Menu

Forums



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/27/2015 11:22:04 AM

Iraq's stalemate in Ramadi raises doubts about US strategy

Associated Press
By ROBERT BURNS19 hours ago

FILE - in this Sept. 16, 2015 file photo, rows of tents at a refugee camp in Baghdad's western neighborhood of Ghazaliyah, Iraq. The camp accommodating people from Anbar province's Ramadi and around received humanitarian aid. A summer of stalemate in the effort to reclaim the Iraqi provincial capital of Ramadi, despite U.S.-backed Iraqi troops vastly outnumbering Islamic State fighters, calls into question not only Iraq's ability to win a test of wills over key territory but also the future direction of Washington's approach to defeating the extremist group. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — A summer of stalemate in the effort to reclaim the Iraqi provincial capital of Ramadi, despite U.S.-backed Iraqi troops vastly outnumbering Islamic State fighters, calls into question not only Iraq's ability to win a test of wills over key territory but also the future direction of Washington's approach to defeating the extremist group.

The Ramadi standoff, with no immediate prospect of an Iraqi assault on the city, drags on even as the U.S. prepares to makeover its approach to countering IS in Syria and congressional Republicans cite Ramadi as evidence of a failed American strategy. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a leading critic, says it's clear the U.S. is not winning, "and if you're not winning in this kind of warfare, you are losing."

The Obama administration insists patience will pay off, even in Ramadi, where in May, IS won control against a much larger Iraqi force, shattering claims by U.S. military officials that the group was on the defensive across Iraq.

Afterward, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Iraqis, who had no U.S.-trained soldiers with them and had fled Ramadi, "showed no will to fight."

The loss of Ramadi carried special significance for veterans of the long U.S. war in Iraq. Dozens of U.S. troops were killed there during the counterinsurgency fight to restore Iraqi government control in 2006; hundreds more died in combat across Anbar province, of which Ramadi is the capital.

A Ramadi counteroffensive, announced in July, was supposed to mark a turning point for Iraqi troops, who have proved to be no match for the determined IS fighters. Instead it has sputtered, slowed by sectarian squabbles, debilitating summer heat and the extremists' use of improvised bombs to create what amounts to a minefield around Ramadi.

View gallery
Map locates Ramadi in Iraq’s Anbar province; 1c x …
Map locates Ramadi in Iraq’s Anbar province; 1c x 3 inches; 46.5 mm x 76 mm;

Over the past two months, the Iraqi government has added about 3,000 U.S.-trained Iraqi troops to the Ramadi operation, representing one-third of the total, U.S. officials say. U.S. officers in Iraq are working directly with Iraqi commanders to plan and executive the counteroffensive, but the Iraqis appear not to be in a hurry.

Instead of assaulting IS inside Ramadi, the Iraqis have struggled with a weekslong effort to isolate the city by cutting off IS routes for resupply and reinforcement. That has been stymied by disputes between Iraqi federal police and Popular Mobilization Forces, the Iranian-backed Shiite militias considered the most effective fighting force on the ground.

"We acknowledge that the Iraqis have not made any significant forward movement recently," Col. Patrick Ryder, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command, said Friday, adding that the U.S. is urging Iraqi leaders to press ahead.

The slow pace has revealed Ramadi as a microcosm of the obstacles facing both the Iraqis and their American partners, including the competition for power and influence in Shiite-dominated Baghdad, the role of Iranian-backed militias in the fight against IS, and the deep flaws in Iraq's security forces. As in Ramadi, the overall U.S.-led campaign against IS is stalemated, U.S. intelligence agencies believe.

The Obama administration believes a lasting solution to IS cannot be achieved by sending U.S. combat forces back to Iraq. The U.S. argues that the ultimate test is whether Iraq's own security forces can be fortified to take back their country. If they cannot, according to Gen. Martin Dempsey, who stepped down this past week as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then Washington will have to come up with a "Plan B."

View gallery
FILE - In this Sept. 22, 2015 file photo, Senate Armed …
FILE - In this Sept. 22, 2015 file photo, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, …

Some analysts doubt the plans for the Ramadi counteroffensive, noting that predominantly Sunni Ramadi is not the Shiite-dominated government's highest priority.

