations.
India has demonstrated its capacity to take a clear stand on any regional or global issue. It is not a question of going along with the US and the rest of the West. India has to play its own independent role to protect its interests in West Asia.
Need of the Hour
Syria is just as complex a society as Lebanon, although we can still hope that the war does not go on as long. And it’s entirely possible that the Assad regime, whose senior ranks are mostly drawn from the Alawite minority (only 10 percent of the population), has deliberately chosen civil war. Better that than surrender power and expose the Alawites to the vengeance they fear from all those whom they have ruled for the past 40 years.
The Western countries have only themselves to blame for alienating what could have been powerful and influential allies in this terrible and protracted crisis. Russia's unwillingness to go along with a US-led process stems, in large measure, from its anger at western conduct over Libya. The UNSC Resolution of March 2011 imposed only a no-fly zone but served, in reality, as a cover for North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)'s aim of violent regime change in Syria.
The Syrian National Council (SNC) is at odds with both the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the National Coordination Committee (NCC). Moreover, with the regime in Syria drawn from the 10 per cent Alawite Shia minority, Sunni extremist groups have jumped into the fray. The P-5 and Arab League, along with India, Brazil and South Africa, must go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of action that can end the violence and set the stage for a Syrian-led political solution.
Country’s Brief Facts
Modern Syria gained its independence from France in 1946 but has lived through periods of political instability driven by the conflicting interests of these various groups. From 1958-61 it united with Nasser's Egypt, but an army coup restored independence before the Alawite-controlled pan-Arab Baath (Renaissance) party took control in 1963. It rules to this day.
The Baath government has seen authoritarian rule at home and a strong anti-Israeli policy abroad, particularly under former President Hafez al-Assad. In 1967 Syria lost the Golan Heights to the Israelis, while civil war in neighboring Lebanon allowed it to extend its political and military influence in the region.
Syria pulled its forces out of Lebanon in 2005, having come under intense international pressure to do so after the assassination of Lebanese former premier Rafik Hariri. A UN report implicated Syrian and pro-Syria Lebanese officials in the killing.
The government has dealt harshly with domestic opposition. Tens of thousands are reported to have been killed in the crackdown on the 1982 uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama. In 2011 security forces used tanks, gunfire and mass arrests to try crush anti-government street protests inspired by the Arab Spring that toppled the leaders of Tunisia and Egypt.

