MH17 - Putin Changing Course?

"Will the MH17 disaster cause Putin to change course in Ukraine?" PBS NewsHour 7/21/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  When the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down, the stakes in the fight for the future of Ukraine went up.  At the center of what has rapidly become a global flash point is the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Russia.  But what, if anything, can the U.S. or Russia do in the face of international grief, recrimination and derailed diplomacy?

Stephen Sestanovich was U.S. ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union during the Clinton administration.  He’s now senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.  And Eugene Rumer was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia during the Obama administration from 2010 to 2014.  He’s now director of Russia and Eurasia Programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Stephen Sestanovich, how much — how much good can international pressure do?

STEPHEN SESTANOVICH, Council on Foreign Relations:  Well, there’s no doubt that Russia faces the most appalling public relations predicament that it’s been in, in decades.  And it is going to be responding to international pressure.

No government wants to have the kind of criminal reputation that the Russians are acquiring for their handling of this.  And the result is — you already see — is a kind of backing off of some of the positions that they have taken.  They supported a U.N. Security Council resolution today.  The separatists have been urged to release the bodies.  There is that kind of minimal level of cooperation that is meant to rescue their international position right now.

CLIMATE CHANGE - Warning From U.N.

WAIT!  IT'S ALL A GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY, just ask any right-thinking American (nut case).

Of course since we have diddled so long it is going to be more expensive to deal with Climate Change.

"UN panel warns dire threats of climate change may spin ‘out of control’" (Part-1) PBS NewsHour 3/31/2014

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  The new U.N. report on climate change is full of serious warnings and predictions of what’s to come.  But it’s also especially sobering about what’s already happening around the globe.  It was written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, a group of hundreds of scientists and other experts, the latest in a series of reports being released this year.

Intense heat waves that feed fires, wiping out forests and homes, prolonged droughts that damage food and water supplies for billions of people, and sharply higher costs for farmers, consumers and businesses alike, it’s all laid out in today’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, meeting in Yokohama, Japan.

RAJENDRA PACHAURI, Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:  The one message that comes out very clearly is that the world has to adapt and the world has to mitigate.  And the sooner we do that, the less the chances of some of the worst impacts of climate change being faced in different parts of the world.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The authors say, absent that action, the effects of global warming may get out of control.  The IPCC is pressing for a global agreement next year on curbing carbon emissions.

And in a statement yesterday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry endorsed that idea.  “Unless we act dramatically and quickly,” he said, “science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.  Denial of the science is malpractice.”

Even so, there are a few voices urging restraint.  Dutch economist Richard Tol removed his name from the document last week, saying it paints too stark a picture.

RICHARD TOL, Professor of Economics, University of Sussex:  But what the report forgets to say is that even though climate change may reduce crop yields by 2 percent per decade, at the same time crop yields are going up by 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent per decade, due to technological change, so it’s not the case that climate change will cause life-threatening famine.  Instead, climate change will mean that crop yields will go up more slowly.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  The Obama administration has moved to curb greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and autos, but faces an uphill battle in Congress, and among the American public, if it tries to implement a broader climate agenda.

Separate polls last year, by the Pew Research Center, found more than two-thirds of Americans believed the Earth is getting warmer.  But only one-third saw government action as a priority.

"Closing window for action on climate change offers consequences and opportunity" (Part-2) PBS NewsHour 3/31/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A UN report warns that the effects of climate change -- flood, drought and food shortages -- have already caused harm, and will worsen quickly if we don’t take immediate action.  Judy Woodruff takes a closer look at the global implications with two people who worked on the report: Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University and Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

UNITED NATIONS - The Disability Convention Treaty

"What prevents the U.S. from signing the U.N. disabilities treaty?" PBS NewsHour 3/13/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Opponents of U.S. ratification by Congress of a United Nations convention that pushes for equal rights for those with disabilities argue that it would give the U.N. jurisdiction over domestic laws.  Judy Woodruff gets two views on the treaty from Rhode Island Rep. Jim Langevin and Michael Farris of Patrick Henry College.

UKRAINE - Crisis From the International Front

IMO we are overlooking that Putin perceives the overthrow of the Russia-friendly government in Ukraine as a direct threat.  It is NOT about economics.

"Crimean call for vote on splitting from Ukraine prompts international opposition" (Part-2) PBS NewsHour 3/6/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Crimean Parliament announced a referendum on whether the region should join Russia or remain part of Ukraine, but the newly formed government in Kiev pushed back, calling it illegal.  President Obama criticized the upcoming vote and took action to restrict visas and place financial sanctions on Russians behind the Ukraine invasion.  Hari Sreenivasan reports.