"The Iraqi army remains weak despite American military aid," Lina Khatib, a Middle East expert and research associate at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, said by email. "It is simply not realistic to expect an army that almost crumbled just over a year ago in the face of the spread of IS to bounce back in such a short period of time."

She was referring to the devastating collapse of Iraq's army in Mosul in June 2014 and the fading expectation that Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, can be retaken before President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. Early this year, U.S. military officials said they expected an Iraqi counteroffensive in Mosul by May. Now there is talk of the city remaining in IS hands for the foreseeable future.

David E. Johnson, a retired Army colonel and senior historian at the RAND Corp., believes the trouble runs deeper than just giving the Iraqi army more time to absorb U.S. training.

"My view is that they're just not capable of doing what it's going to take" to recapture Ramadi, let alone succeed in the bigger challenge of retaking Mosul, Johnson said.

View gallery
FILE - In tis Aug. 20,2015 file photo, Defense Secretary …
FILE - In tis Aug. 20,2015 file photo, Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks during a news conference …

"Mosul is going to make Ramadi look like child's play," Johnson said.

Jim M. Dubik, a retired Army lieutenant general who headed U.S. training of Iraqi forces in 2007-08 and is now a professor at Georgetown University's Center for Security Studies, says the U.S. and the government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi should be acting with more urgency.

"I really fear that our current approach may not work in time," Dubik said. Al-Abadi is under enormous pressure not only from the Islamic State but also from inside his own government, including those who favor giving Iranian-backed militias a lead role in Ramadi. Until more Iraqis become convinced that al-Abadi will prevail on the political front, he is likely to struggle on the military front, Dubik said.

Marine Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Killea, chief of staff at the U.S. anti-IS command headquarters in Kuwait disputed the notion that the counteroffensive has stalled.

"There's movement on both sides every day," he said.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/27/2015 2:10:21 PM

Atomic Nightmare: Welcome to Pakistani Nuclear Weapons 101



Five things you need to know regarding one of the world's fastest-growing nuclear weapons programs.


Daniel R. DePetris

Could Pakistan be more of a nuclear security threat to Israel than Iran? Conventional wisdom suggests that a nuclear-armed Iran is the most pressing potential nuclear threat to Israel. It’s a country run by a Shia theocracy espousing invective for Israel on a daily basis. Indeed, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ranted about the possibility of Israel’s forthcoming destruction as recently as this week. However, Azriel Bermant, a research associate at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, offered a different take earlier this year in a column he wrote for the Israeli newspaperHaaretz: the real threat might come from Pakistan.


Bermant postulated that despite the worries of both Israeli and American policymakers alike, Iran may not be the nuclear threat that Israel should focus on. After all, Tehran doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon at its disposal. Further, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in July will forestall the Iranians from the nuclear threshold for the next fifteen to twenty-five years. Rather, Bermant argues, “one could argue that Islamabad poses more of a threat to Israel than Tehran does.”


It’s worth considering because the Pakistani government possesses a fairly large nuclear arsenal. Over the years, President Barack Obama has expressed reservations about the continuing growth and stability of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program. Only three months into his first term in April 2009, President Obama voiced his concerns: “We have huge…national-security interests in making sure that Pakistan is stable and that you don’t end up having a nuclear-armed militant state.”

Here is why the United States likely continues to have those worries, nearly seven years later:


1. Pakistan’s Growing Arsenal

There are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world today. According to the latest count from the Federation of American Scientists, the five original nuclear powers have a combined 15,465 nuclear weapons between them, most of which are divided amongst the United States and Russia. Yet the fastest growing nuclear arsenal in the world is not included in this number. While Pakistan has a range of 100-120 nuclear weapons in its possession — a figure that pales in comparison to the United States or Russia — Islamabad has devoted a tremendous amount of its military budget to growing its arsenal and procuring the associated delivery systems that are needed to launch them.