UN Resolution on Children’s Rights in Conflicts

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has declared schools and hospitals off limits for both armed groups and military activities, calling for all parties that attacked such facilities to be held accountable and placed on the secretary general’s annual list of those committing grave violations against children. In fact, it more than a decade of contributions toward a comprehensive framework for protecting children affected by conflict.
Comprehensive Framework
Unanimously adopting resolution 1998 (2011) at the start of its day-long debate on children and armed conflict, the Council expressed deep concern about attacks — as well as threats of attacks — against schools and/or hospitals and their staffs, called on all conflict parties “to immediately cease such attacks and threats,” and urged them to refrain from any actions that impeded children’s access to education and health services.
The UNSC requested the secretary general to include in the annexes to his annual reports on children and armed conflict — which already lists groups that recruit children into armed forces, kill or maim children, or commit sexual violence against them — “those parties to armed conflict that engage in recurrent attacks on schools and/or hospitals and in recurrent attacks or threats of attacks against protected persons in relation.”
Violations and Abuses Against Children
The UNSC also expressed deep concern that certain parties persisted in committing violations and abuses against children, and expressed its readiness to adopt “targeted and graduated measures against persistent perpetrators”, taking into account the relevant provisions of its related texts on children and armed conflict, including resolutions 1539 (2004), 1612 (2005) and 1882 (2009).
Hailing the adoption of the resolution as a significant advance on the UNSC’s previous efforts, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said: “Places of learning and places of healing should never be places of war.” The UNSC’s actions continued to send a consistent and clear message: protecting children in armed conflict was a peace and security issue, and the international community would not tolerate grave violations of that principle.
Radhika Coomaraswamy, Ban’s Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, said the Council’s decision to add attacks on schools and hospitals as listing criteria came at a time when such actions were becoming more frequent and more appalling. “Schools are increasingly under physical attack, resulting in either full or partial destruction, oftentimes in violation of international humanitarian law,” she reported, noting that teachers and students were sometimes killed and maimed in targeted attacks.
Military use of schools was also a concern, she noted, stressing that depriving children of education destroyed their future and sowed the seeds of further conflict. Hospitals were also vital to children’s welfare, particularly during war, and attacks on them were “two-fold atrocities” because they not only killed and wounded children, but denied them access to treatment. Such attacks also deprived the community of a much-needed lifeline, she said, pointing out that protecting hospitals and their personnel was, in fact, the founding element of modern humanitarian law. As such, “the promise of this resolution is very real”, she said.
The Council had begun a journey of great promise in 1999, she said, recalling that its demand for clear monitoring of violations, the proper implementation of action plans and real accountability had been among the important landmarks along the way. The government and nonstate actors had begun to respond to the UNSC’s calls for action, and in 2010 alone some 10,000 children had been released from armed forces and groups. “We hope [today’s resolution] will help usher in an era where children can study, play and learn in an atmosphere of safety and dignity,” she said.
Recounting the stories of young people who had had their childhoods ripped away “at the point of a gun”, Anthony Lake, Executive Director of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said that stories of children being kidnapped and forced to fight in wars they didn’t understand, or being raped by armed soldiers were not unique, but they were being painfully repeated in conflicts around the world. “Today, the UNSC has affirmed that attacks on schools and hospitals are attacks on children and must be treated as such,” he said.
Like many other speakers, he described the tragedy of schools and hospitals being bombed and burned to the ground, classrooms used as barracks and playgrounds used as graveyards. “We must not fail these children,” he declared, calling for universal action to protect the schools where they learned and the hospitals where they healed. Doing so would help them rise above the horrors they had witnessed to gain the skills and care that would protect them from future violence, while disrupting the vicious cycle of poverty, despair and conflict.
Praising the present action, he nevertheless stressed that reporting and listing alone were not enough, and that sanctions were not “silver bullets.” Although denunciation gave expression to the outrage felt by all, it would not, on its own, move Governments to action. “To do that, we also have to find practical new ways to prevent these acts from occurring,” he said. “Action plans are an important part of this and the United Nations should have access to all Governments and other groups which want to pursue them.”
Presiding over the meeting, which featured interventions by more than 50 delegations, was German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle which holds the 15-nation Council’s rotating presidency this month. Describing attacks on schools and hospitals as “barbaric”, he stressed that children should be kept safe when they were weak, sick or wounded, and hospitals should also be protected as safe places. “Societies should be judged by the way they treat their children,” he said, adding: “Our attitude toward them is a testament to our attitudes towards our future.”
All speakers hailed the Council’s commitment to addressing the plight of conflict-affected children and welcomed the progress made thus far, particularly since the secretary general had been authorized to annually “name and shame” armed forces and groups that committed grave crimes against children. However, several delegations urged the Council to take a more robust stand on impunity, particularly by authorizing targeted measures against “repeat offenders” who appeared on the list of abusers again and again. One speaker pointed out that it was unacceptable that 16 parties to armed conflict had been listed by the secretary general for five years or more.
Highlighting a different view, María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, Colombia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, stressed that prevention and cooperation policies were more effective than finger-pointing and excluding Governments from the debate and the search for solutions. More results would be achieved if the United Nations upheld its commitment to national Governments, she stressed, adding that listings created difficulties and made the search for national solutions more complex.
Moreover, she continued, changing the focus, privileging cooperation and dialogue among United Nations members, respecting the organization’s guiding principles in all national tasks and turning Governments into allies was the way to achieve results and ensure that children had freedom. She proposed in that context a “serious and un-politicized” evaluation of the effects of implementing the Council’s resolutions, saying that such an evaluation was imperative since the issue had been discussed for decades with little result.
Among the speakers whose countries were listed in the secretary general’s report, Sri Lanka’s representative said that a breakaway faction of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) known as the “TMVP” had ceased to be an armed group and had joined the political process as a registered party. It was clear that the child soldiers of the defeated rebel movement had been used as cannon fodder and sent to an early grave. Urging the Council and its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict to ensure that the information collected was objective, accurate, reliable and verified by experts, he said inaccurate reporting would cast doubt on the credibility of both the sources and the report itself.
Also speaking were the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development of South Africa and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal.
Other speakers participating were representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, Brazil, Russian Federation, Lebanon, France, Nigeria, Gabon, India, China, Italy, Mexico, Canada (on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict), Slovenia, New Zealand, Switzerland (on behalf of the Human Security Network), Iraq, Japan, Luxembourg, Peru, Pakistan, Thailand, Hungary, European Union, Australia, Finland (also on behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), Liechtenstein, Belgium, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Austria, Ukraine, Chile, Yemen, Azerbaijan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Korea, Armenia and Benin.
Historical Perspective
Before the Council was the report of the secretary general on children and armed conflict (document A/65/820–S/2011/250) covering January to December 2010, as well as some developments extending beyond that period. It provides information on grave violations committed against children, in particular their recruitment and use as soldiers, the killing and maiming of children, rape and other sexual violence against them, the abduction of children, attacks on schools and hospitals, and the denial of humanitarian access to children by parties to armed conflict, in contravention of applicable international law.
Outlining the secretary general’s recommendations, the report notes his concern over the increasing trend of attacking schools and hospitals, saying he encourages the Council to ensure that such facilities remain protected, including by calling on all parties to take all possible protective measures and ensure the functioning of schools and hospitals. Special attention should be paid to protecting girls’ access to schools and hospitals, given the increasing targeting of such facilities in some countries, he states, recommending that the Council consider including parties that attack schools and/or hospitals in the annexes to his report.
The secretary general welcomes the signing of action plans by the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)/Free Will and SLA/Mother Wing-Abu Gasim, and the Afghan National Security Forces, as well as the progress made by parties in releasing children and addressing impunity on the part of perpetrators. He strongly urges listed parties who have not concluded action plans to do so without delay. He encourages concerned Member States to facilitate contacts between the United Nations and non-State actors to ensure broad and effective protection for children, stressing that such contacts will not prejudge the political or legal status of those nonstate actors.
Concerned about reports of child casualties in the course of military operations, the secretary general reminds all parties and mandated international forces of their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, urging them to ensure that they continuously review tactical directives to guarantee that children are not harmed. Pointing to the growing trend of detaining children on grounds of association with armed groups, he invites interested authorities to work with his Radhika Coomaraswamy, special representative for Children and Armed Conflict, to devise appropriate measures to better protect such children.
Annexed to the report is a list of parties that recruit or use children, kill or maim them, and/or commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against them in situations of armed conflict on the Council’s agenda. A second annex lists parties that recruit or use children, kill or maim them, and/or commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against them in situations of armed conflict not on the Council’s agenda.
Also before the Council was a letter from the Permanent Mission of Germany addressed to the secretary general (document S/2011/409) which transmits a concept paper for the meeting. It recalls that in its last presidential statement on children and armed conflict (document S/PRST/2010/10), the Council expressed its intention, when establishing or reviewing the mandate of relevant sanctions committees, to consider provisions pertaining to parties in violation of applicable international law relating to the rights and protections of children in armed conflict.
The paper notes that under resolution 1882 (2009), the Council expanded the gateway to the annexes of the secretary general’s annual reports on children and armed conflict to include not only parties to conflict that recruit and use children, but also those responsible for the killing and maiming of children in contravention of international law, and/or rape and other forms of sexual violence committed against children, in situations of armed conflict. The Council has also repeatedly expressed its readiness to adopt targeted measures against listed parties that have consistently refused to enter into dialogue with the United Nations to end violations against children.
In May 2010, the paper states, the special representative for Children and Armed Conflict briefed the Council’s Sanctions Committee established pursuant to resolution 1533 (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That led to the Committee’s listing in December 2010 of a number of individuals for violations perpetrated against children in that country. In May 2011 the Special Representative briefed the Sanctions Committee established pursuant to resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009) concerning the situation in Somalia and Eritrea on violations committed against children by parties to conflict in Somalia.
Action on Draft Resolution
Council President Guido Westerwelle, foreign minister of Germany, making introductory remarks in his national capacity, stressed that the world community did not wish to see children being injured, harmed or killed. “We want children to grow up knowing that their schools are safe places,” he said. “Attacks on schools and hospitals are barbaric acts.”
He further underlined that children should be kept safe when they were weak, sick or wounded, stressing that hospitals should also be protected as safe places. With the passage of today’s resolution, the Council would expand the criteria for listing parties who committed violations against children by adding attacks on schools and hospitals. Developing action plans was the only way to get off those lists, he said, noting that while there had been encouraging progress towards that end, more must be done to ensure that those who harmed children faced credible consequences, including through targeted sanctions. “Societies should be judged by the way they treat their children,” he said.
UNSC Resolutions
The Council then unanimously adopted resolution 1998 (2011), the full text of which reads as follows:
Reaffirming its resolutions 1261 (1999) of 25 August 1999, 1314 (2000) of 11 August 2000, 1379 (2001) of 20 November 2001, 1460 (2003) of 30 January 2003, 1539 (2004) of 22 April 2004, 1612 (2005) of 26 July 2005, and 1882 (2009) of 4 August 2009, and all relevant statements of its President, which contribute to a comprehensive framework for addressing the protection of children affected by armed conflict;
Reiterating its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and, in this connection, its commitment to address the widespread impact of armed conflict on children;
Calling on all parties to armed conflicts to comply strictly with the obligations applicable to them under international law for the protection of children in armed conflict, including those contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of Children in armed conflict, as well as the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977;