"UN Ambassador Power:  ‘Russia is looking at the path of political and economic isolation’" (Part-2) PBS NewsHour 3/6/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  UN ambassador Samantha Power points to the hope of greater economic ties as a critical leverage point for the United States in persuading Russia "pull back from the brink."  She joins Gwen fill to discuss the new sanctions announced by President Obama against Russia and how giving that country an "off-ramp" to deescalate the Ukraine conflict could be more appealing than the cost of economic and political isolation.

UKRAINE - Russia Flexing Its Muscle

"Why Russia is ‘flexing its muscle’ in Crimea" PBS Newshour 2/28/2014

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  Late today, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations proposed sending an urgent independent and credible mediation mission to help resolve Ukraine’s crisis.

However, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin dismissed the idea, saying he was against imposed mediation.

Our Jeffrey Brown takes a closer look at the tensions escalating between Russia and Ukraine.

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  And to do that, I’m joined by Dimitri Simes, president for the Center for the National Interest, a foreign policy think tank, and Angela Stent, director of the Center of Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University.  Her latest book is “The Limits of Partnership: U.S.-Russian Relations in the 21st Century.”

SYRIA - UN Report, Torture and Executions of Children

If you believe in reincarnation, this could be proof.  Bashar al-Assad as the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler and the evil brought on the world.

"UN says children caught in Syria’s civil war suffer ‘unspeakable’ abuse" PBS Newshour 2/6/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A UN report has found that in addition to the thousands of children who have been injured, killed or displaced as part of the war, the Syrian government has also tortured kids they suspect of being connected to the opposition, while others have been executed by armed opposition groups.  Judy Woodruff learns more from Leila Zerrougui, a UN special representative for children and armed conflict.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  This week, the United Nations released a report on children and the Syria conflict.  It found that the Syrian government is responsible for thousands of deaths, and charged that it put children as young as 11 in prisons where they suffered — quote — “beatings with metal cables, sexual violence and mock executions.”

It also accuses armed opposition groups of summary executions of children.

Joining me now is one of the authors of the report.  She is Leila Zerrougui, the U.N. special representative of the secretary-general for children and armed conflict.

CATHOLICISM - United Nations Report on Sexual Abuse

"Has the Catholic Church done enough to address sexual abuse by clergy?" PBS Newshour 2/5/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  The Vatican has long been criticized for its handling of sexual abuse cases, but today’s report from a United Nations panel was especially harsh.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child said the Vatican had not adequately acknowledged past crimes, and cultivated a code of silence that provided immunity for perpetrators.  The Vatican calls the report distorted and unfair, in that it ignores corrective actions taken by the church.

Here to flesh out those arguments are Reverend Thomas Rosica, chief executive officer of Canada’s Catholic Salt and Light Television Network and an English-language spokesperson for the Vatican, and Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

SYRIA - Talks End With No Clear Progress

Ah, yes, the same old delay tactics by a dictatorship.  And the killing goes on, and  on, and on....

The West (including the U.S.) is allowing this to continue.  I sadly believe that we are living if fantasyland if we continue to believe in diplomacy as a solution to this problem.

"Syria talks end without clear progress or assurance of an encore" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 1/31/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Despite measured optimism for progress from the UN envoy, neither sides in the Syrian conflict have budged from their positions during nine days of peace talks in Switzerland, with the government delegation unwilling to commit to more talks.  Meanwhile, Jeffrey Brown reports, the situation on the ground may only be getting worse.

"Who’s to blame for failed Syrian peace talks, and what’s next?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 1/31/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Joshua Landis of the University of Oklahoma join Jeffrey Brown to discuss their reactions to the first round of Syrian peace talks, the delays for the Assad regime in destroying chemical weapons and what’s next for both diplomacy and the war.

SYRIA - Geneva Talks Update

"Despite different takes on Geneva communique, Syrian delegations agree to meet" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 1/24/2014

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  The United Nations' lead envoy on Syria struggled today to hold talks together aimed at ending that country's civil war.

As Hari Sreenivasan reports, they may have reached a breakthrough.

HARI SREENIVASAN (Newshour):  Demonstrators from both sides of the Syrian conflict highlighted the diplomatic divisions, as the Assad regime and the opposition failed to meet face-to-face today.

Then came this:

LAKHDAR BRAHIMI, U.N. Envoy to Syria:  Tomorrow, we expect, we have agreed that we will meet in same room.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi made the announcement after hours of meeting separately with the delegations.

LAKHDAR BRAHIMI:  The discussions I have had with the two parties were encouraging.  And we are looking forward to our meetings tomorrow morning and tomorrow afternoon.  As you know, the whole process is based on the Geneva communique of the 30th of June, 2012.  And I think the two sides understand that very well and accept it.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  That communique calls for a transitional government, and Brahimi acknowledged there are different interpretations of its provisions.

Earlier, the Western-backed Syrian National Coalition insisted President Bashar al-Assad accept those terms before any direct talks.