More alarming than Pakistan’s current stockpile is the projected growth of its arsenal over the next decade. In a wide-ranging report for the Council on Foreign Relations, professor Gregory D. Koblentz of George Mason Universityassessed that Pakistan had enough highly enriched uranium to increase its stockpile to 200 nuclear weapons by 2020 if fully utilized. Percentage wise, this would mean that the Pakistani army would be projected to increase its nuclear weapons arsenal by roughly sixty-seven percent over the next five years. In other words, Pakistan could have as many nuclear weapons as the United Kingdom by 2020. Moreover, Pakistan falls outside the purview of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

To guarantee that they the ability to rapidly expand their stockpile, the Pakistani military is investing in reprocessing plutonium in addition to enriching uranium. In January 2015, the Institute for Science and International Security reported that the Pakistanis opened up their fourth plutonium facility atKhushab, which provides Islamabad with an additional channel to construct nuclear bomb material in a relatively short period of time. “Its expansion appears to be part of an effort to increase the production of weapons-grade plutonium,” the ISIS report (not to be confused with the terrorist group) reads. “Allowing Pakistan to build a larger number of miniaturized plutonium-based nuclear weapons that can complement its existing highly enriched uranium nuclear weapons.”


2. Pakistani Nukes a Major U.S. Intelligence Priority

To say that the U.S. intelligence community is closely monitoring the development of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program would be an understatement. The U.S. government is doing more than just monitoring: they are actively preparing for a terrible catastrophe and engaging Pakistani officials in the hopes that they will stop pouring resources into the expansion of their program. The last thing Washington wants or needs is a nuclear crisis flashpointin a dangerous and unpredictable region filled with an alphabet soup of Islamist terrorist groups. The U.S. government under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama has been trying to prevent such a crisis scenario from occurring.

Thanks to the 2010 Wikileaks disclosures, we can glean how seriously the State Department took the problem. In September 2009, on the margins of a nuclear security meeting among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Undersecretary for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher discussed with China’s foreign minister about how intransigent Islamabad had been in implementing the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT). In response to Tauscher’s concerns, China’s representative agreed to discuss the treaty problems with Islamabad directly.

The prospect of Pakistan losing control of its nuclear materials has been a persistent headache for the United States. It is a scenario that military planners and intelligence officials have been planning for even before the September 11, 2001 attacks. NBC News ran a long investigative piece on U.S. plans to unilaterally secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if a situation erupted that would put U.S. interests at risk — whether it included nuclear materials being stolen by a terrorist group; extremists infiltrating the ranks of the Pakistani army or a quick escalation of violence between Pakistan and India. The investigation found that “Pakistan’s weaponry has been the subject of continuing discussions, scenarios, war games and possibly even military exercises by U.S. intelligence and special operations forces regarding so-called ‘snatch-and-grab’ operations.”

The safety of Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile remains a key action item for the U.S. intelligence community today — so much so that Pakistan-specific analytical cells were created in order to address the lack of information that America’s intelligence professionals were receiving about Islamabad’s proliferation activities.

3. Nukes Have Gotten Pakistan Into Trouble With the U.S.

Pakistan’s high enrichment of uranium is not a new problem — it has complicated the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship since the mid 1970’s, when U.S. lawmakers first enacted a strict set of economic sanctions on Islamabad’s nuclear weaponization activities. The 1977 Glenn amendment added to the Foreign Assistance Act was the first of many congressional efforts to pressure Pakistan (and any other non-nuclear weapons state not party to the NPT) to refrain from conducting a nuclear explosive test. That legislation came in handy in May 1998, when President Bill Clinton enacted sanctions on Pakistan in retaliation for a nuclear test that occurred two weeks after India’s own testing (New Delhi was also sanctioned at the time). Those sanctions prevented the U.S. from sending any foreign assistance to Pakistan — a restriction that was eventually eased later in the year under a new statute.

President Clinton’s predecessor also had his run-ins with the Pakistanis when it came to nuclear proliferation. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush was unable to certify to Congress that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Because President Bush could not make the certification required under U.S. law, Washington was compelled to substantial cut off military and economic assistance to the Pakistani Government — a provision that was in effect until 1996, when the Brown amendment relaxed the restrictions on economic aid.