Acknowledging that the implementation of its resolutions 1612 (2005) and 1882 (2009) has generated progress, resulting in the release and reintegration of children into their families and communities, and in a more systematic dialogue with the United Nations country-level task force and parties to the armed conflict on the implementation on time-bound action plans, while remaining deeply concerned over the lack of progress on the ground in some situations of concern where parties to conflict continue to violate with impunity the relevant provisions of applicable international law relating to the rights and protection of children in armed conflict;
Stressing the primary role of Governments in providing protection and relief to all children affected by armed conflict, and reiterating that all actions undertaken by United Nations entities within the framework of the monitoring and reporting mechanism must be designed to support and supplement, as appropriate, the protection and rehabilitation roles of national Governments;
Convinced that the protection of children in armed conflict should be an important aspect of any comprehensive strategy to resolve conflict; “Recalling the responsibilities of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other egregious crimes perpetrated against children;
Stressing the need for alleged perpetrators of crimes against children in situations of armed conflict to be brought to justice through national justice systems and, where applicable, international justice mechanisms and mixed criminal courts and tribunals in order to end impunity;
Noting also relevant provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
Having considered the report of the secretary general of 11 May 2011 (A/65/820-S/2011/250) and stressing that the present resolution does not seek to make any legal determination as to whether situations which are referred to in the secretary general’s report are or are not armed conflicts within the context of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto, nor does it prejudge the legal status of the non-State parties involved in these situations;
Expressing deep concern about attacks as well as threats of attacks in contravention of applicable international law against schools and/or hospitals, and protected persons in relation to them as well as the closure of schools and hospitals in situations of armed conflict as a result of attacks and threats of attacks, and calling upon all parties to armed conflict to immediately cease such attacks and threats;
Recalling the provisions of the resolution of the General Assembly on “The right to education in emergency situations” (A/RES/64/290) related to children in armed conflict;
Noting that article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of the child to education and sets forth obligations for State parties to the Convention, with a view to progressively achieving this right on the basis of equal opportunity;
1. Condemns all violations of applicable international law involving the recruitment and use of children by parties to armed conflict, as well as their rerecruitment, killing and maiming, rape and other sexual violence, abductions, attacks against schools or hospitals and denial of humanitarian access by parties to armed conflict and all other violations of international law committed against children in situations of armed conflict;
2. Reaffirms that the monitoring and reporting mechanism will continue to be implemented in situations listed in annex I and annex II (“the annexes”) to the reports of the secretary general on children and armed conflict, in line with the principles set out in paragraph 2 of its resolution 1612 (2005), and that its establishment and implementation shall not prejudge or imply a decision by the Security Council as to whether or not to include a situation on its agenda;
3. Recalls paragraph 16 of its resolution 1379 (2001) and requests the secretary general to also include in the annexes to his reports on children and armed conflict those parties to armed conflict that engage, in contravention of applicable international law;
(i) in recurrent attacks on schools and/or hospitals
(ii) in recurrent attacks or threats of attacks against protected persons in relation to schools and/or hospitals in situations of armed conflict, bearing in mind all other violations and abuses committed against children, and notes that the present paragraph will apply to situations in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph 16 of its resolution 1379 (2001);
4. Urges parties to armed conflict to refrain from actions that impede children’s access to education and to health services and requests the secretary general to continue to monitor and report, inter alia, on the military use of schools and hospitals in contravention of international humanitarian law, as well as on attacks against, and/or kidnapping of teachers and medical personnel;
5. Invites the Secretary General, through the Special Representative of the secretary general for Children and Armed Conflict, to exchange appropriate information and maintain interaction from the earliest opportunity with the governments concerned regarding violations and abuses committed against children by parties which may be included in the annexes to his periodic report;
6. While noting that some parties to armed conflict have responded to its call upon them to prepare and implement concrete time-bound action plans to halt recruitment and use of children in violation of applicable international law;
(i) Reiterates its call on parties to armed conflict listed in the annexes of the secretary general’s report on children and armed conflict that have not already done so to prepare and implement, without further delay, action plans to halt recruitment and use of children and killing and maiming of children, in violation of applicable international law, as well as rape and other sexual violence against children;
(ii) Calls upon those parties that have existing action plans and have since been listed for multiple violations to prepare and implement separate action plans, as appropriate, to halt the killing and maiming of children, recurrent attacks on schools and/or hospitals, recurrent attacks or threats of attacks against protected persons in relation to schools and/or hospitals, in violation of applicable international law, as well as rape and other sexual violence against children;
(iii) Calls upon those parties listed in the annexes of the secretary general’s report on children and armed conflict that commit, in contravention of applicable international law, recurrent attacks on schools and/or hospitals, recurrent attacks or threats of attacks against protected persons in relation to schools and/or hospitals, in situations of armed conflict, to prepare without delay, concrete time-bound action plans to halt those violations and abuses;
(iv) Further calls upon all parties listed in the annexes of the secretary general’s report on children and armed conflict, to address all other violations and abuses committed against children and undertake specific commitments and measures in this regard;
(v) Urges those parties listed in the annexes of the secretary general’s report on children and armed conflict to implement the provisions contained in this paragraph in close cooperation with the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children and Armed Conflict and the United Nations country-level task forces on monitoring and reporting;
7. In this context, encourages member states to devise ways, in close consultations with the United Nations country-level task force on monitoring and reporting and United Nations country teams, to facilitate the development and implementation of time-bound actions plans, and the review and monitoring by the United Nations country level task force of obligations and commitments relating to the protection of children and armed conflict;
8. Invites the United Nations country-level task force on monitoring and reporting to consider including in its reports the relevant information provided by the government concerned and to ensure that information collected and communicated by the mechanism is accurate, objective, reliable, and verifiable;
9. Reiterates its determination to ensure respect for its resolutions on children and armed conflict, and in this regard:
(a) Welcomes the sustained activity and recommendations of its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict as called for in paragraph 8 of its resolution 1612 (2005), and invites it to continue reporting regularly to the Security Council;
(b) Expresses deep concern that certain parties persist in committing violations and abuses against children and expresses its readiness to adopt targeted and graduated measures against persistent perpetrators, taking into account the relevant provisions of its resolutions 1539 (2004), 1612 (2005) and 1882 (2009);
(iii) Requests enhanced communication between the Working Group and relevant Security Council Sanctions Committees, including through the exchange of pertinent information on violation and abuses committed against children in armed conflict;
(iv) Encourages its relevant Sanctions Committees to continue to invite the Special Representative of the secretary general for children and armed conflict to brief them on specific information pertaining to her mandate that would be relevant to the work of the committees, and encourages the Sanctions Committees to bear in mind the relevant recommendations of the secretary general’s report on children and armed conflict and encourages the Special Representative of the secretary general to share specific information contained in the secretary general’s reports with relevant Sanctions Committees expert groups;
(v) Expresses its intention, when establishing, modifying or renewing the mandate of relevant Sanctions regimes, to consider including provisions pertaining to parties to armed conflict that engage in activities in violation of applicable international law relating to the rights and protection of children in armed conflict;
10. Encourages Members States that wish to do so to continue to communicate relevant information to the Security Council on the implementation of its resolutions on children and armed conflict;
11. Urges concerned member states to take decisive and immediate action against persistent perpetrators of violations and abuses committed against children in situations of armed conflict, and further calls upon them to bring to justice those responsible for such violations that are prohibited under applicable international law, including with regard to recruitment and use of children, killing and maiming, rape and other sexual violence, attacks on schools and/or hospitals, attacks or threats of attacks against protected persons in relation to schools and/or hospitals through national justice systems, and where applicable, international justice mechanisms and mixed criminal courts and tribunals, with a view to ending impunity for those committing crimes against children;
12. Stresses the responsibility of the United Nations country-level task forces on monitoring and reporting and United Nations country teams, consistent with their respective mandates, to ensure effective follow-up to Security Council resolutions on children and armed conflict, to monitor and report progress to the secretary general in close cooperation with his Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict and ensure a coordinated response to issues related to children and armed conflict;
13. Reiterates its request to the secretary general to ensure that, in all his reports on country-specific situations, the matter of children and armed conflict is included as a specific aspect of the report, and expresses its intention to give its full attention to the information provided therein, including the implementation of relevant Security Council resolutions and of the recommendations of its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, when dealing with those situations on its agenda;
14. Reaffirms its decision to continue to include specific provisions for the protection of children in the mandates of all relevant United Nations peacekeeping, peace-building and political missions, encourages deployment of Child Protection Advisers to such missions and calls upon the secretary general to ensure that such advisers are recruited and deployed in line with the Council’s relevant country specific resolutions and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) Policy Directive on Mainstreaming the Protection Rights and Well-being of Children by Armed Conflict;
15. Requests Member States, United Nations peacekeeping, peacebuilding and political missions and United Nations country teams, within their respective mandates and in close cooperation with the governments of the countries concerned, to establish appropriate strategies and coordination mechanisms for information exchange and cooperation on child protection concerns, in particular on cross-border issues, bearing in mind relevant conclusions by the Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict and paragraph 2 (d) of its resolution 1612 (2005);
16. Welcoming the progress achieved by the Country Task Forces on Monitoring and Reporting and stressing that a strengthened monitoring and reporting mechanism with adequate capacities is necessary to ensure an adequate follow-up on the Secretary General’s recommendations and on the conclusions of the Working Group of Children and Armed Conflict, in accordance with its resolutions 1612 (2005) and 1882 (2009);
17. Requests the secretary general to continue to take the necessary measures including, where applicable, to bring the monitoring and reporting mechanism to its full capacity, to allow for prompt advocacy and effective response to all violations and abuses committed against children and to ensure that information collected and communicated by the mechanism is accurate, objective, reliable and verifiable;
18. Stresses that effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs for children, building on best practices identified by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and other relevant child protection actors, including the International Labor Organization, are crucial for the well-being of all children who, in contravention of applicable international law, have been recruited or used by armed forces and groups, are a critical factor for durable peace and security, and urges national Governments and donors to ensure that these community-based programs receive timely, sustained and adequate resources and funding;
19. Urges member states, the United Nations entities, including the Peace-Building Commission and other parties concerned to ensure that the protection, rights, well-being and empowerment of children affected by armed conflict are integrated into all peace processes and that post-conflict recovery and reconstruction planning, programs and strategies prioritize issues concerning children affected by armed conflict;
20. Invites the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict to brief the Security Council on the modalities of the inclusion of parties into the annexes of the periodic report of the secretary general on children and armed conflict, enabling an exchange of views;
21. Directs its Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, with the support of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, to consider, within one year, a broad range of options for increasing pressure on persistent perpetrators of violations and abuses committed against children in situations of armed conflict;
22. Requests the secretary general to submit a report by June 2012 on the implementation of its resolutions and presidential statements on children and armed conflict, including the present resolution, which would include, inter alia:
(i). Annexed lists of parties in situations of armed conflict on the agenda of the Security Council or in other situations, in accordance with paragraph 19 (a) of resolution 1882 (2009) and paragraph 3 of the present resolution;
(ii). Information on measures undertaken by parties listed in the annexes to end all violations and abuses committed against children in situations of armed conflict;
(iii). Information on progress made in the implementation of the monitoring and reporting mechanism established in its resolution 1612 (2005); and
(iv). Information on the criteria and procedures used for listing and de-listing parties to armed conflict in the annexes of his periodic reports, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the present resolution, bearing in mind the views expressed by all the members of the Working Group during informal briefings to be held before the end of 2011;

