#the US was the ONLY veto on a UN proposal for ceasefire

[heritageposts]

A week ago, US President Joe Biden claimed that a “ceasefire” deal in Gaza was imminent and could take effect as soon as March 4. “My national security adviser tells me we are close,” he told reporters while eating ice cream in New York City. But ice cream or not, Biden’s actual position was not nearly that sweet. A subsequent statement by a senior Biden administration official claimed Israel had “basically accepted” a proposal for a temporary pause in fighting. But as of March 4, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Mossad director were still refusing to send a delegation to Cairo, where talks with Hamas were under way. The Biden administration’s eagerness to claim victory in its search for some kind of temporary truce indicates how much it is feeling the heat of the rising global and domestic pressure demanding an immediate ceasefire, an end to the Israeli genocide, an end to the threat of a new escalation against refugee-packed Rafah, and an end to the siege of Gaza and immediate unhindered provision of massive levels of humanitarian aid. Despite Washington’s vain hopes for March 4 and the unofficial goal of a ceasefire by the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan on March 10, the deal remains elusive. Media reports indicate Biden is telling the Qatari and Egyptian leaders that he is putting pressure on Israel to agree to a truce and a captives swap. But his claim of pressuring Israel is undermined by the continuing US vetoes of ceasefire resolutions at the United Nations Security Council, most recently on February 20, as well as the continuing flow of United States weapons and money to Israel to enable its assault.

And, on the alternative resolution the Biden admin has put forth after vetoing Algeria's resolution (which called for an "immediate humanitarian ceasefire," "forced displacement of the Palestinian civilian population," and "unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza."):

[...] Linda Thomas-Greenfield, Biden’s ambassador to the UN, cast the sole veto against the Algerian resolution, and instead put forward an alternative US text, claiming it also supported a ceasefire. But the proposed US language does not call for an immediate or permanent ceasefire or an end to Israeli genocide; it does not prevent an attack on Rafah or end the Israeli siege. The proposed US resolution is not designed to end the murderous Israeli war against Gaza – nor is the deal that is currently being negotiated in Cairo. To the contrary, the provisions of the US draft resolution reflect the true intentions of the Biden administration vis-a-vis its continuing support of Israel, and reveal the limitations of the truce it is trying to orchestrate. While the US draft resolution does use the dreaded word “ceasefire” – which had been prohibited in the White House for months – it does not call for an immediate halt in the bombing, only “as soon as practicable”, with no indication of when that might be. It does not call for a permanent ceasefire either, leaving Israel free to resume its genocidal bombing – presumably with continuing US support. Virtually everything the US draft calls for is undercut by what is left out. The demand for “lifting all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale” in Gaza certainly sounds appropriately robust. But that’s only until you realise that the text’s failure to challenge or even name the principal barrier to aid getting in – Israel’s bombardment – means that this is not a serious plan to end Israel’s deadly siege. It should not surprise anyone that “the Biden administration is not planning to punish Israel if it launches a military campaign in Rafah without ensuring civilian safety” – as Politico reported – despite claiming it wants a credible plan to ensure Palestinian safety. No one in the Biden administration has even hinted at imposing consequences for Israel’s constant rejection of the insipid appeals for restraint – such as conditioning aid on human rights standards (as required by US law) or cutting US military aid altogether. That’s what real pressure would look like. A more accurate picture of Washington’s approach to Israel’s war against Gaza is the continuing US pipeline of weapons to make Israel’s murderous assault on Gaza more effective, more efficient, and more deadly. According to the Wall Street Journal, the “Biden administration is preparing to send bombs and other weapons to Israel that would add to its military arsenal even as the US pushes for a ceasefire in Gaza.” The arms the US intends to hand over to the Israeli army include MK-82 bombs, KMU-572 Joint Direct Attack Munitions and FMU-139 bomb fuses, worth tens of millions of dollars. It is more than likely that the administration will do another end run around US Congress to send the weapons without relying on congressional approval, as it did on at least two occasions last December.

. . . full article on Al Jazeera (4 Mar 2024)

[capybaracorn]

UN Security Council to discuss ICJ ruling in Israel genocide case

Top UN court ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians but didn’t call for a ceasefire.

(27 Jan 2024)

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is to meet next week over the decision by the global body’s top court calling for Israel to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza.

The meeting scheduled for Wednesday was called by Algeria, whose Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would give a “binding effect to the pronouncement of the International Court of Justice on the provisional measures imposed on the Israeli occupation”.

The ICJ on Friday said Israel must prevent genocidal acts in its war with Hamas and allow aid into Gaza, but stopped short of calling for an end to the fighting.

The decision “gives the clear message that in order to do all the things that they are asking for, you need a ceasefire for it to happen”, said Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN.

Algeria, the Arab representative on the council, requested the meeting late on Friday after a closed-door discussion of the UN’s 22-member Arab group.

“So fasten your seat belts,” Mansour said, hinting that the Arab group would push for a halt in the fighting.

Al Jazeera’s Gabriel Elizondo, reporting from the UN in New York, said diplomatic sources indicated that the proposal by Algeria is likely to call for an immediate truce.

“All eyes now turn to the Security Council,” he said, adding that the country’s move is highly anticipated.

US veto

The UNSC, long divided on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, has only agreed to two resolutions since the October 7 Hamas attacks that led to Israel’s massive offensive on the Gaza Strip.

In December, it demanded aid deliveries “at scale” to Gaza’s besieged population, while Israel’s ally, the United States, has kept out calls for a ceasefire despite international pressure.

Hamas’s October 7 attacks killed about 1,140 people in Israel, according to authorities.

Palestinian fighters also seized about 250 people and Israel says 132 of them remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 of them.

Israel has promised to crush Hamas and launched a military offensive that the Ministry of Health in Gaza says has killed at least 26,257 people, about 70 percent of them women and children.

The ICJ, based in The Hague, while refraining from ordering an immediate halt to the almost four-month-old war, said Israel must do everything to “prevent the commission of all acts within the scope” of the 1948 UN Genocide Convention.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the ICJ ruling and said his country will continue to defend itself and its citizens while adhering to international law.