Secretary-General Badr Jamous:

BADR JAMOUS, Secretary-General, Syrian National Council (through translator):  The negotiations will be indirect until the regime signs Geneva I.  We came to implement the agreement. And if the regime will not abide by it, then direct contact will not be beneficial.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  But the Syrian delegation gave no ground publicly.  Instead, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said his delegation would leave tomorrow if serious talks didn't begin.

Meanwhile, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Secretary of State John Kerry reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to ridding Syria of Assad.

JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State:  Absent a political solution, we know where this leads, more refugees, more terrorists, more extremism, more brutality from the regime, more suffering from the Syrian people.

And we do not believe that we or anyone should tolerate one man's brutal effort to cling to power.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  As the day ended, expectations for tomorrow's talks in Geneva remained low, but, as one Western diplomat put it, "Every day that they talk is a little step forward."

"Talks between Syrian government, opposition back on despite tense day in Geneva" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 1/24/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.N. lead envoy on Syria was able to press the reset button Friday for talks aimed at ending the country’s civil war.  Despite strong disagreement over conditions of the talks, the two sides have agreed to meet Saturday.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner (Newshour) briefs Hari Sreenivasan from Geneva.

SYRIA - Calls For Syrian Conflict Talks, Update

"Calls grow for Syrian conflict talks in Geneva" PBS Newshour 10/19/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has said efforts were in progress to start Syrian peace talks after Secretary of State John Kerry and others have called for the two sides to sit down for a conference in Geneva.  Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Program for Arab Politics at the Washington Institute, explains.

SYRIA - Assad's Empty Pledge on Chemical Weapons

DO NOT drop our threat.  Assad is afraid, and dropping the threat will only give him more time to kill Syrians without consequence.

"Syria Pledges to Give Up Chemical Arms if U.S. Drops Military Force Threat" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 9/12/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Bashar al-Assad announced the Syrian government is applying to join the Chemical Weapons Convention and is willing to hand over the country's chemical arsenal, but wants the U.S. to drop their threat of force.  Judy Woodruff reports on talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart in Geneva.

"What Issues Have Stopped the U.S. and Russia From Seeing Eye to Eye on Syria?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 9/12/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The U.S. and Russia have been at loggerheads for years over Syria.  What makes the countries seem more willing to work on a solution together now?  Judy Woodruff gets debate from Angela Stent of Georgetown University and Andranik Migranyan of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation.

SYRIA - Russian Proposal, IF It’s Real

For this to be 'real' will depend on Assad and how long he will dither to give him more time to murder Syrian citizens.  If he agrees, I suspect it IS a stalling tactic, just like Iran on nuclear program.

"Is Push for Syria to Forfeit Chemical Arms a Stalling Tactic or Serious Move?" PBS Newshour 9/9/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Russian government spoke out today about a proposal to Syria to hand over and destroy their chemical weapon stockpile.  Judy Woodruff talks to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, about the possibility of preventing a U.S. military strike and the positive response by Syria.

  From PBS NewsHour on Vimeo.


"Obama: Diplomatic Solution to Syria 'Overwhelmingly My Preference'" PBS Newshour 9/9/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Barack Obama sat down with Gwen Ifill to discuss reports that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad might consider handing over chemical weapon stockpiles to international control.  Mr. Obama said he favors diplomacy over military strikes and is encouraged that the U.S. can work with Russia on a diplomatic solution.

"Obama Backs Idea for Syria to Cede Control of Arms" by MICHAEL D. SHEAR, MICHAEL R. GORDON, and STEVEN LEE MYERS; New York Times 9/9/2013

Excerpt

President Obama on Monday tentatively embraced a Russian diplomatic proposal to avert a United States military strike on Syria by having international monitors take control of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons.  The move added new uncertainty to Mr. Obama’s push to win support among allies, the American public and members of Congress for an attack.

In a series of television interviews with six cable and broadcast networks, Mr. Obama capped a remarkable day of presidential lobbying for military action and a dizzying series of developments at home and abroad.  Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said early Monday that Syria could avoid an attack by putting its chemical weapons in the hands of monitors and agreeing to ultimately eliminate its massive arsenal of poison gas.  It was an idea that was quickly praised by top officials in Syria and some lawmakers in the United States.

“It’s possible,” Mr. Obama said on CNN of the Russian proposal, “if it’s real.”

SYRIA - The View From the Arab World

"Refugees Feel Let Down by Foreign Caution for Military Action in Syria" PBS Newshour 9/2/2013

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour):  Amid the focus on possible U.S. military action, there was word today that the Syrian refugee problem has become even more desperate.  The United Nations reported some seven million Syrians have fled to other countries or been displaced within their own borders.  Many are now appealing for outside military action.

We have a report from Martin Geissler of Independent Television News.

MARTIN GEISSLER:  Jordan's biggest refugee camp gets busier by the day, the streets here lined with people who have lost everything, forced to flee their homes and their country in a bloody civil war.

