UN General Assembly Majority Greenlight Russia’s Rape of Ukraine

 

The UN General Assembly completely lost its moral compass when it voted on April 7th for Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council - with only 93 of its 193 member Nations voting to do so. The voting records (see images below) show that within the space of just 14 days:

• 47 Nations - voting on March 24th (the first resolution) to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - failed to vote to boot Russia from the Human Rights Council on 7 April (the second resolution) 

Those 47 Nations had embraced the first resolution’s principled position:

“Recognizing that the military offensive of the Russian Federation inside the sovereign territory of Ukraine and its humanitarian consequences are on a scale that the international community has not seen in Europe in decades, Reiterating the call of the Secretary-General to the Russian Federation to stop its military offensive, as well as his call to establish a ceasefire and to return to the path of dialogue and negotiations, Recalling its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders”

14 days later these 47 Nations were unable to follow through and administer even the mildest of rebukes on Russia for blatantly ignoring this clarion call.

• 5 Nations supporting Russia in opposing the first resolution had increased to 24 after voting on the second resolution.
• 38 fence-sitting Nations abstaining on the first resolution had seen their numbers jump to 58 after voting on the second resolution.
• 10 Nations who refused to vote at all on the first resolution saw their numbers increase to 18 after voting on the second resolution

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his bloated massive bureaucracy attempted to cover up this shameful day of infamy in the UN’s history. The UN Meetings Coverage and Press Releases deceptively reported:

“The Assembly adopted the draft resolution by a recorded vote of 93 in favour to 24 against, with 58 abstentions, signaling [sic] the international community’s strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions towards a neighbouring State.”

“Strong censure of Moscow’s aggressive actions?” : When only 93 of the 193 member states voted to do so? 

UN News published an even more misleading report:

“The resolution received a two-thirds majority of those voting, minus abstentions, in the 193-member Assembly, with 93 nations voting in favour and 24 against.   Fifty-eight abstained from the process.  Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Vietnam, were among those who voted against.  Those abstaining, included India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Cambodia.” 

Who in the UN Secretariat decided to:

• Name and shame just 7 nations that voted against Russia’s removal - but failed to name the other 17?
• Out 17 nations that abstained - but not the other 41 nations that joined them?
• Not name any of the 18 nations that failed to vote or abstain: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Rwanda, San-Tomé-Principe, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Zambia?
• Not point out that 6 of the 15-member UN Human Rights Council -Bolivia, China, Cuba, Malawi, Russia, and Uzbekistan - voted against Russia’s suspension -whilst another 4 - Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan and Senegal- - abstained?

No amount of window dressing by Guterres and his Secretariat can alter the fact that 100 of the 193 members of the UN General Assembly have depressingly voted to greenlight Russia’s continuing invasion and rape of Ukraine. 

The General Assembly is disunited, fractured and irrelevant - having totally capitulated on trying to end the murder, suffering and dispersion of Ukraine’s civilian population. 

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades.

UN hit list can bypass Congress and fund Trump border wall

[Published 19 December 2018]

21 Nations that received almost $14 billion in US foreign aid in 2017 could become the key to unlocking the White House confrontation between President Trump and Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer over their refusal to commit the Democrats to authorizing Congress to commit $5 billion immediately towards the construction of Trump’s border wall to prevent illegal immigration into America.

Trump’s threatened Government shutdown by 21 December seems increasingly likely as he seeks alternative sources of funding.

The following UN hit list of countries receiving US aid in 2017 offers a ready solution:

Bangladesh $261 million
Congo $494 million
Egypt $ 1475 million
Indonesia $277 million
Iraq $ 3712 million
Jordan $ 1489 million
Lebanon $505 million
Mali $230 million
Morocco $490 million
Mozambique $580 million
Niger $173 million
Nigeria $852 million
Pakistan $837 million
Russia $168 million
Senegal $197 million
South Africa $511 million
Turkey $153 million
Vietnam $150 million
Yemen $595 million
Zambia $419 million
Zimbabwe $194 million
TOTAL $13762 Million

These 21 states were major players in humiliating Trump - when an American sponsored resolution in the United Nations General Assembly seeking to condemn Hamas and other militant groups for indiscriminately targeting Israel’s predominantly Jewish civilian population since 2007 failed to secure the required two-third’s majority earlier determined as necessary for its passage.

