Macron, Merkel and May should adopt Trump Policy on Jerusalem

[Published 13 May 2018]

The opening of the American Embassy on 14 May in Israel’s capital — Jerusalem — should be replicated by fellow-democracies France, Germany and The United Kingdom (“the Democratic Trio”) without delay.

President Trump’s policy on Jerusalem was set out by him on 6 December 2017 (“the Trump Declaration”):

“STATUS OF JERUSALEM: President Trump recognizes that specific boundaries of sovereignty in Jerusalem is highly sensitive and subject to final status negotiations.

President Trump recognizes that the status of Jerusalem is a highly-sensitive issue, but he does not think the peace process is aided by ignoring the simple truth that Jerusalem is home to Israel’s legislature, supreme court, President, and Prime Minister.

President Trump recognizes that the specific boundaries of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem are subject to final status negotiations between the parties.

President Trump reaffirms United States support for the status quo at the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al Sharif.”

This policy should be perfectly acceptable to the Democratic Trio — yet they have so far baulked at following Trump’s principled stance.

French President Emmanuel Macron has adopted the following position:

“The status of Jerusalem is a question of international security that concerns the entire international community. The status of Jerusalem must be determined by Israelis and Palestinians in the framework of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations,”

Waiting for these stars to align is like hoping to win the lottery.The Trump Declaration provides sufficient guarantees to ensure that should Macron’s wish-list ever eventuate - the United Nations will be sufficiently seized of the situation to ensure the status of Jerusalem is finally determined between Arabs and Jews.

Refusing to move the French Embassy to Israel’s designated capital now - whilst negotiations to determine Jerusalem’s future have been suspended by the Palestine Liberation Organization since April 2014 - is bowing to the dictates and diplomatic blackmail of an illegal and undemocratic entity.

France — a bastion of democracy — is being incredibly naïve in not following in the footsteps of the Trump Declaration.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has issued a public statement assuring Germany will not relocate its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem:

“We have to work for the two-state solution, and according to that, the status of Jerusalem should be clarified.”

The “two-state solution” has been the subject of unsuccessful negotiations for the last 25 years.

East Jerusalem was never suggested or declared as the capital of Jordan or another independent Arab state during the years between 1948 and 1967 when East Jerusalem was:

1. illegally occupied by Jordan

2. all Jews living there were forcibly expelled from their homes

3. centuries-old Synagogues and Jewish cemeteries were desecrated and destroyed

4.Jews were denied access to their remaining holy sites

Merkel needs to reject this dark period in Jerusalem’s history by adopting the reality expressed in the Trump Declaration.

Britain’s prime minister Theresa May has stated:

“We disagree with the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem and recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital before a final status agreement. The British Embassy to Israel is based in Tel Aviv, and we have no plans to move”

Moving the United Kingdom’s Embassy to West Jerusalem on the identical basis enunciated by Trump will not prejudice future negotiations between Jews and Arabs to resolve East Jerusalem’s final status.

France, Germany and the United Kingdom need to get on the Trump bandwagon and move their Embassies to Israel’s declared capital — Jerusalem — following their own worldwide well-established diplomatic practices and precedents.

Disagreements between democracies play into the hands of unelected and unaccountable regimes.Bowing to these regimes’ unjust and unreasonable demands is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.

Trump and Putin must co-operate to defeat Islamic State

[Published 2 March 2017]


President Trump made his intention to destroy Islamic State crystal clear in his stirring address to the Congress on 28 February:

“As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.”

The Department of Defense plan had already been delivered to members of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee - and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis was due to brief the committee on 27 February.

Whether this plan recommends co-operation with Russia still remains under wraps.

Certainly President Obama’s decision in September 2014 to degrade and destroy Islamic State by forming a broad international coalition of 68 States without:

1. Including Russia and
2. first securing a Security Council resolution endorsing such action

has proved both catastrophic and very expensive.

The State Department trumpeted that the breadth and diversity of America’s coalition partners demonstrated the global and unified nature of Obama’s endeavour.

Yet Islamic State today remains undefeated in Syria and Iraq.

Support for — and pledges of allegiance to — Islamic State by over 30 radical Islamic terrorist groups world-wide are creating horrific humanitarian problems — some far removed from the Middle East.

Defeating Islamic State in Iraq and Syria will see these “lawless savages” joining such disparate groups in their drive to establish the restoration of the Caliphate and the implementation of Sharia law world-wide.

Members of the US-led Coalition have not been contributing their fair share towards dealing with Islamic State — leaving the burden to fall squarely on America.

Australian Prime Minister — Malcolm Turnbull — declared last week that Australia was in fact the second largest international contributor to the US led coalition after the United States — shaming NATO countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom and Middle East members Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The remaining 125 UN member States have escaped sharing the cost and responsibility of confronting and defeating Islamic State.

Trump’s reprimand of NATO would indicate he considers the Obama-led coalition has been a very bad deal for America.

Trump can rectify this situation by jointly co-sponsoring with Putin a United Nations Security Council resolution authorising the use of force against Islamic State under Chapter V11 of the UN Charter.

Russia and America have previously expressed their willingness to involve the Security Council.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this clear on 18 November 2015:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all.”

President Obama preached a similar mantra in St Petersburg on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

Mentioning any relationship with Russia is a very sensitive issue in American politics today.

However Trump may well have had Russia in mind when he told Congress:

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Defeating Islamic State is a shared interest of Trump and Putin.

Co-operation in the United Nations Security Council will materially advance that objective.

UN Security Council members trash Quartet Roadmap and Two-State Solution

[Published 18 January 2017]


Twelve of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council have apparently had a major rethink on the terms of Resolution 2334 which they approved 14-0 on 23 December 2016 with only America abstaining.

They were among those who issued the Joint Declaration following the Paris Conference held on 15 January — attended by delegations from 70 countries, the United Nations, the European Commission, the European Union, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Thirteen of the fifteen Security Council member States were in Paris including its five Permanent Members — China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

Absent were New Zealand and Malaysia — two of the four sponsors of Resolution 2334.

The Joint Declaration differs substantially from Resolution 2334 in three fundamental respects:

1. Resolution 2334 envisages a region where:

“two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,”

The Joint Declaration shredded this objective by affirming:

“that a negotiated solution with two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, is the only way to achieve enduring peace.”