They saw foreign intervention as their only hope.  Now they will tell you the whole world has let them down.

"If no one stops Assad, he will kill five million," says Ahmed. He can't understand why the West is backing away.

MAN (through interpreter):  Assad has used chemicals 14 times at least.  What is the matter with the world?  Are they sleeping?  Are they drunk?  Are they on drugs?

MARTIN GEISSLER:  Almost 150,000 Syrian refugees now live in Zaatari camp.  None of them want to be here, but there's a depressing sense of permanence about the place.

This is now the second biggest refugee camp on Earth.  What's striking about this swarming, swelling mass of people is the fact that across the border in Syria almost the same number of lives have been lost in a conflict that is just two years old.

With the airstrikes now delayed, at least, these people say the regime they hate will be emboldened.

"If Obama doesn't strike Assad, he will look weak," says this man.  "The world will think it is acceptable to use chemical weapons."

"If you won't send missiles, just send us guns," he says.  "We will go and fight Assad."

The people here keep telling you the world is playing a game with Syrian blood.  They all know more of that will be spilt before any of them can go home.

"Distrustful of U.S. Motives, Many in the Arab World Oppose Syria Military Strike" PBS Newshour 9/2/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Margaret Warner reports from Cairo, where she has been gathering reaction from Egyptians and from around the Mideast on the crisis in Syria.  She talks to Jeffrey Brown about the "unanimity" of opposition she's encountered against a possible U.S. military strike.

OPINION:  We (U.S.), and the West as a whole, are behaving in an immoral and despicable way.  The real issue is not just chemical weapons but that Assad is still in power.  Syria will continue to bleed as long as he is there and allowed to murder his own people.

OPINION - While Damascus Burns

"Dithering While Damascus Burns" by BOB CORKER, New York Times 4/23/2013

AS Syria slips further into chaos, America is acting hesitantly at a pivotal moment for our national interests and for those of our allies in the region.

It appears that President Bashar al-Assad’s fall is inevitable, but the question is how long it will take and how much suffering and bloodshed will occur before it happens.  There is a looming second battle in Syria, as the opposition is divided along sectarian lines and between moderates and extremists.  Simply being against Mr. Assad is no longer enough.

In both practical and moral terms, no one’s interests will be served by a chaotic collapse of the Syrian state, the empowerment of violent extremist groups with ties to Al Qaeda and the sectarian reprisals that could follow Mr. Assad’s fall.  America must therefore prepare to make new investments and commitments to avoid an even deeper catastrophe.

American leadership, including providing arms and training to moderate rebels, are likely to be the only things that can tip the balance, help end the bloodshed and halt brewing threats to us and our allies.

Yet the Obama administration has been indecisive, neither fully “in” nor “out,” as radicals and militants are rapidly becoming a more influential force inside Syria.  Furthermore, if allegations of Syria’s use of chemical weapons — a “red line” that Mr. Obama has said Syria must not cross — prove true, it will force the White House and Congress to decide about expanding our involvement there.

President Obama and his advisers face difficult decisions about Syria.  He should work closely with Congress in devising his strategy and not deploy any military forces without Congressional consent.  Like the president, I am reluctant to commit the United States as an active participant in a complex and distant war and do not support the deployment of American forces to topple Mr. Assad.  But the time for “leading from behind” is over.

First, the United States must act to affect the balance of power on the ground, shifting momentum away from radical Islamist groups toward more moderate elements that we hope can lead Syria after Mr. Assad’s fall.

Unfortunately, the moderate elements we must support are not the most formidable or the most cohesive of the forces fighting in Syria.

We must use American resources and ingenuity to help change that — beyond the “nonlethal assistance” we currently provide.  This will require weapons and training for rebel units vetted by the United States as well as assistance to improve leadership skills, and cohesiveness in both military and civilian institutions.  We should not be engaged in nation building, but we can certainly support Syrians committed to rebuilding their country.

But sending arms alone will not solve the problem.  After all, small arms are already flowing to combatants from other sources in the region at an alarming rate.  By more fully engaging vetted units and training them to respect the law of armed conflict, protect critical infrastructure and secure dangerous weapons sites, America can make a down payment on Syria’s future by building relationships with future partners.

In addition, the United States must take the lead in building an international consensus on what the next government of Syria will look like.  We can be under no illusions: this will be very difficult and will require that we secure significant changes in policy from Russia and other countries in the region.

Establishing common cause between moderate Sunni groups and Alawites — parties that are currently at war with one another — against radical Sunni groups and Iranian proxies will be central to building Syria’s next government.  The Alawites are largely clinging to Mr. Assad’s regime for fear that a Sunni victory will lead to sectarian violence against them and that it may be part of the larger, increasingly bitter Sunni-Shia divide throughout the region.