Trump has warned on many occasions that those who receive money from America — yet do not support America diplomatically — stand to lose financially as a result.

Trump has already well and truly practised what he preached:

1. Defunding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) of $360 million annually

2.Withdrawing from UNESCO leaving it to fund the 22% of its budget lost as a result

3.Calling on NATO countries to meet their agreed share of the NATO budget

4.Cutting more than $200 million in funding the Palestine Liberation Organisation

Trump has already ominously warned those countries that humiliated him on the Hamas Resolution that they could be in the firing line for reductions in their annual foreign aid as a result of not voting with America.

This threat becomes increasingly more likely as the Democrats dig in their heels and refuse to give the President the $5 billion he needs to build the border wall — one of the President’s cardinal promises made in the 2016 election campaign that has been frustrated by the Democrats from the day Trump became President.

Trump should be readily able to determine how $5 billion of this $14 billion funding to these recalcitrant states can be redirected to building the border wall.

Trump can also look at defunding:

1. Another 54 recipients of US aid that supported a two-thirds majority vote being required on the Hamas resolution over America’s claim that a simple majority only was necessary and

2. An additional 36 similarly US-funded countries that voted against condemning Hamas on the actual motion

Jordan and Egypt — in addition to not voting with America — apparently continue to resist Trump’s efforts to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation in negotiations with Israel on Trump’s peace proposals. Their aid could be substantially reduced by a clearly-piqued and very angered Trump.

The ball is now well and truly in the Democrats hands.

If the President does not secure the border wall funding from Congress — then those countries that humiliated Trump could well see their foreign aid in 2019 slashed from their 2017 levels.

Trump is determined to protect America against illegal immigration — and no one will be allowed to stand in his way of making America great again.

Author’s note:The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones” — one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed atDrybonesblog

United Nations, Egypt and Jordan could scuttle Trump's peace plan.

[Published 12 December 2018]

President Trump’s long-awaited peace plan to end the Arab-Jewish conflict — slated for release by the end of January 2019 — could be indefinitely shelved.

This possibility has emerged following the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) failing to pass an American-sponsored resolution A/73/L.42 (“Resolution”) - condemning Hamas and other militant organisations in Gaza for indiscriminate attacks on Israel’s civilian population.

Protecting all civilian populations from the ravages of conflict and war was turned on its head when the Resolution failed to attract a two-thirds majority vote demanded by UN Arab-member states - rather than a simple majority argued for by America which was lost by a narrow margin of three votes.

The Resolution had sought to condemn Hamas — whose Covenant calls for the destruction of Israel - for the first time since Hamas was created in 1987.

The Resolution served as a barometer to measure whether 134 of the 193 UN members comprising the Group of 77 would be prepared to support one pro-Israel humanitarian resolution being passed to break the cycle of over 700 UNGA anti-Israel resolutions their voting bloc had always guaranteed. Only 35 possessed the moral integrity to break ranks and support the Resolution, 32 abstained and 15 did not vote.

Trump was publicly humiliated — and Hamas considerably boosted - when the Resolution only mustered 87 votes “for” to 57 “against” — 9 votes less than the 96 required for its successful carriage.

41 of the 57 dissenting votes were cast by Islamic States of whom only 6 — Azerbaijan, Egypt, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Senegal and Turkey — maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. Solidarity with the Islamic bloc took precedence over humanitarian concerns to protect Israel’s civilian population under daily attack.

The other 16 dissenters were:

Belarus, Bolivia, Botswana, China, Congo, Cuba, Lao, Mauritius, Namibia, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. America would have reasonably expected support for the Resolution from some of the remaining 13.

Egypt and Jordan were the two Arab states Trump would have probably been focusing on to replace the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in negotiations with Israel —after the PLO had made it clear on many occasions that it would not negotiate with Israel on Trump’s proposals under any circumstances.