The “two democratic states solution” in Resolution 2334 was replaced by a vague and nebulous “two state solution” in the Joint Declaration. Gone were "secure and recognised boundaries".

2. Resolution 2334 aims to achieve:

“without delay a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967”

The Joint Declaration more specifically calls for the resolution of:

“all permanent status issues on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973),”

The Quartet Roadmap - so painstakingly put together in 2003 by President Bush calling for negotiations to create a democratic Palestinian State — and under which negotiations had been conducted since then - was unceremoniously dumped in Paris.

This leaves no agreed negotiating framework under which to conduct any resumed negotiations.

3. Resolution 2234 underscored:

“the importance of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative,”

The Joint Declaration underscored:

“the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 as a comprehensive framework for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, thus contributing to regional peace and security.”

Israel had agreed to negotiate under the Quartet Roadmap but listed 14 reservations — one of which required:

“The removal of references other than 242 and 338 (1397, the Saudi Initiative and the Arab Initiative adopted in Beirut). A settlement based upon the road map will be an autonomous settlement that derives its validity therefrom. The only possible reference should be to Resolutions 242 and 338, and then only as an outline for the conduct of future negotiations on a permanent settlement.”

Replacing the Quartet Roadmap with the Arab Peace Initiative guarantees no hope for the stalled negotiations to be resumed.

The United Kingdom refused to endorse the Joint Declaration.

It is incredible that the other twelve Security Council member States present — especially the five permanent members - could approve the terms of the Joint Declaration that so materially changes what they voted for or abstained on just three weeks earlier.

They obviously engaged in cherry picking bits and pieces of Resolution 2334 that they had rushed through with unseemly haste and now had second thoughts on.

A new agreed negotiating framework for any two-State solution now needs to be constructed to replace the trashed Quartet Roadmap.

The Security Council looks decidedly stupid and increasingly irrelevant.

Syria - End The Diplomatic Doublespeak, Start Getting Serious

[Published 20 February 2016]


The deadline for a ceasefire in Syria by 19 February has passed with no indication that it will be achieved at any time in the foreseeable future.

Hopes for that ceasefire were high after the UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 2254 on 18 December 2015 requesting:

“the Secretary-General to lead the effort, through the office of his Special Envoy and in consultation with relevant parties, to determine the modalities and requirements of a ceasefire as well as continue planning for the support of ceasefire implementation, and urges Member States, in particular members of the ISSG, to support and accelerate all efforts to achieve a ceasefire, including through pressing all relevant parties to agree and adhere to such a ceasefire;”

The ISSG mentioned in the Resolution is the International Syria Support Group – comprising the Arab League, China, Egypt, the EU, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Oman, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the United States.

ISSG has proved totally ineffective in ending the five year conflict in Syria that has seen more than 300000 deaths and seven million Syrians internally displaced or fleeing to neighbouring States and swamping Europe to escape the horrific carnage unleashed in Syria during that time.

Islamic State was spawned in Syria and Iraq in July 2014 and now occupies more land than the area of Great Britain. Together with Al Nusra Front - a Syria-based Sunni extremist group that adheres to the global jihadist ideology of al-Qa’ida - both have been declared terrorist organisations by the UN Security Council.

Meeting in Munich on 12 and 13 February the ISSG members agreed that:

“The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force. The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria.

During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities. The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to: a) delineate the territory held by Daesh [Islamic State], ANF [Al Nusra Front] and other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations Security Council; b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behaviour by any of the parties to ISSG Ministers, or those designated by the Ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them.”

Meaningless gobbledygook.

The ISSG task force failed to meet once during that critical seven day period.

Whilst the UN and the ISSG task force mumbles, fumbles and stumbles – the carnage continues - as the ISSG members remain divided between those supporting Syria’s President Assad retaining power and those seeking his removal.

The ISSG is hopelessly conflicted and needs to adopt a different approach to begin ending the suffering of the Syrian people.

All ISSG members unanimously agree that Islamic State and Al Nusra Front represent a grave threat to world peace and security.

Russia, America, China, France and the United Kingdom – the five permanent members of the Security Council and all ISSG members - need to combine their diplomatic power to procure the passing of an unequivocal and unambiguous Security Council Resolution establishing a UN military force to confront and defeat Islamic State and Al Nusra Front.

Until these enemies are comprehensively defeated – all else is diplomatic doublespeak and a complete waste of time in ending the conflict in Syria.

Security Council Permanent Members Herald Armed Action Against Islamic State

[Published 3 November 2015]


An international conference in Vienna on 30 October — attended by all five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council — America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom - has made an important breakthrough towards defeating the Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria and Iraq.

Together with Egypt, the EU, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Nations — the Permanent Members reached a mutual understanding that

“Da’esh (Islamic State), and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

This is the first time the five Permanent Members have reached such a consensus — acknowledging that prior measures not involving the use of armed force under Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 have failed to defeat the Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups — a prerequisite before there can be any hope of restoring stability and reaching lasting political solutions in Syria and Iraq.

International co-operation to defeat the Islamic State through a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force had previously risked being vetoed by either Russia or America in the face of earlier American objections against co-operating with any armed force which included President Assad’s troops.

Russia’s Foreign Minister — Sergei Lavrov - had declared as recently as 29 September.

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

However speaking at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State — John Kerry - after the historic Vienna meeting - Lavrov made an important concession to America’s stance of non-co-operation with Assad - opening the way for the passage of a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force under article 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

“Russia is committed to fighting terrorism based on the solid basis of international law, whether we’re talking about the military interventions from air or the ground operations. These need to be conducted in agreement with the [Assad] government or with the UN Security Council.”

Lavrov signalled an early end to the current separate American-led coalition and Russian-Iranian interventions in Syria aimed at defeating Islamic State:

“I believe that neither the U.S. nor Russia want to go back to the so-called proxy war, but the fact that this situation makes the cooperation between the militaries ever more important is very apparent to me. We have a common enemy and we need to make sure that this enemy does not come to power in Syria or in any other country.”