[archtroop]

Moscow:

Two guesses from me.

1. ISIS or a similar faction.

2. Putin himself. Yes, there, I said it.

I don't think it was Ukraine. It would be strategically stupid. It's not even about ability of doing it. Not about morals, but the world stage. It just doesn't add up.

Also I am not convinced in the slightest that it might be Putin's Opposition, because of the so-called elections: no one is surprised by the results, and if they wanted to act on a similar notion in such manner, then Navalny's death would have been the trigger, not fake elections that everyone knows are fake. Plus, it is strategically moronic.

Only two could "benefit" feom such a massacre: Putin himself, if he manages to push that Ukraine did it. Or, Islamic Jihad, because this is their MO, and they have already done similar attacks in Russia before in same fashion, and even the same type of venue.

This was a massacre, and a suicide mission, and I would put my bets on ISIS (also remember Russian involvement in Syria, where they back Assad, not only against the Assad Opposition, but also against ISIS as well. They have all the incentives to act like this, and they could care less about world opinions.)

My deep condolences, this will unfold into the ugliest shit. Friday night at a concert hall. Absolutely despicable.

Edit: I also don't see how this might be an attack in response of Russia vetoing the US ceasefire proposal in the UN. By whom? HAMAS? Iran...? Too much trouble over something that literally did not move the pendulum either side.

[workersolidarity]

🇺🇳🇵🇸🇮🇱 🚨 UN SECRETARY GENERAL INVOKES ARTICLE 99 OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OVER ISRAEL'S GENOCIDAL WAR ON GAZA

The United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterrez, has invoked the rarely used Article 99 of the United Nations charter, warning of the International threat posed by Israel's genocidal war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, on Thursday, December 7th, 2023.

Article 99 of the United Nations Charter states that "the Secretary General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”.

Gutierrez, in a letter submitted to the United Nations Security Council, said that the Security Council's lack of action combined with the complete and utter deterioration of the situation in Gaza forced his hand, compelling him to invoke Article 99 for the first time since assuming the position of Secretary General in 2017.

"The situation is fast deteriorating into a catastrophe with potentially irreversible implications for Palestinians as a whole and for peace and security in the region,” Guterrez wrote in his statement.

The Security Council has so far failed to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. A resolution proposed by the Russian Federation failed in the chamber last month, vetoed by the United States, while a second proposed by the US failed due to Russian opposition, and a third resolution, proposed by Brazil, was only opposed by the United States, blocked from moving forward by the US's permanent vote in the chamber.

Article 99, which has not been used in three decades, has never actually ended any wars.

This is because the intervention of the Secretary General does not actually change any of the fundamentals of a situation.

The United Nations Secretary General has last used Article 99 in 1989 to help facilitate negotiations for a ceasefire in Lebanon, during it's long civil war, however the conflict continued for at least another year afterwards.

Article 99, though forcing the Security Council to meet regarding the conflict, it cannot force the member-states to vote in a particular way.

In the current situation, Israel's main ally, the United States, with its permanent vote on the Security Council, firmly opposes a ceasefire, with no evidence that that will be changing anytime soon, making any invocation of Article 99 likely an ineffective means of ending the conflict.

#source

@WorkerSolidarityNews

[sixty-silver-wishes]

Note- the proposed ceasefire here would only be for two weeks. However, it has widened divisions between the US and Israel.

[beardedmrbean]

Russia and China vetoed a United States-backed draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as part of a hostage deal.

The proposed resolution called for "an immediate and sustained cease-fire" in the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza to protect civilians and enable humanitarian aid to be delivered to the Palestinian enclave.

Moscow accused Washington of a "hypocritical spectacle" that does not pressure Israel.

Algeria also voted against the resolution, with Guyana abstaining and the remaining 11 countries of the 15-member Security Council voting in favor.

Russia not interested in assisting diplomatically, US says

The United States ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said the vetoes show Russia and China were continuing to do nothing to help bring an end to the conflict.

"Russia and China simply did not want to vote for a resolution that was penned by the United States," she added.

"Let's be honest — for all the fiery rhetoric, we all know that Russia and China are not doing anything diplomatically to advance a lasting peace or to meaningfully contribute to the humanitarian response effort," she said.

Following talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a visit to Tel Aviv, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken accused China and Russia of "cynically" vetoing the resolution.

"On the resolution, which got very strong support, but then was cynically vetoed by Russia and China," Blinken said. 

"I think we were trying to show the international community a sense of urgency about getting a ceasefire."

Russia's UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, dismissed the US-backed resolution calling for a cease-fire only after "Gaza has been virtually wiped off the face of the earth."

"The American product is exceedingly politicized," he said. "With the sole purpose being to play to voters and throw them a bone in the form of some kind of a mention of a cease-fire in Gaza."

Following the resolution's defeat, French President Emmanuel Macron said his country was working on a new resolution to achieve a cease-fire in Gaza. The French Foreign Ministry on Thursday said it had already begun drafting a resolution with diplomats, to put a draft forward in case the US resolution did not pass.

Consistent vetoes stop UN action

Russia and China previously vetoed a US-sponsored resolution in October 2023, that called for "pauses in fighting to deliver aid, protect civilians and halt arming Hamas," saying at the time that it did not reflect global calls for a cease-fire.

The United States then vetoed three resolutions demanding a cease-fire, most recently a measure backed by Arab countries that had support from 13 Council members and had one abstention on February 20.

[sanguinosa-blog]

The formation of the Palestinian state is a starting point.

On the 12th, the United Nations held an emergency special session and adopted a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. 153 countries, more than three-quarters, voted in favor, while 10 countries including the United States and Israel opposed, and 23 countries abstained. International backlash against the United States, supporting Israel and backing the massacre, is increasing.

◇ Israel is likely to lose support from the international community.

The genocide by the Israeli military against Palestinians has devastated the northern region, and the attacks have shifted to the southern region. Of the 2.2 million Gaza residents, 1.8 million evacuated according to the Israeli military's "evacuate to the south" instructions, but now those evacuation locations are under attack, with hundreds of locations being bombed daily.