When it comes to Russia, America must display a deeper understanding of Russia’s regional interests and take advantage of our shared concerns about Islamic extremism.  Russian leaders believe that Syria is becoming a safe haven for extremists, and we should take that concern seriously while at the same time insisting on sending aid to moderate groups.  This could be the basis for a new understanding with Moscow and a shared approach toward Syria.

Only Russia can convince Mr. Assad that he must step aside, which is an essential first step toward a negotiated solution, and only the United States is in a position to persuade the Friends of Syria — a group of 11 nations — to isolate extremists and bring the core of the opposition to the negotiating table.

The United States must also be more aggressive in stopping Iranian support for Mr. Assad.  Likewise, public and private sources of support for anti-Assad extremists in Syria should be publicized and targeted with sanctions.  Other countries opposed to Mr. Assad, including American allies, must also be much more selective about who they arm and support in the war in Syria.

They must recognize that it is in their interests, as well as America’s, to build an Alawite-Sunni alliance of the center to oppose both Mr. Assad’s army and Sunni extremists with ties to Al Qaeda.

Changing the dynamics of the conflict in the short term will help preserve and rebuild a stable Syria over the long term.

Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent trip to Istanbul reflects this view and is a welcome step.  But ending the violence in Syria will require the United States to play an even greater role, and it will force both us and our partners to make difficult decisions.  The consequences of our continued collective failure are unthinkable, and grow more serious every day.

As I've said before, the first step to ending this civil war  is to establish a no-fly zone over ALL of Syria.

MIDDLE EAST - Palestinian Statehood

IMHO the U.S. is on the WRONG side on this issue. At the very least we should have abstained.

Palestine deserves statehood. Denying that will only prolong this unending conflict.

"Palestinians Seek United Nations Status Upgrade Despite U.S. Qualms" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 11/28/2012

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): The Palestinian Authority will make an historic move tomorrow at the United Nations, despite being discouraged by the United States.

For Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, it is a moment of diplomatic and political opportunity, tomorrow's vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS, Palestinian Authority (through translator): We are going to the United Nations to upgrade the status of Palestine to an observer state at the U.N. And this is the first step to accomplish our Palestinian rights.

MARGARET WARNER: Abbas is seeking recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state, encompassing the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem along the pre-1967 war borders.

His Fatah faction only rules now in part of the West Bank. Its Islamist rival, Hamas, which advocates violent resistance to Israel, controls Gaza. After long opposing Abbas' U.N. efforts, the militant Hamas recently endorsed the move.

SAMI ABU ZUHRI, Hamas spokesperson (through translator): The Hamas movement is with all the diplomacy acts that adds to the Palestinian victories. We welcome the step for statehood at the United Nations, but we want it to be through a national program based on the resistance that keeps the Palestinian rights.

MARGARET WARNER: General Assembly recognition would put Palestine on a par with the Vatican at the U.N., but wouldn't grant full representation. Last year, Abbas failed to win full U.N. membership for a state of Palestine.

The U.S. is opposed to even limited recognition, saying it will endanger prospects for a negotiated settlement with Israel.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland issued that warning again today.

VICTORIA NULAND, State Department: We are concerned that this vote is going to make the work of getting the parties back to the table more difficult.

MARGARET WARNER: But the Palestinians' U.N. representative, Riyad Mansour, voiced the opposite view yesterday.

RIYAD MANSOUR, permanent observer of Palestine to the United Nations: We should get ready for the day after. The day after that we desire is to create a conducive atmosphere to go to negotiation in order to reach an agreement with Israel that will end the occupation that started in 1967.

MARGARET WARNER: A majority of the General Assembly's 193 members are expected to vote yes, not just the Muslim and developing countries, but a good number of European nations, too, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland and, as of yesterday, France.

LAURENT FABIUS, French Foreign Minister (through translator): You know that for, years and years, the constant position of France has been to recognize the Palestinian state. So that is why I am answering you directly. When the question is put before us, France will answer yes out of desire for coherence.

MARGARET WARNER: Germany said again today it will vote no. Britain announced it will abstain, but would vote yes if the Palestinians pledge not to try to join the International Criminal Court, and agree to return to negotiations without conditions. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev dismissed Abbas' effort again today.

MARK REGEV, Israeli government: It's not going to change anything on the ground. The only way to make life better for both Israelis and Palestinians, to solve the issues that separate us, is through peace talks, direct peace talks, and we are ready.

MARGARET WARNER: For President Abbas, the U.N. win could boost his standing, after the recent conflict in Gaza bolstered Hamas among Palestinians and across the Middle East.

"How Will the Palestinian U.N. Move Impact Prospects for Mideast Peace?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 11/28/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: As Palestinians go to the United Nations to ask for more recognition, Margaret Warner talks to Ghaith al-Omari of New America Foundation and David Makovsky of the Washington Institute about why the different Palestinian factions are seeking a status change and how it may affect tensions with Israel and longterm peace prospects.