Egypt and Jordan’s credentials as replacement negotiators were unique — being the last two Arab states to respectively occupy Gaza and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) between 1948 and 1967 — the specific territories that Trump’s plan will address and whose sovereignty still remains disputed between Arabs and Jews.

Egypt and Jordan’s dissenting votes are not what Trump would have anticipated from these two major recipients of America’s generous largesse. Their readiness to risk losing substantial foreign aid and American protection rather than assist Trump in getting his Resolution adopted is bad news for Trump. Without securing their prior agreement to negotiate with Israel — Trump’s plan seems destined to never see the light of day.

Other dissenting Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Oman also showed their preparedness to risk losing ongoing American support rather than white-ant the UN Islamic-voting bloc.

Trump’s United Nations ambassador — Nikki Haley — disclosed:

“The president called and he said, ‘Nikki what happened?’ And I told him, and he goes, ‘Who do we need to get upset at? Who do you want me to yell at? Who do we take their money away?’” “I’m not gonna tell you what I told him,” she added.

Trump’s revenge on those 57 dissenting states will be but a small consolation prize if his “deal of the century” is prematurely trashed in the White House shredder.

Author’s note:The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators— whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

UN-Hamas day of infamy mars Trump-Israel day of celebration

[Published 9 December 2018]

December 6, 2018 marks the day the United Nations General Assembly (“UNGA”) infamously sold its soul to evil by failing to agree on whether a resolution condemning Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza required a two-thirds — or simple — majority vote.

December 6, 2018 also happened to be the first anniversary of President Trump’s announcement of America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the intended relocation of America’s Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

December 6, 2018 was also the fourth day of the eight-day Jewish festival of Hanukkah marking the rededication during the second century B.C. of the Second Temple in Jerusalem following the Jews uprising against their Greek-Syrian oppressors.

America had submitted draft Resolution A/73/L.42 (“L. 42”) to the UNGA on 29 November 2018:

1. Condemning Hamas for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk;

2. Demanding that Hamas and other militant actors, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad, cease all provocative actions and violent activity, including by using airborne incendiary devices;

3. Condemning the use of resources by Hamas in Gaza to construct military infrastructure, including tunnels to infiltrate Israel and equipment to launch rockets into civilian areas, when such resources could be used to address the critical needs of the civilian population;

The UN’s Press Release sums up what occurred when the draft resolution came to a vote on 6 December:

“The representative of Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the situation in the Middle East is directly linked to international peace and security. He condemned Israeli policies that violate international humanitarian law and the Charter of the United Nations and requested a vote to apply the two-thirds majority rule for the adoption of draft “L.42”.

The representative of the United States said a simple majority is required for adoption of the resolution. She called for fairness in the United Nations and said action on the draft was about “doing what is right”. “The General Assembly has never uttered a word in any resolution about Hamas,” she said. The decision to adopt the text by a two-thirds majority is based on a desire to have the resolution fail. She urged all States to vote against the motion."

The Assembly then voted to apply the two-thirds majority requirement for the adoption of L.42 - which was passed by 75 in favour, 72 against, with 26 abstentions.

Those favouring a two-thirds majority vote included 44 out of 56 Islamic States - whilst one (Albania) voted against, 5 abstained and 6 did not vote.

Non-Islamic States supporting the Islamic States-bloc included:

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Japan, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Venezuela, and Vietnam.

All 21 member States of the European Union supported America’s simple majority stance.

Others backing America included:

Australia, Bosnia, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Singapore, Slovakia, Ukraine and Uruguay.

L 42 was then passed by the UNGA by 87 votes for, 57 against and 33 abstentions — but was declared lost because it had not secured the required two-thirds majority.

The Islamic States had won a three-vote procedural victory - setting a precedent that is bound to be attempted again.

Hamas and other militant groups remain free to engage in heinous conduct found worthy of UN condemnation by a majority of UN member States.

