United Nations

  By Farhang Jahanpour September 26   Last year I wrote that Trump’s speech at the UN General Assembly was perhaps the worst speech ever delivered from that podium, certainly by a Western leader. This year he surpassed himself. Why is there no rule to say that someone who openly violates the basic norms of the United Nations continuously threatens other countries in contravention of the UN Charter’s Article 2.4 condemns internationalism and multilateralism advocates a narrow nationalism/patriotism (to make America great again) stops funding the UNESCO condemns the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatens its officials withdraws from UNRWA withdraws from the Paris Climate Accord withdraws from the UN Human Rights Commission withdraws from the UN Security Council-based nuclear deal with Iran (JCPOA) etc. – can not automatically expect to remain a member of the UN world body that is in charge of those organisations and advocates those principles...

Av Christian Hårleman* 1:a september 2018 Våren 1992 blev jag ombedd att som militär rådgivare arbeta i Departement of Peacekeping Operations (DPKO). Det var inte helt oväntat sedan jag de föregående tre åren hade arbetat i New York med peacekeeping vid dels International Peace Academy (IPA) och dels vid UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). Även om jag var hyfsat underkunnig om peacekeeping var jag färsk i min nya roll som militär rådgivare vid UN HQs. Detta skedde ungefär vid samma tid som när Kofi Annan övertog chefskapet över DPKO efter den dynamiska britten Marrack Goulding. Departementet var vid Annans tillträde starkt engagerad i konflikten i Jugoslavien vilken även präglade Säkerhetsrådets politiska agenda. Det var en turbulent tid där formerna för och strukturen av peacekeeping konceptet per se ifrågasattes. Att för Annan överta departementet vid denna tid var således ingen lätt uppgift och många undrade om ”the softspoken Annan”...

  Following is the response of Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s 12 demands from Iran. On May 21, Pompeo set 12 conditions for Iran to follow in order for the United States to agree to a new nuclear deal with Tehran.   By Mohammad Javad Zarif  Iran’s Foreign Minister Following the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris Climate Accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the third multilateral agreement that the current United States administration has withdrawn from. The administration has also put in jeopardy other multilateral arrangements such as NAFTA, the global trade system, and parts of the United Nations system, thus inflicting considerable damage to multilateralism, and the prospects for resolving disputes through diplomacy. Originally published here on Iran Daily on June 20, 2018 The announcement on 8 May 2018 of United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA and...

  This is literally a unique experience of extraordinary educational value: Listen to 98-year old Ben Ferencz sharing his crystal clear perception of the human stupidity of war – all wars – and how he sees the situation of humanity. He remains a realist, he says, with more optimism than pessimism. Listen to him telling about his truly amazing, unique life as a lawyer devoted to the common good of humanity and to securing justice but also human care for victims as well as perpetrators. He is the last surviving Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor and has thought more than probably anyone about the psychology and politics of evil. Ferencz is a staunch believer in abolishing wars as such and, of course, in nuclear weapons abolition. He challenges the entire Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex, MIMAC, and argues that there is only one winner in wars: Death. If you are a teacher, get your students...

  The news came a few days ago: “UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned member states that the organization is facing “troubling funding issues as a result of delayed dues payments that will force reductions in non-staff costs.” But who really cares? Any Trump tweet or football result is more important to our media and politicians. The members of the UN still give the world’s military about 340 times more than the UN for its core budget.   s: The UN will never be stronger or better than the member states want it to be. That is the essential – and in some sense also existential – truth about the world’s potentially most important and visionary organisation. A second truth is that the UN is not, at least not predominantly, the power house in New York (which, in passing, ought to be moved out of the US given the decade-long contempt...

  TFF PressInfo # 470 Lund, Sweden – July 27, 2018 Forgive us for saying it but the coverage of the Putin-Trump meeting in the mainstream press has been painful to witness – the US media in particular. Navel-gazing in the extreme and turning the Presidential Summit meeting about their relations and international affairs into a US domestic policy affair. The Western media questions -also the so-called respected media – matched the rest in their narrow-minded tabloid attitude – one super fool believing he could get Putin to talk about what he “has” on Trump concerning alleged prostitute hiring in Moscow years ago – prestitutes about prostitutes! Write to tff@transnational.live and get TFF PressInfo from now on – it’s free because TFF is free And – which your free press has hardly mentioned – one journalist, Sam Husseini, who intended to ask about nuclear disarmament was forcefully ejected from the...