Agreement by the five Permanent Security Council Members calling for armed action by air, sea and land forces against Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups has now become a distinct possibility — meeting President Obama’s preferred position as expressed by him on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

The Vienna participants reconvene within the next ten days to continue their crucial discussions.

Hopefully they will agree on pursuing the long-awaited and elusive Security Council Resolution authorising armed action - with the long-suffering Syrian people being its ultimate beneficiaries after five horrific years of war, 250000 deaths and millions being internally displaced and externally dispersed.

Iran Deal Presages UN Military Action Against Islamic State

[Published 24 July 2015]


China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, America and the European Union (E3/EU+3) — the Septet — have shown a rare degree of international cooperation in signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear horizons.

Such unanimity presages the possibility of a United Nations Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizing military action against Islamic State — already declared a threat to international peace and security in Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2199.

The Security Council’s inability to commence military action to free vast tracts of Syria and Iraq and its captive civilian populations from Islamic State rule — has been frustrated by the following conflicting national interests of Septet members and Iran:

1. Russia and Iran backing the Assad regime in Syria

2. America, France, Germany and the United Kingdom forming part of the London 11 supporting rebels attempting to overthrow the Assad regime

3. China and Russia vetoing Security Council resolutions aimed at resolving the Syrian conflict.

4. Shiite Iran — backed by Russia - focusing on preserving its interests in Iraq - the first Arab country to be ruled by a Shia government since Saladin overthrew the Fatimids in Egypt in 1171.

Preserving these competing interests could explain the deliberate and extraordinary decision by the Septet to not demand changes in Iraq’s current aggressive and hostile behaviour — as President Obama’s remarks at a news conference hailing the JPCOA make clear:

“And my hope is that building on this deal, we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. But we’re not counting on it."

So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. It’s not contingent on Iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don’t have a bomb. And the point I’ve repeatedly made and I believe is hard to dispute is that it’ll be a lot easier for us to check Iran’s nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies’ interests if they don’t have the bomb.

And — and so will they change their behavior? Will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like Syria or what’s happening in Iraq, to stop encouraging Houthis in Yemen, we’ll continue to engage with them.

Although keep in mind that unlike the Cuba situation, we’re not normalizing diplomatic relations here. So the contacts will continue to be limited, but will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? Of course. But we’re not betting on it. And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with Israel, work with the Gulf countries, work with our other partners, work with the Europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran around those issues that remain of concern.”

Iran - diplomatically unscathed, emboldened and financially enriched once the current international sanctions omelette has been unscrambled — will not change its behaviour — nor will the Septet members have to abandon their perceived national interests.

Iran’s macabre dance with death will assuredly continue in the Middle East.

Obama could be betting this latest show of Septet-Iranian co-operation will finally procure Security Council approval to destroy their common enemy - Islamic State — which Obama’s American-led coalition of 62 States has spectacularly failed to accomplish.

Hopefully Obama’s giant gamble pays this huge dividend.

Russia Demands American Capitulation To Help Eradicate Islamic State

[Published 4 June 2015]


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called on America to end its attempt to remove Syria’s President Assad from power in return for Russia’s co-operation to militarily confront Islamic State.

Lavrov reportedly told Bloomberg on 2 June 2015 :

“The U.S.’s “obsession” with [Syria’s President] Assad isn’t helping in the common fight against the threat from Islamic State…

People put the fate of one person whom they hate above the fight against terrorism. Islamic State can go “very far” unless stopped, and air strikes alone “are not going to do the trick

If people continue to acquiesce with what is going on and continue to acquiesce with those who categorically refuse to start the political process until Bashar Assad disappears, then I’m not very optimistic for the future of this region…”

America is part of the Friends of Syria core group known as the London Eleven that has been assisting rebel forces in Syria attempting to overthrow Assad.

Assad – backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah – has rebuffed such attempts during four years of horrendous conflict that has so far seen over 220000 Syrians die, four million citizens made refugees and another 7.6 million internally displaced.

A report published by the UN in March 2015 estimated the total economic loss since the start of the conflict was $202bn and that four in every five Syrians were now living in poverty - 30% of them in abject poverty. Syria’s education, health and social welfare systems are also in a state of collapse.

America apparently intends to ignore Lavrov’s sage advice and continue to pursue its Syrian policy to oust Assad.

Marie Harf - a U.S. State Department spokeswoman told reporters in Washington that:

"we’re certainly not going to coordinate with a brutal dictator who’s massacred so many of his own citizens.”

“That’s just an absurd proposition. That’s certainly not going to happen.”

Lavrov’s comments come at a time when Islamic State - already controlling a large part of Syria and Iraq covering an area greater than the United Kingdom - continues to make further advances – recently seizing the city of Ramadi 110 kilometers west of the Iraqi capital – Baghdad - and capturing the strategic northern Syrian city of Palmyra – a World Heritage listed site containing the monumental ruins of one of the most important cultural centres of the ancient world.

Islamic State reportedly controls up to 80 per cent of oil fields in Syria and has destroyed and also sold looted antiquities in Hatra, Nimrod and Mosul to acquire a major source of its funding - sometimes for seven figure sums.

The American led coalition of some 62 States – meeting in Paris this week - has proved totally unable to stem the advance of Islamic State in its stated objective of restoring the Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law wherever it seizes territory.

Graeme Wood – a contributing editor at The Atlantic – sums up Islamic State’s vulnerability:

"If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.”

Only a UN sanctioned military force can hope to achieve this objective.

Obama and Putin need to urgently do a deal that sees:

1. A UN led process on the political future of Syria being undertaken without first removing Assad

2. UN Security Council Chapter VII Resolution passed under Article 42 of the UN Charter authorising military action against Islamic State.

Senseless head-butting needs to give way to sensible brain-storming.

Europe Rapidly Becoming Fertile Recruiting Field For Islamic State

[Published 14 May 2015]


Islamic State now has the potential to break out of Syria and Iraq and into the heart of Europe without a shot being fired in anger by the Europeans to repel Islamic State’s stated aims of re-establishing the Caliphate and with it the supremacy of Islam world-wide.

This previously dismissed possibility has become an emerging reality with the record flow of hundreds of thousands of Moslems into Europe by boat in 2014 - seeking asylum as their homes and lives in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan,Yemen and Lebanon have been reduced to rubble by ongoing and continuing conflict over the past four years.