"U.N. Assembly, in Blow to U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine" by ETHAN BRONNER and CHRISTINE HAUSER, New York Times 11/29/2012

Excerpt

More than 130 countries voted on Thursday to upgrade Palestine to a nonmember observer state of the United Nations, a triumph for Palestinian diplomacy and a sharp rebuke to the United States and Israel.

AMERICA - President Obama's Foreign Policy

"At U.N., President Obama Delivers 'Tough Love Speech,' Condemns Violent Protests" PBS Newshour 9/25/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: In addressing the 2012 United Nations General Assembly, President Obama condemned 'mindless violence' in anti-American protests, said Syrian President Assad's regime must end and affirmed support for new democracies that rose from the Arab Spring. Judy Woodruff talks to Margaret Warner for reaction on the president's remarks.

"In the Face of GOP Criticism, Addressing Obama's Foreign Policy Challenges" PBS Newshour 9/25/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: In Pueblo, Colo., and at the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, Mitt Romney lambasted President Obama's handling of foreign affairs after the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. Gwen Ifill talks to former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns and Council on Foreign Relations' Richard Haass about the president's foreign policy.

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): And we return now to President Obama's United Nations speech and what it tells us about his administration's foreign policy challenges.

For that, we turn to Harvard University professor and former U.S. Ambassador Nicholas Burns and Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

President Obama's Full UN Speech (30:19 min)

KOFI ANNAN - History of Promoting Peace

"Kofi Annan on 40 Years Trying to End War, Promote Peace at the United Nations" PBS Newshour 9/18/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Kofi Annan has worked for more than 40 years at the United Nations trying to bring the international community together to resolve conflict, suffering and violence. Jeff Brown talks to Annan about his work at the U.N., his role promoting peace in Syria and his new book, "Inventions: A Life in War and Peace."

MIDDLE EAST - Israel vs Iran's Nuclear Program

"Israel Unhappy at U.S. Approach to Curbing Iran's Nuclear Program" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 9/11/2012

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): A new row has erupted with a key U.S. ally, Israel, over Iran's uranium enrichment program. There were harsh criticisms of U.S. policy from Israel's leader today and word that President Obama won't have time to meet with him next month.

Margaret Warner has the story.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't bother to conceal his unhappiness with the Obama administration today over its handling of the Iran nuclear issue.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, Israel: If Iran knows that there is no red line, if Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it's doing.

It's continuing without any interference towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and, from there, nuclear bombs. Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.

MARGARET WARNER: The statement seemed to come in response to comments by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the weekend. She told Bloomberg News that the U.S. is not setting deadlines for diplomatic efforts to get Iran to stop enriching uranium.

Today, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sought to play down any tensions between the U.S. and Israel on the Iran issue.

VICTORIA NULAND, State Department: I'm not going to comment today on Prime Minister Netanyahu's statements.

But as we said yesterday, we are in continuous consultation with the government of Israel, with our allies there on what we are seeing in Iran, on the path forward. And we will continue to do so.

But we don't think it's particularly useful to have those conversations in public. It doesn't help the process and it doesn't help the integrity of the diplomacy.

MARGARET WARNER: Late today, multiple reports out of Israel said President Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu during the U.N. General Assembly opening in two weeks.

White House officials confirmed there would be no meeting, but said the president's tight schedule precluded bilateral talks with any world leaders at the U.N.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that the International Atomic Energy Agency has new intelligence that Iraq is taking new steps toward building a nuclear weapon.

The report said the Islamic republic has done computer modeling of the high explosives needed to create a nuclear chain reaction in a warhead.

"Tensions High as U.S. Tells Israel to Defer Attacks on Iran Over Nuclear Program" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 9/11/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: The U.S. has urged Israel to hold off on a preemptive strike on Iran, yet Israel has not been given any alternative plans should Iran develop nuclear weapons. Margaret Warner talks to Ronen Bergman, reporter for Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, about the implications of tension between two longstanding allies, Israel and the U.S.

HEALTH - Eradication of the Guinea Worm

"Goodbye Guinea Worm: Humanity’s Greatest Accomplishment This Week" by Mark Leon Goldberg, UN Dispatch 8/29/2012

Every once in a while it is important to take a step back from the day-to-day drumbeat of news and consider something from a more world historical perspective. Such is the case with word from the World Health Organization that Guinea Worm is slated for global eradication.

Guinea Worm, also known as Dracunculiasis, is a parasitic disease spread when people injest water tainted with a certain kind of flea that contains larvae. The larvae are hatched within the person’s digestive tract, and they grow into worms — sometimes as long as one meter — that live inside the body and protrude through the skin. It is a painful, debilitating and sometimes deadly. There are no-vaccines or medicines that you can take to cure or prevent Guinea Worm Disease. The most people can do is take appropriate precautions when drinking from stagnant water sources.

