Category: UN

80 countries, UN

Foreign jihadists flocking to Iraq and Syria on ‘unprecedented scale’ – UN

Islamic State fighters

UN report suggests decline of al-Qaida has yielded an explosion of jihadist enthusiasm for its even mightier successor organisations, chiefly Isis

The United Nations has warned that foreign jihadists are swarming into the twin conflicts in Iraq and Syria on “an unprecedented scale” and from countries that had not previously contributed combatants to global terrorism.

A report by the UN security council, obtained by the Guardian, finds that 15,000 people have travelled to Syria and Iraq to fight alongside the Islamic State (Isis) and similar extremist groups. They come from more than 80 countries, the report states, “including a tail of countries that have not previously faced challenges relating to al-Qaida”.

The UN said it was uncertain whether al-Qaida would benefit from the surge. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaida who booted Isis out of his organisation, “appears to be maneuvering for relevance”, the report says.

The UN’s numbers bolster recent estimates from US intelligence about the scope of the foreign fighter problem, which the UN report finds to have spread despite the Obama administration’s aggressive counter-terrorism strikes and global surveillance dragnets.

“Numbers since 2010 are now many times the size of the cumulative numbers of foreign terrorist fighters between 1990 and 2010 – and are growing,” says the report, produced by a security council committee that monitors al-Qaida.

The UN report did not list the 80-plus countries that it said were the source of fighters flowing fighters into Iraq and Syria. But in recent months, Isis supporters have appeared in places as unlikely as the Maldives, and its videos proudly display jihadists with Chilean-Norwegian and other diverse backgrounds.

“There are instances of foreign terrorist fighters from France, the Russian Federation and and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland operating together,” it states. More than 500 British citizens are believed to have travelled to the region since 2011.

The UN report, an update on the spread of transnational terrorism and efforts to staunch it, validates the Obama administration’s claim that “core al-Qaida remains weak”. But it suggests that the decline of al-Qaida has yielded an explosion of jihadist enthusiasm for its even mightier successor organizations, chiefly Isis.

Those organisations are less interested in assaults outside their frontiers: “Truly cross-border attacks – or attacks against international targets – remain a minority,” the report assesses. But the report indicates that more nations than ever will face the challenge of experienced fighters returning home from the Syria-Iraq conflict.

Wading into a debate with legal implications for Barack Obama’s new war against Isis, the UN considers Isis “a splinter group” from al-Qaida. It considers an ideological congruence between the two groups sufficient to categorise them as part a broader movement, notwithstanding al-Qaida’s formal excommunication of Isis last February.

“Al-Qaida core and Isil pursue similar strategic goals, albeit with tactical differences regarding sequencing and substantive differences about personal leadership,” the UN writes, using a different acronym for Isis.

Leadership disputes between the organisations are reflected in the shape of their propaganda, the UN finds. A “cosmopolitan” embrace of social media platforms andinternet culture by Isis (“as when extremists post kitten photographs”) has displaced the “long and turgid messaging” from al-Qaida. Zawahiri’s most recent video lasted 55 minutes, while Isis members incessantly use Twitter, Snapchat, Kik, Ask.fm, a communications apparatus “unhindered by organisational structures”.

A “lack of social media message discipline” in Isis points to a leadership “that recognizes the terror and recruitment value of multichannel, multi-language social and other media messaging,” reflecting a younger and “more international” membership than al-Qaida’s various affiliates.

With revenues just from its oil smuggling operations now estimated at $1m daily, Isis controls territory in Iraq and Syria home to between five and six million people, a population the size of Finland’s. Bolstering Isis’s treasury is up to $45m in money from kidnapping for ransom, the UN report finds. Family members of Isis victim James Foley, an American journalist, have questioned the policy of refusing to pay ransoms, which US officials argue would encourage more kidnappings.

Two months of outright US-led war against Isis has suffered from a lack of proxy ground forces to take territory from Isis, as Obama has formally ruled out direct US ground combat. On Thursday at the Pentagon, General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US has yet to even begin vetting Syrian rebels for potential inclusion in an anti-Isis army it seeks to muster in Syria. Dempsey encouraged the Iraqi government to directly arm Sunni tribes to withstand Isis’s advances through the western Anbar Province.

International law, Propaganda, Syria/iraq, UN, USA

The ‘humanitarian’ war furphy

This new rush to war not an intervention designed to meet humanitarian goals and objectives, writes Dr Adam Hughes Henry, but simply another bloody bombing campaign to protect strategic Western interests.

Yet the actions of IS, in terms of our contemporary world, are very far from unique and as grotesque as their crimes are, cannot possibly be considered the worst of the worst. There are examples of barbaric behaviour which continue to be exhibited by U.S.-UK allies all over the world.