Innocent People Become Victims of Thai-Cambodian Conflict

The Thai-Cambodian conflict over the disputed territory around the Preah Vihear Temple has evolved from border clashes to an issue on the international stage. Representatives of the two countries first met in Paris under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) mediation before defending their stand in the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Netherlands.
The two meetings between Thai and Cambodian representatives in Paris have failed. Thailand has asked Cambodia to postpone submitting its management plan for the Preah Vihear Temple until the border demarcation is completed. Cambodia, however, has insisted on having the UNESCO's World Heritage Committee consider the plan during its meeting in Paris from June 19 to 29.
Promoting Unity
Thailand can claim a certain degree of success in the UNESCO meeting as the UNESCO director has agreed to its proposed postponement of the deliberation of the Preah Vihear management plan out of concern that it could worsen the conflict between the two countries. The UNESCO chief has also observed that the World Heritage Committee should serve to promote unity rather than be a tool for conflict.
At the World Court, Cambodia has sought a legal interpretation on the court's 1962 ruling that the Preah Vihear Temple is in Cambodia's territory without specifying to which country its vicinity belongs, the contentious point that has become the cause of conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. Phnom Penh has asked the court to give its verdict on this point and issue an injunction requiring Thailand to immediately and unconditionally withdraw its troops from the vicinity of the temple.
Thailand has argued that the World Court has no jurisdiction over the Preah Vihear conflict as there is a joint Thai-Cambodian border commission to mediate the issue besides overseeing the border demarcation. The point here is whether the World Court tribunal will agree with Thailand or Cambodia or will order withdrawal of Thai troops from the Preah Vihear Temple's vicinity.
Bilateral Talks
The Thai Government has insisted on not allowing the Thai-Cambodian conflict to become an international issue but rather having it settled via bilateral talks. Anyhow, the dispute has been brought before the UNSC, the World Heritage Committee and UNESCO, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and then the World Court once again after it ruled on the case 50 years ago.
While the Preah Vihear conflict is likely to drag on, prime concern should go to Thai villagers living along the border in several northeastern provinces. They are living in fear of a possible war after having had to dodge flying bullets and bombs and being unable to make their living. They have become 'refugees' on their own land, displaced by the war that academics said was not caused by them but by some people in the capital for their own political gain.

Thailand-Cambodia Conflicts

Reports of Japan's earthquakes and Tsunami as well as the southern flooding that have dominated media coverage may have made Thais temporarily forget the Thailand and Cambodia conflicts. The border conflicts between the two countries however continue to make headlines. Last week, the Thai-Cambodian Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meeting ended without any progress or solutions to end the border dispute.

The first JBC meeting since the military clashes on the Thai-Cambodian border in February was held in a lackluster atmosphere. It was a 'purely bilateral' negotiation as required by Thailand. Indonesia, in its capacity as current chairman of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), only played a facilitator's role, providing the meeting venue and facilities for both countries. The meeting did not discuss any contentious issues that could bring about tensions.

Permanent Cease-Fire

This JBC meeting was held with much efforts from Indonesia as current ASEAN chairman after it has been assigned by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to get Thailand and Cambodia to enter a negotiation to establish a permanent cease-fire and to have Indonesian observers be stationed to monitor a cease-fire at the time that Thailand lacks unity and is marred by political infighting.

The Thai Government must face Cambodia which has unity over the border dispute while it is still struggling in conflicts with the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD). Even the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry have shown differing views and stance. The military, which is tasked with responsibilities in the General Border Committee (GBC), insists it will not attend the GBC meeting if it is held in the third country and not in Thailand or Cambodia.

The fact that Parliament has not approved the previous JBC minutes makes it difficult for the government to enter negotiations with Cambodia and this also shows the lack of solidarity between the government and Parliament. The lack of unity has also led to the government's failure to help two Thais detained in Cambodia. One side believes the country should respect the Cambodian court decision and should either appeal or seek Royal pardon, and on the other, rejects the court ruling and threatened to bring the case to the world court.

Resolving Ongoing Dispute

The case of the two Thais should serve as a lesson for every party to realize that to solve the Cambodian dispute Thailand must have unity and walk the same path. Thais could trip over each other by walking a different path. The government should organize meetings to listen to opinions from different groups and find the common ground that is the country's stance and not that of any particular group.

The Thailand and Cambodian conflict is no longer just a conflict between the two countries because the UNSC and ASEAN have now become involved in certain way. We must empathize with Indonesia because not only that it is current ASEAN chairman but also a great friend of our country. We must show the world community that we respect the UN resolution.

ECOWAS Summit

Heads of State from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) held its 39th summit in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, from 23 to 24 March. The summit decided to assess the developments in Cote d'Ivoire and chart the way forward for the regional organization. In a communiqué after the Summit, ECOWAS called on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to adopt strict sanctions against Laurent Gbagbo made a request of the UNSC 'to strengthen the mandate of the UN operation in Cote d'Ivoire enabling the mission to use all necessary means to protect life and property and to facilitate the immediate transfer of power to Alassane Ouattara.'

Objective Behind Meeting

The motivations that lie behind ECOWAS demand for a tougher UN mandate in Cote d'Ivoire must be discerned because such a move seems both worrying and commendable. They are worrying in the sense that it may be interpreted to mean that ECOWAS is extracting itself from the situation but they are also commendable because ECOWAS may just be emphasizing the plight of Ivorians to the UN. The call from ECOWAS chairman and Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan comes amid disquiet over the perceived global indifference of the UN and world powers towards the plight of Ivorians and sub-Saharan Africans in general.

