Category Archives: International Politics

Merkel Comments Point Out Difference Between Western Europe and US

In an interesting contrast between Western Europe and the US, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said today that financial markets need more regulation.  Her party, the Christian Democratic Union, is the more conservative German party, yet gives at least some minimal commitment to the notion that the government should keep markets in check.  Merkel said,

“Crises have blown up because the rules of the social market have not been observed…We have made progress but we are nowhere near a point where we could say that the kind of derailment that leads to market crises could not happen again and so the issue will again play a central role at the G20 meeting this year.”

Also interesting that she notes that markets have a social purpose and are not simply to be praised for their own sake.

“It is true that economies are there to serve people and that has by no means always been the case in recent years.”

Posted in: Economics, International Politics, Uncategorized

White House Statement Ignores International Law

It’s been a number of months since I blogged, but I am back for the time being…

I do not wish to argue whether or not the attacks by Israel on Syria this weekend were justified, but instead point out a comment made by a White House spokesman, quoted by Reuters, that deserves more attention than it is likely to get:

The president many times has talked about his view that Israel, as a sovereign government, has the right to take the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people.”

This type of statement is made just about every time Israel goes on the attack.  The problem is that if international law is taken into account, then it is not a universally true statement.  If “the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people,” include the threat or use of force, then no sovereign government has this right unchecked.

Article 2, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

There are two exceptions to this: 1) the UN Security Council approves the use of force and 2) in self defense against armed attack until the Security Council has time to act.  The second condition is summarized in the well known Article 51 of the the UN Charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Israel did not refer this to the UN Security Council and will certainly not refer it to the Council under an Article 51 claim, most likely because of its past violations of Security Council resolutions.  So while Israel is certainly not alone in violations of international law, it certainly is in violation at present.

What is revealing is how we would react to other countries making the same statement the White House did.  If Iran attacked Iraq and Russia said “Iran, as a sovereign government, has the right to take the actions they feel are necessary to protect their people,” we would immediately recognize the statement as meaningless and we would apply the international norms that say a country cannot attack another one just because it claims it is in self-defense.  Given current US drone attacks outside of armed conflict in Afghanistan, in addition to its vast history of wars launched in violation of international law, it is not surprising that the White House will make such a statement about an ally.  International law is considered so foreign and inapplicable to us that this statement passes without comment.

Posted in: International Politics / Tagged: , ,

Crucial Context on Colombia (Reuters critique)

I came across another Reuters article that needs some facts to add missing context.  This one is about about Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos’ willingness to hold a public referendum on any peace deal his administration makes with the rebel FARC guerrillas.  The article states

The drug funded group [FARC]…has fought successive governments since 1964 and killed tens of thousands.”

It is important to note that Colombian paramilitaries also played a major role in the conflict, committing gross acts of inhumanity with the backing of the state and also made a significant amount of money through drug money.  Despite their demobilization deal with the state in 2003, Human Rights Watch reports that there have been successor groups that “engage in drug trafficking” and “commit widespread abuses against civilians, including massacres, killings, rapes and other forms of sexual violence, threats, and forced displacement.”  HRW reports concerns of “ongoing infiltration of the political system by paramilitaries and their successor groups.”  Perhaps the situation has improved in the past decade since in 2001 HRW put out a report stating paramilitary “groups are responsible for most human rights violations, including massacres and forced displacement…Colombian army brigades and police work with and even profit from paramilitaries, treating them as a force allied with their own.”  The FARC are not nice guys, but it is not as if the state is on the side of the angels.

Reuters leaves out something absolutely critical when they state,

Santos has ruled out discussing major changes to Colombia’s economic or political model, saying that if the guerrillas want to modify the system, they should run for election.  More than 20 years ago, Colombia held a nationwide assembly to rewrite the 1886 constitution. Demobilized rebels from smaller groups participated, but not the FARC or the National Liberation Army, another left-wing group.”

This makes it seem as if the FARC has been hesitant to pursue a political path and leaves out why they may want constitutional guarantees.  The FARC faced a major assassination campaign when they did pursue this path in the 1980′s and 1990′s.

FACT: A 1987 article by the Christian Science Monitor reported,

The country’s oldest and largest guerrilla group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), created the Patriotic Union to run candidates in last year’s congressional and presidential elections. Since then, four of 14 UP congressmen have been killed. Authorities have jailed no suspects in any of the killings. But a report last month by Amnesty International accused security forces and their civilian accomplices of murdering more than 1,000 people.”

FACT: A 2007 Amnesty International report stated that “Since the UP [Patriotic Union] was founded in 1985, more than 3,000 UP members have been killed or been victims of enforced disappearances, the vast majority carried out by the security forces and paramilitaries.”