The foundational basis of the UN Charter - maintaining international peace and security (Clause 1.1) - has been flagrantly circumvented by the UNGA failing to agree on how to run its own meetings.

The UNGA has become a complete joke and totally irrelevant.

Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Jordan and Israel: Trump's only viable two-state solution

[Published 24 October 2018]

Four major developments in the past week have heightened expectations that President Trump will have no option but to call on Jordan and Israel to negotiate the allocation of sovereignty between their two respective States in the West Bank and Gaza — 5% of the territory comprised in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine (Mandate).

Jordan and Israel are the two successor States to the Mandate currently exercising sovereignty in the other 95% of the Mandate territory — Jordan 78%, Israel 17%.

Jordan-Israel negotiations — if successfully concluded — would complete the two-state solution first contemplated under article 25 of the Mandate. Arab and Jewish claims to the Mandate territory would be finally resolved.

These four developments were:

1.The G77 and China — comprising 135 of the 193 United Nations member states — appointed the non-existing “State of Palestine” as Chairman of the G77 for 2019 and procured the passage of a United Nations General Assembly Resolution giving this phantom “State of Palestine” the right to:

(a) Make statements on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, including among representatives of major groups;
(b) Submit proposals and amendments and introduce them on behalf of the Group of 77 and China;
(c) Co-sponsor proposals and amendments;
(d) Make explanations of vote on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Group of 77 and China;
(e) Reply regarding positions of the Group of 77 and China;
(f) Raise procedural motions, including points of order and requests to put proposals to the vote, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

US Ambassador to the UN — Nikki Haley - re-iterated America’s long-standing position:

“The United States does not recognize a Palestinian state, notes that no such state has been admitted as a UN Member State, and does not believe that the Palestinians are eligible to be admitted as a UN Member State.”

The PLO has chosen the United Nations fantasyland to push its agenda in preference to negotiating with Israel under Trump’s proposed plan — simultaneously rejecting the Montevideo Convention requirements necessary for statehood in international law.

11 other UN member states embraced this nonsensical resolution, whilst the remaining 47 voted: Against (3), Abstained (15), or Did Not Vote (29).

2. US Secretary of State — Mike Pompeo — announced that the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem and U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem would be merged into a single diplomatic mission.

This was Trump’s response to the UN’s embrace of the “State of Palestine”.

3. President Trump sent World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder as his personal envoy to Jordan.

Lauder’s visit reportedly occurred without the knowledge of Israel or Trump’s Special Middle East Negotiators - Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt.

Jordan received $690 million in US aid in 2018 — to be boosted by a 27% increase for each of the next five years. Lauder would have reminded Jordan’s King Abdullah that Trump’s policy could see this aid reduced if Jordan refuses to negotiate with Israel.

4. King Abdullah gave Israel twelve months’ notice of Jordan’s intention to not renew twenty-five year leases of two areas denoted as “Special Regimes” in the Israel-Jordan peace Treaty.

Israel is entitled to request that consultations be entered into — as Israel undoubtedly will — since Israeli private land ownership rights and property interests are affected in one area and Israeli private land use rights in the other.

These Special Regimes would become important bargaining chips in Jordan—Israel negotiations on the West Bank and Gaza over the next 12 months.

Any Trump peace proposal not requiring direct Jordan—Israel negotiations will be dead in the water from the get-go.

Author’s note: The cartoon—commissioned exclusively for this article—is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators— whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Trump promotes Jordan, downgrades PLO and defunds UNRWA

[Published 18 February 2018]


US Secretary of State – Rex Tillerson – was in Jordan this week delivering some very good news for Jordan - but not for the PLO and UNRWA.

Tillerson announced America’s commitment to fund Jordan to the tune of $1.275 billion per annum for the next five years - an increase of $275 million per annum over the previous annual commitment of $1 billion per annum during 2015-2017.

Part of this increased funding seems certain to come from defunding UNRWA – which receives about $355 million per annum from America. $65 million to UNRWA has already been frozen following President Trump’s earlier warning.

Tillerson stated that America’s ongoing contribution to UNRWA is dependent upon what other non-donor States who can afford to contribute to UNRWA are willing to do.