Ironically - and alarmingly - the possibility of some of these asylum seekers already being Islamic State believers - whilst others become potential recruits in pursuing these Islamic State goals - comes at the same time as Europe is actively seeking to restrain its own already radicalised Moslem citizens from leaving its shores to join Islamic State forces in its ongoing campaign of territorial conquest throughout much of the Arab world.

What was thought to be fantasy just twelve months ago has been turned on its head with the recent publication of the following statistics by Eurostat - the statistical office of the European Union situated in Luxembourg - whose task is to provide the European Union with statistics at European level that enable comparisons between countries and regions within the European Union (EU):

1. Asylum seekers from Syria seeking refuge in the 28 EU countries rose from 49980 in 2013 to 122115 in 2014 - which equated to 20 % of the total of asylum seekers from all non-member EU countries.

2. In the same period asylum seekers from Iraq jumped from 10740 to 21310 whilst Afghani asylum seekers rose sharply from 26125 to 41370.

3. Of the 68400 Syrians actually granted protection status in the EU - more than 60% were recorded in two Member States: Germany (25700) and Sweden (16800).

Many of these desperate asylum seekers become possible candidates for being persuaded that their lives have been turned upside down by Europe’s failed policies in Syria and Iraq and that their hopes for real salvation rest in actively supporting the objectives of Islamic State.

Europe’s failure to prevent more than 200000 deaths that have occurred in Syria and Iraq alone in the past four years with the destruction of many towns and villages into heaps of rubble and the consequent displacement of millions of Syrians and Iraqis - both internally and externally - is an easily told story that will gain much sympathy with many of these asylum seekers - even as they are being welcomed and absorbed into their European host countries.

France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom are part of a group called the London 11 - whose other members are Egypt, Jordan,Qatar,Saudi Arabia, Turkey,United Arab Emirates and America.

The London 11 has since 2012 expressed its support for the Syrian opposition in its attempt to rid Syria of President Assad. Supplying arms and financial support has clearly proved insufficient to halt the carnage.

On 10 November 2014 Senior Officials of the London 11 met with Syrian National Coalition Leader Hadi al- Bahra.

The best the London 11 could do was:

“demonstrate collective and united support for the moderate opposition led by the National Coalition, as they fight a two-front war resisting the brutality of the Assad regime and fighting extremists including Daesh (Islamic State)”

Many European countries form part of the American led coalition which has also failed to effectively halt the progress of Islamic State.

Europe remains a sitting duck whilst it passively sits on the sidelines uttering pious platitudes.

Netanyahu Puts Behaviour Change By Iran On Negotiating Agenda

[Published 9 March 2015]


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – addressing the American Congress - has made behaviour change by Iran an essential pre-requisite to the successful conclusion of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – France, Germany, United Kingdom, China, Russia and the United States.

Those negotiations - designed to curb Iran procuring a nuclear bomb - have a deadline expiring on March 24.

The threat Iran’s behaviour poses to peace and security in the Middle East and the world’s oil supply was starkly laid out by Netanyahu:

"Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back[ed] by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back[ed] by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world’s oil supply."

Iran’s past attacks on Americans did not escape Netanyahu’s notice:

"Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan".

Netanyahu spelled out Iran’s ever-increasing quest for domination and influence outside its own national borders:

"In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow"

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

Netanyahu warned against the P5+1 agreeing to any 10 year moratorium on Iran gaining a nuclear bomb - without imposing strict conditions requiring an end to such behaviour by Iran:

"Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of an eye in the life of our children.
We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs."

Netanyahu’s solution to preventing this catastrophe occurring requires Iran meeting three conditions in any concluded negotiations – each enthusiastically endorsed by a standing ovation from the Congress as Netanyahu declared:

"First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. 


Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.


And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state."

Behaviour change by Iran has thus been firmly put on the negotiating agenda – and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress – with Netanyahu warning:

"If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted.

If Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.



If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country"

Significantly Netanyahu stressed that these three conditions would represent:

"A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally".

The P5+1 must ensure that Iran abandons its belligerent behaviour – or terminate the negotiations.

Islamic State - Pope Calls For International Consensus

[Published 28 November 2014]


Pope Francis has made public his thoughts on the action necessary to counter Islamic State.

Speaking to Vatican Radio after his return from a visit to the EU parliament in Strasburg, he said:

“I never say all is lost, never. Maybe there cannot be a dialogue but you can never shut a door. It is difficult, one could say almost impossible, but the door is always open.”

Responding to a question about whether or not it would be possible to communicate with rather than fight the militants, the Pope said:

“I repeat what I have said: when you want to stop an unjust oppressor, you must do so with international consensus.”

Since dialogue is realistically impossible — only an international consensus expressed in a Security Council resolution under Chapter V11 of the United Nations Charter can achieve the Pope’s clearly enunciated position.

So far two Security Council Resolutions have been passed — Resolution 2170 adopted on 15 August and Resolution 2178 adopted on 24 September

These two Resolutions were passed under the provisions of Article 41 of the UN Charter:

"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."

Neither Resolution has acted as a brake to stop Islamic State in its tracks — let alone bring about its downfall.

An American led coalition has undertaken military intervention in Syria and Iraq to degrade and destroy Islamic State but its objectives have not succeeded by any stretch of the imagination.

The State Department has announced that over 60 coalition partners have committed themselves to the goals of eliminating the threat posed by Islamic State and had already contributed in various capacities to the effort to combat Islamic State in Iraq, the region and beyond.

The State Department outlined five areas of possible involvement by coalition members as formulated by Secretary of State John Kerry and recently resigned Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel:

1. Providing military support ;
2. Impeding the flow of foreign fighters;
3. Stopping Islamic State financing and funding;
4. Addressing humanitarian crises in the region; and
5. Exposing Islamic State’s true nature.

Not all coalition partners have participated in the countless aerial bombing attacks on Islamic State forces.

As at 6 November Australian fighter jets had flown 144 missions against Islamic State and dropped twenty-five 500-pound laser and GPS-guided bombs on 14 ISIL targets, with 11 destroyed and three damaged.