Lifting Sanctions Imposed on Guinea

The heads of state and governments of the ECOWAS decided to lift the sanctions imposed on Guinea, reports Guinean privately-owned Aujourd'hui en Guinee website on 26 March.

The decision to lift the sanctions followed the return to constitutional order through the effective holding of free, fair and credible elections leading to the victory of Prof Alpha Conde as president on 7 November 2010.

'While congratulating HE Alpha Conde on his victory, the heads of state and governments rendered homage to Cellou Dalein Diallo for the exemplary conduct he put up by accepting the verdict of the ballot box', statement of ECOWAS pointed out.

Political Maturity

The regional leaders commended the Guinean people for their political maturity and especially the transitional leader, Gen Sekouba Konate, for his commitment and leadership leading to the end of the transition. The leaders also rendered great homage to President Blaise Compaore for his mediation efforts in Guinea. They also expressed their gratitude for the role played by the development partners under the aegis of the International Contact Group on Guinea in the country's transitional process.

Consequently, the ECOWAS leaders decided to lift the sanctions on the country: 'In view of the restoration of the democratic governance in Guinea, the heads of state and government to lift the suspension of the Republic of Guinea namely on its participating in every decision making body of the ECOWAS and the imposition of the embargo on the delivery of arms, ammunition and military equipment to Guinea'.

UN Resolution Against Libya

With the authorization of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the allied forces spearheaded by the United States, France and the United Kingdom launched their large-scale military actions against the military of Muanmmar Gaddafi's regime starting from 19 March.

Ever since the outburst of the massive demonstrations against the authoritarian rule of Gaddafi in Libya, Gaddafi has been taking actions against the dissidents with high-handed crackdown, which include attacking unarmed demonstrators using fighter jets. In the ensuing military actions against the areas controlled by the revolutionist forces, his military have shown no mercy to innocent civilians as well.

Disdainful and Bloody Massacres
Although Libya is a sovereign country, the disdainful and bloody massacres committed by Gaddafi's forces have violated the fundamental values and beliefs commonly recognized by the modern society. The UNSC passed a resolution on 17 March, which approves setting up a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizes the international community to take any necessary measure to protect the Libyan civilians and their residential areas from the threat of armed attacks. We believe that Russia and China, which always insists on the principle of non-interference, had abstained instead of vetoing the resolution this time out of the consideration that the main objective of the UNSC resolution is to protect the common people in Libya. It was also because of this reason that Singapore had made the stance to support the UNSC resolution.

The allied forces have resorted to cruise missiles and combat jets to destroy the air defense system of Gaddafi's military based on the reason that the latter has violated the ceasefire resolution of the UNSC by continuing its attacks against places controlled by the revolutionary forces such as Benghazi. The action is to stop Gaddafi's military from killing or hurting Libyan civilians in their attacks. If we examine from this perspective, the military actions of the allied forces can be considered a justifiable move.

However, it is easy to start the attacks but it is hard to bring it to an end. The UNSC resolution only agrees on setting up a no-fly zone, protecting civilians and imposing harsher sanctions on Libya such as arms embargo and asset freeze. The resolution does not authorize the allied forces to deploy their ground forces to occupy Libya. Under such circumstances, should Gaddafi's military disregard the UNSC resolution and continue their actions in wiping out the revolutionary forces, it seems that the allied forces would have no other more effective measures besides launching 'surgery-style combat' against ground targets in Libya.

If the allied forces accidentally hurt some Libyan civilians who happen to be Gaddafi's supporters, it will not only go against the spirit of the UNSC resolution; instead, such accident will will also be an issue that Gaddafi can utilize to rally pan-Arabic nationalist sentiment in the Arabic world to counter the West.

In fact, Gaddafi has begun to do so. The Arab League was the organization that proposed to set up a no-fly zone in the airspace of Libya initially. Now the secretary-general of the organization Amr Moussa has openly criticized the military actions of the allied forces. He said that 'what happen now in Libya has violated the objectives of setting up a no-fly zone. We need protection of the civilians, not bombings on more civilians.'

Disagreement Within EU
There is also disagreement within the European Union (EU). German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle defended his country's abstention in the vote on the UNSC resolution by citing the criticism of the Arab League on the military actions against Libya. He said that Germany is right to adopt a reserved stance on this issue.

It is hard for the allied forces to continue their military actions if they do not have the support from the Arab League. In addition, US President Barack Obama has earlier stated that launching military actions was not his first choice; while the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates also said yesterday that the United States will recede in the coming few days (he stressed repeatedly earlier that the United States would not deploy any ground forces to Libya) and will pass over the command authority to the United Kingdom and France. Judging from these signs, the United States does not want to see aggravation of the situation and has no intention to make Libya a 'second Iraq' or 'second Afghanistan' that will get the US military into a big trouble.

Future Step
Considering various factors such as the lack of adequate authorization from the UNSC, the objection of the Arab League, the absence of consensus among the EU and the reluctance of the United States to lead for long term, it seems that the allied forces' military actions against Libya are just a temporary measure. It is rather unlikely that it will develop into a long war.

The military actions over the past few days should have weakened Gaddafi's military strength to some extent. The next step should be diplomatic actions. They should attempt to persuade Gaddafi to resolve domestic conflicts in a peaceful manner as much as possible. But will there be any effect? We can only observe the subsequent development. After all this is an internal issue of Libya, eventually the Libyan people have to resolve it themselves.

US Veto on Jewish Settlement Resolution

The United States has vetoed the resolution in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in which the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas by Israel were termed unauthorized. It is pertinent to note that Israel continues to build unauthorized Jewish settlements ever since 1967 in occupied areas. It has also been constantly rejecting all appeals and international pressure in this regard.

It is also noteworthy that soon after Barack Obama took over as US President, the United States continued to pretend that it was striving to get the Middle East issue resolved but it turned out to be a mere ploy. It was under this ploy that the peace dialogue between the Palestine Authority and Israel was resumed. The entire world is aware of what progress this dialogue made, of what extent Israel was made to accept the establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state, and what change Israel has made in its stance on the construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas.

Wrath and Indignation
As far as unauthorized Jewish settlement is concerned, Israel had held up the work for some time just prior to resumption of peace talks. But just before the commencement of talks, it announced that it would go ahead with construction work. At this, the United States has expressed great wrath and indignation. It had given the impression that the construction of these unauthorized colonies may also adversely affect US-Israel relations. During the same time, the US vice president, who was on a visit to the Middle East, adopted a hard attitude against Israel and astonished it. Later, however, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by way of appeasing Israel as usual, said that relations between the United States and Israel would in no way be affected. Both the United States and Europe chide Israel just for the sake of it.

The United States had also adopted the stance on justification of these colonies that their construction is wrong and also illegal. Yet, one can easily comprehend the duality in the US stand that while the US leadership talks about Palestinians' rights, endorses and supports peace talks, pretends to prevent Israel from construction of illegal colonies, and enacts the drama of exerting pressure in this regard, when the resolution to declare Jewish colonies as illegal was moved in the UNSC, the very same United States vetoed it.

Suspension of Peace Talks
The resolution declares that Jewish settlements constructed after 1967 are illegal. Of the 15 members on the UNSC, 14 voted in its favor and demanded that Israel should forthwith stop construction of these colonies, but vetoing the proposal, the United States came out with a ridiculous argument that it would be adversely affect the peace talks.