In 1986, the disease afflicted an estimated 3.5 million people a year in 21 countries in Africa and Asia. Last year, there were just 1,100 cases. So far this year, there are fewer than 400 cases, in but 4 countries: Mali, Ethiopia, Chad and South Sudan (the latter of which accounts for 99% of the cases). Humanity is very, very close to defeating this crippling disease once and for all.

The Carter Center, along with UNICEF and the World Health Organization helped rally the world around this eradication drive. Much of the credit goes to these organizations.

Small Pox was the first disease to face global eradication thanks to the concerted efforts of NGOs and the UN. Guinea worm may be next. After that–it’s polio.

It probably won’t make the front page of the New York Times. But the fact that we are on the cusp of eliminating a disease that has devastated humanity for centuries is a much bigger deal for more people around the world than anything else that’s happening in the world this week.

WARNING some content may be unpleasant

POLITICS - Republican Platform on UN

"An Annotated Explanation of the GOP’s UN Platform" by Mark Leon Goldberg , UN Dispatch 8/28/2012

Ahead of today’s Republican National Convention in Florida, the Republican National Committee has prepared its official party platform. The document was posted to the Politico website, and is expected to be officially released later today.

Most of the platform deals with domestic issues. However, in the foreign policy section (titled “American Exceptionalism”) there’s a five paragraph statement on the UN and international treaties.

Here is an annotated explanation of the GOP’s platform on the UN. Intense parsing to follow!

Sovereign American Leadership at International Organizations

Since the end of World War II, the United States, through the founding of the United Nations and NATO, has participated in a wide range of international organizations which can, but sometimes do not, serve the cause of peace and prosperity. While acting through them our country must always reserve the right to go on its own. There can be no substitute for principled American leadership.

The United Nations remains in dire need of reform, starting with full transparency in the financial operations of its overpaid bureaucrats. As long as the scandal-ridden management continues, as long as some of the world’s worst tyrants hold seats on its Human Rights Council, as long as Israel is treated as a pariah state the U.N. cannot expect the full support of the American people. 1

The United Nations Population Fund has a shameful record of collaboration with China’s program of compulsory abortion. 2 We affirm the Republican Party’s long-held position known as the Mexico City Policy, first announced by President Reagan in 1984 which prohibits granting of federal monies to non-governmental organizations that provide or promote abortion. 3

Under our Constitution, treaties become the law of the land. So it is all the more important that the Congress — the Senate through its ratifying power and the House through its appropriating power — shall reject the agreements whose long-range impact on the American family is ominous or unclear. These include the UN Convention on Women’s Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, and the UN Arms Trade Treaty as well as various declarations from the UN Conference on Environment and Development. 4. Because of our concern for American sovereignty, domestic management of our fisheries, and our countries long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty and congratulate Senate Republicans for blocking its ratification. 5 We strongly reject the UN Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty,6 and we oppose any form of UN Global Tax. 7 We oppose any diplomatic efforts that could result in giving the United Nations unprecedented control over the Internet. International regulatory control over the open and free internet would have a disastrous consequence for the United States and the world.8

To shield members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological persecutions overseas, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. We support statutory protection for US personnel and officers as they act abroad to meet our global security requirements.9

1. The UN Human Rights Council replaced the old, discredited UN Commission on Human Rights in 2005. The Bush administration, however, believed that the criteria for membership was not stringent enough so it remained on the sidelines. The Obama administration sought and won membership to the Council, which was among the earliest and most visible signs that Obama was starting a new era of engagement at the UN.

In the past four years, the Council has a number of important accomplishments: it has approved a human rights special rapporteur for Iran; it has reversed the harmful practice of commingling defamation of religions with freedom of speech; it passed a first-ever resolution on the protection of LGBT persons; and backed a landmark resolution that says people have a right to freedom of expression on the Internet. All the while, the Obama administration has worked behind the scenes to make sure that particularly egregious human rights offenders are kept off the council. This includes building a coalition that blocked Iranian membership and swiftly booted Libya off the council as Gaddhafi’s intentions became clear. There is virtually no chance Sudan will gain membership.

2. This is a particularly egregious mistruth, the consequences of which could imperil the lives of millions of women around the world.

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) supports maternal and reproductive health in the developing world. It emphatically does not support either abortion or China’s one child policy. In 2002, as the Bush administration weighed cutting American contributions to UNFPA, it sent a State Department fact-finding mission to investigate. The report, which was signed by Colin Powell, says explicitly: “We found no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC.” That should have settled it, but the George W. Bush administration nonetheless used the charge as a pretext to block funding. When Obama restored funding to UNFPA, Congress was still not swayed by Colin Powell’s report and enacted legislation that requires the USA to automatically deduct from its payments to UNFPA what UNFPA spends promoting maternal health in China.