On the 13th of this month, the Gaza Health Ministry announced that the death toll since the start of the fighting on October 7th was 18,412, and the number of injured was over 50,000. The Israeli military began a "water siege" operation on the 12th, pouring seawater into underground tunnels to kill Hamas leaders, and the brutality of the Israeli military is going beyond the norm.

Even US President Biden, who vetoed the resolution calling for a ceasefire at the UN Security Council on the 8th and defended the Gaza massacre as an exercise of self-defense, criticized, saying, "The Netanyahu government must change."

◇ The "two-state solution" proposal is being discussed once again.

In 1947, a year before the end of the British Mandate for Palestine, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution dividing the region into two states, one for Jews and one for Arabs. However, in 1948, after Israel declared independence, five Arab League countries declared war, leading to the First Arab-Israeli War. As a result, Israel won and established a state, and many Palestinians were expelled as refugees.

The Labor Party once pointed out, "If the Arabs had accepted the 'Palestine' state proposal at that time, the history of Palestine might have been different. The subsequent struggle between Arabs and Jews in the Palestinian region has become barren, grim, and a quagmire with no prospect of resolution until now" ('Kaitsubame' No. 1157, October 2, 2011).

Amidst such circumstances, the international momentum for the "two-state solution" has increased since the shock of the October 7th military attack and Israel's Gaza offensive. Wang Yi, a member of the Central Political Bureau of the Chinese Communist Party, who was previously passive about the Palestinian issue, stated after the UN Security Council meeting on November 19th, "The 'two-state solution' is the only way to solve the Palestinian issue," and proposed the early convening of a large-scale international peace conference with authority and effectiveness (China declared its participation in the power struggle in the Middle East under the pretext of promoting peace). On November 27th, the "two-state solution" was agreed upon at the Arab-EU Foreign Ministers' meeting.

The international momentum for the "two-state solution" that has grown in the wake of the October 7th attack has led to proposals from various countries, including China, the United States, and bourgeois nations, to create an international institution or something similar for the formation of the Palestinian state, and there is no objection to the active participation of Palestinians. "Two-state solution is impossible," says the one-state solution advocate (Iran, Pape). "Reconstruction of relations under the principles of correct democracy" and "Victory in the liberation struggle means creating a democratic state that includes all the people living in that land" ('Ten Myths About Israel'). Israel has begun a war of aggression to oppress and control Palestine. Beautifying democracy is nothing more than following bourgeois states.

◇ Israel and the United States, refusing peace, must take responsibility!

"(The Netanyahu government) does not want anything like approaching the 'two-state solution'" (Biden), and the Netanyahu government has consistently taken a position of refusal. However, support for Netanyahu in Israel is low (28% on November 11th), and he is instigating a war for war, even encouraging the war for the destruction of Hamas, to maintain power. The Israeli military announced that it would take several months to destroy Hamas.

One of the factors that made the resolution of the Palestinian issue difficult was the "Vision for Peace" proposed by Trump in 2020, which advocated a "realistic two-state solution." Based on the current situation (Israel occupying 61% of the total and only 39% of the area under Palestinian autonomy, which is also fragmented), the proposal suggested a "two-state solution" for the benefit of Israel. Taking advantage of the proposal, Netanyahu has expanded settlements in the occupied West Bank, suppressed Palestinians, and under the protection of the Netanyahu government, 700,000 people have been advancing the Israelization of Palestine in 150 settlements, violating Israel's domestic law.

The U.S. has supported Israel economically and militarily as the frontline against the Arabs. Israel does not allow less than 39% of the Palestinian Autonomous Region to be under the control of the autonomous government, and it controls everything, including infrastructure, economy, and movement. The U.S. has nurtured and assisted Israel in becoming a militaristic state that oppresses and dominates Palestine.

If the United States seriously considers the "two-state solution," it must immediately stop military support for Israel and withdraw Israeli troops and Jewish settlers from the West Bank Autonomous Region. Only when the United States refrains from exercising its veto power at the Security Council and takes the first step toward "sanctions" against Israel, will the construction of the Palestinian state make significant progress.

The Netanyahu government, which justifies the extermination of Palestinians for "its own security," is trying to turn Gaza into "Auschwitz." The accomplice United States must take responsibility for Netanyahu's "great crime."

◇The formation of the Palestinian state is the starting point of the workers' struggle.

The misfortune of Palestine lies in the corrupt Abbas government of the autonomous region, which manipulates aid to various countries for its own benefit, and has become a corrupt regime tainted with corruption and decadence (demand for Abbas's resignation was 75% in a December 20 survey). The political opposition to this has been represented by the struggle of religious political organizations, such as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), rooted in the teachings of Islam. The urgent task for the people of Palestine is the construction of a Marxist political organization that fundamentally criticizes the ideological positions of nationalism and Islamic movements.

For the workers, the "two-state solution" is neither the goal nor the endpoint but the starting point of the struggle. With the formation of a democratic state in Palestine as a starting point, the working class of Palestine, within the framework of the "nation-state," initiates a struggle to elevate themselves to the ruling class—namely, the struggle of the working class, with the liberation of labor as its objective, begins.

The formation of the Palestinian state will bring conditions for the Palestinian workers and Israeli workers to overthrow their respective governments based on a common position of internationalism and to unite in solidarity for the liberation of labor.

The task for the Israeli working class, which has undergone capitalist development, is the overthrow of capital's dominance and the liberation of labor. This struggle is also a fight to overthrow the Netanyahu government, which oppresses and economically usurps Palestine, and its coalition with religious Zionism and extreme right-wing parties advocating Jewish supremacism.

The fusion of Israeli and Arab workers will be realized within the context of the workers' world revolution that transcends "ethnicity" and the nation-state.

