My other writings
Cricket 24 x 7
Jaagruthi
Yahoo! 360
Mayajaal
My Bloglines
My 43 things
My LinkedIn
On Orkut
Badri's Tamil thoughts
Ganesh's Happily Haphazard
Nitin's Acorn
Prabhu's Pethals
Raghu the reluctant Delhiite
Samanth's blahg
Sankhya the busy idler
Srini the movie critic
Rabble Rousing Random Ramblings by S Jagadish is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
Can North Korea withdraw from the United Nations?
Over the weekend, North Korea launched missile tests with the aim of sending out a message to the USA, Japan and South Korea. The United Nations Security Council promptly condemned the tests but there hasn't yet been any threat of sanctions, etc.
In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and in 2006, announced that it had conducted a nuclear test.
It is quite well known that China comes to North Korea's aid everytime Pyongyang shoots itself in the foot. There probably are economic sanctions imposed against North Korea under UN rules. So if North Korea withdraws from the United Nations, would the sanctions apply any longer? If North Korea had been receiving aid under some UN programme, that aid would be cancelled. But again, surely China would help out in some way or the other.
But the larger question is "Does a country have the right to withdraw from the UN treaty?" According to the entry on Wikipedia, there is no such provision.
But really what stops any country from doing so? Articles 3 and 4 of Chapter II of the UN charter only reference the original member states and how membership of the UN is open to "all other peace-loving states" which accept the obligations etc. etc. So if North Korea declared that it was not a peace-loving state, is that reason enough to withdraw from the UN?
Labels: china, missile test, north korea, united nations
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - |
UN bans Jamaat-ud-Dawa, but will that be enough?
Earlier today, the UN Security Council announced that Jamaat-ud-Dawa was added to its list of banned entities as part of the requirements of resolution 1822 of the UNSC. The ban on the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the organization formerly called the Lashkar-e-Toiba, also extends to Hafiz Saeed, the big boss of the LeT. It is interesting that China didn't opt to play spoilsport by using its veto.
Resolution 1373 requires all member states to "prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, as well as criminalize the wilful provision or collection of funds for such acts". Clearly, the fact that the LeT & JuD have been having a nice fun time in Pakistan implies that Pakistan violated that resolution. In addition, Pakistan did nothing to prohibit its citizens or entities within its territory from making funds & other resources/service available to terrorists or terrorist organizations. Pakistan also provided a safe haven for the LeT & the JuD.
However, merely banning the organization means nothing. The LeT has been banned for a few years now and yet was operating & striking at will. SIMI and LTTE have also been banned for so many years now. That hasn't stopped them from spreading terror far and wide. Pakistan has been a victim as well. They claimed they'd banned the Tehreek-e-Taliban, which then blew up the Marriott in Islamabad!
The need of the hour is to ensure that the top leadership of the proscribed organizations is taken out of the equation, by arresting them or eliminating them. The second aspect is to ensure that the morale of the organization plumbs so low that there's no motivation amongst those left over to continue the 'jihad'. More importantly, terrorists must be held up as an example for what would happen when you go astray. There needs to be a mechanism which tells folks about why they shouldn't even sign up for terrorism in the first place, regardless of the 'root causes'.
Is the extra pressure from the US & other governments a result of foreign nationals, specifically citizens of the USA & UK, being targetted during the attacks? There've been several terrorist attacks in India over the past few years. Exactly what have we been waiting for? Was targetting foreigners the last straw? Have the terrorists & their (state) sponsors just made a very stupid mistake?
As an aside, in a couple of days, it will be the 7th anniversary of the attack on the Indian Parliament. Any plans?
Labels: india, mumbai terrorism 200811, pakistan, terrorism, united nations
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - |
It is a very good indicator of how organizations like the UN work, when Zimbabwe (-4.7% GDP "growth", at least 1000% inflation, unemployment rate of 80%), was elected chairman of the United Nation's Commission on Sustainable Development.
I really wonder what sort of contribution that commission can get from Zimbabwe's representatives. Perhaps the definition of sustainable development needs to be changed.
What next? A commission on 'Eliminating terrorism' being headed by Pakistan? A commission on 'Human Rights' headed by China? A commission on 'Co-operative decision making on the world stage' headed by the USA? UNICEF being headed by the LTTE's representatives?
Labels: farce, irony, united nations, zimbabwe
Did you like the post? [ Subscribe to the blog feed - |
Some of the links may now be broken/not take you to the expected report since the original content providers may have archived/removed the contents.
All opinions expressed are mine alone. My employers (past, present or future) are in no way connected to the opinions expressed here.
All pictures, photographs used are copyrights of the original owners. I do not intend to infringe on any copyright.
Pictures and photographs are used here to merely accentuate and enhance the content value to the readers.