I think this context is important, especially since Reuters notes that the FARC did not participate in the rewriting of the constitution.  Any guesses as to why?

Posted in: International Politics, Media Analysis / Tagged: , ,

Disturbing Report on World’s Food Going to Waste (and a good project addressing global hunger)

Via Democracy Now, I came across a truly horrid finding by a British organization, Institution of Mechanical Engineers.  In a new report, they find that half, yes half, of the world’s food may not actually be consumed.  This is truly unbelievable that the problem in the US is we have too many overweight kids, while people throughout the world (and for that matter in some poor parts of the US) people are malnourished.  According to UNICEF(see the bottom right bullet of page 1), malnutrition contributes to the deaths of 2.6 million children under 5 every year.  Somehow this is all tolerable.

Peter Singer, the famous ethics philosopher, has a very good project underway, based on his book The Life You Can Save to encourage people to give part of their incomes to organizations working to end extreme poverty.  One reason I trust that it is a good project is that I emailed them once asking why the UN World Food Programme was not on their list of good organizations to give to.  I received a reply (not sure if it was actually from Peter Singer) stating that they think the World Food Programme doesn’t actually help build infrastructure to help poor people be self-sustaining, but instead gives food as emergency aid, acting as more of a band-aid.  Below is the table showing how much they recommend people to give based on their income.  Their site also has a list of organizations they suggest give to.

Income Bracket
(or, if you are not currently receiving an income, what you spend each year)		 Donation
Less than 105 000 USD At least 1% of your income, getting closer to 5% as your income approaches 105 000 USD
105 001 USD – 148 000 USD 5%
148 001 USD – 383 000 USD 5% of the first 148 000 USD and 10% of the remainder
383 001 USD – 600 000 USD 5% of the first 148 000 USD, 10% of the next 235 000 USD and 15% of the remainder
600 001 USD – 1 900 000 USD 5% of the first 148 000 USD, 10% of the next 235 000 USD, 15% of the next 217 000 USD and 20% of the remainder
1 900 001 USD – 10 700 000 USD 5% of the first 148 000 USD, 10% of the next 235 000 USD, 15% of the next 217 000 USD, 20% of the next 1 300 000 USD and 25% of the remainder
Over 10 700 000 USD 5% of the first 148 000 USD, 10% of the next 235 000 USD, 15% of the next 217 000 USD, 20% of the next 1 300 000 USD, 25% of the next 8 800 000 USD and 33.33% of the remainder
Posted in: Economics, International Politics, Take Action / Tagged: , , ,

The Most Accurate News Headline on Israel Ever

Reuters has a news article whose title is 100% accurate:

 

“Netanyahu takes on the world in Israeli election campaign”

 

Apparently, Netanyahu is modifying Nietzsche’s line as follows:

“What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the uber-Israeli: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…”

Posted in: International Politics, Media Analysis / Tagged: ,

US Lawless Again on Israel

Every member of the UN Security Council issued a statement demanding that Israel stop settlement construction in the West Bank, except for the United States.  Despite allegedly harsh condemnation by the US of the settlements, the UN is not considered an appropriate venue for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict.  The unstated, but rather apparent, reason for this is that an international law settlement actually holds Israel accountable.  The other countries that sit on the UN Security Council are not full of rabid anti-Semites to say the least:

China

Russia

France

United Kingdom

Azerbaijan

Colombia

Germany

Guatemala

India

Morocco

Pakistan

Portugal

South Africa

Togo

Posted in: International Politics

Israel, the US, and the General Assembly

A new statement by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman demonstrates a real imperial mentality (I really don’t like using bombastic rhetoric, but it really is imperial).  Regarding Israeli settlements in Jerusalem he said,

Now I want to remind you that building (settlements) in Jerusalem is with accordance to Israeli law. If anyone wants to investigate further, they can go to the Bush letter and see all those settlements blocks and the changes in the territory which the U.S. president spoke of.” (my italics)

Lieberman is stating that settlements in Jerusalem are legal because they are in accordance with Israeli law and official US policy of the Bush administration.  This makes it quite clear that the Israeli government does not care what anyone thinks outside of Israel and the US.  It was demonstrated quite clearly in the recent UN vote upgrading the status of Palestine a non-member state.

Lieberman is referring to a 2004 letter from Bush II to then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon stating:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Just to point out the obvious, just because the president of the United States (or any country) says final borders must reflect the reality of Israeli settlements does not raise it to the level of international law.  Especially when the vast majority of the world has declared that the settlements are not permissible in the General Assembly Resolution “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine,” which is approved yearly, and most recently in November of 2011.  The most recent version states that the UN reaffirms “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem.”   This document was adopted by a vote of 167 to 7.  The 7 no votes were the US, Israel, Canada, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Nauru.  There were 4 abstentions: Austrailia, Cameroon, the Ivory Coast and Tonga.