Workers Party aiming for the liberation of labor. from ”Umitsubame” No.1465 24/12/2023 https://www.facebook.com/SappDasKapital/posts/pfbid02UvDADEeDtMF8N4o97AY1yRcX15xR7qx65Apz5cxpvxdmkUVdDF646mejWWeduFT3l

[liatkolink]

while Harris and Biden are working to end it

I'm sorry, but the Biden administration is constantly undermining international law at the UN to protect Israel, whether it is vetoing ceasefire resolutions, openly defying the ICJ ruling which calls for countries to halt weapon transfers to Israel, constantly flaunting Israel's 'right to defend itself' as it colonizes Palestine and Lebanon and strikes Iran unprovoked, and lots of other shit. If you wanna vote for Kamala, be my guest; but don't go out spreading bullshit when all they do is claim they're working overtime to achieve a ceasefire when they won't even do shit about Netanyahu, which is the main obstacle to a ceasefire, and instead put the blame on Hamas which had accepted Israeli proposal after proposal, only for Israel to back out and the US follow along.

Will Trump be worse? Probably, and you could make an argument in that regard; but don't give me this bullshit that Biden and Kamala are doing everything in their power to end the genocide when they're complicit in it.

[arpov-blog-blog]

..."The United Nations Security Council on Monday demanded an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas and the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages after the United States abstained from the vote.

The remaining 14 council members voted for the resolution, which was proposed by the 10 elected members of the body.

"The Palestinian people has suffered greatly. This bloodbath has continued for far too long. It is our obligation to put an end to this bloodbath, before it is too late," Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Amar Bendjama told the council after the vote.

Israeli army radio reported shortly before the council meeting started that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would cancel a planned delegation to Washington if the U.S. did not veto the resolution.

Washington had been averse to the word ceasefire earlier in the nearly six-month-old war in the Gaza Strip and had used its veto power shield U.S. ally Israel as it retaliated against Hamas for an Oct. 7 attack that Israel says killed 1,200 people.

But amid growing global pressure for a truce in the war that has killed more than 32,000 Palestinians, the U.S. abstained from the vote on Monday to allow the Security Council to demand an immediate ceasefire for the month of Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which ends in two weeks.

The resolution also demands the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Israel says Hamas took 253 hostages during its Oct. 7 attack.

"The United States support for these objectives is not simply rhetorical. We're working around the clock to make them real on the ground through diplomacy, because we know that it is only through diplomacy that we can push this agenda forward," said U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield.

"A ceasefire can begin immediately with the release of the first hostage and so we must put pressure on Hamas to do just that," she said.

Thomas-Greenfield said the U.S. abstained from the vote because it did not agree with everything in the resolution and the text did not include a condemnation of Hamas.

The Security Council resolution also "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance to and reinforce the protection of civilians in the entire Gaza Strip and reiterates its demand for the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale."

The U.S. has vetoed three draft council resolutions on the war in Gaza. It has also previously abstained twice, allowing the council to adopt resolutions that aimed to boost aid to Gaza and called for extended pauses in fighting."

[garudabluffs]

"The United States vetoed a resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war at the United Nations Security Council on Friday.

The Security Council vote on the resolution, backed by Arab states, had 13 in favor and one — the U.S. — against, while the United Kingdom abstained.

After the vote, the U.S. deputy representative to the U.N., Robert Wood, said the resolution was rushed and ignored U.S. diplomatic efforts to get more aid into Gaza and free hostages taken by Hamas militants in the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

"We propose language ... that would have reinforced the life-saving diplomacy we have undertaken since Oct. 7, increased opportunities for humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, encourage the release of hostages and the resumption of humanitarian pauses and laid a foundation for a durable peace," Wood said.

"Unfortunately, nearly all of our recommendations were ignored."

Arab countries urge the U.S. to push for a truce"

READ MORE https://www.npr.org/2023/12/08/1218332312/israel-hamas-war-us-ceasefire-veto-un

[re--laaaaaxer]

I undertook a brief session of mindful meditation to help me process the overwhelming events of the past four weeks. It's been an extraordinary and intense period, with a multitude of developments unfolding in such a short span of time. To prevent desensitisation, I found it necessary to step back from constant news consumption. I believed that this temporary detachment could provide some mental clarity and open new pathways for me to contribute to those who are deprived of the basic pleasures of life, like breaking bread, experiencing joyous laughter, and enjoying even a single night of peace.

This morning, I took a significant and somewhat daunting step. I composed a letter addressed to the UN Malaysian Ambassador, urgently appealing for the convening of an immediate UN Emergency General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Here is the letter I submitted:

"Dear Malaysian UN Ambassador, 

I trust this message finds you in good health and high spirits despite the grave circumstances we find ourselves in. My name is [name], a fellow Malaysian, and I write to you today with a heavy heart, deeply concerned about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Over the past four weeks, we have witnessed a horrifying genocide unfolding before our eyes. Thousands of innocent civilians, among them countless children, have perished due to relentless bombings, leaving us all profoundly shaken and outraged. The people of Gaza are enduring unimaginable suffering as water, electricity, and vital aid have been cut off, trapping them in a nightmarish cycle of despair.

It is with great distress that I observe the obstruction of the UN Security Council by US vetoes, preventing it from taking decisive action against the war crimes being committed by Netanyahu's far-right government. As a result, the UN Security Council is unable to fulfil its primary mandate—to maintain international peace and security.

I draw inspiration from a proposal put forth by Uplifting Ireland, which suggests a path to a ceasefire in Gaza even in the face of Security Council vetoes. When such obstacles arise, the Uniting for Peace Resolution becomes a beacon of hope. This resolution, originally introduced to counter Russia's vetoes, can now be utilised to urgently address the crisis in Gaza.

The Uniting for Peace Resolution empowers any UN member state to call for an Emergency UN General Assembly when the Security Council is paralysed. This is precisely what we need at this critical juncture. Importantly, it allows for the use of armed forces as a last resort if either side refuses to comply with the ceasefire, ensuring accountability for all parties involved.

By invoking an emergency UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution, we require only a two-thirds majority for a ceasefire to be established. The global community has witnessed overwhelming support for a ceasefire, making this approach highly viable.

The public response has shown unequivocally that the people of Malaysia, and indeed the world, reject these heinous crimes and refuse to remain complicit in silence. As our distinguished representative at the United Nations, you hold the power to reflect our nation's values and principles on the international stage.