All of the country-wide sanctions were in addition to the numerous penalties on companies who violated U.S. arms control export policies, which forbid corporations around the world from delivering “material, equipment, or technology…to be used by Pakistan in the manufacture of a nuclear explosive device.” Dealings between Washington and Islamabad were very tense over the nuclear issue throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s. That all changed after 9/11, when Washington enlisted Pakistan’s support against Al-Qaeda.

4. Pakistan Needs Nukes for its Defense

Pakistan likes to fancy itself as a peer competitor to its historical rival India in the South Asia region. But if we’re going to be perfectly honest, Islamabad cannot compete with India in conventional capabilities. By virtue of New Delhi’s large population, impressive economic growth, and potential to continue improving its GDP in the years ahead, Pakistan will always be second-fiddle to its principal adversary in terms of army strength, battle tanks and combat jets. India spent nearly $50 billion on modernizing and building up its armed forces in 2014; Pakistan spent slightly more than $10 billion. The figures are not even close.

And that is why the Pakistani military views its nuclear weapons with such importance. For Islamabad, ensuring that nuclear weapons of all types — from stand-alone strategic weapons to tactical battlefield nukes — are primed and ready for use in a short period of time is a way to keep a vastly more powerful India in check. Unlike India, Islamabad has refused to accept a “no first use” doctrine, meaning that the Pakistani army is authorized to deploy nuclear weapons on the battlefield if the country’s national security is seriously at risk from an Indian incursion. Keeping the nuclear stockpile on stand-by is a way for the Pakistani Government to deter an India that is more populated, wealthier and has more men in uniform.

5. The Bottom Line

Despite all of the attempts from the nuclear non-proliferation community, Pakistan will continue to develop and strengthen its nuclear deterrent as long as the high brass in the Pakistani military continues to have an India-centric mindset in its defense policy. India and Pakistan have fought three wars since Islamabad’s independence in 1947, and in each case, the Pakistanis were the either the losers are forced into a stalemate before acceding to a ceasefire (the 1971 breakaway of eastern Pakistan, which would later be named Bangladesh, was an especially embarrassing defeat for the Pakistanis). Islamabad hasn’t forgotten these cases ever since. And for the Pakistanis, the lessons of these past conflicts are all the same: we cannot repeat history.

(The National Interest)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/27/2015 7:02:30 PM

The UN Releases Plan to Push for Worldwide Internet Censorship

Michael Krieger | Posted at 2:32 pm

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 2.27.50 PM

The United Nations has disgraced itself immeasurably over the past month or so.

In case you missed the following stories, I suggest catching up now:

The UN’s “Sustainable Development Agenda” is Basically a Giant Corporatist Fraud

Not a Joke – Saudi Arabia Chosen to Head UN Human Rights Panel

Fresh off the scene from those two epic embarrassments, the UN now wants to tell governments of the world how to censor the internet. I wish I was kidding.

From the Washington Post:

On Thursday, the organization’s Broadband Commission for Digital Development released a damning “world-wide wake-up call” on what it calls “cyber VAWG,” or violence against women and girls. The report concludes that online harassment is “a problem of pandemic proportion” — which, nbd, we’ve all heard before.

But the United Nations then goes on to propose radical, proactive policy changes for both governments and social networks, effectively projecting a whole new vision for how the Internet could work.

Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.

People are being harassed online, and the solution is to censor everything and license speech? Remarkable.

How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively.

At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that“political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”

So we’re supposed to be lectured about human rights from an organization that named Saudi Arabia head of its human rights panel? Got it.

Regardless of whether you think those are worthwhile ends, the implications are huge: It’s an attempt to transform the Web from a libertarian free-for-all to some kind of enforced social commons.