Belgium, France, Netherlands, Canada and the United Kingdom have also been involved in aerial strikes against Islamic State fighters.

However the two notable omissions from this international coalition ranged against Islamic State are China and Russia — both members of the Security Council holding the power to veto any stronger action by the Security Council up to now.

Such action is becoming increasingly urgent as an unknown number of foreign fighters flock to join Islamic State and a pledge of allegiance has been made by Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis— a Jihadi based organisation based in the Sinai Peninsula.

Islamic State head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared on November 10:

“We announce to you the expansion of the Islamic State to new countries, to the countries of the Haramayn [Saudi Arabia], Yemen, Egypt, Libya and Algeria,”

Baghdadi claimed them as new provinces under Islamic State.

This may indeed be all propaganda — but the Pope has clearly shown his concern.

The only real basis for international consensus rests on the Security Council passing a resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter:

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

A Papal plea made directly to China and Russia to join in drafting a resolution under Section 42 could just prove to be the catalyst to persuade these two recalcitrant nations into authorizing military action under the United Nations Charter against Islamic State.

Having supported Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 — China and Russia now need to go that extra mile to defeat what they have already declared to be a grave threat to international peace and security.

Russia’s President Putin has a chance to come in out of the cold caused by his growing international isolation over Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. China would enhance its international reputation enormously by acceding to the Pope’s request.

A Papal miracle is within reach.

Syria - Putin To Dictate Terms Of UN Security Council Resolution

[Published 11 September 2013]


Russia’s President Putin will dictate the terms of any UN Security Council Resolution calling for the collection and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria - no matter what bluster or spin emanates from America, the United Kingdom and France.

The world has no real option but to accept and trust that Russia’s terms for collecting and destroying those chemical weapons will succeed.

This crisis - arising from the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 - has already lead to the death of 1429 civilians including 426 children.

The threat of further use of chemical weapons in the 30 month old conflict - that has so far seen more than 100000 deaths, 2 million refugees and another 5 million Syrians becoming displaced citizens in their own country - must not be allowed by the international community to possibly be repeated again.

That is why a Security Council resolution agreed to by all 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council needs to be passed without filibustering or delay.

Middle East Live reports:

“Russia is working on an “effective, concrete” plan for putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and is discussing the details with Damascus, according to the latest announcement from its foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

Lavrov told reporters the plan would be presented to other nations soon and that the proposal, which he announced on Monday, was not entirely Russian but grew out of contacts with the United States, Reuters reports.”

Reuters has quoted Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei as welcoming the Russian proposal - making it even clearer that the terms of the final Security Council resolution will be those acceptable to Russia.

Bridget Kendall - diplomatic correspondent for BBC news rightly observes:

“But any draft resolution could easily get bogged down in arguments over the terms and the language used. Already the French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has warned that any UN Security Council Resolution would need to be backed up by tough conditions, with a short timeframe and a warning of severe consequences if it was not implemented. Would Russia agree to that? Not on recent form.”

With the greatest respect to Fabius - he has discharged a lot of hot air on this crisis so far. He is in no position to dictate the terms of any resolution - nor indeed are Obama and Cameron.

Threatening a military attack if their terms are not accepted will be met with incredulity and world wide opposition.

So what will Russia’s draft resolution presented to the Security Council look like?

Some hint was given by Russia’s Ambassador to Jordan - Alexander Kaluginon on the BBC Today programme - as reported by James Meikle

“Calling for the “international community” to send in professionals to “secure and verify” , Kalugin admitted such an operation would be difficult but “It is much better to do a difficult job than go ahead with a military option.”"

The task certainly will not be easy and will involve considerable risks to those having to firstly secure - then arrange for the collection and removal of the chemical weapons to a destination for safe storage prior to destruction.

Writing in May in the Global and Mail, Cheryl Rofer from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and analyst Aaron Stein, explained the practical steps involved:

“Syria is believed to have production facilities near Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs, as well as suspected storage sites in Latakia and Palmyra. The military would have to, in the fog of war, move in quickly to secure suspected facilities and find others…

Once the facilities are found and secured, they must be made safe. Initially, a specialized team would have to check for signs of sabotage, booby traps, deliberately released agents, or other potentially hazardous situations, including war damage. After getting the all-clear, an inspection team would begin the task of accounting for Mr. al-Assad’s chemical stockpile. Internal records and inventory lists would be an essential part of this, but a physical inventory would also be necessary.

Current amounts of precursors and agents in storage drums and munitions would be compared with the facility’s inventory lists. If a commander, for example, has failed to keep adequate records, an inspector tasked with producing an inventory of a Syrian chemical weapon facility could never state with 100 per cent confidence that none of the weapons had been stolen or used. The inventory would also serve as basis for planning the destruction of the materials.

After the stockpile has been inventoried, the weapons and stocks of agents and precursors would have to be destroyed. The inherent handling difficulties of these materials argue against shipping them to another country for destruction…

...The most difficult part of destroying the weapons is separating the explosives from the highly toxic agents.”

The operation could take years.

The draft resolution could call for an internationally supervised cease fire to be applied for a limited period of time - which would certainly bring some respite to the hell endured by Syria’s civilian population during this long conflict.

Russia’s Foreign Minister has reportedly said that after Russia and Syria work out the details of their chemical weapons offer they will then be ready to finalize the plan together with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

Russia’s draft resolution will certainly be awaited with interest.

Time is certainly of the essence whilst those chemical weapons are not under UN control.

Syria - Obama Left Red-Faced Over Red Line

[Published 1 September 2013]


President Obama has tripped over his own red line - leaving the prestige and authority of his Office and America’s reputation in tatters.

The President’s statement last year on the possible use of chemical weapons - supposedly then awash in Syria whilst a civil war had been raging for eighteen months between the Assad regime and a rebel group comprising Syrian civilians, deserting Syrian soldiers and foreign insurgents - was spot on:

“A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

No mention was made by President Obama of the need to identify who was utilizing such weapons.

“Utilized” was the operative word - not “utilizer”

That red line appears to have been definitely crossed on 21 August 2013 with a claimed chemical warfare attack using sarin causing more than 1429 confirmed deaths - including 426 children.