Beyond China, the steering document that drives the entire work of UNFPA very clearly states ”In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning.” This should be intuitive to anyone who knows how the UN works: the UNFPA is membership organization and there are several countries in the world in which abortion is illegal. It would be institutional suicide to support abortion services.

Every day, approximately 800 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth. In many countries complications from childbirth and pregnancy is the leading cause of reproductive aged women. Messing with the UN Population Fund, particularly over false accusations that it supports abortion, is dangerous and irresponsible.

3. The Mexico City Policy (sometimes called the Global Gag Rule by opponents) is a political football that gets dismissed with Democratic administrations and implemented with Republican administrations. It stipulates that federal dollars cannot be directed towards NGOs that even mention abortion. It has the practical effect of dissuading charities and NGOs from working in the family planning sector, for fear they may lose precious American support. The thing is, there is a set of superseding laws passed by congress that prevents US dollars from supporting any organization or entity that offers abortions–even in cases of women raped in war. This has not changed under the Obama administration.

4. There’s no such entity called the ”UN Convention on Women’s Rights.” I have to assume that the framers are referring to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, better known as CEDAW. Along with the USA, Iran Somalia and Sudan are also non-members. On the Convention of the Rights of the Child, the USA has but one country as company as a non-member: Somalia. The Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities is a newer treaty, which aims to “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”

Some Republicans believe that these three treaties would somehow influence American family or, in some instances subject things like homeschooling laws or domestic rules about abortion to international scrutiny.

The Arms Trade Treaty is being negotiated at the United Nations and seeks to regulate the legal transfer of arms and armaments to reduce the chances that guns and the like end up in the hands of child soldiers, terrorists, or would be human rights abusers. It has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment or with domestic firearms regulations. It deals exclusively with the international legal arms trade. That’s all, but it has been demagogued to death by groups like the National Rifle Association, who call it a “UN Gun Grab.”

The UN Conference on Environment and Development is the outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. It gave birth to the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to create an internationally binding treaty to climate change. No surprise here that it’s being rejected by the GOP.

5. As you can tell from the text, the GOP platform does not reject the Convention on the Law of the Sea quite as adamantly as the other treaties. That may be because it has many Republican supporters (including George W. Bush). The military establishment is also strongly supportive of the Law of the Sea, as is the US Chamber of Commerce and the mineral extractive industry, which is typically part of the GOP’s constituency. These industries support the Law of the Sea because it provides standardized rules of the road for things like underwater mining rights, and shipping lanes. Businesses (and the military) very much like this clarity. Incidentally, environmental groups also support Law of the Sea for its marine life protections.

6. Agenda 21 is sort of like the boogey man hiding in the closet of Americans frightened by the UN. It is not a treaty or anything of the sort. Rather, it is an anodyne declaration of support for principals of environmental sustainability signed by heads of state (including George H.W Bush) at the 1992 Earth Summit. As the Tea Party movement gained traction, Agenda 21 has been resurrected in very local debates over things like bike lanes and smart meters as a way to scare opponents into believing sustainable development is a foreign idea.

7. I don’t know where this idea of a “UN Global Tax” comes from. It’s something that you read about on right wing outlets on occasion, but it is a total myth. The UN has no ability to impose taxes on countries or individuals.

8. This idea of the UN trying to control your Internet is the newest canard being floated around certain quarters. The kernel of truth here is that there is an entity called the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the ITU will update its charter at a meeting of member states in December this year. A couple of outlier member states have suggested that they want the ITU to have more control over the Internet. The ITU emphatically does not want this, and neither do the most of the important member states. The Obama administration has been very clear that it supports the current “multi-stakeholder model” of Internet governance. The irony here is that the best way to ensure that the ITU does not accept any Internet governance responsibilities is by having the USA remain deeply engaged in the negotiations over the ITU’s new charter. More engagement means more American influence over the direction of the ITU.

9. The American Service Members Protection Act was a piece of legislation championed by the late Senator Jesse Helms which stipulates that American federal agencies cannot cooperate with the International Criminal Court in anyway without the expressed consent of the President. The thing is, when the rubber hit the road, the previous Republican administration happened to find the ICC to be a useful foreign policy tool. In 2005, the Bush administration let a resolution pass at the Security Council giving the ICC jurisdiction to pursue the people who committed the genocide in Darfur. The Obama administration has been similarly supportive of the ICC as foreign policy tool. Most notably, it supported a Security Council resolution to give the ICC jurisdiction to indict the late Libyan dictator Muammar Ghaddafi and his inner circle.

There is a strong American impulse to want justice for victims of genocide or mass atrocity, which crosses party lines. When a crisis arises, setting up new courts to deal with these cases on an ad hoc basis is expensive and ultimately unnecessary because the ICC is a ready-made for the job. Even though his party’s platform specifically rejects it, I suspect a President Romney would still consider the ICC as a potentially useful foreign policy tool.