Login : Register Home : Tags

United Nations

Latest journal entries

We're at war (duh)

Anglosphere

North Korea says "it would regard harsh sanctions over its nuclear test as a declaration of war".

Shock, horror, eek, panic. Oh wait, isn't this the country that in 1950 was at war with South Korea, the United Nations and through extension, the United States of America? Yup. Well here's a fun fact that apparently even the Koreans are forgetting: it still is. Nothing more than a cease-fire was ever signed - and even from that the DPRK withdrew some time ago.

Jani responds

Anglosphere

On Slashdot, I predicted that Jani Taskinen would respond to the outcry over his remarks:

If we follow Occam's razor then surely he would deny the words if the logs aren't true while if they are he would apologise for a sad, emotional rant. I suspect returning from his decision that he cannot work on PHP as long as Israeli Zend backs it is rather impossible at this point, but that decision in itself is respectable even for people like me who disagree with the logic (or even viewpoint) behind it. It is his right not to want to work with Israelis, but for his own sake I hope he tries to do some damage control.

And I think his PHP contributions are not the most notable background here. He's a UN peacekeeper and has in fact been stationed in Lebanon. If you think the PHP team is not going to be happy about this publicity, think of how the UN should feel when there own forces make such emotional hateful rants in public after a "friendly" fire incident - as bad as that incident may be.

And indeed he has responded:

I apologize for the wrong choice of words in "fuck jews" where it should have been "fuck israel". And of course I mean the government of Israel when I say "I'm anti-israel". I have friends who are jews and it does not bother me at all. Hopefully they don't get offended by those remarks I made.. :(

Unfortunately there is no explicit apology for the call to "nuke Israel", which is more worrisome than someone merely opposing Israel's government. However, any apology is better than none. I'm not Jewish nor Israeli so it's not for me to accept it, but it may please those who are.

Of course I still have doubt whether people demonstrating emotional outbursts in are fit for duty. In the specific case of Jani, I find it hard to find a firm position on whether his views of Israel are relevant to the UNAMA-AFG mission assisting NATO-ISAF. But I hold it possible that the UN will be more careful now to assign him to any mission in the Middle East in the future, or that Jani himself would turn down such an assignment. I'm curious, but I think this wraps matters up.

Thought of the day

Anglosphere

Hopefully UN peacekeepers who immediately side with the terrorists after a friendly-fire incident are a small, small minority.

UNSC Idiocracy

Anglosphere

Wikipedia on Hezbollah:

Those who consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization consider its sponsors (in particular Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) to stand in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1566. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantling of Hezbollah and all other militias.

So you think the UN would then praise Israel for beginning to dismantle this terrorist network? Think again, that's not the kind of world we live in. The UN was actually planning to condemn Israel's reaction, an effort killed by the sanity of John Bolton's veto for the US yesterday.

Meryl Yourish doesn't expect much form the UN either:

More than 700 katyusha rockets and mortars have landed in Israel since the beginning of hostilities. Imagine the "disproportionate" response of any other nation under these circumstances. Like, say, Russia. Or France, who threatened to nuke Iran only this past year, as I recall.

Still waiting for UN condemnation of Hezbullah rocket attacks on Israel. No, not really.

Can we trust Iran? The Beeb? The UN?

Anglosphere

I'm not going to state that the Iran crisis over nuclear facilities is escalating, but diplomacy is reaching a stalemate and that's never a good sign in a crisis. A quick update from the Beeb:

Although Iran justifies fuel enrichment by saying this is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and that the IAEA would monitor all activities, the IAEA says Iran has already broken the rules by hiding an enrichment programme over a period of 18 years.

That is the reason why it could be reported to the Security Council.

Why bother? Because uranium enrichment can be used to create nuclear weapons and let's face it, Iran hasn't been on the best of terms with every nation in the world or even region. Nor will they improve under the newly "elected" hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As predicted by the US, talks with the EU3 have failed. So what happens when Iran goes on with its nuclear programme?

If so, it could face UN sanctions in due course and one day even a military attack on its facilities by Israel or the United States.

Ah, good old BBC bias. Aren't we describing a situation where the UN agrees Iran is in violation of international agreements and a possible threat? If we are, why single out Israel and the US? Has it become that unlikely other UN members would actually enforce the body's decisions?

Latest photos

2006-08-29 09:39
United Nations
United Nations
(0 comments)

© Copyright 1995-2008 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Tom has more friends but mine are prettier! (#1/1)