USA Today reported on 23 August:

“Syria’s chemical weapons program stretches back decades, allowing the country to amass a supply of nerve and blister agents capable of being mounted on long-range missiles that could reach neighboring countries, according to government and independent analysts.

Its program stretches back to the 1970s or ‘80s — experts disagree on the precise time — as a means of developing a deterrent against Israel’s presumed nuclear capabilities, according to analysts and a Congressional Research Service report.

... Syria has stocks of sarin and VX, which attacks the nervous system, and mustard gas, which burns the skin, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

... Syria has generally denied having any chemical weapons, but a spokesman for the Syrian Foreign Ministry, Jihad Maqdisi, said last year that Syria would never use chemical weapons and they were secured.

... Syria is one of a handful of nations that the United States says is pursuing an active chemical weapons program, along with Iran and North Korea.

... Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was ratified by the United States in 1997. It is an international agreement banning the production of chemical weapons and calling for the destruction of stockpiles.”

Syria’s stockpile of any such suspected chemicals cache could have been accessed by the rebel forces during the long running conflict or additional supplies procured by them from other sources.

But did it matter who used chemicals on 21 August? Wasn’t there real urgency now to ensure they could never be used again in this conflict?

Wasn’t the Obama red line crossed because such weapons had in fact been used in Syria on Syrian civilians - no matter which side had launched such attack?

Instead of focusing on the actual use of such chemical weapons - Obama and his Western allies chose to waste valuable time by accusing the Assad regime as the user of those chemical weapons.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced that a resolution would be tabled with the UN Security Council.

Cameron said the resolution would condemn “the chemical weapons attack by Assad” and authorize “necessary measures to protect civilian lives.” He also stressed that any intervention in Syria would have to be “legal, proportionate” and aimed at minimizing further loss of life.

Russia and China indicated they would veto such resolution.

The UN has since been sidelined as the UK and USA have threatened action without any UN Security Council Resolution as legal backing to justify any action they and their Allies might undertake.

Such action has so far proved illusory as both Cameron and Obama hesitated to initiate any action without the consent of their Legislatures. Indeed the British Parliament has already voted against intervening and any Congress decision will be at least seven days away.

Any vote by Congress for unilateral action would be fraught with difficulty and possibly invite retaliation on a massive scale.

Surely consideration should now be given to urgently securing Security Council approval to a resolution that:

1. Deplores the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian civilian population on 21 August 2013
2. Calls on Syria and the rebel forces to surrender control and custody over any chemical weapons in their possession within 72 hours to the United Nations
3. Reserves the right to take such further action as it considers fit in the event of non- compliance with the Security Council resolution.

There is evidence Russia and China would not veto such a Resolution

On 18 June 2013 - The Group of 8 (G8) — consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Russia — issued a statement in which they:

“condemn in the strongest terms any use of chemical weapons and all human rights violations in Syria.”

The document pointedly refrained from the need to assign blame for their use.

Australia - now occupying the Presidency of the Security Council - could be a driving force in resurrecting this G8 resolution as the basis for the necessary first step in disarming both sides of chemical weapons.

Precious time is being lost as the conflicting parties in Syria continue their war with increasing death and suffering to its hapless civilian population - with the threat of further chemical warfare now being a distinct possibility instead of a theoretical probability.

The UN Security Council must find common ground on this issue between its 5 permanent members - or be condemned for being totally unable to deal with this humanitarian outrage.

Like its predecessor - the League of Nations - the UN could be writing its own death certificate if it fails to rise to this challenge.

Palestine - Democracies In Diplomatic Disarray

[Published 13 December 2012]


It has only taken 10 days for 22 of the top 25 leading democratic nations listed in the Democracy Index 2011 to fall into abject diplomatic disarray.

Their acute discomfort follows the rush by 17 of them to vote to admit Palestine as a non-observer state at the UN General Assembly on November 29 - whilst the other 5 abstained.

Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Switzerland, Finland, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Ireland, Austria, Germany, Malta, United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, Mauritius and Spain - should have all joined the remaining three - Canada, United States and the Czech Republic - who cast a ” NO” vote.

Instead they swallowed the following assuring statement by PLO Chairman and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas prior to the vote:

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a State established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.”

It mattered not to their democratic sensitivities that President Abbas was a lapsed President whose term of office had expired in January 2009 - a situation that would never be tolerated in their countries.

It mattered even less that Abbas was purporting to speak on behalf of a territorial entity he did not control - even as a tyrannical despot.

It was of no consequence that Abbas claimed to represent a population that was hopelessly split in its allegiances between the PLO and its arch rival Hamas.

It was irrelevant that no elections had been held for the last six years to give the people any say on which one of these protagonists - or anyone else who might want to throw his hat into the ring - should represent them.

Foolishly they gave Abbas their vote supporting:

“the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”

Their votes were cast in the full knowledge that they were adding their voices to those who saw nothing dishonourable in jettisoning the Oslo Accords and the Bush Roadmap to the political scrap heap by endorsing the PLO’s unilateral approach to the United Nations in breach of those internationally negotiated agreements.

These democracies were happy to undermine any need for further negotiations to determine the future sovereignty of the territory in dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - effectively limiting any negotiations to when and on what terms 600000 Jews would leave their homes in which they had lived for the last 40 years.

Indignation and shock horror greeted the news that Israel should have the temerity - just three days after their vote - to announce its intention to revive its stalled plans to build 3000 housing units in part of the disputed territory bearing the amorphous title E1 - which these democracies had just determined should be vested in the Palestinian Authority.

This was the catalyst for all diplomatic hell to burst forth.

These democracies did what all good democracies do to show their displeasure at those who treat their decisions with contempt.

Britain, Spain, Sweden and Denmark called in Israel’s Ambassadors and gave them a diplomatic dressing down.

The British Foreign Office issued a statement that the E1 project was a serious violation that threatened the two-state solution.

Speaking from Papua New Guinea, Australia’s Foreign Minister Senator Carr said the Australian Government had made clear its call to all sides not to exploit or overreact to the vote and called in Israel’s Ambassador to deliver the message.

Senator Carr had reportedly railroaded the wishes of Australia’s Prime Minister who had wanted to cast a “No” vote - forcing its replacement with an abstention after threatening the Cabinet might demand a “Yes” vote if his recommendation was not accepted.