Trump has also expressed his annoyance at countries that take America’s money then show hostile intent in the United Nations when voting on matters inimical to American interests – such as America’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy there.

Jordan had voted with 127 other nations at a rare emergency meeting of the General Assembly on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

Yet Jordan has not been punished financially by Trump for that decision but has seen its funding substantially increased.

Secretary Tillerson justified America’s decision at his joint press conference with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Ayman Safadi - citing:

1. The truly indispensable strategic partnership for decades between the United States and Jordan that’s been critical to the security of both nations, as well as contributing to the region’s security.

2. Jordan receiving [650000] displaced Syrian refugees.

3. Jordan actively participating in the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State

4. Jordan cutting diplomatic ties with North Korea

Tillerson’s North Korea remarks were particularly significant since the “Embassy of Palestine” remains open in North Korea.

Trump has also certainly not forgotten PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’s extraordinary two-hour-long anti-American and Jew-hating diatribe delivered on January 14.

Tillerson also stressed President Trump’s commitment to respecting Jordan’s role as the Custodian of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem. This special role was assigned to Jordan in the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty and seems set to be one of the cardinal planks in President Trump’s eagerly-awaited proposals to resolve the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Foreign Minister Safadi pointedly remarked:

“We’ll continue to work with this current administration [to resolve the conflict] because we believe in the key role of the United States in delivering that peace. We cannot give up. It is a difficult situation. The challenge is not to make it worse and to find a way of moving forward. If we do not have the two-state solution, then I think we’re looking at a longer period of conflict that would only play into the hands of the spoilers and radicals who want to exploit the suffering and despair of people to spread their agenda of hate.”

Jordan’s position starkly contrasts with the PLO which will not accept America’s pivotal role.

Any negotiated two-state solution involving the creation of another Arab State between Israel and Jordan for the first time in recorded history was rejected by the Arabs in 1947 – could have been created at any time by the Arab League between 1948 and 1967 – and was again rejected by the PLO in 2000/1 and 2008.

Jordan – comprising 78% of former Palestine – has now signalled its readiness to move forward with Trump on achieving his “ultimate deal”. Trump’s latest funding commitment to Jordan guarantees Jordan’s co-operation for the next five years.

The PLO’s anti-America stance continues to test Trump’s patience.

UN vote on Trump’s Jerusalem decision reaches new legal low

[Published 31 December 2017]


The United Nations General Assembly resolution on 21 December 2017 asking nations not to establish diplomatic missions in Jerusalem (“Resolution”) was adopted by 128 of the 193 member States acting in breach of three specific articles in the UN Charter.

1. Article 2(7):

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.”

President Trump’s decisions to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were made in accordance with the Jerusalem Embassy Act passed on 24 October 1995 by the Senate 93-5 and the House 374-37.

Trump’s decisions fell squarely within the framework of America’s domestic jurisdiction.

Other countries wanting to follow America by locating their Embassies in Jerusalem are perfectly entitled to do so free of UN condemnation or interference.

2. Article 12(1):

“While the Security Council is exercising in respect of any dispute or situation the functions assigned to it in the present Charter, the General Assembly shall not make any recommendation with regard to that dispute or situation unless the Security Council so requests.”

The Security Council had considered the situation brought about by President Trump’s decisions three days prior to the General Assembly meeting - when a draft UN Security Council resolution rejecting US policy shift on Jerusalem was vetoed by the United States.

The General Assembly was not empowered to make any recommendations whilst the Security Council remained seized of the issue - unless the Security Council requested the General Assembly to so act — which was not the case.

The General Assembly’s Resolution was passed in breach of Article 12 (1).

3. Article 80 (1):

”...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties."

This article preserves the legal right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Jerusalem in accordance with the Mandate for Palestine—unanimously endorsed by all 51 member States of the League of Nations in 1922.