It is abundantly clear that the UN Security Council alone cannot bring an end to this ongoing tragedy. To halt the senseless bombings and alleviate the suffering of innocent women, children, and men in Gaza, I implore you to urgently demand that the Malaysian UN Ambassador initiates an immediate UN Emergency General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution.

A future where peace and safety embrace us all, where justice, freedom, and equality are our shared foundation, is the only path I fervently believe in.

Your time, dedication, and attention to this pressing matter are greatly appreciated, and we look to you to be the beacon of hope and justice that the world desperately needs in these troubled times."

If you feel hopeless over what is happening, here's a simple yet powerful action that we can do to call for an immediate ceasefire. All you have to do is reach out to your respective UN and/or Ministry of Foreign Affairs office and send as many emails as you can, to put a stop to these recurring horrifying events.

I hope you all are well. Please take care.

[crimechannels]

By • Olalekan Fagbade News Agency of Gaza crisis: Deadlock deepens as UN Security Council rejects resolutions by U.S., Russia China and Russia on Wednesday vetoed a draft resolution sponsored by the United States while a second Russian-backed resolution failed to secure sufficient votes. It failed to secure sufficient votes in favour, deepening the Security Council’s deadlock over any unified response to address the crisis in Gaza and Israel. The U.S.-led draft resolution failed to pass owing to a negative vote by permanent Security Council members China and Russia. Ten members of the Council voted for the draft resolution and three against (China, Russia and UAE), with two abstentions (Brazil and Mozambique). A ‘no’ vote from any one of the five permanent members of the Council stops action on any measure put before it. The body’s permanent members are China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A second draft resolution, led by Russia, was not adopted as it failed to secure sufficient number of votes in favour. Four Council members voted in favour (China, Gabon, Russia and UAE), two against (UK and US), and nine abstained (Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, France, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland). For a resolution to be adopted, it must be supported by at least nine members of the Council. The similarly worded resolutions would have called for a “humanitarian ceasefire” or “humanitarian pause” to enable safe delivery of aid for desperate civilians. Both drafts condemned the terror attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians of Oct. 7. They called for urgent action to address the worsening humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, where fuel is due to run out for hospitals and other crucial services, in a matter of hours, according to UN agencies on the ground. Key differences in the text included a specific mention in the U.S.-backed proposal of States’ inherent right to self defence, and a call in the Russian-led one for the immediate cancellation by Israeli forces of the evacuation order for civilians to head into southern Gaza. Draft resolutions do not represent the official position of the 15-member Security Council until adopted. Reacting, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield expressed deep disappointment in the vetoing of the U.S. resolution by China and Russia. The U.S. stands ready to work with all Member States to support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General, President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, she said. Expressing dismay after the Russian resolution fell, Ambassador Vassily Nebenzy regretted that once again, the Council had failed to respond to the unprecedented conflict in the Middle East. China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun said they had used their veto against the U.S. resolution “based on facts, based on law, based on conscience, based on justice”. He said in discussions the U.S. text had emerged “seriously out of balance”, introduced in haste and lacking the strongest calls necessary for a full ceasefire. He said China was fully in favour of taking action but accused the U.S. text of being “evasive” on the key issue of ending the fighting. Ceasefire is not only a diplomatic term, he added, it is a matter of life and death for many civilians. “We would be irresponsible if we are ambiguous on the issue of war and peace”, said the Ambassador, stressing that China is not indifferent to the suffering of Gazans. He said because the U.S. text failed to mention the root causes of the current crisis in Gaza, without reference to Israel’s blockade or the evacuation order for civilians to move south, his country would be voting in favour of the Russian text. He said the U.S. effort if adopted, would completely end the possibility of a long term two-State solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward said through the U.S. proposal, the Council could had condemned Hamas’ terrorist attacks. At the same time, Russia’s draft failed to recognise Israel’s right to self-defence.

“We are committed to work across the Council towards a balanced text,” she said, which should include a condemnation of Hamas, reaffirm Israel’s self-defence rights, protect civilians, and get more aid flowing into Gaza. The United Arab Emirates’ Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh said “the stakes are too high” and the Council “must step up”. “We know what the most pressing humanitarian needs are,” she said, adding that these include a humanitarian ceasefire, release of all hostages, humanitarian access, fuel, water, and adherence to international humanitarian law. Israel’s Ambassador Gilad Erdin said his country continues to be attacked, from north and south, and asked Council members how they would feel if faced with this reality. “You would feel there is a blatant double standard,” he said, “and that the Council isn’t taking even the most basic steps anyone with a slight moral compass should take. This is precisely how the State of Israel feels right now.” Israel has a right to self-defence, he said, adding that Hamas is solely responsible for Palestinian situation in Gaza and is committing crimes against humanity. “In the wake of the Holocaust, we collectively swore ‘never again’”, he said. “This is one of the main reasons the UN was established. ‘Never again’, dear colleagues, is now. Do not forget this.” (NAN) #GazaCrisisDeadlockdeepensasUNSecurityCouncilrejectsresolutionbyUSRussia

[head-post]

UN Security Council rejects Russian-proposed resolution on Gaza

On Monday, the UN Security Council failed to adopt a Russian-drafted resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

The draft resolution received five votes in favour and four against, with six abstentions. Together with Russia, four countries – China, Mozambique, Gabon and the United Arab Emirates – voted in favour of the resolution. Four countries – Japan, the US, France and the United Kingdom – voted against. The remaining six countries abstained. A Security Council resolution requires at least nine votes in favour and no veto from the five permanent members of the Council.

Vassily Nebenzya, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, has said that his delegation was deeply disappointed with the results of the vote. He told reporters after the voting was over:

There is nothing in the (draft) resolution that can be contested because it is a purely humanitarian one. The only reason why the resolution didn’t pass was because they do not want to support anything from Russia.

Read more HERE

[itsnelkabelka]

Speech: Maintaining peace in the Middle East and North Africa

Thank you very much Mr President and good to see you in New York again. Thank you to Russia for the opportunity to discuss holistically the situation in the Middle East and North Africa.