This U.N. report gets us no closer, alas: all but its most modest proposals are unfeasible. We can educate people about gender violence or teach “digital citizenship” in schools, but persuading social networks to police everything their users post is next to impossible. And even if it weren’t, there are serious implications for innovation and speech: According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, CDA 230 — the law that exempts online intermediaries from this kind of policing — is basically what allowed modern social networks (and blogs, and comments, and forums, etc.) to come into being.

If we’re lucky, perhaps the Saudi religious police chief (yes, they have one) who went on a rampage against Twitter a couple of years ago, will be available to head up the project.

What a joke.

In Liberty,

Michael Krieger


(Liberty Blitzkrieg)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/27/2015 7:06:16 PM
Light Sabers

Shameless hypocrisy: U.S. says Russian veto puts UNSC's legitimacy at risk

Julian Borger and Bastien Inzaurralde
Guardian, UK
Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:17 UTC
Map
© Loey Felipe/AFP/Getty
The UN security council discussing the war in Syria earlier this month.
The United States has warned that Russia's continued blanket use of its UN veto will jeopardise the security council's long-term legitimacy and could lead the US and like-minded countries to bypass it as a decision-making body.


Comment: In other words, what the U.S. wants, the U.S. will get, by any means necessary, ignoring the very principles for which the UN is supposed to exist. Yes, the veto can be abused in certain scenarios, as is usually the case regarding Israel and Palestine. But it also functions for the exact reason Russia has put it to use: to veto really bad ideas.


The warning comes as the UN reaches its 70th anniversary and the security council faces a crisis caused by its paralysis over Syria. It has failed to agree concerted action to try to stem the bloodshed, even after more than 220,000 Syrians have died and more than 11 million have been forced from their homes.

Russia has used its veto powers four times to block resolutions on Syria that Moscow sees as damaging to its ally, the regime of Bashar al-Assad. It has also forestalled common action on Ukraine where it is a party to the conflict, having annexed Crimea and pursued a covert military campaign in support of eastern separatists.


Comment: Russia should be praised, not condemned for these. 1) The resolutions on Syria really were damaging. 2) 'Action on Ukraine' is based on the false premise that Russia "annexed Crimea" and "pursued a covert military campaign" there. In fact, the U.S. staged a coup and tried to bait Russia into a military confrontation. The U.S. is wholly responsible for the Ukraine crisis, not Russia.


Samantha Power, the US permanent representative to the UN, said that the US and other countries had increasingly been going elsewhere to have atrocities investigated, and that a "forum-shopping" trend was likely to continue.

"It's a Darwinian universe here. If a particular body reveals itself to be dysfunctional, then people are going to go elsewhere," Power told the Guardian. "And if that happened for more than Syria and Ukraine and you started to see across the board paralysis ... it would certainly jeopardise the security council's status and credibility and its function as a go-to international security arbiter. It would definitely jeopardise that over time."


Comment: For Power, 'dysfunctional' means she isn't getting what she wants, no matter how pathological. It's like calling a parent 'dysfunctional' for refusing to let a child steal another child's candy and beat them up in the process. She's right about it being a Darwinian universe, though: those who kill the best will find the means to kill regardless of the bleeding heart peaceniks who think the UN can stop them.


Power was one of seven ambassadors to the UN who gave their views on the plight and future of the security council, at a time when it is being assailed on all sides, not just for its failures over Syria and Ukraine, but on broader and longer-term issues such as the fairness and relevance of its structure in the 21st century, and the veto rights of the five permanent members.


Comment: A success for the UN would be a resolution barring the U.S. from 'interfering' with (i.e., destroying) foreign nations.


Matthew Rycroft, the British ambassador, said: "Syria is a stain on the conscience of the security council. I think it is the biggest failure in recent years, and it undoubtedly has consequences for the standing of the security council and indeed the United Nations as a whole."


Comment: In a sense it is a failure, since the truly guilty parties have never been identified and held responsible: i.e., the U.S. and its allies.