Bombing from the sky is not a very useful humanitarian response. Current actions do not appear to have any such UN sanctioned legitimacy. Furthermore, there are no foreign troops on the ground to specifically defend these threatened ethnic populations, set up safe zones or sanctuaries and there is also absolutely no talk from nations like Australia of taking in any of the threatened groups as refugees as a matter of priority. As in Kosovo in 1999, the way to save civilians from the stated threat of ethnic cleansing is apparently to bomb the place. The bombing did not decrease atrocities, they actually helped to create and indeed initiate a new cycle of Serbian atrocities in reprisal to a relentless U.S. led NATO bombing.

In Syria, the so called humanitarian impulse centred on the Assad regime for strategic and political reasons, while the well-being civilian population of Syria was used to promote it one way or the other. anti-Assad regime forces were provided assistance and every encouragement by the U.S. and the UK; among these anti-Assad forces were supporters of groups such as al Qaeda and those that now pledge fanatical allegiance to IS.

The question must be asked: how can the new mission to Iraq, particularly one spearheaded by the U.S. and backed by regimes like Saudi Arabia (who routinely funds Jihadist terrorist groups) be based on any notion of universal humanitarian values?

The human rights abuses and atrocities of Western allies over the past 50 years have washed the ground with the blood of their faceless victims over and over again. Islamic State do not have anything approaching a unique monopoly over human rights abuses, terror or fanaticism — they are certainly not an unprecedented human evil.

This new rush to war is not an intervention designed to fulfil any specified humanitarian objectives and outcomes. Where are the safe zones, where is UNHCR, where are the troops and diplomacy designed to defend, protect and negotiate for the safety of civilians?

Such a mission would surely be very different to what we are seeing now.

The primary U.S. led mission in Iraq appears only to be a major bombing campaign against IS in support of strategic interests, with no clear statement of its expected timeframe or even a secondary option.

If war is really only the process of translating diplomacy into killing and death and Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are any indicators of what we are about to see unfold as we folly back to Iraq without as much as a second thought — the very worst is still to come.

 

Andrew Bolt, MH17, Tony Abbott, UN

GOD IS CATHOLIC AND TONY ABBOTT"S HIS SON & RUSSIA DID NOT DO IT ON PURPOSE

While Newton’s laws of motion have been found to be amazingly predictive and reliable. There are exceptions where Newtonian physics breaks down. The first involves objects travelling at or near the speed of light. The second problem comes when Newton’s laws are applied to particles that fall in the realm of quantum mechanics. Using Andrew Bolt’s logic Newton should be done and dusted and no longer taught in schools. If it had any political or economic relevance for  RET’s he would be calling it another ‘False God’ like Global Warming. The same for Einstein’s theories.
It doesn’t  matter  the true discourse is about  power, politics, economics the types of  energy sources,available and money. There is a lot of noise  about the failure of inductive logic, the lack of scientific method to provide definitive answers to Global Warming and quality of life when in fact it’s about self interest or otherwise called  national interest. Abbott and his town crier Bolt have found organisations such as the United Nations meddlers in the ‘free market’ hurdles to their notion of opportunity.
 Tony Abbott  in the past has had no regard for the United Nations as an organisation that hinders his specific national interests Sovereign Borders, Tasmanian Forests, The Great Barrier Reef etc The UN are an unnecessary irritant. At the moment however he is basking in the the light of Labour’s efforts to get Australia an elected seat on the Security Council. Basking because that light should have some effect on the pall over his personal opinion poll standing. The media at the moment have lauded Australia for what? It’s membership and leadership in the United Nations all due to Rudd’s and  Labour’s efforts which were readily derided by both Abbott and Bishop in parliament.
  Who else to roar for MH17, which of the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council could do that job of leading the resolution, None had any passengers on board.Argentina (2014),Australia (2014),Chad (2015),Chile (2015),Jordan (2015),Lithuania (2015),Luxembourg (2014),Nigeria (2015),Republic of Korea (2014),Rwanda (2014)  Australia alone had to take up the task. The Dutch and Malaysians are not members. What a better way to repair ones poll standing and keep the  opposition silent. It’s the coal-itions dream come true. This is the best thing to have happened to Abbott since the election. Watch him milk it.
Europe is being held to ransom by their reliance on Russia’s oil and gas pipe-lined through the Ukraine. Germany clearly saw that. Their energy policies were developed to counter this weakness. That’s why they are leaders in renewable energy production.
 Abbott and his town crier Bolt with mining industry support want to sell coal. What better way than  to block Russia’s fossil fuel export by calling for economic sanctions. They just might improve our currently threatened coal industry. Of course  they will continue to push the Global Warming Denier barrow but not for any  real scientific reason other than it’s an easy media filler. Is it a coincidence that a business-backed, mining group sponsored report was released today that our renewable energy target of 20% should be abolished because it will cost 5000 jobs and $29 bill by 2020. A report to counter the Government’s RET review that consumers would be better off by $56 a year from 2021. With the RET heading to become 28% of energy production the Australian Chamber of Commerce want it reined in. Power companies don’t want households running on free solar energy nor do mining companies with over 50 years of coal in the ground.
Abbott will call for sanctions on Russsia  in order to get them to retaliate and cut gas and oil to Europe. Australia will send troops to Ukraine just to ensure the likelihood of the above. They will put Australian lives at risk to achieve that aim.
Watch the price of coal go up because of a dumb accident by some rebel cowboys in the Ukraine that were given hardware they really didn’t know how to use. So much miscalculation all to Abbott’s advantage. Russia miscalculated Putin was not the mastermind of some terrorist plot.

Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, UN

TONY ABBOTT AND JULIE BISHOP THOUGHT A SEAT ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL WAS A WASTE OF TIME

ABBOTT & BISHOP ” A UN SECURITY COUNCIL SEAT NOT IN OUR INTEREST”

Posted on July 23, 2014 by


File:United Nations Human Rights Council Logo.svg
When the Labour government made moves to be elected to the United Nations Security Council the coalition derided them for their efforts Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop describing it as ‘extravagant’ and distracting ‘from core foreign policy interests’. Critics  produced a range of arguments, which were wheeled out by the Opposition in Parliament. Australian national interest is not confined but interrelated — defence, human rights and trade all intersect globally. Transnational issues such as people movement and refugee settlement cannot be managed effectively without global coordination and discussion. So the ‘Australia within its region’ mindset is both limiting and outdated.It was the Gillard government that had to argue that a seat at the UN Security Council would allow the Australian community via the Australian Government to speak out more clearly on issues of moment, and it would allow Australian diplomats to keep their fingers on the pulse of important discussions affecting global diplomatic norms and Australia’s regional security.What’s more, it would provide Australians with the motivation to think through more clearly and consistently the kinds of values we wish as a nation to inform our engagement on the world stage.
Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop should be grateful now for the position  the  immense tradjedy of MH17′s downing has placed them in. Slap bang in the center of world affairs. A position that has changed the face of Australia’s media and taken the attention away from the realities of their governments current  shit political position.
Abbott hates the UN’s interference in our national interest neocons argue it’s a dead weight around the necks of governments and their regions. World Heritage is a load of crap the Great Barrier Reef belongs to us as does the Old Growth Tasmanian Forrest. The UN are just interfering do-gooders. ‘Human Rights’ Scott Morrisson is the Minister in charge of Immigration and No Information  and the UN can take a running jump as far as asylum seekers are concerned we have it in hand we promise. Close down the the UN it’s almost bankrupt, it’s cost ineffective and interfering in national progress and our mates’ interests
It’s this organization, the UN and Australia’s current position on the Security Council that is allowing Abbott & Bishop to roar & Putin to at least listen . While it is for good cause and needs saying when the noise calms down let’s not forget that  Abbott anthe coalition would not have spent the money to be at the table. They would prefer to be non members lurking in the shadows with less attention.

Australia, Julie Bishop, Tony Abbot, UN

ABBOTT HATES THE FORUM IN WHICH HE HAS BEEN GIVEN LIGHT

 

When the Labour government made moves to be elected to the United Nations Security Council the coalition derided them for their efforts. Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop describing it as ‘extravagant’ and distracting ‘from core foreign policy interests’. Critics  produced a range of arguments, which were wheeled out by the Opposition in Parliament.
Australian national interest is not confined but interrelated — defence, human rights and trade all intersect globally. Transnational issues such as people movement and refugee settlement cannot be managed effectively without global coordination and discussion. So the ‘Australia within it’s region’ mindset is both limiting and outdated.It was the Gillard government  argued that a seat at the UN Security Council would allow the Australian community via the Australian Government to speak out more clearly on issues of moment, and it would allow Australian diplomats to keep their fingers on the pulse of important discussions affecting global diplomatic norms and also Australia’s regional security.What’s more, it would provide Australians with the motivation to think through more clearly and consistently the kinds of values we wish as a nation to inform our engagement on the world stage.
Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop should be grateful now for the position  the current  immense tradjedy of MH17’s downing has placed them in. Slap bang in the center of world affairs. A position that has changed the face of Australia’s media and taken the attention away from the realities of their governments current  shit political policies. They are now the beacons the represenatives of world values.
Abbott hates the UN interference in our national interest neocons argue it’s a dead weight around the necks of governments and their regions. World Heritage is a load of crap the Great Barrier Reef belongs to us as does the Old Growth Tasmanian Forrest. The UN are just interfering do-gooders. Shit Human Rights Scott Morrisson is the Minister in charge and the UN can take a running jump as far as asylum seekers are concerned. Close down the the UN it’s almost bankrupt, ineffective and interfering in national progress and internal decisions.
It’s this the organization, the UN and Australia’s position on the Security Council that is allowing Abbott to bellow. Be it all for a good cause but after the noise calms down let’s not forget that Hockey and Abbott would not have spent the money to be at the table and would prefer to be non members lurking in the shadows.