Tag Archives: United Nations Security Council


By James Lawler, for Fox News

It’s been a big three days for FOX News in SydVEGAS. We’ve covered everything from North Korean refugee abuses to international terror-funding financial controls, even though FOX’s financial knowledge is limited to remembering his 4-digit PIN number (and FOX can’t remember both of them).

We’ve seen the Security Council eject Human Rights (literally) and become a geopolitical ashram, the Third General Assembly turn into a Battle of the Longest Speech, and the Sydney Uni New Law building become a mosh-pit for pizza. Somalia’s been colonised, the UN’s been cyberattacked, and Ban Ki-Moon has taken up the Charles Taylor-model of leadership. FOX has tweeted loud, grilled hard and drunk far more than is sobre and sensible.

After Fair and Balanced consideration, FOX can confidently say that crypto-communists out to destroy the greatest land on earth, the good old US of A, and the Christian family values it stands for. But, some of you have revealed yourselves to be true Americans (at least in spirit), and for that FOX is glad.

Thus, as the final night is on us, this correspondent recommends two paths. For the patriots tonight, drink hard. And for the leftists, they say some find God at the bottom of the bottle – so drink hard for Jesus.
God bless, and down with the liberal agenda,FOX NEWS



By James Lawler, for Fox News

Over the course of this conference, FOX has suffered greatly for his work – take the excruciating back pain resulting from being confined to a chair outside the Security Council, or the psychological trauma of an intense hangover after SydVEGAS. These are brutal blows but, gallant as always, your correspondent will endure.

Yet, greater still, and much more righteous, is the agony inflicted by the press by its scrutiny of the delegates who would rather lurk in the darkness of an anonymous committee chair. Peddling their spin and pursuing their foul agendas, they would much rather the International Press Gallery wasn’t there to shine a harsh, revealing light on them and their designs. But that’s too bad.


In a series of press conferences today, FOX witnessed a number of delegates from the world’s less-transparent regimes crack under IPG scrutiny. We saw 3rd General Assembly’s Chinese representative bellowing at a Sydney Morning Herald reporter in response to her questions exposing the Communist regime’s detainment of 50 Tibetan activists on Death Row. Earlier, China had called for transparency – but, evidently, only when it’s not directed at them.

Your own FOX correspondent was also subjected to smear and slander. In response to our public grilling of Russia’s unwillingness to engage with the Press, the Russian delegate accused us of “low-level discourse”, claiming further that this media organisation is “a state propaganda mouthpiece”. Newsflash, Russia: FOX News is a privately-owned media organisation, with a proud record of scrutinising all governments, including the USA’s democratic regimes. Of course, given that Russia currently ranks an appalling 148th out of 179 on the international Press Freedom Index, such hostility towards independent journalism is unsurprising. We will never forget Anna Politkovskaya.FOX is not here to make you look or feel good. Instead, we’re after the truth – and when you shout and wail and bluster, FOX knows it’s doing its job.


By James Lawler, for Fox News

In a non-exclusive, FOX has gained access to the Security Council’s draft resolution addressing the recent Kenyan intervention in Somalia. Proposed by Morocco, key features of the resolution include:

– CONDEMNING the Kenyan intervention, demanding the withdrawal of Kenyan forces from Jubaland and endorsing sanction in the event of non-compliance.

– DEPLOYING a peacekeeping force to administer Jubaland AND a monitoring taskforce to monitor possible human-rights violations.

– REINDORSING the embargo on Somalian charcoal exports in an attempt to financially weaken Somali terror group Al-Shabaab.

In summary, this draft resolution bears all the signs of a classically misguided, bleeding-heart and utterly chaotic piece of liberal foreign policy.

Firstly, it puts blame in the wrong places. The resolution incomprehensibly blasts Kenya’s occupation of the Jubaland region as an “annexation”, despite the Kenya’s previous statements that they’ll withdraw troops as soon as possible. Yet, it utterly fails to condemn the Somali government’s hapless inability to prevent its territory being used as a launch-pad for international terror. This sets a terrible precedent for international norms – the Security Council is fine states being riddled with terrorists, but unable to comprehend the notion of self-defence.