  By Gunnar Westberg June 21, 2018 The North Korea – USA nuclear crisis should teach us several lessons regarding nuclear weapons: 1. Nuclear weapons do not prevent nuclear proliferation. In 1970, the nuclear weapon states accepted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT. In this treaty, they agree to negotiate the complete disarmament of their own nuclear weapons. They have – equally completely – disregarded this pledge and insist that they must retain nuclear weapons in order to prevent other countries from acquiring them. The North Korea example shows us that this does not work.   2. Nuclear weapons are contagious. The nuclear weapons states also insist, contrary to their pledge in the NPT, that they must keep their nukes “for their own security”. This provides an excuse for other states to acquire them. A small country such as North Korea, DPRK, has stronger reasons to build nuclear weapons than a...

  • Give the man a break. Donald Trump found out in Singapore that, as Churchill said, “Jaw-Jaw is better than War-War”. If war can be avoided by a warm, long, very private chat without advisers, with effusive body gestures and promises of a world stage when his opponent, Kim Jong Un, is invited to the White House, then Trump has showed the way. It was learning the hard way because a few months ago when Trump threatened to incinerate North Korea he met counter threats from North Korea that could have led to the deaths of 30 million people in South Korea alone, never mind what numbers might die in an attack on American troops stationed in Japan and Guam naval base. I have no proof but I do think Trump can make a grand peace with North Korea, unlike his predecessors. They too had the will but were...

  A short comment to a very good statement by Madam Mogherini about Syria. She is right – and one must wonder why virtually every big power anyhow does not invest in political, negotiated solutions but in weapons. And why the world is so woefully unbalanced in terms of war-making versus peace-making. The simple truth is that every and each conflict on earth gets more difficult to solve from the moment some type of violence is introduced into it. That is why the world should focus on reducing  military development, production and sales. If Syria had been cordoned off and no weapons had entered its space, it would have been much much easier to solve the underlying conflicts – which, by the way, have little to do with Darrah in spring 2011 but much more complex things. I find it relevant to here also mention how pervasively all Security Council...

This post is an assessment of the recent Syrian missile attack by the armed forces of the U.S., UK, and France from a variety of perspectives. It is a modified and expanded version of a text earlier published in The Wire  (Delhi) and Il Manifesto(Rome). I intend to write two further posts suggested by the controversy generated by the airstrikes of April 14, 2018, against sites associated with Syria’s alleged chemical weapons capabilities. These strikes raise questions of international law, domestic constitutional authorization for international uses of force, strategic logic, and moral imperatives and rationalizations. Each of these issues is capable of multiple interpretations raising further concerns about the appropriate location of the authority to decide given the nature of world order in the 21stcentury.  Preliminary reflections At this stage, it seems reasonable to wonder whether Syria was attacked because it didn’t use chemical weapons rather than because it did....

Lund, Sweden – April 14, 2018 Statement by Associates of TFF – The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research Summary The US-British-French attack is a clear and indisputable case of aggression according to international law, and to the UN Charter in particular. And it lacks, like many unilateral wars before it, a UN Security Council mandate. It comes as a consequence of interventionist impulses and militarism and lacks every element of a comprehensive conflict analysis, or diagnosis. Even if one assumes that the government and president of Syria are the main/only culprits and the worst violaters of human rights on earth, the way that the Syrian conflict has been handled by Western governments over the past seven years has been outrageously wrong and counterproductive. It’s been deliberate conflict-mismanagement combined with peace-prevention. Conspicuously, this aggression on Syria takes place before there is a shred of evidence of what chemical weapons...

 In the park today I saw a teenager watching two little kids, one of whom apparently stole a piece of candy from the other. The teenager rushed up to the two of them, reprimanded one of them, and stole both of their bicycles. I felt like it was my turn to step in at that point, and I confronted the bicycle thief. “Excuse me,” I said, “what makes you think you can commit a larger crime just because you witnessed a smaller one? Who do you think you are?” He stared at me for a while, and replied: “the U.S. military.” Originally published at David Swanson here There is no crime larger than war. There is no way to legalize it. The Kellogg-Briand Pact bans it, and the United Nations Charter bans it with narrow exceptions that have not remotely been met by any of the U.S. wars of the...