The US has used its veto three times in the past decade, to shield Israel from rebuke for its actions in the Palestinian territories. China has used six vetoes, each time in tandem with Russia, while Moscow has used its the veto 10 times over the same period. Since 1991, when Russia took over the Soviet seat on the council, it is the US that has been more prolific with its veto, using it 14 times (almost always to defend Israel from censure), compared to 13 Russian vetoes, and eight used by China.
The man with the job of voting 'No', Russia's permanent representative, Vitaly Churkin, is unapologetic. He portrays the vetoes as aimed at protecting the security council's integrity by preventing it from being used as a vehicle for toppling governments.


Comment: And he's right.


"Some countries were trying to involve the security council in regime change operations in Syria and we were telling them that it's not the business of the security council to go into regime change mode," Churkin said. "This is a fundamental difference and it's not the fault of the security council that this difference is there."

France is proposing that the five permanent council members (the US, Russia, France, UK and China) voluntarily suspend their veto rights in situations where genocide or other mass atrocities are being committed.


Comment: Thus leaving open the opportunity to spin 'mass atrocities' in one direction or another, regardless of whether or not that portrayal is actually true.


"Our initiative is based on the key and core conviction that veto power is not a privilege. It's a responsibility," the French ambassador, François Delattre, said.

The proposal has widespread support in the UN general assembly, but Russia adamantly opposes it. Churkin said it would be open to manipulation.

"I can easily see a situation in which there are some problems and then people start saying these are mass atrocities and there should be no veto and then propose something crazy that will lead to further exacerbating the situation," the Russian ambassador said. "So under these circumstances we do not believe there is any need to tamper with the veto power."


Comment: Again, Churkin is right. How is it that such simple truths are seemingly so obtuse as to be unintelligible to people like Samantha Power?


The current challenge to the security council's authority goes deeper and further than the veto issue. The permanent five members appointed themselves in the aftermath of the second world war from which they emerged the victors. Seventy years on, that settlement is less representative than ever of the global distribution of population and economic strength. Emerging powers are knocking ever more assertively on the clubhouse door.

"In terms of its effectiveness, I think the United Nations security council in 2015 is much less effective than when it was set up in 1945," Asoke Kumar Mukerji, India's UN ambassador, said. "Part of the reason for it not being effective is because it does not really take on board the views of countries from the areas where disputes occur and the security council takes action."

"There are entire regions of the world that are absent from the permanent member category," Antonio Patriota, the Brazilian ambassador, said.

India, Brazil, Germany and Japan have collectively been pushing their claims for more than a decade. They also support permanent membership status for Africa, where the leading and most vocal current claimant is South Africa.

"It can't be fair that the entire African continent is not represented in the security council. If you look at the discussions in the security council today, the discussions are about Africa really - 80, 85, 90% of the discussions," said Kingsley Mamabolo, the South African permanent representative at the UN. "How can we have a situation in which other people are discussing what is happening on our continent without our participation?"

The barriers to expansion are formidable, however. France and the UK have voiced their support for a new intake of permanent members. "It's time to see some changes to the way that the world's reality is 2015 are reflected inside the security council," said Rycroft, the British ambassador.

The other permanent members are more guarded, however. Power said the US was open to a limited expansion but cautioned: "[T]he ultimate legitimacy of the council comes as well from the effectiveness of the council... We've got to remember that any council reform is going to also have to enhance performance."


Comment: In other words, make it more U.S.-friendly.


That concern over the potential tradeoff between size and efficiency is something the US shares with Russia. Expansion would make the council more representative, Churkin conceded, but added that after spending nine and a half years in the security council he did not believe it would be more effective.

"If there are 25 or 27 members, of course it will be more difficult even to discuss issues and more difficult to reach a consensus solutions," the Russian envoy said.

In New York, China has kept a lower profile in its opposition to change (the UN mission did not respond to interview requests) but it has been the most active behind the scenes in quashing any whiff of reform. Preventing Japanese permanent membership in particular is a longstanding strategic aim.

According to diplomats at the UN, Beijing lobbied African capitals to demand veto powers when Africa put forward a collective demand for two permanent seats, making it even less likely to be accepted. And when the Jamaican permanent representative, Courtenay Rattray, began making unexpected progress in drafting a text on reforms to put before the new general assembly session, China sent senior officials to Kingston to register disapproval.

