‘Chemical Weapons in Syria is Tip of the Iceberg,’ U.N. Secretary-General Calls for Action
Source: IBT (Australia)
September 18, 2013 1:42 PM EST
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed the need for global cooperation to tackle the world's most pressing issues including the crisis in Syria and elsewhere, beyond conflict, accelerating achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). He was speaking to reporters ahead of the 68th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session.
"This is a crucial period for global cooperation. Syria is the biggest peace, security and humanitarian challenge we face. Let us be clear: the use of chemical weapons in Syria is only the tip of the iceberg," Ban told the press in New York.
It is sad that the international community has been unable to help the Syrian people to enjoy their genuine freedom and peace during the last two-and-a-half years, Ban said.
=snip=
"Therefore, we must not take the "business as usual" (approach). I sincerely hope that Russia and the United States demonstrate their leadership at this time, particularly the countries of the permanent members of the Security Council," he said.
Read more: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/506874/20130918/united-nations-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon.htm
What he also said about Chapter 7...
Secretary-General: Yesterday, when there was a discussion among the members of the Security Council, all 15 members have spoken and they will discuss what kind of measure should be taken. It is the prerogative of the Security Council, whether they should take action under Chapter VII, which is a binding one. What I said to the Security Council members is that there is a good agreement between the two countries and which is shared in principle by all the Member States. In such a case, the Security Council members should take immediate action on that, action which can be enforceable. That is my sincere hope, because while we welcome the belated accession by the Syrian Government to the Chemical Weapons Convention, there are many obligations. These obligations must be implemented, true to the letter and spirit of this Chemical Weapons Convention, but in the past, we have seen many such cases where their commitment has not been implemented and the Security Council has taken many resolutions to enforce the resolutions. Therefore, at this time, when you have seen all the overwhelming facts that chemical weapons were used, then we must make sure that there should be no such re-emergence of using chemical weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction as a tool of war. That is a very important principle at this time.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
Chapter 7 itself: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The interventionists didn't even give it a week's break before they started in again. There must be someone somewhere who really, really needs us to start bombing Syria? Mr. Netanyahu comes to mind, but he would never try and get the U.S. to do Israel's dirty work for him, would he?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The Secretary of the UN is just itching to do Israel a freeking favor. You may want to step back, take a deep breath and think before you embarrass yourself.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The unrelenting pressure for us to attack Syria was the subject of my post, and it is undoubtedly coming from somewhere, right?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)you try and pin the blame on Israel - you're nothing but predictable.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Israel's Prime Minister has publicly stated he wants President Assad removed from office. The story was posted here on DU less than twenty-four hours ago. Do I have to provide you with a link?
What is predictable about me is that I choose not to indulge in denial of the facts for partisan reasons.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And the Germans. And the US. And now, the UN. But you, predictably, decided to blame Israel. SSDD. You're boring in your predictability.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)One should wear it. Israel has more to gain from getting rid of Assad than any other country, especially all of those you name.
Now if you had said "Saudi Arabia," then you might have made an argument, but Germany or France? They hardly rise to the level of interested spectators.
The United States is on the verge of going to war in yet another Middle-Eastern country because of our close alliance with Israel. Deny it all you please. Try to cover it up with a smokescreen of calling me an "anti-Jewish Israel-hater" all you want, but that fact still remains a fact.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)me with your Israel is the root of all problems nonsense. What exactly would Israel have to gain from Syria being taken over by Al Queda? Do you even hear how stupid that sounds?
Besidese, don't you have some story from RT to pimp?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)But you are right for once, this is deeply boring. You do nothing but cast insults, and then employ emotion to obscure the point in question.
Farewell.
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)I've always had this intuition that behind many of these pseudo-pacifist is hiding people who simply hate Israel
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Do you have a cute little graphic for them too?
Sand Wind
(1,573 posts)I will not make a defence of Israel, that was not my point.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Don't beat around the bush, little man, come on out and say what you want to say.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)because it is good that a hUGE cache of chemical weapons would be removed from a neighboring country.
I suspect that the final agreement will not be chapter 7 - but chapter 6 with a call for the immediate discussion of a chapter 7 resolution IF there is either use or non-compliance. This was what Lavrov agreed to.
I don't think Ban Ki Moon wants war. I think he thinks that the UN report means they should be MORE aggressive in Syria than where Kerry and Lavrov were Saturday. I suspect that the Saturday agreement stopped where it did because that was as far as Russia could be pushed. I assume anything written to do what Moon wants would be vetoed by Russia. Russia - in essence does not want a pre approved resolution to strike if it is proven that Syria again uses CW or stops complying. Therefore, I think they will retreat to what Kerry and Lavrov agreed on. (I suspect Russia will try to get what neither Obama or Kerry have ever agreed to - a US commitment not to act without UN approval. The reason is that Russia alone would then control US action - with their veto power. No US President would agree to that.)