Mr President, I think we all agree that many of the conflicts in this region share root causes and complex linkages. And we agree that an approach to resolving these conflicts that needs to consider each conflict in isolation will not succeed. They need to be looked at in the round. I think we’re also aware that there are some existentialist struggles between some of the Member States in the region, but not all are aggressive towards their neighbors or commit unfriendly acts towards their neighbours. The MENA region, people have been saying, should perhaps have its own Helsinki Final Act moment. And I don’t want to be prescriptive, but I think something that brings the region together would be very worthwhile considering and we would be happy to join any consideration of that issue.

Overall, our understanding of any conflict should be shaped by an analysis that looks at the full breadth of root causes, the role of regional and international actors and the individual history and circumstances of the country. And in return the response of the Security Council and the whole of the UN to these conflicts needs to be holistic.

Before I turn to the Russian concept note, Mr President, and our own views, I just wanted to start by endorsing fully what the French Ambassador said about Iran. We will have another opportunity to talk about Iran later this week, so I will expand my remarks then. But I just wanted to pledge the UK’s support to what he said.

Mr President, there were many points in the Russian concept note with which we agreed. We agree with you on the devastating humanitarian consequences of the various conflicts in the MENA region. And OCHA’s own figures are truly staggering: 22 million in need of assistance in Yemen, 13 million in Syria, 1.9 million in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and a million in Libya. The humanitarian relief efforts of all Member States, international actors and indeed ordinary citizens, have indeed helped to avert some suffering. But it isn’t enough. And 66 percent of humanitarian appeals, in OCHA’s own figures, have yet to be fulfilled.

We have written recently as the United Kingdom to the Secretary-General to set out our own humanitarian contribution to the crises in the Middle East. We continue to see examples of states restricting access to humanitarian agencies and we see attacks by armed groups on humanitarian workers. What justification, Mr President, can there be for these attacks? We agree with you that humanitarian assistance should not be politicised, but as long as these attacks continue, it will be.

Conflict has particularly affected religious and ethnic minorities. Yazidi in Syria and Iraq. The Baha’i in Iran in Yemen. Terrorist actors and state institutions in the region have been responsible for some of the worst persecutions in history. So we hope, like you, that the Security Council can unite behind efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully. We should do everything we can as a Security Council to support efforts made by the Secretary-General and his Special Representatives to bring peace to the region; make serious progress in Syria, Yemen and Libya; to use our collective and bilateral efforts to put pressure on those that oppose or undermine these efforts; and ensure that peacekeeping missions are fit for purpose.

On the Middle East peace process, Mr President, that a number of speakers have mentioned, we reiterate to our support for the two-state solution, and we look forward to the American proposals which we hope will be able to be issued soon.

There are some areas, Mr President, where we do not share your views as set out in the concept note. And wanted to begin this section by saying that I’ve just come from the R2P Debate in the General Assembly, and it strikes me, Mr President, this goes to the heart of many of our disagreements about how to handle these conflicts. Your concept note calls for a commitment to the supremacy of international law and the need for a collective approach to the problems of the region. We can endorse that fully. But where there are cases when populations are injured or persecuted because of the actions of their own governments, that is not only against international human rights law and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which every country in this room has pledged to uphold. It is actually risking a precursor to a wider conflict. And if the Security Council and the international community do not take an interest at that early stage, there is a much greater likelihood that the situation gets out of control and a much greater likelihood that there will eventually be conflict, including conflict across borders. Whether or not that is armed incursions, or whether it is sending refugees across borders, and hence, Mr President, ultimately a much greater likelihood, not just that the Security Council will ask to take action, but that it will need to take action in order to address the root causes. So I invite all those countries who do not like the Security Council looking at situations of human rights persecutions in individual countries. I just invite them to see that logical train of where ignoring such events is likely to lead. And if I may, I’d like to quote from the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that celebrates its 70th year anniversary this year, which says, “It is essential if man is not to be compelled to have recourse as a last resort to rebellion against tyranny and oppression that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.” That’s the reason why we in the United Kingdom believe that human rights is properly relevant to Security Council discussion of any particular international peace and security situation.

You say, Mr President, that unilateral action is doomed to failure. For the United Kingdom’s part, like all of the speakers so far, we would like to see the Security Council take collective action. But it is blocked, and where it is not blocked, it is subsequently disregarded. International action cannot solely be a matter for the lowest common denominator. We can look at Syria - and a number of speakers have referred to Syria. We are all aware of the circumstances. The Security Council has been blocked from holding to account those responsible for violating international law. A resolution to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court was vetoed in 2014. This year a resolution was vetoed that would have allowed the Joint Investigative Mechanism to continue its vital work. The use of chemical weapons, whether by terrorists or state actors, needs to be investigated. Those responsible need to be held to account and the much greater danger we would assert, Mr President, is in letting it be thought that chemical weapons can ever be used as a weapon of war and the international prohibition on their use disregarded.

There have been reports over the weekend, furthermore, of air and artillery attacks against the de-escalation area in southwest Syria. These are deeply concerning and the reports appear to point to this Syrian government. A military offensive by the Syrian government would be a flagrant violation of the ceasefire and the de-escalation agreement that Russia has been involved in. We urge everybody with influence on this situation to help uphold the commitments and urge restraint.

Mr President, sanctions are a vital part of the Security Council’s arsenal. As Article 41 of the Charter makes clear, they give very real effect to our decisions and they turn our words in this chamber into tangible consequences for those who threaten international peace and security. Sanctions are not our first resort and they are not a measure that we ever take lightly, but we know that they work. They have helped bring peace and security to countries like Liberia and Sierra Leone. They helped bring Iran and DPRK to the negotiating table. And they continue to play a vital role in the fight against Da’esh and Al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria and beyond.

Mr President, we believe that there are some further issues that would merit discussion by this Council not covered in your note that could underpin future discussions by the Council on this important subject.