Secondly, the resolution is unworkable. It demands Kenya withdraw troops from Jubaland within 48 hours, although Kenya has already publically refused to follow such a timetable. As a stopgap measure, it demands the deployment of a humanitarian monitoring force in Jubaland. However, it might want to be noted that Jubaland is currently also a warzone, with Kenyan forces under siege from Somali troops and Al-Shabaab militants (something the Council seems to have forgotten, given that it also fails to even call for a ceasefire in the region). Hence, the resolution is effectively sending UN monitors off to die.

Compounding the likelihood of this resolution actually escalating the Jubaland conflict is the proposed deployment of a UN peacekeeping force in Jubaland. According to the text of the resolution, troops have the authority “to use all necessary measures to restore international peace and security”. For those of you unaware of typical Council resolutions, this mandate is impossibly wide. Given Somalia is still battling to re-seize the region, it will effectively drag the UN into a war with Somalia – the country it is trying to save. Thus, our situation is clear – the Security Council has made a serious geopolitical boo-boo. It fails to effectively recognise the true belligerents of the conflict, deploys nonsensical forces which will likely obliterate rather than rescue Jubaland, and fails to effectively target the terrorists responsible for this whole horrific mess. FOX News condemns this draft resolution, condemns the Obama Administration for supporting it, and condemns all other Council members for being parley to such a travesty of international justice.

Al-Shabaab forces near Mogadishu; no response from Security Council

By Yuvin Manadeniya, for Al Jazeera

The crisis that transpired yesterday on the Kenyan-Somalian border dominated much of the discussion that was led in the Security Council. The debate that arose centred on the removal of Kenyan forces in the area of Somalia known as Jubaland. While this remains a present and immediate threat, it has been noted that this has been done so at the expense of the current situation regarding the move of militant forces towards Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu.

The push into the Jubaland was achieved by relocating Kenyan forces that were involved in the AMISON mission. Kenyan forces were observed abandoning their positions in order to assist in the push into Jubaland. As a direct result of this, previously liberated areas were lost to Al-Shabaab forces and it has been reported that these forces are now moving towards Mogadishu. Somalia now faces two immediate threats; the Kenyan annexation of the Jubaland and the threat of an attack on Mogadishu.

It would be expected then that any discussion on the issue would reflect a holistic approach and encompass both issues, however this was not the case in Security Council meetings yesterday. While discussions attempted to find solutions for the Kenyan annexation of Jubaland, with proposals ranging from economic sanctions and punitive measures, there was little discussion to be found on the issue of Al-Shabaab forces moving to Mogadishu.


When questioned on this, the Security Council did admit that discussions had led away from the Al-Shabaab crisis, with the delegate for Azerbaijan emphasising today the need to address the immediate threat which Somalia faces from these militant forces. It is hopeful that discussions today will lead to an effective solution which addresses the weakened nature of the AMISON forces, and the Al-Shabaab forces converging on Mogadishu.

ILC Tardiness Delays Debate Significantly, Public Confidence in UN at Risk

By Alex Wilde, for The Washington Post

The delegates of the ILC may be among the most intelligent legal minds in the world, as was made evident by their superb reasoning during yesterday’s session. Their flouting of basic ethical standards in failing to turn up to committee however falls far short of what is universally demanded of seasoned legal representatives.


Only three delegates turned up to committee at the starting time of 9am. By 10:30am, two more delegates arrived to bring attendance to five, still short of the seven needed to resume debate. At publication, the two extra delegates have yet to turn up, meaning debate has yet to resume.

This behaviour is appalling, plain and simple. This session of the ILC is one of the most important in recent memory. The international community needs clear guidelines on how to conduct humanitarian intervention. The prolonged Syrian crisis is clear evidence of this. For ILC delegates to trivialise the lives of millions of citizens at the expense of their own leisure can only be described as scandalous.