The most surprising thing about the episode is that China felt it necessary to resort to such heavy-handed tactics. Under the UN charter, the only route to reform in the face of permanent five vetoes is to secure a two-thirds majority in the general assembly. But the non-member countries are themselves so divided as to make that a long shot. Jealous neighbours and regional rivalries of the leading candidate members have grouped together to block progress. The group started informally in 1995 as the "Coffee Club", so named because the Italians did the hosting and provided the beverages, but it has since crystallised into a 13-nation lobby calling itself Uniting for Consensus.

Even if that bloc can be overcome, and a reform agenda attracts a two-thirds majority, the vote would have to be ratified by the legislatures of all those countries, as well as the parliaments of the permanent five. When the five created the council, they built a fortress with high walls.

"The sad reality is that serious changes to the security council are unlikely to happen in the next five to 10 years and the UN is going to have to muddle on with pretty much the same security council that it's got right now," said Richard Gowan, an expert on the UN at the European Council for Foreign Relations.

Hardeep Singh Puri, a former Indian permanent representative who is now vice-president of the International Peace Institute, argued that while the odds against change are daunting, a gamble on the part of the reformers, putting a concrete proposal before the general assembly in the knowledge it could well lose, could galvanise support from unexpected quarters. "If some countries shed the risk aversion of which they're all guilty I think you could get a solution quite fast," he argued.

In the absence of change, the consensus view (with the noticeable exception of Russia and China) is that the security council will lose legitimacy, and at a substantial rate as long as it remains impotent in the face of the Syrian disaster.

Comment: Since when has the U.S. really cared for UN approval to wage their illegal wars? One word: Iraq.

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1
Luis Miguel
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Peru Lima
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
9/27/2015 7:19:07 PM

War on IS a focus of UN General Assembly amid stalemate

Associated Press
By ZEINA KARAM3 hours ago

FILE - This picture released on July 13, 2015 by the Rased News Network, a Facebook page affiliated with Islamic State militants, shows an Islamic State militant sniper in position during a battle against Syrian government forces in Deir el-Zour province, Syria. When world leaders convene for the U.N. General Assembly debate Monday, Sept. 28, 2015, it will be a year since the U.S. president declared the formation of an international coalition to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State group. Despite billions of dollars spent and thousands of airstrikes, the campaign appears to have made little impact. (Rased News Network via AP, File)


In this photo released on Sunday, June 28, 2015, by a website of Islamic State militants, an Islamic State militant waves his group's flag as he and another celebrate in Fallujah, Iraq, west of Baghdad. When world leaders convene for the U.N. General Assembly debate Monday, Sept. 28, 2015, it will be a year since the U.S. president declared the formation of an international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State group. Despite billions of dollars spent and thousands of airstrikes, the campaign appears to have made little impact. (Militant website via AP, File)


BEIRUT (AP) — When world leaders convene for the U.N. General Assembly this week, it will be a year since the U.S. president declared the formation of an international coalition to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the Islamic State group.

Despite billions of dollars spent and thousands of airstrikes, the campaign appears to have made little impact.

The extremist group may control slightly less territory than a year ago, but it continues to launch attacks and maintains key strongholds in Syria and Iraq. The militants' reach has expanded to other countries, including Libya, Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Afghanistan.

U.S.-led airstrikes helped Syrian Kurds hold the strategic border town of Kobani in January, and seize another key border town, Tal Abyad, this summer. But a much-touted offensive to oust IS militants from the Iraqi city of Ramadi remains stalled; there have been grave losses among the few Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. to fight IS; an IS-free zone announced by Turkey and the U.S. has failed to materialize.

At the same time, growing concern about the Syrian refugee crisis and reports that IS may be planning attacks against Europe may spur some countries to get more involved in the anti-IS coalition. On Sunday, President Francois Hollande announced that French jet fighters had carried out their first airstrikes against IS targets in Syria. France had previously limited its air campaign to IS targets in Iraq.

But short of sending in ground forces — an option Western countries are not willing to entertain — the stalemate in the war against the Islamic State group is likely to persist.