We agree with the Secretary-General that political participation in the region remains weak and we agree we need to strengthen democratic institutions. And I’d like to echo his tribute to Tunisia and also endorse his words on the problems caused by retarding economic opportunity. A genuine holistic approach to conflict in the region cannot ignore the issue of good governance.

Good governance from strong, stable state institutions is the best way to maintain peace and security. Bad governance can be devastating and we have seen that in a number of countries in the region. When governments violate their citizens human rights, I was saying earlier, we know that the risk of conflict and suffering increases. It is the Council’s responsibility to consider and be informed on all these issues due to their impact on international peace and security. As an international community we must support institutions that uphold the values the United Nations was set up to protect and which worked for the benefit of all citizens.

Lastly, Mr President, I would like to say a word about post-conflict reconstruction. Failure to stabilise and reconcile communities after a long conflict will fail to restore peace and security in the long term. It is not a trade-off between peace and justice. The task of the Council is to help the UN and countries themselves find the right way to have both peace and justice. And I think we all know that the role of women can be vital in that endeavour.

International actors, including this Council, play a vital role in ensuring limited resources can be distributed effectively in supportive institutions that address the root causes of previous conflicts.

Thank you very much Mr. President.

from Announcements on GOV.UK https://ift.tt/2zcOLz3 via IFTTT

[derechointernacionalpublico]

Protection of civilians in Palestine: UN Security Council fails to adopt a resolution (due to US veto)

Protection of civilians in Palestine: UN Security Council fails to adopt a resolution (due to US veto)

Protection of civilians in Palestine: UN Security Council fails to adopt a resolution (due to US veto)

On June 1st, the UN Security Council voted a draft resolution presented by Kuwait concerning the protection of civilians in Palestine.

An initial version of the draft proposed by Kuwait was circulated on May 17th, and two rounds of negotiations on May 21st and May 25th took place. A third draft of the text was circulated on May 29th among the UN Security Council Members.

The text finally tabled by Kuwait and voted (see full text reproduced at the end), includes 16 Operative Paragraphs, and stated that the Security Council:

“1. Calls for full respect by all parties for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including in regards to the protection of the civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection, as well as to ensure accountability for all violations;

“2. Deplores the use of any excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and particularly in the Gaza Strip, including the use of live ammunition against civilian protesters, including children, as well as medical personnel and journalists, and expresses its grave concern at the loss of innocent lives;“

The vote that took place on June 1st, registered 10 votes in favour, 1 vote against (United States) and 4 abstentions (Ethiopia, Netherlands, Poland and United Kingdom).

Another vote took place on a similar text, reviewed and drafted by US and omitting any reference to Israeli forces and Palestinian civilians (see press note of Europe 1). The result of the vote was one single vote in favour (US), 3 against (Bolivia, Kuwait and Russia) and 11 abstentions.

Concerning this second vote, we would kindly ask to our readers to help us to find somewhere a draft resolution voted in the past obtaining only one vote in favour at the UN Security Council.

An inverse situation related to US isolated position took place last December 18th at UN Security Council: a draft resolution condemning the transfer of embassies to Jerusalem has been voted with 14 votes in favour and 1 single vote against (US vote) (see our note on this vote, available here and entitled: “Votación en el Consejo de Seguridad sobre reconocimiento de Jerusalén como capital: 14 votos y un veto“).

Text of the draft resolution presented by Kuwait and voted on June 1st at the Security Council

” The Security Council,

Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including, inter alia, resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 605 (1987), 904 (1994), 1397 (2002), 1544 (2004), 1515 (2003), 1850 (2008), 1860 (2009), and 2334 (2016),

Recalling also its Presidential Statement 2014/13 of 28 July 2014,

Bearing in mind the letter (S/2015/809) of 21 October 2015 by the Secretary-General,

Recalling also its resolutions on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, including its resolutions on children and armed conflict, including, inter alia, resolutions 1894 (2009) and 2225 (2015), as well as its relevant presidential statements, and its resolutions on the protection of medical and humanitarian personnel and on the protection of journalists, media professionals and associated personnel in armed conflicts, including, inter alia, resolutions 2286 (2016) and 2222 (2015), as well as its other relevant resolutions and presidential statements,

Reaffirming the obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in all circumstances in accordance with Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions,

Expressing its grave concern at the escalation of violence and tensions and the deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in particular since 30 March 2018, and its deep alarm at the loss of civilian lives and the high number of casualties among Palestinian civilians, particularly in the Gaza Strip, including casualties among children, caused by the Israeli forces,

Condemning all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation, incitement and destruction,

Reaffirming the right to peaceful assembly and protest, freedom of expression and of association,

Emphasizing the need to pursue measures of accountability, stressing in this regard the importance of ensuring independent and transparent investigations in accordance with international standards,

Alarmed at the exacerbation of the dire humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and stressing the need to achieve a sustainable solution to this crisis in line with international law,

Stressing the particular impact that armed conflict has on women and children, including as refugees and displaced persons, as well as on other civilians who may have specific vulnerabilities, including persons with disabilities and older persons, and stressing the need for the Security Council and Member States to strengthen further the protection of civilians,

Recalling that a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means in accordance with international law and the relevant United Nations resolutions and through credible and direct negotiations,

Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

1. Calls for full respect by all parties for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including in regards to the protection of the civilian population, and reiterates the need to take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and well-being of civilians and ensure their protection, as well as to ensure accountability for all violations;

2. Deplores the use of any excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force by the Israeli forces against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and particularly in the Gaza Strip, including the use of live ammunition against civilian protesters, including children, as well as medical personnel and journalists, and expresses its grave concern at the loss of innocent lives;

3. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, refrain from such actions and fully abide by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 ;

4. Deplores any actions that could provoke violence and endanger civilian lives and calls on all actors to ensure that protests remain peaceful;

5. Deplores the firing of rockets from the Gaza Strip against Israeli civilian areas;

6. Calls for urgent steps to ensure an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire;

7. Calls for the exercise of maximum restraint and calm by all parties and the need for immediate and significant steps to stabilize the situation and to reverse negative trends on the ground;