There is no doubt that public confidence in the United Nations and related institutions has been severely damaged by this atrocious display. People all over the world have grown weary of the inability of the UN to adequately address conflict, and there was much hope that the outcomes of this session would rectify this lack of confidence. Unfortunately, the day for such change will have to wait another day, even if it would take the deaths of another thousand Syrian citizens to get there.Diplomatic standards could not possibly steep to lower depths than this.


By James Lawler, for Fox News

FOX should note it can’t report with certainty on developments within the Security Council. After all, the Council did a brilliant Chairman Mao impersonation and ejected all independent observers for most of the proceedings. However, one thing’s certain – there’s no certainty on the Security Council’s position over Kenya’s sudden occupation of the Jubaland territory in Somalia.

The build-up wasn’t good. Outside chambers, the Rwandan delegate warned FOX that many delegates neither wanted to criticise nor condemn the Kenyan action. The Russian delegate claimed that there was “a general state of confusion” with negotiations. The American delegate couldn’t even say whether the Kenyan occupation was temporary or permanent. FOX knows fear of commitment, but this was something else.

The intergovernmental muddle came to a head in a special press conference held by the Council just before the close of debate. Most delegates supported a human-rights monitoring body in Jubaland – except Rwanda, who feared only deploying said force would allow ethnic cleansing to occur.

Russia claimed that there would be sanctions or punitive measures employed against Kenya; straight after, Morocco claimed the Council had supported withdrawing military support and African Union sanctions. Indeed, Morocco has put forward a resolution proposing punitive sanctions – which is not signed by Russia, China, or many states at all. This reporter is of the opinion that, like with the Iraq War, the Kenyan seizure of Jubaland will ultimately be for the better of its population. Readers’ mustn’t forget that to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs – or Somalis. However, this lack of any consensus by the Security Council makes us feel very, well… insecure.

A Full Night’s Sleep, and the ILC is Finally on a Roll

By Alex Wilde for The Washington Post

Following yesterday’s slow start, the members of the ILC have decided to restrict the debate to key concepts instead of juggling multiple issues at once. This is highly welcome, as it allows complex ideas to be unpackaged in a manner conducive towards a thorough report.

The fundamental norm of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ faces little disagreement by delegates. The criteria supporting the principle outlined in Articles 136 and 137 of the World Summit Outcome 2005 received equal support. Delegate 2 stated in an interview with this journalist that the threshold contained within these Articles is sufficient as they limit grounds for intervention to extreme cases (i.e. genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, etc). The WSO criteria should be accepted without alteration as inclusion of new criteria could result in arbitrary reliance on principles to pursue intervention on grounds that may not necessarily be humanitarian. These sentiments were echoed by the majority of delegates during debate.

On the ever-present issue of state sovereignty, all delegates agreed on the basic point that sovereignty should be treated as supreme under the UN Charter, however the operation of R2P effectively prioritises the need to address human rights abuse over matters of state concern. Discussions were framed in purely legalistic terms; the positions of humans themselves have only been referenced fleetingly.

Finally, discussions on the conduct of military intervention are underway with a variety of opinions expressed. Delegate 5 is of the firm opinion that their needs to be a categorisation of cases that replicates the WSO criteria in the final report. When asked whether intervention could be conducted to prevent escalation of potential conflict, the Delegate warned that pre-emptive action potentially falls outside of UN Security Council powers outlined under Ch VII of the UN Charter. When further questioned on the ability of the UNSC to carry out intervention on the basis of its poor record, the Delegate understood such criticism, though she believed questions of UNSC effectiveness should not be addressed during this session.

Delegate 7 in response suggested intervention by regional bodies as an alternative to relying on the UNSC to carry out such operations, citing the 1990s Kosovo intervention by NATO as an example. Delegate 5 quickly delivered a rebuttal, claiming the NATO intervention to be illegal and not permitted under the international legal framework. If regional organisations were to play a role, they would have a limited position under the framework, she claimed.Discussions continue with many more issues left to resolve.