“I am extremely disappointed with these reported Israeli decisions.

Australia has long opposed all settlement activity. Such activity threatens the viability of a two-state solution without which there will never be security in Israel. Israel’s reported decision to unfreeze planning of the area known as E1 is especially counter-productive. Australia has also conveyed these concerns to the Israeli authorities in Jerusalem. The Australian Government urges both sides to return urgently to the negotiation table in good faith,”

Good faith? Surely the prospect of any such negotiations had already gone out the window when most of the world’s 104 democracies had voted as they did.

Three days later these democracies received their come uppance when Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal made a triumphant first visit to Gaza.

Addressing a crowd estimated at hundreds of thousands who braved the rain to hear him - Meshaal declared:

“We will never recognize Israel’s occupation of legitimate Palestinian lands, and we will not recognize Israel… Palestine is our land from the Mediterranean Sea to the River Jordan, and we will never give away an inch of it… As long as Palestine is ours and Palestine is the land of Arabism and Islam, we can never recognise the legitimacy of Israel’s occupation of it ..There is no legitimacy for occupation. Hence, there is no legitimacy for Israel, however long time lasts.”

The centrepiece of the rally was a huge replica of a type of rocket terrorists from Gaza fired indiscriminately into Israel’s civilian population reaching as far as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv just a few weeks before the General Assembly vote.

The crowd responded enthusiastically:

“We swear by the name of almighty God and his great Prophet to renew our pledge of allegiance and loyalty to Hamas.”

Have any Palestinian diplomats been called into any foreign capitals and given a dressing down? There are plenty of them working in democratic states representing this Mickey Mouse United Nations “state”.

Has there been any revulsion expressed at the statements made during this rally or any indication that the the flow of billions of dollars into Gaza to assist its baying-for -blood population will cease?

Has Mahmoud Abbas been asked to express his disgust at the rejection by Meshall of the two-state solution laid out by Abbas at the General Assembly just 8 days earlier?

These 22 democracies and the other democracies who joined them in voting as they did have done untold harm to resolving the Jewish-Arab conflict. Their subsequent inability to take concerted action following Meshaal’s visit to Gaza is appalling.

And that is just 10 days into the life of this infamous Resolution.

Foreign Minister Carr and the other 21 Foreign Ministers - where are you hiding, when will you wake up and wipe the egg off your collective faces?

Australia Can Rescue UNESCO From Palestine Decision

[Published 30 March 2012]


Australia’s new Foreign Minister - Bob Carr - needs to urgently review the decision adopted by the Australian National Commission for UNESCO (ANCUNESCO) - that the admission of Palestine as UNESCO’s 195th member State was consistent with UNESCO‘s Constitution and its Rules of Procedure.

Only 107 of UNESCO’s 194 member states voted in favour of the resolution to admit Palestine on 31 October 2011. Australia was one of 14 countries that voted against - whilst 52 abstained and another 21 were absent from the vote including some who were ineligible to vote due to unpaid membership fees.

The consequences of that vote have been catastrophic for UNESCO - and for scores of millions of people around the world dependent on UNESCO’s planned programs during 2012-2013.

22% of UNESCO’s budget has been lost as a result of America immediately suspending payment of membership dues totalling $260 million to the end of 2013 - because of a 20 years old American domestic law mandating such action.

Staff retrenchments are growing and global programs over the next two years - such as literacy, gender equality, water purification, AIDS and HIV prevention - will have to be abandoned or curtailed - unless America resumes its payments or alternative sources of funding are found,

An Emergency Donor Fund set up by UNESCO has not been very successful - with only about $42 million being raised or pledged in the last four months - much of it to be used to alleviate suffering among the populations in the donor or adjacent countries - rather than universally.

In its latest move to get the American funding back - UNESCO will soon be opening an office in Washington to lobby Congress to amend the law so as to enable the American tap to be turned on again.

Such lobbying is extremely unlikely to succeed - since the chances of Congress backing away from the law mandating the suspension of funds to any United Nations Agency that accepts the PLO as a full member - outside of negotiations with Israel - is doomed to failure.

Those 107 states who voted to admit Palestine were warned by UNESCO Director-General Irina Bukova of the risk of losing the American funding before they cast their votes. Defiantly ignoring her unambiguous message was both irresponsible and reckless and has caused UNESCO to create its own self induced financial and humanitarian crisis.

Australia’s Head of Mission - Ms Gita Kamath - gave the assembled delegates the following reasons for Australia‘s negative vote:

“Our decision to vote against reflects Australia’s strong concern that consideration of Palestinian membership in UNESCO is premature. The matter of Palestinian membership of the UN has recently been placed before the UN Security Council for its consideration. We should allow the United Nations Security Council process to run its course rather than seek first to address this question in different UN fora.

Our decision also reflects our concerns with the possible implications of a successful vote on UNESCO funding.”

The decision to admit Palestine is open to possible legal challenge for two reasons:

1. Only states can be admitted to UNESCO and Palestine is not a state,

2. The number of votes required to admit Palestine is 129 - not the 107 received

After initially receiving an irrelevant response from UNESCO and no answer to a detailed submission made by me on the voting requirements of the Constitution - I then wrote to Ms Kamath on 15 January - urging her to press UNESCO to review the adequacy of the vote to admit Palestine to UNESCO - and to approach other member States to do likewise.

Ms Kamath’s initial response was identical to UNESCO’s first response to me..

Undeterred - I then sent Ms Kamath the detailed submission I had given UNESCO. Like UNESCO - neither she nor ANCUNESCO has been prepared to discuss the merits of that submission.

Australia’s former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister - Kevin Rudd - had been actively seeking support for Australia to gain a seat on the UN Security Council. Perhaps he believed that taking a lead role to get UNESCO out of its current woes by promoting Court action that could see Palestine being possibly removed from UNESCO - could have seriously dealt a fatal blow to Australia’s chances of securing that Security Council seat.

There seems to be no other explanation for ANCUNESCO refusing to even consider my submission.

Hopefully Bob Carr will place the looming global humanitarian crisis above the quest for a seat on the UN Security Council. He should take a lead role in getting UNESCO to approach the International Court - as the quickest and best means of restoring the lost American funding.