The US argument is untenable and has no justification, as it is the issue of these unauthorized colonies that is actually hampering the peace talks the most. The Palestine Authority has suspended peace talks on the plea that Israel continues to construct new colonies in occupied areas. The Palestine Authority is considered to be pro-United States, and both the United States and Israel have intentionally kept the representative organization of Palestine, HAMAS, out of the peace process. Despite it, not only has Palestine suspended the peace talks with Israel, but has also expressed great frustration that the United States has vetoed the resolution in the UNSC. It has categorically asserted that this would damage the cause of peace.

Pro-Israel US Stance
It is clear from the attitude that Palestine has adopted on the argument put up by the United States that the US stand indirectly favors Israel's stand in respect of these colonies, and that it goes to prove the pro-Israel US stance. It is a different issue that to hoodwink the world, the United States even now maintains that it is strongly against construction of Jewish settlements in occupied areas.

Undoubtedly, the fresh US initiative has proved yet again that the United Nations has turned into an institution kept hostage by the United States, and the United Nations has failed to fulfill its responsibilities.

Cooperation Among G4 Nations

With a view on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms at an early date and to create a salubrious atmosphere for the claimants of a permanent seat in the UNSC, the foreign ministers of India, Germany, Brazil, and Japan have decided to extend mutual cooperation. All these four countries are claimants of a permanent seat in the UNSC in the event of its reforms. The problem, however, remains that major powers that have turned this international institution in their handmaiden continue to put off the reform process on one pretext or the other. It is in spite of that none of the major powers, including the United States, have denied the need for reforms in principle. It is, however, a different thing that no timetable has been yet fixed for these reforms.

The truth is that ever since its inception the United Nations has never initiated any measure in this connection nor has it brought about any change commensurate to the need of the hour and the changing international scenario. The world has weathered many a storm and revolution in the wake of the Second World War. Several powerful countries have fallen into the deep and dark schism politically. The place of the two parallel blocks, to the United States and Russia, has been taken over by the unipolar world and several countries have emerged on the horizon.

Economic Progress
The keeper of the world in this unipolar bloc, the United States, has become weak scientifically, technically, and economically. The failure of the US militarily adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with its earlier failure in Vietnam and several multinational companies and banks in the United States having become bankrupt, makes it vividly clear that the time to come would not be of the United States and Europe, but of Asian countries -- China, Japan, and India -- and that of Brazil in the African comity of nations. Going by the economic progress made by these countries and their ever-increasing sphere of influence in world affairs, the need is being drastically felt that those nations that are non-permanent members of the Security Council should be taken into the council after effecting large-scale reforms in this international organization.

As for China, the country, that has the highest population in the world and which happen to be a fast emerging economic power, is already a permanent member of the Security Council. After the merger of the East and the West Germany, the claim of Germany for a permanent seat is fully justified. Yet, one wonders when the permanent seat for Germany can be considered while there are already two countries, France and the United Kingdom from Europe on the Security Council, why then the claim of Japan and India cannot be considered though China is the only Asian country on the Security Council as a permanent members. The claim of Japan and India is equally justified for the reasons that the two countries are on the list of major economies and prominent industrialized nations.

UN Reforms
India has the second largest population in the world and, at the same time it continues to fulfill the responsibilities of the regional leadership in one way or the other. Among African nations, Brazil occupies a place of pride. Anyway, the four claimants of the permanent UNSC seat have intensified their efforts to strengthen their claim and getting the long-pending UN reforms finalized as soon as possible. They have, therefore, decided to increase their pressure in the current session of the UN General Assembly so that some concrete outcome may be achieved.

The representatives of the four countries have met on two occasions in the last six months. They have issued a joint statement in which they have called upon the United Nations to increase the number of both permanent and non-permanent members for better transaction of business and improvement in the UN functioning. It is worth the mention that of these four countries, three, including India, are, at present non-permanent UNSC members. Under the circumstances, these countries have a better opportunity to press for their demand and suggest solid proposals for reforms. The decision made by these four nations to increase cooperation among themselves is a part of their efforts

Brazil, Turkey Emerge New Diplomatic Powers

By persuading Iran to ship 1,200 kilograms of low enriched uranium out of the country and receive in return high enriched uranium for use in a reactor in Iran, Turkey and Brazil made a meaningful diplomatic achievement by outwitting the efforts of Western powers which are more akin to intimidation and have an undertone of a war threat.

Nuclear Issue
Reaching a solution through negotiation to overcome the deadlock of the issue of Iran's nuclear program is for the interest of regional and global security.

We should praise Brazil and Turkey, two non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for their diplomatic wisdom that they managed to convince Iran to negotiate on the nuclear issue and agree to move away the uranium.

Unfortunately this issue has not won respect or compliment from the Western media, which consider it as too late since the US and Israel have had their strategy in place to attack Iran in the process of imposing more stringent sanctions on Iran.

The President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who will step down this year after holding the post for two terms has successfully led his country towards the status of a big power via this proactive diplomatic approach.

In fact, prior to this, when there was a serious tension between Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia in 2008, Lula intervened as a neutral mediator crossing the boundaries of political ideology in Latin American countries.

Palestine-Israel Issue
In the endeavor to win a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Lula is also aware that his country should be seen as playing the role of problem solver rather than a symbolic role to show its strengths in terms of economic growth and military power.

He has also made the effort to help resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine through high-profile diplomatic mission in March this year as a neutral party.

In addition, Lula already gained a status on a par with Middle East Quartet and he proposed a friendly soccer match between the Brazilian national team and the Palestinian-Israeli mixed team. The Quartet is formed by the United States, Russia, the European Union (EU) and UN and involved in mediating the peace process between Palestine and Israel.

Although Turkey is not a developing country growing like Brazil, it is also emerging as a respectful power in Middle East.

Ankara also became the mediator in the negotiation process of Israel-Syria conflict to resolve the old settlements issue between the two countries. Turkey also played a role in easing the tension between Hamas and Fatah. Turkey is in a better position than Egypt to play a diplomatic role in resolving the Palestine-Israel issue.

It seems Brazil and Turkey are portraying themselves as the new actors in international relations particularly in diplomatic efforts.

Resolving Deadlock
Amazingly, within a short period, Brazil and Turkey have successfully resolved the deadlock, which the West, UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been working on for a long time. More surprisingly, Iran which had been recalcitrant and insistent to enrich the uranium within the country had changed its position because of the persuasion of Brazil and Turkey.

Japan Seeks UN Security Council Permanent Membership

The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) -- the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia -- have one thing in common, i.e., all of them are nuclear-capable countries. In this way, it would not be wrong to liken the United Nations to a nuclear club.
No doubt, many disagreements are visible in the thinking of the members of this club because of their regional interests. Because of privilege of veto, mutual differences emerge on a number of issues. And as every member country has a button of the destruction of the world, the possibility of any clash as a result of disagreement over any issue is making this world an insecure place.

Lingering Problems of World
It is on the record that the right to veto has always increased the lingering problems of the world. Although the UNSC is an organization that should take decisions on most of the issues keeping in view international interests, the decisions taken on the basis of regional affairs, political conflicts, and interests of big powers have adversely affected the credibility of this forum.
The vetoes of United States and Russia on the Kashmir and Palestine issues in southwestern Asia are examples toward this end. Because of these decisions, the Kashmiri people have been deprived of their right to self-determination and Palestinians are the victims of the Israeli aggression even in their own country.
It is surprising that the permanent members of the UNSC do not seem to be willing with regard to accommodating any other country in their group. It would not be surprising if they were just indifferent to a backward country of the Third World on this issue, but a country like Japan is remonstrant of being ignored by these countries (five permanent UNSC members) in spite of his economic power.
Japan, which spends more than the fund, jointly allocated by Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China for the United Nations, is not considered eligible for the permanent seat of the United Nations, although Japan's permanent membership as a nonatomic, democratic country can boost the credibility of the Security Council's image in Asia and throughout the entire world.