View gallery
FILE - This undated photo released Tuesday, Aug. 25, …
FILE - This undated photo released Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2015, file photo, on a social media site used b …

"Quite simply, the countries best-placed to contribute meaningfully to the anti-ISIS effort do not share the same interests in Syria," said Faysal Itani, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council, using an alternate acronym for the Islamic State group.

The Russian military buildup of aircraft, missiles, tanks and other equipment is complicating the fight against IS militants in Syria.

Russia's declared purpose is helping the government of President Bashar Assad battle the Islamic extremists, and Moscow has urged the West to go along. In an interview broadcast ahead of his meeting on Monday with President Barack Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin sharply criticized U.S. military support for Syrian rebels, describing it as illegal and useless.

The Obama administration is concerned that Russia's real intention is to shore up Assad and strike at other factions seeking to topple him under the pretext of fighting international terrorism.

In New York, all eyes will be on Putin, who is expected to announce a counterterrorism initiative when he addresses the General Assembly on Monday — his first UNGA appearance in 10 years.

View gallery
Islamic State extremists
In this photo released on May 4, 2015, by a militant website, which has been verified and is consist …

"The Russian escalation in Syria will create a flurry of diplomatic activity to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis and a fresh attempt to confront ISIS in Syria, but the conditions for success on both fronts are still absent," said Paul Salem, vice president for policy and research at the Washington-based Middle East Institute.

"While Putin's call for more efforts to defeat ISIS will fall on welcoming ears in many capitals, the new Russian deployment does not introduce or free up significant numbers of ground forces to make such a campaign plausible," he wrote.

Some analysts say the Russian deployment is likely to make Assad even less inclined to engage in meaningful negotiations for a political settlement to the civil war, which has allowed IS to flourish over the past four years.

"Barring either regime victory over the insurgency, which is unlikely, or a U.S. policy shift toward political transition away from Assad — which would bring regional allies and insurgents on board against ISIS — I don't see any prospect of defeating ISIS," Itani said.

In the United States, both Republicans and Democrats have lambasted the administration's strategy against the IS group, especially after a U.S. general acknowledged that just a few U.S.-trained Syrian rebels remain on the battlefield — others were wiped out by al-Qaida militants.

View gallery
FILE - In this photo released on April 25, 2015, by …
FILE - In this photo released on April 25, 2015, by a militant website, which has been verified and …

The U.S. military said this month that about 70 newly trained rebels have returned to Syria from Turkey. Still, the number is nowhere near the U.S. goal to train and equip 5,400 rebels a year at a cost of $500 million.

The Obama administration is adamant that it will commit no U.S. ground troops despite calls from some in Congress to do so.

"The whole thing is a joke. They are not serious about destroying Daesh either in Syria or Iraq," said a one-time resident of Raqqa who fled to Turkey. "Dropping a few bombs every now and then will not change anything," he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity to protect his family in Raqqa, the Syrian city the IS has claimed as the capital of its self-declared caliphate.

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Gen. Lloyd Austin, insisted this month that the operation against IS was making progress, and said the military had always said the campaign would take time.

An IS operative, meanwhile, said it was unlikely that Russia would be drawn into the war against the group. And he said bickering over the Russian presence in Syria would ultimately benefit the IS effort.

View gallery
French President Francois Hollande speaks at a news …
French President Francois Hollande speaks at a news conference at U.N. headquarters, Sunday, Sept. 2 …

"Any group that wants to divide Syria up or battle over it for dividing the booty, this will be in our interest," he wrote in an exchange of Skype messages. He spoke on condition of anonymity because members of the group are not allowed to speak to journalists.

If Russia joins the coalition, he said: "It makes no difference for the Islamic State to fight 60 or 80 countries. It is the same."

___

Associated Press writer Sarah El Deeb contributed to this report.

___

Follow Zeina Karam on http://twitter.com/zkaram

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)
+1


Mobile Site | Stores | Contact Us | Testimonials | FAQ Privacy | Terms | About Us
Copyright 1998 - 2025, All rights reserved.