Australia is perfectly positioned to lobby UNESCO member states to grab this legal lifebelt.

Australia’s support for the creation of a Palestinian State has been long standing - as Ms Kamath pointed out at the time of the Palestine vote:

“Australia strongly supports the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state and believes a negotiated peace process between the parties is the way to achieve this….

Australia has been a consistent supporter of the peace process. We have provided extensive support and committed to over $300 million in humanitarian and development assistance in the next five years building up the institutions of a future Palestinian state.”

Had the delegates from the 107 pro-Palestine voting states followed Australia’s lead - UNESCO would not be in the sorry position it is today.

If Australia continues to sit pat on its heels - it will be just as responsible for UNESCO’s ongoing problems as those whose votes have put UNESCO in this bind,

Those 87 countries that declined to vote for Palestine’s admission - for whatever reason - should be readily amenable to an approach by Australia to join in urging UNESCO to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court on the legality of its decision to admit Palestine.

Whilst these countries can rightly claim to not be blamed for the black hole UNESCO has fallen into because of the intemperate action of 107 of their fellow member states - they cannot also afford to sit back and do nothing to rectify a decision which could be in breach of UNESCO’s Constitution - especially given the global humanitarian problems it has created.

Bob Carr - the former Premier of New South Wales - was parachuted into the role of Australia’s Foreign Minister from political retirement in the space of a few days.

He seems the perfect choice to lobby member States to get UNESCO to beat a path to the International Court.

If Australia is too timid to act - other naysayer countries like Canada, America, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway or Germany should take up the lead role to save UNESCO from itself.

Someone needs to act quickly as the global humanitarian crisis adds more victims every day.

Palestine - Time For Hard Questions And Even Harder Answers

[Published 19 January 2011]

“The answers are getting harder and harder And there ain’t no way to bargain or to barter” ~Blues Traveler


The international failure to accept the final breakdown of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was yet again highlighted in the communique issued in Sydney on 18 January 2011 at the conclusion of the Australia-United Kingdom Ministerial Consultations between Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd and Minister for Defence Stephen Smith, and the United Kingdom’s First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs William Hague and Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox.

It seems as though both countries were living in a dream world of their own as they solemnly pronounced:
“Australia and the UK highlighted their strong support for a just and enduring peace in the Middle East based on a negotiated two-state solution where Israel and a future Palestinian state live side by side in peace and security. Both countries highlighted the urgent need for Israel and the Palestinians to return, as a matter of urgency, to direct talks on final status issues, and to refrain from actions which undermined confidence, such as settlement construction. Both countries reaffirmed their practical support for Palestinian institution-building in preparation for statehood.”
Surely the Ministers were engaging in wishful thinking with no possible hope of their wish-list ever coming to fruition.

With:

(i) direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority effectively ended,
ii) an impotent Quartet comprising America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations unable to bring the parties together and
(iii)a raft of countries recognizing or threatening to recognize a non- existent , undefined and undeclared 22nd Arab State between Israel, Jordan and Egypt in flagrant violation of international law

- it surely is time to question whether there is any reasonable prospect of ever achieving a negotiated two-state solution between Jews and Arabs pursuant to the Oslo Accords formulated in 1993 and the Roadmap proposed by President Bush in 2002.

There are those countries such as Australia and Great Britain that apparently believe such a resolution is still possible.

Yet 17 years of negotiations have only seen

(i) the division of the West Bank into three administrative districts and
(ii) the unilateral decision taken by Israel to evacuate Gaza in 2005.

The evacuation of Gaza has proved a total disaster

(i) ruining the lives of thousands of Jews forcibly removed from their homes,
(ii) splitting the area proposed for the new Arab state - the West Bank and Gaza - into two separate and separately administered entities with no prospects of reconciliation between the two governing political entities - the Palestinian Authority and Hamas
(iii)sparking the return of Israel’s army to Gaza in December 2009 to root out the threat posed to Israel’s civilian population by the indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets from Gaza
(iv) causing Israel and Egypt to impose a blockade to prevent the entry of terrorists, arms and war materiel into Gaza

witnessing an ever increasing level of violence from Gaza and retaliation by Israel

Gaza and Hamas now appear to have been placed in the “too hard basket” by the international community. Instead it has thrown its weight behind the Palestinian Authority in seeking to resolve the issue of sovereignty in the West Bank and East Jerusalem - a far cry from the two-state solution posited by Oslo and the Roadmap.

Administrative responsibility for 95% of the West Bank Arab population has been vested in the Palestinian Authority and has indeed begun to see a marked improvement in their daily lives.

However the continuing refusal of the Palestinian Authority to moderate its political claims to sovereignty in anything less than 100% of the entire territory of the West Bank remains a stumbling block that has precluded any progress at all in resolving the division of sovereignty in the West Bank between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

There are other impediments to the conflict that have defied resolution and increasingly make it certain that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are already dead and buried.

If countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom still believe otherwise - then they would do well to seek answers to the following questions from both Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

1. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish National Home reconstituted pursuant to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter?

2. Does the Palestinian Authority intend to persist with its demand that every square centimeter of the West Bank be ceded to it by Israel or is it prepared to accept less in exchange for an equivalent land swap by Israel?

3. Is Israel prepared to contemplate a land swap?

4. Is the Palestinian Authority still committed to former Arab residents of what is now Israel or their descendants being given the right to return to live there, what would be the appropriate number the Palestinian Authority would demand be given this right and what number would Israel be prepared to accept?

5. Is Israel prepared to allow the creation of a 22nd Arab State between Israel and Jordan in the West Bank with full and unfettered access and control over West Bank air space?

6. Is the Palestinian Authority prepared to accept a State in the West Bank with restricted control over its air space?

7. Is Israel prepared to evacuate and relocate all the Jewish residents of the West Bank?

8. Is Israel prepared to cede its claims to sovereignty in any part of Jerusalem?
On any minimal understanding of the conflict - one could not expect answers to these questions that would pose the slightest optimism in believing the negotiated two-state solution has any chance of success.

The sooner alternative solutions are introduced to replace the failed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority - the sooner the current dangerous impasse that threatens the resumption of hostilities can be averted.