8. Reaffirms its willingness to respond to situations of armed conflict where civilians are being targeted or humanitarian assistance to civilians is being deliberately obstructed, including through the consideration of appropriate measures that the Security Council may take in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;

9. Calls for the consideration of measures to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in the Gaza Strip;

10. Calls also for immediate steps towards ending the closure and the restrictions imposed by Israel on movement and access into and out of the Gaza Strip, including through the sustained opening of the crossing points of the Gaza Strip for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons in accordance with international law, including as it pertains to legitimate security requirements;

11. Demands that all parties cooperate with medical and humanitarian personnel to allow and facilitate unimpeded access to the civilian population, and calls for the cessation of all forms of violence and intimidation directed against medical and humanitarian personnel;

12. Urges the provision of immediate and unimpeded humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population in the Gaza Strip, bearing in mind critical medical, food, water and fuel needs, and urges increased support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, recognizing the vital role of the Agency, alongside other UN agencies and humanitarian organizations, in providing humanitarian and emergency assistance, notably in the Gaza Strip;

13. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation, including in support of the mediation efforts of Egypt, and concrete steps to reunite the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the legitimate Palestinian government and ensure its effective functioning in the Gaza Strip;

14. Welcomes and urges further engagement by the Secretary-General and the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process to assist, in cooperation with concerned partners, in the efforts to immediately de-escalate the situation and address urgent infrastructure, humanitarian, and economic development needs, including through the implementation of projects endorsed by the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee;

15. Requests the Secretary-General to examine the present situation and to submit a written report, as soon as possible, but not later than 60 days from the adoption of the present resolution, containing, inter alia, his proposals on ways and means for ensuring the safety, protection and well-being of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, including, inter alia, recommendations regarding an international protection mechanism;

16. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts to create the conditions necessary to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues to achieve, without delay, an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 and a comprehensive, just and lasting comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders, 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, as called for in resolution 2334 (2016) and its other relevant resolutions;

17. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

[via Derecho Internacional Público. Costa Rica]

https://www.dipublico.org/109922/protection-of-civilians-in-palestine-un-security-council-fails-to-adopt-a-resolution-due-to-us-veto/

[esprit-de-corps-magazine]

ON TARGET: Ukraine Crisis: Backing A Corrupt Kiev Regime Does Not Benefit Ukrainian People

By Scott Taylor

Last week there were all sorts of rumblings in Ottawa that Canada is considering a proposal to implement a peacekeeping force in Ukraine.

First it was a statement from Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland stating that the Liberal government “has been at the heart of international efforts to support Ukraine, and we are working hard to ensure any peacekeeping effort guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Then it was the turn of Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer, who declared that, if he were prime minister, he would support the peacekeeping proposal from Ukraine’s government. “This mission would allow Ukraine to restore control over its eastern border with Russia, ensuring the Russian military stays within its own country, and out of Ukraine’s,” stated Scheer.

It is clear from Freeland’s and Scheer’s statements that either they know nothing about peacekeeping or they know nothing about the current conflict in Ukraine.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan only added to the collective ignorance when he confirmed Canada is considering a peacekeeping proposal from Kiev, which would “respect Ukraine’s original borders.”

There is no way that the pro-Russian rebels in the breakaway Donbass region of Ukraine are simply going to surrender their hard-fought-for territory to a Canadian soldier in a blue helmet. Similarly, Canada officially recognizes the Crimea to be sovereign Ukraine territory, which would mean somehow expelling the Russian troops that annexed the region in 2014.

Defeating rebels in a civil war and starting a territorial war with Russia is not peacekeeping. Russia’s counterproposal — to have international peacekeeping troops patrol the current ceasefire lines between the rebels and Ukraine government forces in advance of demilitarizing the area and conducting negotiations — seems to fit the traditional model of peacekeeping. Sajjan, however, has rejected this offer for the reason that it would “freeze” the conflict along the current lines.

Unless I missed something, I thought the idea of freezing the bloodshed was the whole rationale behind peacekeeping.

The whole premise is mute as long as Russia has a veto at the United Nations Security Council, and the timing of this discussion comes on the eve of the UN Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference in Vancouver on November 14 and 15.

Trudeau’s Liberal government has not kept its 2015 election campaign promise to make Canada a great peacekeeper again, despite an August 2016 announcement of an imminent UN mission to somewhere in Africa.

As that deployment of 600 troops at a budgeted cost of $400-million never materialized, Canada’s current paltry commitment of just a few dozen peacekeepers on UN duty does not meet the minimum entry requirement for the upcoming defence ministers’ meeting.

That’s right folks, if we were not the host nation, we would not be allowed to attend the gathering in Vancouver. Which is what makes this bluster about a Ukraine peacekeeping mission so interesting.

Canada can claim it wants to participate in a robust mission to bring peace to Ukraine, but by adding the proviso that this means restoring all sovereign territory to Kiev’s control ensures a Russian veto. This of course will allow Canada to unleash a new wave of anti-Russian rhetoric while breathing a sigh of relief that we will not have to actually deploy troops.

The Canadian delegation can strut around at the Vancouver conference and look like we are fire-breathing peace activists prepared to put Putin in his place … if only he wouldn’t use his UN veto to thwart our plan.

For the approximately 1.4-million Ukrainian-Canadian voters, the Liberal government’s restated pledge to respect and recognize Ukraine’s original borders will be music to their ears.

For the long-suffering people of Ukraine, however, Canada’s blank-cheque approach to supporting the regime of President Petro Poroshenko must be greeted with incredulity. Under Poroshenko’s corrupt leadership Ukraine’s economy has failed to recover, and the president’s personal approval rating is at a mind-blowing two per cent.

Like Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Poroshenko is a billionaire oligarch and both countries rank 131st out of 176 nations in terms of corruption. That is where the similarity ends as Putin has an 81 per cent personal popularity rating and Russia’s economy — despite the international sanctions — continues to grow.

If Canada truly wanted to assist the Ukrainian people and not the despised regime that runs it, we would focus more on eradicating the rampant corruption in Kiev before trying to force more Ukrainians in a breakaway territory to submit to it.