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Yet less than a week later he is openly calling for regime change in Syria. Which is the real Netanyahu?
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)here are the most applicable part(s) of Chapter 7
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations
Article 43
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
Article 44
When the Security Council has decided to use force it shall, before calling upon a Member not represented on it to provide armed forces in fulfilment of the obligations assumed under Article 43, invite that Member, if the Member so desires, to participate in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that Member's armed forces.
Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 46
Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
Article 47
There shall be established a Military Staff Committee to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.
The Military Staff Committee shall consist of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives. Any Member of the United Nations not permanently represented on the Committee shall be invited by the Committee to be associated with it when the efficient discharge of the Committee's responsibilities requires the participation of that Member in its work.
The Military Staff Committee shall be responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council. Questions relating to the command of such forces shall be worked out subsequently.
The Military Staff Committee, with the authorization of the Security Council and after consultation with appropriate regional agencies, may establish regional sub-committees.
Article 48
The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.
Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.
Article 49
The Members of the United Nations shall join in affording mutual assistance in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml
Russia and China would have to agree to military action against Syria first, something that is quite unlikely to happen IMO
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)He is not a suspect on the list of likely war-mongers.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)is attempting to stop the warmongers hopefully he succeeds
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)More power to him and anyone else who does not want war.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)2 million have made it over the borders.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 09:46 AM - Edit history (1)
"... The Security Council members should take immediate action on that, action which can be enforceable."
If it is not enforceable what would it be? Advisory? Wishful thinking? "It would be nice of you to get rid of your chemical weapons but, if you decide not to, we will understand."
Got to admit the right, which loves to laugh at and/or hate the UN, would have a field day with such a display of UN "toughness" in its search for a diplomatic solution.
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
USA is the biggest peace, security and humanitarian challenge we face imo.
USA has been destabilizing the Middle East for decades, while its own citizens flounder in poverty and violence.
PNAC/MIC gang, Big Oil and Pharma have many of the (s)elected officials in their pockets.
There's an old saying, Clean your own house first before criticizing others.
USA does not have leadership, it has "controllers".
Leadership is going to have to come from "we the people" at the bottom,
cuz the people on the top sure ain't doing a good job of it.
I believe that if "we the people" do not rise up and repair the system in the USA,
it'll get "repaired" from the OUTSIDE . . .
Won't be pretty.
CC
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Russia and China see this and are not happy. He's losing any chance to be the fair broker for a peace deal.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I agree but it must be hard to read the stuff submitted to him and still keep an open mind.
Here's an excerpt from the most recent submission of the Commission of Inquiry on Syria to Ban.
Instances of enforced disappearance have risen exponentially since the conflict began. By placing victims outside the protection of the law, government forces sewed terror among the civilian population. ... Enforced disappearance is used by government and pro-government forces as a strategy of war, to stifle dissent and to spread terror within society. It is committed as part of a widespread attack against a civilian population, with knowledge of the attack, and constitutes a crime against humanity.
Torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment were perpetrated by government forces as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of an organizational policy. The involvement and active participation of government institutions indicated that torture was institutionalized and employed as a matter of policy. The crime against humanity of torture and cruel treatment was perpetrated with impunity by Syrian intelligence agencies, in particular Military and Air Force Intelligence, as well as the Military Security services. Such conduct is also prosecutable as a war crime.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session24/Documents/A_HRC_24_46_en.DOC
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
Nobody is coming after the USA - yet. Keep pushing the World's buttons,
USA may end up on the receiving end - big time.
"On April 2, 2013, debt held by the public was approximately $11.959 trillion or about 75% of GDP. Intragovernmental holdings stood at $4.846 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.805 trillion.[4][5][5][6] As of January 2013, $5.6 trillion or approximately 47% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were the People's Republic of China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States
______________________________________________________________________________________________-
If I owned somebody that many $$ - I would sure not be messing around in their back yard.
PNAC/MIC et al freaked when China shot down one of their own satellites.
Why? - Because somebody in the USA realized that if China can shoot down one of their own satellites,
they sure as hell can shoot down the USA's. I'd bet China's missiles are not aimed at the USA, but at their satellites.
Without satellites, USA's military is pretty much useless.
Ponder that.
CC
pampango
(24,692 posts)about war crimes and human rights violations?
My guess is that most of the world would love to see US war criminals brought to justice. However, pending that coming to pass, I doubt most want the UN or their own governments to give a pass to other war criminals. At least, I know I don't.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)The UN needs to be more than just a paper tiger that gives murderous regimes a free pass to do as they wish.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Ban supports a peaceful resolution. He is a kind and honorable man who has not only served his country (South Korea) as a diplomat, but now the world as UN Secretary.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)R2P has now established precedence.
Arms sanctions at the minimum are necessary to assure future peace.