Furthermore, the General Assembly adopted a resolution on Jerusalem on November 21, 2011, stating its

determination that any actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on the Holy City of Jerusalem are illegal and therefore null and void and have no validity whatsoever and calls upon Israel to immideately cease all such illegal and unilateral measures.

The vote on this one was 164 to the same 7, with 5 abstentions.  Perhaps the US and Israel would should remember the phrase from the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence emphasizing the importance of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.”

Posted in: International Politics

Palestine Takes the Legal Route: Israel Declares Itself Lawless

Two brief thoughts on the recent UN upgrade of Palestine to a “non-member state.”  First, it is ludicrous that the US and Israel are so opposed to the Palestinians push for UN recognition.  When Hamas or any other Palestinian organization commits acts of violence, the right of Israel to defend itself is relentlessly repeated.  When Palestinians take the nonviolent, legal approach based in international law, it is considered “counterproductive.”  Hillary Clinton said that the only way the Palestinians can get a state is through negotiations with Israel.  No one can expect equal-footed negotiations between Palestinians, who are under siege in Gaza and steadily losing their land to settlements in the West Bank, and Israel, one of the most modern, heavily-armed militaries in the world.  Has Netanyahu ever indicated that he would stop settlements in the West Bank if Palestinians agree to talks?

I think Israel’s response in announcing 3,000 new settlers around Jerusalem speaks volumes.  Palestinians took a legal approach based in international law and Israel has responded by taking over more land.  It is as if Israel is saying “You may have law and public opinion on our side, but we control facts on the ground so we will do as we please.”  Israel and the US seem to want Palestinians to cry uncle and say that it is ok that they don’t have a land to call their own.

It strikes me as a bit ironic  that the UN recognized Palestine as a state, Israel is already recognized as a state, yet Hillary Clinton said,

“We have been clear that only through direct negotiations between the parties can the Palestinians and Israelis achieve the peace they both deserve: two states for two people with a sovereign, viable independent Palestine living side by side in peace and security with a Jewish and democratic Israel.”

So the international community recognizing Palestine as sovereign and independent makes it harder for Palestine to be sovereign and independent.  In other words, if only those Palestinians would accept that they just aren’t as important as Israelis, they might get what they want.

 

Posted in: International Politics / Tagged: , , ,

Now Israel is Really in Trouble…

From the Jewish Telegraphic Agency…yes, the title of my post is meant to be sarcastic

 

Source: Stevie Wonder to cancel Friends of IDF gig

November 28, 2012

(JTA) — Stevie Wonder is set to pull out of a performance at a fundraiser for the Israel Defense Forces,  a source told JTA.

Wonder’s representatives will claim that he did not know the nature of the group, the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, and that he believes such a performance would be incongruent with his status as a U.N. “Messenger of Peace,” according to a source who has read email exchanges between Wonder’s representatives and organizers of the event.

Wonder was scheduled to headline the Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces annual gala in Los Angeles on Dec. 6. The event raises millions of dollars annually to support the Israeli military.

An official of Friends of the IDF, reached at its Los Angeles office, had no comment. Wonder’s agent at Creative Artists Agency did not return a request for comment.

The spokesman for the U.N. Secretary General also had no comment on the matter.

The United Nations does not impose restrictions on its goodwill representatives. Wonder most recently performed at a U.N. concert commemoratiing its 67th anniversary. Elie Wiesel, the Nobele Peace Laureate and Holocaust memoirist who is also a staunch defender of Israel is also a U.N. Messenger of Peace.

Wonder had come under intense social media pressure to pull out of the event. An online petition calling on him to cancel his performance had garnered more than 3,600 signatures.

The petition was launched more than a day ago on the change.org website.

“You were arrested in 1985 protesting South African Apartheid, now we ask you: please remember that apartheid is apartheid, whether it comes from White Afrikaaner settlers of South Africa or from Jewish Israelis in Israel,” the petition reads. “Desmond Tutu has recognized that Israel’s Apartheid is worse than South Africa’s — will you stand with us against apartheid and cancel your performance at the IDF fundraiser.”

A second petition, launched by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, calls on Wonder to “(p)lease continue your legacy of speaking out for the oppressed. Please be a ‘full-time lover’ of justice by standing on the right side of history and canceling your performance for the Israeli army.”

Wonder performed at a 1998 gala honoring Israel’s 50th anniversary.

 

Posted in: International Politics

Finally Time for Palestine

Posted in: International Politics