50 of those League of Nations member States are members of the United Nations and voted on the Resolution as follows:

(i) 11 abstained: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Haiti, Latvia, Panama, Paraguay, Poland and Romania,

(ii) 1 did not vote: El Salvador

(iii) 2 Voted against the Resolution: Guatemala and Honduras

(iv) 36 voted for the Resolution: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Venezuela,

The votes of these 36 States delimited the legal rights of the Jewish people that their very own respective countries had been instrumental in creating in 1922.

The other 92 member states who voted for the Resolution also apparently had no qualms in ignoring article 80 (1)

.
Trump was clearly not happy with the UN’s intrusion into America’s domestic affairs - immediately cutting $285 million from America’s proposed 2018 UN Budget with more financial cuts likely to occur.

UN member States reached a new legal low engaging in cavalier conduct involving flagrant breaches of the UN Charter.

The UN slide into irrelevancy continues to gather momentum.

Syria - Putin Puts International Law Before War

[Published 13 September 2013]


Russia’s President - Vladimir Putin - has trumped America’s President - Barack Obama - in urging the American nation to put international law before war to prevent any armed attack on Syria threatened by President Obama as a result of the chemical weapons atrocity perpetrated on 21 August that killed 1429 people.

Putin’s message had already been clearly heard by President Obama when he called on the Congress to postpone a vote approving any such military offensive - choosing instead to now pursue the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria with the backing of a Security Council resolution - which will undoubtedly be finalised on such terms as are acceptable to Russia.

Putin sought to reinforce this end game in spectacular fashion by publishing an op-ed - (or should it have been called a ”victory speech”?) - in the New York Times under the heading - “A Plea for Caution From Russia - What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria”

Putin’s concentration on stressing the importance of the UN Security Council as the sole legal authority to declare war - and conversely to help end war - was particularly revealing.

On the role of the Security Council - Putin declared:

“The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.”

The inability of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council to agree on the terms of a resolution to collect and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria - certainly could signal a lack of “real leverage” - threatening the future of the Security Council.

America’s objective in preventing the future use of chemical weapons in Syria or elsewhere will now be met - perhaps not entirely to America’s complete satisfaction - by accepting the terms of any Security Council resolution proposed by Russia.

However Putin now certainly needs to explain the lack of “real leverage” demonstrated by the failure of those same 5 Permanent Members to agree on the terms of a resolution to end the 30 month civil war in Syria that has already claimed over 100000 lives, created 2 million refugees and displaced 5 million Syrians in their own country.

Russia needs to do its own soul searching as it continues to exercise its veto vote to paralyse all efforts by the majority of the other Permanent Members to obtain a Security Council Resolution to try and end this humanitarian outrage.

Russia cannot continue to be the impediment frustrating any resolutions to try and end this conflict - if Putin wants to be taken seriously.

Putin has pointedly omitted mentioning the United Nations General Assembly - and for very good reason. The voting bloc comprised by the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and third world nations ensures that the most fanciful resolutions can be passed with impunity to demonise and denigrate other member States.

The fact that resolutions of the General Assembly have no legal effect is not understood by most people - who continually quote those General Assembly resolutions to justify their own viewpoints.

The classic example is the large number of General Assembly resolutions declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank as being illegal in international law - when there are contradictory legal opinions asserting they are legal.

Repeated mantra like - these non-binding resolutions take on a life and misleading legal status of their own - when indeed nothing could be further from the truth.

On the need to be bound by the rule of law - Putin stated:

“From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.”

Putin’s words - whilst very noble in their import - suffer from the old adage - “two lawyers - three opinions”

Regrettably the International Court of Justice remains the only tribunal within the UN framework with jurisdiction to deal with disputes between States - but only if those States agree to accept its jurisdiction.

The Court has the power to issue advisory opinions - but they are also non-binding.

Changing the present inadequate legal system is a worthwhile objective for Putin and Obama to pursue.

The Security Council can play an important role in the formation of a new Court system with teeth - possessing the ability to have its judgements respected and enforced.

Whilst the law is imperfect and often reversed on appeal - it still remains unavailable as of right when disputes between States need resolution.

Putin must now translate his words into concrete action if Americans are to believe him.