Independent Thinking
Japan expressed its desire to join of the United Nations in 1952. However, it was formally given the UN membership in 1956, and ever since it has been seeking the permanent membership of the Security Council on permanent basis. Behind this desire is the Japan leadership thinking that they developed after the Second World War in order to remove the impression about the country with regard to the Second World War and Pacific War; the country's leadership wants to have an independent thinking about various issues of the world and to cooperate and participate in the resolution of the prevailing issues as a peace-loving country.
This natural desire of Japan is not inappropriate because it has a more moderate attitude when compared to other candidates for the Security Council permanent seat, including Germany, Brazil, and India.
In the past, Russia and China had been opposing Japan's permanent membership; it is due to the sour diplomatic relations between China and Japan in the past and the issue of Russian occupation of certain Japanese islands.
To this end, Japan has already presented a good formula, which calls for inclusion of two new members each from Asia and Africa, and one member each from Latin America and Europe in the Security Council.
In addition, Japan has also offered the option in the formula that the countries, nominated by the General Assembly by two-thirds votes, will be able to become permanent members of the Security Council.

Tangible Measures
In this respect, the double standard of the United States are also meaningful because it is Japan's ally on one hand and has set up military bases in Japan, while on the other, the United States avoids taking tangible measures and just gives a lip service to the issue of Japan's permanent membership issue. This is a deplorable aspect of the US policy.
The recent change in Japan's foreign policy with reference to the United States may convince the latter on some breakthrough to do something practical in this regard. Set aside political and diplomatic aspects, a moderate country like Japan -- which is the second largest donor of the United Nations voluntary operations throughout the world -- deserves to be given a permanent seat in the Security Council even on moral grounds.

Tripartite Conference on Afghanistan

Recently, an urgent conference was held between foreign ministers of Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan. The conference recognized the important role of these three countries in establishing peace, stability, and development of the war-torn Afghanistan. It was also stressed that only those countries should participate in the conferences who are the immediate neighbors of Afghanistan. The foreign ministers of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan agreed on the expansion of this tripartite conference and stressed on the need for the inclusion of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan¸ Tajikistan and Peoples Republic of China.

Handling Osama
If this conference is viewed in the background of the international conference held in the United Kingdom earlier this month, this conference is taking place to exclude India from this group. This enjoys the support of the Western powers and it is probable that China is also supporting this move. This step should have been taken prior to launching the attack on Afghanistan, when George W. Bush was asking for handing over Osama Bin Laden. He had rejected the Taliban offer of handing over Osama Bin Laden to a neutral country. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Pakistan had cut off their diplomatic ties with the Taliban, although these countries had recognized the Taliban government earlier. In this regard, the oppressive Pervez Musharraf violated the international law laid down in the Vienna Convention of 1961 and 1963, by handing over the ambassador of Afghanistan, Mullah Zaeef, to the United States.
The US security officials slapped him while taking him into custody. He fell on the ground as a result of the slap. Later his beard was shaved and put in the Guantanamo Bay prison. No crime was proved against him and he was later released. This act is so shameful that if any other country does the same act with a US ambassador, the United States will have no right to object to that. Since, this is a tradition of international diplomacy, that if any nation misbehaves with an ambassador of a country, that country has the right to misbehave with the country's ambassador in the same manner.
Since the 9/11, Afghanistan is on the international radar. It has been occupied by 42 countries, including the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members. They have been authorized by the UNSC to capture Afghanistan under the garb of establishing security in the country. Russia and China are not part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), so this whole solely US drama. The other countries in this drama have no more value than the pawns of the chessboard. At present, 68,000 US forces are present in Afghanistan and during the current year additional troops will be arriving at regular intervals. As a result, the total strength of the US forces will reach the 0.1 million mark.

Prevailing Situation
It is evident from this that the United States wants to remain occupied in this region. However, Barack Obama because of the public pressure had announced a conditional troop withdrawal by 2011. Moreover, the US generals and other officials have been constantly saying that they cannot give a fixed deadline for the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. The US special ambassador to Afghanistan and Pakistan has said that the withdrawal will be equivalent to surrender. Therefore, the US forces in Afghanistan cannot be called back. This is dependent on the situation prevalent in the country.
These are the ground realities. Afghanistan is an occupied country and Hamid Karazi is a puppet president of the occupied forces. The present Pakistani Government is also subservient to the United States. They are not even able to stop the drone attacks on their own soil as accepted by Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar. As far as Iran is concerned, it in spite of being against the United States has accepted and is actively supporting the pro-US Afghan and Iraqi Governments. Iran did not oppose the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. Let alone this, it has also been supportive of these attack because of its open rivalry with the governments of the Taliban and the Ba'ath Party. The Khatami government, in particular, openly supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The United States also had the support of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan for attack on Afghanistan. On 16 May 2001, US General Tommy Frank went to Dushanbe and offered special military aid for Tajikistan because of its strategic position. The dictator ruler of that country agreed to join NATO "for the sake of peace."
At present, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan have operational US Army bases and provide other facilities. In all these affairs, Russia is also included and has allowed transit facility for the nonmilitary equipment to the occupying forces in Afghanistan. As far as Pakistan is concerned, they are fighting the US war for the sake of the $1.5 billion aid. It is also raising a loud hue and cry for more aid because their economy has been destroyed because of this antiterrorism campaign. However, China is a silent spectator in this scenario and is watching this scene. It has only raised concerns about the presence of such a large US and NATO forces close to its border, but nothing more than that.

Development of Afghanistan
The conference highlighted all states involved in the theatre of war taking place in Central and South Asia, so that it becomes evident on the readers that except for China there is no neutral state. Although India is not close to this region, the Western powers are trying to involve India into this conflict. India gained the maximum from the fall of the Taliban government. It seems as if they have taken the contract for the development of Afghanistan. They are involved in making roads, bridges, dams. In addition, they are training the Afghan Police.
Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta and Abdallah Abdallah are both pro India as is evident from their anti-Pakistan planning and policies. Then, how can anybody talk about the exit of the Indians from Afghanistan. No doubt, Shah Mahmood Qureshi can call such numerous conferences, but the opportunity to solve this problem has been lost by the Pakistani rulers when it could be sorted between the regional states. As far as Americans are concerned, as previously stated, they along with their European allies and puppet rulers of the developing countries launched an offensive against Afghanistan. In addition, they by involving the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have made this problem an international issue. Now, when the United States is feeling that it is unable to defeat the freedom fighters, it has asked its counterpart, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to arrange a carnival. Naturally, the London Conference is going to be an international affair rather than a regional one since all countries involved in the Afghan crisis, the United States, France, and Germany are not part of the regional states. All these countries have come from a long distance to loot this country. Their mere presence in the region is the reason behind chaos, uncertainty, restlessness and terrorism in the region.

Establishing Consensus
The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) had a dominant role in this area but that also has become ineffective like the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). Afghanistan was the NAM fundamental member, but now when it is facing a difficult situation, NAM is not paying any attention to the same. When Russia assaulted Afghanistan, NAM had passed a resolution for the withdrawal of foreign security forces and armed militants from Afghanistan and establishing a consensus government in Afghanistan. As a result, then Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev did pull back his army from there, but the United States is worse colonial power than Russia. It wants the control of oil wealth of Iraq and by occupying Afghanistan, the United States wants to stop the supply of gas from the Central Asian states to South Asian states.
I fail to understand the Russian policies as to why it does not openly oppose the US aggression and occupation in Afghanistan. Although the United States is expanding and establishing its military bases in the Central Asian states. It is also trying to get into Ukraine and Georgia. In addition, it wants to have a puppet regime like that of Karzai and to include these countries in NATO. On contrary, Russia has failed to counter the US aggression in Georgia and the West.

Assessment
If a conference is held of the regional countries regarding Afghanistan, it will be known as a US drama because of the participants mentioned in the above lines are all partial and want to strengthen the Karzai government. Now, Karzai does not have even the confidence of his parliament. How can the Taliban have confidence on those countries that have been supporters of the Northern Alliance and are still supporting them? Therefore, this issue can only be sorted out by a war for freedom, which it has been carrying out for the last nine years.

International Community Reacts to Iran’s New Nuclear Plant Declaration

The final week of September has been an important one with respect to world politics and the world economy. On 24 September, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) session was held under the leadership of US President Barack Obama. Recently, the G20 Summit was held in the American state of Pittsburgh, which ended on a note similar to the previous conference held in April of this year: with new promises, new undertakings, and new programs.

Some events have emerged for the first time in the final days of September. For example, this is the first time ever that a US President has chaired a Security Council session. Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi has come to the United States for the first time in his forty years in power and he has addressed the United Nations General Assembly for the first time in his life, and has declared the role and performance of the Security Council on world matters as unsatisfactory. It has also been decided for the first time that in future, the G20 will replace G8 after its function ceases. Similarly, it is also during this week that for the first time a relatively severe reaction from world powers is being witnessed at the discovery of Iran's “secret” nuclear plant for uranium enrichment. On 27 September, Iran has also test-fired two short-range missiles about which it is said that this has been done with an aim to further strengthen Iran's defense capability. It is the view of some commentators that the range of these missiles may be as far as Israel and the US bases in the Gulf. Iran's nuclear program issue, therefore, appears to be taking a new turn.

Threat of Nuclear Weapons
To reduce the global threat of nuclear weapons, the 15-member states of the UNSC have agreed on a resolution for a joint strategy. In his presidential address, Obama has stated: "Although we have remained safe from nuclear disasters during the Cold War, we are now faced with a complex situation with regard to nuclear proliferation. It is, therefore, necessary to chart a new plan and strategy." On this occasion, Obama also said that by the use of a single nuclear weapon in a single city, hundreds of thousands of people could be annihilated. This one city could even be New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, or London or Paris. Referring to a quote by Ronald Reagan, he told the session: "A nuclear war cannot be won [so] it should never be fought."

The voicing of such sentiments by Obama is surely a welcome development. Welcoming the resolution, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that through this, a clear and united message had been conveyed to the world that the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons and of those countries without nuclear weapons were united and unanimous today in ridding the world of the problem of nuclear weapons.

Western Countries Stand
Iran's announcement that it has a second uranium enrichment plant has given various Western countries further cause to put pressure on Iran. Therefore, the chance of positive developments in talks between Germany and five other world powers on 1 October have further reduced. Presently, this situation appears to be taking an increasingly complicated turn, whereby we shall view it in light of a statement made by Teheran according to which Iran will not accept any compromises on the issue of enrichment.

On the occasion of the G20 Summit, Obama, Brown, and Nicolas Sarkozy said in a joint statement that following the revelation of another nuclear plant in Iran, not only had there been increased apprehension, but it had also led to violations by Iran of the UNSC decisions.

Prior to this, the leaders of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom revealed in a joint briefing that they had provided detailed evidence relating to a nuclear plant near the Iranian city of Qum to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Simultaneously, Iran had been warned that if it did not fulfill its international responsibilities, strict economic sanctions could be enforced against it.

New Nuclear Facility
The revelation of Iran's new nuclear facility came when the G20 Summit and the UNSC session ended on one hand, while on the other, as it has been mentioned before, Iran is about to have negotiations with six world powers on the issue of its nuclear program. In one respect, therefore, the apprehensions of the world leaders are not unfounded. Iran has previously been a source of much aggravation for western powers, the United States in particular, so the risk of tensions in bilateral relations after the revelation of the new nuclear plant has increased. In addition, missile tests and the testing of a launcher with the capability to fire more than one missile have also been carried out, which has already heated up relations between the West and Iran.

Israel has also felt the intensity of this heat. The Israeli foreign minister has pleaded with the Western powers that they should adopt a clear and decisive position against this new situation that has developed. He has said that the presence of this uranium enrichment plant proves that Iran definitely wants to build nuclear weapons. He has further stated that they have been saying all along that Iran is speeding up its nuclear activity for military purposes and following the revelation of the nuclear plant, their fears have been vindicated.

Iran's stance, however, is that the purpose of its nuclear program is to produce electricity. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has said that their program was in no way a “secret”; they are ready to have it inspected by the inspectors of the IAEA. Referring to the rules of the IAEA, they have said that it was necessary to inform the mentioned agency six months before beginning the process of uranium enrichment, whereas according to them, they had made the declaration 18 months before hand. The clear implication of this is that there is currently no enrichment taking place at the plant.

If this incidentally is the situation and the IAEA rules are indeed so, the question that arises is: Why do the United States, the West, Israel, and various other powers need to create such uproar about it? One possible reason for this could be that these powers do not believe the statement by the Iranian leadership that Iran has not yet begun the process of enriching uranium. The other possibility is that, in their view, the legal position of Iran is weak. The third and final possibility is that under no circumstance do the world powers wish to view Iran as an emerging state on the world stage, the kind of state that is militarily strong and whose political, economic, social, and cultural foundations are also firm. There is no ambiguity in that a strong Iran is an impediment to the US imperial agenda. The third reason for the hue and cry is, therefore, political, and the truth is that it is also the most important reason.

Subsidiary Arrangement
Here, it is also worth mentioning that in 2003, Iran had consented over the Subsidiary Arrangement in the spirit of which it was mandatory to inform the IAEA at the initial stages of preparing a uranium enrichment plant. It was also in 2003 that Iran signed the Additional Protocol based on which the IAEA was given the authority to inspect the location. Subsequently, however, Iran reneged on both the above-mentioned agreements in 2006 and 2007. Concerning the former agreement, the IAEA states that this kind of unilateral rejection is not legally permissible, but Iran has maintained a single stance for suspending both agreements that permission could not be obtained from the parliament, which is a mandatory condition for international agreements. Moreover, Iran also insists that it will continue to act on the rules and regulations of the NPT and that it is the IAEA's prerogative to delegate itself additional authority. In reality, this is the procedure whereby a politically clear situation appears to be falling victim to legal ambiguity. Iran's belief that demands for halting uranium enrichment through the UNSC resolutions is not a legal, rather a political issue, is a meaningful point. There is no doubt that legal details are not more important than political actions and political considerations.

The Bleak Future Ahead
The revelation of a new nuclear plant can also be seen as an action by Iran against the United States, the West, and Israel. This reaction by Iran, which has remained under constant by the US pressure and its allies since 9/11, was not inconceivable. If Iran adopts an even more severe stance in its reaction, the comprehensive negotiations of 1 October fail, its legal position is also proven weak, and if Iranian President Ahmedinejad adopts an inflexible and uncooperative attitude. Worried by economic restrictions, will they accept some compromise on their nuclear program? Or will the United States or Israel wage war against Iran? In the view of commentators, a war by the United States against Iran is impossibility, although executing an attack through Israel cannot be ruled out.

If a situation to wage war against Iran from anywhere develops [God forbid], the statistics provided by the World Bank on the occasion of the G20 Summit on the political, economic, and social condition of humans inhabiting this earth could become a hundred times more horrendous: "Owing to economic shock, poor and extremely insecure people have reached a most dangerous turn in their lives: many homes have been sacrificed at the altar of poverty and desperation, health care facilities have suffered the most, there has been a decline in the number of children going to school, and the progress cycle in other areas of life has stopped or is moving in reverse."